Try reading my last post.

Aviar

Aviar, would it be:

Forest=3
Forest=4

?

S!

I reverted back to Forest=3. Finnily enough Forest at 3 has LESS effect on FPS than on 2 for some reason.

It is odd, i found this too. I'm not complaining though; forest-3 looks better!

I'm gonna sound like such a noob but I only bought 1946 last week... Long story. First impressions are.. where do I start!? It's huge! I'm gonna need years with this so it's ok Oleg, take as long as you want with SoW!- I'm joking- (I was beginning to wonder if SoW stood for Sick of Waiting....).

Back to the noobishness...

In the conf.ini is 1 better than 3 or is it the other way around? and what effect does changing the video options in game have on the conf.ini, if any?

Thanks

3 would be better, demand more of your system:grin:

Just for saying thanks too
thank you for your game, which is always fascinating
Thank you for your answers on the forum.

For me IL-1946 it's the best plane sim, and SOW are just the frosting on the cake ;)
thank you for the work accomplished

Which video card and CPU have you installed?

S!

Actually Forest=3 has less impact than 2 for some strange reason. I tested this on a friend's rig that is a Pentium 4 at 2.7GHz and a nVidia 285GTX. Used same map (Kuban) and flew over Novoryssiysk with FPS counter on. 2 made a hit on FPS but 3 almost none?!

Interesting, maybe 3 makes better use of the GPU than 2.

The main issue with Forest=3 , as stated above, is that certain tree objects become invisible, especially around runways, which can kind of ruin your day and is very annoying for mission builders wanting to "decorate" airfields.