Jump to content

SAS_Storebror

Members
  • Content Count

    1330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. Hi guys, Yesterday I flew a sortie with the MiG-3 where I've intercepted a flight of He-111 bombers. On my 3rd attack run I fetched a couple of bullets from the ventral gunner. According to visual damage, he hit me at the tail. Fuselage, rudder, all stabs and all control surfaces showed a nice burst of bullet holes. All controls were still available and nothing vital was damaged, neither physically nor visually and there was no tech chat reporting that anything was wrong with the plane. Yet the behaviour of the plane was odd to say the least. The elevator acted as if some artificial input was added to it every few seconds. It wasn't that the elevator became less effective than before - which would have made sense as it carried quite a bunch of holes. It's hard to describe... I tried to approach the same 111 again, but all of a sudden, the MiG-3 pitched up significantly. I had to counter this with a whole lot of elevator input - actually I had to push the stick forward half the way through. Further into that approach, all of a sudden, the MiG-3 pitched down significantly. Again, I had to counter this with a whole lot of elevator input - actually I had to pull the stick forward half the way through this time. That same progress repeated until touchdown, the whole way through, for about 15 minutes - every few seconds, violent pitch change in the opposite direction than before. At the same time, the rudder - which showed worse damage than the elevator - was working fine all the time. Please see a damage picture and a video showing what I've encountered below. First two approaches are without damage. Elevator works fine. Next two approaches and landing are with damage. Don't think I'd been doing fancy things here like stalling the plane or intentionally pulling up or down. I didn't lose my ability to fly the MiG-3 all of a sudden either. I've just tried to fly smooth, straight, level. The violent pitch you see there isn't me - I'm in fact busy like hell to counter it, otherwise I would have stalled and looped around like hell. Mike
  2. Hi guys, Is it just me or is the HUD overlay showing wrong numbers for the BK ammo on the MiG-3? Had a sortie with it yesterday and when the guns were all empty, the BK wing guns still showed 372 (or so... don't remember the precise number) bullets available. Mike
  3. Hi guys, I'm sure this has been discussed a few hundred times before, but I don't wanna become guilty of thread necromancy so just let me ask: Are there any plans to fix the weird parachute physics at some point? Currently they keep floating through the air as if they were using a paraglider with superpowers. This is a He-111 crew member who bailed out like two minutes before: Mike
  4. Isn't that exactly what I wrote? Mike
  5. Watched this video yesterday. Granted, it's a Yak-9U and it's using a different engine (Allison V-1710). But that's not the point. The Yak-9U is close enough to the Yak-9T so this one fits more or less. What I wanna say is that watching the loops performed here at relatively high speed (particularly on the downswing), I can't help myself but to think that in IL-2 I'd run into the ground with a blackout when I attempt to do the same. Mike
  6. We must take into account that the specs of those who are posting their settings differ a lot. We've got different graphics cards - for instance @216th_LuseKofte's GTX 1080 ti is supposed to give 150% better frame rate than my GTX 970. We've got different screens - for instance @216th_LuseKofte is running the game in FullHD (1920x1080) resolution, I'm running the game at WQHD (2560x1440); when I set the resolution to 1920x1080 instead, I can max out everything as well without falling below 60FPS. After having changed a whole lot of settings, I conclude that: Clouds Quality "Extreme" + MSAA really kills FPS in my particular case at WQHD resolution. Changing any of these parameters (lower clouds quality or use FXAA or lower screen resolution) makes FPS go back normal. HDR on my particular screen (Acer Predator XB271HUbmiprz with IPS panel) looks extremely overexposed and cartoonish Any other settings is rather a matter of taste to me... Mike
  7. Yes back in the days of 2.something. Has been fixed long time since. Smooth yes. Spotting... I suck big times at spotting, regardless what settings. Gtx 970, latest driver (446.14 at the time of writing this) Mike
  8. Sure. Nvidia Control Panel settings are driver default globally, and game specific driver default again, except for: energy mode= prefer maximum performance latency mode = ultra Texture Quality = High Quality Trilinear Optimization = Off Vertical Sync = On Mike
  9. That actually looks cool, in a way. Can we have that as an optional feature please? 😎 Mike
  10. Thanks Otto but you know, it's not lack of money, it's my willingness to invest 😉 That being said, others are probably more in need of a good GPU. Now after a couple more tests, it turns out that since the 4.006c update my GTX 970 is very sensitive to the "Clouds quality" setting. I've had it on "Extreme" all the time since that setting came out and had zero issues with that, FPS was always fine. Now since 4.006c, "Extreme" and "Heavy" clouds is a no-go. Something must have changed with that patch. I can now get my good FPS back by simply setting "Clouds quality" to "High" - in that case MSAA works well again also. TL;DR: GTX 970 test values online, crowded place, "Heavy" clouds. 4x FXAA + Clouds Quality "Extreme" = 90+ FPS 2x MSAA + Clouds Quality "Extreme" = 20-30 FPS 4x MSAA + Clouds Quality "High" = 90+ FPS It's the combination of MSAA, "extreme" and "heavy" clouds that kills it. Note though, this combination worked well up to 4.006b. No big deal for me. Can't see much difference between "high" and "extreme" clouds anyway - as much as I love this game, clouds are simply cooked up big times. Mike
  11. Quite possible. My trusty rusty GTX 970 has 4GB "only", of which 3.5GB are really usable (the old issue with the last 512MB being connected with half the bandwidth only). Mike
  12. To me the MSAA FPS impact is strongly related to the clouds being used. With no clouds, MSAA performs almost as well as FXAA, but the more clouds, the worse it gets. With heavy clouds and lots of activity in the "visible bubble", MSAA becomes a stutter-fest, whereas FXAA is still working brilliant. Mike
  13. In my case (GTX 970, 27'' WQHD G-Sync screen) the performance impact in MSAA mode, even only at 2x MSAA, is so massive with heavy clouds that there's literally no other option than using FXAA. I'm not talking about a loss of 10 FPS or so. I'm talking about 90 FPS in 4x FXAA mode vs. 20 FPS with 2x MSAA. Mike
  14. Thanks for all your feedback guys It's just the first excuse for what happened that came to my mind. Plus a little bit of investigation from updating a couple of old mods lately, which for instance revealed this in the AP bullet's code (this is from the russian 12.7x108mm AP bullet as example, but all AP bullets ingame seem to have the same): DestroyOnExplosion=false //используется только для бронебойных пуль (default =true) с целью обеспечить применение Hit..Effect вместо Hit.., при сохранении пробоя препятствия на вылет //что в свою очередь требуется для "прицепления" эффектов попадания по движущейся технике, а так же гарантированной передаче попаданий в сетевой игре The russian text translated says "is used only for armor-piercing bullets (default = true) in order to ensure the use of Hit..Effect instead of Hit .., while maintaining the breakdown of the obstacle on the fly which in turn is required to "hook" the effects of hitting a moving vehicle , as well as guaranteed transfer of hits in the multiplayer game". Makes me wonder whether it's a good idea to have that set to "false" on all AP bullets, or whether the explanation doesn't match the real state of the game anymore. For those who mentioned common networking or server issues: Our Server is a dedicated Server hosted in a Datacenter in Germany. OS is Windows Server 2016. CPU is Intel Core i7-4770 @3.8GHz It has 32 GB RAM, 2x2TB HDD (Raid 1), 1GBit/s network connection non-clocked. This thing is a real beast, not the "Layman's solution". It takes real money to operate it and the only other thing running on that server is IL-2 1946, where we have no network issues at all. My ping to the server is 40ms. Can't say what @Myp3uk's ping was. Talking about network hit issues, lag, IL-2 1946 and the technical impossibility to solve such issues or the presence of the same in other games: As a long-time modder of IL-2 1946 who went down to the inner core and particularly to the network code of that game, I can definitely say that such things will not and cannot happen there, because 1946 uses a pretty simple yet effective approach to transferring network hits: The hit itself - meaning whether you hit something and if so, where you hit it - is solely being calculated on client side at the "shooters" client. The damage caused by the hit - be it simpy an AP bullet punch or an explosion from HE rounds - is solely being calculated on client side at the "targets" client. This is completely independent of ping times, lag, jitter or any such thing. And it's inherently safe from packet loss as the game uses "guaranteed" packets for this, which means the receiver has to acknowledge the packet or it will be resent almost immediately, and if the receiver fails to ack such packet multiple times, he'll get kicked off the server. That being said, shooting in 1946 is like "if the shooter sees a hit, then it is a hit, and the hit is precisely where the shooter sees it", and "the damage is calculated by the client of the one who got shot", simple as that. I'm not saying this scheme was perfect. It does have it's shortcomings, e.g. the victim might think he's safe from getting hit but the shooter still scores hits, especially in case of large ping times, and not to forget the efforts you have to put into this to make it safe from cheats to a certain extent... IL-2 Great Battles seems (can't say for sure, can't look into game's network code) to use some approximation like "shooter sends to server a bullet launch from gun index n" and the rest is being calculated by the server - but the server could use a different location/direction/speed of the participating clients than any of the clients does, thus lag/jitter comes into play big times. And since every packet in GB seems to be UDP, any packet loss would be just that, unless there's some other layer of acknowledgements on top. Mike
  15. Hi guys, I thought I'd share this with you, since every now and then complaints about the inefficiency of certain weapons arise and as a rule of thumbs, if "evidence" is provided from online/multiplayer incidents, devs won't accept them. Reason is that odd results from bullet impacts online are credited to shortcomings in IL-2 GB's net code, instead of the alleged relation to general issues with the weapon itself. I've been playing IL-2 GB quite a while now, and usually when I thought that a bullet hit would not show the expected results, it was because it was underperforming to a notable degree. I always thought that the general denial of complaints from multiplayer events was a bit too drastic, but what I've witnessed today indeed makes me believe that net code has a massive (and not quite desirable) effect on bullet performance. And I'm saying so as the one who had the "benefit" from such odd occurance. This was me trying to scare @Myp3uk when I was chasing him down with Fw 190 A-8, with me flying in a Yak 9 ser.1 behind him. From about 500 meters distance, I squeezed the trigger very briefly two times just to make him move and bleed some energy, but instead... well, see for yourself. I've watched this scene from every possible angle, looked for muzzle flashes and tracers, and the only conclusion I could come to was that it's apparently been a single 12.7mm AP bullet from the UBS gun that impacted slightly behind the cockpit, on the right side of the fuselage, at an angle where you'd expect it to simply bounce off the plane's skin - which was not what happened. Sorry to @Myp3uk for this incident, he surely didn't deserve to get blown out of the sky by net code glitches like this. Edit: Yes I know there's a P-38 right behind me... didn't notice him while I was flying, it's one of those incidents where AI just starts chasing down the same plane like you just did for countless minutes, and of course AI completely ignores the player's presence. Few seconds later, AI would probably have blown me out of the skies or simply run into me. For the sake of completeness, this multiplayer sortie took place on our own server, RTT was 40ms, the server was not overloaded at all, so no good excuse for such strange results. Mike
  16. I can confirm this and even more so, regardless what mixture setting I tried, there doesn't seem to be a "right" one. Any altitude, any mixture setting, constant "adjust mixture" warnings. What I'm doing now is to lean my head out of the window before taxiing, and lean the mixture until there's no exhaust smoke anymore, and then a tad back further. At altitude, whenever I sense some smoke trails, I repeat the progress. Quite like with the FC kites - which fits, at least if you take the default gunsight into account Mike
  17. Version 1.02 has been uploaded at SAS, see 1st post for link. Changes: FC Plane Notes added, special thanks to @Charlo-VR for providing his personal notes where these ones are based upon! Mike
  18. Straight from the GTPs: // Варианты подвески вооружения AmmunitionArg=12900 [Ammunition=0] WeaponModes=0 AnimationVal=0.0 name="0-UB-APHE-200 + 1-NS37-APHE-30" GunAmmunition0=0 GunAmmunition1=1 Bomb0=-1 PrimaryAimingGun=1 [end] [Ammunition=1] WeaponModes=0 AnimationVal=0.0 name="0-UB-APHE-200 + 1-NS37-AP-30" GunAmmunition0=0 GunAmmunition1=2 Bomb0=-1 PrimaryAimingGun=1 [end] [Ammunition=2] WeaponModes=0 AnimationVal=0.0 name="0-UB-APHE-200 + 1-NS37-HE-30" GunAmmunition0=0 GunAmmunition1=3 Bomb0=-1 PrimaryAimingGun=1 [end] DefaultAmmunition=0 // Зарядка пулеметов [GunAmmunition=0] // 133 бронебойных и 67 разрывных пуль 12.7х108 (к пулемету УБ) ExpendableMass = 14.2 ResidualMass = 20.8 MaxMisFiresInMagazine=0 MaxRoundsInMagazine=200 RoundsInMagazine=200 ReservedMagazines=0 AmountRoundsWithOneTracer=4 // каждая 4-я пуля с трассером TracerIdx=0 object0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_RUS_12-7x108_AP.txt" object1="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_RUS_12-7x108_HE.txt" object2="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_RUS_12-7x108_AP.txt" target0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_RUS_12-7x108_AP.bin" target1="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_RUS_12-7x108_HE.bin" target2="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_RUS_12-7x108_AP.bin" BushConfig = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Trash/Batch_case12-20mm.txt" [end] [GunAmmunition=1] // 15 бронебойных и 15 осколочно-фугасных снарядов 37x198 (к пушке НС-37) ExpendableMass = 22.50 ResidualMass = 31.35 MaxMisFiresInMagazine=0 MaxRoundsInMagazine=30 RoundsInMagazine=30 ReservedMagazines=0 AmountRoundsWithOneTracer=2 // каждая 2-я пуля с трассером object0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_37x198_AP.txt" object1="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_37x198_HE.txt" target0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_37x198_AP.bin" target1="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_37x198_HE.bin" BushConfig = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Trash/Batch_case30-37mm.txt" [end] [GunAmmunition=2] // 30 бронебойных снарядов 37x198 (к пушке НС-37) ExpendableMass = 53.85 ResidualMass = 0 MaxMisFiresInMagazine=0 MaxRoundsInMagazine=30 RoundsInMagazine=30 ReservedMagazines=0 AmountRoundsWithOneTracer=2 // каждая 2-я пуля с трассером object0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_37x198_AP.txt" target0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_37x198_AP.bin" BushConfig = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Trash/Batch_case30-37mm.txt" [end] [GunAmmunition=3] // 30 осколочно-фугасных снарядов 37x198 (к пушке НС-37) ExpendableMass = 53.85 ResidualMass = 0 MaxMisFiresInMagazine=0 MaxRoundsInMagazine=30 RoundsInMagazine=30 ReservedMagazines=0 AmountRoundsWithOneTracer=2 // каждая 2-я пуля с трассером object0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_37x198_HE.txt" target0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_37x198_HE.bin" BushConfig = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Trash/Batch_case30-37mm.txt" [end] Read: Mixed is 2:1 mixed (2 AP per 1 HE) on the ShVAK and 1:1 mixed on the NS37, AP is AP only and HE is HE only, as expected. Mike
  19. Okay thanks, that's understood. Sorry for mistaking your previous reply for a request Mike
  20. Thanks for the respect. After having been told that a little tree branch could obliterate the 37 shell's impulse and not having plain accepted such, I probably belong to that crowd in your opinion too? I rather suspect that it's much more about the usual personal preference what's being discussed here. When the 262 came up, lufties were all over the place about the lack of speed and lack of destruction of the 108s. And allies tried to explain to them how all this was just the way it's supposed to be. Allies keep complaining about P-47 flight model and now about the lack of 37's AP power, and guess what? Lufties try to explain to them how all this was just the way it's supposed to be. If anything is really boring about the ongoing debates and - partly, sadly - belittling coming along with them to "support" the arguments, is bias. That's what I could really do without in future. Thanks. Mike
  21. No I'm not gonna do this. Let me tell you why: You might think it's just about replacing one font with another, but it's much more. All elements on each and every pilot's note for each and every aircraft in each and every favour shipped with this mod have to be re-aligned both vertically and horizontally once you touch the font. I'm not gonna do all this work for a font that looks as Scheiße and as misplaced for this mod like "Bahnschrift". Seriously: No, no and once again: No. Mike
  22. That's so wrong in so many ways... How come you think you'd be more entitled to consider a flight model being realistic above anyone else? The simple physics indeed indicate that something with lots of power and high mass to drag ratio should dive faster. You seem to believe the opposite - it's all yours, your opinion, have fun with it. The pilot who flew both a P-47 in real life and the one in our game had fun with it and he found that the general feeling was right. That's fine with me. What he probably never did in real life was to fly the plane - and in particular it's engine - to it's very limits. But that's what we do here all the time, in contrast to airshow planes which are rarely even flown to continuous max power settings for obvious reasons. Our P-47 accelerates as if you'd try to keep it airworthy for another 30 years - yes, in that regard, it seems fine. Nice airshow kite. It's being outperformed in every single way by the plane it superseded in ETO, the P-38. Tell me this: Has the USAAF been all nuts when they put the P-47 into service in favour of the P-38? Mike
  23. You've spotted a typo so I'll declare you my personal hero of the day. Did that in 4.005d (online, just for reference): Mike
×
×
  • Create New...