Jump to content

hnbdgr

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Excellent

About hnbdgr

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

568 profile views
  1. hnbdgr

    Reshaders

    Hi Flanker! That could be one way of going about it. If done carefully and providing shaders/tweaks that are useful would perhaps be an ok stop-gap solution. The endgoal for the devs should be to normalize and improve spotting. I still think that if you can see tracers at 6km, there's no reason you shouldn't see aircraft that far either. Sure we all want the same starting position with no unfair advantage. But with spotting being the way it is at the moment there's not much fun in searching for enemy a/c. The spotting bubble is too small and unpredictable from angles and against different backgrounds. Most people use reshade etc. simply to make it less of a chore, as that's what it is. And if you have a game mechanic that players feel is a chore and unpredictable it will turn many away. If this game improved spotting I bet you'd see many more people returning to multiplayer.
  2. hnbdgr

    Reshaders

    Hey so here's a crucial piece of information. Reshade by itself doesn't help you to achieve ungodly spotting as shown in the video at the very top. It's a shader called "cartoon" that does that. Obviously it gives and unfair advantage and banning it as a server side setting is ok from my perspective as there's no way currently for reshade or Il-2 devs to control which shaders are used or not. However! there might be a solution to this. As there's still no word on when the visibility/spotting system will be reworked we should allow some sort of augmentation/shaders. We have to use some variant of this not only to allow us to enhance the look of the game, but also to help people that are colour-blind or have various others eye deficiencies. At the very least things like exposure, highlights, blacks, clarity, sharpening and colour/vibrancy should be available to change. One such possible solution is to allow us to use Nvidia Freestyle. https://www.geforce.com/en_GB/gfecnt/whats-new/articles/nvidia-freestyle-ansel-enhancements-geforce-experience-article Freestyle comes with a basic set of filters and my understanding is that existing competitive games only enable basic filters and do not allow import of any exotic ones. Of course for this to happen in an official manner the game would have to be added to GeForce experience. This leaves us with AMD, to which my understanding is those users can already alter the look of the game via AMD Adrenaline..?
  3. hnbdgr

    Reshaders

    If this game had a working useful spotting system nobody would even consider using reshade. I admit I never knew one could get that level of advantage using it though.
  4. I think spotting has improved somewhat in the latest patch, but only when looking against the sky. Still very VERY difficult to see an airplane at 1-2km at your 4-5 when they're infront of the ground. I think comparing slow moving gliders with transparent wings to a larger metal/wooden plane that moves at a much faster rate (and therefore is more likely to be registered by the eye) is a very misleading comparison. There are plenty of people with irl flying experience that know you should be able to spot something within the 2-3 km radius even when the target is between you and the ground. The reason being: A) Stuff that moves attracts the brains attention. Camouflage or not. I've seen people post the camouflaged ww2 a/c photographed against a tree canopy background saying that's proof they're almost invisible. But that's nonsense. If you look at any video of a moving object even camouflaged against a similar background it's the movement that gives it away. Camouflage IRL is not there to hide something lol. It's there to break up a pattern so that when a tank etc is stationary you can't identify what it is with ease. In a best case scenario you can miss a static object entirely when casually scanning. But once you factor in movement it's visible. B) When flying at 5km, you should see anything at the 2-3km altitude a lot clearer then at ground level due to how visibility/atmosphere works. The further something is the more washed out it seems. The closer something is the more contrast it has. Of course depends on atmospheric conditions. Relative contrast changes according to whether it's foggy or a clear day. In-game the land loses contrast with height as it should. But the relative contrast difference between land/ac doesn't seem to work on planes below you when zoomed out. Final thoughts The Eyes acuity is much better then what a monitor can provide. The zoom mechanic is an absolute must to simulate how the eye can differentiate details IRL. And at that it does a good job. However! Registering motion and distinct patterns is a different attribute of the eye/brain that is not very well modelled when zoomed out. Fast movement up to 2-3km below should be visible at all zoom levels. In terms of game mechanic. Take the contrast that planes currently have against pale blue sky. Adjust it to X percentage for a given background. For instance against white snow, visibility should be (and i'm guessing here) 120%. Against blue water 80%, against forests 70%, against autumn barren landscape such as stalingrad 85% etc. Because right now the contrast drops to near zero for anything below you when zoomed out. And that's an issue because if you're up high you're not going to see almost anything. The searching game then becomes quickly boring. How many of you have flown around for hours without any contact? But for those that want to keep it as it is... If you think this is realistic....Well have fun searching for contacts only via flak bursts and tracers "early warning system". Which btw are visible at 10km+ so why is that? If you want it 'realistic' surely flak/tracers would be nearly as invisible as the planes. So you accept one side of the coin but not the other? The flak/tracer spotting system only works as a crutch atm. Anyway I'm sure the devs are looking into this, it was mentioned in a dev diary and I asked on these forums not long ago. As to what they want to implement I don't know but may I humbly suggest something akin to the above would be a good start. EDIT: clearly object sizing or 'dot' size is not an issue as objects are now clearly visible at 5k against the sky at wide to mid zoom. All that remains is to adjust contrast.
  5. Depends on the plane. In the 109 at below full throttle height ATA reaction to throttle is quite instantaneous. Automatic pitch adjustment then sets the desired RPM. When there's a huge gap between current and desired position then it takes ~ 2-3 seconds perhaps for the RPM to fall in line. When it's 2500->2700 it's almost straight away. However this behaviour doesn't quite work above FTH, seems to be a bit sketchy. Especially on the threshold between 2500-2700RPM it can go in jumps RPM reacts sluggishly. In A/C with constant prop, RPM maintains itself and boost response is again almost instantaneous across all altitudes more or less. I'd suggest to get a trackir or an alternative solution to have one hand free for throttle management. Can't properly do it without it.
  6. Ah, that's what I'd like to know. I too think it should be ATA+RPM Seems like I'll need to test this! So final question - Where the engine limits set by manufacturer (say 1 minute for 1.42ATA) valid for all altitudes or only up to critical altitude with a natural leeway after that? (when ATA starts to drop)
  7. Yes I do, but I don't use force feedback, only keep the central spring and disable ff via registry. I don't have FF but central spring works very well for me. I know there were issues with trackir going crazy when force feedback was activated on ms ffb2. Sadly those I couldn't get rid of so I just use the central spring. But for what it's worth with those settings the game runs as smooth as ever. Edit: "central spring" still works via FF mechanism, but it's not proper FF simulation. just keeps joystick centered.
  8. hey don't know if it helps, but with my settings as per the last post here: I got a lot smoother experience.
  9. Hey guys, I had a similar stutter problem for a while and I think I largely fixed this for myself. So wanted to share my findings. Specs: i7 8700K OC @ 4.9 (hyperthreading enabled) 32GB DDR4 @ stock 3200Mhz 16CL 1080 GTX (driver version 442.74 DCH) Monitor is LG 27GL83A-B 144hz G-Sync (Nvidia G-sync enabled for windowed and full) Game running on Win 10. Trackir - Customised version of Spudknocker's profile https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3300419/ With these settings. So 25 instead of 50 smoothness and I adjusted curves to my liking. Game camera settings: Game graphics settings: Nvidia settings: Against common sense and any blurbusters advice... it seems if you want to run the game smoothly on a G-sync monitor you need to use v-sync off both in game and in nvidia cp. I can confirm that with these settings g-sync works and monitor herz adjust according to fps! I get a stable 90fps and limit the fps with RTSS, not with in-game limiter. The trick in getting the zooming in/out part is to play around with camera smoothness value. At ~ 70 it should go away completely but movement is a bit too sluggish for me. 40 camera smoothnes + 25 trackir smoothness @ 90fps seems to work pretty well and doesn't cause zoom stutter very often. You will sometimes get stutter but it's minimal. In a QMB 8v8 you should experience absolutely no stutter. in a test mission FMB with 30 planes I get some stutter when zooming in and out here and there. I should also add I use reshade for some sharpness and contrast of course. Hope this helps someone!
  10. Thanks, yes that's what I'm doing too normally. But higher up say at 7,000m a throttle position of 100% will not give you full ATA. In the 109 F-4 at 7,000 meters, ATA reads 1.09 @ 2700RPM In the 109 G-4 at 7,000 meters, ATA reads 1.29 @ 2800RPM Both on autumn map, not sure if time of year and air density has any effect on ATA at altitude, probably. Thanks. Yes as 41Sqn_Skipper indicated as well, that seems to be the way to do it. My question then is - why do actual plane manuals say the limit is to be observed at RPM/ATA combination not just RPM.
  11. I'm not sure tbh. In my mind Power (HP) is a function of the Engine. The engine takes fuel & air( note: of different density at different altitude) and processes it (if you like) at certain RPM. But it's true that limits were given both in RPM and ATA see here: So my question would be do the game engine limits only consider RPM or both RPM/ATA? Because if it's the latter the engine ought to last longer in emergency above FTH.
  12. Ah yes ok that makes sense. A little bit tougher to follow though, as the RPM change isn't instantaneous, whereas ATA changes almost straight away and stays there. Still I seem to remember for instance in il2 Blitz certain higher RPM's were allowed for longer duraiton in the 109-E3/E4 above 6000m. This apparently was historical behaviour. Are IL2 GB limits the same across all altitudes? Furthermore, where could one find the Full throttle height for all planes/engines? I have a feeling it might be the 2nd level speed value in the tech description here... ... but i'm not entirely sure. For instance for the G-4 It says 7000 meters? Every plane has different speed @ altitude listed. Devs must have picked them for a reason right? Otherwise it would make sense for all of them to be listed at the same height, e.g. SL,3000,6000. Yes that's all well and good, until you blow your engine in the 109. Which is quite easily done when I use all the power I need when I need it - e.g. fast climb. Easier to prevent that if a red light comes on in technochat. With no technochat you need to be extra careful so I'm trying to find the best way to do it and where & when I can/cannot push the envelope It's just a consequence of the game's strict engine limit. I understand it has to be there. Of course in RL there were no emergency lights coming on when pushing the engine past the redline. But you also didn't risk catastrophic engine failure if you flew emergency say for 90 seconds. It simply reduced engine life at a much increased rate. Now with no warning and a strict limit in place it can be challenging to not exceed limits in the midst of combat. Of course much less of a problem for later planes where limits are 3 to 10 minutes but with earlier ones I'd like to play it safe as the margin for failure is small.
  13. Hey guys, so I turned off the techno chat to learn how to operate without it. There's a problem however, normally one can tell by the ATA wheter you're in combat or emergency setting. But if remember correctly the shown ATA will drop once you're up high. Now with no technochat it's just guessing work on whether emergency is on or not. Sometimes you can tell by the engine sound but it's by no means guaranteed. How does this work? Does the ATA show correctly until Full throttle/critical height and starts dropping afterwards? And if so, should the emergency limits be higher after FTH if the emergency doesn't add much power after that and presumably engine is under less stress as it develops less HP up there? If that's the case then wouldn't need to worry to keep track of it after reaching FTH and still could operate ATA by sight under FTH. Let me know if I'm getting this right or wrong. Thanks in advance!
  14. Hi Guys is there any way to see current rate of climb and or other settings like radiator settings? Mainly interested in rate of climb though.
×
×
  • Create New...