Developer Diary, Part 49

[AndyHill]

The graphics presets sound like a very scary idea to me. I have a widescreen setup (5760 x 1080) which has a pretty specific set of requirements for running the game. In RoF and BoS I can't for example have any post processing enabled or the resolution gets automatically turned super-low. I also want the viewing ranges to be as high as possible, do I have to run some extreme settings that ruin my performance otherwise to get that?

 

The thing with PCs is that no two are alike, same with personal preferences. I understand why 777 want the support part to be easy for them, but somehow I also think that the existence of default options should be enough. As a bonus you could have an FPS monitor that automatically suggests the player (AFTER he exits the mission) to use a lower preset to improve performance if FPS drops too low.

 

Of course, for testing purposes different setting are fine and if data is required I'm fine with providing it. I just hope there's adjustable options in the final version.

[Zak]

The graphics presets sound like a very scary idea to me. I have a widescreen setup (5760 x 1080) which has a pretty specific set of requirements for running the game.

Settings remain flexible when we speak of resolution. Your widescreen setup should work fine. Please, let us know IF it won't.

[Eagle-OnePirabee]

Presumably some lucky boozers are already online performing split S-es and Cuban 8s over the icy Stalingrad skies.

 

Any peeks into how the game looks now, eh?

 

And more especially for me, how large is the update? I live in the provinces of this earth where such aspects matter much. Internet costs are astronomical and anything above 1GB - at least, speaking for myself - requires the purchase of another package midstream well before the expiration of the last bundle.

 

But all of that is inconsequential if the new update is worth the trouble.

 

So, guys, any early news?

[DD_Crash]

Putting your settings to low doesn't give you any advantages in spotting.

Please read post 8 in this thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=41034

[AndyHill]

Settings remain flexible when we speak of resolution. Your widescreen setup should work fine. Please, let us know IF it won't.

This is a bit off-topic, but here's a short explanation:

 

In RoF or BoS alpha any amount of post-processing enabled will screw up the resolution (when in ultra wide), no matter what it is set to originally. It will be too low to see planes, tanks etc.

Edited January 17, 2014 by AndyHill

[scissorss]

Dumbed down graphics options seems like a poor decision in my opinion. At least implement an advanced settings tab..

 

The argument of giving players an "advantage" is silly. There are countless ways someone could have an "advantage" over someone else. Such as joystick vs mouse and keyboard, a $2000 gaming rig vs a $300 pc, etc.

 

I just hope this is a temporary thing for testing feedback.

[Nankeen]

Thanks for the update,

Will be a good experience testing the PC.

[9./JG52Ziegler]

Clearly Loft and his team have decided that if the graphics settings are unlocked for all to fiddle with, there will be ways that some could use this to gain a competitive edge.

 

This is often a problem in MP games and it should be applauded that the devs have considered this and brought in this measure to eliminate that aspect.

 

I don't think this is the reasoning behind this move. 

My thought is that it will make evaluation and subsequent development adjustments by the team allot easier. Using a small number of specific presets versus an infinate amount created by people tweeking just makes development sense at this stage of the sim.

[AbortedMan]

I have to agree with the Dev's about the graphical settings.

 

There is nothing worse than being in a multiplayer dog fight and the person you are fighting has his/her graphics turned down so low its like watching something from Janes US Navy Fighters from 1994 so that they can have "smooth graphics".

 

Bull. All they are doing is cheating.

 

 

I applaud the decisions that 1C and 777 made.

Whoa whoa whoa...I would hardly call someone changing graphics settings to obtain higher FPS a cheater. That means anyone doing the same thing by other means, like purchasing a better video card to get "smooth graphics", is cheating as well? That doesn't make sense and borders on creating scapegoats for failures or personal shortcomings in competitve game scenarios.

 

Lighten up! The 777 announcement isn't even saying the settings are "dumbed down". They specifically said they are doing this to prevent errors and bugs when people purposely tinker with backend settings.

[Jaws2002]

A guide explaining what the settings do, and from your experience, what works with what, would be a lot more effective, than locking the settings in "bundles" like the cable companies.

 

Just my two cents.

[DD_Crash]

If people change settings to get better frame rates because they dont have fast graphic cards then fine with me. However if they DO have fast graphics cards and then lower the resolution to get BIG DOTS or make ground targets stand out, then that is "gaming the game" Technically not cheating as such. For example these screen shots from KG26 Alpha 1680x1080 compared to 640x480

Edited January 17, 2014 by DD_Crash

[Matt]

If people change settings to get better frame rates because they dont have fast graphic cards then fine with me. However if they DO have fast graphics cards and then lower the resolution to get BIG DOTS or make ground targets stand out, then that is "gaming the game" Technically not cheating as such.

It will still be possible to set to lowest setting. Atleast there's no reason to assume that it's not possible. So you could still get low res (to get "big dots", which doesn't work in BoS anyway) and low quality settings. You just can't adjust every setting itself.

 

Anyway, i was able to run maximum settings, but didn't do so for various reasons:

 

1. I didn't set full ingame AA, because SweetFX looks better

2. Highest forest quality setting caused lag for me (most noticable when moving the head around)

3. SSAO is broken (and i doubt it's my system, based on the posts here)

 

If those settings would all be controlled by an overall quality setting, i would need to run those lower settings (and not because i wanted to "cheat" against the AI.......).

 

I hope we'll still be able to adjust the settings via the ini file.

[Blitzen]

Its 0840 here on the Pacific Coast & I am ( not-so) patiently) waiting...sigh...

[=RvE=Windmills]

If people change settings to get better frame rates because they dont have fast graphic cards then fine with me. However if they DO have fast graphics cards and then lower the resolution to get BIG DOTS or make ground targets stand out, then that is "gaming the game" Technically not cheating as such. For example these screen shots from KG26 Alpha 1680x1080 compared to 640x480

 

Yeah, and you can still change resolution even with this system.

 

Why block settings like SSAO, postprocessing, AF and texture quality? There is no advantage to be gotten from changing those unless you count better fps as an unfair advantage. Yet they can't be changed to everyone's individual preference anymore.

 

For example, if I prefer to have texture quality maxed, but postprocessing and SSAO at zero. While keeping AF at very low settings, is that still possible?

Edited January 17, 2014 by iLOVEwindmills

[Brano]

Looking at pics DD_Crash posted previously (old sturm low res-details down) I just wonder who would fly and look at such miserable screen? Only words that should not be typed here publicly are coming to my mind

Lets see how those graphics settings work  when update is on.Meanwhile I will check my local bar for few beers

[DD_Crash]

Looking at pics DD_Crash posted previously (old sturm low res-details down) I just wonder who would fly and look at such miserable screen? Only words that should not be typed here publicly are coming to my mind

Lets see how those graphics settings work  when update is on.Meanwhile I will check my local bar for few beers

They do that to WIN. Simple as that. For some people especially on SEOW winning is everything.

[Jupp]

[Picchio]

Matt, SSAO is not broken at all. It's just its sampling quality being relatively low.

 

Has anyone been able to update yet, by the way?

Edited January 17, 2014 by Picchio

[AX2]

Yeah, and you can still change resolution even with this system.

 

Why block settings like SSAO, postprocessing, AF and texture quality? There is no advantage to be gotten from changing those unless you count better fps as an unfair advantage. Yet they can't be changed to everyone's individual preference anymore.

 

For example, if I prefer to have texture quality maxed, but postprocessing and SSAO at zero. While keeping AF at very low settings, is that still possible?

+1

[Brano]

I know that it would be someone who wants to WIN but what kind of personality does one have? Hurting your eyes just to WIN....There must be some medical diagnosis behind that

[Picchio]

Nevermind, servers up at 20:00 GMT... ehm.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Picchio

[J4SCrisZeri]

mine keeps on saying "nothing was changed!!!"

 

 

why!?!?!?

 

@Pikkio - ma loro non sono avanti solo due ore rispetto a noi? Pensavo si partisse già. Nel caso vado a cena e provo dopo, grazie ciao!

Edited January 17, 2014 by J4Scriszeri

[YoYo]

Yes, I have updated - 186MB.

 

?

 

I dont see any update yet.

[DD_Crash]

It's sad that they have to even consider developing the game for people with very bad computers. Just upgrade. If your card doesn't support DX11 you should seriously consider it. It's laughable what some people expect to run a game developed in 2013/14 on.

I would like to agree however for some parts of the world what some people would call a sh1t graphics card would be very acceptable. This is the one thing that consoles DO have over PCs . Everyone has the same hardware.

[YoYo]

S/he was teasing you. 

 

Thx.

Edited January 17, 2014 by YoYo

[FuriousMeow]

SSAO is a non-argument, you couldn't disable it previously without editing the startupcfg.ini. This can still be done.

 

All of these graphics settings can still be modified in the startupcfg.ini file, but SSAO can't be used as an argument for the graphical presets since it couldn't be disabled in the GUI previously anyway.

[skline00]

I'll be anxious to get back from work tonight and explore the Stalingrad map

[Zmaj76]

SSAO is a non-argument, you couldn't disable it previously without editing the startupcfg.ini. This can still be done.

 

All of these graphics settings can still be modified in the startupcfg.ini file, but SSAO can't be used as an argument for the graphical presets since it couldn't be disabled in the GUI previously anyway.

Ok and whats with the fine tuning custom video settings. This way only the guys who know/want to fiddle with config ini would do that. And probably only to some extent. BTW, the argument "we want fairplay" is false. The reason why they are intorducing presets is pure performance issues. There is no single video setting in the gui which ad any advantage for a player. And if it would be possible to edit via confing ini...why all the fuzzle with the presets. Im okay with presets as for beginners...but dont rip custom settings out...

Edited January 17, 2014 by Tvrdi

[Jaws2002]

I'm more concerned about supersampling than SSAO. I hope they don't enforce supersampling with the Ultra settings. It's going to pi$$ a lot of people. I played with SSAO at max without performance issues (except the dirty low res texture over everything in the cockpit). Supersampling on the other hand, if is anything like ROF, it's going to bring most rigs to their knees, making the "ultra" off limits for most people.

 

The thing is, this is not a console game. We can have an infinite number of hardware configurations. Not all settings presets work for all people. Some systems can get more performance or better visuals doing one thing, while for others the same changes will do nothing or make it worse.

The ability to customize your settings to fit your machine is imperative in PC gaming.

 Instead of bogus forced presets, why not make a good guide so people know how to work the settings to fit their machine.

[heinkill]

Looking forward to flying that map...thx!

[FuriousMeow]

 BTW, the argument "we want fairplay" is false.

 

Is it? People do it in every game because they have to win, it's the only thing going for them apparently, so they set everything on low graphics to make it easier to see.

 

Even if it is for performance reasons, it's still a good reason. This is alpha, and there need to be controls in place.

[Sim]

So.. any ETA on the update? Been off since Christmas.. can't wait to try full Stalingrad map and any other new features!

[ATAG_Slipstream]

Looking forward to trying the new map! I have high hopes my computer will run it with all the objects on as I dislike objects outside a certain  radius disappearing (50km is nothing at altitude)

[Black-Hussar]

The ability to customize your settings to fit your machine is imperative in PC gaming.

 Instead of bogus forced presets, why not make a good guide so people know how to work the settings to fit their machine.

 

As much as I appreciate presets in general and follow the argumentation; there are more than just four types of computers out there. I see no reason to punish the all comunity by removing a feature due to some complaints in a mailbox or yells to fix a bug, if any.    

 

But lets wait for the Stalingrad map. Maybe one preset will be fine for all machines out there....    

 

Edited January 17, 2014 by Rudel

[Georgio]

Excellent work, looking forward to dodging the grain elevator a long last.

Regarding IT experts, we have a few at work and only one of them has the faintest idea what he's doing and he's not even the boss..

I love the bit about "IT experts"...this company is so awesome.

 

[Nordkindchen]

Pls some pictures of Stalingrad?

[=RvE=Windmills]

I'm definately going to give it a good try, but I just don't see how this can end well with a product like this.

 

When we're talking about a game using older tech, which runs well on any PC it would be understandable. But for a flight sim that is on the cutting edge of graphical tech, and requires a high powered system, blocking any finetuning of settings is not going to end well. There is absolutely no way that 4 presets are going to function well for the thousands of different systems people will use to run this game.

 

The argument of people getting an advantage with certain settings is strange. If there is a specific setting that does that then that can be adressed, especially at such an early stage. If it is about cloud rendering for instance, then that setting can be locked down on its own.

 

Having presets is fine, and a great help to people who don't understand all the technical terms. But please, do not block the ability to finetune graphics settings to give the best performance/quality on everyone's personal system. Simply have an advanced tab that gives you a stern warning before it allows you to change things. "Warning, modifying advanced settings can have negative consequences for the perfomance and stability of your game. 1C is not responsible, and won't offer technical help to users not using one of the default presets. Are you sure you want to proceed Yes/No."

 

 

Otherwise I'm greatly looking forward to seeing the new map and ultra settings.

[AlCapwn]

I have to say this is the first time I've ever read something that I find very disappointing; games on the PC should never have just set graphics 'presets' as not everyone finds the same settings agreeable. Such as with BF4, the ultra preset enables Post AA as well as 4xAA, motion blur and DoF. While some may say that's very 'ultra' to me PostAA of any kind looks the same as if you've spread vaseline over your eyes and motion blur as well as DoF irritate me to no end. So if I didn't want these settings instead of just disabling them and being happy (With a large performance boost) I would be stuck with going down a graphics preset and be forced with things such as lower quality textures and lighting quality which I find very console-port style (I know this game is not a console port but that's how they generally handle graphics settings). PC gaming is supposed to be about being able to tweak your gaming experience to your preference, and there will always be people out there trying to do whatever lame tricks to be able to spot farther than others even if they make their game look like 8bit gone wrong; however that shouldn't be held against everyone. I agree with many others in here in that I understand part of the reason for doing this, but I see absolutely no reason why there can't just be an additional 'advanced settings' tab with a popup warning clearly informing the user that changing anything in there may have extremely adverse effects. Just because some people don't know what the settings really do, doesn't mean everyone should be forced into presets.

[Georgio]

Yea I think psycotic bi-polar springs to mind.

If you need an example youtube 'angry german kid'... :D

 

I know that it would be someone who wants to WIN but what kind of personality does one have? Hurting your eyes just to WIN....There must be some medical diagnosis behind that

[Jaws2002]

 Simply have an advanced tab that gives you a stern warning before it allows you to change things. "Warning, modifying advanced settings can have negative consequences for the perfomance and stability of your game. 1C is not responsible, and won't offer technical help to users not using one of the default presets. Are you sure you want to proceed Yes/No."

 

 

 

Why should they not offer support/help for advanced settings? It's their game. They should explain what things do instead of locking them away. I understand them not getting involved in third party mods, but changing settings they provide is their business.

Locking  the settings to four rigid "bundles" will guaranty that most people will get less than they did before. Less performance if they want better looks, and crappy looks if they need better performance.