Jump to content

HappyHaddock

Members
  • Content Count

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

703 Excellent

About HappyHaddock

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Cloud cuckoo land

Recent Profile Visitors

752 profile views
  1. Given the wide variation in possibilities with the clouds I've found with my own work that getting any kind of consistent comparison to test frame rate isn't easy so I'd be curious to know exactly what/how much you've tested against what to arrive at any particular percentage change? Has this been a systematic like for like before/after test of each sky.ini file using missions prepared through the mission editor, or simply comparisons of whatever settings came up next through general game-play as I've found (and mentioned before) that within about +/- 5% is kind of the variation you get with the stock clouds anyway so without strict regulation/definition of a base line control it's very easy to get very different results each time you run such tests.
  2. Cheers but I think we were both aware of their being rain applied in the stock settings, the issue was more about getting the sim to apply those effects without having to accept the overcast clouds based upon flat textures
  3. Like you I've tried various options relating to precipitation but the code doesn't seem to produce rain in game, so I was kinda hoping you might figure that one out as it seems hard coded into the flat 2d cloud templates. However I'd adopted the approach of motoadve of deciding overcast doesn't mean the same as raining so use different approaches for different end results.
  4. Don't be too sure of that when I started tinkering with ROF about 5 years ago I didn't think I'd be getting into things as much as I have, but I'm now trying to be disciplined about finishing what I have started before moving onto learning more programming languages to tackle things I'm adding to my "to-do" list.
  5. @rowdyb00t back in July when you first messaged me asking how I was going about producing my own WIP efforts to overhaul the look of the natural world in this sim, and subsequently when you started this, your own thread about your own efforts I "welcomed you to the slippery slope" of interconnected factors that leads from one thing to another. Since then I've periodically checked back in here to see if you've discovered anything new I could "borrow" for my own work; it's been interesting to watch you follow more or less exactly the same steps I myself was taking a year or more ago, starting with the "low hanging fruit", more recently moving onto creating new cloud maps to replace some of the flat 2D overcast clouds with 3D particle based ones... it makes a huge difference doesn't it? If you continue down the same path as myself I suspect your next steps may be those that offer the biggest potential for improvement but at the same point some of the most demanding work fine tuning and balancing things. Any way I wish you well with your endeavours as I continue with my own. To date the 300-400 files I'm currently working on for the on the clouds comprise less than a third of everything I'm trying to work into my own project, though with close to 5GB of "clutter" spread across various experiments it is taking some whittling down and unifying. Who knows the slow progress I'm making trying turn all this into a suite of balanced mods might mean that by the time it is ready, then in one way or another you'll have covered a good chunk of similar content with your own efforts and we'll end up meeting on some sort of common ground in the middle!
  6. The devs have said repeatedly from the start that we should not expect heavy bombers in IL-2, partly because of the amount of AI coding/processing power to model all the crew/gunners in a single aircraft and partly because nobody wants to see a single heavy bomber flying on its own; they operate in large formations massively increasing both the overall development effort to program such things and the subsequent processing demands to then run all this code. With the devs having announced both a pre and post invasion map of Normandy it seems inconceivable that they won't attempt some sort of portrayal of the D-day landings, yet large warships with all their heavy guns and smaller MG's and AA will surely be at least as AI intensive as heavy bombers, plus to model the D-day landings you will not just need several warships but loads of supply ships and smaller landing craft just to give a hint of how much was going on. All of which could lead to much speculation about how the AI and game engine will cope? Moving from the realms of plausible speculation to hopeless fantasy we can say that WWI was a conflict that cost millions their lives and where thousands died in no-mans land during single battles. Given that in Flying Circus we can fly over the front line without ever witnessing any foot soldiers, and that the Normandy beaches could be viewed as a similar environment in which thousands of soldiers were fighting to claim a long narrow strip of land, dare we speculate that some attempt may be made to better model a ground war? With DCS already having released content for Normandy direct comparison will inevitably be made, where it seems unlikely that the devs would attempt this if they didn't feel confident they could offer something better than their competitors... all of which leads to two rather obvious questions. 1)Given what we know about the ability (inability?) of the current game engine to handle large numbers of different units how might what we have cope with modelling the D-day landings? 2)Given the likely answers to question1 how far might people be willing to speculate in terms of possible improvements that might be made to increase the above, especially given that modern CPUs are going ever higher with available cores and threads? Answers to the above will, of course, be idle speculation but dare we dream?
  7. I don't profess to be a great pilot so was pretty pleased to have brought down a Halb CLII without the rear gunner seemingly landing a single shot on me, but for the few minutes following I had a niggling feeling that I couldn't quite put my finger on that something was, if not "wrong" with my camel, somehow different. Consequently I started looking around for signs of damage or obvious smoking, leaks or vapour trails but all looked good. I eventually identified my "concern" as the fact that although my engine didn't sound "bad" and possibly not even "different", I could persuade myself there was a somehow unfamiliar hint of a whine to it. Engine revs seemed more or less OK though perhaps a whisker below what I'd expect but things were running fine, I tried tweaking the fuel mixture but anything more resulted in spluttering and clouds of black smoke from running too rich so I returned settings to where they had been and carried on. Had it been my car in real life I'd have thought to myself I must get the garage to check this out just to be on the safe side, but forgotten about doing anything about it by the time I'd got home. As it was a further 10minutes or so into my flight the engine on my camel spluttered and died leaving me to glide down to land in a suitable field. That a combat flight simulator should model battle damage from combat and/or stress failures from overworking an engine is not surprising, that it should model progressive failure is not news but still a sign of a quality product, but that it should communicate such things in such a subtle manner as to leave you wondering if a stray bullet did hit your engine, or whether you just over-revved/heated it slightly at some point earlier when engaged dogfighting speaks highly of the real quality of the game engine behind Flying Circus. I've said it before and will say it again, there are many "flight simulators" out there that offer endlessly complex button pushing scenarios with vast amounts of digital data being relayed back to banks of cockpit instrumentation, simulators producing bold and dramatic visual effects for catastrophic failures. However for me the real test of any flight simulator is how well it can convey the "feeling" of flying an aircraft without relying on any of that; something that can be very subjective and reliant upon a myriad of subtle and easily overlooked factors. I don't know how subtle some of the sound effects in FC can be or if it was other factors that psychologically convinced me that my engine sounded different, but what ever it was it had that magic ability to create a sense of immersion without ever giving away which "strings were being pulled behind the scenes" in order to do so.
  8. Given the complexities of the modern world I doubt it would be possible even if you wanted to... To cut a long story short my sister is a high achieving exec. in the world of finance based in the city of London. She had a disagreement with the Inland Revenue over the fact they had significantly UNDER calculated her annual income tax bill; she said she didn't want inconveniencing or harassing for the extra money later on in the year when they realised their mistake so she told them that even if the government/tax office didn't think she owed it, she still wanted to "voluntarily" pay them "extra" tax now just to make her life easier later on... They couldn't cope with that and refused to accept the over-payment because they didn't have a system to cope with it.
  9. Well I've not seen any mention of a proposed price for MS Flight Sim 2020 when it releases, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Microsoft are financially far more secure than the team behind IL-2. Nevertheless I'd be very surprised that even with a vastly bigger customer base for their new Flight sim they will still end up charging a lot more... Given the way so much is going with software I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't possible to "buy" MS flight sim 2020 but that you end up paying some inflated monthly subscription fee to access it, a monthly fee that could easily dwarf anything we pay here if actually worked out on a "per hour" basis of enjoyment on investment. What constitutes affordable or good value will always vary from person to person based upon their own circumstances and interests but as others have said compared to other flight sims out there IL-2 is definitely one of the more affordable current generation of flight sims. (as if that is a huge pool to compare against!)
  10. The old pricing structure goes back through several previous titles, maybe it is simply a case that the devs have finally decided to add on a bit to allow for a few years inflation. Many things cost more than they did five or six years ago. Edit @AndyJWestSeems we both posted the same comment simultaneously
  11. It has always been present to a pretty minor degree, I'm just not sure if it has actually got stronger, or simply looks more pronounced on account of other problems appearing less distracting?
  12. My first thought upon seeing that map was that it covered pretty much the ground covered by the maps in ROF (plus a lot more) ... so here's hoping as back-dating a map has to be much easier than creating it from scratch
  13. well I've no particular interest in WWII and always said that possibly the only thing that might tempt me out of the cockpit of the sopwith camel would be a mossie… Is it a sign of weakness to give in?
  14. I know the devs have talked about tweaking the way distant aircraft are rendered against clouds so I'm wondering how much others have noticed the following after today's update? To me at least it looks as if there is now a more pronounced white halo around the edge of distant aircraft, not a problem or even noticeable in front of white clouds, but during evening/twilight missions when the clouds are in shadow and quite dark it become more obvious, plus when aircraft are sufficiently distant as to drop out of view altogether there still seems to be a clear white glow in their location until they have flown even further away. I know many will welcome any improvements that stop pixelated aircraft flickering in and out of view but are others noticing this?
  15. I may be sounding like a stuck record here as I've said this many times before but the real challenge with changing any one thing within the look of the natural world in this sim is that it can impact on so many others; both from a technical point of view through shared parameters within the coding, but also from a perception point of view as the human eye/brain cannot judge things in isolation but only through how they contrast with others around them. This is why you really need to address changing everything to maintain balance as if you simply change one thing you are affectively pushing the problem somewhere else rather than eliminating it.... In many cases the things that can look like problems are often the parts that are most accurate and life like simply being spoiled by the look of others around them. A lot of addressing issues with the lighting in this sim can be counter intuitive, whereby you can get better results not by lightning the thing that looks too dark. but by darkening the stuff around it if it is everything else that is actually too light.
×
×
  • Create New...