Stalingrad autumn visibility

[sniperton]

1 hour ago, klobuk said:

I have thrustmaster 16000m joystick and I think that this joystick doesn't have force feedback. So if I disable this setting it doesn't have any impact on my gameplay, it just reduced some lags for me.

You're right, the 16000m is a non-FFB stick, so that you don't lose any functionality if you disable FFB in-game.

[BOO]

8 minutes ago, Sambot88 said:

 

That joystick definitely has force feedback. With it on you should be able to feel a large difference in the way your plane flies, leading to much better handling. The downside is that when set too high it can cause the joystick to come off from the desk during hard moves, so unless you're willing to glue it to the desk I wouldn't put it at 100%.

 

 

The 16000m does not have Force Feedback

[SCG_klobuk]

I will post some new images today because now it looks much better than on my last posted screenshot.

[rolikiraly]

So is this force feedback thing relevant to those who don't play with head tracking?

Thanks to everybody who contributed to this thread so far, anything that has something to do with reducing microstutters or improving visibility is most welcome, don't hold it back 

 

[sniperton]

2 hours ago, rolikiraly said:

So is this force feedback thing relevant to those who don't play with head tracking?

I don't think so. Head tracking and FFB is the combination where stutters and lags may occur.

[BOO]

4 hours ago, Sambot88 said:

 

Shucks, you're right. First of all there's apparently the T16000M and the T16000M FCS, which I guess are not the same thing. Secondly, I was pretty convinced that the force feedback setting was having an effect on my handling but a few minutes in quick mission doing loops is pretty compelling evidence to the contrary. Shows what I know.

FCS = Flight Control Stick - same thing.  No Difference.

 

The biggest reduction in lag and stutter ive seen when using headtracking was achieved by deleting the game, all it folders and reinstalling. I do this after every patch now. But I'm on steam so its the work of minutes. 

 

Reshade also introduced some stutters for me when turning abruptly even though I was only using the vibrancy preset - no reshade - no stutter.  

[Cpt_Cool]

Yeah I have heard about the FFB/TIR stutters, but I have been chugging along with the trusty MSFFB2 since the beginning without issue.

[SCG_klobuk]

Hi guys,

I've made a short video from yesterdays sortie on Liberty server with my latest settings. I have set the primary option to ULTRA and I have also set reflections and clouds to high. Other settings are same as on my latest screenshot. You can see that the visibility of aircraft is now much much better also above forest:

 

 

[blitze]

On 4/25/2018 at 8:50 PM, 216th_Jordan said:

Well there are some settings that help a lot, these still apply for overall good visibility. (But use landscape sharpen instead of landscape blurred!)

If you tried them, please report back. Of course spotting is hard and sometimes you will not see your opponent.

 

 

I kept HDR on and I'm using Ultra settings in game, Nvidia profile has FXAA on but modifying the other settings as you have quoted here with sharpen on but landscape blurred has helped me considerably.  That's on a 27" screen which is colour calibrated to 120light setting and I use 1 more on the colour saturation to what I would for graphic work.

 

Frames at 1440p sit between 60 to 80 in campaign but is quite smooth.

Spotting and tracking has been an issue for me until these modifications.  Now, it is much easier with my Open Track setup and those graphic settings.  Blurred landscape is that blurred, still detailed but not super crisp either.

[RedKestrel]

Is there a good resource for what all the various in-game graphic settings do? 

[Wolfram-Harms]

On 26.4.2018 at 9:02 PM, klobuk said:

After I've disabled G-sync I have very good fps also on ultra settings.

 

Where do I find/disable G-Sync ?

[ShamrockOneFive]

On 4/27/2018 at 2:42 PM, klobuk said:

Hi guys,

I've made a short video from yesterdays sortie on Liberty server with my latest settings. I have set the primary option to ULTRA and I have also set reflections and clouds to high. Other settings are same as on my latest screenshot. You can see that the visibility of aircraft is now much much better also above forest:

 

 

 

Good thing that's the Moscow map

[SCG_klobuk]

6 hours ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

Where do I find/disable G-Sync ?

You have to go to Nvidia settings (or your graphic card settings)  and change 'Monitor technology' from G-sync to Fixed refresh. You can see this in my previous post with screenshots of my settings.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Can anyone confirm that disabling G-Sync increases the frame rate?

 

I've been unable to replicate this issue. Unless there is some sort of bug, G-Sync should not significantly affect frame rates. It would be unfortunate to needlessly disable it.

[Wolfram-Harms]

Thank you, klobuk!

 

From what I could find, G-Sync can help players with frame rates below 100, to avoid tearing.

So I guess, if you have 100 fps or higher, you could switch it off.
If you have less than 100 fps, but no tearing without G-Sync, you could leave it off.

 

But if you find that frame rates will not improve - well, then it doesn't seem to matter for you, Mitt-soundandso (the names some people have! ).

 

I found this explaining video.

 

 

[Junjun_Nikurasu]

Can they finally update the BOS's summer map, so we can what Stalingrad look like before the autumn of 1942:

 

[LukeFF]

9 hours ago, Junjun_Nikurasu said:

Can they finally update the BOS's summer map, so we can what Stalingrad look like before the autumn of 1942:

 

The summer map has been updated and properly reflects how it looked in late summer '42. There really isn't any point in showing how it looked before the battle commenced.

Edited April 30, 2018 by LukeFF

[-TBC-AeroAce]

12 hours ago, Junjun_Nikurasu said:

Can they finally update the BOS's summer map, so we can what Stalingrad look like before the autumn of 1942:

 

I would love that but it is one of them thongs that will rightfully be at the bottom of the devs list. On a side note I wonder how much of it we could "restore" using the buildings in the ME. 

[Wolfram-Harms]

12 hours ago, Junjun_Nikurasu said:

Can they finally update the BOS's summer map, so we can what Stalingrad look like before the autumn of 1942

 

Beautiful! A shame the Luftwaffe smashed it! What's the name of that square?

[Wolfram-Harms]

2 hours ago, 19//Rekt said:

Unintentionally awesome post of the day!

 

 

[KaC_Richard_Rogers]

With the release of 'Battle of Kuban' i.e. version 3.0 I also lost all ability to see any aircraft that was not 50m off my nose with it's navigation lights on and as with the original poster this was 100x worse in the autumn maps.

 

Prior to joining this community I was flying Rise of Flight and in that game with my setup; Samsung S34E790C monitor I was an excellent spotter often seeing aircraft before others I was flying with. That said I from time to time felt it good be much better.

 

Coming to IL-2 Sturmovik I had, prior to the release of 'Battle of Kuban' i.e. version 3.0, been an average to poor spotter for low flying aircraft and I also had trouble spotting high flying planes or keeping track of them against the sky. So with 'Battle of Kuban' i.e. version 3.0 I went from visually impaired to near blind.

However that has all changed. The solution for me was replacing the monitor. I have been keen to get a high refresh monitor and was very keen on getting an IPS 144Hz G-Sync monitor but they only come in 27" 2560x1440 or 32" 2560x1080. With that in mind I grabbed the 27" Samsung S27D850T 2560x1440 from another computer and stuck it on my IL2 computer to see how the reduced resolution would look and feel; and wow, I CAN SEE. I can now spot aircraft effectively even seeing ground hugging enemy plane in the Kaban maps from over 4k.

I had been through the every possible combination of settings from all the monitor hardware as well as the nVidia software ones with little joy and if it gave any improvement in one season it was lost in another.

 

In simple terms the Samsung S34E790C is a crap monitor and the 'Battle of Kuban' i.e. version 3.0 updater

 

Sadly you may also have a hardware issue.

[SCG_klobuk]

@Capt_Teddy_Bear

I've already mentioned this before in my previous post that adjusting my monitor settings made a huge difference. I have good monitor but it had bad default settings. But you may be right that in some cases the monitor is just crappy and you have to replace it if you want to have some joy.

[sniperton]

Thing is, if flight simulation games want to survive, they have to be enjoyable for a wide range of people, not only for the few enthusiasts who are able and willing to afford a specific hardware exclusively chosen for a single piece of software. I understand that the times are over when I could play and enjoy Red Baron on my office desktop; now I need a dedicated gaming rig, a quality stick with HOTAS, preferably also a rudder, and a TIR in any case, but the need for also upgrading my display seems to be a bit demanding on my finances. I think I'm not alone with limited budget and a family behind, so I'd be keen to learn what to expect in the near future: will game development reduce or, on the contrary, enlarge the gap between people with different hardware? In other words, will preference be given to provide the average customer with nearly the same experience as people with high-tuned specific hardware have? No offence, just asking.

[KaC_Richard_Rogers]

3 hours ago, sniperton said:

Thing is, if flight simulation games want to survive, they have to be enjoyable for a wide range of people, not only for the few enthusiasts who are able and willing to afford a specific hardware exclusively chosen for a single piece of software. I understand that the times are over when I could play and enjoy Red Baron on my office desktop; now I need a dedicated gaming rig, a quality stick with HOTAS, preferably also a rudder, and a TIR in any case, but the need for also upgrading my display seems to be a bit demanding on my finances. I think I'm not alone with limited budget and a family behind, so I'd be keen to learn what to expect in the near future: will game development reduce or, on the contrary, enlarge the gap between people with different hardware? In other words, will preference be given to provide the average customer with nearly the same experience as people with high-tuned specific hardware have? No offence, just asking.

It is not the fault of the developer that my 34" Samsung monitor is crap at contrast/colour and you cannot program for this in any practical way.

 

Their graphics are good and the same for everyone and that is all they can do and be expected to do.

 

Nor can they program to make a $50 joystick operate like a $600 one.

 

 

 

[Wolfram-Harms]

9 hours ago, sniperton said:

...will preference be given to provide the average customer with nearly the same experience as people with high-tuned specific hardware have?

 

5 hours ago, Capt_Teddy_Bear said:

Their graphics are good and the same for everyone and that is all they can do and be expected to do.

Nor can they program to make a $50 joystick operate like a $600 one.

 

Ah, RED BARON 3D... ! Well, those days of simming with our "first loves" will never be the same again - that's only natural.

You cannot really expect to get the same quality simulation experience for different equipment (like HAT SWITCH view vs TrackIR or VR headsets).
But you can set up a lot in the sim and the graphics, to compensate for the use of simpler gear.

All who have a bad vision or eyesight can still use LABELS after all.

 

Not sure if we already have this, but if not: it might be a good idea for IL-2 BoX to make 3 sorts of LABELs.
Alternatively to those we already have, there could be simply markers for all aircraft in either red or blue;
and a third version could be only just markers as a visual finding aid, without any further identification.

Just an idea?

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by Wolfram-Harms

[sniperton]

7 hours ago, Capt_Teddy_Bear said:

Nor can they program to make a $50 joystick operate like a $600 one.

That was not my point. My point was the effect of changes done to the game. The more specialized hardware you need and the bigger science it is to set it up correctly, the more narrow the player base. Buying oneself into Red Baron used to be a simple decision. Buying oneself into BoX is a $2000 decision. Devs can only make money from sold copies. Better graphics can bring in a few customers, but increasing investment costs can keep away a lot.

[SCG_klobuk]

36 minutes ago, sniperton said:

That was not my point. My point was the effect of changes done to the game. The more specialized hardware you need and the bigger science it is to set it up correctly, the more narrow the player base. Buying oneself into Red Baron used to be a simple decision. Buying oneself into BoX is a $2000 decision. Devs can only make money from sold copies. Better graphics can bring in a few customers, but increasing investment costs can keep away a lot.

Imo this is not true. I've started playing BoS with 22" monitor and t16000m. My computer is good but I was able to start with only 40$ investment to joystick. Now I have pedals, head track, hotas and 27" monitor but this is just for better feeling from game. Ofcourse this setup also improve your gameplay but it is not always true. My friend is playing on 24" monitor only with joystick an uses mouse for free look and he is better pilot than me. 

[Rattlesnake]

Some points:

1. A matching camo paint scheme would be very effective while the plane was sitting on terrain. It would not be anywhere near as effective for a plane thousands of feet above said terrain in the real world because human vision can perceive the difference in depth easily. A man wearing camo head-to-toe might be hard to see in broad daylight if his back was against a brush line on the other side of a field. If he were standing 50 yards in front of it however, you would spot him easily. 2d screen can't replicate this effect.
2. Unless one's monitor is huge, the apparent size of a plane at 2 kilometers on your 2d screen is way smaller than the apparent size that said plane would be in 2d space.
3. I'm not a pilot. But Dad is, so I've spent quite a bit of time in the right seat folding sectionals, helping spot traffic, etc. The difficult part is the huge area of the sky there is to search, even when you know the general direction in which to look. Once you have eyes on it a plane a couple of miles away (3200 meters) it is very clear and easy to see+track. Keep in mind that my vision is "only" corrected to 20/20, some fighter pilots can see about twice as well as that. You can also pretty easily tell the difference between a car and pickup truck while 4000 feet agl. IIRC, pilots have been known to tally bandits as far away as 25 *MILES* at times.

Therefore, generally speaking it is safe to say that in our games on 2d screens we still have a much harder time spotting without icons than real pilots do in 3d space. An argument could be made that icons are actually MORE realistic than no icons for this reason, but no icons are aesthetically preferable, and Il2 IMO does a better job with no icon visibility than any other game I've seen to date. If more effects could be added to make planes more visible (someone mentioned adding reflections glinting off the wings?) that would help make up for some of the deficiencies of a 2D screen, and actually more realistic than the difficulties one sometimes encounters in spotting now.
 

[-LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor]

58 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

Some points:

1. A matching camo paint scheme would be very effective while the plane was sitting on terrain. It would not be anywhere near as effective for a plane thousands of feet above said terrain in the real world because human vision can perceive the difference in depth easily. A man wearing camo head-to-toe might be hard to see in broad daylight if his back was against a brush line on the other side of a field. If he were standing 50 yards in front of it however, you would spot him easily. 2d screen can't replicate this effect.
2. Unless one's monitor is huge, the apparent size of a plane at 2 kilometers on your 2d screen is way smaller than the apparent size that said plane would be in 2d space.
3. I'm not a pilot. But Dad is, so I've spent quite a bit of time in the right seat folding sectionals, helping spot traffic, etc. The difficult part is the huge area of the sky there is to search, even when you know the general direction in which to look. Once you have eyes on it a plane a couple of miles away (3200 meters) it is very clear and easy to see+track. Keep in mind that my vision is "only" corrected to 20/20, some fighter pilots can see about twice as well as that. You can also pretty easily tell the difference between a car and pickup truck while 4000 feet agl. IIRC, pilots have been known to tally bandits as far away as 25 *MILES* at times.

Therefore, generally speaking it is safe to say that in our games on 2d screens we still have a much harder time spotting without icons than real pilots do in 3d space. An argument could be made that icons are actually MORE realistic than no icons for this reason, but no icons are aesthetically preferable, and Il2 IMO does a better job with no icon visibility than any other game I've seen to date. If more effects could be added to make planes more visible (someone mentioned adding reflections glinting off the wings?) that would help make up for some of the deficiencies of a 2D screen, and actually more realistic than the difficulties one sometimes encounters in spotting now.
 

 

Could not agree more.

 

The spotting in this sim compared to others is simply the best IMO. I do not mind that it is harder than in real life due to the fact that we don't have combat stress and sweaty scratched goggles and chaos everywhere in the sky when we are flying.