Any different in graphics or gameplay in the diffrent GB

[ACG_Wobbel]

Are there any different in grapichs or game play etc. From the early release Stalingrad to Normandy ? 

Edited August 5, 2024 by GA332

[jollyjack]

IMO not regarding gameplay, but some larger maps with (too) many added towns, bridges, airfields etc might take longer to load and use more GPU etc power.

 

Some (smaller) maps have noticeable better looks, details especially, like Prokhorovka, and Vluki.

[Aapje]

All of these modules share the same game engine, but they obviously have different maps, planes, careers and campaigns.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

The newer planes (in terms of release date not history) usually (with exceptions) have better graphics and more realistic flight models, but it's not such a huge difference like you'd see in something like DCS. Just choose based on which planes you like.

[ACG_Wobbel]

Ok thx for info gents.  Just looked at some youtube il2 Normandy and thougth they looked real Nice versus som early Stalingrad etc. Films 🙂

[BOO]

16 minutes ago, GA332 said:

Ok thx for info gents.  Just looked at some youtube il2 Normandy and thougth they looked real Nice versus som early Stalingrad etc. Films 🙂

 

Do bear in mind that some of those older videos will have been made on lower graphic settings, with older video cards and possibly without the benefit of some additional graphic settings integrated later.. Comparing the game as it was in 2014 to 2020 something fails to take into account the many improvements (or otherwise) made that affect all maps regrdless of age.

 

Im in the minority but I think the last two maps are not as good as Kuban and the method used to create larger cities is flawed. The absence of life away from larger towns and cities is also quite noticable. Their appeal though seems to be the western types made available.If P51s and Tempests are your bag then there is reason in itself. 

[ACG_Wobbel]

10 hours ago, BOO said:

 

Do bear in mind that some of those older videos will have been made on lower graphic settings, with older video cards and possibly without the benefit of some additional graphic settings integrated later.. Comparing the game as it was in 2014 to 2020 something fails to take into account the many improvements (or otherwise) made that affect all maps regrdless of age.

 

Im in the minority but I think the last two maps are not as good as Kuban and the method used to create larger cities is flawed. The absence of life away from larger towns and cities is also quite noticable. Their appeal though seems to be the western types made available.If P51s and Tempests are your bag then there is reason in itself. 

Good point 👍 did not think about that 

[ShamrockOneFive]

The core of the game has been upgraded multiple times along the way (DX11, deferred rendering, I think we've been through three iterations of clouds, four iterations for spotting, the addition of the dynamic vehicle damage and tac codes, etc.). Nearly all of those apply evenly across the entire product line. You will notice subtle artistic quality differences between some of the earliest aircraft and the more recent ones but the whole series has a consistent art style so its not jarring at all going back and forth.

[IckyATLAS]

5 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

The core of the game has been upgraded multiple times along the way (DX11, deferred rendering, I think we've been through three iterations of clouds, four iterations for spotting, the addition of the dynamic vehicle damage and tac codes, etc.). Nearly all of those apply evenly across the entire product line. You will notice subtle artistic quality differences between some of the earliest aircraft and the more recent ones but the whole series has a consistent art style so its not jarring at all going back and forth.

There have been many improvements indeed that if we take the sky and clouds they have improved the visual quality a lot. Same for rain drops etc.

Resolution, and textures improved. The only thing that did not improve much in my opinion and I regret it is the vegetation on maps. There has been a little improvement in the variations of trees and models but when it comes to grass it is clearly very very primitive. And for mission builders it is really not so realistic having grass going through anything you put on it. But grass density, height and type are really as I said pretty crude. There have been mods that did improve here and there, but sharing missions depending on modded maps have their own problems, with updates, compatibility etc.

[Avimimus]

Overall, every improvement made to the series was later added to the pervious titles - so they are all of the same overall quality.

 

There are only two exceptions I can think of: Battle of Stalingrad and Battle of Moscow aircraft sometimes have slightly less detail (e.g. the emergency gunsight in the I-16 isn't animated). Battle of Normandy and Battle of Bodenplatte have maps that may stutter a bit on older machines.

[BOO]

On 8/14/2024 at 1:28 PM, Avimimus said:

Overall, every improvement made to the series was later added to the pervious titles - so they are all of the same overall quality.

 

There are only two exceptions I can think of: Battle of Stalingrad and Battle of Moscow aircraft sometimes have slightly less detail (e.g. the emergency gunsight in the I-16 isn't animated). Battle of Normandy and Battle of Bodenplatte have maps that may stutter a bit on older machines.

 

I dont think it necessarily needs to be an older machine to experience stutter. The chunk based, all or nothing,  creation of larger towns and cities was a creative shortcut that didnt work well and was persisted with.  

[IckyATLAS]

On 8/16/2024 at 2:49 PM, BOO said:

 

I dont think it necessarily needs to be an older machine to experience stutter. The chunk based, all or nothing,  creation of larger towns and cities was a creative shortcut that didnt work well and was persisted with.  

It is not clear to me why we have this issue of large cities display badly with Rheinland and improved but still bad with Normandy.

Why they do not put all the visible map around the player once for all in the GPU memory (we have enough with 12 or 24 GB) so that a medium or large city does not get reloaded as soon as you turn your eyes away and come back. I frankly do not understand this problem. GPU's of today handle this very well. The only addition is to add things as they become visible, but what is already visible of a city should stay.

 

I have my visibility set to max 150km and 3d buildings and everything. This means that if the city is inside that say bubble I should not have it reloaded every time I look at it.

This is rubbish to me.

 

They did it properly in Kuban, so they know how to do it. Why change. It works just keep it. The cities like Novorossiysk or Krasnodar, once they are loaded (and yes in that phase you see the things popping in, but after that they are there permanently and you can look around and come back to the city and it is just there.

 

They said they were always improving the game but what a frustration at this kind of going backwards.

 

 

 

[kissTheSky]

On 8/14/2024 at 8:28 AM, Avimimus said:

Battle of Normandy and Battle of Bodenplatte have maps that may stutter a bit on older machines.

I have a i9 13900K, a 4090, and 32 Gb RAM, and I do have the stutters. So, no the maps do not stutter “a bit”, nor the stutters are only “on older” machines. 

[MaxPower]

Regarding the appearance of the various titles in old videos:

The engine has been upgraded over time, and aircraft flight models, damage models, and other physics have been adjusted as well.  I think these improvements are available as free patches to any game.  Older videos won't have the FS2020 style volumetric clouds, for instance.  It was easier to shoot wings off before.  The simulation of the pilot's physiology was upgraded a lot a few years ago.  The game is likely to look and play a lot better than it did in old videos and isn't dependent on the specific DLC you own as far as I know.

[FeuerFliegen]

On 8/19/2024 at 6:17 AM, kissTheSky said:

I have a i9 13900K, a 4090, and 32 Gb RAM, and I do have the stutters. So, no the maps do not stutter “a bit”, nor the stutters are only “on older” machines. 

 

Wow... what exactly are the studders like?  You might want to look into that; you're using VR I assume?

 

I have a i7 8700k, 1080ti, 32gb RAM, bought late 2017, and as long as I'm not in VR, I can max out the settings and run smoothly.  I might have some issues on Prokhorovka when down near the ground, but that's it. 

[kissTheSky]

1 hour ago, FeuerFliegen said:

 

Wow... what exactly are the studders like?  You might want to look into that; you're using VR I assume?

 

I have a i7 8700k, 1080ti, 32gb RAM, bought late 2017, and as long as I'm not in VR, I can max out the settings and run smoothly.  I might have some issues on Prokhorovka when down near the ground, but that's it. 

Yes, I am a VR-only player. 

[BOO]

On 9/24/2024 at 8:07 AM, FeuerFliegen said:

 

Wow... what exactly are the studders like?  You might want to look into that; you're using VR I assume?

 

I have a i7 8700k, 1080ti, 32gb RAM, bought late 2017, and as long as I'm not in VR, I can max out the settings and run smoothly.  I might have some issues on Prokhorovka when down near the ground, but that's it. 

Stutter exist for non VR. 5600x, 3080 32 Gb Ram. Same on my previous 6600K, 1080.  Play at 1080p and stutters when first over cities ever since Rhineland. It’s not a power thing but rather the way large amounts of information hit the RAM or VRAM at once. Once loaded. No stutters. Coincided with the “new” way of producing large urban areas quickly.