Developer Diary 305 - Discussion

[-332FG-Eggnog]

I'm pretty excited for what this could mean... IL2 has always looked good, that's one of the first things that hooked me. But the "standard" in gaming is constantly shifting. Now I'm not expecting ray tracing or anything bonkers like that, this still ultimately needs to run in VR after all. But I'm really happy to see that some graphical updates are possibly being considered!

[Juri_JS]

I hope the recon features will be added to WW2 too. For example it would allow us to add Luftwaffe Nahaufklärungsgruppen (close reconnaissance groups) to the career, that were flying the Bf-109 late in the war.  These Bf-109 units are almost forgotten today, although their job was very important and several of their pilots achieved ace status.

[Irishratticus72]

I see there's no option to vote for my 3D FX Voodoo 2 card? 

[SYN_Vander]

2 minutes ago, Irishratticus72 said:

I see there's no option to vote for my 3D FX Voodoo 2 card? 

 

And I'm missing my Hercules Graphics Card!

[Irishratticus72]

2 minutes ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

And I'm missing my Hercules Graphics Card!

Now there's a throwback, reminds me of my Amihawk upgrade card. 

[csThor]

Tactical (photographic) recon worked very differently in WW2 for the most part. Handheld cameras were a rarity almost to the point of obscurity. Instead tactical recon aircraft carried what was called Reihenbildkameras in german which shot a row of photos so the pilot had to fly at a certain altitude (how high exactly depended on the specific camera and the lenses - and that depended on the target categories the mission was supposed to cover) and hope something interested was captured on film. What exactly was photographed would only be revealed back at the airfield and the unit's photo development and image interpreter sections.

[357th_KW]

I’d love to see WW2 recon added.  Just a couple days ago I was reading about 9th Air Force F-6’s (P-51C and D) providing artillery spotting and photo recon around Aachen in October 1944.

[DBFlyguy]

Adding legit tac recon into the game would be awesome and definitely add some depth to options.  Speaking of... made me think of this presentation of Clyde East who flew Spitfires and P-51s (F-6s) on tac recon during the war and managed to become an ace in the process:

 

 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Artillery spots were always my favorite 2 seater missions.  Coding them was a PITA (hoping new system is easier to use) but they were fun to fly - picking the grid and watching the arty fall.

 

For WWII recon fans, this opens up possibilities for WII recon collector planes like the Piper, Storch, FW189, maybe use the Po2 for this role, etc. 

 

Flying Boats and Seaplanes in the PACIFIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SYN_Mike77]

Well they've done flying boats and seaplanes before, so the tech exists!

[JG700_Benek]

I hope that this graphic pool will mean the game will get some love in the following areas:

 

- shimmering/antialiasing improvements (roads, distant landscape, plane parts)

- trees detailed circle removed/enlarged or toggleable so we can stay with low/high detail trees for example

- object appearing only on certain zoom level like trucks or hangars

- canpoy plexiglass scratches rework - now when you use ingame sharpen they are black and flicker

- would love to see the planes against the ground visibility be the same as their shadows ?. Now I can see better the planes shadows against the ground than the planes themselves.

 

[Missionbug]

Getting recon into the mix would be a real step forward, I am one who liked it in R.O.F and hope it will eventually be available for all the modules eventually.

 

 

As for the graphics card, mine is a G.T.X. 960, it is listed as 8 G.B. of R.A.M so a question for you techie guys will that mean about 2 G.B of V.R.A.M (2007 M.B.) as that is what I added for the poll?

 

I am not the brightest so do not always grasp the intricacies of all this techie stuff, too much of my life spent with big hammers and spanners.

 

Thank you for the D.D. guys, really appreciated.

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Missionbug

[IckyATLAS]

The only way to please say the two extremes is to have the possibility to have the graphic and visual enhancements as selectable options.

It may complicate things but I see no other way to satisfy the GTX 1000 series users and the RTX 3000 series users will be happy.

Please do also consider the future RTX 4000 series that is planned for the end of this year.

 

[357th_KW]

I was just watching MAH’s latest video on the Stuka and he brings up the topic of recon:

 

 

What would be truly amazing is if you could have both a tactical recon and a photo recon capability, where a player in a recon role could produce a hand sketch, or a photo with some markup on it that would be shared once they returned to base, so that the team’s ground attackers could have an up to date briefing showing the condition and layout of the target they were planning to attack.

[CSW_Hot_Dog]

Hi @Jason_Williams, about new engine and GPU requirements, if I have RTX3080 and playing in Reverb G2, does it also means that graphics will be also more demanding on this high-end set up in this new engine and thus I will have lower FPS? Or does it affect only low-end GPUs with less VRAM?

 

Thanks in advance for the answer...

Edited January 28, 2022 by CSW_Hot_Dog

[J2_Bidu]

Wooooah this is way beyond my expectations! Love to see these features returning. Made my day/week/month.

 

Thank You!!!

[Lusekofte]

5 hours ago, Blitzen said:

Well a little bit of news, but honestly I was hoping for a little more…?

This littlebit made my day, week and rest of the year. It has potential to make me a MP player again. Even ditch DCS 

[Diggun]

Tickle my belly and call me Snoozy Horace, but can we glean anything from the fact that it's gpus that are being surveyed? 

 

I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that it was single thread cpu speed that was the main performance choke point? 

 

Just wondering if this nugget might give us any clues as to what is in store... 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

15 hours ago, Missionbug said:

As for the graphics card, mine is a G.T.X. 960, it is listed as 8 G.B. of R.A.M so a question for you techie guys will that mean about 2 G.B of V.R.A.M (2007 M.B.) as that is what I added for the poll?

VRAM is exactly the same thing as RAM, except that it's connected to the GPU rather than CPU (and usually constructed of a faster type of memory). So 8GB of RAM is the same amount as 8GB of VRAM. (Also not sure where you get the 2007 number; 1 Gigabyte equals 1000 Megabytes. There's also GiB and MiB, but in that case it should be 2048 MiB and still not 2007.)

 

That said, I can only find 2GB and 4GB versions of the GTX 960. So it seems to me that you've got a 2GB GTX 960, and your 8GB RAM is probably your "normal" ram so not related to your graphics card.

 

15 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

The only way to please say the two extremes is to have the possibility to have the graphic and visual enhancements as selectable options.

It may complicate things but I see no other way to satisfy the GTX 1000 series users and the RTX 3000 series users will be happy.

Please do also consider the future RTX 4000 series that is planned for the end of this year.

Any new things they're thinking about probably have some requirements for the video card that make them inherently incompatible with older cards, hence this poll. That would mean that supporting both new and old videocards is likely impossible, even with options.

What I could see as a plausible solution though, is to have sort of a "legacy mode". A separate program that isn't updated beyond the release of BoN (perhaps one or two bugfixes), but which would allow people with older video cards to continue playing the game, at the cost of not receiving any new features and planes, and likely only being able to play multiplayer against other "legacy mode" players or not at all.

 

12 hours ago, Diggun said:

I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that it was single thread cpu speed that was the main performance choke point?

Both CPU and GPU are important and they're not necessarily related. The CPU is the choke point for mission size and complexity, the GPU for graphical quality. A hundred bombers will still be a slideshow on a 3080, while a single aircraft suffers on a prehistoric video card. The fact that they're surveying GPUs could simply mean that they're planning improvements to the graphics side of the game (the terrain and foliage could use an upgrade IMHO).

 

Another possibility would be that they're planning to move some of the physics calculations to the GPU (which is common, nowadays). This might help lighten the CPU load and therefore enable larger and more complex missions. (EDIT: just wildly guessing here. In fact, it's entirely possible that physics calculations are already done on the GPU)

Edited January 29, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[FuriousMeow]

1 hour ago, Diggun said:

I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that it was single thread cpu speed that was the main performance choke point? 

 

 

That whole thing was based around the dserver.exe performance.

[US103_Baer]

Brilliant! Recon mechanics are HUGE for FC. They're the whole reason for the air-war in the first place.

 

Q1. Will they be available in MP as well? 

IIRC in RoF only photo-recon was available in MP and Arty spot was a 3rd party script,  not the cool grid mechanics of SP.

 

Q2. What recon mission types be available with dedicated GUIs? Photo, Arty Spot & Rear Area Recon?

[Youtch]

9 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Both CPU and GPU are important and they're not necessarily related. The CPU is the choke point for mission size and complexity, the GPU for graphical quality. A hundred bombers will still be a slideshow on a 3080, while a single aircraft suffers on a prehistoric video card. The fact that they're surveying GPUs could simply mean that they're planning improvements to the graphics side of the game (the terrain and foliage could use an upgrade IMHO).

 

Another possibility would be that they're planning to move some of the physics calculations to the GPU (which is common, nowadays). This might help lighten the CPU load and therefore enable larger and more complex missions. (EDIT: just wildly guessing here. In fact, it's entirely possible that physics calculations are already done on the GPU)

Regarding CPU being the bottleneck in mission (especially in VR), is there still some margin for multi-core optimization? Distributing some game functions by core like other simulation games have been doing. Or it is something that has already be done. Please forget my ignorance.

 

Don t take me wrong, VR in IL2 is one of the finest implementation and experience in the market and much better than most sim.

 

But VR is where sim gaming industry is clearly heading toward, slowly but surely and this is still what pushes the most the limit of the current processing power. My PC does not break any sweat running 4k with all setting maximized and ultra, but I still need to downgrade almost all parameters to run appropriate VR.

[Missionbug]

 

9 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

VRAM is exactly the same thing as RAM, except that it's connected to the GPU rather than CPU. So 8GB of RAM is the same amount as 8GB of VRAM. (Also not sure where you get the 2007 number; 1 Gigabyte equals 1000 Megabytes. There's also GiB and MiB, but in that case it should be 2048 MiB and still not 2007.)

 

That said, I can only find 2GB and 4GB versions of the GTX 960. So it seems to me that you've got a 2GB GTX 960, and your 8GB RAM is probably your "normal" ram so not related to your graphics card.

 

Hello  AEthelraedUnraed, the information I posted comes from using dxdiag, please look at those outlined in Red:

------------------
System Information
------------------
      Time of this report: 1/29/2022, 09:42:16
             Machine name: PETER-PC
               Machine Id: {5EA7039D-128B-4005-B64E-883026129AAD}
         Operating System: Windows 10 Home 64-bit (10.0, Build 19043) (19041.vb_release.191206-1406)
                 Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
      System Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
             System Model: Z97N-WIFI
                     BIOS: BIOS Date: 11/13/14 13:57:04 Ver: 04.06.05 (type: BIOS)
                Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4690K CPU @ 3.50GHz (4 CPUs), ~3.5GHz
                   Memory: 8192MB RAM
      Available OS Memory: 8096MB RAM
                Page File: 5268MB used, 12555MB available
              Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
          DirectX Version: DirectX 12
      DX Setup Parameters: Not found
         User DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
       System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
          DWM DPI Scaling: Enabled
                 Miracast: Available, no HDCP
Microsoft Graphics Hybrid: Not Supported
 DirectX Database Version: 1.0.8
           DxDiag Version: 10.00.19041.0928 64bit Unicode

------------
DxDiag Notes
------------
      Display Tab 1: No problems found.
        Sound Tab 1: No problems found.
        Sound Tab 2: No problems found.
        Sound Tab 3: No problems found.
          Input Tab: No problems found.

--------------------
DirectX Debug Levels
--------------------
Direct3D:    0/4 (retail)
DirectDraw:  0/4 (retail)
DirectInput: 0/5 (retail)
DirectMusic: 0/5 (retail)
DirectPlay:  0/9 (retail)
DirectSound: 0/5 (retail)
DirectShow:  0/6 (retail)

---------------
Display Devices
---------------
           Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
        Manufacturer: NVIDIA
           Chip type: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
            DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
         Device Type: Full Device (POST)
          Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_1401&SUBSYS_32021462&REV_A1
       Device Status: 0180200A [DN_DRIVER_LOADED|DN_STARTED|DN_DISABLEABLE|DN_NT_ENUMERATOR|DN_NT_DRIVER]
 Device Problem Code: No Problem
 Driver Problem Code: Unknown
      Display Memory: 6055 MB
    Dedicated Memory: 2007 MB
       Shared Memory: 4047 MB
        Current Mode: 1920 x 1080 (32 bit) (60Hz)
         HDR Support: Not Supported
    Display Topology: Internal
 Display Color Space: DXGI_COLOR_SPACE_RGB_FULL_G22_NONE_P709
     Color Primaries: Red(0.652344,0.333008), Green(0.289062,0.607422), Blue(0.147461,0.084961), White Point(0.312500,0.329102)
   Display Luminance: Min Luminance = 0.500000, Max Luminance = 270.000000, MaxFullFrameLuminance = 270.000000
        Monitor Name: SyncMaster B2230H /B2230HF (Analog)
       Monitor Model: SMB2230H
          Monitor Id: SAM0646
         Native Mode: 1920 x 1080(p) (60.000Hz)
         Output Type: HD15
Monitor Capabilities: HDR Not Supported
Display Pixel Format: DISPLAYCONFIG_PIXELFORMAT_32BPP
      Advanced Color: Not Supported

 

 

 

 

 

As I already mentioned I am no computer technician so I might have misunderstood what I was looking at, I can only post what I see, hopefully that clears

things up.

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Missionbug

[Deicide]

I use PWCG and always saw Recon missions and often wondered how or what to do when flying them. This is awesome. I'm looking forward to this. I think with the eventual drop tanks coming this will become even better when used together.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Youtch said:

Regarding CPU being the bottleneck in mission (especially in VR), is there still some margin for multi-core optimization? Distributing some game functions by core like other simulation games have been doing. Or it is something that has already be done. Please forget my ignorance.

There's always some margin for optimisation. There's been some persistent voices saying that IL2 is essentially a single-core game, but according to Jason, it's already pretty optimised for multi-core.

 

1 hour ago, Youtch said:

But VR is where sim gaming industry is clearly heading toward, slowly but surely and this is still what pushes the most the limit of the current processing power. My PC does not break any sweat running 4k with all setting maximized and ultra, but I still need to downgrade almost all parameters to run appropriate VR.

Yeah, VR is notoriously heavy. Unfortunately, this'll remain the case for the foreseeable future. Essentially, for VR a GPU needs to do every calculation twice, with few exceptions, while simply doubling the resolution allows for some of the extra calculations to be skipped.

 

1 hour ago, Missionbug said:

Hello  AEthelraedUnraed, the information I posted comes from using dxdiag, please look at those outlined in Red:

------------------
System Information
------------------
      Time of this report: 1/29/2022, 09:42:16
             Machine name: PETER-PC
               Machine Id: {5EA7039D-128B-4005-B64E-883026129AAD}
         Operating System: Windows 10 Home 64-bit (10.0, Build 19043) (19041.vb_release.191206-1406)
                 Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
      System Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
             System Model: Z97N-WIFI
                     BIOS: BIOS Date: 11/13/14 13:57:04 Ver: 04.06.05 (type: BIOS)
                Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4690K CPU @ 3.50GHz (4 CPUs), ~3.5GHz
                   Memory: 8192MB RAM
      Available OS Memory: 8096MB RAM
                Page File: 5268MB used, 12555MB available
              Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
          DirectX Version: DirectX 12
      DX Setup Parameters: Not found
         User DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
       System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
          DWM DPI Scaling: Enabled
                 Miracast: Available, no HDCP
Microsoft Graphics Hybrid: Not Supported
 DirectX Database Version: 1.0.8
           DxDiag Version: 10.00.19041.0928 64bit Unicode

------------
DxDiag Notes
------------
      Display Tab 1: No problems found.
        Sound Tab 1: No problems found.
        Sound Tab 2: No problems found.
        Sound Tab 3: No problems found.
          Input Tab: No problems found.

--------------------
DirectX Debug Levels
--------------------
Direct3D:    0/4 (retail)
DirectDraw:  0/4 (retail)
DirectInput: 0/5 (retail)
DirectMusic: 0/5 (retail)
DirectPlay:  0/9 (retail)
DirectSound: 0/5 (retail)
DirectShow:  0/6 (retail)

---------------
Display Devices
---------------
           Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
        Manufacturer: NVIDIA
           Chip type: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
            DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
         Device Type: Full Device (POST)
          Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_1401&SUBSYS_32021462&REV_A1
       Device Status: 0180200A [DN_DRIVER_LOADED|DN_STARTED|DN_DISABLEABLE|DN_NT_ENUMERATOR|DN_NT_DRIVER]
 Device Problem Code: No Problem
 Driver Problem Code: Unknown
      Display Memory: 6055 MB
    Dedicated Memory: 2007 MB
       Shared Memory: 4047 MB
        Current Mode: 1920 x 1080 (32 bit) (60Hz)
         HDR Support: Not Supported
    Display Topology: Internal
 Display Color Space: DXGI_COLOR_SPACE_RGB_FULL_G22_NONE_P709
     Color Primaries: Red(0.652344,0.333008), Green(0.289062,0.607422), Blue(0.147461,0.084961), White Point(0.312500,0.329102)
   Display Luminance: Min Luminance = 0.500000, Max Luminance = 270.000000, MaxFullFrameLuminance = 270.000000
        Monitor Name: SyncMaster B2230H /B2230HF (Analog)
       Monitor Model: SMB2230H
          Monitor Id: SAM0646
         Native Mode: 1920 x 1080(p) (60.000Hz)
         Output Type: HD15
Monitor Capabilities: HDR Not Supported
Display Pixel Format: DISPLAYCONFIG_PIXELFORMAT_32BPP
      Advanced Color: Not Supported

 

 

 

 

 

As I already mentioned I am no computer technician so I might have misunderstood what I was looking at, I can only post what I see, hopefully that clears

things up.

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

8GB is your system memory, so RAM.

2007MB is your video memory, so VRAM. This is what Jason is asking for.

If your GPU really needs some extra memory, it can "borrow" an additional 4047 MB from your RAM. This is the "Shared Memory" figure you see. Your RAM however is not only further away from your video card but it's also made of a slower type of memory so your performance will degrade in the process (this is besides there being less RAM left for other applications to use).

 

2007MB doesn't quite match up with 2GB, but it's close enough that a vendor would call it that. There's not really any physical reason why a manufacturer would place exactly 2,000,000,000 memory cells on a chip.

[FuriousMeow]

3 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

There's always some margin for optimisation. There's been some persistent voices saying that IL2 is essentially a single-core game, but according to Jason, it's already pretty optimised for multi-core.

 

 

There's also pretty persistent voices in other areas that claim lots of things going against the advice and/or knowledge of the experts. Pretty good idea to ignore those voices, unless you want to expire.

 

The complaining about the single core/single thread thing was all based around one person analyzing dserver, not the core game. Additionally, they used Zen1/2 vs Intel as another point of conjecture to "prove" the single thread but that was mostly due to Zen1/2's design having inherent latency built into them by the design of the CCD that does not exist on the Zen3 chips for the most part (until you get to the 5900x/5950x because their cores are split across two CCDs, but the latency still isn't what the Zen1/2 had).

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Do observer in two seater plane will be able to take photos ?

[Missionbug]

3 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

2007MB is your video memory, so VRAM. This is what Jason is asking for.

 

 

Hello again AEthelraedUnraed, thank you very much for the explanation really appreciated, that does confirm then that I did actually give Jason the correct answer .

 

We were unable to actually write in the specific amount of VRAM which might have been better so I just ticked 2GB.

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Missionbug

[Danziger]

960M checking in!

[blitze]

50 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

There's also pretty persistent voices in other areas that claim lots of things going against the advice and/or knowledge of the experts. Pretty good idea to ignore those voices, unless you want to expire.

Best to keep ones thoughts on non Il2 matters to one self.  We are living in "Interesting Times" with much FUD being broadcasted.

 

Il2, it is a DirectX 11 title on the current engine I believe.  This does favor ultilisation of single thread for the graphics engine.  Whether they move to DirectX 12 or Vulcan (preferably the later for cross platform compatibility - hoping to have VR and Il2 on Linux within a year as I am sick of the MS eco system) I hope so and of the two I also understand Vulcan is more successful in implementation.

 

AI and physics are divided out to other threads.  Now days I am seeing many flights in combat in career mode which is quite daunting but luckily we have some good cloud cover on occasion to bolt to for threat re-assessments. ?

 

I look forward to seeing what the Devs are working on with the Graphics Engine for Il2 in the medium term.  They continually astound us with their updates with more and more improvements across the board.

[354thFG_Leifr]

2 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Do observer in two seater plane will be able to take photos ?

 

I hope so.

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

I think it would be cool if recon photos could somehow be uploaded to a multiplayer map in real time… 

In the airfield selection map with target locations displayed, a box with current target status is displayed when cursor hovered over it…. But only if recon returns… 

then with multiple flights the picture could be overwritten and updated with new photo, 

[Habu]

It's been a long time that we asked for the recon feature, so, i'm happy it will arrive. ?

 

On the screenshots we can see that there will be some improvments since RoF. I hope that we can have the options from the Mod of Anchor.

[Spinnetti]

On 1/28/2022 at 9:37 AM, Lord_Strange said:

Very excited to see proper recon mechanics on the way, since it was such an important role for the two-seaters in WW1. And the fact that Flying Circus is integrated into Great Battles gives me hope that we'll see more WW2 recon planes in future (I would pay an UNREASONABLE amount for a collector's Fw-189).

Note my user image - its the main landing gear for the FW-189 lol.. I designed in CAD, and machined it out of billet aluminum and stainless steel at 1/6th scale.

9 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

There's always some margin for optimisation. There's been some persistent voices saying that IL2 is essentially a single-core game, but according to Jason, it's already pretty optimised for multi-core.

 

Yeah, VR is notoriously heavy. Unfortunately, this'll remain the case for the foreseeable future. Essentially, for VR a GPU needs to do every calculation twice, with few exceptions, while simply doubling the resolution allows for some of the extra calculations to be skipped.

 

8GB is your system memory, so RAM.

2007MB is your video memory, so VRAM. This is what Jason is asking for.

If your GPU really needs some extra memory, it can "borrow" an additional 4047 MB from your RAM. This is the "Shared Memory" figure you see. Your RAM however is not only further away from your video card but it's also made of a slower type of memory so your performance will degrade in the process (this is besides there being less RAM left for other applications to use).

 

2007MB doesn't quite match up with 2GB, but it's close enough that a vendor would call it that. There's not really any physical reason why a manufacturer would place exactly 2,000,000,000 memory cells on a chip.

Well, that and 2gb is actually 2147483648 Bytes what with binary and all;)

[AEthelraedUnraed]

15 hours ago, Spinnetti said:

Well, that and 2gb is actually 2147483648 Bytes what with binary and all;)

Depends on whether you're talking about 2GB or 2GiB

 

Depending on the exact spelling, "2GB" can be either:

- 2GB: 16,000,000,000 bits

- 2GiB: 17,179,869,184 bits

- 2Gb: 2,000,000,000 bits

- 2Gib: 2,147,483,648 bits

Edited January 30, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[FuriousMeow]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Depends on whether you're talking about 2GB or 2GiB

 

Depending on the exact spelling, "2GB" can be either:

- 2GB: 16,000,000,000 bits

- 2GiB: 17,179,869,184 bits

- 2Gb: 2,147,483,648 bits

- 2Gib: 2,000,000,000 bits

 

Or gib

[IckyATLAS]

The poll was only on GPU and not CPU. So most probably it has to do with GPU related stuff. Now maybe it is not only a matter of GPU power but it is to see in the gamer population how many go for AMD and how many go for NVIDIA. NVIDIA is the preferred solution for this game and this can be seen in the poll where Nvidia in rounded figures beats AMD 9 to 1. So transferring some CPU work onto the GPU in the best possible way like using CUDA would be a surely a plus but it is proprietary to Nvidia and AMD boards do not have it. At this point and if this poll reflects the reality one could say let's go for it. That could shy away future gamers with AMD cards and when you are a niche player and cannot afford to loose any customer.

 

The future GB gamers that are used through other game titles to a very high visual quality, should not be disappointed when playing with IL2. So here the IL2 team must keep up with this "unfair" comparison between mainstream large audience games that have enormous budgets and with big corporations behind them and a niche player with a more modest budget. 

 

The other possibility is that they would like to implement either some Ray Tracing that could be very nice on reflections like rivers, lakes and the sea, or effects like fire reflections on metallic objects as well as lighting on glass, canopies, instruments, and DLSS to increase frame rate with good antialiasing which improves visual quality..

 

Nvidia's Ray Tracing impacts negatively the FPS but it seems that NVidia found a new way to mitigate this and increase at least by 20% the Ray Tracing performance. I do not know if this can be implemented in the existing cards (purely software driver based improvements) or if it is for future upcoming cards with a new GPU with hardware enhancements.

DLSS 2.0 is having a very good impact on image quality with at the same time a higher fps. The latest version is 2.3.5 and keeps improving. But to have it you need to have your game set for it. Both of these features are activatable ON/OFF so it would definitively be a plus.

 

Anyway it is very exciting to see that the dev team is looking in the medium term to a major overhaul of their game engine. 

 

[VAG_Sevy]

Isn't there anything more important to improve than working on the graphics engine?

Moreover, make a referendum to know which are the most used graphic performances is of a pettiness without name.

It's like saying you're going to sacrifice everyone who can't afford an expensive computer in favor of some improvement.

The important thing is not to satisfy those who are above the scale because those who do not have enough money, they also paid to fly on il-2 and buy all addons.

Personally, I find that graphics are very pretty like that! Instead, you should focus on improving realism and gameplay immersiveness and reviewing some [edited] flight models.

Edited January 31, 2022 by SYN_Haashashin
Language

[354thFG_Leifr]

1 hour ago, IckyATLAS said:

The poll was only on GPU and not CPU. So most probably it has to do with GPU related stuff. Now maybe it is not only a matter of GPU power but it is to see in the gamer population how many go for AMD and how many go for NVIDIA. NVIDIA is the preferred solution for this game and this can be seen in the poll where Nvidia in rounded figures beats AMD 9 to 1. So transferring some CPU work onto the GPU in the best possible way like using CUDA would be a surely a plus but it is proprietary to Nvidia and AMD boards do not have it. At this point and if this poll reflects the reality one could say let's go for it. That could shy away future gamers with AMD cards and when you are a niche player and cannot afford to loose any customer

 

It would be a really poor decision to purposely sabotage consumers who choose to purchase AMD over Nvidia.

I seem to be in an extreme minority with a 6700XT (which performs excellently!), purchased out of necessity last year due to an exceptionally unfortunate water accident with my tower. It was the only card that I could find, at a good price (as good as one can get these days), that performed to the level I needed. Nvida GPUs just weren't available here in the UK at that particular time, and I waited a particularly long time for one to appear before buying the 6700XT.

 

The poll is interesting though, and I don't think it is wholly surprising. Steam hardware survey would seem to indicate that some 15-20% of users also use an AMD GPU, similar to these results. I think I am most surprised by how many folk have shilled out obscene amounts of cash for a 3080. ?

[BlitzPig_EL]

Ladies and Gents, let's not make rash judgements about what the developers are looking to do here.

And please stop with the accusations of class warfare, they are utterly unwarranted.  We are all in the same boat regarding the stormy seas of the graphics card shortage, and it's a pretty small boat at that.  Rocking this boat, or threatening mutiny will only sink us all.