- Il 2 Sturmovik Battle Of Stalingrad Tpb 3
- Il 2 Sturmovik Battle Of Stalingrad Trailer
- Il2 Stalingrad
- Il 2 Sturmovik Battle Of Stalingrad Tpb Download
- Il2 Battle Of Stalingrad Download
- The minimum system requirements make IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad compatible with your system, but having the recommended specs makes the gameplay smooth and lag-free. According to us, the recommended specs include, processor, Ram, and Gpu.
- Use unGTP Il-2 utility to extract the files. Then you can see the textures. You'll find more information on these kinds of things in the ‘Mods' section of the forum. Note that turning the tiles into something useful can be tricky. Edited May 30, 2018 by Mitthrawnuruodo.
- IL-2 Sturmovik games spans three generations:. The first game in the series, IL-2 Sturmovik, was first released on 18 November 2001. This started the original line of IL-2 Sturmovik games which in the present day is officially titled IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946 as this was the title of its 'Complete Edition' back in 2006, the final compilation of add-ons in the first generation of IL-2 games.
- IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad General Discussions Topic Details. Date Posted: Jul 6, 2017 @ 3:51pm. Discussions Rules and Guidelines.
10 faithfully reproduced aircraft from Il-2 to 8-series La-5. Who are crazy about military aircraft that you need to download the Il-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad torrent. Full coverage of the event — from 19 November 1942 to 2 February 1943. A huge number of historical documents, including previously classified material. Reliable damage.
Features • Brand new single-player campaign mode for combat flight-sims: server supported campaign generator where all missions are historical, dynamic and unique. • Unprecedented level of details in physics, damage model and aerodynamics of the virtual aircrafts.
• True-to-life and complex AI system. • The largest and most detailed recreation of the air war in Stalingrad (unique structures/buildings, you can only find recreated here). • Legendary combat aircraft thoroughly re-created using the original drawings and blueprints.
IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad is a historically based game. It is the next generation of the legendary Sturmovik series of WWII flight-sim games. Download IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad 1C Game Studios. Continuation of the legendary IL-2 Sturmovik. Il 2 Sturmovik Battle Of Stalingrad Download Tpb.
• Historically correct reconstruction of all key operations of the Stalingrad battle. • Quick fights and large-scale battles in single-player and multiplayer with dedicated servers. • In-game achievement system, allowing players to unlock new airplane modifications/upgrades based on player's mission results.
• Global player statistics.
IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad Preview Of course, the star of the event was the IL-2 Sturmovik follow-on, Battle of Stalingrad. Battle of Stalingrad takes pilots back to WWII to fly and fight the air war of the epic from both the Russian and German perspectives. Albert 'Loft' Zhiltcov and Jason 'Jason' Williams were on hand to walk us through the details of the development, showing us amazing clips and photos, and to give us hands-on time with the current pre-alpha version of the game. Players will get to fly historical accurate and richly detailed aircraft with functional cockpits and detailed physics models based on Soviet test pilot reports. More than just eye candy, in addition to energy and ammunition, pilots will need to manage manifold pressure and propeller pitch to maximize performance while maintaining engine cooling. The damage model looks to be the most extensive ever modeled in a flight sim.
The terrain (all 31,000+ sq mi of it) accurately represents the battlegrounds of the Stalingrad fight, down to the individual buildings as recorded by the original German invaders. One can't discuss the future of the I-L2 Sturmovik series without at least acknowledging the controversy that engulfed our community during the development lifetime of 1C's ill-fated IL-2 Cliffs of Dover. Friendships were broken, normally civil tongues waxed pernicious[1], and the internet equivalent of a world war ravaged across multiple forums, a war which has never officially ended. Emotions are still tense on the subject and battles flare up from time to time but, thankfully, the majority of the drama has died down. When the Battle of Stalingrad project was announced I must admit I had the same mixed feelings as many folks: elation that a modern WWII combat flight sim was on its way and the one-bitten-twice-shy dread that it would be yet another disappointment. This enthusiast, however, is ready to move on while remaining skeptically cautious.
Details, Details, Details The team had set up a handful of stations for us to demo their product. The PCs were pretty beefy looking although I'm still waiting for official word on their specs, and there were two different HOTAS setups: the infamous Thrustmaster Warthog and the less infamous but quite respectable T-Flight Hotas X. Conspicuous by their absence were rudder pedals and TrackIR. Although my feet did keep searching for the dang yaw control, I missed my head tracker the most. I kept trying to jerk the camera around the cockpit with my head and I noticed I wasn't the only one doing it. Bf109F-4 cockpit.
(Courtesy of Traction PR) Immersion (a key goal of the project, stated by the developers) is much more than just visuals, however, especially when the sim has you sitting just inches behind the engines of some of the most powerful piston aircraft that ever flew. Sound plays a critical aspect in completing the illusion. You may have seen, showing off the sound capabilities of the new sim and I can confirm that the video is no hoax: the in-game engine sounds are fantastic. In addition to the aircraft, ground vehicles are getting a face-lift as well. Albert showed us a number of highly detailed ground units, including tanks, trucks, and Katyushka rocket launchers.
Buildings and static objects get shadows and lighting effects as well, making for an extremely detailed and immersive ground scene. The dev team is working on night environments, complete with vehicle headlights and beautiful sunsets. I'm really hoping we'll see more videos from the developer showing off this aspect of the sim as development progresses. General producer Albert 'Loft' demonstrates his intense passion for his game with a group of enthralled onlookers. (Courtesy of Traction PR) Flight models seemed very good – the planes handled well and gave a believable stall. Ground handling was tough to test without rudder pedals, and although I expect similar performance as RoF, I'm looking forward to seeing whether the Bf109's landing gear have the same bite in game as they did in real life. I didn't check or compare climb rates, max speeds, or other performance table items with the aircraft, but I wouldn't expect a pre-alpha to match all numbers across the book at this stage. We'll do more of that level of testing and comparison during the early access period.
Luke 'Requiem' gives spokesmodel Toni a quick lesson in advanced aerial maneuvering. (Courtesy of Traction PR) The AI fly the same aircraft flight models that the pilots do, a great answer for a common complaint in our genre. For this reason, every aircraft in Battle of Stalingrad is also flyable – why go through all the work of making a detailed and accurate flight model and then keep the player out of it?
The AI is also modeled with unpredictable behavior and is capable of making human-like errors. No SkyNet in these skies! While I doubt that the missions we were playing were stressing in terms of CPU/GPU resources, frame rates were solid through out the demo. No tearing, no stutters, no nagging visual artifacts – again, great performance for an alpha build. The dev team has acknowledged they still have to incorporate resource-hitting effects into the sim but confirmed that it is a high priority for them to optimize their code from the start so that players will not need to go out and buy the latest hardware in order to be able to play their game. 'If your machine can play Rise of Flight well, it will be able to play Battle of Stalingrad.' Speaking of immersion, the developers aren't able to commit at this point, but they did mention they are looking at integrating the to take visual immersion to that next level. Having tried one of these at E3 2013, I am excited about the possibilities this brings. The Rift still needs a high-speed display to reduce motion blur, and not being able to see around the unit may be a handicap for some, but the 100° field of view and intuitive head-tracking promises to be a genre-wide game changer. One I had was that the mission editor in Battle of Stalingrad will basically be the Rise of Flight editor, just updated as needed for the new planes and missions. While the dev team acknowledges that the editor can be a bit cumbersome to the uninitiated, it is the same tool that the devs use to create all their missions – it is fully functional and very powerful, once you get the hang of it.
The team expressed a desire to put some effort into making the editor more accessible, but noted that their first priority will be Battle of Stalingrad's gameplay. I'm hoping some skilled and enterprising folks out there can not only make some immersive and well-designed missions, but also take their time to create more tutorial guides and references for those of us that could use a little extra help. Anybody who has ever flown with me knows that while I know a thing or two about the switches inside the cockpit, I'm not that great of a dogfighter. In fact, I stink. Thankfully, Battle of Stalingrad will offer global statistics so everyone can see just how bad my stats really are. There will be no legend for me to live down to, it'll be black and white (or white and red or whatever color scheme 1C Game Studios selects). Of course, on the flip side, you aces out there will be able to barrel-roll your way up to the top and have leaderboard screenshots to use as bragging rights on the forums. Just don't expect anyone to be impressed when 90% of your kills are 'EinsteinEP'. What Am I Buying?
Since the 2.011 update, This awesome trick does not work anymore!!! Hopefully, We can find a fix and make this work again. But until then, I recommend using the x4 terrain detail setting for the best terrain detail. UPDATE 1: I have added the section 'New test results' UPDATE 2: I have added the section ' DX11 improvements and new settings ' UPDATE 3: I have added the section 'New texlod=16384,8 line test' (Spoiler, The results are the same as with the earlier DX11 test) I will keep updating the info as we learn more. I will post the last date this has been updated here on the top.
Last date updated: (Update 3) Hello there fellow pilots, In 2014 =LD= Penshoon found a solution to the blurry ground textures. A lof of effort from the community resulted in some amazing visual improvements. This amazing fix was then patched out by the devs.
Coconut found the new file responsible for the ground textures and with it came back the great ground textures. The original post ended up being cluttered and eventually disappeared into the background. To reinvigorate this fix I thought it would be a good idea to repost instructions, how it works and a summarised version of the test results in an orderly fashion to allow new and experienced pilots to improve their game once again! Before we get started I would like to make something very clear: All the information in this post is found by several community members including myself. I will make sure each and every person who contributed is credited correctly!
I have split this post into a few sections to keep this post organised. ___________________________________________________________________________ Let me explain what I am talking about: What exactly is the problem? In Il-2 the ground textures are divided into square tiles. If a tile is close it will have a certain high-quality resolution. If a tile is far away it will have a low-quality resolution. The division between these high-quality tiles and blurry low-quality tiling is clearly visible.
Especially at higher altitudes. When zooming in these tiles will sometimes change quality so that you can see more detail when zoomed in. This too creates an undesired effect since the transition between low and high detail is clearly visible.
There is no smooth transition between high and low detail. This means that the quality of a tile will change in an instance. The devs have added an option to improve this detail but even at its highest setting, it is still terribly bad. Here is a video made by =LD= Penshoon that clearly demonstrates the problem. What does the fix do? This improves the quality of all tiles to a higher standard so that higher detail can be seen from further away.
The clear dividing lines between low and high detail also disappear completely. At the same time, it removes the annoying transition between low and high detail when zooming in. However, the biggest improvement is the improved visibility and detail of airfields, towns, rivers, lakes and forests at medium and long distances.
What are the advantages? The most noticeable advantage is that your game looks a lot better and feels more realistic. No more blurry background and sudden transitions between high and low quality. Instead, you see a realistically detailed world with forests, towns, roads, rivers and much more.
The higher you get the more noticeable it is. Secondly, navigating is made a lot easier! Airfields, rivers, lakes, forests and towns are accurately visible from massive distances allowing you to find your way back even at high altitude without the use of GPS.
Finding ground target also becomes easier since reference objects like towns, river and forests are not only visible but also identifiable from longer distances. Note: This does not increase your view range or tree render range! It only improves ground texture resolution! Here is an example of what improvement to expect: I put some more images under this spoiler. Some images made by =LD= Penshoon: Change this: Into this or better! An example of what zoom can do (exaggerated example!) Remember that these screenshots are not a clear representation of what you see in-game. A much bigger difference will be noticed when flying!
___________________________________________________________________________ Let's get this working on your PC. Disclaimer: I can not say what effect this will have on your PC. Some have reported small FPS drops while others experienced small FPS increases. Make sure you do some testing before you stick with a certain setting! You can always remove these settings and go back to the default settings! How to improve your graphics: • Find your IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad / graphics folder.
You can find them here: C: Program Files IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad data graphics For steam users: C: Program Files Steam SteamApps common IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad data graphics • Download the file. • Past terrain.cfg file in your graphics folder. • Start IL-2 BoS / BoM. • Go to settings → Graphics and find Distant Landscape Detail.
• Set the value to x4 and restart the game. • Fly around in a quick mission at different altitudes to see if your PC can handle the new settings! • Read and test the info given in 'Testing!' and 'Adjusting the ground terrain'. You may need to lower the setting a bit. If you don't want to download the terrain.cfg file then you can make it yourself. Simply follow these instructions: • Find your IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad / Battle of Moscow graphics folder.
You can find them here: C: Program Files IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad data graphics For steam users: C: Program Files Steam SteamApps common IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad data graphics • Make a new text file named 'terrain.cfg' (Make sure it becomes a.cfg file!) • Past the following text in the new 'terrain.cfg' document (copy and past all of it!). PixelSize=50 //meters LodCount=5 [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 [end] [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 [end] [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 [end] [setup] texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 [end] • Save the file and start IL-2 BoS / BoM. • Go to settings → Graphics and find Distant Landscape Detail. • Set the value to x4 and restart the game. • Fly around in a quick mission at different altitudes to see if your PC can handle the new settings!
• Read and test the info given in 'Testing!' and 'Adjusting the ground terrain'. It is important to do some testing. Every modification to a game will impact your PC in a specific way. The only way to know if your PC can handle the new setting is by flying around at different altitudes. If you notice that your PC is having some issues then you should make the settings a bit less detailed. Keep reading to see how to do that. If you notice your PC is running just fine then you can leave the settings as they are.
Adjusting the ground terrain. I have added several different improved values to the file. From low to high. (all will make your game look better) The above-given x4 improvements are the max settings that I advise. Changing these to higher values will give nearly no noticeable improvements in quality while taking up lots of GPU processing power (expect problems like stuttering and FPS drop if you do). If your PC can handle the x4 setting then you should stick with it.
If your PC is having problems then you should try setting it to x3 then to x2 and then to normal. If you are still having issues after this then I advise removing them completely and just use the default settings. How to remove the settings: If you notice your PC is unable to deal with any of these settings then you should disable them completely. All you have to do is follow these steps: • Go to your IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad / Battle of Moscow graphics folder.
• Delete the 'terrain.cfg' file and start the game. • Go to settings → Graphics and find Distant Landscape Detail. • Set the value back to your original setting and restart the game. Your settings are now back to the default settings that the game uses. ___________________________________________________________________________ How does all of this work? An explanation on how the game determines what resolution to use: The gameworld is divided into tiles of equal size. The resolution of a single tile is determined by 3 factors: • A predetermined values in your terrain.cfg file.
• Distance from you. • How far you are zoomed in. Terrain.cfg value breakdown. I will break down the values in the terrain.cfg file first so you know what those numbers mean. What ultimately determines the resolution is the 'texlod=2048,16'. So what does this mean?
The '2048 and '16' are important here. The '2048' is the Level of Detail of the ground. The second number '16' is an area size. Meaning: 2048 / 16 = 128 pixels per area.
(see test results) Increasing the 2048 to 4096 doubles the pixels per area to 256. However, if instead the second number is decreased to 8 we will also double the number of pixels per area to 256. The distance from you. This one is pretty simple to understand. If a tile is close you will have the quality as determined by the top 'texlod=' count. If a tile is far away it is determined by the bottom 'texlod=' count. What happens when you zoom in?
When you zoom in the game thinks you are closer to the tile then you actually are and therefore it will increase the quality by a step. This is very noticeable with the default settings. How these work together? First, your game has to figure out what the distance is between you and a tile. When the distance falls between a set value then the corresponding 'texlod=' resolution is loaded. What creates the blurry textures and dividing line in the default settings?
In the default settings, the values change quickly. I will take the 'normal' setting as an example.
Tiles nearby correspond to the value texlod=4096,8 which is nice high detail. The 2nd, 3th and 4th value decrease to texlod=2048,8. This is half the detail but still acceptable. These values blur the ground to the point that forests, towns and rivers are blurred. Roads, trees and other small detail will simply disappear. This decrease in texture is clearly noticeable.
However, what comes next pretty much breaks the game. It jumps from 2048,8 (256 pixels per area) to 1024,16 (64 pixels per area) that is a massive drop in quality. It is literally 1/4th of the quality. This is not only noticeable but also annoying. The quality is so low that everything is a blur.
On top of that, the line between these two parts is incredibly noticeable and disturbing. How to fix this and increase quality? The most important part is to remove the big decrease in quality. Keeping the values the same or nearly the same will remove the long range blurry tiles. To increase the overall detail per tile we simply need to increase the pixel per area count of all values. Now that we know all this let us have a look at some of the test results from the community.
Why are there 4 sets of values? The game now as a setting called Distant Landscape Detail. This setting has 4 options: Normal, x2, x3 and x4 the game reads the first 5 lines if you have Normal selected. It reads the second set if you have x2 selected and so on. In the file that I provided 4 different settings are found. The easiest way to explain the difference is by dividing them into what quality groups just like the game does. The first values are the 'low' setting, the second medium, the third high and the 4th is ultra.
___________________________________________________________________________ Test results: Many different things have been tested by several community members. The following is a summary of the test results. This means that not all test results and test data can be found here. If you want to read all the test results with all test data then you should go to the original post! I will organise the following summary by type of test to keep everything orderly. How does it work? 4 main tests have been done to try and figure out how everything works.
I will go through these step by step. I will use the 'texlod=2048,16' as a starting example for each test result. First, we will look at the first number in 'texlod=2048,16'. This number indicates the amount of detail in a set area. The higher the number the higher the quality.
2048 / 16 = 128 pixels per area 4096 / 16 = 256 pixels per area Using numbers over 8192 can make your game incredibly slow or even crash your game. The second number '16' indicates the area size of that set area. This means that the number works in the opposite way of the first number. Increasing the second number creates a larger area to put the same amount of detail in. Therefore a lower Level of Detail.
Making the number lower then obviously makes the detail higher. 2048 / 16 = 128 pixels per area 2048 / 32 = 64 pixels per area 2048 / 8 = 256 pixels per area However, making the second number too low (lower than 8) will introduce problems. Performance is, of course, a big issue. Having to trade performance for detail is not always the best option. Luckily these changes don't seem to have a major impact on performance on a medium performance system. Some (including myself) even noticed small FPS increases.
This is not for everyone, though. Other people reported small FPS drops in certain situations. On some systems, it could also be detrimental if the values were set too high. Luckily this can be solved by decreasing the values a bit. Lastly, there were some experiments with more 'texlod=' by changing the LodCount=5 to LodCount=10 and adding 5 more texlod= to the list. This changed nothing when it comes to improving ground quality.
Il 2 Sturmovik Battle Of Stalingrad Tpb 3
It did introduce stuttering and FPS drops into the game so it is best to stay away from this. Value tests: Various values have been tested to see what effects it has on quality and performance.
I will start with =LD=Penshoon's original settings: texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 These settings are an improvement on the default settings. The last 'texlod=' was 1024,16. It has been replaced by 2048,8.
This change removes the blurry tiles at long range. However, the same medium-low quality is kept for the rest of the map. This should work fine for anybody even if your PC is not the best. It does not seem to impact performance so should be good for low-end systems. (always test it on your own system) (setting 'normal' with my custom terrain.cfg in place) ____ texlod=8192,16 texlod=4096,32 texlod=4096,16 texlod=2048,16 texlod=2048,8 This setting is a bit weird. These values will keep your performance as is but not for the right reasons. I will rewrite it to make it more clear what actually happens (the resulting quality will be the exact same!): texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,16 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,16 texlod=2048,8 This simplified version shows that the quality differs a lot from one distance to another.
I would advise not to use this setting. The result is in fact slightly worse than the first I mentioned. The 2nd and 4th line cause lower quality while the 3rd and 5th line cause medium quality. This makes little sense to me.
____ texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 I added these values as a nice intermediate. It has a good balance of medium quality while maintaining performance. It does not really improve that much on the first setting but It is an improvement nonetheless. (setting 'x2' with my custom terrain.cfg in place) ____ texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 These values create a far greater level of detail. Most people speak highly of this setting and seem to have very little to no performance decrease. I ran these settings myself for a while. I could run these settings fine with the following specs: intel i7-600, GTX660, 1080p on balanced settings.
Loadings times did increase slightly but not too much. If you have the game on an SSD this should not be an issue. One issue that was mentioned multiple times is that the GPU memory usages goes up to about 3 GB. This means that for some GPU's it is wise to either lower the ground detail or decrease the overall graphics to a lower setting (make sure to test it). (setting 'x3' with my custom terrain.cfg in place) ____ texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 These are the values I now use. They are a bit more demanding than the other settings but create a slightly better-looking ground when taxiing. When flying low the difference between these values and the one with all 4096,8 is not all that noticeable.
(setting 'x4' with my custom terrain.cfg in place) ____ texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 The use of more than 1 line with 8192,8 has also been tested. This will impact your performance massively. Stuttering was not uncommon. Best to stay away from this. With all lines set to 8192,8 was a bad idea.
This will reduce your FPS to a measly 1 FPS or less! I encourage you to do some testing of your own. Perhaps you can find some new settings yourself. New test results: I will keep updating this post with important findings.
5-7-2016 Apparently, the developers have already added the 4th setting into the game its default settings. Some testing revealed that the game developers have (at some unknown moment in time) added the 'Ultra' setting. (It would have been nice from de devs to tell us this) There is still a small difference between the default x4 and the custom x4 values. The custom settings smooth out the long-range textures a bit making them a bit more pleasant to look. The image below will show you the difference.
The image is zoomed in. This image is made by coconut These tests have also revealed that higher settings can create even better visuals. Keep reading to find out what settings can be improved: I noticed that my GPU VRAM was not using 3.5GB anymore. Instead, it was running at 2.1GB of VRAM. This is probably because of the 64-bit update. This got me to do some more testing with higher values.
I first tried out the game with the following lines: texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=8192,8 This ran fine at only 2.7GB of VRAM. Still maintaining 60+ fps I then tried some crazy stuff to see how my GPU and the game would act. Next up was the all 8k lines texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 This ran fine at 3.1GB - 3.5GB of VRAM depending on altitude. I did notice at lower altitudes my fps would go down to 50-55 but stayed around here without going down. Lastly I tried something that I expected to be a bit too crazy: texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=16384,8 And texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=16384,8 The 16k line used to crash the game before. This ran surprisingly smooth. Using only 3.1GB - 3,5GB of VRAM.
Although the performance is not too bad, the quality gain is not noticeable when flying. Only on a picture can the difference be noted. I feel safe to say that you can increase the custom settings to contain 2 or 3 lines of 8192,8. That is if your GPU can handle it.
(mine is an EVGA GTX 970 SSC 4gb) Dx11 improvement and new settings: I have done a few new tests with the introduction of Dx11. I have to say that the results are very positive. My primary test was to see if the following setting would run smoothly. Texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 To do this I made a game as heavy as possible: 4K plane skin, distant grass, max settings and Vsync. The results were as I hoped them to be. The game ran smoothly at 60 fps (limited by my system setup) at all altitudes.
I did notice once a very short FPS drop to 48 FPS although I am not confident that this is related to the 5x texlod=8192,8 since I have (rarely) had such FPS drops before. I was curious to see how much this 5x texlod=8192,8 would improve over the in-game x4 setting. The following image shows the difference between the 2 layers.
I took this image at the exact same point in time thanks to the replay system. The way the image works is as follows: black means it is the exact same colour pixel. Aka, no difference what so ever. Coloured pixels indicate a colour difference between the 2 images. The image shows the plane as Black since it is the exact same plane and skin. Another clearly visible element is the black partial square at the bottom of the screen indicating that the in-game x4 resolution has some line(s) with texlod=8192,8.
At longer ranges the difference becomes visible. To be precise: at medium range, a small improvement is noticeable while at long range a more significant increase in detail is visible. I also tested with 5x texlod=16384,8. It ran the game but with some serious FPS drops. I also noticed that with these settings the game would become quite ugly as the resolution of the ground resolution would be too high and antialiasing could not solve the issue. It really looked worse than with 5x texlod=8192,8.
For this reason, I did not test what the game would look like with only 1 or 2 lines of 16384,8. Lastly, I tested what the game would do with 1 or more lines of texlod=16384,4. You are free to do it but do not expect your game to ever start again. The game would simply stop working as it was starting up. No further testing needed:/ All in all, The difference between the in-game x4 setting and the custom 5x texlod=8192,8 setting are pretty similar.
While flying the difference is barely, and maybe even not at all, visible. I do not believe that the 5x texlod=8192,8 adds much to the flying experience but if your system can handle it: why not? Using the texlod=16384,8 line defeats the purpose of using the improved detail as it will make the world look unrealistic and fake. Although, I do encourage you to try it out for yourself.
New texlod=16384,8 line test I have done some new tests with the 16K lines to see if they work now and what kind of effects they give. The results I got were the same as before. None the less, here are my results. For this test, I used the settings as seen under the spoiler. PixelSize=50 //meters LodCount=5 [setup] // FPS of around 120-150 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 [end] [setup] // FPS of around 80-100 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 [end] [setup] // FPS of around 60 with the ocational stutter texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=16384,8 [end] [setup] // FPS of around 40 with siginificant regular stutters.
Texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=16384,8 texlod=16384,8 texlod=16384,8 [end] I used the same test method as before. I took a screenshot with a replay file at the exact same moment in time each time to ensure the images would be taken in the exact same place and time in the game. Removing as many inaccuracies as possible.
I then compared these screenshots with photoshop to see what the results are. You can see segments of the still images under the spoiler.
Note how there is barely any visible difference in the still images. The difference is immense when time is running as normal. The textures on the ground become too sharp for the antialiasing to handle.
The ground will look like it is moving. It is a highly unrealistic and quite ugly effect.
Just like before. I can confirm that the 5x texlod=8192,8 looks a lot better and is still the setting I recommend for high and systems. I highly advise anyone to stay away from using even 1 line of texlod=16384,8. On top of this, the FPS drops were significant. I have added the FPS values to the tested values under the spoiler. Significant stutters also started to appear with the introduction of texlod=16384,8 lines.
The addition of more lines of texlod=16384,8 intensified these stutters massivly. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I ask everyone to share this post with your friends and squadrons. It would be amazing if we can reach the majority of the IL-2 BoS / BoM community!
I would highly appreciate it if someone could translate this to Russian and post it on the Russian forum. Credits: Original find and post: =LD=Penshoon Rediscovery terrain file: Coconut Testing of the workings: =LD=Penshoon BlackHellHound1 =LD=Hethwill_Khan 71st_Mastiff Venturi 12.OIAE_Stick-95 Testing of the values: =LD=Penshoon BlackHellHound1 =LD=Hethwill_Khan 6./ZG26_5tuka chris455 =LD=dhyran TG-55Panthercules coconut Let me know if I forgot to add anyone to the credits. Everyone that contributed deserves his/her fair share of the credits! BlackHellHound1 Edited by BlackHellHound1, 06 July 2017 - 12:21. PixelSize=50 //meters LodCount=5 [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 [end] [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 [end] [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 [end] [setup] texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 [end] your saying paste all these edit into the line? Ok tested yes copy the whole cfg.
Works great I'm really loving the model detailing much more on the skins also!! Edited by 71st_Mastiff, 04 July 2016 - 11:14.
PixelSize=50 //meters LodCount=5 [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 [end] [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 [end] [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 [end] [setup] texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 [end] your saying paste all these edit into the line? Or pick one setup and try it? To me it means copy all and paste all into the Terrian cfg. You should indeed copy the entire thing and past it all in the terrain.cfg file.
The game now as a setting called Distant Landscape Detail. This setting has 4 options: Normal, x2, x3 and x4 the game reads the first 5 lines if you have Normal selected. It reads the second set if you have x2 selected and so on. I will add this in the main post! No effect for me You should check the following things. One of these might be set incorrectly.
Make sure the file is placed in the right folder and named correctly. Make sure that you have changed the settings in the in-game graphics settings. (if you made a new file yourself) make sure the terrain.cfg has correctly changed to a cfg file and is no longer a.txt file If all of these are correct then i advise you make a quick flight at 6000m.
Il 2 Sturmovik Battle Of Stalingrad Trailer
The effect is not always instantly noticeable from low altitude. (at 6000m it should be clearly visible) BlackHellHound1. 3000m without mod: 3000m - with mod: Focusing solely on the transition line that creates the 'bubble of blur' effect at the lower altitudes I would be frequenting as a typical ground-pounder, I'm not really seeing much in the way of improvement. Haven't really tried at higher altitudes yet. This fix only applies to the ground textures as mentioned in the first post. The treeline render range is independent of this.
In fact: we don't even know if it is possible at all to change the tree render distance! The 2 screenshots marked with 2000m and 4000m were made yesterday. On the left side at long range you can see a distinct decrease in quality. On the right side this is not so. (look at the area's that the red arrows are pointing at) I have to admit that it is a little bit more visible in the winter maps. **snip** BlackHellHound1 Is the 'Normal' and 'Improved Setting' both at 4X 'Distant landscape detail' game setting with the only difference being the existence of Terrain.cfg?
The side marked 'Normal' looks more like 1X setting. Is the 'Normal' and 'Improved Setting' both at 4X 'Distant landscape detail' game setting with the only difference being the existence of Terrain.cfg?
The side marked 'Normal' looks more like 1X setting. The left side is the game default 'normal' setting. Basically the lowest game original setting. I used this setting since i expect that most people to use this. (whether they use them intentionally or not) The right side is the improved setting set to x4. Pretty much the highest setting that will keep a stable system. I know these are the 2 most extreme cases.
I had a second reason to do this though: this will illustrate the best possible improvement. It is totally possible that you wont notice as much of a difference if your settings were already set to x4. However, this fix will still improve your settings. I hope this clears things up a bit.
The left side is the game default 'normal' setting. Basically the lowest game original setting. I used this setting since i expect that most people to use this. (whether they use them intentionally or not) The right side is the improved setting set to x4. Pretty much the highest setting that will keep a stable system.
**snip** BlackHellHound1 Thanks for your response. As you noted in the OP I did testing on the original Terrain.ini that Coconut discovered to help determine its capabilities. As rightly pointed out above, it did not change the 'bubble' effect but only enhanced the distance detail. EDIT: All my testing back then was done with 4X in game 'Distant landscape detail'. (oops, didn't exist at the time.) The enhancement was easily identifiable and remarkable. EDIT: Looking back at the old thread it seems in August 2015 a new Terrain.cfg was working with the 'Distant landscape detail' but then died after some update.
The only true test of whether this currently works or not is a comparison of screenshots at the same in game 'Distant landscape detail'. I created the terrain.cfg and pasted the above lines into it with the cfg extension. I also compared this to the download version and older terrain.ini files. I did a number of tests with different distance settings, resolutions, cropping, etc.
The two following screenshots are taken from the exact same angle and frame from the same track. The 'Distant landscape detail' is set to 4X, Reshade off. Resolution 2560 X 1440, Ultra, AA=4, Gamma.9. The screenshots are presented as taken with no post processing. The areas of the screenshots where one should see improvement with the terrain.cfg is on the opposite bank of the Volga out to the horizon. This is especially true of the city areas where buildings would be enhanced. Conclusion of my testing.
I would love to have the enhancement that the old terrain.ini used to bring to the game. Unfortunately, I have been unable to duplicate that enhancement with the use of Terrain.cfg with version 2.002b of the game. I have been unable to find any enhancement with Terrain.cfg. The two screenshots are identical, with no enhancement whatsoever from the one with the Terrain.cfg.
Maybe someone else can take the time to post screenshots that are also true 'apples to apples' comparisons. Let's be methodical about this. I would love to be proven wrong and have this work.
Il2 Stalingrad
No Terrain.cfg With Terrain.cfg Edited by 12.OIAE_Stick-95, 05 July 2016 - 13:12. Thanks for your response. As you noted in the OP I did testing on the original Terrain.ini that Coconut discovered to help determine its capabilities. As rightly pointed out above, it did not change the 'bubble' effect but only enhanced the distance detail.
EDIT: All my testing back then was done with 4X in game 'Distant landscape detail'. (oops, didn't exist at the time.) The enhancement was easily identifiable and remarkable. EDIT: Looking back at the old thread it seems in August 2015 a new Terrain.cfg was working with the 'Distant landscape detail' but then died after some update. The only true test of whether this currently works or not is a comparison of screenshots at the same in game 'Distant landscape detail'. I created the terrain.cfg and pasted the above lines into it with the cfg extension. I also compared this to the download version and older terrain.ini files.
I did a number of tests with different distance settings, resolutions, cropping, etc. The two following screenshots are taken from the exact same angle and frame from the same track. The 'Distant landscape detail' is set to 4X, Reshade off.
Resolution 2560 X 1440, Ultra, AA=4, Gamma.9. The screenshots are presented as taken with no post processing. The areas of the screenshots where one should see improvement with the terrain.cfg is on the opposite bank of the Volga out to the horizon. This is especially true of the city areas where buildings would be enhanced. Conclusion of my testing. I would love to have the enhancement that the old terrain.ini used to bring to the game. Unfortunately, I have been unable to duplicate that enhancement with the use of Terrain.cfg with version 2.002b of the game.
I have been unable to find any enhancement with Terrain.cfg. The two screenshots are identical, with no enhancement whatsoever from the one with the Terrain.cfg. Maybe someone else can take the time to post screenshots that are also true 'apples to apples' comparisons. Let's be methodical about this. I would love to be proven wrong and have this work. I have some of the test you mentioned and I come to the same conclusion.
This got me thinking. I can clearly remember that when they first introduced the 'Distant Landscape Detail' there were still issues with the blurry detail at long range.
Because of this I looked into the patch notes and dev blogs. I could not find anything that specifically stated that they had improved the 'Distant Landscape Detail'. To me it seems like they slipped the communities values in without clearly mentioning it. It does indeed look like the x4 setting already has the 4 times 4096,8 with one 8192,8 in place.
However, for the lower settings the visuals are still disappointing. I also noticed that my GPU VRAM was not using 3.5GB anymore.
Il 2 Sturmovik Battle Of Stalingrad Tpb Download
Instead it was running at 2.1GB of VRAM. This is probably because of the 64 bit update. This got me to do some more testing with higher values.
I first tried out the game with the following lines: texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=8192,8 This ran fine at only 2.7GB of VRAM. Still maintaining 60+ fps I then tried some crazy stuff to see how my GPU and the game would act. Next up was the all 8k lines texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 This ran fine at 3.1GB - 3.5GB of VRAM depending on height. I did notice at lower altitudes my fps would go down to 50-55 but stayed around here without going down.
Lastly I tried something that I expected to be a bit crazy: texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=16384,8 And texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=16384,8 The 16k line used to crash the game before. This ran surprisingly smooth. Using only 3.1GB - 3,5GB of VRAM.
Although the performance is not too bad, the quality gain is not noticeable when flying. Only on a picture can the difference be noted.
I feel save to say that you can increase the custom settings to contain 2 or 3 lines of 8192,8. That is if your GPU can handle it. (mine is a EVGA GTX 970 SSC 4gb) I will add this info to the main post. BlackHellHound1 Edited by =[Coffin]=BlackHellHound1, 05 July 2016 - 14:21.
Thanks for your response. As you noted in the OP I did testing on the original Terrain.ini that Coconut discovered to help determine its capabilities. As rightly pointed out above, it did not change the 'bubble' effect but only enhanced the distance detail. EDIT: All my testing back then was done with 4X in game 'Distant landscape detail'. (oops, didn't exist at the time.) The enhancement was easily identifiable and remarkable.
EDIT: Looking back at the old thread it seems in August 2015 a new Terrain.cfg was working with the 'Distant landscape detail' but then died after some update. The only true test of whether this currently works or not is a comparison of screenshots at the same in game 'Distant landscape detail'. I created the terrain.cfg and pasted the above lines into it with the cfg extension. I also compared this to the download version and older terrain.ini files. I did a number of tests with different distance settings, resolutions, cropping, etc. The two following screenshots are taken from the exact same angle and frame from the same track. The 'Distant landscape detail' is set to 4X, Reshade off.
Resolution 2560 X 1440, Ultra, AA=4, Gamma.9. The screenshots are presented as taken with no post processing.
The areas of the screenshots where one should see improvement with the terrain.cfg is on the opposite bank of the Volga out to the horizon. This is especially true of the city areas where buildings would be enhanced.
Conclusion of my testing. I would love to have the enhancement that the old terrain.ini used to bring to the game. Unfortunately, I have been unable to duplicate that enhancement with the use of Terrain.cfg with version 2.002b of the game.
I have been unable to find any enhancement with Terrain.cfg. The two screenshots are identical, with no enhancement whatsoever from the one with the Terrain.cfg.
Maybe someone else can take the time to post screenshots that are also true 'apples to apples' comparisons. Let's be methodical about this. I would love to be proven wrong and have this work. No Terrain.cfg With Terrain.cfg Is it just me or are these pictures perhaps swapped? I see very little if any difference between the pictures in the far areas on the other side of the river, and the top picture actually looks a tiny bit better to me in the areas on this side of the river than the bottom picture does. I must be missing something, but to these old eyes this doesn't seem to be doing much.
Is it just me or are these pictures perhaps swapped? I see very little if any difference between the pictures in the far areas on the other side of the river, and the top picture actually looks a tiny bit better to me in the areas on this side of the river than the bottom picture does.
This change removes the blurry tiles at long range. However, the same medium-low quality is kept for the rest of the map. This should work fine for anybody even if your PC is not the best. It does not seem to impact performance so should be good for low-end systems. (always test it on your own system) (setting 'normal' with my custom terrain.cfg in place) ____ texlod=8192,16 texlod=4096,32 texlod=4096,16 texlod=2048,16 texlod=2048,8 This setting is a bit weird. These values will keep your performance as is but not for the right reasons. I will rewrite it to make it more clear what actually happens (the resulting quality will be the exact same!): texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,16 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,16 texlod=2048,8 This simplified version shows that the quality differs a lot from one distance to another.
I would advise not to use this setting. The result is in fact slightly worse than the first I mentioned. The 2nd and 4th line cause lower quality while the 3rd and 5th line cause medium quality. This makes little sense to me.
____ texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 I added these values as a nice intermediate. It has a good balance of medium quality while maintaining performance. It does not really improve that much on the first setting but It is an improvement nonetheless. (setting 'x2' with my custom terrain.cfg in place) ____ texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 These values create a far greater level of detail. Most people speak highly of this setting and seem to have very little to no performance decrease. I ran these settings myself for a while. I could run these settings fine with the following specs: intel i7-600, GTX660, 1080p on balanced settings.
Loadings times did increase slightly but not too much. If you have the game on an SSD this should not be an issue. One issue that was mentioned multiple times is that the GPU memory usages goes up to about 3 GB. This means that for some GPU's it is wise to either lower the ground detail or decrease the overall graphics to a lower setting (make sure to test it). (setting 'x3' with my custom terrain.cfg in place) ____ texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 These are the values I now use. They are a bit more demanding than the other settings but create a slightly better-looking ground when taxiing. When flying low the difference between these values and the one with all 4096,8 is not all that noticeable.
(setting 'x4' with my custom terrain.cfg in place) ____ texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 The use of more than 1 line with 8192,8 has also been tested. This will impact your performance massively. Stuttering was not uncommon. Best to stay away from this. With all lines set to 8192,8 was a bad idea.
This will reduce your FPS to a measly 1 FPS or less! I encourage you to do some testing of your own. Perhaps you can find some new settings yourself. New test results: I will keep updating this post with important findings.
5-7-2016 Apparently, the developers have already added the 4th setting into the game its default settings. Some testing revealed that the game developers have (at some unknown moment in time) added the 'Ultra' setting. (It would have been nice from de devs to tell us this) There is still a small difference between the default x4 and the custom x4 values. The custom settings smooth out the long-range textures a bit making them a bit more pleasant to look. The image below will show you the difference.
The image is zoomed in. This image is made by coconut These tests have also revealed that higher settings can create even better visuals. Keep reading to find out what settings can be improved: I noticed that my GPU VRAM was not using 3.5GB anymore. Instead, it was running at 2.1GB of VRAM. This is probably because of the 64-bit update. This got me to do some more testing with higher values.
I first tried out the game with the following lines: texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=8192,8 This ran fine at only 2.7GB of VRAM. Still maintaining 60+ fps I then tried some crazy stuff to see how my GPU and the game would act. Next up was the all 8k lines texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 This ran fine at 3.1GB - 3.5GB of VRAM depending on altitude. I did notice at lower altitudes my fps would go down to 50-55 but stayed around here without going down. Lastly I tried something that I expected to be a bit too crazy: texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=16384,8 And texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=16384,8 The 16k line used to crash the game before. This ran surprisingly smooth. Using only 3.1GB - 3,5GB of VRAM.
Although the performance is not too bad, the quality gain is not noticeable when flying. Only on a picture can the difference be noted. I feel safe to say that you can increase the custom settings to contain 2 or 3 lines of 8192,8. That is if your GPU can handle it.
(mine is an EVGA GTX 970 SSC 4gb) Dx11 improvement and new settings: I have done a few new tests with the introduction of Dx11. I have to say that the results are very positive. My primary test was to see if the following setting would run smoothly. Texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 To do this I made a game as heavy as possible: 4K plane skin, distant grass, max settings and Vsync. The results were as I hoped them to be. The game ran smoothly at 60 fps (limited by my system setup) at all altitudes.
I did notice once a very short FPS drop to 48 FPS although I am not confident that this is related to the 5x texlod=8192,8 since I have (rarely) had such FPS drops before. I was curious to see how much this 5x texlod=8192,8 would improve over the in-game x4 setting. The following image shows the difference between the 2 layers.
I took this image at the exact same point in time thanks to the replay system. The way the image works is as follows: black means it is the exact same colour pixel. Aka, no difference what so ever. Coloured pixels indicate a colour difference between the 2 images. The image shows the plane as Black since it is the exact same plane and skin. Another clearly visible element is the black partial square at the bottom of the screen indicating that the in-game x4 resolution has some line(s) with texlod=8192,8.
At longer ranges the difference becomes visible. To be precise: at medium range, a small improvement is noticeable while at long range a more significant increase in detail is visible. I also tested with 5x texlod=16384,8. It ran the game but with some serious FPS drops. I also noticed that with these settings the game would become quite ugly as the resolution of the ground resolution would be too high and antialiasing could not solve the issue. It really looked worse than with 5x texlod=8192,8.
For this reason, I did not test what the game would look like with only 1 or 2 lines of 16384,8. Lastly, I tested what the game would do with 1 or more lines of texlod=16384,4. You are free to do it but do not expect your game to ever start again. The game would simply stop working as it was starting up. No further testing needed:/ All in all, The difference between the in-game x4 setting and the custom 5x texlod=8192,8 setting are pretty similar.
While flying the difference is barely, and maybe even not at all, visible. I do not believe that the 5x texlod=8192,8 adds much to the flying experience but if your system can handle it: why not? Using the texlod=16384,8 line defeats the purpose of using the improved detail as it will make the world look unrealistic and fake. Although, I do encourage you to try it out for yourself.
New texlod=16384,8 line test I have done some new tests with the 16K lines to see if they work now and what kind of effects they give. The results I got were the same as before. None the less, here are my results. For this test, I used the settings as seen under the spoiler. PixelSize=50 //meters LodCount=5 [setup] // FPS of around 120-150 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 [end] [setup] // FPS of around 80-100 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 [end] [setup] // FPS of around 60 with the ocational stutter texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=16384,8 [end] [setup] // FPS of around 40 with siginificant regular stutters.
Texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=16384,8 texlod=16384,8 texlod=16384,8 [end] I used the same test method as before. I took a screenshot with a replay file at the exact same moment in time each time to ensure the images would be taken in the exact same place and time in the game. Removing as many inaccuracies as possible.
I then compared these screenshots with photoshop to see what the results are. You can see segments of the still images under the spoiler.
Note how there is barely any visible difference in the still images. The difference is immense when time is running as normal. The textures on the ground become too sharp for the antialiasing to handle.
The ground will look like it is moving. It is a highly unrealistic and quite ugly effect.
Just like before. I can confirm that the 5x texlod=8192,8 looks a lot better and is still the setting I recommend for high and systems. I highly advise anyone to stay away from using even 1 line of texlod=16384,8. On top of this, the FPS drops were significant. I have added the FPS values to the tested values under the spoiler. Significant stutters also started to appear with the introduction of texlod=16384,8 lines.
The addition of more lines of texlod=16384,8 intensified these stutters massivly. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I ask everyone to share this post with your friends and squadrons. It would be amazing if we can reach the majority of the IL-2 BoS / BoM community!
I would highly appreciate it if someone could translate this to Russian and post it on the Russian forum. Credits: Original find and post: =LD=Penshoon Rediscovery terrain file: Coconut Testing of the workings: =LD=Penshoon BlackHellHound1 =LD=Hethwill_Khan 71st_Mastiff Venturi 12.OIAE_Stick-95 Testing of the values: =LD=Penshoon BlackHellHound1 =LD=Hethwill_Khan 6./ZG26_5tuka chris455 =LD=dhyran TG-55Panthercules coconut Let me know if I forgot to add anyone to the credits. Everyone that contributed deserves his/her fair share of the credits! BlackHellHound1 Edited by BlackHellHound1, 06 July 2017 - 12:21. PixelSize=50 //meters LodCount=5 [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 [end] [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 [end] [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 [end] [setup] texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 [end] your saying paste all these edit into the line? Ok tested yes copy the whole cfg.
Works great I'm really loving the model detailing much more on the skins also!! Edited by 71st_Mastiff, 04 July 2016 - 11:14.
PixelSize=50 //meters LodCount=5 [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 [end] [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=2048,8 texlod=2048,8 [end] [setup] texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 [end] [setup] texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 [end] your saying paste all these edit into the line? Or pick one setup and try it? To me it means copy all and paste all into the Terrian cfg. You should indeed copy the entire thing and past it all in the terrain.cfg file.
The game now as a setting called Distant Landscape Detail. This setting has 4 options: Normal, x2, x3 and x4 the game reads the first 5 lines if you have Normal selected. It reads the second set if you have x2 selected and so on. I will add this in the main post! No effect for me You should check the following things. One of these might be set incorrectly.
Make sure the file is placed in the right folder and named correctly. Make sure that you have changed the settings in the in-game graphics settings. (if you made a new file yourself) make sure the terrain.cfg has correctly changed to a cfg file and is no longer a.txt file If all of these are correct then i advise you make a quick flight at 6000m.
Il 2 Sturmovik Battle Of Stalingrad Trailer
The effect is not always instantly noticeable from low altitude. (at 6000m it should be clearly visible) BlackHellHound1. 3000m without mod: 3000m - with mod: Focusing solely on the transition line that creates the 'bubble of blur' effect at the lower altitudes I would be frequenting as a typical ground-pounder, I'm not really seeing much in the way of improvement. Haven't really tried at higher altitudes yet. This fix only applies to the ground textures as mentioned in the first post. The treeline render range is independent of this.
In fact: we don't even know if it is possible at all to change the tree render distance! The 2 screenshots marked with 2000m and 4000m were made yesterday. On the left side at long range you can see a distinct decrease in quality. On the right side this is not so. (look at the area's that the red arrows are pointing at) I have to admit that it is a little bit more visible in the winter maps. **snip** BlackHellHound1 Is the 'Normal' and 'Improved Setting' both at 4X 'Distant landscape detail' game setting with the only difference being the existence of Terrain.cfg?
The side marked 'Normal' looks more like 1X setting. Is the 'Normal' and 'Improved Setting' both at 4X 'Distant landscape detail' game setting with the only difference being the existence of Terrain.cfg?
The side marked 'Normal' looks more like 1X setting. The left side is the game default 'normal' setting. Basically the lowest game original setting. I used this setting since i expect that most people to use this. (whether they use them intentionally or not) The right side is the improved setting set to x4. Pretty much the highest setting that will keep a stable system. I know these are the 2 most extreme cases.
I had a second reason to do this though: this will illustrate the best possible improvement. It is totally possible that you wont notice as much of a difference if your settings were already set to x4. However, this fix will still improve your settings. I hope this clears things up a bit.
The left side is the game default 'normal' setting. Basically the lowest game original setting. I used this setting since i expect that most people to use this. (whether they use them intentionally or not) The right side is the improved setting set to x4. Pretty much the highest setting that will keep a stable system.
**snip** BlackHellHound1 Thanks for your response. As you noted in the OP I did testing on the original Terrain.ini that Coconut discovered to help determine its capabilities. As rightly pointed out above, it did not change the 'bubble' effect but only enhanced the distance detail. EDIT: All my testing back then was done with 4X in game 'Distant landscape detail'. (oops, didn't exist at the time.) The enhancement was easily identifiable and remarkable. EDIT: Looking back at the old thread it seems in August 2015 a new Terrain.cfg was working with the 'Distant landscape detail' but then died after some update.
The only true test of whether this currently works or not is a comparison of screenshots at the same in game 'Distant landscape detail'. I created the terrain.cfg and pasted the above lines into it with the cfg extension. I also compared this to the download version and older terrain.ini files. I did a number of tests with different distance settings, resolutions, cropping, etc.
The two following screenshots are taken from the exact same angle and frame from the same track. The 'Distant landscape detail' is set to 4X, Reshade off. Resolution 2560 X 1440, Ultra, AA=4, Gamma.9. The screenshots are presented as taken with no post processing. The areas of the screenshots where one should see improvement with the terrain.cfg is on the opposite bank of the Volga out to the horizon. This is especially true of the city areas where buildings would be enhanced. Conclusion of my testing.
I would love to have the enhancement that the old terrain.ini used to bring to the game. Unfortunately, I have been unable to duplicate that enhancement with the use of Terrain.cfg with version 2.002b of the game. I have been unable to find any enhancement with Terrain.cfg. The two screenshots are identical, with no enhancement whatsoever from the one with the Terrain.cfg.
Maybe someone else can take the time to post screenshots that are also true 'apples to apples' comparisons. Let's be methodical about this. I would love to be proven wrong and have this work.
Il2 Stalingrad
No Terrain.cfg With Terrain.cfg Edited by 12.OIAE_Stick-95, 05 July 2016 - 13:12. Thanks for your response. As you noted in the OP I did testing on the original Terrain.ini that Coconut discovered to help determine its capabilities. As rightly pointed out above, it did not change the 'bubble' effect but only enhanced the distance detail.
EDIT: All my testing back then was done with 4X in game 'Distant landscape detail'. (oops, didn't exist at the time.) The enhancement was easily identifiable and remarkable. EDIT: Looking back at the old thread it seems in August 2015 a new Terrain.cfg was working with the 'Distant landscape detail' but then died after some update. The only true test of whether this currently works or not is a comparison of screenshots at the same in game 'Distant landscape detail'. I created the terrain.cfg and pasted the above lines into it with the cfg extension. I also compared this to the download version and older terrain.ini files.
I did a number of tests with different distance settings, resolutions, cropping, etc. The two following screenshots are taken from the exact same angle and frame from the same track. The 'Distant landscape detail' is set to 4X, Reshade off.
Resolution 2560 X 1440, Ultra, AA=4, Gamma.9. The screenshots are presented as taken with no post processing. The areas of the screenshots where one should see improvement with the terrain.cfg is on the opposite bank of the Volga out to the horizon. This is especially true of the city areas where buildings would be enhanced. Conclusion of my testing. I would love to have the enhancement that the old terrain.ini used to bring to the game. Unfortunately, I have been unable to duplicate that enhancement with the use of Terrain.cfg with version 2.002b of the game.
I have been unable to find any enhancement with Terrain.cfg. The two screenshots are identical, with no enhancement whatsoever from the one with the Terrain.cfg. Maybe someone else can take the time to post screenshots that are also true 'apples to apples' comparisons. Let's be methodical about this. I would love to be proven wrong and have this work. I have some of the test you mentioned and I come to the same conclusion.
This got me thinking. I can clearly remember that when they first introduced the 'Distant Landscape Detail' there were still issues with the blurry detail at long range.
Because of this I looked into the patch notes and dev blogs. I could not find anything that specifically stated that they had improved the 'Distant Landscape Detail'. To me it seems like they slipped the communities values in without clearly mentioning it. It does indeed look like the x4 setting already has the 4 times 4096,8 with one 8192,8 in place.
However, for the lower settings the visuals are still disappointing. I also noticed that my GPU VRAM was not using 3.5GB anymore.
Il 2 Sturmovik Battle Of Stalingrad Tpb Download
Instead it was running at 2.1GB of VRAM. This is probably because of the 64 bit update. This got me to do some more testing with higher values.
I first tried out the game with the following lines: texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=8192,8 This ran fine at only 2.7GB of VRAM. Still maintaining 60+ fps I then tried some crazy stuff to see how my GPU and the game would act. Next up was the all 8k lines texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=8192,8 This ran fine at 3.1GB - 3.5GB of VRAM depending on height. I did notice at lower altitudes my fps would go down to 50-55 but stayed around here without going down.
Lastly I tried something that I expected to be a bit crazy: texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=16384,8 And texlod=8192,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=4096,8 texlod=8192,8 texlod=16384,8 The 16k line used to crash the game before. This ran surprisingly smooth. Using only 3.1GB - 3,5GB of VRAM.
Although the performance is not too bad, the quality gain is not noticeable when flying. Only on a picture can the difference be noted.
I feel save to say that you can increase the custom settings to contain 2 or 3 lines of 8192,8. That is if your GPU can handle it. (mine is a EVGA GTX 970 SSC 4gb) I will add this info to the main post. BlackHellHound1 Edited by =[Coffin]=BlackHellHound1, 05 July 2016 - 14:21.
Thanks for your response. As you noted in the OP I did testing on the original Terrain.ini that Coconut discovered to help determine its capabilities. As rightly pointed out above, it did not change the 'bubble' effect but only enhanced the distance detail. EDIT: All my testing back then was done with 4X in game 'Distant landscape detail'. (oops, didn't exist at the time.) The enhancement was easily identifiable and remarkable.
EDIT: Looking back at the old thread it seems in August 2015 a new Terrain.cfg was working with the 'Distant landscape detail' but then died after some update. The only true test of whether this currently works or not is a comparison of screenshots at the same in game 'Distant landscape detail'. I created the terrain.cfg and pasted the above lines into it with the cfg extension. I also compared this to the download version and older terrain.ini files. I did a number of tests with different distance settings, resolutions, cropping, etc. The two following screenshots are taken from the exact same angle and frame from the same track. The 'Distant landscape detail' is set to 4X, Reshade off.
Resolution 2560 X 1440, Ultra, AA=4, Gamma.9. The screenshots are presented as taken with no post processing.
The areas of the screenshots where one should see improvement with the terrain.cfg is on the opposite bank of the Volga out to the horizon. This is especially true of the city areas where buildings would be enhanced.
Conclusion of my testing. I would love to have the enhancement that the old terrain.ini used to bring to the game. Unfortunately, I have been unable to duplicate that enhancement with the use of Terrain.cfg with version 2.002b of the game.
I have been unable to find any enhancement with Terrain.cfg. The two screenshots are identical, with no enhancement whatsoever from the one with the Terrain.cfg.
Maybe someone else can take the time to post screenshots that are also true 'apples to apples' comparisons. Let's be methodical about this. I would love to be proven wrong and have this work. No Terrain.cfg With Terrain.cfg Is it just me or are these pictures perhaps swapped? I see very little if any difference between the pictures in the far areas on the other side of the river, and the top picture actually looks a tiny bit better to me in the areas on this side of the river than the bottom picture does. I must be missing something, but to these old eyes this doesn't seem to be doing much.
Is it just me or are these pictures perhaps swapped? I see very little if any difference between the pictures in the far areas on the other side of the river, and the top picture actually looks a tiny bit better to me in the areas on this side of the river than the bottom picture does.
Il2 Battle Of Stalingrad Download
I must be missing something, but to these old eyes this doesn't seem to be doing much. No, they're not swapped, there is no difference. That is the point of my post. Edited by 12.OIAE_Stick-95, 05 July 2016 - 15:11. There is a difference, but it's hard to see.
Easiest is to see when looking for the infamous potato fields that have the horrible aliasing artifact: Personally, I don't think it's worth the trouble, the ingame X4 setting is good enough for me. That is indeed hard to notice if you are not looking for it. But it is good to know.
To me this is enough reason to stick with the custom settings. If you don't mind then i would like to add this info including the picture to the 'New test results' main post.
