Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary 247 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

That's the theory. 

 

Jason

 

Great, it will be better to leave CPU to do the complex calculations and offload some things into the GPU it's great

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reflections? yes looks nice but whats about fixing essential problems like this?

 

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I saw mentioned on the Russian side of the forums about the Soviet pilot's helmet: while there appear to be a lot of "wrinkles" in the helmet model, pictures seem to indicate the helmet had a smooth look to it:

 

662647d1395181679-wwii-soviet-leather-fl

 

SF3.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the guys on the Russian forum seem to be complaining that the artists think everything back then was ragged and nothing looked new lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for the DD guys, really appreciated as is the continued updating of existing tech and assets for all of the current sim, new pilots look superb.:drinks:

 

F.C. video is excellent although with that amount of activity my rig would probably grind to a halt, the film is promotional though so it has to be accepted that it was made to grab the attention of the viewers who are not familiar with this module, the artist has obviously used all his skills to produce a amazing visual feast, lets hope it brings more into the sim to experience it for themselves.;)

 

 

Take care and be safe.

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Devs, with the new renderer will we be seeing a revamp of the graphical settings menu? If at all possible will we be able to adjust all settings. There has been a trend of everyone having to edit their startup.cfg in order to optimize the game to their liking. It would be amazing if nothing was baked into presets or was forcefully changed behind the scenes. I'm sure there is a way for users to have full control with also the option of presets for those less inclined. Pretty please? 😄

Edited by driftaholic
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice update very exciting!

 

Wow, what a great promo vid for Flying Circus! Beautifully done and loved the music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

the new DM will also take into account data, if you have armored crystals?

Looks like it will. Alongside armor and other parts as stated in last DDs

 

"Such as: the number of structural elements of one or another part of the airframe, their material and geometric dimensions"

Edited by LF_Gallahad
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That FC clip is awesome, thank you! I love FC, makes GB even more desirable to me ! 

The new DM and graphical features seem as good as any Sim can get.

Those tank crew binoculars are also one thing I will check out immediately. 

Looking forward to it all. 

Congrats! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Still wondering if Jason can confirm if the changes to reflections will also affect how easily  distant bare metal skins will be visible?  Shiny A20s are incredibly easy to see even at 9k compared to dull skinned PE-2s and He111 etc.    Is that a different problem?

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to the renderer changes.  See if it better compatibility to Il2 with Variable Rate Shading tech which will help us VR pilots and non VR pilots alike.  Not to mention make the graphic fidelity of the sim more to behold.

 

Also, as more graphic work load is moved from the CPU, it frees up CPU resources for other things like more elements in game at the same time providing a target rich environment.  Hopefully these will also be distributed among CPU cores / threads available to the game on the end users system.

 

The glass gauges rendered with the differed system will make the cockpit look more alive too as will the internal reflections / lighting on the cockpit canopy.  Can't wait.  More goodness and the sim just keeps getting better.😊👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

Still wondering if Jason can confirm if the changes to reflections will also affect how easily  distant bare metal skins will be visible?  Shiny A20s are incredibly easy to see even at 9k compared to dull skinned PE-2s and He111 etc.    Is that a different problem?

Wasn't that the case in real life? Was that not why the military started to paint their airplanes to begin with? Wasn't the reason for the bare metal planes at the end of the war because the Luftwaffe was not the biggest threat in the world and leaving the planes bare saved weight, time, and materials while also making them more visible to friendlies as well? Can you not look into the sky and see a bare metal airliner glinting in the sun way off in the distance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

Many users tell us our VR is great. So you guys send confusing signals. We did not invent VR technology, we can only work within it's limits and we do the best we can. And this thread is not about VR so please take it to the VR section.

 

Jason

I concur, I'm one seeing a far better performance from IL2 VR than DCS, that's not even a match. And everyone in the group I fly with agree, we are 3 with VR, we all see better perfs from IL2. @IdahoBookworm I don't know what could be the source of your issues, but this is not a generalized issue, tbh.

 

I was very worried by this DD when I saw DS being implemented. My first thought was "dear, knowing what DS did to DCS VR perfs, this is a terrible news :( ". Now I read you guys here, it seems you are tackling it the right way, changing AA tech in parallel, etc... I'll wait for the final result, crossing fingers, but you're doing outstanding job from the look of it, @Jason_Williams & crew!

Share this post


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

Wasn't that the case in real life? Was that not why the military started to paint their airplanes to begin with? Wasn't the reason for the bare metal planes at the end of the war because the Luftwaffe was not the biggest threat in the world and leaving the planes bare saved weight, time, and materials while also making them more visible to friendlies as well? Can you not look into the sky and see a bare metal airliner glinting in the sun way off in the distance?

 

What I am saying is that silver skins currently show as highly visible right to the edge of the visibility bubble and it would seem to be way beyond what I would expect in real life and what I experienced when I did indeed fly at an airfield with bare metal aircraft.   I merely wondered if the change to reflections affected that aspect of the game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OBT-Lionel said:

I'm scared ... Will we see the contacts ???

 

Don't be scared mate... go and have a sit down with a nice cup of coffee as it will help to calm your nerves.   :scare:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the “Flying Circus “video & hope it presages “Campaign” options that is currently missing from this part of “Great Battles”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Danziger said:

Yeah the guys on the Russian forum seem to be complaining.

Fixed that for you.∆∆

Went to the Russian forum a few days ago and that place is toxic, nothing but complaints and whining.

The majority of the complainers have less future product vision than a turnip. When they announced Normandy, you see people writing "I wOuLd prEfeR IL-4 and i153" as if that is a comparable alternative.

 

 

Edited by Jade_Monkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

Many users tell us our VR is great. So you guys send confusing signals. We did not invent VR technology, we can only work within it's limits and we do the best we can. And this thread is not about VR so please take it to the VR section.

 

Jason

 

Your VR support is great. No other flight sim can I get the performance and experience I get with IL-2 .

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

What I am saying is that silver skins currently show as highly visible right to the edge of the visibility bubble and it would seem to be way beyond what I would expect in real life and what I experienced when I did indeed fly at an airfield with bare metal aircraft.   I merely wondered if the change to reflections affected that aspect of the game.

How far out is the visibility bubble? You should be able to see bare aluminum aircraft shining from really really far away.

2 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Fixed that for you.∆∆

Went to the Russian forum a few days ago and that place is toxic, nothing but complaints and whining.

The majority of the complainers have less future product vision than a turnip. When they announced Normandy, you see people writing "I wOuLd prEfeR IL-4 and i153" as if that is a comparable alternative.

 

 

Yeah it can be pretty entertaining to read sometimes when you don't know exactly what they mean because the slang and idioms do not translate well. The Russian devs seem much more involved in the conversation over there but also come down a lot harder on the users there. 

 

As for Il-4s and I-153s. Of course they are more interested in their own battles and aircraft than western stuff. While I love the stuff in Bodenplatte and what is to come with Normandy, I wouldn't have shed a single tear if we had got another Eastern Front battle with Il-4s and I-153s. I hope we do still get those one day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it when people say you should be able to see aircraft from "really far away." It isn't nearly as simple as that. Lighting and angle can allow you to see a Cessna at six miles and not a 737 with it's landing lights on under different lighting and angle at six miles. There is no blanket definition to, "really far away."

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kalbuth My squadmates agree that IL-2 is heavily CPU-bound in VR and could benefit from any improvements in this area. This understanding was gleaned from testing in the community: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/56485-benchmark-for-cpuram-performance-remagen-4002-to-4004/. However, my squadmate's polite comment to this effect was deleted here. I expect this comment will be as well, while yours, agreeing with the status quo but equally "off topic," will be allowed to stand. 

 

Perhaps what gets people's hackles up is the mention of a "competing" sim. God forbid we should say a "competitor" performs better. But, as you say, it is likely rig dependent. My perception is that DCS appears to be slightly less CPU bound, but hits GPUs a little harder. IL-2 is a bit easier on the GPU and a bit harder on the CPU. Each sim is hard to run in VR and has a bottleneck, but where the bottleneck sits is different. I was gifted a great GPU, which eases DCS considerably for me, but I can't overclock to 4.8 ghz or higher, which seems to be the CPU bottleneck in IL-2. Hopefully this coming patch will ease that bottleneck and allow myself and others who can't break that ghz barrier to enjoy VR in IL-2, even if VR-specific optimization are not a dev priority because they "didn't invent the technology." 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IdahoBookworm said:

@kalbuth My squadmates agree that IL-2 is heavily CPU-bound in VR and could benefit from any improvements in this area. This understanding was gleaned from testing in the community: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/56485-benchmark-for-cpuram-performance-remagen-4002-to-4004/. However, my squadmate's polite comment to this effect was deleted here. I expect this comment will be as well, while yours, agreeing with the status quo but equally "off topic," will be allowed to stand. 

 

Perhaps what gets people's hackles up is the mention of a "competing" sim. God forbid we should say a "competitor" performs better. But, as you say, it is likely rig dependent. My perception is that DCS appears to be slightly less CPU bound, but hits GPUs a little harder. IL-2 is a bit easier on the GPU and a bit harder on the CPU. Each sim is hard to run in VR and has a bottleneck, but where the bottleneck sits is different. I was gifted a great GPU, which eases DCS considerably for me, but I can't overclock to 4.8 ghz or higher, which seems to be the CPU bottleneck in IL-2. Hopefully this coming patch will ease that bottleneck and allow myself and others who can't break that ghz barrier to enjoy VR in IL-2, even if VR-specific optimization are not a dev priority because they "didn't invent the technology." 🙄

 

Total BS. We were the first to take VR seriously in this genre. I didn't see anyone from DCS at Oculus's HQ trying to get straight answers out of them when I was there. Did you? You don't seem to know the history here. We've constantly adapted our sim to try and keep up with VR changes, and we've added motion sim support, and simshaker support, slanted screen support for VR users and we're now doing DS to explore other graphical possibilities. I have ONE GUY to do all this, but yet many users are quite happy. So stop acting like we don't do anything or we don't care because I push back a little on the VR tech companies that don't care to ever see what custom engine developers have to deal with. If you don't like our implementation, please go elsewhere. I can't solve everyone's problems with technology and VR performance. It's still new tech, it's still niche and it's still way to heavy on today's hardware. 

 

Jason

  • Like 19
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jason_Williams, I apologize if anything I said seemed like a personal attack on you or your willingness to address VR. My original post was an attempt to ask, respectfully, if CPU optimizations could be looked into for VR, because I am not the only person trying and failing to get a good experience there. (Most who fail don't stick around, which may be why you don't hear from them a much. I've spoken to several who fly in War Thunder because, "Yeah, I just can't run IL-2.") I wasn't trying to attack. I was trying to request support. If support is impossible, if nothing can be done about it, a "Sorry, we understand but can't do anything right now" would have been fine. But I felt like I was made an enemy for merely raising the suggestion, especially after Alonzo's polite "yeah, VR hits the CPU hard" post was deleted.

 

The reason I care about this is because I love IL-2. I pre-ordered Bodenplatte more than a year before I knew I'd be able to run it, in part because I wanted to support the sim. I recently wrote a long screed to my War Thunder squadron mates in an attempt to get them to try IL-2, despite how difficult it is for me to run it, because the sim experience is just so good, especially in Alonzo's Combat Box server. It addresses all our complaints about the gamey-ness of War Thunder, and the P-51 flight model in particular is just plain fun. I'm excited about the upcoming update because of what you have said about better division of work between CPU and GPU, which seems ideal for my rig. I applaud you for all the hard work you and the other devs are doing and have done to give us the best WWII flight sim on the market, and I look forward to enjoying the sim more in the future.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I love it when people say you should be able to see aircraft from "really far away." It isn't nearly as simple as that. Lighting and angle can allow you to see a Cessna at six miles and not a 737 with it's landing lights on under different lighting and angle at six miles. There is no blanket definition to, "really far away."

I said bare metal glinting in the sunlight. I think that should've indicated sufficiently the need of certain lighting and angles in order to see an aircraft from "really far away". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Danziger said:

I said bare metal glinting in the sunlight. I think that should've indicated sufficiently the need of certain lighting and angles in order to see an aircraft from "really far away". 

 

Bare metal with a glint from one angle is not the same as bare metal in the same light from another angle. There are way too many people on this and other forums who think they can see aircraft at twenty miles in all conditions. As real world pilot, I can tell you, it can be a real chore to find another aircraft in clear air even when ATC is giving you altitude, distance and bearing. Really really far away is completely subjective. As both pilot and crew in a congested urban environment (multi-crew helicopters) I've dumped five hundred feet to deconflict on numerous occasions for AC we could not identify.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

Bare metal with a glint from one angle is not the same as bare metal in the same light from another angle. There are way too many people on this and other forums who think they can see aircraft at twenty miles in all conditions. As real world pilot, I can tell you, it can be a real chore to find another aircraft in clear air even when ATC is giving you altitude, distance and bearing. Really really far away is completely subjective. As both pilot and crew in a congested urban environment (multi-crew helicopters) I've dumped five hundred feet to deconflict on numerous occasions for AC we could not identify.

I never said all conditions. 9km is not very far away.

 

I guess if they become invisible in less than perfect lighting and weather, it really was a waste of time, money, and paint to camouflage them in the first place right? 

Share this post


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

 

Your VR support is great. No other flight sim can I get the performance and experience I get with IL-2 .

Definitely Il2 is easier on the fps in VR than DCS, but in my humble opinion DCS definitely has the edge on the graphics fidelity side, in relation to aircraft and maps over IL2. I enjoy and appreciate both sims, but DCS just looks better and that costs fps. The new BOBP map just appears quiet bland to my eyes, but I will continue to support IL2 as the devs have developed a great sim and I`m sure they can narrow that gap in time.

Either way I have bought fully in to both sims,  a sucker for punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2020 at 7:10 PM, svid123 said:

 

Generally speaking BOS has never used raw forward renderer. Currently user version works with Forward+ renderer with prepass for lighting and graphics effects (such as SSAO, SSR etc). So switching to Deferred (Tiled Deferred 2.5D) reduces CPU bottleneck approximately by one thirds. This is especcialy important in heavy sceneries and multiplayer. The heaviest units in game are airplanes with thousands of baked joints and animations so Deferred is dedicated to reduce CPU load. Deferred is better suited for recent aircrafts with higher interiors complexity and for TC project as it has complicated inner tank lighting environments as well.
Knowing MSAA is killer for Deferred we've added an option FXAA thus DS+FXAA gives up to 50% performance increase comparing to Forward+ without antialiasing at all, depending on system. However MSAA option will persist and it works roughly the same or a little bit lower than before on regular monitors depending on resolution.

 

Any word about implementing more antialisaing methods? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That FC promotional video gives me  a glimmer hope of seeing tank crew being transported to WWI(FC vol 2?). If I had the right rig, definitely would give all of Il-2 Great Battles a try. But, my computer is a five years old Origin laptop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think VR support in this game is damn good for a flight sim. I do agree it seems CPU bound, using a whopping 3 of my 8 cores. Blows "That other sim" out of the water in performance. The only VR related thing they have that I like is the G-force induced head movement, maybe 1/2 strength here would be a nice option. Getting VRSS would would be an awesome addition in the future. One other cool thing in VR: I noticed in Half-Life: Alyx the 2D display had the option of being presented in 2D with head movement smoothing, would be a cool thing to have for those in VR trying to record or stream.

 

Either way IL2 is far and away my favorite sim.

Edited by driftaholic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just another thought about the early war vs late war summer Soviet pilot models. Shouldn't the early pilot have blue trousers?

Edited by Danziger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2020 at 5:32 PM, Jason_Williams said:

 

My tests so far with DS is very good in 4K maxed out. 120+ FPS. I detect no difference in my VR performance. Any issues in VR is not related to DS. Also, according to Sergey DS better bifurcates our CPU and GPU work load. So having a powerful GPU will make more of a difference than before. And it allows us to do more trick things like the reflections you see  in this DD without a huge FPS hit. So we'll see how far we take it. Many things in the kitchen.

 

Jason

 

Jason,  what says the Hardware Monitoring Software what is more important than the raw FPS count. Hardware Monitoring Software easy detect & show the Deferred shift from CPU to GPU in % if there is any. What makes it very interesting to see how the load is on CPU and GPU now compared to before.

 

Each Render techniques has his Pros and Cons.

 

On 4/3/2020 at 9:40 PM, Jason_Williams said:

 

A form of ray tracing. Not final, many things to clean up.

 

Jason

 

How about Reflections that are qualitatively reminiscent of ray tracing - in other words, no Screen Space Effects but "real" Reflections. Doing this -> The complete scene is calculated again and then projected onto a Texture

 

Are not the Plane mirror simulated this way?

 

22 hours ago, svid123 said:

 

Generally speaking BOS has never used raw forward renderer. Currently user version works with Forward+ renderer with prepass for lighting and graphics effects (such as SSAO, SSR etc). So switching to Deferred (Tiled Deferred 2.5D) reduces CPU bottleneck approximately by one thirds. This is especcialy important in heavy sceneries and multiplayer. The heaviest units in game are airplanes with thousands of baked joints and animations so Deferred is dedicated to reduce CPU load. Deferred is better suited for recent aircrafts with higher interiors complexity and for TC project as it has complicated inner tank lighting environments as well.
Knowing MSAA is killer for Deferred we've added an option FXAA thus DS+FXAA gives up to 50% performance increase comparing to Forward+ without antialiasing at all, depending on system. However MSAA option will persist and it works roughly the same or a little bit lower than before on regular monitors depending on resolution.

 

Interesting,  there are always many ways to reach the goal but how it is done is always interesting.

I have seen tricks in mostly outdoor games with only sun shining where texels with zero direct lighting were assumed to be in shadow crazy and dangerous but somehow it worked. Or tricks that violate the energy conservation principle and uses a "Non - Physically" based rendering distribution. As long it makes the artists happy is everything allowed.

 

@svid123 you say "approximately by one third" reduces CPU bottleneck did you done some measurements with Hardware Monitoring Software to see clear the Deferred shift from CPU to GPU or from where you take the "approximately by one third" value? Should I assume that CPU load reduces approximately by one third but GPU load increase approximately by one third? I would like something tangible, screenshots with before and after, maybe?

 

2 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

Total BS. We were the first to take VR seriously in this genre. I didn't see anyone from DCS at Oculus's HQ trying to get straight answers out of them when I was there. Did you? You don't seem to know the history here. We've constantly adapted our sim to try and keep up with VR changes, and we've added motion sim support, and simshaker support, slanted screen support for VR users and we're now doing DS to explore other graphical possibilities. I have ONE GUY to do all this, but yet many users are quite happy. So stop acting like we don't do anything or we don't care because I push back a little on the VR tech companies that don't care to ever see what custom engine developers have to deal with. If you don't like our implementation, please go elsewhere. I can't solve everyone's problems with technology and VR performance. It's still new tech, it's still niche and it's still way to heavy on today's hardware. 

 

Jason

 

The problem with VR is always the VR - Hardware itself. Each VR - Hardware from each different Manufacturer is different this one use more CPU than GPU and the next one use less CPU but more GPU or both. Now as Developer how to counteract?  The biggest problem is that a lot customers play or played before on Monitors that can display 144 FPS or more. Now you join VR and fly with 40 FPS all the time near ground but on higher altitude with 80 FPS in VR, a pain for these customers when played before with 100 - 144 FPS all the time.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Han sorry for off-top, i found what when vehicles appear in missions by the spawner - their repair/rearm/reheal option not working. Repair rearm reheal working with vehicles what have enabled options "on" only, so i can't use spawner... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Is this new deffered shading going to disable the multi gpu support?I ask because DCS uses this and it supposedly doesnt support Multiple gpus?

Edited by skpcarey1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send it. Send it....

 

Please send it!

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2020 at 5:53 PM, Danziger said:

another Eastern Front battle with Il-4s and I-153s

I-153? Can you IMAGINE the g-force effects if you were flying that little imp?!!! Mmmmmmm...... You're right though, it would be great to have one o' them to hop into wouldn't it?

 

  • Upvote 1

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

×
×
  • Create New...