Jump to content

zdog0331

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

About zdog0331

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

73 profile views
  1. The current suboptimum code has to do with the engines implementation of Multi-threading. At the moment all of the games processing runs in 2 threads being 0 and 1. ) taking the majority where thread 2 tends to be at around 75% full where the other threads tend to set at around 8/12% on my rig. That is an improvement since previously it used to be everything completely packed into 1 thread so an improvement there and the other threads were at around 5% so things have gotten better, but this is the current limiting factor in the performance in this game since the current Gen GPUs are limited by CPU processing. There are a ton of threads on this with in depth analysis with graphs and tests to Show this. I'm sure someone here could link that to ya (I don't feel like digging it up at the moment)
  2. FC was defiantly not a worthwhile venture, but I honestly do not think tank crew was a bad idea. Though its a bit early and rough right now with the proper marketing i think it could turn out big. I mean look at how popular WWII tank games have been historically. One of the problems I do see with Il2 is that no one knows about it outside of the flight sim community. I mean you do get some people in the war thunder forums comparing war thunder to IL2 trying to make war thunder into an il2 clone, but even then you would need to be in the forums to actually hear about it. I have setup an il2 sim for airshows booths and even there there are many people who though the last il2 released was il2 1946 which was very popular. Its a tought situation because PC games have a tenancy to not get much notoriety due to the console market, but even by pc standards I do not see much about this game. Even on youtube when you are looking for it its hard to find decent videos with this game that weren't from 2014 which most complained about Russian bias and performance issues. Which at the time was completely true at release. Tank crew is even worse as far as public knowledge since right now there is next to no SP content (campaigns were great but a career is in my opinion necessary). No one posts videos on in that has any sort of name. But when i show people it they love it. I mean its something that a lot of people have desired but not seen anything about. it obviously is a bit early for this to be advertised in any capacity due to the early access part of it, but when it comes out I think it could become popular. It just isn't doing it for the flight sim community.
  3. DCS actually for my pc runs a bit better in dcs in regards to VR though my flat screen performs better in IL2. The devs have mentioned the lighting system is being worked on next, but as PatrickAWlson stated the AI needs to be optimised and a bunch of other stuff as well. DCS does have its own set of problems. The damage model for one has steered me clear of it even though I love my formation of 150 bombers in combat box formation with heavy flak groups and still able to host it and get 40fps On my medium to high end PC. But it really brings me out of it when the ai do impossible things and the damage model falls way too flat. Much better in multiplayer though especially since the current netcode issues that are currently affecting it.
  4. The big issue i see regarding the issue of hardware is partly engine related, but its something that has and is being worked on. When it first came out the top of the line hardware had trouble getting anthing above 40 fps. It was a mess. Now with middle grade hardware i can get 150 fps on a 2d monitor in 1080p. However in vr i get about 75-80 fps. VR is a completely different beast and those of us who are having performance problem. One thing I do notices is that the game is much more CPU intensive than GPU intensive. For example upgrading from a 150 dollar cpu to a 300 dollar cpu can get you a much higher boost in fps than going from a 150 dollar gpu to a 400 dollar gpu. The reason a lot of people are saying buy a expensive cpu is the price per performance ration is much better in this game with the right cpu. But the devs have been working on this issue and it has gotten a bit better over the last 2 years. One of the big things That i have noticed when doing testing is that they recently got multi-threading to work a bit better. Its not perfect, but it now is running in more than just 1 thread, though single core performance is currently king which still means that the tests showing the middle of the pack 2014 cpus are still outperforming current generation top of the line hardware. But they have been doing some back end stuff which is helping with this. Problem is the engine was built when multi-threading was not widely used and it wasn't clear where hardware would go. edit: this is cpu only obviously having a modern GPU and ddr4 memory makes a big difference as well. I have also heard some things regarding vr saying that its not mainstream, but i find a flaw with that. The previous route that every flight sim gamer craved was a simpit and many people myself included invested in that kind of thing. i mean many of us spent upwards of 5 thousand dollars on our just the flight hardware with curved projectors and multiple televisions and all sorts of things to try to best replicate an aircraft. Many of us even bought the 3d televisions, but they still weren't really up to standard for flight sims. VR has been a major money saving device. You instead of needing to build a cockpit replicating one plane and spending thousands of dollars building it, you can simply buy a headset for 150 bucks and have a 1 to 1 scale pit that you can see rendering all of that hardware unnecessary. That makes it having that best experience not only attainable, but affordable for this community. I remember dreaming about having a setup like this: And that was as good as it got and was completely unattainable for most people due to the time money and know how it took to create something like this. But with VR even a beginner can have a better experience than that simpit would allow for. Its super relevant to flight simulators. just like everyone wanted a simpit back in the day now everyone wants a vr headset, but the difference is that one can afford a vr headset where only someone with a lot of disposable income could afford a simpit
  5. PWCG already splits the ground and air density. I would also really like to be able to adjust this. I love dense dogfights, but I honestly have no need for a not of ground units. Though I personally haven't notised a very big difference in the maps, however I do run a wmr headset and have low settings by default since i find that i cannot see the difference in cockpit other than the performance.
  6. I think this is where the argument really lies. its not really about what is realistic, but what is preferred. I like the lower tolerances because the reality is that most people were not ace pilots with hundreds to thousands of combat flight hours. And I personally want the game to reflect this. But there is the argument above which is equally as valid which is most people flying in multiplayer have a lot of combat flight experience and are at to WWII ace skill levels. The G tolerance should reflect that. Two lines of thinking all based off of opinion. I really like the idea of having it as a progression stat for SP content like career mode, but the balance could come in multiplayer where its just at max settings for all servers.
  7. Or do as they normally did and create area flak for the bombers to run into. Perhaps 1C could code that in as an option. would work well for those missions giving a more realistic feel. I have seen some good flak out there. There have been some good flak experiences, but currently they just aren't right. some good flak But right now it isn't nearly that dense or accurate. Don't know why. There was a time where the flak seemed to have sniper accuracy that would pick planes out of the sky with crazy precision. I cannot seem to find the video showing this, but I'm sure a lot of us remember it Hopefully they will fix this. edit: found it Also not sure how realistic this is, but i would like to hear the flak when it goes off around me. its just not as fun when the flak is a silent poof of smoke even when it blows up just a few yards from your head. It just seems a little quiet.
  8. Honestly, Considering that G training wasn't really that prevalent compared to today and the fact that late war there were pilots going into combat with only just over 100 hours of flight experience when some countries were wanting for pilots I think they found a good medium ground. We obviously are higher tolerances than the rookies that got pushed through training due to needing pilots but not as good as Erich Hartman. I also like the aspect of straining and your pilot getting tired and it overall has lead to smarter flying doing a lot better over the Insane red tails maneuvers we used to see in every dogfight and that seems to be a good contribution. Dogfights now play out how they appear in first hand accounts in several books and actual stories I have heard and that is a positive change for a game that strives for realism.
  9. This should explain everything
  10. It makes sense that they don't have it in the works. Unlike the German, Italian, French, British, and American planes, a lot less has been translated and made avaliable as far as information and specifications leading to a lot of guessing in other games. Stuff regarding the Japanese planes is tough to find and that was what this post was about. I personally hope to see a lot more western front content. Maybe even some Africa content. From what I had heard in several posts regarding the topic is that there is no current work going into the pacific right now or any planned for a while at least. There is a desire to do that theater however which means that it is something that we will have to wait for. I expect at least 5-10 years before it comes as there is a lot of stuff that they have a lot more accessible information on such as the western front battles. This was more or less indicating that it may require community support for the pacific to come out due to a lot of that information being buried and very hard to get. If you really want something sometimes you need to be the one to make that happen and since we as a community seem to want this, perhaps we could get a lot more of the necessary information while they work on some of the other battles that we want. Can't wait for Normandy.
  11. That is how history happened. Many pilots on this front at this time never saw a German aircraft in the air. Was 90% ground target attacking. The Luftwaffe was very small at this point due to the factories being bombed and the loss of aircraft and good pilots over the years. Fuel, planes, and good pilots were in short supply and Operation Bodenplatte was the Luftwaffe's last ditched effort to regain air superiority. They had far fewer aircraft and pilots so the plan was to destroy them on the ground in mass. It didn't work to say the least. After that attack, there were hardly any Luftwaffe planes in the air. If you want anti fighter and anti bomber missions, play as the Germans. The Allies had air superiority so they took advantage of this to bomb the ground.
  12. True. Though i have to say going through the archives without speaking Japanese is not a good experience. The issue is that without speaking Japanese you cannot properly search for what you need. The aircraft specifications, blueprints, bomb loads, and all the other necessary information is out there, but it seems like a major hindrance for 1c. To properly develop this module you need to hire someone to go through all of this stuff and translate it for them. Translating is only half of the battle. Actually finding stuff on the archives can be a pain. Oddly enough they have a lot of people on the war thunder forums that are pulling up these documents, but they are actually Japanese and can simply search through these archives like i would search through the US archives. But either way If we can get enough information an a battle specific plane-set, that could help a lot and potentially mean that we get a pacific module in 5 or so years.
  13. This may seem like a wierd post so here is the context. The Japanese government recently declassified a lot of the files which include a lot of the data necessary for a pacific theater. A lot of the information needed is on https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/ Which has the original documents and various aspects such as modifications, performance and other relavent and important specs for the aircraft that the developers need. However the problem is it is all in Japanese and cannot be translated via google. The issue is that most of the documents are photo coppies of the originals not just text. So in order to get the information off of them, you need to speak the language. Here is an example of some information on the ki-20 https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/aj/meta/imageen_C01003983200?IS_KEY_S1=C01003983200&IS_KIND=SimpleSummary&IS_STYLE=eng&IS_TAG_S1=InfoSDU&
  14. Well in not sure if this would be really be a beneficial thing to test. As a post by @Floppy_Sock says the data shows a spectrum of where that blackout number is. Now while For say single player a G tolerance stat that changes with experience would be interesting, for multiplayer it can mean an unfair advantage. I think taking into account the blacking out aspects of say the fw-190 seat position difference may be a factor, but the thing is if we do it with the fw-190 we would need to do it with the other planes as well. Because at that point the seat becomes part of the plane's design and would need to be modeled. But at the end of the day it all comes down to what what we feel our pilot should be. I personally like it where it is since we are taking the role of the average WWII pilot who for the most part did not have G training and also had no missions under their belt. When we play the game we can develop a feel for when we start to black out which is part of learning the game and is the game's equivalent to developing a tolerance to taking on high Gs. Looking at how the career mode and everything about the game is framed, the goal of this game is to immerse yourself in WWII air combat so we should have the tolerance of the average recruit pilot. At the end of the day I think people are used to the older style of blackout and have become accustomed to it. It is how every game until now has modeled it which means people start to develop a feel for it and once they get to something different, it changes how they have to fly their plane. I think this change brings a lot more of a reality to how WWII planes flew in the air. I see a TON of people who would complain about various aircraft talking about how x is better than y basing their opinions on the flight simulators they fly. When in teality things like blacking out were a big factor. There was the case of a RAF pilot who flew without legs and because of this, his physiology worked different allowing him to pull more Gs than the other pilots making him super deadly in the air. This suggests that the other pilots were not able to push their planes to their limits. And given that those planes were spitfires they should theoretically absolutely destroy the 109s with their far superior turning radius and decent power. But in real life this wasn't the case. And it is possible that blacking out was a major factor in performance which made fights more balanced. I know listening to the stories from some of the WWII aces that I had met the way that the flying actually occurred was very different that what you see commonly in the multiplayer servers. The new physiology model seems to have changed the meta a bit so that the flying seems more like the accounts i have listened to and heard about. But again at the end of the day this is my opinion based off of subjective information and my opinion as to what the game should play like. Factually i am no more right than someone who wants better G tolerances.
  15. At the end of the day bigger bullets are always better damage wise, but remember that these planes really didn't have armor. Even a hand gun caliper can poke holes in the plane. It was all about damaging the internals such as the fuel tanks and engine. The .50 cal is more than capable especially those brownings used in the mustang. They can penetrate an engine block at over a 1000 meters which is a pretty long shot for WWII planes. The engine or pilot was what was usually killed with the p-51. However due to the smaller damage capabilities what was a lot less common was things such as blowing off parts. The .50s didn't liberate the enemies aileron or cause damage enough for the wing to fold over like the 20mm rounds did. But so long as you were hitting vital targets that plane was going down. I remember that the .50s were considered to be good enough. The US could have upgraded to the 20mm with the saber, but they didn't. It wasn't that the 20mm wasn't better as it was a better more damaging weapon, but the .50 caliper weapons were good enough and the browning machine gun was a familiar platform for most people so they used that. I mean we still use the browning despite being super old. Either way Based on the footage I have seen and on the accounts of people Who have multiple confirmed kills in the p-51 it seems like a pretty true to life damage model at the moment and they are very deadly. Currently I have noticed a big ping issue on some of the servers leading to shots not registering which seems to affect the P-51 and p-47 disproportionately compared to the other planes
×
×
  • Create New...