Kuky

Some short while ago for 1.5.3 the terrain config settings were adjusted for better visibility across all settings. So you need to understand 1 thing. Do not use high, and especially not ultra and extreme settings for visibility distances, or forests distance, if you do not have a top of the line PC (which includes very fast, later gen 4 core (or more) o/c CPU, and top of the line video card. The high setting is still very pleasant and has very decent visibility distance, you can't expect ultra and extreme (just think about what this work means!) setting... and expect good FPS when flying over cities and very dense forests, with high MSAA and what not else. People's expectations need to be re-adjusted after this terrain visibility settings adjustments. High would be plenty for most users, if on lower and medium end PC's... you should use low and medium settings, not high, and most definitely not ultra or extreme. HIGH settings should be used for high end PC's (the whole lot, not just one component) MEDIUM should be used for medium, and LOW for low end PC. Disable mirrors, use flat shadows, don't use depth of field, and don't use high MSAA... just to name a few. Start from there and see how each setting affects your FPS, and adjust (one by one) to suit.

I use PayPal also.

Guys.... few notes from me: DCS 1.5.3 is being slowly changed to work with 2.0.0 Some short while ago the terrain config settings were adjusted for better visibility across all settings. So you need to understand 1 thing. Do not use high, and especially not ultra and extreme settings for visibility distances, or forests distance, if you do not have a top of the line PC (which includes very fast, later gen 4 core (or more) o/c CPU, and top of the line video card. The high setting is still very pleasant and has very decent visibility distance, you can't expect ultra and extreme (just think about what this work means!) setting... and expect good FPS when flying over cities and very dense forests, with high MSAA and what not else. It just won't be playable with everything high. Anything more than 4x MSAA over forests is a killer... just think about it... hundreds if not thousands of tree textures, all needed to have MSAA applied... it will simply kill your FPS. The more MSAA, the more vRAM you need to have. Than add to that dynamic shadow (non flat shadows) and you are asking for trouble. MSAA also uses lot more vRAM.. keep that in mind. 2GB of vRAM, flying low over forests... with MSAA and high visibility settings, it will just not run smoothly. I think people's expectations need to be re-adjusted after this terrain visibility settings adjustments. High would be plenty for most users, if on lower and medium end PC's... you should use low and medium settings, not high, and most definitely not ultra or extreme. Now, I'll add more as to why you sometimes see forest trees shadows when trees are not rendered... it is because of change in FoV as you enter cockpit. By default, I think a 60° FoV and the distance at which objects are rendered as well as shadows, match. As soon as you start to increase your FoV (which happens at every mission start) the distance of rendered objects decreases, while shadows do not. This is why there is a discrepancy (and I hope this will be addressed by ED sometimes in the future). Keep in mind the sim graphics engine is still being worked on and improvements come slowly, I wish it would be quicker, but it is what it is.

No, because mirrors scene rendering (not graphical, but positional/calculations/etc) is on the CPU, while the MSAA is on video card, and scales with resolution (what you see on the monitor), so with or without mirrors, the scene size (your resolution) is the same.

Nothing else should be made free.

I don't need to see any articles, I have tried the effect using large values and I saw what was happening. You can stop talking now.

Well there is no image rendered over the model, the model itself changes. You can see this if you try increase max value to something large to make the impostor pop up very early.

Please check things before making such claims, I am not confusing anything. Impostors work in such a way that once 3D model of an object reduces to certain pixel size, and it reaches max value in impostors.lua settings, at this point the 3D model switches to impostor effect and then reduces in size (up to min value in impostors.lua settings) and then stops reducing in size and just starts fading (increase opacity) until its no longer visible. You can clearly see how this works if you change the min and max value to something like 100 & 300 pixels.

Not correct, its quite the opposite. There is no image over the object, the object itself (actual 3D model) is resized. For ground units currently all units have basic rectangle shape object show at 10km and this "box" size is maintained when it reaches certain distance (whatever value is used in Impostors.lua)

There is Flat shadows and the other options are all Dynamic shadows. So if you have Shadows options to Flat Shadows, that's all you need to do to disable dynamic shadows which eat more FPS.

Disabling Aero gives very little performance improvement. You might as well leave it on (I do). Leave mirrors to off, and don't use Depth of Field. They both reduce FPS a lot. Dynamic shadows also give good hit when flying low over forests, so if you can use Flat shadows for more FPS. Rest can be on high.

Simple... mirrors are another full render of the sim, in opposite direction of your head view (to the front). For example.... you fly over a city and you no longer see city in front of you, but now mirror will see it.... so it will render all of the objects in them. If you are inside the large city, both head view and mirror view will render its own image... hence 2x the rendering and lower frame rate. Also you don't really need 8x MSAA, 4x is enough. Difference will show when you fly low over forests.

Nice video mate!

I don't think so, right now we can't change the effect depending on the season. I might (actually should) make a new feature request to ED for this as I was thinking about it recently also.

Nice one :thumbup: Now I need to try them out

Much better fuel tanks look! But I have one more tip for you... the camo pattern "edge" is too sharp. It looks like being painted with brush. To make it look more natural and more like paintbrush spray-on, use brush tool to making edge, with 3-5 pixels of "softness"... that'll make it look even better... trust me ;)

Plane camo looks good but tanks have the sharp straight line cutoff (it must be tha tanks use 2 separate parts for the texture). Can you make their camo stop bit earlier and round it off so it doesn't cut off in straight line?

Must be very slow to print one piece... I can't see this as something you could use for mass scale (if you want to start selling them). Am I right? How long does it take to print that one piece? To make your own parts seems perfectly viable (which I am thinking about also for much later on if VR doesn't catch on).

You too

Nope... he was not stating that it did slide... he was just guessing. There is difference. And developing cracks in air frames? Did I miss something here? What's new?

Well that's a bit low and quite frankly incorrect, especially when I know that I am actually always trying not to be one sided and as fair as possible which you should know if you hang on forums for past 3-4 years. :music_whistling: EDIT: having seen just this post of yours (http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2546433&postcount=56) I can see that I am on the spot about you in my comment above. That you say that EVERYONE knows I am biased... says you work/think like your beloved media. ;)

Can I add one more thing... if ED's PFM for F-15C and Su-27 are anything solid to go by (or close to real thing)... man... the Flanker eats the Eagle for breakfast in BFM. Alright... now I'm a bit biased also :D

Here is flight performance well in 29's favor then this also That's big difference But at the beginning of talking about MiG-29 and BFM he said that when against F-15 and F-16 you wouldn't want to be in a MiG-29... why not? Also when MiG-29 came out, the F-16 didn't use AMRAAM at all, and MiG-29 has medium range SARH missile already. Fact that when he did this training exchange, it was years after the wall fell, no support from Russia for parts, maintenance... and there was new missile (the AMRAAM), it changed things. He said the 29 is very reliable (unlike F-15's engines, especially the first one, not the -220), it has IRST and very maneuverable IR missile, the plane itself is very maneuverable, can handle slow speed much better than F-15 or F-16 both of which have to keep their speed up to stay in fight. 29 also climbs better. Simple, reliable, cheap, very maneuverable and easy to maintain... and great in BFM (and is point defense fighter) what there not to like? Also, almost forgot, the German version was slightly downgraded from Russian MiG-29. The way the 29 was intended to be used (not according to NATO standards) was not used, and instead they did the training using NATO tactics, and the fact that he didn't have too many hours in it, and also has to be bit biased (its just the nature of the business, you have to face it), and he is used to the NATO ways and western style cockpit layout and everything else that goes with it... I would definitely say, if he was to be left to fight in MiG-29 squadron, after few years he would be telling it bit different. I think this was not a fair comparison, and it was biased. Sorry but that's the way I see it. In BVR definitely both F-15 and F-16 have the edge, no discussion there, but in BFM I'd take MiG-29 any day. But hey... maybe if I ever tried them myself, I might think different, and until that happens I will love my Fulcrum :D

Ok, how about this bit aren't these contradictory? First he says 29's handling is mediocre (this to me translates into pretty bad, average at best), but then he says it is very maneuverable?

he did say it was block 40 and Germans has base, and somewhat downgraded Fulcrum A