Jump to content

zdog0331

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zdog0331

  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
  16. From what i have experienced doing these proper bombing missions in DCS world (this may not translate 1 to 1) the b-17 combat box type formation is quite laggy. especially when you add in flak and AI enemy planes to take out those bombers. And honestly DCS has slightly better performance for me that this game as far as AI go. Not to mention the B-17s are designed for a very specific kind of mission which I do not think is very suited to the current Battles. This game focuses on front line gameplay while the high altitude bombing is behind enemy lines tactics. You do cross the front, but you do not directly affect the ground battle. Everything is indirect as it was about crippling the means of production and crushing the spirit of (insert country name here) people. I personally think the b-25 is enough (though i do want it flyable) for me as it accomplishes the task of on the line objective based bombing. I see far more ju-88s than he-111s in multiplayer right now, and i don't see many people doing he-111 campaigns.
  17. The thing i notice is this is a symptom of an AI issue that still needs to be worked on. Basically the AI do not communicate with one another at all. There is better teamwork in star wars x-wing alliance from 1998 (seriously i have played that recently) and from what i have seen it doesn't exist right now. They will all go after the same target and sometimes team kill one another by shooting or crashing (rare) because they are all after the same target completely oblivious to the fact that there are 7 other planes after the same target. You will also notice this when you try to give orders to the AI and they simply ignore you. So in short while they have worked on the combat behaviors, they still need to work on wing men behaviors
  18. From the people i have talked to who flew the p-51s said it really didn't take much to take down the 109s or 190s. These were Tuskegee airmen so they did have much more training than the average airmen meaning that they were a bit more accurate, but from the accounts that i had heard all it took was "one or two squirts" to take them down. (for those of you who don't know what that means a few taps of the trigger less than a second long) It was all about precision. This was the case for all combat. I remember watching an interview with Erich Hartman talking about how he tried to get as close as possible which meant ammo was not wasted and all bullets hit vital parts of the aircraft. But from looking at the wonderful description given by JG7_X-Man when being accurate the p-51 had more legality given that the bullets hit. Also when looking at the training manuals and videos, the p51 was really designed to make its shots at around 300 yards and to mostly be a harassing aircraft meant to get the fighters off of the bombers, which doesn't always mean killing, but scaring them away. A lot of the times being the fighter when escorting the bomber meant endurance which it has. It has enough ammo to last a while having external tanks and having the better performance at the altitude of the bombers. So long as the bombers got on target, the generals were happy. One thing I will say is that i think the OP's issue is packet loss because i have seen this happen as well, but only in multiplayer. In single player the 50 cals do a ton of damage, but in multiplayer even when fighting the bots that some servers have, the 50s don't seem to do as much damage as they should which to me suggests that the 50s aren't the problem. but rather the server.
  19. Honestly I notice that the squad leader planes are a bit better and some planes are just brain dead. I think they just have a mixture of varying AI difficulty levels and the hard medium and easy categories determines how those ranks are broken up. I think the squad leaders may be aces while their wing men are veteran AI. You notice how the veteran AI tend to be the last to go down in career during a big battle and they seem to shoot down more planes. Though this has been my experience and I could be wrong. They have done a pretty good job with the career mode and honestly it isn't very realistic for all of the AI to be aces as there were new men coming to the front lines and most were people who had a few missions under their belt, and only a few flew a ton of missions and those who did were much more skilled than a pilots first mission. Especially towards the end of the war where some people were ending up on the front lines with less than a month of training. As far as the WWII pilots I have talked to who have been in combat more or less described it like it appears in il2 (maneuver wise. Engagements were usually at high altitude) Though I have not had any in person chats with people who flew on the eastern front since the people I have talked to were Tuskegee airmen and a one of the blue nosed b@$#&rds.
  20. those .50 cals are deadly. The p-51 is one of the only planes that i don't take unlimited ammo in the career mode due to the fact that with one belt of ammo (no extended belts) you can score up to 10-15 kills before needing to turn home, though you do need to aim for the vital parts of the plane. Try to aim for the cockpit and engine as one tap of the trigger usually kills the pilot/kills the engine/both. LMAO that's crazy. But who am I to argue with the laws of british bullet physics which indicate that bullets drop out of the air after 2000 yards. I think this was molded in the newest ghost recon game (if you have seen the bullet drop in that you know what I'm talking about). I know my local area has a 2 mile rule which is well over 2000 yards which is odd considering the far more relaxed gun regulations here.
  21. Go for a vkb gladiator mkii. It is the 3rd best joystick on the market and its 80 bucks. Only beaten by the vkb 400 dollar joystick and the virpil one. I literally replaced my warthog with the gladiator despite the gladiator being a 3rd of the price
  22. no player controlled tanks. Probibly a max of 4 smoke areas. Clear weather. mostly fighters with 2 flights of bomber 8 in each flight. Not looking of anything exact, just wondering if there has been a point that lead to the server to really lag. One thing i think will probably cause some lag are the triggers due to the necessity of several trigger zones for the objectives to activate properly. This will be hosted as a dedicated server. Just looking to see roughly how well this game handles AI so i know roughly what specs i will need for a server. Perhaps a better question would be are player controlled planes more intensive on the server than AI controlled planes? I mean from my understanding ai is more intensive than player controlled entities, though this is based off of my experience with other games not this game. Really looking for a ballpark estimation. More of a guess as to what would be too much as i have no frame of reference at all when dealing with this game. Arma i know the number is roughly 110 AI units. Not an exact thing as there are a ton of variables such as mission parpamaters, number of players, and other things. But its a point of reference which i currently do not have in this game. Just looking for some people's experiences with running severs and what lags it.
  23. I am looking at starting a coop based server. I am one of those people who loves coop missions and with the new and improved AI it seems that this may be a fun server to run. However before i get this up and running I need to know how performance heavy this sim is and how many AI planes i could get into a high end server. Obviously not needing something concrete since that would be very difficult to do, but if Ai are properly managed as in they despawn when out of range and spawn when enemies get close sort of thing how many AI entities could a high end server run given that say 15 players are online as well? I'm looking to have the game use a dynamic mission system with multiply objectives that change when an objective is completed with ai doing these mission on both sides.
  24. yes they are. The teamwork still has yet to be worked on. Things like following orders, not doing rediculous things like flying until you are out of fuel and the like are still problems. They have a small team and can only tackle so much at once and it appears that they had been focusing on individual AI combat behaviors. Hopefully they will work on the other AI behaviors as well.
  25. From what i have seen over the years this is very dependent on the server. If they include AI ground or air targets, then that reduces the number of possible players. All of this including the physics engine which is very cpu heavy leads to a limit to how much you can put into the game at the moment. It may be possible to get more, but i think its a balancing act based off of how much you want to spend on your server. You could get a server running 4 top of the line amd threadripper processors tons of fast ram you could probably be able to support higher numbers than that, but that is also very costly and that is a decision that each server owner needs to make. What server can i afford, and how far can I push the one I have.
×
×
  • Create New...