These latest comments from Jason...

[Jason_Williams]

THANK YOU JASON.  I know Jason knows how I feel about this, but for those who want a second coming of another well known flight sim...I fly airplanes for a living, and let me tell you, starting one up everyday is OVER-RATED.  So is briefing for 2 hours prior, and putting on 30 lbs of flight gear etc. etc.  Just be glad we have a sim that has a start up but doesn't require you to break out a checklist! or think at all while all the switches are thrown.  That is NOT what this sim is about, never was, never should be.

 

Listen, this is a Combat flight sim, not an Admin or Tac-Admin (All the things that come before combat) simulator.  BoS/BoM does this very well and any time spent by a developer adding things like checking the pre-check valve on the external fuel tank prior to gasing up your sim airplane are a waste of resources.

 

Be glad Jason "gets it".  It means we'll continue to see amazing things from the franchise.  

 

I paid him to say that.   And Loft got it too. He did not do clickpits for same reasons. Nothing new here really. I don't want to take the credit on this one.

 

Jason

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I paid him to say that.

 

-snip-

 

 

You paid Elf to say that?

[Jade_Monkey]

You paid Elf to say that?

 

The positive comment is trading at $5 on the forums and $7 on Steam

[Feathered_IV]

You paid Elf to say that?

Is joke. Mitt schlapping of der thighs

[Gambit21]

[Edited]

Edited August 24, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin
Rule 7 and not in English

[FlyingNutcase]

Who will be the 10,000th viewer of this thread? 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Is joke. Mitt schlapping of der thighs

 

I was asking for clarification - I didn't get what he was implying... Sarcasm or not.

[TheElf]

You paid Elf to say that?

 

I can assure you Jason was kidding.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Thx for the clarification you contributed over the last page Jason. One last mention though, I'm sure startup (not clickpits!) was reccieved as a nice to have, not nessecary to have, feauture by many.

 

But enought about that for now.   

[Tomsk]

+1 on clickable cockpits. They are a lot of work and I'd rather see the effort go into other things.

 

Jason: you've mentioned VR support as a priority, which is awesome to hear as a Rift CV1 user. Is the intention that VR should be (reasonably) competitive compared to using a normal monitor? Has the team considered any kind of impostor or "smart scaling" approach to ensure planes remain visible at realistic distances?

Edited August 24, 2016 by Tomsk

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Janson if you gonna still try to fulfill postulates from DD 120 im happy to be yours customer for any content in between.

[Blooddawn1942]

I'm late to this threat. But I wanted to jump in and put both thumbs up regarding the direction, or dare I say vision, the sim is heading to under Jasons leadership.

I'm very curious for future things to come.

[Bommel]

I can assure you Jason was kidding.

Did he pay extra for this post?

 

 

 

Just kidding 

 I agree 100% with your former post, people who enjoy checklists and startup procedures have the option to "play" p3d,fsx and the like.

[LLv24_Zami]

Did he pay extra for this post?

[KoN_]

No disrespect guys but you shouldn't be paying anymore money too add content that really should of been there in the first place ( Historic  campaign , easy ME .Coop. )  and all .  This had a huge following .

Because of the bad mistakes made in the beginning or just before release of BOS and the aftermath  ` Has BOM  taken off as predicted . ???

 

Edit , Now with Jason i hope things pick up .

Now i don`t know the facts but i don`t see a surge of activity online or in the steam charts .

Edited August 24, 2016 by II./JG77_Con

[Ace_Pilto]

People are whispering about changes to the SP side. I've noticed some stuff evolving over time but are more details available to read on what we can expect? Will there be a more traditional format to the overall presentation with ranks, awards, bulletins from the front, named pilots and such? 

 

Also, more specifically, can we expect any persistence resulting from how missions unfold or will random generation still form the core of missions? The missions work pretty well as it is, they do the job but it would be nice to have some persistence and see the dynamic effects result in logical outcomes. eg: I destroy an artillery battery and this allows a supply column to get through so our troops get resupplied and can hold out against an enemy offensive for a bit longer.

 

Finally, are more optimizations in the pipeline since the DirectX upgrade? I haven't noticed anything much changing in that respect. Although it's been a while since I launched BoS, I probably missed a few patches since I last played but I was still getting the infuriating slow motion bug for PWCG missions that shouldn't really be all that demanding (not even 20 planes in a mission)

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

That's the point Jimmy, more details will be available in major announcement for which pretty much everyone is waiting for. 

[Ace_Pilto]

That's the point Jimmy, more details will be available in major announcement for which pretty much everyone is waiting for. 

Ok then, thx senpai.

[ShamrockOneFive]

People are whispering about changes to the SP side. I've noticed some stuff evolving over time but are more details available to read on what we can expect? Will there be a more traditional format to the overall presentation with ranks, awards, bulletins from the front, named pilots and such? 

 

Also, more specifically, can we expect any persistence resulting from how missions unfold or will random generation still form the core of missions? The missions work pretty well as it is, they do the job but it would be nice to have some persistence and see the dynamic effects result in logical outcomes. eg: I destroy an artillery battery and this allows a supply column to get through so our troops get resupplied and can hold out against an enemy offensive for a bit longer.

 

Finally, are more optimizations in the pipeline since the DirectX upgrade? I haven't noticed anything much changing in that respect. Although it's been a while since I launched BoS, I probably missed a few patches since I last played but I was still getting the infuriating slow motion bug for PWCG missions that shouldn't really be all that demanding (not even 20 planes in a mission)

 

We got the 64bit upgrade already but the DirectX upgrade is still just a gleam at the moment. They haven't really said when that change might land - I'm guessing many months yet.

 

The slow motion bug was infuriating but I haven't seen it since doing a major system upgrade. My old Core i7 870 couldn't take it... my new i5 6600 can. Its all the AI routines I'm guessing. The graphics don't change much for more planes but the AI definitely places a big burden on the system. It may either be time for an upgrade or at least to wait out and see what optimizations may still yet happen. An AI level of detail system might be a huge benefit to performance but I don't know if thats possible here or if its been talked about.

 

My impression is that the last patch was running the best I've seen it. Worth hopping on and flying a few missions to see if its improved for you or not.

[SharpeXB]

Has the team considered any kind of impostor or "smart scaling" approach to ensure planes remain visible at realistic distances?

DCS is trying that and it's not very successful. The main problem is that it makes far away objects easier to see than close ones, it's resolution dependant so lowering your resolution makes objects bigger, and it will just get disabled in MP as a cheat. On even the small settings it allows you to see ground vehicles 20 miles away the size of skyscrapers. And yet it's still not good enough for some people to be able to see anything. BoS/M already have excellent rendering, contrast and antialiasing and visibility for distant aircraft so it doesn't need artificial cheats.

[Matt]

BoS/M already uses smart scaling for planes.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

DCS is trying that and it's not very successful. The main problem is that it makes far away objects easier to see than close ones, it's resolution dependant so lowering your resolution makes objects bigger, and it will just get disabled in MP as a cheat. On even the small settings it allows you to see ground vehicles 20 miles away the size of skyscrapers. And yet it's still not good enough for some people to be able to see anything. BoS/M already have excellent rendering, contrast and antialiasing and visibility for distant aircraft so it doesn't need artificial cheats.

What we need at least is need that planes should not disappear in full zoom, where you can see them not as dot like unzoomed but you can see them as recognized plane type and when it pass 9,4 km mark it's disappear. Btw AI ground objects are another story and it's even worst than players planes. Exelent contrast and rendering of ground objects, and AA ? Are you aware of far distance shimmers (without sparce grid super sampling) ??? Funy man

Edited August 24, 2016 by 307_Tomcat

[SharpeXB]

BoS/M already uses smart scaling for planes.

According to Jason it does not.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/15469-does-bos-use-object-scaling/?p=246227

What we need at least is need that planes should not disappear in full zoom, where you can see them not as dot like unzoomed but you can see them as recognized plane type and when it pass 9,4 km mark it's disappear. Btw AI ground objects are another story and it's even worst than players planes. Exelent contrast and rendering of ground objects ??? Funy man

The other aircraft do actually spawn in and out at about 10km. So it's not a rendering issue. The game isn't even drawing them at this distance.

[Tomsk]

DCS is trying that and it's not very successful. The main problem is that it makes far away objects easier to see than close ones, it's resolution dependant so lowering your resolution makes objects bigger, and it will just get disabled in MP as a cheat. On even the small settings it allows you to see ground vehicles 20 miles away the size of skyscrapers. And yet it's still not good enough for some people to be able to see anything. BoS/M already have excellent rendering, contrast and antialiasing and visibility for distant aircraft so it doesn't need artificial cheats.

 

I completely agree the DCS implementation of the concept is far from perfect. However, I still think that rendering of distant vehicles needs something to help things be visible at realistic distances. The problem is resolution: with a monitor you simply do not have the kind of resolution that you get with the human eye, not even close. The result is that things are not visible at ranges they would be realistically visible at.

 

Here's an image I posted before on these forums. It compares what we know about human vision in real life with what you get on a 1900x1200 24" monitor.

 

 

This is true enough with a monitor, it is even more true with current gen VR. Realistically if BoS wants to attract the growing VR market it needs to make flying in VR competitive with flying with a monitor, even if the resolution isn't as good. And IMO that will need some kind of mechanic to make distant objects a bit more visible than they are.

 

My favourite implementation of the idea is the "Smart Scaling" concept as implemented by Falcon 4. This rendered objects normally up close and for more distant objects it rendered them progressively bigger up to some maximum. I think this idea was much simpler and more effective than the one implemented by DCS.

 

BoS/M already uses smart scaling for planes.

 

Really? I hadn't heard that. When I raised this issue in the past I never got a response from the developers.

[Original_Uwe]

I've addressed this one issue and explained the situation with clickpits and manual start up. This is the one area where what I consider to be a super hardcore feature does not justify the cost. Original IL-2 1946 had no such feature. I'm focused on adding as many 1946-like features back in as I possibly can with the budget I end up with. I'd rather focus on new technology and gameplay features or changing existing ones and building new content and involving the community more in building such content. There is plenty to like assuming we can do it all. Focusing on making this a study-sim is not the way to go here.

 

Jason

And just like that I'm hopeful again.

Ok Jason ya got me. I've been as persistent a nay sayer about this series as anyone here but you keep saying everything I want to hear so I'll buy whatever you make to support you however I can.

Here's to a brighter future!

[LukeFF]

 

 

` Has BOM  taken off as predicted . ???

 

 

It's obviously taken off well enough for them to continue development. Isn't that good enough for you?

[hsthhsth]

I would like to see a sort of "export" implementation that could be used for programs like SimShaker or Tacview. But don't know if that would be a) expensive to develop or b) against developer rules.

[Matt]

According to Jason it does not.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/15469-does-bos-use-object-scaling/?p=246227

We had the same discussion last year. If this is not smart scaling then i don't know what is. It's even more apparend when you compare the visibility of active planes (AI or human planes) parked next to inactive (airfield object) planes on an airfield.

 

Fact is, that planes are larger at longer distance than they would be without any form of smart scaling, so whatever this feature is officially called in BoS/M, it has the same effect.

 

[SharpeXB]

We had the same discussion last year. If this is not smart scaling then i don't know what is. It's even more apparend when you compare the visibility of active planes (AI or human planes) parked next to inactive (airfield object) planes on an airfield.

 

Fact is, that planes are larger at longer distance than they would be without any form of smart scaling, so whatever this feature is officially called in BoS/M, it has the same effect.

 

post-3376-0-00261800-1444425270.png

Yeah I remember that. "Scaling" could mean just about anything so perhaps it has a different definition to Jason

Bottom line, whatever IL-2 does works. The player never sees anything garish or out of scale with its surroundings or sees things at super unrealistic distance. What's also important is this setting isn't user adjustable so it doesn't become yet another server side option.

BoS/M do an amazing job of allowing you good visibility. Consider that much of the action happens over white snowy landscape between aircraft and vehicles all painted white. And yet you can see them quite clearly in the game. And it's using DX9 to do that.

[SharpeXB]

 This is true enough with a monitor, it is even more true with current gen VR. Realistically if BoS wants to attract the growing VR market it needs to make flying in VR competitive with flying with a monitor, even if the resolution isn't as good. And IMO that will need some kind of mechanic to make distant objects a bit more visible than they are.

There isn't honestly much that can be done right now for VR with combat flight sims. Incorporating and supporting it will no doubt bring a god amount of attention to the genre and perhaps even give it a boost in the market. But the limited resolution of the current headsets makes using them for this type of game problematic. Game performance is an issue as well. All that may be overcome eventually but it will take time.

 

My favourite implementation of the idea is the "Smart Scaling" concept as implemented by Falcon 4. This rendered objects normally up close and for more distant objects it rendered them progressively bigger up to some maximum. I think this idea was much simpler and more effective than the one implemented by DCS.

It would help to explain how that's different than what's done in DCS now because as far as I can tell, never having played Falcon myself, they're the same thing. Drawing objects out of scale in the game is awkward and is a legacy solution from the past era of tiny low res square monitors. It's just out of date for today's sims.

[KoN_]

 

 

It's obviously taken off well enough for them to continue development. Isn't that good enough for you?

 

Now `now Luke no need for that, i asked a perfect civil question ` . 

[KoN_]

I think the biggest problem we face is the shimmering on the maps and colour blend ` most times its nearly impossible too see air targets against the background. We all know that . 

[GrendelsDad]

With the sky gradient fix in the recent patch I have noticed a huge difference in sky spotting.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

BoS/M do an amazing job of allowing you good visibility. Consider that much of the action happens over white snowy landscape between aircraft and vehicles all painted white. And yet you can see them quite clearly in the game. And it's using DX9 to do that.

But not so in other seasons. Btw if you fly hight 6-7 km above and enemy is flying below at 1km if he only go left or right to half distance of one square grid he will disappear from you view because of draw distance limit to 9,4 km. This is really bad - you have big nice view below but you can't see planes on your side.

Edited August 24, 2016 by 307_Tomcat

[Gambit21]

 

 

Edited by SYN_Haashashin, Today, 04:02. 

Rule 7 and not in English

 

Ahhh...I forget the kind of garbage you have to deal with around here - that was a lighthearted, tongue firmly implanted in cheek post.

Old German expression, one of the few things I remember from German class.

[SharpeXB]

But not so in other seasons. Btw if you fly hight 6-7 km above and enemy is flying below at 1km if he only go left or right to half distance of one square grid he will disappear from you view because of draw distance limit to 9,4 km. This is really bad - you have big nice view below but you can't see planes on your side.

One thing that could really help is if games like this one adopt the new video specifications for Ultra HD (aka 4K). In addition to higher resolution this standard also incorporates a wider color gamut. Refered to as "HDR" but different than the HDR in video games or photography. It basically means that instead of being limited to 16.7 million colors, the gamut includes 1 billion. It's a video specification used by all new Ultra HDTVs and some 4K monitors. One of the reasons it's so difficult to see objects in games is this color gamut limitation. No idea what that would require for a video game to comply with. Edited August 24, 2016 by SharpeXB

[seafireliv]

I can assure you Jason was kidding.

Yea, but rest assured this will now be quoted forever. It`s the internets, always watch what you say....

[Cheebs]

So are we going to get map making tools? SDK?

Community mods are a huge part of many games.. they help generate a lot of interest, including players that may not have looked into il-2 otherwise. Making mod tools will take some effort, but once released we can help create additional content for il-2. The most useful and popular mods/maps could then be incorporated into the main game. Let us help you create content!

 

Great job though so far, i've only been playing a month and this game has me hooked. Looking forward to the future updates!

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I can assure you Jason was kidding.

 

Thanks for clarifying. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

One thing that could really help is if games like this one adopt the new video specifications for Ultra HD (aka 4K). In addition to higher resolution this standard also incorporates a wider color gamut. Refered to as "HDR" but different than the HDR in video games or photography. It basically means that instead of being limited to 16.7 million colors, the gamut includes 1 billion. It's a video specification used by all new Ultra HDTVs and some 4K monitors. One of the reasons it's so difficult to see objects in games is this color gamut limitation. No idea what that would require for a video game to comply with.

This evolution won't happen any time soon :-) .  For example there is no 4K display with refresh rates greater than 60Hz now. 

 

I wonder that clever artist can pick proper colors from this small (16.7 million colors) palette in such way that object would be nicely visible from distances.