Jump to content
IckyATLAS

50 Bomber Flight Benchmark Mission

Recommended Posts

2019_2_10__11_20_20.thumb.jpg.98786020c50df161728522330364b59a.jpg

 

So here it is Massive Attack V1.0.

In various posts massive bomber formations were requested, and the number of 50 was mentioned a few times.

There has been a debate on how much it can be handled and I really wanted to experiment it, with a benchmarking mission as an objective

As a benchmarking tool it is designed to load the system but through a playable scenario, trying to use the most possibilities offered by the ME.

 

The scenario is as follows: the city of Novorossiyrsk has been completely occupied by the German army. They have fortified the place and are bringing in supplies from land and see.

The Russian army headquarters  have decided to stop them and block reinforcements, and to that end they have decided for a first aerial action, a massive bombing raid on the city infrastructures and the airfield nearby.

Beware it is a pretty long simulation timewise. It does not terminate automatically. There are many actions taking place besides the bombers so up to you to discover if you leave enough time to run the simulation. In a future release I may add escort fighters for the bombers and a Ju52 supply flight to the airfield if this is still manageable.

I have not put projectors for night bombing (again more resources on the system), this is also planned for later.

 

I looked in two directions:

-One was to experiment as much as possible with the ME to find its limitations and bugs. I must admit that even if the ME is not perfect, and has some weird reactions, it is nonetheless an excellent tool and I was very impressed. The most annoying bug is that it crashes randomly here and there, when the maps become complex. One loses time to continually save, and keep multiple copies because of this erratic behavior. Even if this is the normal way to develop software here you need to do it more frantically. I would have also liked to be able to have access to pitch, yaw and roll angles for all objects. The function flat on the ground is nice but then if the ground is not flat we should be able to better position the objects. Another issue is with port objects. They are partly on the water. So collision and bombing on these objects has strange effects. Bombs go through and you get water splashes in the middle of concrete piers. In the future maybe things will be improved. 

 

-The second direction was to have a 50 bomber scenario with more or less everything else, artillery, vehicles, planes, trains, convoys (ships and vehicles), ships all always active and running.

I mean from the moment the mission starts, everything is there, enabled and active from start. No static objects. This means that you can roam all around the city of Novorossiyrsk and everything is there all the time. In an optimized way you would trigger and make appear various entities only when necessary. Not here as the idea is to have a consistent resource load and get some consistent performance information.

 

As mentioned you have 50 bombers split in 6 groups. Five groups are made of 9 planes all A20B loaded with a heavy bomb mix. Total 45 Bombers. Then you have one group made of 5 IL2. Total 50.

But then you have a flight of 4 FW190A5 that will defend against the bombers. The simulation runs all by itself and you can just be a spectator, and look at performance figures as the scenario unravels. If you want to join the fray, then your plane is there ready nearby the runway engine running and at any moment just go and fly and defend the place. Total 55 flying airplanes. You have another 10 airplanes on the airfield that are active and could fly.

 

I have set 22 cameras all around the area. This will allow to better benchmark as the simulation runs. You can display the FPS and so at each camera I can see what is the number and how it changes according to what is seen at a given moment. You just toggle F12 and switch the cameras one after the other. You can always hit F11 and have a free camera to go wherever you want. For Bomber views use Ctrl F2 and you can switch around the bombers. 

 

To put my results in perspective here is my hardware:

Asus X299 Maximus motherboard with 65 GB Quad channel high speed ram. Asus GTX 1080Ti graphic card (latest drivers) and an i7 7820X CPU running at flat 4Ghz. I have Win 10 64 bit latest update, and IL2 3.010b. I play with all settings to Ultra, maximum view distances et, resolution is full 4K 3840x2160. You may get a little better results than me, because I run a version that is loaded with multiple mods, to improve explosions, textures of the trees, grass, flowers etc.

 

Across all 22 cameras as the simulation runs I get depending on the view between 55 and 95 FPS.

Looking at an empty patch (without clouds) of blue sky simulation running, I have between 120 -140 FPS.

When looking from the Bombers I get 45 - 55 (not many bombers in the field of view) and down to 35 if 5 groups or 45 bombers are all visible even if some are nearly dots. I have put wind in the upper layers where the clouds are, so clouds move too.

The FPS Killer are smoke particles and bomb explosions. I have set two camera near the middle of the explosions, so you will see by yourself. For a few seconds FPS goes down to 7.

 

But FPS is not the whole story. Even if I have 120 FPS in blue sky unfortunately the load has an impact on the internal time clock of the game. The clock slows down (see Einstein and quantum physics 🙂 ) and a Buffer of 1 (60 sec)minute in the game becomes 1.8 (108 sec) real minutes. Trains, vehicles move much slower. Even if you see the train with 60 FPS the train itself moves slower because of the processing load, and not the graphics. This is why if you accelerate the game X2, X4, X8, the difference is still visible but marginal. For slow moving objects that's fine there will be no impact. The impact is less noticeable on the flying planes. It seems that planes are handled separately. So you need to consider your timings and synchronizations of events accordingly.

 

Probably some of you may get a kind of quick slide show if your system not too powerful, and I am sorry for that. But at least you will be able to run it again when you get an upgraded system and compare, and see how much you have improved. 

 

Voilà all is said. I would like to get your inputs, comments, improvements. I have tested a little but for sure there may be bugs or it may not work as perfectly on different systems or versions of IL2, let me know. 

 

You can download it here, and it is free for you  to use, play, modify etc.. I hope that you will enjoy it as much as I did.

 

Massive Attack V1-0.zip

 

Edited by IckyATLAS
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much buddy, much appreciated.

 

EDIT:

 

 

When i start the mission i do not get an bombers i get FW 190 as choice of aircraft.

 

Il-2-2019-02-10-17-57-07.png

 

Il-2-2019-02-10-17-56-37.png


Il-2-2019-02-10-17-56-51.png

 

Mike.

 

Edited by Dogbert1953

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can only fly the FW190A5.

In this mission you are on the German side to fight against the bombers. I will make a variant where you can fly the A20B.

To see the bombers, start the mission but you do not need to fly. Typing Ctrl F2 you see the bombers and you can switch from one bomber to the other. Each bomber group has a different skin, so you can identify them. 9 bombers per group. 

Edited by IckyATLAS
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh i do beg your pardon, sorry buddy.

 

I misunderstood, i thought i was going to be flying with 49 other bombers. 😂

 

Thanks very much for the tip on watching the bombers.

 

Again i apologise for getting it wrong.

 

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Icky,

 

Thanks for uploading this. I managed to knock down 8 of those buggers, however my FPS were between 45-35 (usually I have 60ish), which wasn´t the problem, but most of the time I was playing with the CPU Overload/Slowmotion/internal time clock effect, which tells me my Intel I7 2600@4Ghz can´t cope with such a large amount of AI units. 

 

Specs: Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z, 16 gigs DDR3 Ram, Intel I7 2600@4Ghz, Nvidia GTX 980 SLI (2 Cards), 1920x1080 resolution all settings on Ultra; OS Win 10

 

Unbenannt.jpg

Unbenannt1.jpg

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dogbert1953 said:

Oh i do beg your pardon, sorry buddy.

 

I misunderstood, i thought i was going to be flying with 49 other bombers. 😂

 

Thanks very much for the tip on watching the bombers.

 

Again i apologise for getting it wrong.

 

Mike.

No problem. But your comment was useful. I have to give the possibility to play it from the Bomber side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be very useful if someone recorded a track (for 2-3 minutes) where the biggest load. Then it will be possible to compare the performance of different systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dogbert1953 said:

That would be good IckyATLAS, look forward to that if it is possible.

 

Mike.

Noted in my ToDo list 🙂 .

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, FoxbatRU said:

It would be very useful if someone recorded a track (for 2-3 minutes) where the biggest load. Then it will be possible to compare the performance of different systems.

You are right, this is another way of checking performance. I have to find the right sweet spot. I see that you have an RTX 2080. I would be interested to see how it behave comparing to a GTX1080Ti. Your i5 - 8600K at 5Ghz should beat mine most probably in CPU performance. I have two more physical cores but at 4Ghz, and I am not sure that IL2 uses so many cores anyway. 

 

If somebody has an i9 9900K running at 5Ghz then I am much interested about performances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, therefore, it is also interesting to compare on a single track. And record the maximum average and minimum frame rates in the Fraps. Of course, there is a slightly smaller load in the track than immediately in the game, but the proportion can be roughly understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! I dont want to try it, because its clear to me that it will be mega slow fest 😕

and slow fest it will be for everyone🙂 Its a shame I wanted to try some bomber killing in Me262.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Voidhunger said:

Thanks! I dont want to try it, because its clear to me that it will be mega slow fest 😕

and slow fest it will be for everyone🙂 Its a shame I wanted to try some bomber killing in Me262.

 

It could be worth trying, just out of curiosity if you don't mind. After all you can fly in the bomber stream with a FW190 equipped with 6  bomber shredders. I am not able to put an Me262 for the moment, but time will come and with four 30mm guns it would be terrific against the bombers.

 

You have a four core at 4.4 Ghz and even if your i5-4670k is not latest generation nevertheless between CPU and the GTX 980 you have a god equilibrium of performance. It can be interesting to see what differences we have between hardware generations. This will give a hint about how the devs handle the CPU and the GPU side. 

 

And to be frank I was surprised myself that it was not worse. I thought that as I was adding bombers the whole thing would crash. But strangely performance after an initial hit remained pretty stable. So worth to experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have an i7-4790K @ 4.00GHZ.

 

32GB of DDR3 sys ram

 

GTX1070  8GB Gaming vid card.

 

It was smooth enough for me flying with the bomber streams.

 

Mike.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I tried the mission. I have ultra settings, but horizont, landscape, scenery and shadows at medium settings.

SSAO ON, HDR OFF, 2xAA

 

I had 40-60 FPS(Vsync ON)

At first at the airfield there were massive stutters and the game was slow(in external view it was better).

Once airborne it was slow, but playable (again in external view it was much better. In cockpit it was much slower and with stutters).

I was quite surprised that it was "playable" mainly in external view....but once the bomber stream was in sight it was sooooo slooooow, the game almost stopped.

Absolutely unplayable!

 

Recorded track was almost fluid with FPS  40-60.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dogbert1953 said:

I only have an i7-4790K @ 4.00GHZ.

 

32GB of DDR3 sys ram

 

GTX1070  8GB Gaming vid card.

 

It was smooth enough for me flying with the bomber streams.

 

Mike.

 

 

 

Thats strange, you have slightly better CPU and for me it was unplayable with the bomber stream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its of any use to anyone......

 

My 5 year old liquid cooled i7-4960X @ 4.20GHZ (X79 platform)

32GB of Kingston Hyper X DDR3 @ 2132 Mhz

Liquid cooled GTX Titan X

 

With every setting maxed out

Managed a pretty smooth 50-60fps, until the bombs went off, then plummeted down to 30!!!

Blue sky was 144fps (my monitor refresh rate)

In parts it did seem in slow motion even though FPS was showing at 50-60.

Accelerating the game to 8x actually made the FPS go up?

 

It was playable, but not great...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Voidhunger said:

 

Thats strange, you have slightly better CPU and for me it was unplayable with the bomber stream.

 

I cap my fps to 60fps and in the pics i posted yesterday.

 

Everything was smooth, stutter free and the camera moved freely around the bombers.

 

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JG5_Schuck said:

If its of any use to anyone......

 

My 5 year old liquid cooled i7-4960X @ 4.20GHZ (X79 platform)

32GB of Kingston Hyper X DDR3 @ 2132 Mhz

Liquid cooled GTX Titan X

 

With every setting maxed out

Managed a pretty smooth 50-60fps, until the bombs went off, then plummeted down to 30!!!

Blue sky was 144fps (my monitor refresh rate)

In parts it did seem in slow motion even though FPS was showing at 50-60.

Accelerating the game to 8x actually made the FPS go up?

 

It was playable, but not great...

 

That's not bad at all for a 5 year old system. But you had the best of the best at that time and all liquid cooled. At what screen resolution are you playing, HD, 2K, 4K?

When Bombs go off and you have flames and smoke, this is an FPS killer. Same for me I may go down to 7 if I have the screen covered entirely of explosions, flames etc. 

There is a disconnection between the FPS and the speed 'feeling' . One is related to the graphics the other to the CPU and both do influence also each other. The data speed and capacity between CPU and GPU can also have an impact.

This is why if you speed up the game by 2x, 4x or 8x, it will not impact the framerate. If you are say at 50-60 that's good enough and it wont get higher, what will happen is that the motions of the objects like planes, the speed at which the smoke flows, the motion of the waves on the sea, the motion of the clouds if there is wind will get accelerated. The plane motions in air will become jerky. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

OK I tried the mission. I have ultra settings, but horizont, landscape, scenery and shadows at medium settings.

SSAO ON, HDR OFF, 2xAA

 

I had 40-60 FPS(Vsync ON)

At first at the airfield there were massive stutters and the game was slow(in external view it was better).

Once airborne it was slow, but playable (again in external view it was much better. In cockpit it was much slower and with stutters).

I was quite surprised that it was "playable" mainly in external view....but once the bomber stream was in sight it was sooooo slooooow, the game almost stopped.

Absolutely unplayable!

 

Recorded track was almost fluid with FPS  40-60.

 

 

I have SSAO and HDR off. No VSync and also no target FPS (off). All the rest is max.

I also configured the NVidia drivers of the graphic card. You can set the 3D parameters. This allows you to optimize the speed.

You have the VSync parameter with various modes. Select the FAST mode. That one will avoid the image tearing effect completely but with much less overhead that the standard VSync.

This is in the last driver versions. I do not know if it is available across all cards models.

Edited by IckyATLAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2560 x 1440p @144hz ASUS RoG Swift..

Strangely the thing i noticed most was the tracer was much slower, but looked more realistic!

The temp never got above 48 degrees, so was it stressing all the cores? Does it use them all?

I don't know how well the game is optimized for multithreads. Does it matter?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JG5_Schuck said:

2560 x 1440p @144hz ASUS RoG Swift..

Strangely the thing i noticed most was the tracer was much slower, but looked more realistic!

The temp never got above 48 degrees, so was it stressing all the cores? Does it use them all?

I don't know how well the game is optimized for multithreads. Does it matter?

 

 

I will investigate the multi core stuff. Multicore usage is a major challenge for IL2. 

We have a fantastic ME that allows for extremely complex scenarios. Today the only limitation is the CPU capability to handle all the stuff. 

If you run one core say at 5 Ghz, or four cores at 3 Ghz, it is a no brainer. You have 5 Ghz against 12Ghz, guess who wins.

The question is how much parallelism is possible with IL2 code. Parallelism of code is a very hard exercise, just because our conscious part of the brain is sequential, and the unconscious part is parallel.  I do not know if Devs really dig into this, but if many multiple cores can be used then IL2 would run on lower end CPU's probably much better than today.

As an example each plane could be assigned a core. 24 Planes 24 cores. With Hyperthreading an 18 core Intel CPU (expensive today but in a few years mainstream) would do miracles. 12 cores devoted to planes (24 logic cores) and 6 other cores for all the rest. 

In graphics it is much easier as matrices, vectors and pixels do allow naturally a high degree of parallelism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still hope, that they will improve performance. Even if i have money to buy better cpu (together with MB and RAM) game will be still slow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thers no point in measuring performance since we all play in different resolutions. Some use VR etc....

Edited by blackram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, first of all  i just wanted to say well done on making a great single player mission Icky - this is what every mission in the SP experience should be like and the devs should use it as a benchmark for optimizing the engine to be able to handle missions exactly like this with ease. Having said that, it also shows that a lot of work has already been done by the devs in improving the engine since the RoF days because a mission like this in RoF would probably just have crashed the game, or been a slide show, so well done to the devs there!

 

Secondly, I dont think FPS is a good measure of performance in this case because high FPS doesnt seem to correlate to a smooth gameplay experience as we have seen from some of the other responses above, and which my experience also seems to suggest. Speaking of which, here it is:

 

Since I am running one of the weakest CPU's in the community (i7-920), I was interested to see just what kind of performance I would get and while the results are somewhat predictable and largely consistent with the rest of your results, they are also quite interesting. At stock speeds (2.8ghz boosting to 3.1ghz) the mission ran pretty poorly (although not terribly) although FPS was still fairly decent: between 40-60 FPS in most cases, with lows of 25 FPS when looking at the big flights of bombers. However, the actual game play was very slow despite the FPS being quite high and everything seemed to be moving at a much slower rate than it should be as Icky mentioned above, so something was definitely struggling. Looking at my CPU usage showed high usage on one core (about 80-95%) and about 20-50% on the others. RAM usage was quite interesting as well with 4.6gb being used, which is higher than I have ever seen in the game, but still not too bad. GPU and VRAM usage was quite low and the card was not struggling except obviously during scenes with lots of explosions and particles.

 

I then overclocked the CPU to 3.8ghz and re-ran the test, and this made a big difference. Even though FPS were about the same (with the exception of looking at the big bomber flights which went up to 37FPS - 12FPS faster!), the game play was much smoother and there was far less slow down when looking around and objects seemed to be moving closer to their proper speed. CPU usage also came down on the heavily loaded core to about 70%. These  results seem to show that CPU speed is indeed a big factor in the actual game play experience in the game, which the feedback of other testers above seems to support - very fast CPU's seem to be getting very playable results. It also seems that CPU clock speed is more important than number of cores here, and it would be interesting to see if pure clock speed can "cure" the slowdown completely - does anyone in the community have a 6ghz liquid Nitrogen cooled CPU? 😄 

 

FPS seems to be less relevant for the most part because you can have good FPS even when the CPU is struggling and the game play is slowing down. Its still useful to check FPS to make sure that its not sitting at low FPS all the time, but unless you have a very old graphics card, its probably not going to bottleneck you (except maybe when there are tons of particle effects like smoke and explosions on screen). 

 

Results after CPU overclock:

1.png

Edited by Flashy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Flashy for this very interesting analysis. Probably the i9 9900K that can run at least two cores fully at 5 Ghz or more cores if cooling is good enough, will make a real difference.

Anyone with a i9 9900 around ? 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried it again and at the airfield and above my CPU usage is 35-40% and GPU 7-16%.

Is this normal? its so slow even without the bombers in sight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I tested this mission and unsurprisingly performance in the bomber formation weren't great.

Right at start and in all other 22 cameras Performances where pretty good going from 50 fps to 80  fps (I keep my in game lock at 80 since my monitor can't go past 75 hz anyway).

In the bomber Fps was going between 30-45 at top.

 

Looking at the hardware telemetries during the bomber views is clear that the GPU is not the bottleneck.

However I can't say anything about the CPU usage in this title. The bottleneck might as well be the RAM.

What however I really found interesting playing this game is the VRAM / RAM / Pagefile usage. I've never seen the Vram usage going over 4.5 Gb and Ram usage over 8GB, while the page file usage goes up to of about 8 GB over idle (about 8GB at idle). Usually in other games I see first allocating all the Vram and RAM and then filling up the Pagefile. 

 

Now mine are just observations, only one of the Engine Devs might investigate and understand if that's normal or not.

 

My specs anyway are the following:

Xeon X5670 OC @ 4 Ghz; GTX 1060 6GB; 12 GB DDR3 @ 1333 Mhz

Resolution is 2560x1080

Settings:

Spoiler

9rsv8TD.png

 

telemetries

Spoiler

HwmRAgb.png

 

Little off topic..

6 hours ago, Flashy said:

Since I am running one of the weakest CPU's in the community (i7-920)

 

You should consider upgrading your CPU to Xeon X56xx as I did with my old 920. You can find them between 20-50$ depending what you pick. They use the same socket and they have no problem in running on the same Mobo you are using and since are more power efficient you can safely OC them to +4Ghz depending how good your Mobo is. It improved my performances massively in many games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Reckoner_ said:

 

Little off topic..

 

You should consider upgrading your CPU to Xeon X56xx as I did with my old 920. You can find them between 20-50$ depending what you pick. They use the same socket and they have no problem in running on the same Mobo you are using and since are more power efficient you can safely OC them to +4Ghz depending how good your Mobo is. It improved my performances massively in many games.

 

hmmm that is quite interesting. I had never really considered a xeon because I always just assumed it was a workstation CPU, but its a very interesting upgrade path now that I think about it - thanks for the tip! I have looked at my local classifieds and I can get a x5690 (6 core) for about $100 (not that cheap). I wonder if the 6 cores would make much of a difference? I must admit that I dont have issues with CPU usage in most modern games because they are so GPU dependent these days, but I suppose an upgrade couldnt hurt..

 

btw, what program are you using for your telemetries there? HWmonitor? How'd you get it to output the data like that?

Edited by Flashy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Flashy said:

 

hmmm that is quite interesting. I had never really considered a xeon because I always just assumed it was a workstation CPU, but its a very interesting upgrade path now that I think about it - thanks for the tip! I have looked at my local classifieds and I can get a x5690 (6 core) for about $100 (not that cheap). I wonder if the 6 cores would make much of a difference? I must admit that I dont have issues with CPU usage in most modern games because they are so GPU dependent these days, but I suppose an upgrade couldnt hurt..

 

btw, what program are you using for your telemetries there? HWmonitor? How'd you get it to output the data like that?

 

Yeah if you wanna find something cheaper, the only difference between the x56xx models is the base clock of the CPU that might help in OC if your motherboard blkc is limited. The extra two cores might help games that are well optimized for multithreading, but the main reason that I picked it up was that i could overclock it at 4Ghz at lower vcore and lower temps than my 920 that was limited at 3.3Ghz.

 

Anyway the program I use is MSI Afterburner. I might wanna check if the GPU usage in other games reach 100%, if not is most cases a CPU bottleneck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally had a chance to try this mission out but unfortunately I had similar results as other with the mission seemingly running in slo-mo while still displaying high frame rate. My system is pretty strong overall but I think my 4gig 1050 is the weak link right now.

 

An interesting experiment, I'd like to ask if the multiple cameras in the mission would have any affect in the slowing down of the game? Would reducing or eliminating them help the performance of the mission? Still very cool to see so many planes in the air. Something to hope for in the future of this series.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rjel said:

I finally had a chance to try this mission out but unfortunately I had similar results as other with the mission seemingly running in slo-mo while still displaying high frame rate. My system is pretty strong overall but I think my 4gig 1050 is the weak link right now.

 

 

Tough to say really what the bottleneck is at this point from where I sit.

 

I've done a ton of testing while watching resource utilization, CPU, GPU and RAM.

I have a fast system and it hardly notices BoS running according to watching those graphs...yet certain things will make it slow down somewhat, and those things don't always make sense from a logic/ resource standpoint.  It's also map dependent to some extent...something under the hood that I have no way of sussing out by normal means.

 

The real test is He-111's as they seem to use more resources than say the A-20 (which might as well be a Pe-2).

You can get away with few of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I waited forever for the command to take off , but it never seemed to come...I bet I was frying those BMW engines.Should have just led to FW's off? Then what?

BTW:My Fps fell off to about 24-28 when viewing the mass of a-20's and went right back up again when I went back to sitting in the cockpit on the runway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Blitzen said:

I waited forever for the command to take off , but it never seemed to come...I bet I was frying those BMW engines.Should have just led to FW's off? Then what?

BTW:My Fps fell off to about 24-28 when viewing the mass of a-20's and went right back up again when I went back to sitting in the cockpit on the runway...

 

Start individually and head roughly in the direction of Krasnodar. I intercepted the A20s somewhere between map-square 1122 and 1025.

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

strange is that If im sometimes running home in career and the game speeds up (im now away from the front line and some planes were shot down) the game slows down again over airfield (anapa)(didnt tested different airfields yet) although when I took off the game was smooth.

Edited by Voidhunger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Start individually and head roughly in the direction of Krasnodar. I intercepted the A20s somewhere between map-square 1122 and 1025.

Am I doomed to fight this slow moving yet impressive aerial armada all by myself?😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Blitzen said:

I waited forever for the command to take off , but it never seemed to come...I bet I was frying those BMW engines.Should have just led to FW's off? Then what?

BTW:My Fps fell off to about 24-28 when viewing the mass of a-20's and went right back up again when I went back to sitting in the cockpit on the runway...

If you have the text display active (key H) then you will see messages flashed on the screen.

When the mission starts 4 FW190 are on runway ready to takeoff in case of an alert. They will take-off and intercept the bombers once the alert (siren) has been activated. A white flare will give the takeoff signal. The air raid sirens are activated at the airfield, but also the city center main train station, the harbor. 

You are on your FW190 and free either to wait for the alert (siren) to happen (when incoming bombers are detected by spotters in the mountains), or immediately take off and fly as you like, and maybe intercept the incoming bombers. I have put nothing on the map, so it is up to you to discover where they come from. 

Bombers are 45 A20 but also 5 IL2's. The FW190 variant you have can also be rigged for bombing. You can instead of attacking the bombers attack a sea target. Danger comes from the air but also from the sea. 

 

 

19 hours ago, Rjel said:

I finally had a chance to try this mission out but unfortunately I had similar results as other with the mission seemingly running in slo-mo while still displaying high frame rate. My system is pretty strong overall but I think my 4gig 1050 is the weak link right now.

 

An interesting experiment, I'd like to ask if the multiple cameras in the mission would have any affect in the slowing down of the game? Would reducing or eliminating them help the performance of the mission? Still very cool to see so many planes in the air. Something to hope for in the future of this series.

 

I will check the cameras impact on performance, even if I think it should be marginal, but worth checking.

Edited by IckyATLAS
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried it tonight, great mission loved it, but same as everyone else got into slow-mo dogfights (settings at Ultra and 144 FPS). Actually quite like it as it looks like one of those old gun cam films. Its the AI numbers. You get the same effect with PWCG missions when you crank up the the AI numbers in the settings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ACS777 said:

I tried it tonight, great mission loved it, but same as everyone else got into slow-mo dogfights (settings at Ultra and 144 FPS). Actually quite like it as it looks like one of those old gun cam films. Its the AI numbers. You get the same effect with PWCG missions when you crank up the the AI numbers in the settings. 

 

Mind posting your specs?

You can run the Cpu-Z validator if you wanna make it quick 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×