What I didn't realize I was not seeing

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

This is an original screenshot:

 

 

 

I put it through post processing to remove the blueish tint.  This is the same shot after some post processing:

 

 

 

What I never realized was the amount of ground detail that is present that I couldn't see in-game.  I used to use SweetFX in order to try to remove the blueish tint but have since deactivated it.  I did change my terrain.ini which helped.  But nothing I have tried brings out the level of detail I am seeing in this post processed pic.

 

If anyone sees anything even close to the above through the use of SweetFX or FlightFX or even just gets rid of the blue tint please let me know.  I would like to get the settings.  Thanks.

 

Current in-game settings:

 

In-game settings:
Setting:  High
Screen resolution: 19200 x 1200 (Native)
Full screen: OFF
VSync: OFF
Multi GPU Support: OFF
FPS limiter: 60
Antialiasing: 4
Gamma correction: .9

terrain.ini:
texlod=8192,32
texlod=4096,16
texlod=4096,16
texlod=4096,16
texlod=2048,8

[Leaf]

Wow... that's quite the difference!

[Voidhunger]

Hi, what is your sweet fx settings?

[Vaxxtx]

Change your graphics settings......oh.....wait......nm.

[=LD=Hethwill]

Good one Stick.

 

Will try ... once more... to put SFX to work... 

 

I'm just complicating on my end for sure...

[Emgy]

Getting FlightFX is a pretty easy way to make sweetfx to work, just remember in the flightfx software to point the Data filepath to the il2bos/data folder, while the .exe is located in il2bos/bin/game.

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Just to be clear, the second shot is NOT from SweetFX/FlightFX.  It is from a photo editor that changed the lighting.  The point being that there is a lot of detail that exists that is just not seen while in the game.  I have tried both SweetFX and FlightFX to try to get something similar but it's just not happening.

[LizLemon]

The default white balance is way to cool.

 

Your second screenshot pushes things a tad too far the other way, but its a big improvement.

 

Sweetfx should be able to fix it.

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Sweetfx should be able to fix it.

 

That would be great.  Do you have any settings close? 

[DD_Arthur]

  Do you have any settings close? 

 

See post no. 65 by snowsniper in this thread;

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7425-release-sweetfx-vibrance-shader/page-2

 

I applied them using FlightFX.  Works a treat.  Take gamma down to a minimum using the slider in graphics options and switch off in game anti-aliasing.

 

I've also found the game runs smoother at native res in windowed mode with in game v-sync switched off too.   No tearing using trackir either. 

 

 

Its the lumasharpening tool that really brings out the textures on the map.

Edited December 5, 2014 by arthursmedley

[FuriousMeow]

Change your graphics settings......oh.....wait......nm.

 

You know, you wouldn't be able to improve the graphics to make it look like that even with the graphics options. The fact you posted that shows you intentionally misrepresent whatever it is you don't like so you can constantly gripe about it. You can't make the game look better than it already is with custom graphics options. You can't make it look better than Ultra, no matter how much you fiddle with graphics options. So, you want the best graphics for BoS? Ultra, custom graphics settings won't make it look better than that.

 

Ultra is the best BoS will look. SweetFX can enhance, just like any other game, but the best graphics for BoS is Ultra - custom graphics can only make it look worse. Less draw distance or less texture quality, less cloud detail, always less. Ultra is the best it can look with SweetFX to enhance certain things like LUMA sharpen or bloom, or brightness (which is also adjustable through your graphics card).

 

So to get BoS to look like that second screenshot - post processing plugins like SweetFX, not custom graphics because that will never achieve that.

Edited December 5, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[TG-55Panthercules]

 So, you want the best graphics for BoS? Ultra, custom graphics settings won't make it look better than that.

 

Ultra is the best BoS will look. 

 

I don't get how you can say that - do you actually know what the "ultra" preset has turned on or turned off or what the actual settings in that preset are?  (and if so, where did you get that information)?

 

Assuming that the BoS graphical settings possibilities are similar to those used in RoF, there are a lot of things that the devs could have turned on or configured in the "ultra" preset (e.g., HDR, Bloom, SSAO or whatever other post-processing effects there might be) that could be making the game look worse on the "ultra" preset than it would if those settings could be altered by the players to suit their particular machines and tastes.  That is definitely the case with RoF, and given the reported similarity of the BoS engine to the RoF engine there's no reason to expect that the same improvements wouldn't be possible if the custom settings were exposed/available to the players to adjust.

 

Your statements that "custom graphics settings won't make it look better than that" and that "Ultra is the best BoS will look." are only true at this point because the devs have so far refused to make such custom graphic settings available.  

 

Besides, if you don't like what changing the ultra preset does for your graphics, then you can just keep using the ultra preset.  But just because you're happy with the ultra preset isn't really a compelling reason to argue against letting the rest of us have the graphics options one would normally expect from a sim like BoS.

Edited December 5, 2014 by TG-55Panthercules

[johncage]

You know, you wouldn't be able to improve the graphics to make it look like that even with the graphics options. The fact you posted that shows you intentionally misrepresent whatever it is you don't like so you can constantly gripe about it. You can't make the game look better than it already is with custom graphics options. You can't make it look better than Ultra, no matter how much you fiddle with graphics options. So, you want the best graphics for BoS? Ultra, custom graphics settings won't make it look better than that.

 

Ultra is the best BoS will look. SweetFX can enhance, just like any other game, but the best graphics for BoS is Ultra - custom graphics can only make it look worse. Less draw distance or less texture quality, less cloud detail, always less. Ultra is the best it can look with SweetFX to enhance certain things like LUMA sharpen or bloom, or brightness (which is also adjustable through your graphics card).

 

So to get BoS to look like that second screenshot - post processing plugins like SweetFX, not custom graphics because that will never achieve that.

all that empty posting...

 

it's easy to get the second shot, just have a setting dealing with bloom.

 

 

 

I don't get how you can say that - do you actually know what the "ultra" preset has turned on or turned off or what the actual settings in that preset are?  (and if so, where did you get that information)?

 

Assuming that the BoS graphical settings possibilities are similar to those used in RoF, there are a lot of things that the devs could have turned on or configured in the "ultra" preset (e.g., HDR, Bloom, SSAO or whatever other post-processing effects there might be) that could be making the game look worse on the "ultra" preset than it would if those settings could be altered by the players to suit their particular machines and tastes.  That is definitely the case with RoF, and given the reported similarity of the BoS engine to the RoF engine there's no reason to expect that the same improvements wouldn't be possible if the custom settings were exposed/available to the players to adjust.

 

Your statements that "custom graphics settings won't make it look better than that" and that "Ultra is the best BoS will look." are only true at this point because the devs have so far refused to make such custom graphic settings available.  

 

Besides, if you don't like what changing the ultra presets does for your graphics, then you can just keep using the ultra preset.  But just because you're happy with the ultra preset isn't really a compelling reason to argue against letting the rest of us have the graphics options one would normally expect from a sim like BoS.

 

arguing against advanced graphics options has got to be the stupidest thing in a long list that furious meow had saids over the years

Edited December 5, 2014 by johncage

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

The OP was simply a request for settings that might get me to see a better screen in BoS, i.e., less blue and more detail.  That's it.  No hidden agenda. 

 

Thanks to everyone who offered their settings.  Appreciate it.  I have tried them out and have come to a compromise.  But it is just that, not all the detail available in the game is visible using any of the settings.  It still looks very good though.

[Brano]

Game looks much better on ULTRA with postprocessing turned off.We have been there,it was possible to switch off for short time until it was locked again by devs.You dont need any FX injectors on top of it.Just turn off postprocessing.Simple solution,yet forbidden and no change of mind from devs.

[TaX]

I don't get how you can say that - do you actually know what the "ultra" preset has turned on or turned off or what the actual settings in that preset are?  (and if so, where did you get that information)?

 

Assuming that the BoS graphical settings possibilities are similar to those used in RoF, there are a lot of things that the devs could have turned on or configured in the "ultra" preset (e.g., HDR, Bloom, SSAO or whatever other post-processing effects there might be) that could be making the game look worse on the "ultra" preset than it would if those settings could be altered by the players to suit their particular machines and tastes.  That is definitely the case with RoF, and given the reported similarity of the BoS engine to the RoF engine there's no reason to expect that the same improvements wouldn't be possible if the custom settings were exposed/available to the players to adjust.

 

Your statements that "custom graphics settings won't make it look better than that" and that "Ultra is the best BoS will look." are only true at this point because the devs have so far refused to make such custom graphic settings available.  

 

Besides, if you don't like what changing the ultra preset does for your graphics, then you can just keep using the ultra preset.  But just because you're happy with the ultra preset isn't really a compelling reason to argue against letting the rest of us have the graphics options one would normally expect from a sim like BoS.

I fell the same.

Options and exposed advanced video setting should definitely be there.

It's non sense.

Could please you devs perhaps just add an "ADVANCED" button on video settings page ?

That will not bother "basic" users but will allow others to fully enjoy the sim.

[von_Greiff]

@VR_Sick:

 

can you please post or pm me what your change of terrain.ini actually does?? Thank you!

 

v.Greiff

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

I like the second screen shot better ...... the blue tint is a bit over done I think ..

 

Chief

[Urra]

Have finally got something similar,Not exact same though. I'll try to post a pic in the next week as computer is in pieces at the moment. It largely depends on monitor in my case.

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

@VR_Sick:

 

can you please post or pm me what your change of terrain.ini actually does?? Thank you!

 

v.Greiff

 

I recorded a track and then took two screenshots from the exact same time point and vantage point, each using a separate terrain.ini.  Using the original terrain.ini you can distinctly see a line in the distance where the ground detail drops off.  This is not present using the adjusted terrain.ini.  EDIT:  altitude was 4000m

 

With original terrain.ini

 

With adjusted,ini

Edited December 5, 2014 by VR_Stick

[1PL-Banzai-1Esk]

Game looks much better on ULTRA with postprocessing turned off.We have been there,it was possible to switch off for short time until it was locked again by devs.You dont need any FX injectors on top of it.Just turn off postprocessing.Simple solution,yet forbidden and no change of mind from devs.

Exactly.

 

I can understand now why we have unlocks , they are here only because there is a cheap version of the game for Russian market.

 

Why we don't have custom graphics options or at least an option to edit config.ini or setup.ini ? Please stop repeating same really poor excuse that it's for MP fairplay. Spotting contacts is the best I have ever seen ,much better then Clod or WT , so there is just no need to tinker with graphics to get an 'edge' in MP.

 

One of the arguments here is that there is only a handful of forum members complaining about the same stuff all the time. I fly regularly with around six other guys , for almost two years now , we talk a lot on teamspeak , and we discuss BoS a lot obviously. We all agree that unlocks suck and that the game is too restricted in term of options. Both configuration wise and MP experience.

 

Now , these guys do read this forum , but they don't post here , because they are not as optimistic as I am , believing that communicating with devs could improve BoS experience.

 

In fact some of the straight talk from them would see them banned right away so they just don't bother.

 

I personally am quite hopeful for BoS future , but it doesn't mean we should just take any poor excuse for granted. There is a Graphics options poll , over three hundred forum member spoke against presets only graphics 'options' , so that's quite a lot.

 

It's also not a case of nitpicking, trying to find a fault in a good game, and sabotage it. It's rather desperate attempt to change something that's unexplainable in a good game to make it even better , good for us , good for devs.

 

I enjoy BoS a lot , I just want to see it grow and get better , and for that it needs a lot of community support.

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Game looks much better on ULTRA with postprocessing turned off.We have been there,it was possible to switch off for short time until it was locked again by devs.You dont need any FX injectors on top of it.Just turn off postprocessing.Simple solution,yet forbidden and no change of mind from devs.

 

Even when this was available the Ultra setting did not change the blue tint that is pervasive in the game.

Edited December 5, 2014 by VR_Stick

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Here is the same shot with the FlightFX split screen showing the change in the blue tint.  Left side original, right side with FlightFX.

 

 

 

I am attaching my FlightFX setting file if anyone wants it.  I used Requiem's as a basis.

IL2 BOS Req VR_Stick.txt

Edited December 5, 2014 by VR_Stick

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

See post no. 65 by snowsniper in this thread;

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7425-release-sweetfx-vibrance-shader/page-2

 

I applied them using FlightFX.  Works a treat.  Take gamma down to a minimum using the slider in graphics options and switch off in game anti-aliasing.

 

I've also found the game runs smoother at native res in windowed mode with in game v-sync switched off too.   No tearing using trackir either. 

 

 

Its the lumasharpening tool that really brings out the textures on the map.

 

You said that you applied them by using FlightFX, those setting with you are referring in post number 65 are for SweetFX version: 1.5.1, but FlightFX is using SweetFX version: 1.3. Are they working for you out of the box or you have to make new profile for SweetFX ?

[DD_Arthur]

You said that you applied them by using FlightFX, those setting with you are referring in post number 65 are for SweetFX version: 1.5.1, but FlightFX is using SweetFX version: 1.3. Are they working for you out of the box or you have to make new profile for SweetFX ?

 

Hello tomcatqw. Yeah, I didn't expect them to work either as they use different versions of SweetFX but I applied them using FlightFX and they work fine. 

 

They also work well in CoD and RoF so I think FlightFX can be used to apply later versions of SweetFX.