Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

View Poll Results: How happy are you with the current state of COD terrain?
Very Happy - the terrain is currently excellent and requires little or no change 16 6.37%
Generally Happy - the terrain is good, but there is room for improvement 140 55.78%
Generally Unhappy - the terrain is poor, and requires significant work to be done 62 24.70%
Very Unhappy - the terrain is so bad that it makes me reluctant to fly a mission 33 13.15%
Voters: 251. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-14-2011, 12:25 PM
carguy_ carguy_ is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: optimist
Posts: 647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FS~Phat View Post
I would rather have a little less draw distance for land objects and higher quality textures than the insane draw distance you get with Landscape on High.

Can other people try Landscape on Medium and report their findings, both visual and performance wise?
It should be further researched if the 'draw distance' option affects also the aircraft. It did in IL2. If so, if you were to turn it on medium, you would be at a significant disadvantage.
Plenty people have need to reduce their video setting for obvious reasons, so for others setting textures to high can cause much more stutter than to have medium textures and high draw distance. I have worked up a nice compromise wich consists of "BUILDINGS AMOUNT = high", "DRAW DISTANCE = high" and medium textures. Even though the buildings take a considerable amount of video memory, the smaller textures smooth out the experience. What I notice is the buildings don`t pop up no more, the ground quality is still acceptable (sorry- I have to have those trees, the terrain looks just so bald without them). In a set of LW escort missions to Dover and London dogfighting over the coast and over terrain proved fairly smooth (27-32 fps) and spotting objects like airfields poses no problems. Remember that those escort missions didn`t have the amount of 4 planes, but over 20 everytime.
Still, one needs to get used to an ocasional 0,2sec stutter every now and then.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-14-2011, 12:29 PM
LoBiSoMeM LoBiSoMeM is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 963
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carguy_ View Post
Still, one needs to get used to an ocasional 0,2sec stutter every now and then.
Just like old IL-2 1946 and ArmA2. We will always have occasional microstutters.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-14-2011, 12:40 PM
carguy_ carguy_ is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: optimist
Posts: 647
Default

Well, that ofcourse varied to a number of situations. As viewing the cities in zoom mode in IL2 lowered fps to lower twenties even few years after the release, the online stutters stayed the same. Whenever one of the players in online session spawned or hit the ground, others would experience a short hicup. Fact.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-14-2011, 01:50 PM
FS~Phat FS~Phat is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carguy_ View Post
It should be further researched if the 'draw distance' option affects also the aircraft. It did in IL2. If so, if you were to turn it on medium, you would be at a significant disadvantage.
Plenty people have need to reduce their video setting for obvious reasons, so for others setting textures to high can cause much more stutter than to have medium textures and high draw distance. I have worked up a nice compromise wich consists of "BUILDINGS AMOUNT = high", "DRAW DISTANCE = high" and medium textures. Even though the buildings take a considerable amount of video memory, the smaller textures smooth out the experience. What I notice is the buildings don`t pop up no more, the ground quality is still acceptable (sorry- I have to have those trees, the terrain looks just so bald without them). In a set of LW escort missions to Dover and London dogfighting over the coast and over terrain proved fairly smooth (27-32 fps) and spotting objects like airfields poses no problems. Remember that those escort missions didn`t have the amount of 4 planes, but over 20 everytime.
Still, one needs to get used to an ocasional 0,2sec stutter every now and then.
I just did some a-b screen shot comparisons and there is no difference in aircraft draw distance between medium and high land detail but there does appear to be less detail on land for trees and other things in the very far distance. You have to flick between 2 screen shots to see it because the difference is so minimal, but performance is way better!

I just redid the screen shots with everything max and land detail low so it was easier to see what is going on as it was really hard to see the difference between medium and high land details.

Max


Low land detail everything else max


Max


Low land detail everything else max


Max


Low land detail everything else max

Last edited by FS~Phat; 07-14-2011 at 02:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-14-2011, 09:14 PM
Heliocon Heliocon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FS~Phat View Post
I just did some a-b screen shot comparisons and there is no difference in aircraft draw distance between medium and high land detail but there does appear to be less detail on land for trees and other things in the very far distance. You have to flick between 2 screen shots to see it because the difference is so minimal, but performance is way better!

I just redid the screen shots with everything max and land detail low so it was easier to see what is going on as it was really hard to see the difference between medium and high land details.

Max


Low land detail everything else max


Max


Low land detail everything else max


Max


Low land detail everything else max
I see a big differance.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-14-2011, 09:56 PM
Blackdog_kt Blackdog_kt is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,715
Default

Nice comparison shots FS~Phat. It just reinforces my belief that i don't really miss much by dropping a few settings to medium in exchange for a smooth 25-60 FPS (capped at 60 due to Vsync) under any kind of scenario on my two year old PC.

I'm not saying it's the same and sure, people with an eye for detail will spot differences but to be perfectly honest with you all, i just don't see it. Maybe if i start looking really carefully i'll see it, but then it defeats the purpose as i won't be scrutinizing the landscape that hard when i'm actually flying.

The only settings i'd want to be able to run higher are forests and building detail and that's just for the eye-candy factor, i run them on low and houses/buildings are a bit sparse on detail but then again, i don't really notice unless i'm skimming rooftops or crash landing next to a farm.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-14-2011, 10:06 PM
Dano Dano is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Petersfield UK
Posts: 1,107
Default

It's the distant horizon where the differences are, if you're not seeing it then you're in a win win situation in regards to turning it down and gaining fps
__________________
i5 2500k - Asus P8P67Pro - Crucial M4 64GB - 8GB DDR3 - Geforce Ti 560 1GB - Xonar DG - W7 X64 SP1
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-14-2011, 10:17 PM
ATAG_Dutch ATAG_Dutch is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,793
Default

The main difference seems to be with the definition of the rivers in the distance, rather than the land.

Just ran a few tests and FPS is definately improved by a good deal, without any visual sacrifice that you'd notice.

Well spotted Phat.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-15-2011, 07:09 AM
SNAFU SNAFU is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 324
Default

Nice work. At low alts there is in my eyes not a huge difference.
Now those screenshots at 7000m would be interesting for comparison.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-16-2011, 02:16 PM
pupo162 pupo162 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,188
Default

low.jpg vs high.jpg
Attached Images
File Type: jpg low.jpg (20.3 KB, 21 views)
File Type: jpg high.jpg (20.3 KB, 20 views)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.