These latest comments from Jason...

[Matt]

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.

Yes, i think that's a big problem and imho, the drawing distance limit should never be sphere shaped, but cylinder shaped. So say if you fly at 3000 meters, you should be able to spot planes 10 km away from you on the x/y axis, no matter what altitude they are at (wether they are at ground level or co alt or at 8000 meters shouldn't matter).

Edited August 24, 2016 by Matt

[216th_Jordan]

Yes, i think that's a big problem and imho, the drawing distance limit should never be sphere shaped, but cylinder shaped. So say if you fly at 3000 meters, you should be able to spot planes 10 km away from you on the x/y axis, no matter what altitude they are at (wether they are at ground level or co alt or at 8000 meters shouldn't matter).

My thoughts exactly. It does not really make sense like it is now.

[RoteDreizehn]

You really know how to read between the lines.

 

I must say "yes". I understand the context and what the people want. For instance Coop, Maps and more planes. Quantity not quality in my opinion. However..

[216th_Jordan]

This sim focuses less on systems and more on flight dynamics and combat. So if you are more interested in full systems simulation you can be very happy with dcs, Il-2 is just not so much the sim for that.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

This sim focuses less on systems and more on flight dynamics and combat. So if you are more interested in full systems simulation you can be very happy with dcs, Il-2 is just not so much the sim for that.

Not trying to enter a word fight, but you could say the same about the damage models (could be as rought as in other recent sims), the flight dynamics (who need turbulence? Flying on rails is fun, too) and other aspects of the game.

[RoteDreizehn]

DCS never was and never will be what the original IL2 was. Don't get me wrong, I love DCS, but after so many years of waiting (and it's been many), it is clear that the development process of a study sim is so time consuming, that the required content for WW2 fans will never be met. And by WW2 fans I mean the regular online community, the ones who fly with their squadron mates. Us propheads are different from the Jet-junkies.

 

That's my view anyway, and I did not mention this in order to criticize DCS, but in order to make a point : those of us who are old enough have seen grandiose statements and plans about future projects many times. We saw what happened with Cliffs,  we saw the Kickstarter, we now see that DCS WW2 is already 2 years overdue (I remind you it was september 2013 that it was announced). IL2 BOS/BOM is currently the only project that I am aware of that has been concrete in meeting its deadlines and progressing steadily. And that's rather unusual in software development. If anything, it says a lot about how it is managed. They have also achieved something really important : they turned around all the distrust, suspicion and disappointment that had affected the community since CLOD. Now people are not concerned "if" there is going to be another theater, "if" the devs will add more features, "if" the product they will deliver will be in time or buggy. So, to the people that are harshly critical of the choices made by the devs, I 'd ask them to think of where we were 3 years ago and where we are now.

 

I 'm enjoying BOS as it is, and with new maps and new aircraft I will enjoy it even more. You refer to "content" in a demeaning way. I would disagree. Content is by far the most important factor for the WW2 community. What kept us flying so many years in the old IL 1946? Wasn't it the tremendous amount of missions, aircraft, theaters?  The mods that the community kept adding? Flight models, damage models and graphics are always improving, as long as the sim is alive, making sales, and expanding. For that, it needs content. We won't get anywhere if we have to wait a year for an aircraft and 3 years for a map. The guys here are not making money out of military contracts for the production of study sim - level aircraft, they have to sell to their audience!

 

understand your point of view. If I read these lines, I understand we use Flight Simulators in different way.

[Gambit21]

I must say "yes". I understand the context and what the people want. For instance Coop, Maps and more planes. Quantity not quality in my opinion. However..

 

Your opinion based on what exactly? I'm actually asking.

I see no reason to believe that the quality won't stay at least where it is now - which in my opinion (based on long experience with different sims) strikes a good balance.

Further I haven't seen anyone say they wan't more stuff, just make it crappier.

 

I can tell you right now they're not going to start throwing 20 low quality planes at you per release.

[Ace_Pilto]

We got the 64bit upgrade 

 

Yeah, that's what I meant... Oops

[SharpeXB]

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.

Color gamut isn't related to refresh rate.

The UHD video standard extends up to 120hz and even 8K but commercial broadcast will be 2160p/60.

The HDR color gamut specs (Rec 2020) were published in 2012. The standard for HD color space (Rec 709) was set in 1990.

Current UHD monitors and graphics cards already support 10-bit color (i.e. HDR)

Color gamut is the standard Red Green and Blue limits all video has to comply with, not to do with an artistic choice of colors in a game. In order to see the proper color on your screen the display needs to meet the color gamut. PC monitors generally aren't as sophisticated as TVs in this regard but they still conform to the video specs.

[RoteDreizehn]

No they are not. If they would, they would be there, not here.  

 

 

 

And what is a realism flight simulator ? There are far more sophisticated simulators that put DCS into shame. 

But truth is that there is no realism when you have no fear for your life when someone gets behind you and starts shooting. There is no realism when you dont feel how spin really feels or how you loose consciousness due to overload. Or how tiring it is to really fly an aircraft for multiple hours. And where is the realism when all the switches are operated by a mouse or HOTAS ? 

 

Nobody said that application of positive sides of old Il-2 will require a drop in quality of this product. If something Jason also said that they are also working on more hardcore features as well. Jason is doing his best to improve this product and there is nothing wrong with reaching the old solutions that worked, but that doesnt mean what was already build here will be dropped. 

 

>> There are far more sophisticated simulators that put DCS into shame.

 

Oh that´s really an interesting point. Which Simulators are better as DCS (PFM Model) in your Opinion?

 

- Soaring Planes - Only Condor is worthy enough which really fit´s to a ASK13 or ASK21.

- Civilian Flight with Prepar3d and PMDG Modules or Xplane10

- F16 --> Falcon BMS 4.33

 

Can you tell me which Sims you are mean? Hope a compare will be allowed in this forum...

 

 

>> But truth is that there is no realism when you have no fear for your life when someone gets behind you and starts shooting

This is a Simulator, i am not expecting such things Its not real life as you said. 

 

BTW: I am not sure that LW Pilot´s really got fear. They had respect, which is a difference. They had the right thing to do, to the right situation, otherwise they are died.

They were trained.

 

 

>> There is no realism when you dont feel how spin really feels or how you loose consciousness due to overload

Correct. There is no blackout in IL2 if you exceed 3 rotations in spin or flat spin. But this is not so difficult to simulate on the Computer. Blackout and crash are enough realism to me

 

BTW: If I remember correctly, its hard to bring the F4 in a spin.

 

 

>> Or how tiring it is to really fly an aircraft for multiple hours

Most of virtual Pilot have no patience. true! You cant simulate this

Your opinion based on what exactly? I'm actually asking.

I see no reason to believe that the quality won't stay at least where it is now - which in my opinion (based on long experience with different sims) strikes a good balance.

Further I haven't seen anyone say they wan't more stuff, just make it crappier.

 

I can tell you right now they're not going to start throwing 20 low quality planes at you per release.

 

Its only my opinon, nothing more. I think I can have one ... We will see whats happend ....

Edited August 24, 2016 by RoteDreizehn

[Gambit21]

No worries, I understand it's your opinion.

I was just after the basis of it is all.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Color gamut isn't related to refresh rate.

The UHD video standard extends up to 120hz and even 8K but commercial broadcast will be 2160p/60.

The HDR color gamut specs (Rec 2020) were published in 2012. The standard for HD color space (Rec 709) was set in 1990.

Current UHD monitors and graphics cards already support 10-bit color (i.e. HDR)

Color gamut is the standard Red Green and Blue limits all video has to comply with, not to do with an artistic choice of colors in a game. In order to see the proper color on your screen the display needs to meet the color gamut. PC monitors generally aren't as sophisticated as TVs in this regard but they still conform to the video specs.

Yep, i had on mind that shift to 4k PC gaming is  available today but has some limitations.

[pilotpierre]

Space_Ghost, on 24 Aug 2016 - 11:14, said:

You paid Elf to say that?

 

Is joke. Mitt schlapping of der thighs

Nein, ist nein joke Herr Feathered, Jason pays me effery time I am putting on forum, "please to getting rid ov der bloody awful Pilot Level."

[CUJO_1970]

Fix the FW please and thank you.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Color gamut isn't related to refresh rate.

The UHD video standard extends up to 120hz and even 8K but commercial broadcast will be 2160p/60.

The HDR color gamut specs (Rec 2020) were published in 2012. The standard for HD color space (Rec 709) was set in 1990.

Current UHD monitors and graphics cards already support 10-bit color (i.e. HDR)

Color gamut is the standard Red Green and Blue limits all video has to comply with, not to do with an artistic choice of colors in a game. In order to see the proper color on your screen the display needs to meet the color gamut. PC monitors generally aren't as sophisticated as TVs in this regard but they still conform to the video specs.

 

This is actually where I'm most excited. Not specifically the increase in resolution... 4K or 8K. It's pretty sharp at 1080p and once you go higher it gets pin sharp. But what I'm really excited about is the change in colour gamut specs. I think this is going to make things look amazing in a few years time when support broadens.

[SharpeXB]

Yep, i had on mind that shift to 4k PC gaming is  available today but has some limitations.

Gaming in 4K is still very challenging for graphics cards. Even the 1080 needs SLI to run Ultra at 60fps in many games.

For video entertainment it's the whole chicken and egg dilemma. Just like last time with 1080p

This is actually where I'm most excited. Not specifically the increase in resolution... 4K or 8K. It's pretty sharp at 1080p and once you go higher it gets pin sharp. But what I'm really excited about is the change in colour gamut specs. I think this is going to make things look amazing in a few years time when support broadens.

That's what most reviews say. The leap from 1080p to 2160p, for TV and home theater is only impressive if you have a large enough screen. But adding HDR is a very significant improvement. For gaming, the benefit of extra resolution is much more noticeable sitting closer to a monitor.

[Tomsk]

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.

 

 

So I don't agree that nothing can be done for VR. I'd take War Thunder as an example, it is perfectly playable and competitive in VR. The spotting system in War Thunder isn't perfect, planes are visible too far away (both on monitor and in VR) but that's a matter of tuning things properly. However it does show you can have VR being competitive with monitors in a combat flight sim, despite the poor resolution. 

 

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.

 

The technical difference is a bit complex but in short, if the DCS system were better implemented it would basically produce a similar result to smart scaling via a slightly different mechanism. As you point out, at the moment it has some issues due to the poor implementation of the idea.

 

For me personally this question is still very relevant. Monitors still do not have the same resolution as the human eye, as the human eye has a similar acuity to an 8K monitor at normal viewing distance, and this makes things harder to see in a game than they are in real life. As mentioned this is even more true in VR which is even worse in terms of resolution than a monitor. I believe the right approach is to try and achieve the most realistic result possible even if we have to achieve it via a slightly artificial means.

 

Personally I like scaling systems where close objects are rendered as normal, and as objects go beyond a certain distance they are rendered progressively larger. This continues up to some maximum scaling factor. All of these parameters need to be tuned properly, but here is an example of what that looks like with a 2x scaling: 

 

I think this produces a realistic result: you can see things in game that you should be able to see in real life. However, I know not everyone likes this kind of idea.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Tomsk

[Tomsk]

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.

 

That's very interesting, it does look like some kind of scaling is being applied if those two planes are actually similar. Would be really interested to hear from Jason whether BoS does use some kind of "smart scaling" or impostor system. If it does then I'm very much looking forward to playing BoS in VR  

Edited August 25, 2016 by Tomsk

[ACG_KaiLae]

One thing I'm curious is if in the planned list of improvements is work on increasing the player counts in multiplayer being considered? I fly with ACG (http://www.aircombatgroup.co.uk) and there are 2 main reasons that no one would ever consider changing off CLoD to BOS/BOM/whatever follows is #1 lack of interest about the current released theaters and #2 (the big one) BOS/BOM cannot support the needed player counts to support what we do. Now, I'm not management in ACG - about as far from it that you can get - but CLoD can support 120 member servers vs 84 in the current iteration. With nearly 200 active players each sunday we already have to stagger takeoff and landing times over a multi-hour period even with the 120 member server. In short, can we expect improvements in this? Is it possible with the current tech, or planned tech to be implemented? What's the long term goal with regards to numbers of people that a server can support?

 

I'll also add that having an mission editor/constructor that doesn't need an apprenticeship to learn how to use and use well would also be great.

[Original_Uwe]

Well kai_lae I don't think there would be a move until there is a more interesting theatre, but the option would be nice.

[Tomsk]

#1 lack of interest about the current released theaters

What theatre(s) do you think would be most interesting to the ACG?

[II/JG11_ATLAN_VR]

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

 

Dear Jason

finally when 1946 retire me and all the pilots of our squadron were looking for a Remake with nowadays technical possibilties in grafics fm and so on.

cod send us a big step into deaster and bring nearly the end of our Hobby only a few fans called TF saved the world!

bos/bom is on right way we are waiting only for other Scenarios and to correct the FM of the Würger ! to get more on the line of 1946.

war thunder is arcade and also DCS is a complete other Story not compareable

the product of choice is il 2 bos/bom and successors!

waiting for yr News about next Scenario and planes of war.

salute

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

What theatre(s) do you think would be most interesting to the ACG?

LoL not a tricky question I fly ACG - its nice to fly 13 spit together but in thr end i preffer BOS and TAW. Edited August 25, 2016 by 307_Tomcat

[KoN_]

My Nvidia setting (2x sparse grid Supersampling) eliminates most of the shimmer, but I find the constant 'popping' of the trees at low level makes it tough to pick out dark green planes like the Stuka or 111 moving over them. If the trees would just sit still, I think the motion would be a lot easier to spot.

Very true i use  4 x sparse grid Supersampling and this does work but takes its toll on the fps . On some maps the colour blend is very noticeable. The summer maps , But the BOM maps are very nice .

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I will get my new gaming rig within days, appreciate the tips on nVidia for best image quality

[SharpeXB]

For me personally this question is still very relevant. Monitors still do not have the same resolution as the human eye, as the human eye has a similar acuity to an 8K monitor at normal viewing distance, and this makes things harder to see in a game than they are in real life.

Flight sim games have a zoom view feature to address this limitation. DCS even added a zoom view to VR

 

Personally I like scaling systems where close objects are rendered as normal, and as objects go beyond a certain distance they are rendered progressively larger. This continues up to some maximum scaling factor. All of these parameters need to be tuned properly, but here is an example of what that looks like with a 2x scaling:

 

The trouble with scaling an object up 2x is that it also appears 2x closer to you. So it's not a very good solution as it makes judging distance awkward. And for ground targets the fact that they are in immediate reference to surroundings makes the scaling apparent to the player and it looks really odd.

 

Would be really interested to hear from Jason whether BoS does use some kind of "smart scaling" or impostor system.

 

It could certainly be an imposter system. If so, it's done very well because the effect is hardly noticeable, you don't see stuff looking terribly out of scale. Edited August 25, 2016 by SharpeXB

[Tomsk]

Flight sim games have a zoom view feature to address this limitation. DCS even added a zoom view to VR

 

Zoom is great for helping to make target identification at realistic ranges, but it's not nearly as useful for finding targets in the first place as it simply gives you too much sky to scan. 

 

The trouble with scaling an object up 2x is that it also appears 2x closer to you. So it's not a very good solution as it makes judging distance awkward. And for ground targets the fact that they are in immediate reference to surroundings makes the scaling apparent to the player and it looks really odd.

 

Well if it's well done the scaling is only applied on pretty distant objects that are only a few pixels in size anyway. You can't judge distance very well with objects that small in any case, and you can't judge distance at all on vehicles you simply can't see :-)

 

It could certainly be an imposter system. If so, it's done very well because the effect is hardly noticeable, you don't see stuff looking terribly out of scale.

 

Yeah the key is the mechanism has to be well implemented, a badly implemented one is worse than none at all. I felt Falcon 4 was a good implementation, it definitely did help you spot things but it didn't feel "weird" at all.

Edited August 25, 2016 by Tomsk

[216th_Jordan]

Toggle FXAA off. Having multiple sets of AA applied drops il-2s framerate en masse. there was another setting that was very important for fps, will write it here if I remember it again. (checking later)

[Original_Uwe]

What theatre(s) do you think would be most interesting to the ACG?

Mediteranian and western front.

[ACG_KaiLae]

What theatre(s) do you think would be most interesting to the ACG?

Considering that the majority of ACG are European, something that involves European countries. Personally I really don't care; if whatever comes out at the end of this looks like '46 and gave us a ton of options to try, that'd be groovy.

[Tomsk]

If I had free choice something like Malta would be excellent. Would be especially nice to get some Spitfires (well I am British after all) :-)

[Feathered_IV]

Malta would be great for me too.  I'm not expecting anything in my top five locations though.

[Jade_Monkey]

Malta would be great for me too. I'm not expecting anything in my top five locations though.

Neither am I. It's good because it keeps the expectations low and maximizes the joy if it happens.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Malta would be great for me too.  I'm not expecting anything in my top five locations though.

 

 

Neither am I. It's good because it keeps the expectations low and maximizes the joy if it happens.

 

Wise comments both of you. My philosophy is that WWII aircraft are fun to fly nearly universally... I'll be more excited with some theaters than others but I'm pretty much sold on being interested in whatever it is that they drop next. It'll be a ton of fun wheeling around in whatever aircraft it is that they give us.

[216th_Jordan]

Thanks - standing by.

 

Those are my inspector settings. I set ingame AA to 4x (in startup.cfg that is multisampling 2). Also Vsync is on for me and game in windowed mode.

What I found out was that Antialiasing Transparency Multisampling  is a huge performance hog if enabled in inspector together with Sparse Grid Supersampling.

 

Don't know if this will help you but you can give it a shot

 

[Lusekofte]

There isn't honestly much that can be done right now for VR with combat flight sims. Incorporating and supporting it will ........

Quote end:

 

The people I talked to say it would be a dream using VR in less complex games than DCS, the rendering was already adequate in dk2 , problems are reading the signs in dcs complex pits

I think being able to use OR in this game will get many people from dcs and WT

[SharpeXB]

There isn't honestly much that can be done right now for VR with combat flight sims. Incorporating and supporting it will ........

Quote end:

 

The people I talked to say it would be a dream using VR in less complex games than DCS, the rendering was already adequate in dk2 , problems are reading the signs in dcs complex pits

I think being able to use OR in this game will get many people from dcs and WT

Hopefully this game will perform well too. That's the other issue, VR isn't up to handling such demanding games. Flights sims draw a large number of objects compared to typical games and that load all falls on the CPU. Stereoscopic 3D means drawing everything twice. So even DX11 in DCS has not given enough performance. The frame rate is capped by the CPU. How this game will perform remains to be seen. Edited August 27, 2016 by SharpeXB

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Hopefully this game will perform well too. That's the other issue, VR isn't up to handling such demanding games. Flights sims draw a large number of objects compared to typical games and that load all falls on the CPU. Stereoscopic 3D means drawing everything twice. So even DX11 in DCS has not given enough performance. The frame rate is capped by the CPU. How this game will perform remains to be seen.

Stereoscopic 3D works with resonable performance in BOS. Duble gpu is enought.

[Lusekofte]

Well I hate VR, I love my panels and multi pit, VR render it useless and favor equipment with a lot of hat-switches , wait I got that, ok I hate VR the most because I want it and need to buy a new pc and VR.

So please someone, say it is a piece of shait

[SharpeXB]

Stereoscopic 3D works with resonable performance in BOS. Duble gpu is enought.

And "reasonable performance" is?

See VR needs a steady 90fps in order not to make you sick.

We will see with BoS

The reports from DCS don't seem encouraging. Yes I'm sure even with less than ideal performance the experience is still fantastic. But is it good enough for the mainstream as opposed to early adopters willing to put up with all the shortcomings? Unless there is some rewrite with the CPU threads, multi GPU won't make any difference and VR doesn't support Multi-GPU anyways. The frame rate is capped by the commands that DX11 still sends through the CPU DCS EDGE is still single threaded so it's bogged down in VR. Not even the strongest systems get the 90fps and get as low as 20 over any towns etc. That's another game engine and there's enough feedback to read about over there.

How Digital Nature handles it remains to be seen but the issue is the same. Flight sims have huge CPU loads compared to other games and 3D + high fps makes it worse

Edited August 27, 2016 by SharpeXB