Jump to content

SqwkHappy

Members
  • Content Count

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Excellent

About SqwkHappy

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    It's spelled Whisky
  1. Every single career I have played, whether I set the (density?) option to Dense or Scattered, and I've been playing on Scattered lately, no matter what, I get a mission where everything is in slow motion. I checked to see if I accidentally hit the time accel/deccel buttons, I did not. my FPS is fine, running between 40-60 FPS like normal. Sound is normal, everything is normal except everything is moving really, really slow. I thought upgrading to an i7-4770 would resolve this issue but it has not. I know it's not the BEST i7 out there, but it's still an i7 and a good one. So what gives? Anybody else have this issue in careers??? I've always had it happen to me at some point in all of my (short-lived) careers in IL2.
  2. Yup. I saw a few people reporting that in chat last night. Not a good sign.
  3. Here's a fact for you: On Combat Box I dove on what looked like A Tempest, I had the G-4 with the cannon, about 4-6 rounds down range and both his wings were ripped off. It was my first volley of hits. I'm reviewing ww2 gun cam footage and I'm going to say... Hm.... I've noticed a severe lack of big white puffs of smoke from cannon round hits.
  4. I agree. My issue with the Ace AI is that they will continually cross in front of you, giving you easy shots, and stay in front of you until you've shot them down or they've run far enough away you have to turn and they will come back around. I setup a 109 G-4 against four p51s and they would continuously get on my six with easy shots, not shoot, then pull in front of me for an easy shot on them. I've taken some damage, but not once did they ever take me out of the fight the way a 4 v 1 should have. For comparison, RoF AI decimate me with only 2 aces. The only thing the Ace AI does right is when their plane has a power advantage it stays fast. In a 1v1 or 1v2, The Ace AI are really easy to put into an h.scissor and win because they wont pull the G's or maneuver to win it. They do sometimes run away. The Ace AI in a p39 vs G-4 is sad. Even with a few snap / quick shots available to it, the AI refused to shoot, could have easily ended the fight for me and then is quickly tricked into letting me behind it as it turns a very slow turn which you easily keep up with using a small lag turn then come down on it with a lead turn and an easy shot because you don't have to lead it. That being said, I'm glad they have a guy working on the AI. AI is tough. I can't even do A* pathfinding AI and that's your "Hello World" algorithm when it comes to AI.
  5. I played combat box last night where it was morning, dark on one side of the map, light on the other. and I could spot every plane. I thought for a second they updated the game. Then, Of course, I ran a quick mission and during day time operations it's still near impossible to see a plane until it's on you, or be the one lucky enough to catch a glimpse of a 128,130,130 colored pixel running along 140,140,120 like-colored pixels. I'm thinking maybe no hardcoded color is good, but an inverse of the background colors would stand out. Explained: If the pixels behind plane are dark, the plane's colors are turned to light and vice versa, using simple math to do it. that way no matter what the background is, the plane will stand out as a way to augment how spotting planes in real life is much, much easier than in a sim looking at pixels from a small screen compared to the massive view and accuracy we get with our eyes. I was not at all impressed or totally convinced by my demonstration, and I blame a lack of effects being applied to the model and landscape details I'm not about to spend a month on to mimic IL2s environment. If only the devs were paying attention tho. There are solutions that don't involve mucking up the scale.
  6. Sometimes... Developing is hard. Creating a "simple" dialogue menu system without fancy stuff like scrolling and embedded objects will take you at least a day to get going and mostly tested. Even the best developers and designers get stuck in a project. Not for a lack of talent, skill or knowledge. It's fatigue. The brain refuses to come up with new ideas until you take a three week vacation and the thought of programming doesn't make you want to cry / break stuff anymore. Even then getting your muse back is a task in itself... Anyway, these are digressions to the topic. I have run a mockup 3D landscape with a simple plane shaped object floating around. In one version the "plane" has it's ambient color set to full ambient color, in the other it is set to black. I'm unable to scale the ambient color against the distance of the camera because coppercube3d, unlike the engine it is created from (irrlicht) It is very, very limited in it's functionality. Attached are two screenshots from higher-altitude than the target. I'm still for scaling the ambient color of AC and vehicle models to near zero beyond a certain distance because a black dot is _always_ easier to see, whereas whatever color you may get from the texture at that distance could be anything and usually will get mixed in with the background. Of course in real life, camouflage was used intentionally to disguise a plane at a distance as a piece of the landscape or sky. The reason I think using that logic in IL2 is flawed is because we do not have the same visibility in IL2 looking into a monitor or VR headset versus the view of your eyes. Eyes win every time. So we have to come up with little tricks to increase visibility from a monitor / VR headset. However, I am firmly against changing the way things scale to achieve higher vis to get a SA that is closer to your real skill level. I also firmly believe that scaling the ambient color for the models, as well as disabling any fancy texture mapping techniques such as specular reflectivity, diffuse mapping, etc, etc.. Once the AC / vehicle has reached a certain distance those effects are not only a useless burden on the CPU & GPU ( why do we need effects on a small clump of pixels? ), but also cause issues with visibility because the GPU will ultimately return a few pixels that blend in well with it's surroundings. You may no be as convinced from the screenshots of my mockup, but also remember I have no effect techniques running on the model, and the environment is very, very simple compared to IL2. I may next take a few screenshots in il2 from various alts and superimpose the "small clump of pixels" on the images and post the results here as well to try an mimic the actual environment better. Without access to models and the effects on them in-game, I have to wing it. Here is the video of the mockup I performed. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kd6Wn58wC3WKFwMwcurQNCNSxIXh3S2e/view?usp=sharing
  7. Yeah, thanks. I updated the post to acknowledge that feature. I also edited it again to make it part of the procedure itself. I use the new layer from visible as well so I don't have to muck around with anything else, but who knows what some people may prefer.
  8. It is very frustrating because I've been buying IL2 since the 1946 edition, I bought CoD, I bought BoS and BoM and Kuban. If I wasn't forced to buy FC from the website's store I would have zero bars because my intent was to buy FC in steam. Would be nice if the devs/whoever would get that sorted out sooner than later. I've got a few years of proud badge displaying I've been refused because of it.
  9. I've looked around and when people talk about skinning in GIMP they always say export DDS using DXT5 and that is confusing because GIMP's DDS exporter has about four different DXT5 compression options. Anyway, so here is a quick run down of how I managed to get a skin to look right in the viewer from GIMP. --> Load the psd file, select KEEP when it whines about the color profile. --> Save it as GIMP's file format, xcf --> Do your skinning --> Choices: Flatten Image (resist the CTRL-S urge but if you can't, do a quick Save As) (right click in the layer list to bring up options and look for this one) or New Layer From Visible (recommended) (right click in the layer list to bring up options and look for this one) --> Right click on the layer you just made, select Add Layer Mask, choose the bottom radio button for Channel, "Alpha 1" should be there already. NOTE!! -- The "Alpha 1" channel is from the psd file. You shouldn't have to create it. --> Make sure your image layer is selected (click the preview of it in the layers list and a border will show around it ) --> Export As (filename.dds) --> DDS export options I set: - Compression set to BC3 / DXT5 - Mimaps set to Generate Mipmaps --> That's it. Troubleshooting: -- If GIMP shows errors about a drawable surface, that means you did not select your layer in the layer list. Select it, problem solved. -- If the model viewer seems to be refusing to update the skin, it's most likely the viewer, close it and restart it. If that doesn't work, then it's your skin. -- GIMP is also problematic at times. If everything you do is causing errors / not doing what the procedure says it should be doing, restart GIMP.
  10. People complaining about the k4s and Tempests and I'm over here flying my p40, G-2s and G-4s at 40fps.. Being outmatched and shot down every sortie is a normal thing. You guys have got it good.
  11. Brief description: Sopwith Camel does not have a glide path for landingDetailed description, conditions: When landing the Sopwith, unlike in RoF, the Sopwith can not be put into a proper glide path for landing. It will float at 48 mph and greater, maintaining altitude the entire time. Less than 48mph (closer to 45mph from testing) and you have a dangerous wingtip dip and stall at that speed, that's not how you should lose altitude You are unable to lose speed and altitude at the same time, you are not able to maintain speed (50-55mph) and lose altitude without nosing down and gaining speed. In RoF you would be able to slight- nose down and lose speed and maintain a decent glide path, that feat is Impossible in IL2:FC. I have no idea what other planes are also affected with this problem.Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs): I have video but this is easily repeated for everyone. Your PC config data (OS, drivers, specific software): i7 4770k, Maxwell gpu, 8gb mem, Sidewinder FFB 2, CH Quadrant, CH Pedals
  12. They could probably spend less than a day setting code to scale the ambient lighting color for rendering models from full ambient light to dark: scalar = 1.0 - (model_distance_from_viewer / MAX_DISTANCE_TO_SCALE) ; newambientcolor = ambientcolor * (scalar,scalar,scalar,1.0); Then probably clamp it so it never goes pure black, (0.1,0.1,0.1,1.0) instead of (0,0,0,1); Of course, if a model is allowed to scale to such a degree there are only a few pixels showing and people are running 4k screens and whatnot, it wont matter too much, but it in theory would increase visible distance from short to medium ranges. Right now planes approaching fast from 1.0k are very difficult to see moving, which I've never had an issue with before. /conjecture I will look into how much work trying a shader mod would be but if they don't already have a shader on AC models I can access in one of the data files and modify it for mod use, there isn't anything I can do. IF there happens to be a shader I can get my hands on, I can guarantee it would take me much, much longer to do. *EDIT* Unfortunately There is no AC shader I can modify. I am thinking to make and test a shader I have to make a mock-up demo with an AC model and landscape and throw in a shader.. */EDIT* I would love to help out if possible but another hobby project is going to make my family and bill collectors upset.
  13. That video shows some very concerning things such as: (second scenario with bomber target) 1. Right side of fuselage gets hit, so the left aileron goes flying off. 2. Fuselage gets hit, left motor starts smoking/leaks fuel or coolant. There are a few more in the entire video, but those were the most concerning. General observation: HE rounds seem to be tearing through the plane's fuselage and reaching engine/vital components, even though they are exploding on impact. I get the compressive and shrapnel affect, but when you see images of cannon damage in old photos you see little specks from shrapnel surrounding one nice sized hole where the cannon round impacted. I have no idea how this kind of hit detection can be resolved without a ton of work, but I figure they've put in a good system at this point, it needs adjustments and some time to work out all the kinks. Nice video btw! Good work!
×
×
  • Create New...