SaPy25 Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 Hi everyone! Can someone explain me what's the difference between high and ultra shadow setting? I only see difference in the cockpit.But when i fly low over the kuban mountains my fps drops to 40-20 on ultra setting. I'm running the game on ultra now on this hardware. Ryzen 1600x Asus B350-F MB Asus Turbo 1060 gtx 16bg Corsair Ram Corsair RM650 PSU
SAS_Storebror Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 Definitely not the plane shadows on the ground. Maybe smoke shadows, no clue. I gave it a try here: https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,57904.msg639104.html#msg639104 If you can spot a difference, let me know. Cheers! Mike
SaPy25 Posted February 16, 2018 Author Posted February 16, 2018 Definitely not the plane shadows on the ground. Maybe smoke shadows, no clue. I gave it a try here: https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,57904.msg639104.html#msg639104 If you can spot a difference, let me know. Cheers! Mike Thanks for the fast reply Mike! As I see only the shadow resolution changed. That's why the ultra is sharper i think.
-TBC-AeroAce Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 I believe it is the in cockpit shadows. They are more detailed on ULTRA
SaPy25 Posted February 16, 2018 Author Posted February 16, 2018 I believe it is the in cockpit shadows. They are more detailed on ULTRA Yes, but when i go to external view the game is still laggy on a mountain low level flight.
Uufflakke Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 Definitely not the plane shadows on the ground. Maybe smoke shadows, no clue. I gave it a try here: https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,57904.msg639104.html#msg639104 If you can spot a difference, let me know. Cheers! Mike I believe it is the in cockpit shadows. They are more detailed on ULTRA I also notice the same thing. Look for instance at shadow underneath the bullets in cockpit. Left (Ultra) is sharp and right (High) is jagged.
SAS_Storebror Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 Frankly that's nothing you will notice 99.9% of the time. I've been wondering the same thing about the mirrors by the way. Even at lowest setting, I get exactly the visual feedback which made me take the mirror with me. Sure, it might look a tad more "crisp" on maxed settings, but is that worth another 10FPS drop? Prolly not. Cheers! Mike
SaPy25 Posted February 16, 2018 Author Posted February 16, 2018 Frankly that's nothing you will notice 99.9% of the time. I've been wondering the same thing about the mirrors by the way. Even at lowest setting, I get exactly the visual feedback which made me take the mirror with me. Sure, it might look a tad more "crisp" on maxed settings, but is that worth another 10FPS drop? Prolly not. Cheers! Mike Yeah I think you're right! It's not that important when your're in action. I was just curious about it. Thanks again guys.
ACG_pezman Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) Oh I miss my shadows. I had to turn them off in an effort to maintain 60FPS when flying, fighting, etc... In the early days of this game my two 770's were good enough to run it on high with no issues. But with every patch that the dev's have optimized the resource usage, they have taken those gains and spent them on additional functions, be it graphical, FM, or something else. So, all the optimizations have left my two cards barely able to play on LOW. MSI Afterburner pegs my VRAM usage, on LOW, with two cards (2GB each - 4GB total) at around 1900MB (per card)... so basically max. If I were you, I would drop the eye candy a bit, because the difference between ultra and high is negligible. The difference between balanced and high is also negligible, so you can still get great graphics and performance while not really seeing any loss of quality. However once you hit LOW and go to nvidia profile manager and change the graphics settings there to "performance", well... it looks like WarThunder, but it fly's like IL2. Edit Reason: It took me so long to make this reply that when I finally submitted it, instead of being the third reply it's down here. So much of what I said has already been said or disproved by the above comments. Edited February 16, 2018 by 19//p3zman
Guest deleted@50488 Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 Definitely not the plane shadows on the ground. Maybe smoke shadows, no clue. I gave it a try here: https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,57904.msg639104.html#msg639104 If you can spot a difference, let me know. Cheers! Mike Superb analysis you provide at that SAS site ! Thx for sharing
THERION Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) I also notice the same thing. Look for instance at shadow underneath the bullets in cockpit. Left (Ultra) is sharp and right (High) is jagged. It's all about the shadow'ss resolution in cockpits - or at least it seems to me? On the picture (taken from Storebrors SAS-post) I highlighted the noticeable areas. Edited February 16, 2018 by EAF_T_Therion
Gambit21 Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 With a high end card I haven't seen shadows being the issue. Something is, but it's not shadows.
dburne Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 With a high end card I haven't seen shadows being the issue. Something is, but it's not shadows. They give a fair hit in VR, I am able to run them on high though.
Gambit21 Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 Ahh...VR, yeah different set of concerns it seems.
SAS_Storebror Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 With a high end card I haven't seen shadows being the issue. Something is, but it's not shadows. I won't call it an "issue" either, but my GTX 970 is definitely on it's edge in WQHD (2560x1440) in IL-2 Great Battles and if I can win another 10FPS just from lowering a setting I will never notice (mind you, the crispier shadows in cockpit are absolutely unnoticeable once your engine is running and the cockpit starts shaking), I will just use that option. With a GTX 1080Ti and/or a Full HD (1920x1080) monitor and/or a monitor with max. 60FPS I would probably never notice any "issue" either. Cheers! Mike
Guest deleted@50488 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) I opted for the "Medium" setting in shadows. SSAO is disabled, HDR enabled, MSAA at 4x. I get between 58 and 60 fps ( I get FPS maxed at 60 ingame ) In Nvidia Control panel I have chosen to set max pre-renedered frames to 1 as per someone's suggestion. I guess I could increase it to 2 ? I have an old rig... i5 2500 ( not K ) @ 3,3 GHz, GTX 960 4 GB GDDR5, 16 GB DDR3, win 10 Pro 64 bit... Monitor is now a 27" FullHD HP ( cheap ) monitor... I am good with the graphics and overall performance in IL-2 "Great Battles", but I "fear" that the 3.x updates, probably with the increased distance visibility, can somehow compromise that performance - will wait and see :-) Edited February 17, 2018 by jcomm-in-combat
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now