Jump to content
=LD=Penshoon

You also think BOS is Beautiful? How about making it ABSOLUTLY GORGEOUS! *Instructions inside*

Recommended Posts

Hello there fellow pilots,

 

I have done some more research to find out whether using "LodCount=10" instead of "LodCount=5" is improving texture quality.

 

I did the following to do this test: 

Change the texture.ini file so that it looks like this:

 

LodCount=10
texlod=8192,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
 
I then made a picture in the exact same way as I did in my previous test.
 
For the reference picture I used the 1100m picture with setting 2. (I did not take an other picture.)

 

I then had to compare the pictures. To do this I used the following method:

Take 2 pictures from the exact same location and the exact same angle and then compare the 2 using Photoshop.

To compare the 2 pictures I put them on top of each other and then told Photoshop to find the differences. 

 

Let me explain the picture below: 

Photoshop has a very smart way of showing what the colour differences are in 2 pictures.

All the pixels that are the same in both pictures are made: black

All the pixels that are different are given a colour corresponding to the colour difference.

 

If there is a difference in the pictures, there would be some noticeable coloured area's and markings. (possibly even clearly visible lines)

Instead only small single pixels are coloured with only a single common property. They are all located on the edge of a tree outline or the plane outline. I therefore believe them to be created by the anti-aliasing. 

When the top part is compared (where there are no trees and almost no anti-aliasing), surprisingly it is all black. Almost no pixel is coloured! 

 

mHUli8t.jpg

 

I do not think that changing the "LodCount" and the number of lines has any effect on the textures!

 

BlackHellHound1

 

:salute:

Edited by =[Coffin]=BlackHellHound1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I try this and my game will not start I get color script errors and some other refusing to start.

 

LodCount=10

 

 

texlod=8192,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe what you are doing by decreasing the second number, is that you are specifying how many sq meters (or other area unit) the game uses per the pixel count to the left... so it's really

 

4096pix/8m^2

 

You can see that by increasing the denominator you are actually reducing the pixel density...

 

Additionally, adding additional lodcounts may not help, or may hurt actually - I suspect that there is a hard number in the engine for the distance of those lod transitions.. adding more variable lines does not appreciably change this or may overwhelm the system.

 

It would be nice to have this officially addressed.

Edited by Venturi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there fellow pilots, 

 

I have put Venturi's hypothesis to the test. I have set up a very simple experiment to test his hypothesis. 

If Venturi's hypothesis is correct then all pictures should show the same amount of detail. Very small differences might be detected due to anti-aliasing.

 

For this test I have used the following settings in the "terrain.ini" file:

 

LodCount=5
texlod=1024,8
texlod=1024,8
texlod=1024,8
texlod=1024,8
texlod=1024,8
 
,
 
LodCount=5
texlod=2048,16
texlod=2048,16
texlod=2048,16
texlod=2048,16
texlod=2048,16
 
and
 
LodCount=5
texlod=4096,32
texlod=4096,32
texlod=4096,32
texlod=4096,32
texlod=4096,32

 

I used these values because of the following calculations:

1024 / 8 = 128 (pixels per square unit)

2048 / 16 = 128 (pixels per square unit)

4096 / 32 = 128 (pixels per square unit)

 

I then took some pictures at 1100m in the same way that I have done in my first 2 tests. 

 

The result:

As expected all settings showed the same texture quality in-game. Small differences where detected where the textures transition. These differences are only noticeable when the images are compared. 

Venturi is right about how the last number works. 

 

This result also reconfirmed my final conclusion from my first set of tests

 

BlackHellHound1

 

:salute:

Edited by =[Coffin]=BlackHellHound1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BlackHellHound1, thank you for all this testing, also to Venturi for your insight.  I did some testing on my own. 

 

Most recently I have been using the following:

 

LodCount=5
texlod=8192,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=2048,8

 

Here is a zoomed screenshot with the the above setting at 2500m.

16892436427_c05c53cc7f_h.jpg

.

.

I adjusted the last line to 4096 per your Setting 2.  The results are very significant.

Here is the same zoomed screenshot with the last line 4096,8

17073870436_f9512a7ad0_h.jpg

 

 

I had the impression the last line was for closer detail, instead it is for distant detail.  This explains the extreme texture drop off in the original terrain.ini.

 

I also have used the 10 lines X 4096 in the past but received hesitations in game.  The lod=10 must be the cause of this as using your Setting 2 I don't receive them.

 

Thanks again, your work has made a beautiful game even more so.

Edited by VR_Stick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing the bottom line changes the distance I tried adjusting the settings:

 

Here is the same cropped screenshot as in my post above using BlackHellHound1 Setting 2.

17073870436_f9512a7ad0_h.jpg

.

.

Here is the cropped screenshot using the following settings

 

LodCount=5
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=8192,8

 

16893218087_90e218362f_h.jpg

 

 

Again, a distinct improvement.  I suppose using all 8192s needs a test.

Edited by VR_Stick
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there fellow pilots

 

I have just done some tests to see what will change when the settings are changed to the settings proposed by VR_Stick. 

I used the following settings to test:

 

LodCount=5

texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8
texlod=8192,8

 

,

 

LodCount=5
texlod=8192,8

texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=8192,8

 

and

 

LodCount=5
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=8192,8

texlod=8192,8

 

I compared the results with my setting 2 from the first test. (I did not pay attention to the close range change since I am now looking at the long range difference.)

 

When flying at 1100m the difference is almost unnoticeable. When comparing pictures of this altitude the difference is noticeable but can be ignored since the difference is small.

When flying at 4400m the difference is noticeable and does improve far away ground textures. However, these ranges are far away and I did not find any advantages of using these settings. (MY OPINION!) 

 

When testing the settings with 2x "texlod=8192,8" a new problem appeared. My PC would start to stutter every few seconds. (I think this was caused by the game reloading the texture files.)

 

My advise, 

If you care about a nice looking map with high detail when you are flying low: use setting 2 from my first test. (I recommend this setting)

If you find long range ground textures when flying high more important: use the first setting in this post. 

 

! Note ! Do not use more then 1x "texlod=8192,8" or your game will start stuttering.

 

BlackHellHound1

 

:salute:

Edited by =[Coffin]=BlackHellHound1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BlackHellHound1, I did one last comparison and I have to agree with you.

 

The main reason for seeing at distance is for navigation purposes.  I think either suffices for that.  Since you can only have one 8192 line, by placing it in the last line (distance) you do get more detail on the horizon at altitude (mine was 2500m).  But at what cost?  So I looked at the closer detail between having the 8192 in the first or last line.  After close inspection there is a loss of detail when flying on the deck if the 8192 is in the last line vs the first.  It is not a lot but if I am hunting AA, etc. it could be important.  The loss of any detail on the horizon by not having it in the last line is negligible for navigation or level bombing.

 

I keep mine in JSGME so it's easy enough to play with.

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 For a more realistic- lively view textures at the far way  are better to be blurred. Form the players perspective point of view in case of  spoting enely planes perhaps far away textures could help more if they are more focused. But I see little difference to the test images anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you feel it's more realistic to you when everything turns into that sorta weird mush you might want to check in with a local ophthalmologist  :P

Edited by wellenbrecher
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 For a more realistic- lively view textures at the far way  are better to be blurred. Form the players perspective point of view in case of  spoting enely planes perhaps far away textures could help more if they are more focused. But I see little difference to the test images anyway.

 

Not sure about the first statement, but yeah, I find myself squinting pretty hard trying to see any material difference between a lot of these test pictures as well.  These recent posts inspired me to try playing around with these settings again (hadn't messed with them since this info was originally posted several months ago), but so far I'm just not seeing any results that make much difference.  And as long as that dang bubble of blur effect is there, I don't really care what the rest of the landscape looks like 'cause that bubble effect just destroys it for me as far as enjoying flying around in BoS.  

 

Hopefully at some point that will get addressed/fixed, either by a dev update or perhaps by some enterprising modder.  Guess I'll just have to keep popping into the Forums here hoping for a minor miracle :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you feel it's more realistic to you when everything turns into that sorta weird mush you might want to check in with a local ophthalmologist  :P

 

 It is not "if I feel" that's how it is in reality, and that's how eyes see reality , and cameras as well. In  low aperture the background is also known as bokeh, same thing goes with everything that's far far away.

And the answer was posted before here. from Yakdriver below... Now can you post  any image that proves the opposite ?  and this is of course a general rule that justifies what you say ?

 

absolutely.

2007, pretty good weather, summer, Climbing out towards paradise...some 15k, i don't see a single tree. and trees there are, below.

 

DSC02678.jpg

 

Edited by AvengerSeawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no difference when I edit the terrain.ini in fact I can delete the ini and there is still no difference. It has zero effect on the bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 It is not "if I feel" that's how it is in reality, and that's how eyes see reality , and cameras as well. In  low aperture the background is also known as bokeh, same thing goes with everything that's far far away.

And the answer was posted before here. from Yakdriver below... Now can you post  any image that proves the opposite ?  and this is of course a general rule that justifies what you say ?

I see no blur that is anywhere near similar to what's in the game.

But given the rest of your post you seem to have misunderstood what this whole thing was about. Could that be?

It's not about seeing individual trees, it's about being able to see much of anything at all. For which Yakdriver's picture is the perfect example.

I mean, compare the ability to see details in the distance here (default BoS):

1r7syz.png

 

To your ability to see details here in the distance here:

DSC02678.jpg

 

 

And then see how the pictures with the .ini edits hold up in comparison to the picture. It's striking, but it could (and should) still be better. Hence folks experimenting with the numbers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The point is that there is no smooth transition between too focused and unfocused. You mess the graphics trying to get all focused witch is wrong rather than to make the transition smoother..

 

I see no difference when I edit the terrain.ini in fact I can delete the ini and there is still no difference. It has zero effect on the bubble.

 

 Well you show me, since you have to prove  that. Atmosphere cold or hot  waves inbetween for sure can make some difference.Bit that's then talking  taking pictures with a telescope or  telezoom lense on a camera, and then there is always moisture that can blur things, even taking images with a good lense it all depends on atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Annnnyyyyway.... Both points are valid.... We need to expand the LOD bubble effect AND the texture sharpening is appreciated!

 

Now let's work on that damn LOD bubble!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Annnnyyyyway.... Both points are valid.... We need to expand the LOD bubble effect AND the texture sharpening is appreciated!

 

Now let's work on that damn LOD bubble!

 Correct , but I think that it is better when the developers do correct things up, such mods don;t always workout as it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must consider that to conserve resources, far away must have less draw resolution than close up. This is also realistic.

 

Here is my suggestion: Pics are at 5km, 1920x1080, ultra settings, and I have a high end 3gb vram vid card. No bubble and looks good, runs good. Works for me.

 

----------

 

 

PixelSize=50        //meters

LodCount=5

texlod=8192,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=2048,8
texlod=2048,8

post-16698-0-74435100-1428777736_thumb.jpg

post-16698-0-27679700-1428777750_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Venturi, try reducing the Gamma in the startup.cfg to 0.7 at some point.
The effect is amazing.

 

Just saying because I noticed how blinding the horizon is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must consider that to conserve resources, far away must have less draw resolution than close up. This is also realistic.

 

Here is my suggestion: Pics are at 5km, 1920x1080, ultra settings, and I have a high end 3gb vram vid card. No bubble and looks good, runs good. Works for me.

 

----------

 

 

PixelSize=50        //meters

 

LodCount=5

 

texlod=8192,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=2048,8

texlod=2048,8

 Can you post some images at 1000 and 2000m ? It looks  really good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must consider that to conserve resources, far away must have less draw resolution than close up. This is also realistic.

 

Here is my suggestion: Pics are at 5km,

 

You're kinda missing the point - the bubble isn't really much of a problem at 15,000 feet, but you can't really do any ground attack runs at that altitude either.  Try taking your pictures down around 1km and let us know what you see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bubble is actually more present at 5km than at 1km. I'm not selling anything here. You're free to try it for yourself. I personally have zero issues with the "bubble" and more issues with the draw distance. Your mileage may vary. It usually does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The bubble is actually more present at 5km than at 1km. I'm not selling anything here

 

 Nothing to do with  if you selling something or not. but since you post images you could then post some at lower altitudes. I see no bubble on my PC and the rendering is quite smooth at  standard setting

Not perfect but  nothing like the differences I see here in some posts.Nothing to notice and nothing to bother. SO personally I will not bother about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at 1.5km using above settings (and 0.8 gamma).

post-16698-0-97767400-1428788460_thumb.jpg

post-16698-0-48714200-1428788469_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bubble is actually more present at 5km than at 1km.

 

That's not been my experience.

 

Thanks for posting your pics from 1.5km.  Mine looks like the following (your terrain.ini settings above, and gamma at .85000, which is the lowest I can go and still read the cockpit dials):

 

BoS%20bubble.jpg

 

And the bubble gets worse/more pronounced the lower I go (it's worse at 1Km than at 1.5Km)

 

If you're not seeing a more pronounced bubble at 1Km then I'd like to get the rest of your video settings, in case playing around with them some more will have some effect on mine.

Edited by TG-55Panthercules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use these settings in the terrain.ini but i cannot see any differences. Did it stil work with latest version? Where is the problem?

PixelSize=50 //meters


LodCount=5


texlod=8192,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's not been my experience.

 

Thanks for posting your pics from 1.5km.  Mine looks like the following (your terrain.ini settings above, and gamma at .85000, which is the lowest I can go and still read the cockpit dials):

 

BoS%20bubble.jpg

 

And the bubble gets worse/more pronounced the lower I go (it's worse at 1Km than at 1.5Km)

 

If you're not seeing a more pronounced bubble at 1Km then I'd like to get the rest of your video settings, in case playing around with them some more will have some effect on mine.

 

My experience is that the lower you go with ingame gamma settings the more pronounced the LoD bubble will be, whatever effect you are wanting with these low gamma settings may be best looked at with monitor settings or maybe SWFX or something similar

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the new setting for the landscape detail working for everyone else? I've got the old blurry textures in the distance once again despite using the max setting ingame. 

 

Look like the new settings all forces "texlod=1024,16" as the last line causing the blurring and with the terrain.ini file removed we can't change it manually any more.   :( 
 

Edited by =LD=Penshoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there cant be a patch that doesnt remove or kill a feauture everybody enjoys...what a pity.

 

Havent had the time for testing various slider settings but the terrain sure looks a lot muddier since this patch. I just hope they'll consider giving us real terrain resolution settings so we can up it to 8k again in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have noticed this too after this patch, hope they give us an option for this in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really love to try this but I don't even have the terrain.ini file...

 

C:\1C Game Studios\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\data\graphics

 

Am I the only one? Where have I gone wrong? I even did a search for it and it never came up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, if this is true, no return for me.  And I was ready to play again, but not with that god awful blurry mess again.  My god how do you screw this up.   

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snake, the current version is far better than the stock game prior to this update.  The new Distance Landscape Detail setting (in Graphic settings) at 4X is pretty close to a previously modded terrain.ini.  Give it a try and get back in the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snake, the current version is far better than the stock game prior to this update.  The new Distance Landscape Detail setting (in Graphic settings) at 4X is pretty close to a previously modded terrain.ini.  Give it a try and get back in the air.

 

Stick - I wish you were right, but on my rig at least I gotta say the latest version is no better than it was before - still unacceptable "bubble of blur" effect on the terrain and the new version certainly doesn't look any better than I remember it looking with the previously-tweaked terrain.ini settings.  I hadn't realized until reading the posts above that the latest patch actually did away with the terrain.ini file.

 

One step forward, two steps back.

 

Back on the shelf again.  Too bad, too - had high hopes for this particular patch.

 

Maybe next one... (hope springs eternal).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had 8000s and 4000s in the config. Without the terrain fix it was blurry as hell. I will try it out myself, but nothing pisses me off more than flying around in a blurry mess. Stick you know this first hand from our ts. I hates a blurry mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is very disappointing.  They should never take options or tools away that make the game look better.  With this patch they actually made the game look worse.  They should give the terrain confi back or give us a slider option that adjust from the 1000s to 8000s.  

 

If you want my money, fix this.  

 

Who knows, maybe you don't want my money.  

Edited by 12.OIAE_Snake9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...