Jump to content

mpdugas

Members
  • Content Count

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

About mpdugas

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

634 profile views
  1. The launcher's "Settings" tab includes an option to use VR before you enter the sim itself.
  2. That was both entertaining and well-done!
  3. Well, there's conventional SLI/Crossfire, (Nvidia/AMD) which all of the IL-2 titles support. It allows two GPU to work together to produce the final image shown on a monitor. It generally produces fps increases in the order of 25% or so, but certainly not double what one good GPU can produce. All VR HMD use the video subsystem's output to create the images on their HMD screens, so if SLI/Crossfire improves monitor imagery by increasing output fps, which just goes to the monitor like the output of a single GPU, then it should also do so in an HMD. Therefore, conventional SLI/Crossfire should speed up the VR HMD display. However, there is another technology that assigns each GPU of a pair of GPUs to one of the HMD screens. It's called LiquidVR (by AMD) or VRWorks, if by Nvidia. It uses one GPU to drive one HMD screen, and the other to drive the second HMD screen. Currently, the GBS graphics engine is not written to support either of those technologies, but the API is free for the developers to use. All VR headsets support the output from these technologies. In my VR setup, no GPU card is connected directly to the HMD. I'm in the process of building a system for SLI which I believe will benefit my VR experience. Eventually, if the VRWorks gets implemented, then my VR HMD will benefit from that, too. I do not know, however, how SLI/Crossfire and the VR twin-GPU technologies work together: VRWorks does not require a bridge to connect the two GPUs like SLI does. See, e.g. https://www.vrheads.com/can-i-use-both-graphics-cards-vr and https://developer.nvidia.com/vrworks/graphics/vrsli and https://devblogs.nvidia.com/vr-sli-accelerating-opengl-virtual-reality-multi-gpu-rendering/ for a good read on these technologies.
  4. watch the video; the plane's textures change rapidly from one scene to the next, depending on the draw distance...
  5. I'm guessing that all those texture changes upset your landing trim...
  6. Wildcat vs Hurricane vs LAGG3 is a pretty good match-up...
  7. No need to be so negative; I've bought all of RoF's content, and all of GBS content thus far, so I'm not grandstanding. It's unkind and mean-spirited of you to say so. If you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all. It's not unwarranted to be hopeful and cheerful about the prospect of RoF in VR or WWI in VR. I've enjoyed FC1 immensely. But I knew FC1 was an investment in a possibility; I'd pay the same again for RoF with VR. I'm not saying do more than change RoF to DX11, so that it supports VR; leave its graphics engine as it is; it's quite nice even now and has wonderful atmospherics. RoF also has plenty of content as is, and I like its graphics engine. I don't believe that you have to rewrite the whole thing to enable VR. RoF is already 64 bit. The only thing that might have to happen is to tweak some of the aircraft models to hide holes, etc. Sure, WWI aircraft in the GBS environment would be nice, but it is not necessary. That was the whole premise of FC1, which may still generate FC2, etc., hopefully. But if not, then: https://www.gamedev.net/forums/topic/685102-porting-dx9-to-dx10-or-later-how-hard/ No need to be so sarcastic; why the hate? It's obvious that 1C/777 wanted to open up GBS to WWI, but if sales of FC1 don't support that, then a paid upgrade of RoF to DX11 is the next best thing. It's cheaper, and they can profit from a renewed interest in RoF. I see that as way better than just abandoning RoF in its present state. I've long since tossed "head tracking" in the bin; it's an obsolete, contrarian tech.
  8. The following all falls under the category of wishful thinking, not a debate or demand, about changes I'd be willing to pay for: "They’re porting it to FC." Well, maybe. "If Flying Circus proves popular we can eventually fire up the Great War assembly line and break out the canvas and timber once again to make some new crates!" The only thing clear is that the transformation of RoF assets to GBS will happen if, and only if, sales of FC1 warrant; so that decision is not yet final. I mean, that's what they've said so far. Unless, of course, I have missed a very important announcement somewhere saying otherwise. 1C/777 have not addressed the future of RoF should FC1 not generate enough interest in continued development. Nor should they have. They've only made clear that the future of FC2, etc. depend on sales of FC1. If I'm wrong about that, if something has been said otherwise, then please be kind enough to link that statement. However, if FC1 sales don't pan out, and thus FC2, etc. are not forthcoming, then there is nothing said, anywhere, that precludes refreshing the existing RoF. It is not an either/or situation as you frame it. I have hope, that's all. RoF's a pretty valuable commodity, and lots of folks have invested money in it. I know that I have, and I continue to enjoy it. Nonetheless, I, for one, would be more than willing to pay for an update to RoF, as it stands today, that would permit VR use, for example. Transforming RoF to DX11 should be far cheaper than porting all of it to GBS, so it could be a less expensive alternative to FC2, etc. I've said before, I'm buying all the content that 1C/777 produce with the hope that GBS and the producers continue to prosper. I like this GBS sim. I like RoF. I like VR very much. Fin.
  9. Maybe it would be simpler and cheaper to port RoF to DX11 and the IL-2 graphics engine, then clean up any serious bugs left from the original RoF. The aircraft models could be tidied up over time, but at least a better graphics experience and VR would be immediately available.
  10. I have not seen any comments by real-life pilots and how their experience in the normal flying world relates to what we see in-game. I suspect that many have weighed in. Can anyone link what real pilots have to say about how IL-2 in-game visuals compare to real-world visibility??
  11. secret test of playable B-25...
  12. Using TacView, which is free, is a brilliant idea for showing a problem. Makes it really clear.
  13. This is an utterly ingenious way to illustrate a problem. In the same track, what did the wingman do as the mission evolved? Land or return to earlier flight plan?
×
×
  • Create New...