Jump to content

WheelwrightPL

Members
  • Content Count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

119 Excellent

About WheelwrightPL

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1244 profile views
  1. Does anybody else have airstrip buildings popping-up on takeoff ? Is there a way to minimize or fix this ? I include a couple of seconds of Youtube video below so you can see what I mean: Also when I look into the distance using TrackIR, there is more pop-up like that, which is especially jarring with those new Bondenplatte buildings.
  2. Jason, I have 3 questions: 1) Can the terrain generation (which causes buildings to pop-up) be moved to a separate thread, so it doesn't freeze or slowdown the game ? Or, if not, could it be more pre-emptive so the buildings load within a certain radius BEFORE you look at them ? 2) Would re-installing the game improve speed at which buildings are popping-up ? (I mean even without "distant buildings" option turned on). I currently have SSD with 3400MB/s read rate (which is state-of-the-art), but I don't feel it loads assets nowhere fast enough, so would re-installing the game help ? 3) Would adding 16GB to my existing 16GB cause performance improvement, as well ? Thanks for your time.
  3. I can confirm that setting 80-Hz limit in game on my max-60-Hz monitor improved smoothness. However the game is far from smooth when looking at the new BOBP cities because they load and pop into view in segments as you look at them. The game's code needs optimization so all objects load in wide radius BEFORE you look at them. 16GB or 32GB memory should be more than enough to accommodate that. I hope the devs are working on it. I have a TrackIR, 1080Ti, 16MB RAM, 4K non-G-Sync monitor and i3-8350K at 4.2Mhz. Here are my other relevant settings for max smoothness:
  4. I have crackling sounds (like in an old radio) with the new sound system when flying Tempest. Anybody else with this problem ?
  5. IL2 can still best this if they come up with amazing physics & destruction engine for all the objects on the ground. I personally would prefer this approach because of infinite unpredictability & replayability of physical interactions. Microsoft sim will be akin to looking at a postcard, beautiful yet flat and lifeless, but IL2 will have a world you actually want to interact with, just to see what happens, which may continue to surprise you, again and again, due to aforementioned unpredictability. Also from a marketing standpoint if you cannot beat a competitor at their game (basically mapping the entire world), you have to find another way. That being said I wish IL2 would pay Microsoft for their clouds & weather technology, so they can integrate it without wasting time and resources of a small studio on those highly specific and complex tasks. Maybe today's Microsoft can be reasoned with, because recently they opened-up lots of their software.
  6. I think the bullets bouncing effect may actually be realistic. See below video starting at 9:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ycds3VZq00
  7. With all its problems, careers can still be fun. Just think of yourself a a "pathfinder plane" piloted by an experten who arrives well before the main strike force to soften-up the enemy defences. That's what I do anyway by attacking ground/air targets next to the enemy frontline (so I can land in a friendly territory if things go sideways). Then I just wait for the main strike force to catch-up and join it to continue with the main mission. Sometimes if this approach is not possible, I just cause some mayhem and return to base relatively quickly. After the landing I set the time-acceleration to max and wait until "Primary Objective Completed" message appears. This tests my patience though because even with time compression I sometimes have to wait 5-10 minutes.
  8. Cannot wait too. It will be amazing to peer over the horizon every so often to see if this bombers-armada which was spotted 100 km away already arrived. It will take them 15 minutes (at 400km/h), so I might as well put on some extra-strong coffee. Or maybe go play some career missions, many of which are shorter than that. Call me insane or "wrongheaded", but I would prefer ground-control giving me updates on the bomber formation including ETA, so I don't have to fixate on them while some Russian fighter is shooting me down. More situational awareness for a player, much less coding effort for the developer, but that's just my opinion.
  9. Well, use your imagination then. Not every building in WW2 was a shed in the middle of desert. They could physically model so many things in IL2Sturmovik if they chose to put it on top of their priority list, like for example: 1) observation posts legs cutoff by gunfire resulting in them realistically toppling over 2) anti-air spotlights blinded and shot-off from their mooring, slowly rolling away 3) alarm bells falling from building after nearby bomb destroyed the tower they were mounted on top of 4) hangar doors hinges destroyed causing them to fall over on top of aircraft inside which explodes causing secondary explosions 5) Fences, wooden sheds etc: (lots of wood in WW2) shot off realistically piece by piece That's just off the top of my head. There is more than enough visual and physical mayhem that can be caused by gunfire, some only by bombs, but you have observation and/or slow-flying planes to properly observe the damage. This is not DCS, WW2 was close and personal on the ground, so I think it is a wasted opportunity for developers not to put it higher on their priority list. And as a bonus it would entice more traditional gamers into the genre.
  10. I understand different people have different priorities, which also has to do with the way they play the game which influences their expectations of it. However, for me, I must disagree with the above because I usually attack ground targets with cannons (as opposed to level-bombing from high altitude), and when you're blasting away in your HS-129 you have the prime seat in the ensuing physical destruction and can see all the details: barrels flying, observation towers tumbling over, chimneys sheared by the explosive 20mm bullets etc: etc: So, I respectfully yet vehemently disagree: the destruction visuals are crucial part of the experience if you're a ground pounder in a slow WW2-era plane.
  11. I see your point but you can always circle around and observe the progressive destruction you caused and/or you can fly PO-2 for more "in your face" experience. Also, the replays would look awesome as well.
  12. Their priorities are mostly wrong, who in the community asked for "advanced pilot physiology" ? It is a waste of time and resources on secondary issues. Also, why do I need to see ships and planes 100km in the distance ? It is irrelevant because by the time those ships and planes become dangerous, the situation may diametrically change anyway. Instead the team should concentrate on environmental physics/destruction and increasing graphics fidelity. It would be awesome to see building crumble realistically as they are leveled by bombs, Battlefield 5 style. Or adding individual physics to barrels of aviation fuel as they roll in different directions and explode, Just Cause 4 style. And the interaction between various physics objects which creates moments of unpredictable destructive beauty in motion. Alas: we will probably never see those things or maybe in 10 years with their current misguided priorities.
×
×
  • Create New...