Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

41 Excellent

About Nake350

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Flight Sims

Recent Profile Visitors

799 profile views
  1. 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 made my point and that BoN meets and even exceeds expectations.
  2. 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 personally I prefer quality than the size of map, so looking to spend. £70 - 80 on a module with planes already available in other much improving Sims/ games is not a no brainer this time. The high level of aliasing/ jaggies seen especially on horizons, post deferred shading is a different subject, but also something holding me back. I tied an MP game in Reinland recently and quit shortly after take off because it just looked so bad.
  3. 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!
  4. 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.
  5. 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. I'm currently spending more time in XP11 post Vulkan introduction and the graphics are crystal clear and atmospherics are just stunning. If anyone can enlighten me for the reason for the change it would be interesting to know, but either way I hope they get it back to at least what it was before.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 that has impact on FPS in VR. I then noticed my CPU loading is much higher than previously and cannot get out of ASW mode upto 80 FPS with PD set to 1.5, which was easily possible before. I also noticed objects like my plane and others now have a fringe round them when in front of clouds and sun on the sea is flickering. I don't believe anything has changed on my PC from before, and my graphics driver is up to date. All other sims/ games are just fine. I have tried all ranges of graphics settings and installation repair, but no luck. Graphics card is RTX2080 Super and my full PC spec is in my signature. Is this a result of deferred shading or a fault? Any help to get back to amazing graphics it was is much appreciated. I have included a Video of instability/ shaking and images of fringes around objects below: (Video is best viewed full screen).
  8. 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
  9. No I didn't; amazing experience isn't it! 😉 Great server btw.
  10. @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.
  11. 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 game and lets face it realism has been stretched already for 2D where we've been given 'Zoom- eyes' at the press of a button! lol
  12. @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.
  13. 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?
  14. 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 shot down. I did record it for future reference if needed. I found the 110 G2 better, but maily due to their gunners.
  15. Ah, ok...That's got it! Thank you
  • Create New...