Any chance we can bring back 16X time accel?

[Force10]

I understand why it was initially removed, but since unlocks aren't much of an issue anymore...why not? It's a little silly to me that we have 5 settings to slow down time all the way to 1/32...but only one accel setting to 2X. I select long flights because I want to take off and land...but if there is not much chance I will encounter any "action" on my way to the action point...I would like to speed this up a bit more then 2X. 

 

Even 8X or 4X would be a welcome change.

 

Apologies if this has been discussed at length in some other sub-section here.

 

As I side note...I think summer looks great!

 

[coconut]

Han said in the questions to devs thread that there was little point in adding higher speeds, because you are limited by your CPU anyway. Even 2x compression is hard to achieve, from what he said.

[johncage]

in the alpha, 16x was usable and very fast. he just doesn't want to say it's for the grind.

[Force10]

in the alpha, 16x was usable and very fast. he just doesn't want to say it's for the grind.

This.

 

16X was available previously without any CPU issues.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Force10

[No_85_Gramps]

Last I saw, based on an inquiry to the devs, Han stated they might/would look into it. But a definite no to unlocking the skins.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/page-34 see post 1323.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Gramps

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I believe that the way time compression in this game works actually requires the game to run the entire simulation's clockcycles faster - that may sound as simple as hitting fast forward on your VHS player but they are not the same and many instabilities can occur when you accelerate the clockcycles outside of a nominal value.

 

"is technology limitation™"

[LizLemon]

I believe that the way time compression in this game works actually requires the game to run the entire simulation's clockcycles faster - that may sound as simple as hitting fast forward on your VHS player but they are not the same and many instabilities can occur when you accelerate the clockcycles outside of a nominal value.

 

"is technology limitation™"

Oh please

 

It was working in the game just fine. Then unlocks came out and what do you know, people are using 16x to speed up the process. Then a patch comes out that disables 16x.

 

Not exactly hard to figure out

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Oh please

 

It was working in the game just fine. Then unlocks came out and what do you know, people are using 16x to speed up the process. Then a patch comes out that disables 16x.

 

Not exactly hard to figure out

 

I base my assessment off of how clock cycles work in other game engines so you need to cool off and stop with the "oh please," chief... Han has already said "is technology limitation™" in the Questions to Developers thread.

 

Sure, a patch disabled 16x and left 4x... Now 4x is only 2x... Don't ask me, ask Han... Optimizing clock cycles does make sense. 

Edited October 30, 2015 by Space_Ghost

[LukeFF]

Ramping up the time acceleration back to where it was is kind of a moot point, now that players can enable all of the unlocks with a click of the button.

 

I base my assessment off of how clock cycles work in other game engines

 

Indeed. The Silent Hunter games are a good example of time compression not always working like it should (cue the game sometimes only dropping one out of time compression when a destroyer is 1500 yards off the starboard bow  ).

Edited October 30, 2015 by LukeFF

[Force10]

Ramping up the time acceleration back to where it was is kind of a moot point, now that players can enable all of the unlocks with a click of the button.

 

 

Just to be clear...you mean it's a moot point as in there is no reason not to enable it again since the unlocks are a non-issue now?

 

If so...I agree.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Just to be clear...you mean it's a moot point as in there is no reason not to enable it again since the unlocks are a non-issue now?

 

If so...I agree.

 

Whether or not (Y)x acceleration was there before is the moot point... I suggest some of you do some research in to how clock cycles work in a game engine. It really isn't difficult to understand... 

 

Every single bit of how a game engine calculates its physics, 3D rendering, texture rendering, light rendering and everything else is dependent on how the clock cycles work - accelerating the clock cycles (because you really need to understand that you are not accelerating "time" in the game, you are accelerating the game engine clock cycles) can produce unsavory results in all of the back-end calculation being done.

 

I don't like that (Y)x acceleration is gone either but the least you guys could do is educate yourselves on some of the potential reasons it was removed.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Space_Ghost

[Force10]

Whether or not (Y)x acceleration was there before is the moot point... I suggest some of you do some research in to how clock cycles work in a game engine. It really isn't difficult to understand... 

 

Every single bit of how a game engine calculates its physics, 3D rendering, texture rendering, light rendering and everything else is dependent on how the clock cycles work - accelerating the clock cycles (because you really need to understand that you are not accelerating "time" in the game, you are accelerating the game engine clock cycles) can produce unsavory results in all of the back-end calculation being done.

 

We did research it...we had 16X acceleration before with no undesirable affects on the game. How difficult is that for you to understand?

 

Good Lord...so much hate just because some of us would like this feature back...great community spirit.

 

Also...when they realized the time accel/autopilot was being used to shorten the unlocks...they removed it quite easily within a day or so. Shouldn't be that difficult to re-enable if it can be dis-abled so quickly.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

We did research it...we had 16X acceleration before with no undesirable affects on the game. How difficult is that for you to understand?

 

Good Lord...so much hate just because some of us would like this feature back...great community spirit.

 

-snip-

 

So I suppose Han&friends arbitrarily sat down at their desks one day and decided that they would reduce time compression even more, right..? 

 

You didn't research anything - that's why you're adhering so adamantly to an indefensible position on a software matter. No hate here, mate. Some people just don't like the truth. And judging by the passive-aggressiveness in your reply I would think that it's the other way around... Great community spirit! 

 

There's even a term for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

EDIT: Actually, I hope they turn on 32X compression so I can giggle incessantly at your complaints when the AI can't do anything and every other aspect of the simulation no longer functions correctly.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Space_Ghost

[Force10]

So I suppose Han&friends arbitrarily sat down at their desks one day and decided that they would reduce time compression even more, right..? 

 

 

Actually...you conveniently snipped the answer to that question.

 

The only reason time accel was nerfed was because it was being abused to shorten the unlocks.

 

I guess the bigger question is...how would bringing back the accel that worked flawlessly before negatively affect your enjoyment of the game?

 

If the answer is it wouldn't...then why does it bother you so much?

Edited October 30, 2015 by Force10

[dburne]

We did not have  various levels of time acceleration available long enough to know if it might be bugged at different acceleration levels. But we did have it for a short time, and it appeared to work ok. I know on some systems if they could not handle the faster acceleration levels, the faster levels were just not effective, it would run at the slower level it could handle.

 

After the release, well just before release when the SP campaign and the unlocks were upon us, pretty quickly folks started using the included time acceleration and autopilot to blast through to get their unlocks. 1CGS quickly locked that down. IIRC, they took it away completely originally and then reinstated it but limited it to 2x.  

 

As far as the unlocks go now, yes we can unlock the mods, but not the skins right - they still have to be unlocked...

Edited October 30, 2015 by dburne

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Actually...you conveniently snipped the answer to that question.

 

The only reason time accel was nerfed was because it was being abused to shorten the unlocks.

 

I guess the bigger question is...how would bringing back the accel that worked flawlessly before negatively affect your enjoyment of the game?

 

If the answer is it wouldn't...then why does it bother you so much?

 

 

I'm not bothered by anything other than the fact that you're not understanding how it works and you still haven't done any research to support your opinion.

 

Any further discourse can be handled through PM - this conversation isn't worth the ban. 

Edited October 30, 2015 by Space_Ghost

[Force10]

I'm not bothered by anything other than the fact that you're not understanding how it works and you still haven't done any research to support your opinion.

 

 

You haven't actually provided anything to support your opinion that it can't be done other then "do your research"...lol

 

I

 

Every single bit of how a game engine calculates its physics, 3D rendering, texture rendering, light rendering and everything else is dependent on how the clock cycles work

 

 

And yet every...single...flight sim since the 90's...including this one...has had time accel available greater then 2X without issues. Why do I need to research it more?

 

I think it's more of a "chest thumping" defend the developers decision by you more then any actual limitations with the engine given the fact we have already seen it work fine.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

I think it's more of a "chest thumping" defend the developers decision by you more then any actual limitations with the engine given the fact we have already seen it work fine.

 

HAHAHAHA.

 

You clearly don't know my history in this community, than.

[Force10]

HAHAHAHA.

 

You clearly don't know my history in this community, than.

 

 

Something we can both agree on! Let's start there!

 

I do like you signature though.  

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

You haven't actually provided anything to support your opinion that it can't be done other then "do your research"...lol

 

-snip-

 

http://superuser.com/questions/630769/why-do-some-old-games-run-much-too-quickly-on-modern-hardware

 

http://www.sk89q.com/2013/03/improving-your-minecraft-servers-performance/

 

http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/game-loop.html

 

I'm not going to do the research for you.

 

Go on in a state of misunderstanding or... Do the research yourself!

-snip-

 

I do like you signature though.  

 

Yep, it's something another user and I discussed after my two years of wading through the never-ending sea of fanboys that surround this sim and can't accept any criticisms of it. It's my quote. I am the observer.

 

It's absolutely true - fanboys are just as dangerous as guys who won't do their own research! *passive aggressive wink to bolster my point*

Edited October 30, 2015 by Space_Ghost

[Force10]

http://superuser.com/questions/630769/why-do-some-old-games-run-much-too-quickly-on-modern-hardware

 

http://www.sk89q.com/2013/03/improving-your-minecraft-servers-performance/

 

http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/game-loop.html

 

I'm not going to do the research for you.

 

Go on in a state of misunderstanding or... Do the research yourself!

 

Yep, it's something another user and I discussed after my two years of wading through the never-ending sea of fanboys that surround this sim and can't accept any criticisms of it. It's my quote. I am the observer.

 

It's absolutely true - fanboys are just as dangerous as guys who won't do their own research! *passive aggressive wink to bolster my point*

 

 

I'm just puzzled by your argument. If all other flight sims including this one have already been able to achieve this...why is more research by me neccasary? It's clear the developers of these sims have researched it...realized it was doable...and implemented it.

 

No more research neccasary.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I'm just puzzled by your argument. If all other flight sims including this one have already been able to achieve this...why is more research by me neccasary? It's clear the developers of these sims have researched it...realized it was doable...and implemented it.

 

No more research neccasary.

 

Sure, and if you're going to disillusion yourself in to the belief that this product is equally as simple in code as 2001's IL-2 Sturmovik and that its clock cycles are 1:1 despite the astounding differences in game engine and code complexity than... Well, I really don't know what to tell you. 

 

Now what if I told you that the old 16X time compression didn't even meet 16X for many users because their hardware couldn't keep up with processing the game's clock cycles..? I'm sure you would probably say "Well the old dev did it! Everybody else does it! 777 did it because they hate everyone and they don't want anybody to cheat!" Well, it simply doesn't work like that and it's pretty easy to explain - somebody didn't read any of those links I took the time to look up since they themselves are incapable of doing so and until they do they will keep baselessly conjecturing.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Space_Ghost

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Han said in the questions to devs thread that there was little point in adding higher speeds, because you are limited by your CPU anyway. Even 2x compression is hard to achieve, from what he said.

 

Pre-freaking-cisely.

 

I don't understand what is so difficult to grasp. 

[Force10]

Sure, and if you're going to disillusion yourself in to the belief that this product is equally as simple in code as 2001's IL-2 Sturmovik and that its clock cycles are 1:1 despite the astounding differences in game engine and code complexity than... Well, I really don't know what to tell you. 

 

Now what if I told you that the old 16X time compression didn't even meet 16X for many users because their hardware couldn't keep up with processing the game's clock cycles..? I'm sure you would probably say "Well the old dev did it! Everybody else does it! 777 did it because they hate everyone and they don't want anybody to cheat!" Well, it simply doesn't work like that and it's pretty easy to explain - somebody didn't read any of those links I took the time to look up since they themselves are incapable of doing so and until they do they will keep baselessly conjecturing.

 

I guess I will keep saying it til it sinks in...maybe if I bold it it will help.     This game and it's engine has already achieved 16X accel.

 

If you refuse to accept this very basic concept...well, I really don't know what to tell you.

[Force10]

We'll see what Han has to say further...but it seems it wasn't because of technical limitations.

 

It worked well before so I don't see how it could be technical.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Force10

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

We should at least get 4x or 8x

[Force10]

We should at least get 4x or 8x

 

Agreed...it doesn't have to go back to a full 16x...any increase would be appreciated.

[Sokol1]

Is because you guys, complain about 2x is the minority: 

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/page-36?do=findComment&comment=298306

[johncage]

I guess I will keep saying it til it sinks in...maybe if I bold it it will help.     This game and it's engine has already achieved 16X accel.

 

If you refuse to accept this very basic concept...well, I really don't know what to tell you.

 

just ignore him. some people will defend to death anything, even if it's to the detriment of the whole. the only time compression issue i've experienced was at 32x on rise of flight. even then it's simply solved by turning it back down when the traffic is heavy and the cpu load is high. there is no major cpu cycling concern. never had been, until unlocks were a thing. then everyone jumped on the "technical limitation" bandwagon.

 

overall, nothing to see here. just the same dogpiling over any dissent or criticism. i am willing to bet if they renenabled 16x nothing bad will happen. what will happens is people will suddenly have more options, and some people might use it to unclock things faster. with the unlocks being moot, i think it's a good idea to reneable this feature.

Edited October 30, 2015 by johncage

[Charlo-VR]

I'd like to see if my new cpu can handle 16x. My old i7 950 did a year ago...

[Dakpilot]

Other than for mission builders for testing is there really any need on Stalingrad missions for your A/C to do 6400kmh

 

At the same time of 16X being removed there were also a massive amount of complaints of game crashes and instability, which were resolved

 

co-incidence?

 

Really the distances in all available missions are not that long to require much more than 2X, perhaps 4X..if the reason is to get the skins, there are more than enough quality historical ones to download

 

Even in old IL-2 at max fast forward it rarely performed at the actual speed chosen

 

I can understand the disappointment that a feature available in other sims was taken away , but what is the actual real situation that the lack of 16X is such an issue, other than the fact that it is missing?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Force10]

 

At the same time of 16X being removed there were also a massive amount of complaints of game crashes and instability, which were resolved

 

co-incidence?

 

Really the distances in all available missions are not that long to require much more than 2X, perhaps 4X..if the reason is to get the skins, there are more than enough quality historical ones to download

 

 

I don't remember a rash of game crashes being solved by 16X being removed. I have no sympathy for someone that is short of horsepower on their rig and if they accelerated to 16X crashed the program...but didn't have the sense to stop using it if their machine couldn't handle it. It's common sense really.

 

It's funny that ROF using the DN engine does 16X accel just fine...and there doesn't appear to be a rash of customer support needed for it.

 

Dakpilot, just because you don't think it's necessary doesn't mean the people that would appreciate at least 4X on the accel should be forced to fly the way you think it should be played. The battlefield isn't that lively yet, so flights to and from the action point can be boring if you want to take off and land.

 

I don't care in the slightest about unlocking skins. Like many flight simmers...I'm older, have kids and own a house...so time is what I'm short on.

 

4X would be a good step up...8X would be better.

[Dakpilot]

I never said anyone should be forced to play the way i play, never said even how i play

 

Why so combative

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[kendo]

A pretty definitive answer for the reason for this decision from Han in the Q & A thread:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/?p=298274

 

There really is no need for further argument on this issue.

 

It made me really angry at the time that they did this. The worst example of their sometimes overly-controlling and stubborn approach - and one that needlessly antagonised a lot of people.

 

I'd still like the capability back. But i think lessons were learned and their decisions since have been on the money and sensible - and of course the continuing development and improvement of the sim makes it a small price to pay overall.

 

But as someone who just couldn't get into the campaign mode, after this decision I resigned myself to doing without a lot of skins.

Edited October 31, 2015 by kendo

[ShamrockOneFive]

A pretty definitive answer for the reason for this decision from Han in the Q & A thread:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/?p=298274

 

There really is no need for further argument on this issue.

 

It made me really angry at the time that they did this. The worst example of their sometimes overly-controlling and stubborn approach - and one that needlessly antagonised a lot of people.

 

I'd still like the capability back. But i think lessons were learned and their decisions since have been on the money and sensible - and of course the continuing development and improvement of the sim makes it a small price to pay overall.

 

But as someone who just couldn't get into the campaign mode, after this decision I resigned myself to doing without a lot of skins.

 

Its one of the weaker areas of the game design to be sure. We have a problem so we'll take away choices to make the problem go away is the sledgehammer approach. I'm hoping that long term they will try other approaches - especially as the product matures (and people have more CPU cycles to spare).

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

A pretty definitive answer for the reason for this decision from Han in the Q & A thread:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/?p=298274

 

There really is no need for further argument on this issue.

 

It made me really angry at the time that they did this. The worst example of their sometimes overly-controlling and stubborn approach - and one that needlessly antagonised a lot of people.

 

I'd still like the capability back. But i think lessons were learned and their decisions since have been on the money and sensible - and of course the continuing development and improvement of the sim makes it a small price to pay overall.

 

But as someone who just couldn't get into the campaign mode, after this decision I resigned myself to doing without a lot of skins.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/page-36?do=findComment&comment=298306

[dburne]

As long as they have unlocks, they will only allow x2 acceleration. They have been pretty clear about that.

 

Faster acceleration combined with the auto pilot to get through the unlocks, is why they did this. Time acceleration worked fine.

[bzc3lk]

 

 

It's funny that ROF using the DN engine does 16X accel just fine...and there doesn't appear to be a rash of customer support needed for it.

 

 

       WW1 aircraft 160km/h    x16 = 2560 Km/h in game

    

       WW2 aircraft 400Km/h   x16 = 6400 km/h in game

 

      This may well be the reason why Rof can handle it "just fine" and Bos struggles on some systems.

[Force10]

       WW1 aircraft 160km/h    x16 = 2560 Km/h in game

    

       WW2 aircraft 400Km/h   x16 = 6400 km/h in game

 

      This may well be the reason why Rof can handle it "just fine" and Bos struggles on some systems.

 

The point is the game engine can handle it...removing it because customers with a low spec computer's are complaining they can't use it punishes everyone that invested in hardware to enjoy this hobby at it's fullest.

 

And of course the abusing it to speed up the unlocks...that's a separate issue.

[Force10]

 

Why so combative

 

 

 

 

You're right...apologies.

 

I guess I'm still moody...if you saw what I just went through with Space_Ghost above...yeah. A lot of BS and patronizing hogwash about CPU cycles, doing research, and claims the game engine can't handle it.

 

Ugh...