|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
12-10-2009, 01:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
S~!
Quick Addendum. I just found this over at the Ultra Pack site. I don't have time to test it till later tonight - but it looks very promising. Description: Quote:
. . 
|
|
#2
12-11-2009, 09:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Apparently it doesn't improve FPS at all, but instead crashes the game with several maps...
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by PeterD; 12-11-2009 at 09:58 AM.
|
|
#3
12-11-2009, 10:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, my 2 cents:
1. I am the person that built the Nitra city for Slovakia map. 2. There are 3 main FPS killer areas on Slovakia map: Nitra, Zilina and Piestany towns. 3. There might be several reasons for a lower performance, but I am sure the following has an impact on it as well: a.) The density of objects in your view (as you have noticed yourself). Nitra town is a very dense one and it has a high impact on the FPS just because of the number of objects. b.) Variety of objects. The more different objects you have in your view, the more FPS drop you will experience. In other words, 1 type of a house placed 1000 times on a map (= 1000 objects in total) would have a less impact than 20 different types each placed 50 times (= also 1000 objects in total). In fact, the Slovakia map required from Maddox Games to increase the game engine buffer used for loading the objects in the memory. c.) Quality of the objects = polygoncount (how detailed the 3D model is) and texture size. It is often regarded as unimportant because we have more powerful CPU/GPUs but keep in mind the engine stays the same as it was 5 years ago. It has its limits. As for your specific example, Slovakia generic objects are very efficient on polygoncount and texture size (many of them under 30-40 polys with texture 256x256) = no increased impact on performance compared to any other default map. Only the unique objects (e.g. Nitra castle) is more detailed. d.) LOD drawing distance. Another important thing that influences the performance and which has been tested 3x times by me on Slovakia map until I could accept it. Slovakia objects have an increased drawing distance and a smooth LOD transition distance to avoid a pop up effect. In order to keep the map playable I have adjusted the drawing distance many times for each object category in order not to kill the performance. I could not use the maximum value because the map would become a slide show even over small towns. Another engine limit I believe. e.) Last but not least, but this is only my feeling. Once you exceed a certain (to me unknown) quanity of objects you place on one location (within your view) you will just make the engine to loose its performance no matter how powerful your computer is. Nitra might be one of such examples. I hope such explanation helps. So it is not your computer that is really not performing well, it is that we have pushed the IL-2 engine to its maximum limits with the Slovakia map.
__________________
Last edited by mkubani; 01-12-2010 at 02:34 PM.
|
|
#5
12-11-2009, 01:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you so much for the explanation mkubani. It seems that the culprit is the already aged IL2 engine, as when it was conceived GPU's didn't have a speck of the performance they have today and processors seemed to do a better job when resource-intensive situations arose. Therefore, the designers of IL2 took this road, and when a load of information needs to be processed, the engine ends up overloading the processor when it actually should be doing the opposite and transferring graphic solutions to the GPU.
Guess I'll have to stick with that and simply not use these maps. It's too sad because they are beautiful maps which are hampered in use for an engine that has been pushed way beyond its limits. There are other map areas that also yield this kind of behavior. There is one from our old map set that causes the exact same reaction. It's the Berlin map. How cool wouldn't it be to have a dogfight right over Berlin skies? Well, too bad, the engine can't handle that many objects. =( Stick to less populated areas. It's interesting that I've been flying IL2 since the very day it came out back in 2001 and only recently I've able to mathematically notice what was going on behind those poor fps I was having. I wish this problem could be solved through Drivers, but it's definitely an engine limitation on the way it deals with too many objects on screen. Still, thanks a lot for all the help. It was very clarifying. Best regards!
|
|
#6
03-31-2010, 06:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
 ---------------------------------------------- For bugreports, help and support contact: daidalos.team@googlemail.com For modelers - The IL-2 standard modeling specifications: IL-Modeling Bible
|
|
#7
12-11-2009, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Are links to mods allowed here now, I ask as some will download this install it and have problems possibly ?
|
|
#8
12-11-2009, 06:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, no need to give up on those maps. It's only 2-3 areas where you will experience some performance hit and only if you fly too close toward the city. The rest of the map (99%) will be smooth for you with high FPS.
__________________
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
