Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

970 Excellent

About 216th_Jordan

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3453 profile views
  1. To be honest I do not really see the issue. I do not want smart scaling by default but even with the picture I can see why it's useful. Picture is highly pixelated and objects are hard to see while view on target is good. Smart scaling reduces that effect. Might not be as realistic, but weights in for other issues. I don't see why these other issues of rendering induced visibility problems are downplayed or don't get mitigated by more or less appropriate functions available. For one spotting should not be harder than IRL. I've always been against easy mode and as I fly myself I know that spotting isn't easy. But if I try to spot things in Il-2 I don't see a lot due to rendering (and believe me I have spend a lot of time in finding optimal spotting settings which work quite well) and get a headache after a while. That surely doesn't happen when I'm flying IRL.
  2. I'd think this sim would profit massively from these three things and I think while 1 is imperative, at least either 2 or 3 should be implemented: 1.) Object size vs. distance fixed so that targets don't get smaller 2.) Smart scaling (at best with custom size settings) for people who want it a bit easier sometimes or always 3.) Custom Icons - some players want to see more without going all arcady (like showing only friendy ground/ air units closer than 3km etc.) Going by all frustrated responses during the last months I think this is of prime importance for the sim.
  3. Ingame a lot of contacts are simple lost because of pixel clarity problems by resolution. Also, there is an incredible amount of noise in a rendered scene (pixel level variations in large numbers due to small differneces in rendering angle). When you get rid of that noise by filtering however, you also usually decrease the size of contacts, making them harder to see. To the physical laws the ingame spotting is correct, but due to rendering it gets harder (and much more straining!) than IRL. I've recently come to the conclusion, that in the current engine a slight smart scaling approach might really be the best way to deal with this situation.
  4. If it would be possible to have different games of the Il-2 branch that use the same executable to be listed as different games rather than as DLCs on Steam that would very likely generate a lot more attention than the current setup. Also people would be less inclined to slam Il-2's 'DLC Policy' (which doesn't exist) For games such as Tank Crew I see at as incredibly important, because people not into flight sims (yet) will not even register it OR be forced to have BOS first, which they might not even have interest in. (Of course they could always go to the website - but honestly the very least of players does that research on something they don't even know about)
  5. I really hope they can find a solution to this. Right now it's a dealbreaker with the AI.
  6. Disable HDR and SSAO. Gamma correction off in Nvidia settings IIRC. I once posted my settings which should still be valid - let me check if I can find them again! EDIT: Here it is, please give it a shot! PS: I never turn down gamma more than 0.8, a properly calibrated monitor isn't too bright to begin with and increased gamma reduction just makes your cockpit look like a cave and makes evening/ low light spotting nearly impossible.
  7. Thats what I thought, found the control quite alright.
  8. Interesting info! 26% of light getthing through does not mean however that the image needs to be distorted, but more dim. I see your argument though. As it's a game we have a tradeoff, so pixelation acts as distorted vision.
  9. Bronze 🤔 Havn't seen any for the new titles yet though.
  10. I think you're a bit harsh here and Jason's comment is taken out of context. FM and DM are totally different beasts and the devs have shown multiple times that they care about accurate results, but DM is usually vastly more complex than FM. I'm quite sure that we'll see improvements to the P-47 DM and DM in general in the future (Thanks Tank Crew!). But of course I'd wish for it sooner rather than later.
  11. Thanks! So we're about the same here. Sadly I have never once looked through a sight with mil markings to make a reference to this. (Maybe someone here has some experiences with these?) I just used regular binoculars, which proved highly effective for several kilometers however and I'd suspect a specific range finding sight to do a somewhat similar thing. Now if TC was to provide high magnification binoculars with mil-scales for the commander I'd rest my case as that would be all that we'd need an could be universally applied.
  12. I only activated normal difficulty to show the distance of the tank by the icon you mention. In real life and in realistic simulation mode there is no icon to help with ranging. In the picture I posted you can see the commander visor with mils for rangefinding. You devide the mils a target fills over target size: (actual size/mils)*1000 = range [meters]
  13. This is not what I mean however. Ranging by sights is usually done by having info about the target size and using the mils scale (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milliradian) in the sight to get the relation of mils over actual size and computate the distance. If I first have to shoot a Tiger with the Su-122 to incrementally get closer to the range I will get killed before I get the second or thrid shot out. Ranging by sights should give sufficient accuracy to properly get the range of a target.
  • Create New...