Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kendo

  1. I suspect they would agree now that they were over-ambitious and made the map too big. It worked for the previous maps they made, but Bodenplatte was the first really industrial area with lots of cities. Suspect they got 3/4 of the way through, then realised that their usual optimisations were not going to be enough to bring playable frame rates, and had no option but to cut back severely on number of objects and cities. Jason has said already that Channel map will be smaller, and it has fewer big cities as well as an expanse of sea, so seems they learnt a lesson here.
  2. @-DED-Rapidus Settings below. I also set Bloom = 0 in Startup file + Triple Buffering = OFF + Vertical Sync = Use 3D Application Setting
  3. I noticed flickering / shimmering in the (stock game) il-2 cockpits recently - around the joystick/guntriggers. Posted about it in the bug report section a few days ago. The model '42 seemed to be worst affected, though visible on all the il-2s. Also noticed some 'shimmering' between the panel lines on the instrument panel.
  4. I faced the same situation last time with the DDR3 to DDR4 transition. DDR4 modules had started coming out, but were substantially more expensive, and not well supported. I think it will be a similar process with DDR5. Don't think they are likely to be available for desktop systems before 2021, and it may actually be into 2022. The performance improvement looks big and worthwhile, but not sure i can wait that long. Hopefully may be able to get an MB later this year with DDR5 support at least, but afaik Ryzen 4000 won't be doing it.
  5. I've been considering a system upgrade for the last 6 months. Currently still using a 2011-vintage i5-2500k with 8GB of DDR3 1600 RAM. I've upgraded the video card several times over the years, but realise it's past time now for a full revamp (though I have to say i really lucked out with the 2500k - Sandybridge had just launched back then and it was a really big step forward at the time). DCS has been difficult for my system for some time, but increasingly il2-BOS is also demanding more horsepower. I had been planning to get the Intel i5-10600KF when it was launched, but delving deeper into the specs, it just seems to be the last, tired gasp for that particular architecture .As others have said, the power draw is increased, no PCIe 4, poor DDR4 memory speed support. And intel's habit of abandoning / replacing sockets with regularity. So, i've put a new system on hold until I hear more about the Ryzen 4000 series. I've also heard positive noises about the next Intel CPU generation which could possibly launch before the end of the year. Unconfirmed reports about it being a major leap forwards. At the moment i'm tending towards Ryzen 4000, but either way it seems waiting is best option right now. Also hoping to hear more about DDR5 memory, though probably not expecting to get support for it within next few months.
  6. Brief description: Shimmering effect in il-2 cockpits in the area shown in the pic. Detailed description, conditions: There is a shimmering, 'out of focus' effect in the il-2 cockpits in the area shown around the joystick / trigger switches. It seems to be worst in the il-2 m42, but is visible on all three il-2 models. (There is also some slight shimmering noticeable on the panel lines of the instrument panel.) Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs): Screenshot below shows the area where this occurs. But effects are only really visible in game Your PC config data (OS, drivers, specific software): Win 10, nVidia 1660 Super 6GB, 445.87 drivers, 8GB RAM, no additional software (ie no Reshade,etc)
  7. May be worth checking your Windows power settings and turning off USB Selective Suspend (if it isn't already). https://www.windowscentral.com/how-prevent-windows-10-turning-usb-devices
  8. I know what you mean. Detecting differences - we can fool ourselves very easily. Any effects from those settings are pretty subtle, but I'll keep them for now at least. I've also switched off Low Latency Mode, where previously 'On' seemed to help me a little in busy Career missions, now it seems not to at all.
  9. 120 to 180 (or even 200) is very high - which is good! - but also means you could probably choose to increase your il-2 graphics settings, which will give better visual quality. Are you running il-2 BOS on Low graphics settings? Maybe post a screen shot of your settings here.
  10. Did some more testing and again, see no difference in visual quality or fps using MFAA with MSAA set to x4. So have reverted to keeping MFAA switched off. The sim is looking really good now though. Setting Anistropic Filtering to x16, and Antialiasing Gamma Correction to Off in nVidia seems to help visually (for me anyway). (AF for the cockpits and ground textures - subtle improvement. Gamma correction off for the antenna wires)
  11. Thanks for reply Retnek, but I'm talking about MFAA, not MSAA. (I know too many different types - it gets confusing.) It's this setting in nVidia: Explained in the spoiler what MFAA does - if it works it will give better MSAA quality for lower performance hit. Trying it on my own PC, I don't see any visual or performance improvement from having it on. In fact things seem just a little bit smoother with it off (less microstutters)
  12. Does anyone know if there is benefit from using MFAA (Multi-Frame Sampled AA) for il-2 BOS? From nVidia Tweak Guide: I have read different opinions - both that there is no performance cost and so it can just be set globally to 'On', but also that it may negatively affect the CPU in certain cases resulting in a performance hit. I have tried both on and off in pre-4.006 il-2, and didn't see any benefit - actually felt there may have been a slight hit when 'On' (I use Vsync and so fps locked to monitor refresh). With 4.006 and new deferred shading I'm unsure again. Does anyone have any definitive advice here? Or can a dev comment? With the increased hit from using MSAA, it could be useful to know Thanks. Also, a second question. nVidia (and I suspect AMD) has a Shader cache option. Would there be benefit after a big update such as 4.006 to clear that temporarily so that any new shaders are fully loaded? Could that prevent possible glitches?
  13. This is the P47 flat olive drab skin I talked about. One of a pack of 3 by Pat Cartier (the other 2 being silver metal finish). Looks wonderful in game. If you at all like the P-47, give it a try. I hope to see some new La-5 skins soon too.
  14. No problem Larner. This is all getting out of hand. Everyone: We are all actually on the same side here. Let's knock this on the head now.
  15. I'm not doing that. Nowhere have i done that. I was responding, in kind, to a rather tart post from 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk. What does how many hours I play (or don't play) in MP have to do with the opinion (respectfully) expressed in the post he referred to, which was about AnP's data by the way. We can all look at evidence and give our honest opinions. I listen here to the MP flyers opinions and hear loud and clear that there are big differences beween the two. I still have my preference, which isn't going to change. This has been done to death in mnay other threads .Do a search.
  16. I play single player like 99% of the other people who bought this sim.
  17. Well...I disagree...my answer in that post still stands, and if you are going to get all MP snobby elitest.....can i remind you that the network issues f**k everything up there anyway. So, maybe you should play more single player to get accurate results....
  18. I've been really surprised by how good most of the old skins look in 4.006. Was using a P47 skin yesterday - one of the few with olive green drab paint, ands it looked amazing - absolutely flat matt green paint, with incredibly realistic metal showing through the scratches in the paintwork. Looked extremely real. Same for some Lagg skins i use regularly - looking much better now, mainly due to the flat camouflage paint looking great. Really does look like paint over a metal surface
  19. I would think the odds of something like that happening would be very low. It could happen, but we're probably talking lottery win probabilities, but yes, in those few cases the DM would get the spar hits wrong. There is another issue though - and Emely would probably mention this, so as he isn't here for a bit ๐Ÿ™‚ I'll say it for him - it's how you calculate the amount of damage on a spar when it does get hit. The devs have i'm sure used their best research and modelling in the attempt to get this right, but as they have admitted themselves no-one really knows. It's here that there could be room for adjustment maybe. But then the whole AI v human MP wing loss issue comes right to the fore again. If they do adjust wing strength to make the results look better for high G MP players, then that will throw the singleplayer AI to a place where wings never come off at all...! So, maybe that suggests again the real issue is that people fly too hard on MP?
  20. Beautifully written @ZachariasX but i afaik that is not how the DM is working. For the diagram below, imagine the whole target is the wing, and the black area is the spar. Then the DM doesn't register 58. Everything on 6 or farther out hits the wing but doesn't register as weakening the spar. DM may not distinguish between a hit dead centre (9 or 10) V a glancing hit (two of the 7s in this diagram), or they may have a way to score that too. I don't know. So long as the spar dimensions V overall wing dimensions are correct, then for big numbers there will be no appreciable difference between the hits registered using this probabilty method and one using a more detailed hit box model. And remember they have said this would be too heavy for current PCs. That's the whole reason they went this probablity route Also, who deliberately aims at spars from 300m, or even 30m? They can't be seen. From 6 0'clock you almost can't avoid hitting a spar if you hit a wing. And from other angles their method should work, if their dimension numbers are right.
  21. I agree with a lot of what you say. And on the DM, I really don't know? I have no problems with wing stength being adjusted a little more if it seems right and can be justified. But a big theme that has come up in last few days is about the wing folding (in MP at least) being caused not so much by the hits, as by the high-G maneuvering afterwards - so then we get into another debate about how often that actually happened in real life and whether the sim is wrong there too. And then Bidu posts what he found about wing-folding accidents (and yes, no combat damage at all) and frankly I was surprised at the number in such a short time. So, I think it is all relevant here.
  22. First, I said nowhere in that post (or anywhere else) that the current DM is correct. Second, how do you know those failures were due to 'defective' aircraft? They all are caused by dives. They could be (and likely were) caused by pilots exceeding the limits of the aircraft structure - and that is relevant to the current discussion. But the main point was really just to point out survivor bias.
  23. These guys didn't live to file their reports:
  24. kendo


    Ok, thanks for all the advice everyone. I'll see. ๐Ÿ‘ Couple of things though - my broadband is slow. Had to run it overnight to download my current version's 108GB, though it seems that version control software should lighten the load of switching But also really think that before I could even get anything much out of the supercarrier I will need to get more familiar with the Hornet. Will maybe be more enjoyable once I can take the 'L-plates' off. Also, tbh, I'm already overloaded with things right now - not enough hours in the day. ๐Ÿ™‚
  • Create New...