Jump to content


Photo

Make IL-2 look stunning with improved ground detail and visibility! How-to and discussion!


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#1 BlackHellHound1

BlackHellHound1
  • Founder
  • Posts: 351
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 04 July 2016 - 09:37

!!! Since the 2.011 update, This awesome trick does not work anymore !!!

Hopefully, We can find a fix and make this work again. but until then, I recommend using the x4 terrain detail setting for the best terrain detail.

 

UPDATE 1: I have added the section "New test results" 

UPDATE 2: I have added the section "DX11 improvements and new settings

UPDATE 3: I have added the section "New texlod=16384,8 line test" (Spoiler, The results are the same as with the earlier DX11 test)

I will keep updating the info as we learn more. I will post the last date this has been updated here on the top.

Last date updated: 18-05-2017 (Update 3)

 

 

Hello there fellow pilots,

 

In 2014 =LD= Penshoon found a solution to the blurry ground textures. A lof of effort from the community resulted in some amazing visual improvements. This amazing fix was then patched out by the devs. Coconut found the new file responsible for the ground textures and with it came back the great ground textures.

 

The original post ended up being cluttered and eventually disappeared into the background.

To reinvigorate this fix I thought it would be a good idea to repost instructions, how it works and a summarised version of the test results in an orderly fashion to allow new and experienced pilots to improve their game once again!

 

Before we get started I would like to make something very clear: All the information in this post is found by several community members including myself. I will make sure each and every person who contributed is credited correctly!

 

I have split this post into a few sections to keep this post organised.

___________________________________________________________________________

 

Let me explain what I am talking about:

 

What exactly is the problem?

In Il-2 the ground textures are divided into square tiles. If a tile is close it will have a certain high-quality resolution. If a tile is far away it will have a low-quality resolution. The division between these high-quality tiles and blurry low-quality tiling is clearly visible. Especially at higher altitudes.

When zooming in these tiles will sometimes change quality so that you can see more detail when zoomed in. This too creates an undesired effect since the transition between low and high detail is clearly visible.

There is no smooth transition between high and low detail. This means that the quality of a tile will change in an instance.

The devs have added an option to improve this detail but even at its highest setting, it is still terribly bad.

Here is a video made by =LD= Penshoon that clearly demonstrates the problem.

 

What does the fix do?

This improves the quality of all tiles to a higher standard so that higher detail can be seen from further away. The clear dividing lines between low and high detail also disappear completely.

At the same time, it removes the annoying transition between low and high detail when zooming in. However, the biggest improvement is the improved visibility and detail of airfields, towns, rivers, lakes and forests at medium and long distances.

 

What are the advantages?

The most noticeable advantage is that your game looks a lot better and feels more realistic. No more blurry background and sudden transitions between high and low quality. Instead, you see a realistically detailed world with forests, towns, roads, rivers and much more. The higher you get the more noticeable it is.

Secondly, navigating is made a lot easier! Airfields, rivers, lakes, forests and towns are accurately visible from massive distances allowing you to find your way back even at high altitude without the use of GPS.

Finding ground target also becomes easier since reference objects like towns, river and forests are not only visible but also identifiable from longer distances.

 

Note: This does not increase your view range or tree render range! It only improves ground texture resolution!

 

Here is an example of what improvement to expect:

 

I88c8d2.jpg

 

I put some more images under this spoiler:

Spoiler

 

Remember that these screenshots are not a clear representation of what you see in-game. A much bigger difference will be noticed when flying!

___________________________________________________________________________

 

Let's get this working on your PC.

 

Disclaimer: I can not say what effect this will have on your PC. Some have reported small FPS drops while others experienced small FPS increases. Make sure you do some testing before you stick with a certain setting!

You can always remove these settings and go back to the default settings!

 

How to improve your graphics:

 

  1. Find your IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad / graphics folder. You can find them here:

    C:\Program Files\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\data\graphics\
    

    For steam users:

    C:\Program Files\Steam\SteamApps\common\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\data\graphics\
    
  2. Download the terrain.cfg file.

  3. Past terrain.cfg file in your graphics folder.

  4. Start IL-2 BoS / BoM.

  5. Go to settings → Graphics and find Distant Landscape Detail.

  6. Set the value to x4 and restart the game.

  7. Fly around in a quick mission at different altitudes to see if your PC can handle the new settings!

  8. Read and test the info given in “Testing!” and “Adjusting the ground terrain”. You may need to lower the setting a bit.

 

If you don’t want to download the terrain.cfg file then you can make it yourself. Simply follow these instructions:

 

  1. Find your IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad / Battle of Moscow graphics folder. You can find them here:

    C:\Program Files\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\data\graphics\
    

    For steam users:

    C:\Program Files\Steam\SteamApps\common\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\data\graphics\
    
  2. Make a new text file named “terrain.cfg” (Make sure it becomes a .cfg file!)

  3. Past the following text in the new “terrain.cfg” document (copy and past all of it!):

    Spoiler

  4. Save the file and start IL-2 BoS / BoM.

  5. Go to settings → Graphics and find Distant Landscape Detail.

  6. Set the value to x4 and restart the game.

  7. Fly around in a quick mission at different altitudes to see if your PC can handle the new settings!

  8. Read and test the info given in “Testing!” and “Adjusting the ground terrain”.

 

Testing!

It is important to do some testing. Every modification to a game will impact your PC in a specific way. The only way to know if your PC can handle the new setting is by flying around at different altitudes. If you notice that your PC is having some issues then you should make the settings a bit less detailed. Keep reading to see how to do that.

If you notice your PC is running just fine then you can leave the settings as they are.

 

Adjusting the ground terrain.

I have added several different improved values to the file. From low to high. (all will make your game look better)

The above-given x4 improvements are the max settings that I advise. Changing these to higher values will give nearly no noticeable improvements in quality while taking up lots of GPU processing power (expect problems like stuttering and FPS drop if you do). If your PC can handle the x4 setting then you should stick with it.

If your PC is having problems then you should try setting it to x3 then to x2 and then to normal. If you are still having issues after this then I advise removing them completely and just use the default settings.

 

How to remove the settings:

If you notice your PC is unable to deal with any of these settings then you should disable them completely. All you have to do is follow these steps:

  1. Go to your IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad / Battle of Moscow graphics folder.

  2. Delete the “terrain.cfg” file and start the game.

  3. Go to settings → Graphics and find Distant Landscape Detail.

  4. Set the value back to your original setting and restart the game.

Your settings are now back to the default settings that the game uses.

___________________________________________________________________________

 

How does all of this work?

 

An explanation on how the game determines what resolution to use:

The gameworld is divided into tiles of equal size. The resolution of a single tile is determined by 3 factors:

  1. A predetermined values in your terrain.cfg file.

  2. Distance from you.

  3. How far you are zoomed in.

 

Terrain.cfg value breakdown.

I will break down the values in the terrain.cfg file first so you know what those numbers mean.

What ultimately determines the resolution is the “texlod=2048,16”. So what does this mean? The “2048 and “16” are important here. The "2048" is the Level of Detail of the ground. The second number “16” is an area size. Meaning: 2048 / 16 = 128 pixels per area. (see test results)

Increasing the 2048 to 4096 doubles the pixels per area to 256.

However, if instead the second number is decreased to 8 we will also double the number of pixels per area to 256.

 

The distance from you.

This one is pretty simple to understand. If a tile is close you will have the quality as determined by the top “texlod=” count. If a tile is far away it is determined by the bottom “texlod=” count.

 

What happens when you zoom in?

When you zoom in the game thinks you are closer to the tile then you actually are and therefore it will increase the quality by a step. This is very noticeable with the default settings.

 

How these work together?

First, your game has to figure out what the distance is between you and a tile. When the distance falls between a set value then the corresponding “texlod=” resolution is loaded.

 

What creates the blurry textures and dividing line in the default settings?

In the default settings, the values change quickly. I will take the “normal” setting as an example. Tiles nearby correspond to the value texlod=4096,8 which is nice high detail. The 2nd, 3th and 4th value decrease to texlod=2048,8. This is half the detail but still acceptable. These values blur the ground to the point that forests, towns and rivers are blurred. Roads, trees and other small detail will simply disappear. This decrease in texture is clearly noticeable. However, what comes next pretty much breaks the game. It jumps from 2048,8 (256 pixels per area) to  1024,16 (64 pixels per area) that is a massive drop in quality. It is literally 1/4th of the quality. This is not only noticeable but also annoying. The quality is so low that everything is a blur. On top of that, the line between these two parts is incredibly noticeable and disturbing.

 

How to fix this and increase quality?

The most important part is to remove the big decrease in quality. Keeping the values the same or nearly the same will remove the long range blurry tiles.

To increase the overall detail per tile we simply need to increase the pixel per area count of all values.

Now that we know all this let us have a look at some of the test results from the community.

 

 

Why are there 4 sets of values?

The game now as a setting called Distant Landscape Detail. This setting has 4 options: Normal, x2, x3 and x4

the game reads the first 5 lines if you have Normal selected. It reads the second set if you have x2 selected and so on. In the file that I provided 4 different settings are found. The easiest way to explain the difference is by dividing them into what quality groups just like the game does. The first values are the “low” setting, the second medium, the third high and the 4th is ultra.

___________________________________________________________________________

 

Test results:

 

Many different things have been tested by several community members. The following is a summary of the test results. This means that not all test results and test data can be found here. If you want to read all the test results with all test data then you should go to the original post!

I will organise the following summary by type of test to keep everything orderly.

 

How does it work?

4 main tests have been done to try and figure out how everything works. I will go through these step by step. I will use the “texlod=2048,16” as a starting example for each test result.

 

First, we will look at the first number in “texlod=2048,16”. This number indicates the amount of detail in a set area. The higher the number the higher the quality.

2048 / 16 = 128 pixels per area

4096 / 16 = 256 pixels per area

Using numbers over 8192 can make your game incredibly slow or even crash your game.

 

The second number “16” indicates the area size of that set area. This means that the number works in the opposite way of the first number. Increasing the second number creates a larger area to put the same amount of detail in. Therefore a lower Level of Detail. Making the number lower then obviously makes the detail higher.

2048 / 16 = 128 pixels per area

2048 / 32 = 64 pixels per area

2048 / 8 = 256 pixels per area

However, making the second number too low (lower than 8) will introduce problems.

 

Performance is, of course, a big issue. Having to trade performance for detail is not always the best option. Luckily these changes don't seem to have a major impact on performance on a medium performance system. Some (including myself) even noticed small FPS increases. This is not for everyone, though. Other people reported small FPS drops in certain situations. On some systems, it could also be detrimental if the values were set too high. Luckily this can be solved by decreasing the values a bit.

 

Lastly, there were some experiments with more “texlod=” by changing the LodCount=5 to LodCount=10 and adding 5 more texlod= to the list. This changed nothing when it comes to improving ground quality. It did introduce stuttering and FPS drops into the game so it is best to stay away from this.

 

Value tests:

Various values have been tested to see what effects it has on quality and performance.

I will start with =LD=Penshoon’s original settings:

 

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

 

These settings are an improvement on the default settings. The last “texlod=” was 1024,16. It has been replaced by 2048,8. This change removes the blurry tiles at long range. However, the same medium-low quality is kept for the rest of the map. This should work fine for anybody even if your PC is not the best. It does not seem to impact performance so should be good for low-end systems. (always test it on your own system) (setting “normal” with my custom terrain.cfg in place)

 

____

 

texlod=8192,16

texlod=4096,32

texlod=4096,16

texlod=2048,16

texlod=2048,8

 

This setting is a bit weird. These values will keep your performance as is but not for the right reasons. I will rewrite it to make it more clear what actually happens (the resulting quality will be the exact same!):

 

texlod=4096,8

texlod=2048,16

texlod=2048,8

texlod=2048,16

texlod=2048,8

 

This simplified version shows that the quality differs a lot from one distance to another. I would advise not to use this setting. The result is in fact slightly worse than the first I mentioned. The 2nd and 4th line cause lower quality while the 3rd and 5th line cause medium quality. This makes little sense to me.

____

 

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=2048,8

texlod=2048,8

 

I added these values as a nice intermediate. It has a good balance of medium quality while maintaining performance. It does not really improve that much on the first setting but It is an improvement nonetheless. (setting “x2” with my custom terrain.cfg in place)

____

 

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

 

These values create a far greater level of detail. Most people speak highly of this setting and seem to have very little to no performance decrease. I ran these settings myself for a while. I could run these settings fine with the following specs: intel i7-600, GTX660, 1080p on balanced settings.

Loadings times did increase slightly but not too much. If you have the game on an SSD this should not be an issue.

One issue that was mentioned multiple times is that the GPU memory usages goes up to about 3 GB. This means that for some GPU’s it is wise to either lower the ground detail or decrease the overall graphics to a lower setting (make sure to test it). (setting “x3” with my custom terrain.cfg in place)

____

 

texlod=8192,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

 

These are the values I now use. They are a bit more demanding than the other settings but create a slightly better-looking ground when taxiing. However. When flying low the difference between these values and the one with all 4096,8 is not all that noticeable. (setting “x4” with my custom terrain.cfg in place)

____

 

texlod=8192,8

texlod=8192,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

 

The use of more than 1 line with 8192,8 has also been tested. This will impact your performance massively. Stuttering was not uncommon. Best to stay away from this. With all lines set to 8192,8 was a bad idea. This will reduce your FPS to a measly 1 FPS or less!

 

I encourage you to do some testing of your own. Perhaps you can find some new settings yourself.

 

New test results:

I will keep updating this post with important findings.

 

5-7-2016

Apparently, the developers have already added the 4th setting into the game its default settings.

Some testing revealed that the game developers have (at some unknown moment in time) added the "Ultra" setting. (It would have been nice from de devs to tell us this)

There is still a small difference between the default x4 and the custom x4 values. The custom settings smooth out the long-range textures a bit making them a bit more pleasant to look at.

The image below will show you the difference. The image is zoomed in.

 

post-31381-0-50609700-1467738614.png

This image is made by coconut

 

These tests have also revealed that higher settings can create even better visuals. Keep reading to find out what settings can be improved:

I noticed that my GPU VRAM was not using 3.5GB anymore. Instead, it was running at 2.1GB of VRAM.

This is probably because of the 64-bit update.

This got me to do some more testing with higher values.

I first tried out the game with the following lines:

 

texlod=8192,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=8192,8

 

This ran fine at only 2.7GB of VRAM. Still maintaining 60+ fps

 

I then tried some crazy stuff to see how my GPU and the game would act.

Next up was the all 8k lines

 

texlod=8192,8

texlod=8192,8

texlod=8192,8

texlod=8192,8

texlod=8192,8

 

This ran fine at 3.1GB - 3.5GB of VRAM depending on altitude. I did notice at lower altitudes my fps would go down to 50-55 but stayed around here without going down.

Lastly I tried something that I expected to be a bit too crazy:

 

texlod=8192,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=16384,8

 

And

 

texlod=8192,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=8192,8

texlod=16384,8

 

The 16k line used to crash the game before. Not anymore!

This ran surprisingly smooth. Using only 3.1GB - 3,5GB of VRAM. Although the performance is not too bad, the quality gain is not noticeable when flying. Only on a picture can the difference be noted.

I feel safe to say that you can increase the custom settings to contain 2 or 3 lines of 8192,8. That is if your GPU can handle it. (mine is an EVGA GTX 970 SSC 4gb)

 

Dx11 improvement and new settings:

I have done a few new tests with the introduction of Dx11. I have to say that the results are very positive. 

My primary test was to see if the following setting would run smoothly.

 

texlod=8192,8

texlod=8192,8

texlod=8192,8

texlod=8192,8

texlod=8192,8

 

To do this I made a game as heavy as possible: 4K plane skin, distant grass, max settings and Vsync.

The results were as I hoped them to be. The game ran smoothly at 60 fps (limited by my system setup) at all altitudes. I did notice once a very short FPS drop to 48 FPS although I am not confident that this is related to the 5x texlod=8192,8 since I have (rarely) had such FPS drops before.

 

I was curious to see how much this 5x texlod=8192,8 would improve over the in-game x4 setting. The following image shows the difference between the 2 layers. I took this image at the exact same point in time thanks to the replay system. The way the image works is as follows: black means it is the exact same colour pixel. aka, no difference what so ever. Coloured pixels indicate a colour difference between the 2 images. 

 

The image shows the plane as Black since it is the exact same plane and skin. Another clearly visible element is the black partial square at the bottom of the screen indicating that the in-game x4 resolution has some line(s) with texlod=8192,8. At longer ranges the difference becomes visible. To be precise:  at medium range, a small improvement is noticeable while at long range a more significant increase in detail is visible. 

 

D9yErs9.jpg

 

I also tested with 5x texlod=16384,8. It ran the game but with some serious FPS drops. I also noticed that with these settings the game would become quite ugly as the resolution of the ground resolution would be too high and antialiasing could not solve the issue. It really looked worse than with 5x texlod=8192,8. For this reason, I did not test what the game would look like with only 1 or 2 lines of 16384,8. 

 

Lastly, I tested what the game would do with 1 or more lines of texlod=16384,4. you are free to do it but do not expect your game to ever start again... The game would simply stop working as it was starting up... No further testing needed :/

 

All in all, The difference between the in-game x4 setting and the custom 5x texlod=8192,8 setting are pretty similar. While flying the difference is barely, and maybe even not at all, visible. I do not believe that the 5x texlod=8192,8 adds much to the flying experience but if your system can handle it: why not?

 

Using the texlod=16384,8 line defeats the purpose of using the improved detail as it will make the world look unrealistic and fake. Although, I do encourage you to try it out for yourself.

 

 

New texlod=16384,8 line test

 

I have done some new tests with the 16K lines to see if they work now and what kind of effects they give. The results I got were the same as before. None the less, here are my results.

 

For this test, I used the settings as seen under the spoiler. 

Spoiler

 

I used the same test method as before. I took a screenshot with a replay file at the exact same moment in time each time to ensure the images would be taken in the exact same place and time in the game. removing as many inaccuracies as possible. I then compared these screenshots with photoshop to see what the results are. 

You can see segments of the still images under the spoiler. Note how there is barely any visible difference in the still images. 

Spoiler

 

The difference is immense when time is running as normal. The textures on the ground become too sharp for the antialiasing to handle. The ground will look like it is moving. It is a highly unrealistic and quite ugly effect. 

Just like before. I can confirm that the 5x texlod=8192,8 looks a lot better and is still the setting I recommend for high and systems. I highly advise anyone to stay away from using even 1 line of texlod=16384,8.

On top of this, the FPS drops were significant. I have added the FPS values to the tested values under the spoiler. Significant stutters also started to appear with the introduction of texlod=16384,8 lines. The addition of more lines of texlod=16384,8 intensified these stutters massivly.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I ask everyone to share this post with your friends and squadrons. It would be amazing if we can reach the majority of the IL-2 BoS / BoM community!

I would highly appreciate it if someone could translate this to Russian and post it on the Russian forum.

 

Credits:

 

Original find and post:

=LD=Penshoon

 

Rediscovery terrain file:

Coconut

 

Testing of the workings:

=LD=Penshoon

BlackHellHound1

=LD=Hethwill_Khan

71st_Mastiff

Venturi

12.OIAE_Stick-95

 

Testing of the values:

=LD=Penshoon

BlackHellHound1

=LD=Hethwill_Khan

6./ZG26_5tuka

chris455

=LD=dhyran

TG-55Panthercules

coconut

 

Let me know if I forgot to add anyone to the credits. Everyone that contributed deserves his/her fair share of the credits!

 

BlackHellHound1

 

:salute:


Edited by BlackHellHound1, 06 July 2017 - 12:21.

  • 17

sC5lUvR.jpg

QaelX68.jpg

i7-2600 3.4GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GTX 970 4GB SSC ACX 2.0+, Modified X52 Pro, Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals, Homemade Head tracker and Photoshop for skinning!


#2 Zami

Zami
  • Tester
  • Posts: 2611
  • Location:Suomi

Posted 04 July 2016 - 10:01

Thanks, I will test these later after work!

 

I had this earlier but now completely forgotten this tweak.


Edited by Zami, 04 July 2016 - 10:01.

  • 0

Intel 6700k@4.6Ghz // Asus z170 Pro Gaming // 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 2666Mhz DDR4 // GTX 1080 // Crucial MX100 256GB SSD // 34" Dell U3415W 3440x1440 // Creative Sound Blaster Z // Saitek X-52 // Win10-64bit
5dD3HQL.jpgBlazing.jpg


#3 71st_AH_Mastiff

71st_AH_Mastiff
  • Tester
  • Posts: 3852
  • Location:unknown, Mars maybe...

Posted 04 July 2016 - 10:59

PixelSize=50  //meters

LodCount=5


[setup]
texlod=4096,8
texlod=2048,8
texlod=2048,8
texlod=2048,8
texlod=2048,8

[end]

[setup]
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=2048,8
texlod=2048,8
[end]

[setup]
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
[end]

[setup]
texlod=8192,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
[end]

 

your saying paste all these edit into the line?

 

ok tested yes copy the whole cfg. 

 

works great I'm really loving the model detailing much more on the skins also!!

 

Thank you!!!


Edited by 71st_Mastiff, 04 July 2016 - 11:14.

  • 0

"any failure you meet is never a defeat; merely a set up for a greater comeback"

 

YouTube Channel 


#4 BlackHellHound1

BlackHellHound1
  • Founder
  • Posts: 351
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 04 July 2016 - 11:14

PixelSize=50  //meters

LodCount=5


[setup]
texlod=4096,8
texlod=2048,8
texlod=2048,8
texlod=2048,8
texlod=2048,8

[end]

[setup]
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=2048,8
texlod=2048,8
[end]

[setup]
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
[end]

[setup]
texlod=8192,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
texlod=4096,8
[end]

 

your saying paste all these edit into the line?

 

or pick one setup and try it?

 

to me it means copy all and paste all into the Terrian cfg.

 

You should indeed copy the entire thing and past it all in the terrain.cfg file. 

The game now as a setting called Distant Landscape Detail. This setting has 4 options: Normal, x2, x3 and x4

the game reads the first 5 lines if you have Normal selected. It reads the second set if you have x2 selected and so on.

I will add this in the main post!

 

BlackHellHound1

 

:salute:


  • 0

sC5lUvR.jpg

QaelX68.jpg

i7-2600 3.4GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GTX 970 4GB SSC ACX 2.0+, Modified X52 Pro, Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals, Homemade Head tracker and Photoshop for skinning!


#5 [MA]_Goblin

[MA]_Goblin
  • Founder
  • Posts: 472
  • Location:Sweden/Rödeby

Posted 04 July 2016 - 12:25

No effect for me :(


  • 0

Spoiler

#6 BlackHellHound1

BlackHellHound1
  • Founder
  • Posts: 351
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 04 July 2016 - 12:32

No effect for me :(

 

You should check the following things. One of these might be set incorrectly.

Make sure the file is placed in the right folder and named correctly. 

Make sure that you have changed the settings in the in-game graphics settings.

(if you made a new file yourself) make sure the terrain.cfg has correctly changed to a cfg file and is no longer a .txt file

 

 

If all of these are correct then i advise you make a quick flight at 6000m. The effect is not always instantly noticeable from low altitude. (at 6000m it should be clearly visible)

 

BlackHellHound1

 

:salute:


  • 0

sC5lUvR.jpg

QaelX68.jpg

i7-2600 3.4GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GTX 970 4GB SSC ACX 2.0+, Modified X52 Pro, Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals, Homemade Head tracker and Photoshop for skinning!


#7 VBF-12_Stick-95

VBF-12_Stick-95
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1488
  • Location:US

Posted 04 July 2016 - 15:28

Can someone post some new before and after screenshots of this?  I'm seeing no change here.


  • 0

It's only a game...  It's only a game...  It's only a... damn it.

New system 08/16 - i7 6700K @ 4.6GHz, GTX1070SC ACX 3.0 8GB, 16GB DDR4 3000MHz, ASUS Z170-A ATX mobo, Windows 10

30284612591_3787866a3c_m.jpg   PACIFIC THEATER  29752931474_6ac9ec5dd3_m.jpg


#8 4./JG52_Reagan505

4./JG52_Reagan505
  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Location:Redding, CA - USA

Posted 04 July 2016 - 15:31

That haze is terrible.. Higher in-game graphics settings does the same thing.

 

Pretty sad the IL-2 community has to clean up all the shotty work.


  • 0

#9 Wolfs

Wolfs
  • Member
  • Posts: 29

Posted 04 July 2016 - 16:43

Nicely done mate!


  • 0

#10 =TBAS=Capt_Yorkshire

=TBAS=Capt_Yorkshire
  • Member
  • Posts: 326
  • Location:The Shire

Posted 04 July 2016 - 19:28

can it be used with sweet fx?


  • 0

#11 TG-55Panthercules

TG-55Panthercules
  • Founder
  • Posts: 902

Posted 04 July 2016 - 19:29



Can someone post some new before and after screenshots of this?  I'm seeing no change here.

 

Not sure what I'm seeing with this yet - but here are some with/without shots for comparison:

 

 

1000m - without mod:

BoS%20blur%20bubble%201000m%20without%20

 

 

1000m - with mod:

BoS%20blur%20bubble%201000m%20with%20ter

 

 

 

2000m - without mod:

BoS%20blur%20bubble%202000m%20without%20

 

 

 

2000m - with mod:

BoS%20blur%20bubble%202000m%20with%20ter

 

 

 

3000m without mod:

BoS%20blur%20bubble%203000m%20without%20

 

 

3000m - with mod:

BoS%20blur%20bubble%203000m%20with%20ter

 

 

Focusing solely on the transition line that creates the "bubble of blur" effect at the lower altitudes I would be frequenting as a typical ground-pounder, I'm not really seeing much in the way of improvement.  Haven't really tried at higher altitudes yet.


  • 0
Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.8 GHz (Corsair H75 liquid cooler); 16GB RAM (Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3200MHz)
EVGA GTX 1080 TI SC2, 11 GB; ASUS ROG Maximus IX Code MB; Realtek ROG SupremeFX audio
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit; Oculus Rift (CV1); Logitech Force 3D Pro; Saitek Rudder Pedals and Throttle Quadrants

#12 Dakpilot

Dakpilot
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3864
  • Location:Afrika

Posted 04 July 2016 - 20:02

This only has an effect on ground texture quality, and will not change tree or Forest 'bubble' radius

 

Cheers Dakpilot


  • 0

i5 3570K at 4,46Ghz//H100i//P8Z77-I-DELUXE//16GB 1600mhz ram//Galax GTX970 4GB EXOC//Samsung Evo840 128gbSSD x2//LG 49" 3840 X 2160//MSFFB2// Saitek throttle quadrant//Win10-64bit


#13 PA-Sniv

PA-Sniv
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1136
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 04 July 2016 - 20:12

Thanks to bring it back!!! Finally, gives justice to Moscow beautifull map! ;)


  • 0
"We believe in nothing, Lebowski..."

#14 BlackHellHound1

BlackHellHound1
  • Founder
  • Posts: 351
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 04 July 2016 - 20:46

Can someone post some new before and after screenshots of this?  I'm seeing no change here.

 

The 2 screenshots marked with 2000m and 4000m were made yesterday. On the left side at long range you can see a distinct decrease in quality. On the right side this is not so. (look at the area's that the red arrows are pointing at)

I have to admit that it is a little bit more visible in the winter maps.

 

 

can it be used with sweet fx?

 Yes! This fixes the game itself. Sweet fx is completely independent of this.

 

 

Not sure what I'm seeing with this yet - but here are some with/without shots for comparison:

 

Spoiler

 

Focusing solely on the transition line that creates the "bubble of blur" effect at the lower altitudes I would be frequenting as a typical ground-pounder, I'm not really seeing much in the way of improvement.  Haven't really tried at higher altitudes yet.

 

This fix only applies to the ground textures as mentioned in the first post. The treeline render range is independent of this. In fact: we don't even know if it is possible at all to change the tree render distance!

 

BlackHellHound1

 

:salute:


  • 0

sC5lUvR.jpg

QaelX68.jpg

i7-2600 3.4GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GTX 970 4GB SSC ACX 2.0+, Modified X52 Pro, Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals, Homemade Head tracker and Photoshop for skinning!


#15 VBF-12_Stick-95

VBF-12_Stick-95
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1488
  • Location:US

Posted 04 July 2016 - 21:07

The 2 screenshots marked with 2000m and 4000m were made yesterday. On the left side at long range you can see a distinct decrease in quality. On the right side this is not so. (look at the area's that the red arrows are pointing at)

I have to admit that it is a little bit more visible in the winter maps.

 

**snip**

 

BlackHellHound1

 

:salute:

 

Is the "Normal" and "Improved Setting" both at 4X "Distant landscape detail" game setting with the only difference being the existence of Terrain.cfg?  The side marked "Normal" looks more like 1X setting.


  • 0

It's only a game...  It's only a game...  It's only a... damn it.

New system 08/16 - i7 6700K @ 4.6GHz, GTX1070SC ACX 3.0 8GB, 16GB DDR4 3000MHz, ASUS Z170-A ATX mobo, Windows 10

30284612591_3787866a3c_m.jpg   PACIFIC THEATER  29752931474_6ac9ec5dd3_m.jpg


#16 BlackHellHound1

BlackHellHound1
  • Founder
  • Posts: 351
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 04 July 2016 - 21:20

Is the "Normal" and "Improved Setting" both at 4X "Distant landscape detail" game setting with the only difference being the existence of Terrain.cfg?  The side marked "Normal" looks more like 1X setting.

 

The left side is the game default "normal" setting. basically the lowest game original setting. I used this setting since i expect that most people to use this. (whether they use them intentionally or not)

The right side is the improved setting set to x4. Pretty much the highest setting that will keep a stable system. 

I know these are the 2 most extreme cases. I had a second reason to do this though: this will illustrate the best possible improvement.

It is totally possible that you wont notice as much of a difference if your settings were already set to x4. However, this fix will still improve your settings.

 

I hope this clears things up a bit. 

 

BlackHellHound1

 

:salute:


  • 0

sC5lUvR.jpg

QaelX68.jpg

i7-2600 3.4GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GTX 970 4GB SSC ACX 2.0+, Modified X52 Pro, Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals, Homemade Head tracker and Photoshop for skinning!


#17 Zami

Zami
  • Tester
  • Posts: 2611
  • Location:Suomi

Posted 04 July 2016 - 21:36

Tested with couple of campaign missions. Still works and improves scenery nicely. Did not notice any performance difference to the stock settings. 


  • 0

Intel 6700k@4.6Ghz // Asus z170 Pro Gaming // 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 2666Mhz DDR4 // GTX 1080 // Crucial MX100 256GB SSD // 34" Dell U3415W 3440x1440 // Creative Sound Blaster Z // Saitek X-52 // Win10-64bit
5dD3HQL.jpgBlazing.jpg


#18 TG-55Panthercules

TG-55Panthercules
  • Founder
  • Posts: 902

Posted 04 July 2016 - 22:26

This only has an effect on ground texture quality, and will not change tree or Forest 'bubble' radius

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Bummer - I was hoping the trees would be part of the "land textures" somehow so this would help with the blur bubble.  I suspect there may be some improvement in the other aspects with this, but unfortunately I "can't see the forest for the trees", so to speak.


  • 0
Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.8 GHz (Corsair H75 liquid cooler); 16GB RAM (Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3200MHz)
EVGA GTX 1080 TI SC2, 11 GB; ASUS ROG Maximus IX Code MB; Realtek ROG SupremeFX audio
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit; Oculus Rift (CV1); Logitech Force 3D Pro; Saitek Rudder Pedals and Throttle Quadrants

#19 Bert_Foster

Bert_Foster
  • Founder
  • Posts: 132
  • Location:NSW

Posted 04 July 2016 - 22:49

Looking in the data graphics folder I dont see an existing terrain.cfg file. So is this file an additional file ?


  • 0

#20 12.OIAE_Snake9

12.OIAE_Snake9
  • Founder
  • Posts: 598
  • Location:North Carolina, US

Posted 05 July 2016 - 03:35

Thank you!   ;)


  • 0

Trim still not on axis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Still? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Really?


#21 Zami

Zami
  • Tester
  • Posts: 2611
  • Location:Suomi

Posted 05 July 2016 - 05:19

Looking in the data graphics folder I dont see an existing terrain.cfg file. So is this file an additional file ?

Yes, add it to the graphics folder.


  • 0

Intel 6700k@4.6Ghz // Asus z170 Pro Gaming // 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 2666Mhz DDR4 // GTX 1080 // Crucial MX100 256GB SSD // 34" Dell U3415W 3440x1440 // Creative Sound Blaster Z // Saitek X-52 // Win10-64bit
5dD3HQL.jpgBlazing.jpg


#22 [MA]_Goblin

[MA]_Goblin
  • Founder
  • Posts: 472
  • Location:Sweden/Rödeby

Posted 05 July 2016 - 06:13

Got it to work after I set detail to one with restart and then four and a restart. Sharper over all and together with SweetFx and gamma 0,5 a more "pleasant" colour tone :)

Can't decide if it's better or not though.


  • 0

Spoiler

#23 VBF-12_Stick-95

VBF-12_Stick-95
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1488
  • Location:US

Posted 05 July 2016 - 11:30

The left side is the game default "normal" setting. basically the lowest game original setting. I used this setting since i expect that most people to use this. (whether they use them intentionally or not)

The right side is the improved setting set to x4. Pretty much the highest setting that will keep a stable system. 

 

**snip**

 

BlackHellHound1

 

:salute:

 

Thanks for your response.  As you noted in the OP I did testing on the original Terrain.ini that Coconut discovered to help determine its capabilities.  As rightly pointed out above, it did not change the "bubble" effect but only enhanced the distance detail.  EDIT: All my testing back then was done with 4X in game "Distant landscape detail". (oops, didn't exist at the time.)  The enhancement was easily identifiable and remarkable.  EDIT:  Looking back at the old thread it seems in August 2015 a new Terrain.cfg was working with the "Distant landscape detail" but then died after some update.

 

The only true test of whether this currently works or not is a comparison of screenshots at the same in game "Distant landscape detail".  I created the terrain.cfg and pasted the above lines into it with the cfg extension.  I also compared this to the download version and older terrain.ini files.  I did a number of tests with different distance settings, resolutions, cropping, etc.  The two following screenshots are taken from the exact same angle and frame from the same track.  The "Distant landscape detail" is set to 4X, Reshade off. resolution 2560 X 1440, Ultra, AA=4, Gamma .9.  The screenshots are presented as taken with no post processing.

 

The areas of the screenshots where one should see improvement with the terrain.cfg is on the opposite bank of the Volga out to the horizon.  This is especially true of the city areas where buildings would be enhanced.

 

Conclusion of my testing.  I would love to have the enhancement that the old terrain.ini used to bring to the game.  Unfortunately, I have been unable to duplicate that enhancement with the use of Terrain.cfg with version 2.002b of the game.  In fact. I have been unable to find any enhancement with Terrain.cfg.  The two screenshots are identical, with no enhancement whatsoever from the one with the Terrain.cfg.   Maybe someone else can take the time to post screenshots that are also true "apples to apples" comparisons.  Let's be methodical about this.  I would love to be proven wrong and have this work.

 

No Terrain.cfg

27821529670_81d11d37db_o.jpg

 

With Terrain.cfg

27821528460_506b6e5b48_o.jpg


Edited by 12.OIAE_Stick-95, 05 July 2016 - 13:12.

  • 0

It's only a game...  It's only a game...  It's only a... damn it.

New system 08/16 - i7 6700K @ 4.6GHz, GTX1070SC ACX 3.0 8GB, 16GB DDR4 3000MHz, ASUS Z170-A ATX mobo, Windows 10

30284612591_3787866a3c_m.jpg   PACIFIC THEATER  29752931474_6ac9ec5dd3_m.jpg


#24 BlackHellHound1

BlackHellHound1
  • Founder
  • Posts: 351
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 05 July 2016 - 14:21

Thanks for your response.  As you noted in the OP I did testing on the original Terrain.ini that Coconut discovered to help determine its capabilities.  As rightly pointed out above, it did not change the "bubble" effect but only enhanced the distance detail.  EDIT: All my testing back then was done with 4X in game "Distant landscape detail". (oops, didn't exist at the time.)  The enhancement was easily identifiable and remarkable.  EDIT:  Looking back at the old thread it seems in August 2015 a new Terrain.cfg was working with the "Distant landscape detail" but then died after some update.   The only true test of whether this currently works or not is a comparison of screenshots at the same in game "Distant landscape detail".  I created the terrain.cfg and pasted the above lines into it with the cfg extension.  I also compared this to the download version and older terrain.ini files.  I did a number of tests with different distance settings, resolutions, cropping, etc.  The two following screenshots are taken from the exact same angle and frame from the same track.  The "Distant landscape detail" is set to 4X, Reshade off. resolution 2560 X 1440, Ultra, AA=4, Gamma .9.  The screenshots are presented as taken with no post processing.   The areas of the screenshots where one should see improvement with the terrain.cfg is on the opposite bank of the Volga out to the horizon.  This is especially true of the city areas where buildings would be enhanced.   Conclusion of my testing.  I would love to have the enhancement that the old terrain.ini used to bring to the game.  Unfortunately, I have been unable to duplicate that enhancement with the use of Terrain.cfg with version 2.002b of the game.  In fact. I have been unable to find any enhancement with Terrain.cfg.  The two screenshots are identical, with no enhancement whatsoever from the one with the Terrain.cfg.   Maybe someone else can take the time to post screenshots that are also true "apples to apples" comparisons.  Let's be methodical about this.  I would love to be proven wrong and have this work.
 

 

I have some of the test you mentioned and I come to the same conclusion. This got me thinking. I can clearly remember that when they first introduced the "Distant Landscape Detail" there were still issues with the blurry detail at long range. Because of this I looked into the patch notes and dev blogs. I could not find anything that specifically stated that they had improved the "Distant Landscape Detail". To me it seems like they slipped the communities values in without clearly mentioning it. 

 

It does indeed look like the x4 setting already has the 4 times 4096,8 with one 8192,8 in place. However, for the lower settings the visuals are still disappointing.

 

I also noticed that my GPU VRAM was not using 3.5GB anymore. instead it was running at 2.1GB of VRAM. 

This is probably because of the 64 bit update.

This got me to do some more testing with higher values. 

I first tried out the game with the following lines:

 

texlod=8192,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=8192,8

 

This ran fine at only 2.7GB of VRAM. Still maintaining 60+ fps

 

I then tried some crazy stuff to see how my GPU and the game would act.

Next up was the all 8k lines

 

texlod=8192,8

texlod=8192,8

texlod=8192,8

texlod=8192,8

texlod=8192,8

 

This ran fine at 3.1GB - 3.5GB of VRAM depending on height. I did notice at lower altitudes my fps would go down to 50-55 but stayed around here without going down.

Lastly I tried something that I expected to be a bit crazy:

 

texlod=8192,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=16384,8

 

And

 

texlod=8192,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=4096,8

texlod=8192,8

 

texlod=16384,8

 

The 16k line used to crash the game before. Not anymore!

This ran surprisingly smooth. Using only 3.1GB - 3,5GB of VRAM. Although the performance is not too bad, the quality gain is not noticeable when flying. Only on a picture can the difference be noted.

 

I feel save to say that you can increase the custom settings to contain 2 or 3 lines of 8192,8. That is if your GPU can handle it. (mine is a EVGA GTX 970 SSC 4gb)

 

I will add this info to the main post.

 

BlackHellHound1

 

:salute:


Edited by =[Coffin]=BlackHellHound1, 05 July 2016 - 14:21.

  • 0

sC5lUvR.jpg

QaelX68.jpg

i7-2600 3.4GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GTX 970 4GB SSC ACX 2.0+, Modified X52 Pro, Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals, Homemade Head tracker and Photoshop for skinning!


#25 TG-55Panthercules

TG-55Panthercules
  • Founder
  • Posts: 902

Posted 05 July 2016 - 14:42

Thanks for your response.  As you noted in the OP I did testing on the original Terrain.ini that Coconut discovered to help determine its capabilities.  As rightly pointed out above, it did not change the "bubble" effect but only enhanced the distance detail.  EDIT: All my testing back then was done with 4X in game "Distant landscape detail". (oops, didn't exist at the time.)  The enhancement was easily identifiable and remarkable.  EDIT:  Looking back at the old thread it seems in August 2015 a new Terrain.cfg was working with the "Distant landscape detail" but then died after some update.

 

The only true test of whether this currently works or not is a comparison of screenshots at the same in game "Distant landscape detail".  I created the terrain.cfg and pasted the above lines into it with the cfg extension.  I also compared this to the download version and older terrain.ini files.  I did a number of tests with different distance settings, resolutions, cropping, etc.  The two following screenshots are taken from the exact same angle and frame from the same track.  The "Distant landscape detail" is set to 4X, Reshade off. resolution 2560 X 1440, Ultra, AA=4, Gamma .9.  The screenshots are presented as taken with no post processing.

 

The areas of the screenshots where one should see improvement with the terrain.cfg is on the opposite bank of the Volga out to the horizon.  This is especially true of the city areas where buildings would be enhanced.

 

Conclusion of my testing.  I would love to have the enhancement that the old terrain.ini used to bring to the game.  Unfortunately, I have been unable to duplicate that enhancement with the use of Terrain.cfg with version 2.002b of the game.  In fact. I have been unable to find any enhancement with Terrain.cfg.  The two screenshots are identical, with no enhancement whatsoever from the one with the Terrain.cfg.   Maybe someone else can take the time to post screenshots that are also true "apples to apples" comparisons.  Let's be methodical about this.  I would love to be proven wrong and have this work.

 

No Terrain.cfg

27821529670_81d11d37db_o.jpg

 

With Terrain.cfg

27821528460_506b6e5b48_o.jpg

 

Is it just me or are these pictures perhaps swapped?  I see very little if any difference between the pictures in the far areas on the other side of the river, and the top picture actually looks a tiny bit better to me in the areas on this side of the river than the bottom picture does.  I must be missing something, but to these old eyes this doesn't seem to be doing much.


  • 2
Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.8 GHz (Corsair H75 liquid cooler); 16GB RAM (Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3200MHz)
EVGA GTX 1080 TI SC2, 11 GB; ASUS ROG Maximus IX Code MB; Realtek ROG SupremeFX audio
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit; Oculus Rift (CV1); Logitech Force 3D Pro; Saitek Rudder Pedals and Throttle Quadrants

#26 Zami

Zami
  • Tester
  • Posts: 2611
  • Location:Suomi

Posted 05 July 2016 - 14:52

Nice findings guys!
I bet devs added the detail level in some of the latest patches because of the improved performance. The new sky came in the second hotfix, could be the same.
I was sure there was a difference but it's great to have better quality for default of course :D.

I think I'll try addding couple of 8k lines more since the memory consomption seems to be reasonable.
  • 0

Intel 6700k@4.6Ghz // Asus z170 Pro Gaming // 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 2666Mhz DDR4 // GTX 1080 // Crucial MX100 256GB SSD // 34" Dell U3415W 3440x1440 // Creative Sound Blaster Z // Saitek X-52 // Win10-64bit
5dD3HQL.jpgBlazing.jpg


#27 VBF-12_Stick-95

VBF-12_Stick-95
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1488
  • Location:US

Posted 05 July 2016 - 15:10

Is it just me or are these pictures perhaps swapped?  I see very little if any difference between the pictures in the far areas on the other side of the river, and the top picture actually looks a tiny bit better to me in the areas on this side of the river than the bottom picture does.  I must be missing something, but to these old eyes this doesn't seem to be doing much.

 

No, they're not swapped, there is no difference.  That is the point of my post.


Edited by 12.OIAE_Stick-95, 05 July 2016 - 15:11.

  • 0

It's only a game...  It's only a game...  It's only a... damn it.

New system 08/16 - i7 6700K @ 4.6GHz, GTX1070SC ACX 3.0 8GB, 16GB DDR4 3000MHz, ASUS Z170-A ATX mobo, Windows 10

30284612591_3787866a3c_m.jpg   PACIFIC THEATER  29752931474_6ac9ec5dd3_m.jpg


#28 Beazil

Beazil
  • Founder
  • Posts: 476

Posted 05 July 2016 - 16:20

Made a nice difference to me - thanks!


  • 0

#29 TunaEatsLion

TunaEatsLion
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1275

Posted 05 July 2016 - 16:56

No, they're not swapped, there is no difference. That is the point of my post.

In the old days there was a huge difference in the visibility. The golden days - two years ago. I remember it like it was yesterday,

Edited by roaming_gnome, 05 July 2016 - 16:57.

  • 2

#30 coconut

coconut
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1862
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 05 July 2016 - 17:12

There is a difference, but it's hard to see. Easiest is to see when looking for the infamous potato fields that have the horrible aliasing artifact:

 

Attached File  Comparison.png   612.44KB   21 downloads

 

Personally, I don't think it's worth the trouble, the ingame X4 setting is good enough for me.


  • 1

intel core i5 4690K @ 4.2Ghz, nvidia 980ti, Acer predator XB271HU 1440p 144Hz, Oculus Rift. Win10 Home

My missions | My server


#31 BlackHellHound1

BlackHellHound1
  • Founder
  • Posts: 351
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 05 July 2016 - 17:35

There is a difference, but it's hard to see. Easiest is to see when looking for the infamous potato fields that have the horrible aliasing artifact:

 

attachicon.gifComparison.png

 

Personally, I don't think it's worth the trouble, the ingame X4 setting is good enough for me.

 

That is indeed hard to notice if you are not looking for it. But it is good to know. 

To me this is enough reason to stick with the custom settings. 

If you don't mind then i would like to add this info including the picture to the "New test results" main post.

 

BlackHellHound1

 

:salute:


  • 0

sC5lUvR.jpg

QaelX68.jpg

i7-2600 3.4GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GTX 970 4GB SSC ACX 2.0+, Modified X52 Pro, Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals, Homemade Head tracker and Photoshop for skinning!


#32 keeno

keeno
  • Founder
  • Posts: 383

Posted 05 July 2016 - 18:21

BlackHellHound,

 

I tried this fix ages ago when it was first kicked around, I've since had a new PC built and have re-tried this and have got to say the difference is huge! Thanks for bringing this topic back to the fore and cheers for the detailed explanation of how this all works.

 

great stuff.

 

Thanks again.


  • 0

#33 coconut

coconut
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1862
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 05 July 2016 - 18:33

=BlackHellHound1' timestamp='1467740113' post='369015'] If you don't mind then i would like to add this info including the picture to the "New test results" main post.

Sure. Obtained with

[setup]
	texlod=8192,8
	texlod=8192,8
	texlod=4096,8
	texlod=4096,8
	texlod=4096,8
[end]

  • 0

intel core i5 4690K @ 4.2Ghz, nvidia 980ti, Acer predator XB271HU 1440p 144Hz, Oculus Rift. Win10 Home

My missions | My server


#34 VBF-12_Stick-95

VBF-12_Stick-95
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1488
  • Location:US

Posted 05 July 2016 - 19:45

In the old days there was a huge difference in the visibility. The golden days - two years ago. I remember it like it was yesterday,

 

Amen to that.  About a year ago, after an update took away the ability to use terrain.ini, I said this:

 

 

Maybe the future will bring more graphic options and higher terrain detail levels.

 

How hard can the latter part be?  Still waiting...


  • 0

It's only a game...  It's only a game...  It's only a... damn it.

New system 08/16 - i7 6700K @ 4.6GHz, GTX1070SC ACX 3.0 8GB, 16GB DDR4 3000MHz, ASUS Z170-A ATX mobo, Windows 10

30284612591_3787866a3c_m.jpg   PACIFIC THEATER  29752931474_6ac9ec5dd3_m.jpg


#35 Yankee_One

Yankee_One
  • Founder
  • Posts: 447
  • Location:behind you at your six

Posted 05 July 2016 - 19:52

Thank you BHH,

 

yes old times are back!!

 

Trying it and great you have revived this topic :)

 

Its woth a try


Edited by Yankee_One, 05 July 2016 - 19:53.

  • 0


#36 Yankee_One

Yankee_One
  • Founder
  • Posts: 447
  • Location:behind you at your six

Posted 05 July 2016 - 20:34

A question anyway

 

 

original pixelsize is 5 or?


  • 0


#37 TunaEatsLion

TunaEatsLion
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1275

Posted 05 July 2016 - 21:32

It has always been 50. If I remember correctly.
  • 0

#38 Yankee_One

Yankee_One
  • Founder
  • Posts: 447
  • Location:behind you at your six

Posted 06 July 2016 - 15:33

It has always been 50. If I remember correctly.

 

 

Thank you roaming gnome.. Its funny mine was 5. So i put it back to 50.

 

What i have noticed that game is running smoother for me on higher settings.

A sideeffect for me is the ground shimmering.


Edited by Yankee_One, 07 July 2016 - 08:38.

  • 0


#39 Jade_Monkey

Jade_Monkey
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3276

Posted 08 July 2016 - 18:22

Damn, i wasnt aware this trick was back. I had it working well until they removed it in that update. After that I never heard of it again.

I'll test today if i can.

 

Update: I tested it and looks great again!  many thanks for the instructions and also the thorough explanation!


Edited by Jade_Monkey, 09 July 2016 - 13:46.

  • 0

i7 7700k  | GTX 1080 Ti |   16GB Corsair Dominator DDR4  |  LG 34UM95 3440x1440 | HTC Vive | TrackIR 5  |  Saitek X-55 HOTAS  |  MFG Crosswind graphite pedals


#40 71st_AH_Mastiff

71st_AH_Mastiff
  • Tester
  • Posts: 3852
  • Location:unknown, Mars maybe...

Posted 23 July 2016 - 00:01

ok after a week of testing this using the Terrian ini, you can turn off HDR, and SSAO, I see no differences..

 

same 50 to 60 fps, too.


  • 0

"any failure you meet is never a defeat; merely a set up for a greater comeback"

 

YouTube Channel 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users