Jump to content

SAS_Storebror

Members
  • Content Count

    994
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. Thanks for your reply Deci. Complex Trigger... good call. Using the "Finished" Event together with names assigned to player planes seems to work at least partly. I'll see where I can get using this approach. Thanks again and Cheers! Mike
  2. Hi guys, I've been tinkering with this for a couple of days now: Since our DServer is rather limited in terms of handling larger amounts of AI, I'm trying to disable as large portions as possible if there is nobody watching what AI would do anyway. One big part would be if I could detect whether or not a player base (or a spawnpoint for that effect) actually has active player(s) on it or not. With the "modifier add value" and "modifier set value" MCUs, in theory it should be easy to setup a counter in order to achieve this. Each player spawning would cause the counter threshold to increase by one (modifier add value, index 1 = 1) and each player finishing his sortie would cause the counter itself to be increased (either by just targetting the counter, or by using modifier add value, index 0 = 1). 1st problem: For spawning players I have the spawnpoint's "on player spawn" event which I can target at the "modifier add value" MCU. However... which event to use for player finishing their sortie? "On player killed"? Anything else seems unreasonable. But does "on player killed" really work if let's say a player just finishes the sortie without actually being killed? I don't think so. 2nd problem: Does this logic of counting one event against another, by raising the threshould using the "modifier add value" on index 1 vs. targetting the counter to increase it's actual value really work? I remember that the whole "add/set value" modifier thing never worked as intended. Does anyone have a clue and/or solution/hint/workaround for this idea? Mike
  3. Too bad that once again, this wasn't worth an announcement in the official Announcement Section. I'm really wondering what the point is of keeping such critical information semi-hidden as a "recommended post" in this discussion thread? Mike
  4. Brief description: Launcher Crashes on DServer Detailed description, conditions: Stopped DServer.exe, then ran Launcher, then got the following crash message: Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs): Funny that you're asking. I'd love to show logs if only we had any of the launcher. Your PC config data (OS, drivers, specific software): Windows Server 2016, Intel Core i7-4770 @3.8GHz, 32 GB RAM, 2x2TB HDD (Raid 1), 1GBit/s non-clocked.
  5. Jesus Christ, can we subscribe to one of the bombing lessons AI had? Mike
  6. Hi folks, Today we'd like to announce the IL-2 Great Battles Recorder Mod/Tool The purpose of this mod/tool is to overcome an annoying limitation of the game: Whenever you record a track in IL-2 Great Battles, recording will silently stop once the track file has reached a size of 512MB. This is particularly annoying when you are fighting online, on a crowded server, because tracks will grow quickly (512MB can be reached in less than 5 minutes) and as fate would have it, your recording will stop right before the most interesting things happen in your mission/sortie. Using IL-2 Great Battles Recorder, you can concentrate on your flight and let this tool automatically restart recording another track - silently, automatically, in the background, with no further action required on your end. Find download links, further descriptions, discussions, opportunities to talk directly to the devs of this tool/mod here: IL-2 Great Battles Recorder @sas1946.com Mike
  7. Just do it, you're welcome. Thanks for all your efforts and thanks for the detailed explanation re rendering distance. Mike
  8. Are you sure that Ultra renders buildings at smaller distance than high? Sharpen: Makes the game look "cartoonish" sometimes, things become unnaturally crisp IMHO Landscape filter "blurred": Covers the rendering distance perfectly. A must have IMHO. SSAO: You forgot that this filter also greatly enhances the self-shadowing, sunlight reflection etc. inside the cockpit. If external views and spotting other planes is all you are focused on, SSAO is not for you. If correct visual representation of what you're sitting in is what you are looking for, SSAO is a must. High Performance Powerscheme is probably something a normal user doesn't want to use all the time (without playing BoS that is). That setting, plus the high priority process setting, plus a few others (e.g. low priority for Steam while playing BoS) can automatically be adjusted dynamically as needed by using FUMS. Mike
  9. Good choice about the 262 engine. The B-1 was the main production model anyway (*), the B-0 was used mostly on prototypes, the B-2 didn't leave the development stage much and whether B-3s ever saw the light of day would have to be discussed. I hope though that the throttle movement stay a critical factor because it wasn't all that much improved on the B-1, just when RPMs went up you were allowed to move the throttle slightly faster. (*) According to "German Jet Engine and Gas Turbine Development 1930-1945", Copyright © 2002 Antony L. Kay, Airlife Publishing Ltd, ISBN I 84037 294 X Mike
  10. This is what I did: Download a viewer/editor for Microsoft SQL Server Compact databases, e.g. CompactView Run your SQL Compact editor (I'll just call it "CompactView" now) and open up the "sscontrol.sdf" database file in your Sturmovik Server Control folder. Switch CompactView to "Allow Editing" mode in the upper left corner. Open up the "PlayerNames" table to find the ID of the player you want to ban (not the GUID, here you need Sturmovik Server Control's internal ID which is just a counter) Open up the "Bans" table and add an entry accordingly, where "ID" is just a counter, "PlayerGuid" is the "ID" from the "PlayerNames" table, "Expiration" is any given expiration date for the ban, and "Comment" is any comment of your choice for the ban: Mike
  11. It's not a new built Flugwerk replica, it's the Fw 190 A-8 Werknr. 173056, rebuilt using Flugwerk parts and using an Ash 82T engine: Mike
  12. I agree to the common feeling that something has changed, even though it's hard to tell exactly what has changed. For me it looks like AI has better ideas than doing endless flat circling games now. Yesterday I've been chasing a 190 D-9 with my trusty rusty Lagg-3. Would have been a cakewalk about a month ago because every time when you entered a fight against AI with altitude advantage and managed to maintain some of it, AI would inevitably circle down to the ground and eventually you could catch them there. Not this time. That 190 D9 applied really good energy tactics when we met at ~1000m altitude (he's been down at 500 and I was at 1500 when we started), a few scissors when it was level with me, and finally climbed away to extend, turn around and try to attack me head-on from above. I've had another AI La-5 S.8 with me, that's probably what kept me alive because the 190 couldn't concentrate on me alone. It's definitely been an improvement of AI to me, I've never had such an epic fight with AI before. What told me that we're not there yet was: Eventually I got the 190. Not my La-5 AI buddy, he never even got close to a shooting solution. When I got the 190, we've been up at 7000m altitude. At that altitude, a 190 D-9 should be virtually invulnerable to a Lagg-3. Mike
  13. I agree that it's strange. Remember I've been on "HIGH" before with my i5-2500k system and did not suffer any such stutter. Since this has been a try&error thing, I'm quite reluctant to give explanations as to why "ULTRA" setting should have fixed it. One idea would be that the new i5-9600k was too fast for "HIGH" setting. In the end I've been on 144 FPS almost all the time, including the moments where the severe stuttering started. Maybe if the CPU gets too bored while too many other things are going on, strange things happen. I've got no idea, really. I don't even know whether this state of stutter-free gameplay will persist. Just thought I'd let you guys know about the latest observations because after weeks of trying almost everything with absolutely no effect (neither positive nor negative), this single setting change suddenly really made a difference. Mike
  14. Without attempting to count my chickens before they are hatched, I think I have made a leap forward in terms of my stuttering issues. This is what I did since my last post and it did not cure my stuttering issues: Uninstalled Nvidia Driver completely using DDU Reinstalled latest driver (430.39 at the time of writing this) Rechecked my Nvidia Control Panel settings (see below) From here on, tinkered with Graphics Settings: Set Shadows Quality to "Low" (was "Medium" before) Set Distant landscape detail to "Normal" (was 2x before) Set Landscape filter to "Off" (was "Blurred" before) Set Grass quality to "Distant" (was on all kind of settings in my previous tests) Set Target FPS to "60" (was "Off" before) Set Antialiasing to "2" (was "4" before) Disabled Full screen (was enabled before) Disabled SSAO (was enabled before) (HDR was disabled all the time) My Nvidia Control Panel Settings: DSR Factors = Off Anisotropic filtering = Application-controlled Antialiasing - FXAA = Off Antialiasing - Setting = Application-controlled Antialiasing - Gamma correction = On Antialiasing - Mode = Application-controlled Antialiasing - Transparency = Multisample Preferred Refresh rate = Highest Available CUDA - GPUs = All Triple buffering = Off Power management mode = Prefer Maximum Performance Optimize for compute performance = Off Maximum pre-rendered frames = Use Settings for 3D Applications Monitor-technology = G-SYNC Multi-Frame Sampled AA (MFAA) = Off OpenGL-rendering GPU = Auto Shadercache = On Texture filtering - Anisotropic sample optimization = Off Texture filtering - Negative LOD bias = Allow Texture filtering - Quality = Quality Texture filtering - Trilinear Optimization = On Threaded optimization = Auto Vertical sync = Fast (not really necessary due to G-SYNC, but still...) Pre-rendered VR-Frames = 1 As mentioned before, all of this didn't change a thing - whenever I've been entering a crowded area, be it a well populated airfield or a furball dogfight, massive stuttering occured. Tinkering with the aforementioned settings has been my "hobby" for weeks now, as well as tinkering with network settings. Nothing ever changed, neither to the better, nor to the worse. And now comes the catch. This is what I did today, and guess what? No stuttering in 3 test sorties I've made so far: Changed from "HIGH" to "ULTRA". Period. Nothing else. Just that. Changed the overall setting to "ULTRA" and the stuttering is gone. Who would have guessed that? Mike
  15. Forgive me when I have a life to live. That thread counts 11 pages now and 95% of it - at least - is... well... how to say it politely?... "less interesting". This is what I do twice a day to check for important things and it works on all forums except for this one: Open the main page, check whether there's a new announcement. Period. I guess the general misunderstanding is between players and server operators. If I'm "only" a player, then this fix might be a minor one. If I play offline, I don't even need it. If I have the Steam Version of the game, I will receive it automatically. If I play online and don't have Steam, I will get a clue that there's something new when the server list suddenly becomes empty. That much that good. For a Server Operator there is no such thing like "minor" fixes. Any new version there is, it needs to be put on the Server asap otherwise strange things will happen and/or clients won't see that server anymore at all. Therefore any update/patch/hotfix/you-name-it deserves a notification in the official Announcements section IMHO. There's more less important stuff in there than we have "minor hotfixes" anyway, so where's the point not publically, prominently, present new game versions in the official Announcements section? Really: Where's the point? Mike
  16. Let me loosely quote the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Do I see an announcement about the new game version in a section called "Announcements"? This one for instance? https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/7-announcements/ I mean there should be a reason for calling that section "Announcements", shouldn't it? And if a new game update isn't worth announcing, what on earth is the Game Updates thread for then? And if they managed to announce 3.010b and c, why is there no announcement for 3.012b and c? But I understand... they did tell. I just needed to go down the old broken stairs, into the dark cellar, across the tons of gravel, break through the locked steel gate, pass the lion, open the toilet and grab the announcement out of the flushing. The local planning department in Alpha Centauri aka "dig through some random discussion threads", that's understood. Mike
  17. Nice but... devs, please accept a little rant from my side here: Why on earth can't you - at least - say a word here about such updates in the official announcements section or, even better additionally, give server operators a clue in the server console? Does it really always have to be like this that Server Operators just stumble upon those updates either by pure chance or by people reporting massive issues (ghost sounds, graphics glitches, sortie results not matching actual sortie events) like we did just now? Come on guys, can't be that hard, really. Just a single line post "3.012c has been released" in an announcement thread would do and another single line "3.012c has been released" after each "Mission loaded successfully" on the server console would be the cherry on the cake. That's really a no-brainer. Mike
  18. Thanks @ShamrockOneFive, this absolutely makes sense. In my case, after a major hardware upgrade (new Mainboard, CPU and RAM) I'm suffering from micro-stutters even more than before, at least it feels like. While in low-medium populated areas everything's fine and I get more or less stable 100+FPS, high-massive populated areas, especially when being populated with lots of different AI actors, causes massive microstuttering, especially when moving your head around quickly or turning the plane. It's much more noticeable inside the cockpit than on external views to me. Now that we need to enable 4K textures to be potentially stutter-free, the GPU VRAM usage of course increases with it. And if many different actors are visible in the same spot, and the textures of all of them don't fit in the VRAM at the same time anymore, the system needs to load/unload textures while you're looking around all the time. My GTX 970 has 4GB VRAM, but only 3.5 GB have the full bandwidth. Seems like as soon as I get closer to that limit, the stuttering starts. Add to that, since Microsoft rolled out the Spectre/Meltdown patches, with microcode-updates for newer CPUs, I get the feeling that especially latest CPU series (Intel 8000 and 9000 for instance) suffer badly from certain limitations applied for security reasons, which is probably why on my newer rig, even though the frame rates are much higher than on the old one (i5-9600K vs. i5-2500K), the stuttering even feels worse. Mike
  19. Yes, that's possible. Just a matter of time until we put the required code changes into BAT. Mike
  20. BAT has it's own game engine v5.00m since BAT 3.6. Can't help if people still play on 4-point-something. Mike
  21. Just a small update, the changes to the LAN chip settings and the "TCP Optimizer" settings didn't change anything in terms of this stutter issue either. In the meantime I've tried lowering down the graphics settings to a ridiculously low level, again no change. Just for comparison, I've set them to Ultra and everything on highest settings, which of course gives worse overall framerates, but the stutter issue is just the very same as before. That's the funny part about it: Whatever I have touched, changed, tuned, intentionally messed up - it just doesn't change anything in terms of this stuttering thing. I cannot make it any better, but I cannot make it any worse either. Today I've had two "click" moments. First was when I watched a War Thunder Cockpit video where someone was flying alongside a coastline in a Heinkel 111. He had that very same stuttering at times. Second was when I've played IL-2 1946 with the FAC chaps today. There's been a quite crowded mission with lots of AI, and once I met like 40 AI planes fighting below and inside clouds, right above a small pacific island with lots of AAA on it. And then... the very same stutter. I conclude that this is not an IL-2 Great Battles issue. Maybe it has been there all the time and I just didn't notice, because on my old system there has always been some lag here and there. Maybe I'm just much more picky now that I usually reach 144 FPS most of the time. Maybe it's really an issue, but if it is, it's rather related to the Motherboard/CPU/GPU/RAM combo than anything else. Therefore, thanks for all your support and for your attention, but I don't think we need to try and fight this within IL-2 Great Battles any longer. Mike
  22. Yes, did that already. As mentioned by @sniperton, my Internet connection is quite fine, as is the Server's one. I'm on a 100/20 (Down/Up) Mbit/s Cable connection and I can reach both limits reliably 24/7 in speedtests as well as transfers to the very server we're playing on. That Server actually is mine, it's located 460km away, we're both in Germany. The ping time is in the low 20ms and the jitter is 2-3ms. The Server is on an unmetered symmetric 1GBit/s line and it can reach that limit reliably 24/7 as well. I'll rule out the SSD as The tool mentioned by @1.JaVA_KEBEN is for Samsung SSDs only (I've got a Crucial and a Sandisk in my PC) and Windows 10 has all "optimization" settings applied by default already (checked). There has been no such issue with the very same SSD on the very same OS prior to my hardware upgrade either. As @sniperton lined out correctly, it could be related to a side effect of my hardware upgrade and/or the planes we're flying. I've lately suffered from those stutters the most while flying german kites (190s), will try the russians again for comparison soon. The 9600K could play a role, as could the mainboard. Last but not least the onboard LAN chip and/or it's driver could be part of the deal as well. Yesterday evening I've applied all kind of "optimization" settings for the onboard Intel LAN chip I could find on gaming sites, and I ran the "TCP Optimizer" tool and let it apply "optimal" settings. Will see whether that changes anything... Mike
×
×
  • Create New...