Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

251 Excellent

1 Follower

About IckyATLAS

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1179 profile views
  1. I forgot to say that my system is based on quad CPU board with four AMD EPYC 7742. Just dreaming ....... πŸ™‚
  2. I tried 03_Heavy_08 600 1300 and yes it works. Thanks Jim. Is it possible to modify the gap between the layers I wonder. Lot of trial and error to do here.
  3. Jason mentioned that with the existing Atmospheric system we can have two layered cloud system. This means that we could fly between the cloud layers and also I suppose have the sunlight nice effects reflecting/refracting between the clouds. I tried but have not succeeded. I tried to have a large height value hoping it would create two layers of clouds but to no avail. How should we set the Atmospheric cloud system to have this work ? Any clues?
  4. The attack command is interesting in certain cases. Basically when you want your fighters or bombers to concentrate on a specific target first. An example when you have a large multi level bomber box staged vertically. You build the box with say three plane flights (one leader and two wingman) and you want the attacking fighters that are flying higher than the bomber to dive in the box then you set the attack command to the leader of a group in the lower level. Set the "attack group" parameter so the leader and the two wingman are attacked. I set a separate attack command for different attacking fighters and each with a different three plane group leaders in the bomber box. As a result the fighters dive in the box through different directions. And the Bomber gunners try to get them, and you have tracers crossing all over. The Bombers fly at 350, the fighters are going down at almost 500 so the visual effect of the crossing speed is amazing with the cover fighters also trying to get them. Very spectacular, if your system can handle all of it.
  5. I agree and your comment is perfectly right. Here I wanted to check in a relative way (my system is still the same and has not changed) if there was an important impact of the Rheinland with many large cities but less mountains compared to the Kuban one. I made some time ago on the Kuban map a test with a very large number of planes (about 60 of which 45 bombers) in which you had everything, trucks, trains, ships, AAA artillery, plane taking off to counter the bombers, alert systems, different levels of AAA artillery, the bombers attacking at the same time, the port an airfield and the city fuel tanks, planes taxiing and taking off etc. When I compare I would say that the B25 is very performant in terms of resources and the Rheinland map is also excellent in terms of FPS impact. The various updates since then have also probably improved the code. On last comment about explosions. On my older Kuban Map test, when I was very near the explosions the frame rate would drop down to 2 FPS for a few seconds. Not here on the Rheinland map. There are a huge number of explosions all around the city and the FPS remains nearly always around 60-65 even with mutiple smoke clouds all around. If I set the view in the middle of the explosions, with the dense smoke cloud being a combination of multiple explosions, then I get for a second 45 FPS. This is really a huge improvement compared with what I had before. I added AAA defense something like 20 Flak 37 units in the city and coordinated for full fire on the incoming box. They create a very nice flak barrage against the bombers. The impact on the FPS is not noticeable.
  6. Thanks for the info. At the moment my small test mission has 36 B25 bomber box and six fighters so a total of 42 planes, flying around 3000 mt altitude. The bombers have various mixed loads of 1000 and 500 pounders. They do a carpet bombing on a medium size city. With clear or scattered cloudy skies there is nearly no impact on FPS (clouds quality is set to medium). We will test the future cloud ultra setting. The high setting does impact the FPS. The FPS depends on how many planes are visible at the same time and how active they are like firing against attackers. I am running in 4K 3841x2160 with a RTX 2080 Ti All settings, graphics, distances, are all at the ultra/max except for the clouds set to medium. The in game VSync is OFF and FPS limiter is OFF. The long range visibility is active. VSync is set in the Nvidia parameter settings to the RAPID mode. Image is fluid no stutters and no tearing. All other Nvidia parameters are default or to the game setting. The FPS values below I have recorded are during the running mission: If only the map is visible on screen with the large cities, I have a consistent 120 FPS all over the map. If I look to the empty blue sky I go up to 170 but a consistent 130+. If I have a view with one or two bombers and the map below then I am around 100 If I have the full box in view then I am around 80 If I have in view the full box firing like hell to the attacking fighters and the attacking plus escort fighters in the middle of the box and tracers all over and the map visible too I get 65. If I am in the city looking at the sky and seeing all the planes above with the fighting between escort and attacking fighters I get depending on how far they are I get between 115 and 90 If I am near the city and see the city and all the planes above bombing the city some planes going down in fire, and all the bombs exploding in the city with the smoke mushrooms I get at the lowest 60 but a consistent 75-80. If I am nearer to the smoke clouds from the bombs I go down to 55 but for just one second. In this mission there is no AAA in the city firing againts the bombers. This will be an additional element that I will add to this test to see the FPS impact. My conclusion here is that my system can very well handle my 42 planes in full action and with the Rheineland map, and probably even more with excellent FPS if they are not all grouped together at the same time.
  7. I do not know how it is with smaller screens in HD, but in 4K and 42 inch screen that I have, I love the new long distance visibility. I tested it with fighters and bombers boxes (36 ones) and it is all perfect. So I am for it πŸ‘
  8. What for an easter egg. It escaped me. WoW. No guarantee but: a first step for us and a giant step for IL2 ! πŸ™‚
  9. The setup I have a B25 Bomber box that is made of 36 B25. These are staged in a bomber box 200 mt vertical, 2km long and 1km wide. The bombers are stacked in three layers and made of a total of 12 groups of three bombers flying V formation (command formation) each. Each layer is made of 4 groups organized in diamond shape and the layers are arranged so that bombs from upper layers cannot hit planes in lower layers. With careful setting of Waypoints (one per three plane group) I can have such a Bomber box fly in formation for 100 km at 300 km/hr keeping perfectly the box 3d structure. The first set of waypoints related to the bombers is at 70km of the bombers themselves. I have three P51 flying escort above the box and three FW 190 A8 attacking the box. The F190 are independent and not connected, so no leader here, lone wolfs only. The FW 190 attack is set with the MCU Attack command (one per FW 190) that targets a 3 plane flight inside the Bomber box. Each FW 190 has a different flight as target. In this way each FW 190 will fly into the Box from various angles. At mission start the full bomber box falls into place in less than 30 seconds. The waypoint priority set to High When the waypoints for the bombers are set with High priority, the the B25s fly without moving an inch when the FW190 dive into the box for the kill. This behavior is normal, but what I find strange is that they do not fire at all to the FW190. They keep perfectly silent, no defense fire. This behavior is not normal. That they do not move from their flight path with priority set to High is normal (could be a bombing run) but they should fire the hell to avoid being shot down. The three P51s escort do chase them and do their best to get them and they disrupt a little the FW190 attack, but the B25s remain totally passive, and even when they are fired upon from a FW190 they do not return fire. For me this is a bug, and if it was designed to be so then what was the purpose. Without escort plane the bombers are simply shot down one by one by the FW190. The waypoint priority set to Medium In this case the B25s return strong fire and basically the FW190 do not last long through the box. Plane still keep their path but may slightly deviate when attacked and come back if they can and are not too much damaged. Globally the bomber box holds very well the formation. The waypoint priority set to Low No difference in behavior with the Medium priority. Same behavior. Are these behaviors the ones expected and if yes where is the difference between medium and low?
  10. A once in a lifetime bug shot. I was not able to have it repeat.
  11. Indeed. Unfortunately a plane that has other planes target linked to it, cannot have a target link to another plane. Or to put it shortly planes cannot be chained with target links. I tried but it generates an error with the Integrity Check. If that was implemented it would probably solve the problem.
  12. I feel so humble and ashamed. Such a basic and simple error after so many years of building missions of all kinds. That's hard.. hard... Sorry for the fuss......I will go and stick my head in the ground somewhere.
  13. I know this picture. Those in the picture are indeed rolling out from a production line. But this was in 1940's. I wanted to say that those we have today are indeed not rolling from a production line and can be very dissimilar depending on the long history they have behind them. Those we have today are survivors fighting not the war anymore but the passing time and ravages of old age unfortunately. A big cheer of recognition to all individuals and associations that fight to keep'em flying.
  14. It's absolutely unacceptable!!! If you look well some screws are on the plate and missing in the skin template. 😞 Yes I repeat unacceptable. Yes Ladies and Gentleman a real SCANDALOUS mistake !! 🀒 Sure it is DANGEROUS, for us pilots, the plate could fly away in 20G manoeuvers! 😱 Okay, let's pause and smile a little here. πŸ™‚ Making high quality 4K templates are a pretty difficult work (I tried and I am not good at it). So let's thank those who invest time and do them. One has to be careful when comparing. We do not know on what original material the skinner has worked. And unfortunately two same planes have very often different details. The more one goes into details and the more differences there are. These are not planes rolling from a factory production line in series. These are old unique planes and not two are identical. If you look at historical pictures of combat planes again a lot of differences, due to use and abuse, combat damages repaired in the field, etc. You have also to consider that even if you have the plane you want to copy right in front of you, the skin you will build has to wrap on the geometry of the simulated airplane frame, which again is not exactly the same as the original frame geometry. As a result you may stretch a little here, thin a little there etc.. It is a compromise between imperfections and finally the time to spend for this work has also a limit. The shininess and mirror polish of the original compared to the in game skin is much more visible than the plate detail that I would never had detected. But again this difference in polish makes no difference to the overall visual quality of the skin. We do not need to compare picture to have the pleasure to fly the thing. And you are welcome to do your skin and show us your talent. I would be very happy to fly your "perfect" plane.
  • Create New...