B17: Flyable, AI, Static Object?

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

I like to dream, will we see a b17 in the greatbattles saga even if it's AI?
If it is flyable better, but I would settle for an AI like it has DCS or even, Object to dress the airfields...what less...

[Beebop]

9 minutes ago, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

I like to dream

You and John Lennon. ?

Not likely as it's been intimated that the game engine makes 4 engined planes difficult if not possible to implement.

Plus there's making both pilot and copilot positions, both of which should allow you to fly the plane, the bombardier position and up to six gunner stations....given the current game engine that alone might be the only plane one could have in a mission.

And with no flyable of any kind making a static object is kind of pointless.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

6 minutes ago, Beebop said:

Not likely as it's been intimated that the game engine makes 4 engined planes difficult if not possible to implement.

It's also been intimated by Jason that what you say is not true and that he would ban the next one to repeat this

 

6 minutes ago, Beebop said:

And with no flyable of any kind making a static object is kind of pointless.

 

Disagree with you there. Would be great scenery for the British airfields, as well as a nice target for your Ju-88C6 airfield attacks

Edited February 21, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

8 minutes ago, Beebop said:

. ?

And with no flyable if any kind making a static object is kind of pointless.

Static object as a minimum, it would be good to dress the aerodromes, it does not seem like a silly idea to me.

[Beebop]

4 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

It's also been intimated by Jason that what you say is not true and that he would ban the next one to repeat this

 

Well I missed that so I'll start packing my bags then.

6 minutes ago, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

Static object as a minimum, it would be good to dress the aerodromes, it does not seem like a silly idea to me.

I never said it would be "silly".  Heck we don't even have statics for planes that have been around for years like the La-5's.

And no static ships (save the three "flooded" ships just added, and no static planes for FC. 

I just don't see why they would make a static for a plane that isn't in the game, that's all.  I agree it would make nice airfield dressing.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

I like to dream, will we see a b17 in the greatbattles saga even if it's AI?
If it is flyable better, but I would settle for an AI like it has DCS or even, Object to dress the airfields...what less...

How many AI B-25s can you have in SP mission without noticing slowdown ?

[Noisemaker]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

It's also been intimated by Jason that what you say is not true and that he would ban the next one to repeat this

Imagine General Dreedle is Jason and his WAC is the B-17.
 

 

[IckyATLAS]

21 minutes ago, CountZero said:

How many AI B-25s can you have in SP mission without noticing slowdown ?

What is your hardware.

[=621=Samikatz]

1 hour ago, Beebop said:

You and John Lennon. ?

Not likely as it's been intimated that the game engine makes 4 engined planes difficult if not possible to implement.

 

RoF (which this game's engine is based on) had a 4 engined airplane in it, pretty sure that isn't the problem

[PatrickAWlson]

Never say never, but not any time soon.  The challenge of making a plane like that is difficult enough.  Four engines, 10 crew positions ... lots of work.  Problem is, that is just the beginning.  There has to be a lot of work done on performance before this game can handle even a dozen big bombers.

6 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

RoF (which this game's engine is based on) had a 4 engined airplane in it, pretty sure that isn't the problem

 

It's more the 8 gunners than the four engines.

[Cybermat47]

8 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

It's more the 8 gunners than the four engines.

 

I was under the impression that this wasn't an issue.

 

All of that aside, making a B-17 - even an AI one - would be a pretty big undertaking. There's a lot of airplane to recreate in the 3D model alone, never mind the flight model. And before that can even begin, I imagine you need access to an actual B-17 or a mind-boggling amount of photos of one.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Cybermat47

[PatrickAWlson]

13 minutes ago, Cybermat47 said:

 

I was under the impression that this wasn't an issue.

 

All of that aside, making a B-17 - even an AI one - would be a pretty big undertaking. There's a lot of airplane to recreate in the 3D model alone, never mind the flight model. And before that can even begin, I imagine you need access to an actual B-17 or a mind-boggling amount of photos of one.

 

That was the last thing that I remember.  If gunners are not an issue then I am not understanding why AI B25s consume so much processing power.  I certainly could be wrong.  It's not like I have seen profiling runs of the 1C code, and until somebody sees that (including the actual team), understanding performance bottlenecks is not possible.

[sevenless]

Static object and AI drones. Yes! If implemented as drones then it makes only sense if they can fly in the 36 plane group box (3 squadrons) formation range, as it is handled in the 20 years old IL2-1946. All else doesn´t make any sense. If group box formations don´t work, because of CPU load issues, better leave them out. This game has plenty of tactical stuff still missing.

[357th_KW]

On 2/21/2022 at 9:13 AM, CountZero said:

How many AI B-25s can you have in SP mission without noticing slowdown ?

You can put 8-9 in a formation on an 80 player MP server and it will run.  And that’s with a map full of flak and other logic.  
 

How many AI’s are running concurrently in a single B-25?  The pilot plus gunners for the nose, tail, top turret, and two waist guns?  So 6?  So that’s 48-54 total in a big MP environment.  A B-17G had 8 crew members that could man guns, so you’d have 9 total with the pilot.  And optimally you’d want at least 12 bombers to be able to make a small combat box formation - so 96.  Essentially double what can be done right now.  That being said, I’d bet that’s actually achievable if the time and effort was put into optimization of gunner and formation AI etc.  Of course doing that means your developers aren’t working on other things.  Hopefully we’ll see it one of these days.

[FTC_Zero]

On 2/21/2022 at 6:56 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

That was the last thing that I remember.  If gunners are not an issue then I am not understanding why AI B25s consume so much processing power.  I certainly could be wrong.  It's not like I have seen profiling runs of the 1C code, and until somebody sees that (including the actual team), understanding performance bottlenecks is not possible.

I really wonder what the cause of that is. 3D model? FM simulation? AI gunners? My guess always is the FM simulation because i get slowdowns like crazy with many b25s. But as you said, it is just a guess

Edited February 22, 2022 by FTC_Zero

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

On 2/21/2022 at 12:35 PM, IckyATLAS said:

What is your hardware.

 

Hardware has nothing to do with this issue, its the engine. The framerate doesnt drop.

 

I have a I7 10700F, 32GB RAM and a 3070.

[DeBo238th]

3 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 

  A B-17G had 8 crew members that could man guns, so you’d have 9 total with the pilot.  And optimally you’d want at least 12 bombers to be able to make a small combat box formation - so 96.  Essentially double what can be done right now.  That being said, I’d bet that’s actually achievable if the time and effort was put into optimization of gunner and formation AI etc.  Of course doing that means your developers aren’t working on other things.  Hopefully we’ll see it one of these days.

 

There are 10 crewmembers to B-17F/G and B-24 heavy bombers. Pilot, Co-Pilot, Navigator/nose gunner, Bombadier/gunner, Engineer/Top Turrent gunner, Waist gunners x2, Ball Turret gunner, Tail Gunner, Radio Operator/gunner.

 

For game purposes the Co-Pilot and Radio Operator/gunner could be removed.

[Eisenfaustus]

8 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

 

Hardware has nothing to do with this issue, its the engine. The framerate doesnt drop.

 

I have a I7 10700F, 32GB RAM and a 3070.

Hardware has an effect - the faster the cpu the less dilation. Yet try running a Rhineland career with a CPU that was decent for BoS in 2014…

 

Tackling dilation would be far higher on my personal priority list than any visual improvements.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

8 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

 

Hardware has nothing to do with this issue, its the engine. The framerate doesnt drop.

 

I have a I7 10700F, 32GB RAM and a 3070.

Your cpu is not bad, but is 35-40% worse than the best cpus (Alder Lake, upcoming Ryzen 5800X3D) in 2022 because Intel basically did nothing from 2016-2021. With a better cpu, you'd see a lot less dilation BUT the game engine is still largely unoptimized as it runs on a single thread more or less which is absurd for a sim in 2022.

 

Check out the 1080p cpu test: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gJmnz_nVxI6_dG_UYNCCpZVK2-f8NBy-y1gia77Hu_k/edit#gid=1266758920

Edited February 23, 2022 by drewm3i-VR

[SYN_Vander]

On 2/21/2022 at 5:10 PM, Beebop said:

You and John Lennon. ?

Not likely as it's been intimated that the game engine makes 4 engined planes difficult if not possible to implement.

...

 

Please stop this persistent rumor. Remember this?

 

An (AI) B-17 is perfectly possible with the current game engine, it's just a matter of priority as it will take considerable resources to build.

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

I pay 70$ for only b17 flyable ??

[BMA_FlyingShark]

It's locked but scroll down to see Jason's answer.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Beebop]

GEEZ!  GUYS!

I never saw that post.

OK, OK.  I GET IT!

Sorry for being an effing human and making a mistake!

I didn't realize that being omniscient was a requirement to post here.

And no SYN_Vander, I never owned RoF so am barely aware of the Ilya Muromets.

 

Why is it that the response to a mistake is vilifying instead of explaining.  A link to the above post instead of crucifying me would have done a better job of informing me.  It appears civility is lost on some.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Beebop

[SYN_Vander]

3 minutes ago, Beebop said:

GEEZ!  GUYS!

I never saw that post.

OK, OK.  I GET IT!

Sorry for being an effing human and making a mistake!

I didn't realize that being omniscient was a requirement to post here.

No hard feelings. A heavy bomber is just something everyone would like to have, me included.

[Beebop]

Thanks Syn_Vander. Explanation accepted.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

6 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Hardware has an effect - the faster the cpu the less dilation. Yet try running a Rhineland career with a CPU that was decent for BoS in 2014…

 

Tackling dilation would be far higher on my personal priority list than any visual improvements.

 

I went from a PC with an I5 3570K, 8GB DDR3 RAM and a GTX 980 to my actual PC. 

 

There's a world of difference between the PC's, yet only a SMALL improvement in performance in speed when there are many objects and AI at the same time. 

 

The hardware has little to do with it tbh. Yes, its a tad better now. 

[Eisenfaustus]

16 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

 

I went from a PC with an I5 3570K, 8GB DDR3 RAM and a GTX 980 to my actual PC. 

 

There's a world of difference between the PC's, yet only a SMALL improvement in performance in speed when there are many objects and AI at the same time. 

 

The hardware has little to do with it tbh. Yes, its a tad better now. 

What you need to improve to reduce single core speed in the cpu. GPU or memory don‘t affect dilation. Additional cpu cores or better communication between the cores barely affect dilation. It‘s the raw single core computation power you’re after. 

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

11 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

What you need to improve to reduce single core speed in the cpu. GPU or memory don‘t affect dilation. Additional cpu cores or better communication between the cores barely affect dilation. It‘s the raw single core computation power you’re after. 

 

At the end of the day, what we need is an improved game engine. We are talking about a game that's almost 10 years old, we shouldnt have this conversation right now because a 10th generation I7 intel CPU should be more than enough to get the most from this game. 

[BornToBattle]

The OP should have posted his opening question more correctly like this…

 

“I like to dream, will we see a B-24 in the great battles saga even if it's AI?”

 

?

[dureyo]

Their first priority should be to fix the engine to allow more air and ground AI. Currently impossible to have big complex missions. 

[CUJO_1970]

On 2/21/2022 at 10:56 AM, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

I like to dream, will we see a b17 in the greatbattles saga even if it's AI?
If it is flyable better, but I would settle for an AI like it has DCS or even, Object to dress the airfields...what less...

Yes, if you are going to dream, dream big - I think we would all enjoy having the B-17 in the sim.

[IckyATLAS]

On 2/22/2022 at 11:18 PM, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

 

Hardware has nothing to do with this issue, its the engine. The framerate doesnt drop.

 

I have a I7 10700F, 32GB RAM and a 3070.

You are right it is the engine, and the engine is made partly the CPU (hardware) and partly by the game code. The game engine could be improved to run faster and more efficiently, but all things being equal the highest performance per core with enough fast ram (you have the RAM quantity fast DDR4?) does make a real difference. I could see with the 9900K with 5.2 GHz per core a direct effect compare to the previous generation. Multiple cores do also improve things but after six it becomes less relevant compared to clock speed and instructions per clock efficiency. This is why I am convinced that the 12900KS  with P-Cores/ E-Cores  and a turbo clock on one P-Core at 5.5 and 5 all core should be ideal for a game like IL2. 

I am waiting to get a 12900KS to test the time dilation effect with my test bombing mission with 50 plus A20s.