What is with the rendering distance?

[No601_Swallow]

Turning back to the bomber predicament - this really is a serious issue (rather than the fighter-jock "my cpu/gpu/thingy is faster than yours" nonsense   ):

 

Looking through the bombsight and hoping that the target will appear soon enough to allow you to adjust your course and all the bombsight calibrations that have to be redone... What it does is - in my experience - if you're going for punt-it-through-that-skylight accuracy, you have to bomb at about 3000m. Boo!

 

I have no idea what's possible in terms of the game engine, etc. But: would it be feasible/possible to render the bombsight view (ONLY) with a greatly enhanced distance rendering coeficient of thingy? Would that be possible and/or costly in terms of fps, etc?

[BlitzPig_Bill_Kelso]

Draw distance is not an issue for me as I have eyesight like Chuck. I can clearly see planes at 40 MILES away.

 

It's a setting on the new ATI graphics software called "eyesight like Chuck". One of the software developers on the team is a big WW2 flight sim fan and snuck it in as a secret .ini setting.

 

Sorry Nvidia peeps,

 

Not available at this time for you. 

[Jupp]

~S~ Everyone,

 

"Caveat Emptor" applying, wouldn't a Solid State Drive help a lot in all matters of loading models and textures to their fastest capabilities?

 

Just wondering this, as I am more likely than not going to build a computer later this year, and I'm certainly looking to get the best experience possible.

 

From what I understand flight simulator software is particularly benefitted by this hardware as loading models and textures is definitely faster if/when using it.

 

Blue Skies,

 

!S -Jupp-  

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It might improve loading times, but not CPU, GPU and RAM capacity (not only in terms of memory but also transfer rates, which is really important when 10 fully loaded medium bombers plus respective gunners appear) so the problem would still remain

[SharpeXB]

~S~ Everyone,

 

"Caveat Emptor" applying, wouldn't a Solid State Drive help a lot in all matters of loading models and textures to their fastest capabilities?

 

Just wondering this, as I am more likely than not going to build a computer later this year, and I'm certainly looking to get the best experience possible.

 

From what I understand flight simulator software is particularly benefitted by this hardware as loading models and textures is definitely faster if/when using it.

 

Blue Skies,

 

!S -Jupp-  

An SSD helps with the time it takes to load a mission but I don't think it changes any of your performance once it's running. I noticed a decent improvement with RoF and a very substantial improvement with DCS.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

As said above it cannot be an 'option' for only those with the latest equipment

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

What are we? Console Peasants.

 

High end PC gaming has always been about graphics options tailored to maximising your performance

[SharpeXB]

What are we? Console Peasants.

 

High end PC gaming has always been about graphics options tailored to maximising your performance

Currently I think those with even the strongest CPUs can be challenged by situations with many other objects.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

While that is correct, you maximise your performance relative to the game's limits, which itself should be set to cater for a fair game that can be reasonably enjoyed by both low and high-end customers in the same environment.

 

In a WW2 simulator expanding visual range on an individual basis is like giving high-end DCS users a Su-27 radar that works better than the one low-end users have to contend with. Visual identification is vital to air combat and ground attack, and while terrain rendering distance for example could be made to cater to individual settings without seriously upsetting gameplay (would only aid in navigation but this can be circumvented by using the bloody compass and ASI) the spotting range can't.

 

That is not to say that the devs should stop there - rather, they should think of ways to optimise the simulator to a point where players can simultaneously enjoy it even with a comparatively lower-end gear.

[VR-DriftaholiC]

I can stand in the parking lot of the telescope I work at and see passenger planes taking off and landing at the airport in town as well as a-10's from the air force base. I'm at 8500ft and looking down to about 3000ft. That's 46km according to google maps. and I'm looking against the ground not the sky making it even more difficult. Our brains are very adapt to spotting movement.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.8304203,-110.9249242,150124m/data=!3m1!1e3

Edited January 4, 2016 by driftaholic

[SharpeXB]

I can stand in the parking lot of the telescope I work at and see passenger planes taking off and landing at the airport in town as well as a-10's from the air force base. I'm at 8500ft and looking down to about 3000ft. That's 46km according to google maps. and I'm looking against the ground not the sky making it even more difficult. Our brains are very adapt to spotting movement.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.8304203,-110.9249242,150124m/data=!3m1!1e3

Aha. I'm from Tucson and I know exactly where you're looking :-D the air is so clear in Arizona it seems like you can see forever.

[Fidelity]

~S~ Everyone,

 

"Caveat Emptor" applying, wouldn't a Solid State Drive help a lot in all matters of loading models and textures to their fastest capabilities?

 

Just wondering this, as I am more likely than not going to build a computer later this year, and I'm certainly looking to get the best experience possible.

 

From what I understand flight simulator software is particularly benefitted by this hardware as loading models and textures is definitely faster if/when using it.

 

Blue Skies,

 

!S -Jupp-

SSD will help with loading textures, terrain, and the map.

 

You will see the best performance by investing in the best cpu and gpu you can get. Prioritize the CPU as it is the hardest part to upgrade.

[coconut]

I doubt the limitation is there because of rendering limitations. Beyond a couple km, an aircraft is little more than a few pixels, add a few more km and the textures don't matter much anymore. If the game can render a formation of 10 planes or so nearby without too much trouble, rendering 100 planes with 10 times less details shouldn't be harder.

 

I suspect the problem is on the network side of things, especially server-side. 10 planes that see each other forces the server to send 10x10=100 updates. It grows quadratically with the number of planes that are within visual range of each other. Increasing the render distance to 40km would multiply the view volume by 4x4x4=64 times. That would multiply the network load by 64*64 times = 4096 times. That's assuming an infinite amount of planes evenly distributed in space, which is absurd, but hopefully it shows costs of increasing view distance can be much higher than first intuition would let one believe.

 

That being said, I have no idea where the limit lies in practice. If DCS manages 20km, then maybe it's not unreasonable to expect more from IL-2. But then, a common complaint not so long ago about DCS multiplayer is that it wasn't an entirely smooth experience. The new engine may have solved some of these problems, but it's a new engine. IL-2 isn't using a new engine.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Hence why it's good as an option so everybody can figure out how it works for them and report back. Don't know why some of the obvious nay sayers don't get the idea of development, which includes moving forward and trying new things.

 

Fact is, if this game is looking for a bright future, improvements are nessecary to be made.

[Dakpilot]

No-one is calling for no development or improvements, and if you look at past history I think it can be noticed that dev's are also striving for the same ideal

 

What the "nay sayers" are calling for, is not to have options that are unreachable for the majority of players which will give a very select few a huge advantage 

 

If some people were able to access a faster Yak/109 if they had a top end machine I think there would be an outcry   

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Stick to your believs and fears if you want, without backup it's not credible anyway. I want to see it in practise and judge on my own. Similar discussion as back when people complained about raising player numbers in MP would be ruinuing performence and look how well accepted is is nowdays

 

Some people just need to crawl out of their caves and accept the game taking steps forward.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

What the "nay sayers" are calling for, is not to have options that are unreachable for the majority of players which will give a very select few a huge advantage 

No matter how often you preach that nonsense, that doesn't make it true.  

[Dakpilot]

MP game numbers were reduced for performance reasons

 

lots of work/optimisation was done to address this, and numbers were then brought back up in stages with stability, greater numbers are accepted because they now work

 

No-one was against increased numbers in MP and they aren't today

 

If view distance can be increased for all nobody is against it, and no-one is suggesting BoS should be optimized to run on a net book or P4 pentium

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[SharpeXB]

No matter how often you preach that nonsense, that doesn't make it true.

 

That is true. While the game can have graphics options for a whole range of hardware and allow players to set shadow detail and textures and such. Allowing players to set the range that other aircraft appear is probably an unfair advantage in multiplayer. It's better to keep every player at a common setting in that regard.

And once again, the strongest CPUs on the market are challenged by putting too many objects in this game. So I'm not sure what's gained by turning this setting up.

Edited January 4, 2016 by SharpeXB

[II./JG77_Manu*]

That is true. While the game can have graphics options for a whole range of hardware and allow players to set shadow detail and textures and such. Allowing players to set the range that other aircraft appear is probably an unfair advantage in multiplayer. It's better to keep every player at a common setting in that regard.

And once again, the strongest CPUs on the market are challenged by putting too many objects in this game. So I'm not sure what's gained by turning this setting up.

No one has ever said anything about different settings for different people. People like Dakpilot making this up is putting fear into people with "weak" setups, because they think they will have any disadvantage in multiplayer, but that's blatant nonsense.

10km for bombable objects

15km for fighters

20km for big planes

40km for contrails

for every player

DCS has an even bigger draw distance, and can be run by any ordinary PC.

[KoN_]

Game needs more time to grow , i am sure we will get better visibility later when MP is better optimized , 

This 3km bubble isn't that good for fast moving WWII birds , now  if we extend and double draw distance  that might make a few people happy .

Edited January 4, 2016 by II./JG77_Con

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The problem here is that while every player can benefit from this and I'm sure all want it, most players won't be able to sustain this since their rigs won't be able to render everything in a timely manner today. With optimisation however things get a lot easier

[II./JG77_Manu*]

The problem here is that while every player can benefit from this and I'm sure all want it, most players won't be able to sustain this since their rigs won't be able to render everything in a timely manner today. With optimisation however things get a lot easier

all that talk about optimization..i think from all the Sims there are, 1946 still has the best and most realistic rendering distance, when it comes to airplanes. Cliffs of Dover it's horrible..both ground objects and planes popping out of nothing. DCS has a huge draw distance, but the contrast between planes and background/sky is so bad/low, that they had to implement that model enhancement for WW2 to work properly, and currently it doesn't work very good, hopefully this gets better soon. BoS well, the short draw distance, nothing more to say. In 1946, i think the range where enemy planes are visible, and can be spotted is perfect, and comparable to real life. It's possible to spot a fighter 20km away, when you know where it is. It's also possible to spot a Dakota down low, almost 30km away (happened in our last SeoW mission). I feel much more comfortable in 1946, to not get "jumped", and also have a better situational awareness, then in any other sim.

And 1946 can be run by a Pentium 4...

[Dakpilot]

Put it into the options, and all good, everyone can adjust them to his rig. But then of course all the people with weak rigs would start whining.

 

 

 

People like Dakpilot making this up is putting fear into people with "weak" setups, because they think they will have any disadvantage in multiplayer, but that's blatant nonsense.

 

 

^^^From the horses mouth, many others as well have said people with high end rigs should not be restricted by those with mid range equipment, and should have the option to have higher settings for view distance

 

All I am saying is the maximum value must be attainable to all that the game is aimed at, what is so wrong with that ideal? It exists that way now and should do so in the future

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited January 4, 2016 by Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Options yes. Like draw distance max - decrease other settings. Or draw distance short - maximum "eyecandy" settings. But no one has

 

options that are unreachable for the majority of players which will give a very select few a huge advantage 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

MP game numbers were reduced for performance reasons

 

lots of work/optimisation was done to address this, and numbers were then brought back up in stages with stability, greater numbers are accepted because they now work

 

No-one was against increased numbers in MP and they aren't today

 

If view distance can be increased for all nobody is against it, and no-one is suggesting BoS should be optimized to run on a net book or P4 pentium

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Yes there were people against it. And they formed similar, unfounded complaints without any backup for their claims.

 

This is a very short sighted conversation anyway. While others have posted clear (although theorethical) concerns that are worth to be taken seriously you just keep repeating your very subjective post until everybody is bored or the thread locked.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Dakpilot]

Yes there were people against it. And they formed similar, unfounded complaints without any backup for their claims.

 

This is a very short sighted conversation anyway. While others have posted clear (although theorethical) concerns that are worth to be taken seriously you just keep repeating your very subjective post until everybody is bored or the thread locked.

 

If you still think that MP numbers were reduced for some arbitrary reason and then just turned back up without a mass of work being done then there is no point debating anything

 

People agreed with the decision, yes , and waited for the improvements to be implemented and now we are back at a decent level with hopefully more improvements to come, but there were no people against having higher numbers in MP as a concept, why would there be?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[SharpeXB]

And 1946 can be run by a Pentium 4...

1946 doesn't have anything even close to the physics BoS does.

 

From what Han said on the Questions thread, regarding the CPU load in the game. It seems physics is the limiting factor, since his solutions were related to that; i.e. adding another physics thread or simplifying the FM of distant AI planes.

 

But even if the CPU load can be optimized or reduced. How would that extra performance be best used?

By increasing the draw distance?

Or increasing the number of AI aircraft altogether? It might be better to see large formations and numbers rather than render more aircraft so far away. Or possibly their solution could be a balance between those two.

 

DCS has an even bigger draw distance, and can be run by any ordinary PC.

DCS doesn't use an advanced flight model for every AI aircraft. That's a big difference. But DCS also needs that range in modern air combat so it makes different compromises than BoS. Edited January 4, 2016 by SharpeXB

[=69.GIAP=RADKO]

That is true. While the game can have graphics options for a whole range of hardware and allow players to set shadow detail and textures and such. Allowing players to set the range that other aircraft appear is probably an unfair advantage in multiplayer. It's better to keep every player at a common setting in that regard.

 

A few posts here are making the assumptions that the draw distance is the problem to our spotting range. The solution might actually be simpler than that without having an impact on performance, or it might not be. Truth is none of us knows (apart from the devs, enlighten us please devs!). Making presumptions that what you think others are suggesting like increasing the view range of rendered models and destroying performance as a result is the wrong way of thinking. I don't think anyone here has suggested this or even know if that's the problem to the whole spotting issue!  We could use a dot/spot fade in and out system, or it could be related to the kinda lighting the game uses. We are all speculating and until the devs actually explain to us what's going on.

 

No-one in their right mind who actually cares about this product wants a game that gets hungrier with every update.

[SharpeXB]

The draw distance question is really simple math. It's obviously related to game performance and the most demanding CPU aspect of this game is its FM physics and AI. That's my understanding from this issue every time it gets discussed. Every AI plane no matter how far away is using the same FM as the player.

 

So if for example the game can handle 20 aircraft in the air at one time. Where do you want them?

If you increase the size of the "spawn circle" from 10km to 14km you're doubling it's area. In other words you are cutting in half the number of aircraft you could potentially encounter. So which would you rather have?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Who knows maybe they just use a position system thats updating the dots location periodically or sth better. Calculating full FM data for aircrafts at ranges we're talking about sounds rather ackward and unoptimised.

 

As Radko said devs know their engine best, so IF they decide to increase spotting range they'll surely know how to accomplish it with minimal performece hits.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The dot positioning is a reasonable idea for example Not sure how that works with (ex.) 2 AI aircraft engaging in the distance but it's one way to do it.

[SharpeXB]

Calculating full FM data for aircrafts at ranges we're talking about sounds rather ackward and unoptimised.

 

Going by what Han said that seems like exactly what the game does now. Because the solution he mentioned was simplifying the FM for distant AI

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/?p=288151

 

And this

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/?p=288130

Edited January 4, 2016 by SharpeXB

[coconut]

If you enable spectate mode and look at vehicles far away from your plane you'll notice their flight isn't very smooth, which tells us the server reduces the update frequency for planes that are far away. The unnatural movement of such distant planes also tells us there is no physics computation going on for them.

 

I understood Han's comment as relating to the server: It could adopt a simpler FM model for AIs that are far away from any human-controlled vehicle, that would ease the CPU load on the server.

[SharpeXB]

If you enable spectate mode and look at vehicles far away from your plane you'll notice their flight isn't very smooth, which tells us the server reduces the update frequency for planes that are far away. The unnatural movement of such distant planes also tells us there is no physics computation going on for them.

 

I understood Han's comment as relating to the server: It could adopt a simpler FM model for AIs that are far away from any human-controlled vehicle, that would ease the CPU load on the server.

I'm guessing that the limit is related to SP. MP could support an 84 player furrball.

 

Actually if you follow the thread back the person complaining about performance with many planes in the game is using an i7-6700K overclocked. I had the slowdown hit me when using an i7-3770K at stock speed. So once again, even really strong CPUs get their performance hit.

Edited January 4, 2016 by SharpeXB

[=69.GIAP=RADKO]

Going by what Han said that seems like exactly what the game does now. Because the solution he mentioned was simplifying the FM for distant AI

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/?p=288151

 

And this

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/?p=288130

 

Nice post Sharpe. I'm glad we've stamped out the assumption of a performance hit, there are other methods.  The devs aren't daft.

Edited January 4, 2016 by =69.GIAP=RADKO

[Ala13_Super6_1]

this distance rendering this version is impossible to bombard level +3000m. We could see the target before a certain disancia is now frustrating as not rendered until you have above.

Espero que los desarrolladores hagan algo al respecto

Edited January 5, 2016 by A0Super61

[SharpeXB]

this distance rendering this version is impossible to bombard level +3000m. We could see the target before a certain disancia is now frustrating as not rendered until you have above.

Espero que los desarrolladores hagan algo al respecto

If I understand correctly, the draw distance is 10km so that should be well enough to see targets at 3,000m, right?

I forget my high school trigonometry but if you are at 3,000m, how far away horizontally is 10km slant range?

Something like A2 + B2 = ummmmm

[3instein]

If I understand correctly, the draw distance is 10km so that should be well enough to see targets at 3,000m, right?

I forget my high school trigonometry but if you are at 3,000m, how far away horizontally is 10km slant range?

Something like A2 + B2 = ummmmm

It may be 10km for air objects, but I doubt it would be 10km for ground objects as well, might be wrong tho.

 

Mick.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

If I understand correctly, the draw distance is 10km so that should be well enough to see targets at 3,000m, right?

I forget my high school trigonometry but if you are at 3,000m, how far away horizontally is 10km slant range?

Something like A2 + B2 = ummmmm

Presuming the range is 10km, this makes objects visible 9.5km ahead at 3km, and 8.6km at 5km. Assuming a medium bomber is doing this at 300km/h this leaves respectively 1:54 and 1:34 until the bomber overflies the target. Now, a bomber needs to drop its ordinance from a certain distance in order to score a hit, and this may increase or decrease with altitude and speed.

 

I'm not the level bomber type usually so I don't know the trade inside out. I presume with the current limitations one needs to have very good references on the target area in order to come in nice and straight (a road that lines up closely, a tip of a forest area, a river bend, etc.) and minor corrections get tricky. How much can you see from such altitudes from a bombsight is up for the experts to deliberate.

[coconut]

IIRC render distance for ground objects depends on graphics settings. Those were reset after installing 1.106. If you were using Ultra before, that can explain why you might be experiencing a deterioration.