Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nake

  1. Many thanks.. that's very interesting and good to hear.. Not sure why the techochat would be saying what it is, but I'll do some test flights with timing and see how the engine holds out!
  2. Trying to get used to flying the new Griffon powered Spitfire in combat, but finding the engine modes really tight banded and especially in combat mode. According to the spec I should be able to get boost of 9 as combat mode, but not sure I'm getting past 8 before it registers as emergency power, which obviously has limited time. There seems little room for error flying needing power without blowing the engine especially with little to distinguish in mode sounds, which can be clearly heard with the Merlins. Anyone else found how to best push this beast?
  3. Agreed.. The Griffon sound is dissapointing and especially external flybys. It sounds nothing like the video above, but more like a lawnmower as already mentioned. I'd pay extra to get some real engine sounds in IL-2, much like DCS have done with their Merlins. I've been working on improving sound in general when flying on my laptop, and trying various 3rd party sound enhancers. I settled on the one that most impressed me called 'Boom 3D'. It cost about £10 and adds spatial awereness and an EQ to boost low end rumble and tweak other freaquencies as required. Most of these apps can
  4. This may or may not be related, but I experience severe stuttering when playing Bergola East dog fight area in VR. I can play West in VR smoothly at medium graphics settings, and East in 2D on max settings without a problem, but when on East in VR there's something about the lakes or trees around the lakes causes major problems. I have tried with minimum graphics settings in VR ,which helps a bit, but does not eliminate it. The problem is worse the more popluated with other planes in view and the lower altitude.
  5. Whilst not wanting to sound negative, I just wanted say as a keen supporter of the battle series and owner of all maps and allied collector planes released so far, that I hope quality of the BoB map is not going to become the new norm incase the devs do read this and see the quality of the earlier maps is very much appreciated so it can be considered whilst the BoN is in development. I have not purchased the Syria map from DCS, since the poor performance of the channel map. I may be alone, but as a potential paying customer.. quality not quality or matters to me. I hope I've
  6. I think I am referring more to quality and resolution of textures than objects as such. Take the details of coastline/ water edges, water graduation etc in Kuban and compare with Rheinland, also randomness/ details of feild textures are replaced with repeated almost tiled effect in Bob. There's a particular long thin stripey field gives this away. Snow in BOS, BoM has different textures and reflects low sun in different ways. Built up areas /towns look unconvincing in Bob compared to early maps and especially from a height/ distance. It's just my opinion, and pe
  7. Contemplating pre-purchasing the Normandy map but very reluctant as I can't help but feel the quality of detail/ realism of the BOB seems much lower than previous maps in BOM, BOS which are especially stunning in Winter; The last map just seems so bland and basic. It's just my personal opinion, but map quality is one of the main reasons I was drawn to IL-2, so.I really hope BON reverts back to the stunning quality of early maps!
  8. Just wondering what is the reasoning/ science is behind this? My experience is deferred shading makes details, sharpness, aliasing and performance worse, which exactly the opposite needed for spotting distant aircraft. It's especially worse in VR.
  9. This was my biggest fear when I heard deferred shading was being introduced having gone through the pain in DCS. I have spent many hours tinkering with AA settings, which is not helped by most, if not all in NVCP having no effect at all. The thing is though, despite the post change negative impact on performance and aliasing, the new image in DCS looked absolutely stunning, and even more so if you could afford shadows on, but with IL-2 I honestly cannot see a single positive benefit for the change. This used to be a beautiful looking game/ sim to fly in, but not any more.
  10. I have now cured the shaking/ vibration effect by eventually deleting and reinstalling the graphics folder. All seems ok there now. 😀 Visuals in game are pretty good now except the issue of fuzzy planes when in front of clouds and fringe around my own plane still exists (especially silver ones). For AA, I use combination of in-game MSAA set to 4, high/ ultra and landscape on blurred. I then use 'Enhance the application setting' in Nvidia control panel with AA set to 2 and 'AA Transparency' set to 4 x super sample. I don't see much jaggies now.
  11. I've never been sure which settings do, or don't have an impact ingame, so it would be really useful if this info was confirmed and published with any update to save the frustration trying to find out. Either way, I am sure something has changed for the worse graphics wise in the last update/ patch ('e' I believe) which has impacted my FPS and GPU loading too. A couple of days ago I started experiencing shaking/ flickering/ instability of the image which is most noticable and even uncomfortable in VR. The only way I could minimise this effect is with MSAA set to 4, but
  12. Somewhere over last couple of days, I've noticed a degrade in VR quality and increase in GPU loading, even at low settings. Things like cockpit/ wings etc looking like they're shaking/ vibrating, halo around my wings and other planes when in front of clouds. It's only happening in IL-2 and I haven't changed anything on my setup since it was running absolutely fine. GPU driver is up to date and tried a game repair so baffled! Video clip here
  13. No I didn't; amazing experience isn't it! 😉 Great server btw.
  14. @Alonzo Not quite true as server admins have the ability to enable or disable labels, which can be a huge benefit to VR players. That was the point I was trying to make.
  15. I play in VR as much as possible, but yes spotting/ ID'ing is the worst aspect. VR Zoom doesn't work as well as 2D zoom for me as it seems to mostly zoom the background, but not really a distant plane for some reason. Been playing servers with labels recently just for the fun of dog figthing without the worry of who's where. The problem found is those servers get a lot of 'squad stomping' as a result of obvious visibility of a players vulnerable position to whole enemy team. I wish they would find a better balance for plane visibility in VR, afterall, this is a gam
  16. @Livai Yes it was just this week. I've also tried several trials with the mission editor, so no other distractions for the enemy, but same result. I think I'll stick to MP opponents for any excitment.
  17. Just chipping in on the 262 presence.. as much as I hate Vulching and spawn camping, I agree with @69th_Bazzer that it's historical fact that the allies used to destroy 262s whilst sitting ducks in their air fields. Maybe allowing that to happen would deplete their available numbers/ dissuade them from being used?
  18. I didn't get too far with PWGC, as I got stuck creating a single mission on the configuration screen as I made choices, but couldn't find a way to generate the mission. Anyway, for expediency I used the full mission editor and put myself in an air start with a single BF109 over Bodenplatte without any way points at all. The enemy was set to high skill level and pretty much the same thing happend. I let him get on my six and it just followed nicely without trying to catch up. In the end, I slowed right down until it opened fire around 400m behind and I was s
  19. Awesome explanation @PatrickAWlson 🙂 I'll give PWCG a go and see how it goes!... I gather that is your handywork? I seem to have a problem with Java.. The app says I need it but PC says I have it? 😕
  20. Just to be clear, are you saying the AI in PWCG is scaled to improve/ decline over the timeline of maps, perhaps by the skill setting used in the missions or are you saying the raw AI in the game are hard coded that way? I'm trying to grasp how AI can somehow be better in custom made missions comared to the basic quick missions provided by the game's team? I see way points meantioned a lot above, but thinking about it, this would be easy to establish by loading a quick mission into the mission editor and seeing how the AI are configured? It's been a while since going in there,
  21. I'm not too sure what you mean by WP? Way point perhaps? Just to clarify, I used the in game quick mission, which is what I based my original post on and here are the settings showing the AI was set to what I believed were Aces. Maybe I'm doing something wrong?
  22. You're right, the AI bomber gunners are a different story, posing more of an SP challenge for practicing, but rarely see bombers in MP and especially without fighter escort to deal with too. I'd like to see the basic gameplay like AI figthers sorted out before I hear things like deferred shading even mentioned.
  23. Just practicing in SP mode and finding the AI really passive. Out of interest I took an LA5 out against 4 x BF109 K4 aces and noticed how many passes they made with missed oportunity to shoot. I got bored in the end not being attacked, or hit, so let them follow and took a video. I'm sure they've been a lot more aggressive than this before?
  24. Hey Aurora, I kid you not, I was dodging the stuff falling off the enemy whilst chasing it, I could clearly see there were no ailerons and daylight through what was left of the wings and fuselage lol. I thought I was recording and could share, but mistaken. I believe the MP map was Bergola, it said there was one enemy in there. I'd just spawned and I had visual about 1 o'clock. I was heading over but then bang and dead from a single shot from my 6, even though checking my mirror (as always) just seconds before. I must have been looking at an AI plane in front. Any
  • Create New...