Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Capt_Stubing

  1. On 9/15/2020 at 11:54 AM, Cpt_Siddy said:



    You did not read the thread where it was told that he flew for 5 more minutes until ditched. There is even the pilot log posted...


    This kind of negative g does not happen when you rip off the controls. It happens when you poop your pants and slam the stick forward with the force of thousand Görings. 


    You need to rip off the tail properly to have similar forward jerk, and that plane did not lose any parts nor have any controls severed. Only the severe water loss forced him to ditch later in flight. So yeah, that negative G jerk is hall mark of most Aces flying on MP servers. Whenever they get jumped, they slam the stick instinctively to the dashboard.


    No I didn't catch that part. I looked like he was a gonner.  Well I'm guilty of it as well just to create angles ASAP.  But I think the G Modeling is a bit off in that 4Gs which I have done in real life isn't that much to withstand especially when you work at it as a pilot.  Don't want to go into Acro or Racing but guys do get good at pulling very hard Gs.  Meanwhile I think the G suit thing needs to go for competitive play given they weren't pervasive in RL   And if you want to talk about planes which pull insane Gs take a look at the Tempest.  


  2. On 9/11/2020 at 10:10 AM, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

    I´m agree


    That things occurs when you rip the rudder and elevator with a single burst, the plane falls like a brick. :rolleyes: 


    On 9/11/2020 at 9:55 AM, Cpt_Siddy said:



    This kinds of Negative G push that would result in the pilot testicles lodging themselves filmy next to the tonsils :crazy:

    You do realize this video shows you breaking his controls and most likely blacking him or severely injuring him to the point he can't get out.  


    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 1

  3. They aren't universal and regardless of G Load and damage/pilot injuries.


    P51 almost immediate bail out same goes for Spit and Tempest.   109 and FW a good 4 plus seconds or worse no bail out at all.  What gives?


  4. 2 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:


    I'm afraid to say what you're expecting is unrealistic. It is normal for planes to disappear as you zoom out, because you are increasing your field of view and indirectly you are making the planes smaller. You are squashing more "world" into the same number of pixels so something will get lost. You should not be expecting to spot well flying zoomed out.


    VR has a natural field of view, but on a screen you will be surprised how "zoomed in" you have to be to reproduce a realistic FoV. A WWII fighter windscreen is a similar size to your real screen, and similar distance from your face. Zoom in until the plane windscreen in game fills your whole screen, now that is a natural field of view, and that is the condition in which you should compare spotting to VR, or real life.


    Also a Rift S has exactly the same resolution as a 2k screen (2560 x 1440).


    I know VR experience is a very personal thing, but I played on an original Vive (2160 x 1200) and found it very immersive and acceptable for both spotting and ID. I recently upgraded to a Vive Pro (2880 x x1600, slightly higher resolution than Rift S) and both my spotting and ID improved significantly.

    Actually no I don't have unrealistic expectations.  Never had this problem even with DCS and other sims same rez etc.  I don't agree with not being able to spot while zoomed out.  Others seem to see things better than I can with different settings and setups.  IRL I am a Pilot and even own my own airplane.  And yes it can be difficult to spot planes but as a game mechanic with a 27 aperture or a 115 FOV view of the world there has to be some reasonable compromise.   The difference with the Rift is that its inches from your eyes.  So the pixels are more defined.  Dots show up much easier in the Rift.  Not so on the panel.  Also the over all rez is 2k it isn't per eye. It's actually 1280X1440 per eye.  So it's lower rez when viewing.   I may be going to a Reverb G2 in the fall because I have heard very good things in terms of simming


  5. 20 hours ago, =X51=VC_ said:

    Well, I have continued to play with HDR off and I have not noticed any major change in my ability to spot. In a few cases I felt that I lost targets against the ground too easily, but that could be placebo or dozens of other factors. I got used to how the game looks without it, turned up gamma just a tiny bit to compensate for the darker cockpits.


    @Capt_Stubing I have never played IL2 on a monitor, so I don't know about resolution and dot spotting, but for me that relationship sounds backwards. In VR at least, when I upgraded my headset to better resolution my spotting also got a lot better. But I fly with a guy who plays on a 1440p screen and has all settings max and eye candy turned on because he likes the game pretty, and he has no problems spotting either.

    I have both a flat panel and a Rift S.  I can say in VR it's easier to detect and see planes because of the lower rez.  My only issue then becomes IDing the plane unless I get a good plan form or colors which tells me what it is... So will wait for the next gen HMDs before jumping back into VR.  Don't get me wrong I love it but the rez just isn't quite there for me.  The best way to describe what I see on the Flat Panel has everything to do with distance.  So being in trail with someone.  If I pull my zoom back from full zoom at one point they completely disappear.  I don't know if that has anything to do with AA and I've even heard it has something to do with Gsync which I do run instead of vsync or fast sync.  But I can assure you the dot and plane vanish when I pull back.  Zoom in again and I can see them again.  Very frustrating.  

  6. I've tried dozens of different settings with very little luck in spotting distant airplanes.  I've got as far as lowering my rez to 1080p on my 2K monitor which helped a tiny bit.  For me my biggest issue with the sim is the spotting.  We never had problems like this in IL2 1946.  You could see the dots.  At 2k and certain distances the dots disappear and no longer render at all for me.  1080Ti.  I've played with AA both in game and out.  What I have noticed online is VR guys see stuff way before I do.   




  7. On 4/13/2020 at 6:24 AM, Krikhrychrisgibon said:

    Starting Quick mission with Rheinland, Winter 1944-45, base north of Maastricht:


    I get this very same problem as if the Altitude of everything is way off.  This only happens to me the first time I start and fly the sim.  If I leave the sim and comeback everything is normal.  So it has nothing to do with the map but something to do with how the game initially loads.


    Windows 10


    32Gig Ram

    9900K OC 5ghz

    Ultra Settings

    2K Res

    Stand Alone Version 


    I've tried changing drivers and it makes no difference.  Also this can be repeated consistently.  Every time I first load the sim after booting up.



  8. I would go as far as saying the current Bomb Damage is breaking the sim. I don't know if it's the combination of the Map Makers making things tougher and the devs making things tougher or what but it is much much harder to bomb and kill things.  

  9. IMO with some anecdotal evidence the current DM and bomb damage is a bit off when it comes to the larger bombs.  Currently the 500kg bombs are working far better than the 1000kg bomb which can hardly destroy a dugout.  Even the 50scs are doing better than the 1000kg bombs.  I also agree the map makers have been playing with the hit point numbers so a tgt isn't wiped out in a single pass.  Add the new DM the reduced effectiveness of the bombs overall and the fact Objective Objects are much tougher it makes things a bit frustrating.  Strafing has be reduced even for the bigger guns.  In fact a control tower can't even be taken out by 20mms.  Again IMO the devs need to do a bit of tweaking.  

  10. 37 minutes ago, Riksen said:


    Yes. Although historically it should be zero, I think the server benefits from plane variability and the 110s as well as the 410s should be there, although in small numbers.

    Agreed.  We don't have a full representation of everything that was flying at the time so plane variability is a good for tactics planning etc. 




    Never said that as such situation is impossible to achieve without ruining the fun and important features of the game. Not sure where you read that in my statement. Maybe you need some new pair of glasses?

    Yeah no.   I just asked the question for clarification purposes.  It does sound like  you are aiming in that direction.  Sensitive are we?  




    Nope. I would like to either have a historically based planeset applied to both sides OR a balanced planeset applied to both.

    My only problem with historically accurate means one side might have an advantage over another given years months etc.  This played out for years on 46 servers and people bitched and complained very much like what is happening now.  In fact it got so bad on some servers Axis was flying 42 and 43 airplanes only against 44-45 planes on the Allied.  No thanks.   I agree on the balance side of things. Again with our limited planset we can't fully represent every plane out there so there has to be some balancing.  



    By suggesting I want to reenact history means you clearly don't understand the major factors that determined the Allied victory in WW2:

    - The Luftwaffe was in poor shape at the end and, although they still managed to produce a great amount of planes, they lacked supplies like fuel, methanol, and pilots to actually put the planes in action. In addition, the pilots that did manage to fly them had very little training. Does this mean I want to simulate having noobs only playing for the LW? NO.

    - The Luftwaffe had lost control of the air space over Europe at the end of the war due to the factors listed above as well as having to fight on multiple fronts and face the vast amount of enemy planes. These factors directly impacted the strategies used by the Allies. Instead of applying all of their efforts in gaining air superiority and employing interceptors all over the place, the Allies switched to mostly ground-attack mode to support infantry movement since they controlled the skies at that time. This meant that planes like the Spitfire and Mustangs were tasked with ground attacking missions more often than not. This also meant that planes like the Tempest were pretty much useless in the fighter-only role since there was a low need for them (again, no LW around). Am I here arguing to allow unlimited number of planes, especially the top tier ones? NO. I'm also not advocating for limiting to 8 the slots for the LW in the server. So again not reenacting anything here.

    - Although in reality, the LW was in a state of despair and had all the issues above that does not mean they did not have capable fighters ... Quite the opposite really. The G14, K4 and Dora are more than capable and mostly superior to the ones available to the Allies. But again, if we are to use the historical argument for limiting the amount of Tempests in the maps, then the same should be done about LW planes.

    I have yet to make a suggestion to the map makers.  In the current state the Tempest is arguably one the best planes in the entire set.  As some have stated it may do things a little better than in real life.  That's for the Devs to look into.  Just to be clear I'm not suggesting a well flown G14 or K4 can't win a fight.  Against a Anton all things being equal... Not even close.  



    The simple fact that we do not choose to simulate these into the missions is NECESSARY to have a functional, fun, and balanced server but we must acknowledge that they affect the overall strategy the Allies employed at that time (see above discussion about switching to mostly ground attacks). This explains why they only had a limited number of planes like the Tempest and avoided the use of 100/150 oct fuel later in the war. Why would they decrease engine life if that extra performance was not needed anymore? But in Combat Box, we choose to simulate 100/150 oct fuel restrictions and limited number of planes for the Allies based on the historic argument while, at the same time, we have planes, like the Bf-110, that never participated in those operations in large numbers. If we are going to use the historic argument for one side than we should do the same for the other. If we are not going to use the historic argument, which is also fine, then there is no reason to limit those planes in the first place.

    The reason for the restriction is the 150 oct fuel makes a drastic performance difference.  I don't see how 150 Oct fuel and 110s are related.  You guys do a good job of killing 110s as you should with relative ease in a Tempest 51 38 or Spit.  Not to mention Yak or LA5  The 110 is a good plane but not a game changer.   What I have seen personally is most allies who get bested by the 110 comes down to tactics and mistakes.  Tempest and Spit insta kill all the time.  As for the poor performance of the 50s sure you might not be able to shoot off a wing like before but I can't tell you how many times I get PKed by 50s.  Not to mention massive engine problems and fuel leaks to boot.   




    Me neither and I dont understand why you are trying to say I want this to take place.



    Wrong again. 410 just like the 110 were  not operational.



    Me neither. Just want the factors to be applied evenly to both sides. If balance and gameplay is the only factor we are going to consider then so be it for both sides. If a historical factor is going to be applied then so be it .. again for both sides.



    I agree and never said otherwise.



    Im not at all discussing who is doing what and why people care about winning. You are missing my point and must be confusing my comments with someone elses.



    Clearly you didnt.

    Looks like we agree.  

  11. 5 hours ago, Riksen said:


    No one mentions? You are late to the party Sir. I have been saying that in both Discord and here. Look a few pages back when I listed all the 110 units and their bases + operational planes for 1944 and 45.



    There were 0 Bf-110 units and they are still represented there. By your logic, we should have none. Btw, Im not saying we need to remove all of them from the maps but I believe the use of "... But historically ..." should not be used only for certain cases and not others. Either we use historic data or we dont IMHO. Without looking biased, then there should be at least some consideration in dramatically reducing the numbers of 110s, Stukas, abd other planes that were not there and not just the Tempest. If not being too strict is the plan and prioritizing gameplay and balance is the goal like Alonzo said, then that is a different argument but the historical one is just making the server look biased.


    The 110s that operated as night interceptor were not the same as the ones we have in game first of all. Secondly, IMHO, we should not completely remove it from the missions but drastically reduce the numbers.

    So let me get this straight.  You want to reduce the number of 110s because they weren't flying during day time during this period right?  You want things to be historically accurate regardless of balance right?  You want a reenactment of the war right?   As an Allied Pilot I don't want to fly with the odds we had in the war given this sim represents a tactical portion of the war and there will be NO Axis pilots flying knowing they will be swarmed.    As an Axis pilot I don't want to be relegated to flying Jabo missions (kills performance) JU87s (worthless) and JU88 which are giant targets.  We already have a limited planeset and you want to take our most viable striker out of the mix.  Yet we have no 410s which were operational.  Can't wait to hear the crying when they show up.  Sorry brother but I'm not interested in a historical reenactment to satisfy some fighter pilots dream of being Bud Anderson or Johnny Johnson.  We know who won the war.  This is a tactical sim game at best and if you want people to actually fly and have a reasonable chance at winning a map there has to be balance and not just history. 


    Allies have Tempest 51s 38s which are a much better Jabo option than the FWs and 109s.  They don't suffer nearly as much as the Axis in terms of carrying bomb racks etc. The 38 is a dream compared to the scary 110G2.  Carries way more is faster climbs better and a very good fighter when used properly.  


    The Zerg comment is fitting.  Only recently a few of us have been focused almost 100 percent striking with support and that is what wins maps.  You want to win maps I suggest the Allies start paying the price for striking like we do but I see some have given up with new DM.  FYI In most cases we don't make it home.  


    As I mentioned before the door swings both ways in terms of ground attack now.  Sure the 20s are better than the 50s but that is true anyways.  I too can hit tents with 20s and only get the tent.   1000kg bombs if you're lucky will kill a single dugout so they are currently porked.  Also our bombers are restricted to what they can carry.  Currently we are not allowed to take large bombs... not that it matters much with the new DM.  Not sure why we are restricted to using smaller bombs.  Oh wait that's right balance. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

  12. On 4/23/2020 at 5:44 PM, CIA_Elanski said:



    The 110 rear gunner hit my tempest as I crossed at 350mph from 3 oclock of 110 to 8 oclock in a diving turn...I took a crossing shot.  His .30 cal set me on fire.  It was Hipster diving on the AF target.  REALLY?  Ace gunners like that are not the norm.  Many 110s have gunners that wont hardly fire.  Other 110 gunners from SOME people set you on fire at really stupid speeds and angles.  Have we all not been flying for years and noticed this?  I see it in chat weekly, why is one 110 gunner an ACE and several others are just so so?  We know the answer to that question.  They have a cheat but it is a white elephant in this game.  It is worse to say there is a cheat than to be a cheat.  So the white elephant is staying put.  Don't think for a moment I believe it isnt.  Luth and I both came across tail of 110.  He shot I was just trying to distract the gunner.  He killed Luth and destroyed my plane engine.  AT THE SAME TIME.  It was our first pass and high speed.  We only got one pass and that .30cal did us in.  Do I think it is stock?  No but there are enough people using ACE rear gunners to make it a real no no to come in behind 110.  And those same 110s are so fast you cant get in front of them without having three grids to do it so they almost always get their bombs down.   The 110 could not survive un-escorted....historical fact.  Yet in here many brag often about killing 3 or 4 planes before being brought down.   Not so for allied.  


    Say what you want, think and feel what you want.  The axis firepower is now over powering since patch, allied bombs suck and our ammo sucks.  So escorting to target sucks because you cant stop fighters from killing your bombers unless you happen to be one of the guys using (white elephant) assist and shoot 20percent when the 109 rolls in on the A20.  Then guys get tired of the constant PKs which is about as fun as getting shot in Wings in your spawn point.  So yup, there goes any interest in going 5 grids deep to a target placed way behind enemy lines.  Y29 every deep target is a death trap.  I took P47 to 20,000 ft.  I full speed dove on target, dropped at 10,000 feet.  Zoomed level, even slight dive.  Got caught by F'ing 109 within a grid, 10km.  Scissor, bang, plane dead.  So we have our thoughts Shallot and you have yours.


    Hey Ski,


    While I agree getting hit with a random AI tail gunner shot is really annoying, that door swings both ways.  I can't tell you how many times I've been sniped by an AI gunner.  In terms of what is being suggested that the Allies have it harder in ground pounding I can assure you... The new DM effects both sides when it comes to strafing and bombing.  Sure our 20s in the 110 do better at strafing than the 50s we are just as hampered  by strafing by quite a bit.  You can't take out fuel or ammo by strafing at all.  You can't even strafe a tower.  So most of us use bombs.  The 50sc is crap and can't even take out tents unless you get a direct it.  The 1000kg can't even take out multiple targets.  I've been able to kill 1 dug out with it and that's it.  So bombing and strafing via this last patch effects both sides.  


     I've have seen the complaints about the 110 about it's resilience and speed.  The reality is your Allied fighters outclass it in almost every way payload and ground pounding ability.  Once we drop our bombs we are not some super fighter.  Big she hardly rolls and the 50s usually take out engines in a single pass.  The post about every time you guys ground pound and have multiple fighters on you goes exactly the same way with the 110.  Spits and Tempest usually kill me in a single burst if I don't see them soon enough.  51s usually take motors or PK in their passes.  The guys I have managed to take out in their allied fighters have always been careless when attacking me.  I have to resort to forcing an over shoot and I may get a shot off.  Also the AI gunners under load don't shoot at all.  So for those that are complaining about the 110 fly it and get back to me how often you make it home.  

    • Upvote 3

  13. This was reported by Alonzo in his testing which lines right up with mine.  This is from Combat Box Discord Server.  Could be a bug or something.  He mentioned from a map makers perspective they don't want to make a lot of change if the devs come back and fix things or make changes.   Which makes sense.


    OK, I tested target destruction against ammo tents, dugouts, fuel dumps, hangars and static planes (those are some of the most common target types on CB). - Strafing using machine guns is much less effective than before. The P51 shoots through the netting of an ammo store and into the ground, and doesn't do much damage. A 2,000 durability static bomber was difficult to destroy with the P51. Tempest and K4 did much better with their explosive cannon rounds. - Splash damage seems reduced. It may even be bugged. You can drop an SC1000 into the middle of a set of dugouts, and it will kill none of them unless it scores a direct hit (in which case it will kill one dugout only). This seems to be true for groups of buildings, also. I bullseyed the midpoint between two hangars, twice, with an SC500 and it did nothing. A direct hit with an SC250 leveled each hangar easily. - Dugouts with default 25,000 durability seem indestructible with 30mm cannon. When I reduced to 15,000, I managed to kill one dugout with lucky shots through the front door. The thinking behind CB targets is that ammo tents, fuel dumps and parked planes are strafable by fighters, and currently that's only true if the fighter has cannon. So I think that needs tweaking for sure. With the dugouts, I'm not sure if there's much difference between using the 25k default and dropping it to 15k so a lucky cannon shot can destroy it through the front door. For now, I would advise against taking really big bombs. You're going to be better off with a larger number of mid-sized bombs, because buildings and dugouts appear to "eat" the explosion and die nicely to a direct hit, while splash damage seems either bugged or reduced

  14. Control Towers Fuel Ammo hangers for sure.  Also the 1000kg is pretty useless.  I don't use it anymore.  I will do some more testing myself but this was really apparent after yesterdays patch.  



  15. I'm not sure why you would make mission objective targets so much harder to kill.  Strafing has become pretty useless now even with the 151 20's let alone 50 cals.  It basically relegates every mission objective object to only bombing to bring them down.  This is especially hard on maps with a lot of objects in the target area.  Just sayin


    PS  Off the cuff it also looks like the 1000kg bombs have been greatly reduced such to the point they only destroy a single building.  They aren't worth taking anymore.

  16. I've been a CV1 rift user for some time now.  I loved the VR experience but what really caused problems for me was I had to wait until about 1000 meters to really ID what kind of plane it is. Not all the time if they give me a plan form I can recognize but if their aspect was near might I couldn't figure it out.  I hope that is taken care of with the higher res.  I'm waiting to build a completely new rig so i will be running a i5 3570K at 4.4 and a 1080Ti.  I hope it will limp through for a while.  Any thoughts?

  17. I don't necessarily buy into the K4 being God Mode... Perhaps at the moment it is.    A well a well flown 51 will give it a run for it's money but better yet MKIV Spits and at lower Alts the boosted 25 Spits will be very competitive if and when we get them.  Hint hint nudge nudge...  In terms of this sim and MP we aren't playing to how these machines were actually used.  MP makes everything very Tactical in nature. 

  18. IMO people need to remember our particular genre is really difficult to get into from the start.  The barrier of entry is very high not only from a hardware perspective but a learning curve perspective.  Another issue which is very much ingrained in our particular hobby is we are a very small market comparted to Wood Elf games or Shooters.  Also consider the audience is very difficult to satisfy for a number of reasons.  Just look at all the threads with discussions about plane performance historical accuracy and the FW bar being too big.  So it’s quite the challenge getting all these variables to line up and be profitable.  I’m sure Jason and team don’t have the crazy budget like AAA titles get.  Publishers know their markets and how to make money.  I think from now on we aren’t going to see any big changes come our way any time soon.  Certainly we can start to bring in new people via new technologies but I don’t think it has the numbers.

    • Upvote 1

  19. Barrel rolls are only part of what you can do...  The key is at what distance is the bandit.  If they're close you need to be thinking about getting them to overshoot.  This is when rolling scissors and barrel rolls will pay off.  Forcing and overshoot is a last ditch effort.  The idea is not to get there in the first place if you can help it.  Knowing when to unload and extend is important. Separation is part of getting enough space to neutralize the bandits advantage.  All these concepts are easy but executing them and knowing when to do this takes time.  

    BTW if the bandit has some distance behind you... It doesn't matter what move you make he is going to control the fight by using his speed.  If you were to barrel roll he can just sit back and take shots at you.  And yes this is why you fly with wingmen. 



  20. I’m not into e-sports. I do want to simulate WW2 and authentic unit operations.

    I have no issue with setting up real battle scenarios from WWII but flying against 7 to 1 numbers isn't my idea of fun.   I remember certain 1946 Mod servers cherry picking scenarios and time frames which influenced the plane sets to favor a particular side.  In some cases we were flying 43 birds against late war 44.  That's not fun IMO. 

  21. I don't disagree with you here.  However, we both know that the "crazy planes" are the sole reason a large number of people will purchase this expansion.  Left unchecked by server set up, the Spit Mk. IX, P38L, 190A8, and G14 will be the rarely flown bottom feeder aircraft in this expansion.


    I fully expect to see the sky full of 262s, D9s, and a few K4s, vs. a few Allied pilots in P51s and P47s struggling to survive in lopsided online match ups, just like what we see now.


    I'll be down low, specializing in fast, same day delivery of high explosive, specially gift wrapped, packages to the enemy airfields, no matter which side I fly for...

    You really see lopsided matches?  I have seen numbers but not plane set issues.  42 43 should be a really good match up.  45 nobody is going to fly against multiple 262s for very long. Like I said if they can limit some of the numbers it should go a long way.  Spits vs 109s comes to mind

  22. Depends on if it is multiplayer or single player.


    Single player will have a much more historic balance of machines.


    Multiplayer will have numbers of Luftwaffe planes all out of proportion with what was encountered by the Allies at the end stage of the war in Europe.  With the exception of the one day of Operation Bodenplatte, the Luftwaffe was essentially a non existent threat to the Allies.  They had lots of new aeroplanes, but no fuel and few pilots for them.  Which I admit from our perspective will be quite boring indeed if modeled historically.


    This is why I don't really like late war scenarios.   If properly done, on a server with say 40 players, you should have maybe 10 guys in 109s, up against 30 Allied pilots in a mix of aircraft types that will not only hold control of the sky, but effectively suppress his ability to operate in the open on his own airfields.


    What multiplayer will be is what we have now, good players doing well regardless of which side they fly for.

    Well that assumes you want a WWII reenactment.   No thanks we know who won.  If done properly in MP you would have all the planes but restrictions on the number of types or it will just turn into 262s vs Tempest D-30s and other hot rod planes.  Again if done right restrict some of those crazy planes.  

  23. The original IL-21946 had a odd problem with the Setupfile but there were two of them on the disk.  Use the second one and Il2 will play perfectly on Win 10.


    If your going to play the older IL-2 I highly recommend you download the CUP community mod.  There is a lot of different modules.  It's unfortunate there aren't that many MP servers and players anymore.  During it's hay days which lasted oh about a decade you could find close to a 1000 people flying.  There were plenty of campaign and competitive servers as well.  You just can't beat the shear volume of maps planes and variants you can fly with the mods.





    Don't get me wrong I want IL2 via these new versions to continue to grow as well and yes it's time to move on but it will be several years before we see the scale of the original sim.  

  24. Interesting news... Glad to see them push things forward.  I don't think it will make a massive difference in terms of res but a bump none the less.  Until we can see well over 4k and have machines which can run it  we are stuck for a while with this.  Perhaps the Foviated focusing is the answer but then devs need to support it.

  • Create New...