Jump to content

hayraddin

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About hayraddin

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada, Quebec

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks very much for the detailed response, that helps a lot ๐Ÿ˜ƒ
  2. After so many airplanes have been updated oficially to 4k, Im a bit confused on which planes still required mods/skins to incresase resolution of both Color and Bump to 4k. Ive been using this mod: ( [MOD] Historically Correct Official Skins (2K and 4K) ) for a long time, which includes 4k textures of both default and default white skins of all airplanes and the extra download that uses 4k Normal maps for all airplanes. (But it doesnt include any of the extra skins) My question would be, is there any point using this mod nowadays, I keep seeing in the updates that more and more planes are updated to 4k, Im wondering if this updates include the Normal maps as well of if I still should keep using the Mod. Is there any list somewhere of which airplanes still don't have oficially 4k Textures? Are the oficial 4k textures including Normal maps? Thanks and have a great weekend ๐Ÿ˜ƒ
  3. I would also love to have this feature implemented, but Im guessing you depend on the devs to implement outgoing data on the ball position.
  4. @rowdyb00t Yes I would appreciate if you do an updated version of the lighting but without the new cloud formations that drop FPS, I love the new lighting (without the gray skies) but the clouds are eating away quite a bit of FPS for me in VR! I know its a bit of a pain to have to carry so many different iterations of the mod so I will understand if this is too much work.
  5. Im kinda doing the same hahaha, waiting for him to upload to play Il2
  6. Ryzen 3900x, RTX 2070 super, rift S, 32Gb 3600 cl14 RAM , SSD Nvme
  7. Yea would appreciate it. I also found that using gpresets even without tweaking anything seems to somehow lower my fps. I will give it another try
  8. Does the nvidia AA settings affect VR? I currently use 2 in-game and FXAA in nvidia panel.
  9. Yea, I tried disabling half of the cores and was almost the same, then I disabled also SMT and it was also the same, +-1-2FPS, so no noticeable difference. My CPU is running at 60deg max when running the benchmark, not cool, but also not super hot, ryzen can go up to 90. Ill do one more run and try to benchmark the average frequency the CPU is running at, ill try to find a software that does that.
  10. Yea, agree with you. I suspect there is something else on the background going on, the difference in DCS from Intel to AMD seems to be much lower than in Il2, 40fps difference between 3900x and 9900k is a really big difference, in benchmarks of old and new games, they test up to 40 games 9900k vs 3900x, and yes, Intel is generally better, but not by 40 fps. The biggest difference I've seen was 14fps in Starcraft, even other old games that are single threaded run at around 1-3% faster in the 9900k, 30-40fps is a 30% difference. It's complicated as you said to check the exact frequency with Ryzen CPUs, as PBO tends to shift it up or down based on CPU load and Temps, amongst other things, and Il2 seems to use more than 1 main core I noticed, but I mainly run the main core at 4.5-4.6Ghz and the other ones at a bit less than that. I wish I could just buy an intel for IL2, but sadly I do CG/VFX work and I need the extra threads/cores, so I'm stuck on this side of things.
  11. Motherboard: MSI B450 Tomahawk CPU: Ryzen 9 3900x CPU Freq: 4.6 Ghz L3 cache: 4 x 16 MB Cores: 12 HT:On RAM type: DDR4 RAM size: 32 GB NB Freq: 1800 MHz RAM Freq: 3600 MHz RAM Latency: 14 GPU: RTX 2070 Super STMark: 3060 2020-03-03 00:37:47 - Il-2 Frames: 24019 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 133.439 - Min: 93 - Max: 235
  12. I have been running the tests,I will paste all the information in the correct format when I get home, but basically, with a Ryzen 3900x, RTX 2070 super, and 32Gb RAM overclocked to 3600 cl14 fast tight timings(66ns AIDA64 latency) and 3093 ST Mark score, all I manage to get is 134 average FPS. How is it possible that Intel, even old CPUs like the 8600k, even if it has lower ST Mark score, runs faster than AMD, something must be badly optimized somewhere? I know that Intel is better for single thread than Ryzen, generally, but the 3900x is a newer CPU, with increased IPC, and in benchmarks it does actually match very closely the 9900k in most of the games, talking about a maybe 5FPS difference in some games, and in other games Ryzen is actually higher FPS than Intel. I don't think that its just because of higher frequency on intel, because Ryzen frequency and Intel frequency are not directly comparable, due to infinity fabric and other stuff running on the back, and the ST Mark score is higher in my 3900x than many intel CPUs, yet I still get up to 20-30fps lower than the 8600k or 9700k. I don't know if this is something we should flag to the devs? Maybe it would get better if we could get Vulkan? Ryzen 3900x has been an upgrade from me, coming from a 2700x, which was giving me around 110 Average FPS, but to be honest I expected a bigger upgrade, I wish we could reach 150-160 fps those Intel's are doing in high-end AMD cpu's as well. I dont know, just throwing some questions in the air. Have a good afternoon ๐Ÿ˜ƒ
  13. Yes, the prop RPM control is what you need. Set it to maximum before takeoff and taxiing, and then slowly throttle up all the way to max throttle, very slowly and smooth, dont just smash throttle to 100%. Doing that and using rudder pedals to balance the torque should let you take off ๐Ÿ˜ƒ Requiem as always has really good information on it, take a look at this video, it will help you a lot, on how to prepare the Spit for takeoff and landing.
  14. If having throttle at 0 is not working when starting mission then you could try to press brakes to full as soon as you unpause and throttle down to 0 as fast as you can.
×
×
  • Create New...