PDA

View Full Version : 4.01, is it a move forward or backwards?



9th_Spitin
06-16-2005, 10:13 AM
After playing 4.01 online last night I am wondering if we are moving backwards in some ways. Yes the FM is better, but now with the freezes and FPS hits, is it becoming a CFS3? Are we just the Beta testers for BOB?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Tully__
06-16-2005, 10:24 AM
From the v4.01 readme file:

V4.01 introduces the next generation pre-Battle of Britain Flight Model (FM). In this add-on we are introducing a part of the FM from our next simulation (BOB) for worldwide open beta test in our current engine.

Edit: I should further point out that Oleg has been saying this for months, that the new flight model to be included in this patch would be the equivalent of an open beta.

VW-IceFire
06-16-2005, 10:53 AM
Large step forward!

NetDaemon
06-16-2005, 10:55 AM
Actually, it´s a BnZ move http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Seriously though, I´m not experiencing freezes/stutters but I did lose a couple FPS average, probably due to the new FM´s complex calculations and the new clouds.

But that only shows that 4.01 FB is not the same as 2 year old 1.0 FB, which means it is keeping current with new technologies.

The time your PC runs FB confortable with all realism settings and graphics options maxed out is the time FB becomes stagnant.

Think about that.

Miki40
06-16-2005, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Tully__:
From the v4.01 readme file:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">V4.01 introduces the next generation pre-Battle of Britain Flight Model (FM). In this add-on we are introducing a part of the FM from our next simulation (BOB) for worldwide open beta test in our current engine.

Edit: I should further point out that Oleg has been saying this for months, that the new flight model to be included in this patch would be the equivalent of an open beta. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


We have not demanded or requested to be Beta Testers. It might be good for the ones there are. For most of us just frustration!
Oleg should have asked before he decided to involve every one of us in his BETA program.

With all Respect,

Miki40 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

9th_Spitin
06-16-2005, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by NetDaemon:
Actually, it´s a BnZ move http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Seriously though, I´m not experiencing freezes/stutters but I did lose a couple FPS average, probably due to the new FM´s complex calculations and the new clouds.



When I experienced the freezes last night it was on WC's server and 2 others on our TS noticed the same type of freezes at different times. All have high end machines and Graphics cards.

AerialTarget
06-16-2005, 11:17 AM
Well then, those of you who object to being "beta testers" can jolly well uninstall the bloody patch and go back to your precious, less realistic and less fun three point zero four.

reverendkrv1972
06-16-2005, 11:19 AM
hmm my system isn't exactly great,but I have not noticed any loss of framerate/locking up,with new clouds etc...

only the usual 'spawnlag'

Rev

TROOPER117
06-16-2005, 11:23 AM
No problems here. No freezes or stutters, or any large loss of frame rate, plus, no drama at all utilising the new changes to FM. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Regards....Dave S.

bodaw
06-16-2005, 11:24 AM
Did not notice any pauses or freezes and I have a two year old machine. I was on War Clouds last night and did notice Sparx having problem with his server, so I left.

TgD Thunderbolt56
06-16-2005, 11:48 AM
I wouldn't use WC as my test bed for lags/stutters. I ALWAYS ping less than 60 there and oftentimes can't even connect and load the maps before I'm kicked. I have all my settings set properly and have checked/rechecked to no avail.

I like flying there occassionally, but these issues seem to be present all the time. Kudos to Sparx, but WC has never been TB-friendly.


TB

Comswim
06-16-2005, 12:02 PM
I noticed the fpS hits and freezes in WC too but i have never been a huge fan of WC for that reason and becuase of the Death kick(never seems to really work very well). I like the new model, its a little hard to get used to the torque. But the Allied Blackout disadvantage and the Ever present uberness of the German planes is still there, and makes the patch fail. This of course is IMHO. I am very happy with the characteristics when it comes to flying USN against IJN. Both plane sets have thier goods and bads, but seem to be very unbiased. Makes for a great time flying.

crazyivan1970
06-16-2005, 12:10 PM
Dont use DF server as point of judgement... join COOP.. and see how it behaves. You might get lockups on DF server for many reasons and most of them have nothing to do with your hardware.

Cheers!

RedDeth
06-16-2005, 01:31 PM
flew in many servers last night with 3yr old computer. with a gig of ramm.

ZERO stutters freezes or lockups. on multiple servers piton and pitoff.

Equilizer
06-16-2005, 01:52 PM
No problem here. Did you reset your video card settings to the default for your card in il2setup?

9th_Spitin
06-16-2005, 01:52 PM
Ivan had a good idea to try a coop and see how it reacts. I will give it a try later on and hope for good results.

Even with the freeze ups I did ave 40 fps with aa 2x , af 4, and perfect settings. Seems like in the clouds I would drop to 39-40 fps, but the ground targets would stress it out.

Bearcat99
06-16-2005, 02:31 PM
My only beef is that I had to roll back my drivers for the graphics issues... other than that I think it is great. I had to redo my stick setup.

VFS-22_SPaRX
06-16-2005, 04:05 PM
How about defining High End Machine and Graphics Card. I always love when people say that and never post the specs.

I have an AMD64 3400+ @ 2.4ghz 1meg L2 cache, 1 gig ram running at 215 FSB and an ATI x850xt. I see no freezes or anything else for that matter that is not to be expected on a Dogfight server. Dogfight servers will have freezes and stutters. Its the nature of the beast.

I will comment on this though Spitin, if you have less then an x800, 1 gig of ram, and something 3.0ghz or better, you will not be able to play on a dogfight server with a large number of players with the settings you quoted above. In the last year, i have gone from an AMD 2800+ to an AMD64 3500 and from a 9700pro - 9800pro - x850xt. And untill now, i was not able to play online with perfect mode with acceptable framerates.

S~

9th_Spitin
06-16-2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
How about defining High End Machine and Graphics Card. I always love when people say that and never post the specs.

I usually never post my specs because its like a mine is bigger than yours thing. Just ask your ---- naaa wont go there....J/K LOL.


AMD 64 bit 3000 @ 2.2, 1 gig Ram DDR, Nvidia 6800GT 256 DDR3 OC'd to 400/1000 on a cable conection. Not the newest or fastest, but should run well on those settings and like I said I was AVG 40 fps thru 30 minutes of play.

Cragger
06-16-2005, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
How about defining High End Machine and Graphics Card. I always love when people say that and never post the specs.

I have an AMD64 3400+ @ 2.4ghz 1meg L2 cache, 1 gig ram running at 215 FSB and an ATI x850xt. I see no freezes or anything else for that matter that is not to be expected on a Dogfight server. Dogfight servers will have freezes and stutters. Its the nature of the beast.

I will comment on this though Spitin, if you have less then an x800, 1 gig of ram, and something 3.0ghz or better, you will not be able to play on a dogfight server with a large number of players with the settings you quoted above. In the last year, i have gone from an AMD 2800+ to an AMD64 3500 and from a 9700pro - 9800pro - x850xt. And untill now, i was not able to play online with perfect mode with acceptable framerates.

S~

I was able to play on DF servers such as yours with 30+ Fps on perfect settings with a AMD 3000 Barton, 1 GB of DDR 333Mhz an a 9500Pro on perfect settings. Just provided I didn't use minium FOV over cities when attemtping to get a shot. Course I cheated a bit overclocking the 9500Pro to 333Mhz core and 290Mhz memory.

VFS-22_SPaRX
06-16-2005, 04:46 PM
Spitin, I fully understand the mine is bigger then yours thing. But sometimes it is needed to help http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.


Also forgot to ask you to post the resolution you are playing in.


With my system I quoted above, I ALMOST never go below 50 FPS. The only reason i drop to 50 is because i use Vsync because i do not like the tearing. I run my resolution at 1024x768 and my monitor has a 100mhz refreshrate at that resolution. I also run 4x AA and 4x AF. You might want to consider trying some different drivers. I am seeing many posts about different nvidia driver versions. Some are good some are bad.

Cragger, while 30FPS might be ok to you, i find that it is not acceptable. It not that I can tell the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS, its about having a buffer zone. Say for instance a particular area on a map will give you a 25% FPS drop ( which happens alot in IL2), then your 30 FPS is not ~23FPS. You will definately see stutters. But if you are running at 60 FPS and you get the 25% drop, then you will be running at 45FPS. This is still and acceptable level. So its not about seeing the difference between 30 and 60. It about having rendering overhead.

S~

S~

IL2-chuter
06-16-2005, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Well then, those of you who object to being "beta testers" can jolly well uninstall the bloody patch and go back to your precious, less realistic and less fun three point zero four.


I don't think 4.01 is inherently more realistic, it places more emphasis on other things than 3.04. I think the torque effect (including zero for the P-38) is, overall, better. Takeoff torque is not the only factor affecting takeoff, though. They still haven't even hinted at the instability caused by the landing gear, I can still rollout on landing straight ahead without any rudder input. The locking tailwheel on many aircraft was for this rolling instability as much as, if not more than, the engine torque. Torque also seems to be overwhelming any aerodynamic stability in accellerated stalls. As a matter of personal opinion, there seems to be very little aerodynamic stability . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


I must admit, however, that my perspective is entirely biased by my real world flight experience. This game does very well (in flight) in the meat of the envelope, but I think it's asking a bit much of it to expect accuracy while expanding that same envelope.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Happy flying.

LEXX_Luthor
06-16-2005, 06:08 PM
No stutters, no freezes here, same basic fps as 3.04. Although, with 4.01 I did have one (1) bizzare crash to desktop which I NEVER get in FB/PF, and I can't reproduce it. I do take care to run a clean system, also I am a little bit on the high end though perhaps (for my style, this is high end)...

AMD Semperon 3100+
128M ATI 9800Ultra
1Gig DDR2 running at only 333MHz however (hay that may be why I run smooth)
Windows XP Homely ... recent, fresh install

EnGaurde
06-16-2005, 06:25 PM
the only thing worth spending time on is what it takes to develop the product to higher and higher standards. If that means a beta role, i'll happily contribute my iota of play testing.

i suppose im much more tolerant of perceived glitches than most.

i dont want something as enjoyable as this sim drag behind, stagnate and die because too much feedback is sourced from people who are content to stay with what they have and possess no interest in being part of the development process, or indeed seem to fear it?

an open beta test? what a frickin brilliant idea. What an amazingly comprehensive test bench on an infinite number of configured systems. What a fantastic way to cut costs that can be better spent elsewhere. What a fantastic way to showcase your upcoming products. What a brilliant way to make the customer base feel involved.

HA.... i reckon the vocal critical minority group should get off 1C:Maddoxs collective back and let the group do what they do best.

Are we emulating the situation where the politicians run the war instead of the generals, and then blame those same generals for "their" mistakes when it all goes tits up?

Everyone always has a better idea of what should be done than the person charged with actually doing it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

the tail should never wag the dog... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Beta on, I say.

AerialTarget
06-16-2005, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
I think the torque effect (including zero for the P-38) is, overall, better. Takeoff torque is not the only factor affecting takeoff, though. They still haven't even hinted at the instability caused by the landing gear, I can still rollout on landing straight ahead without any rudder input. The locking tailwheel on many aircraft was for this rolling instability as much as, if not more than, the engine torque. Torque also seems to be overwhelming any aerodynamic stability in accellerated stalls. As a matter of personal opinion, there seems to be very little aerodynamic stability

I agree. The game is still far from perfect. However, the folks saying that it's arcade compared to three point zero four have obviously never touched a real stick or yoke. Even if, as some of the patch haters suggest (and which I have wondered myself), the new flight model is exaggerated, is is definitely more complex and difficult to fly. Right or not, it's not more arcade!

Tully__
06-18-2005, 04:42 AM
So far I'm impressed. I'm runing:

2.0GHz P4
1G PC2100 RAM
GF4 Ti4600
Creative Vibra! 128 soundcard
5600rpm hdd's

FPS is a bit down, but no more pauses than I always had with this setup. This includes a session in VFC*HOST coops with the new clouds turned on. For a game that is in the words of the developers "..very demanding on hardware", this is very impressive performance in my books.

Capt.England
06-18-2005, 05:25 AM
Just my two pence/cents,

I run an;
3.06Ghz Hyper Threading P4.
1 Gig Ram.
One 160 Gig Hd, one 200 Gig Hd.
FX5600 256mb Graphics Card.
On board sound.

The trouble that most people have with graphics issues can be sorted by changing drivers. As for low frame rates without any other graphic issues then try this.

If your using XP, go to Control panel, performance and maintenance, system, advanced, performance settings, advanced, virtual memory, and let system managed size be ticked for any Hard drives (or partition's) that you may have.

At the moment, my page file is currently allocated 4772 MB. You should see how smooth games run with full settings on my rig!

As always, this may help you all out, or may not. Just make sure that you make an restore point before changing settings so that if it goes wrong then you can go back to your old settings.

arcadeace
06-18-2005, 05:26 AM
Ya Tully but can you fly into one of those clouds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

triggerhappyfin
06-18-2005, 07:58 AM
Several years back there was this Russian guy who developed a flight sim and distanced all the competition (grafics wice and FM wise)so thoroughly they´ve not been able to catch up yet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

And now this same guy takes such a leap in FM development within flightsimming nobody will catch up in years to come...way to go Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

ryl2005
06-18-2005, 08:02 AM
you have to uninstall and reinstall it if you really want to see the performance upgrade of 4.01,i have the same conclusion and problem as with the others before, 4.01 over 4.00 the flight characteristic is somewhat inaccurate that it's almost impossible to stall the plane during evasive manuever making sharp turn, but if you did the correct upgrade you will surely noticed the difference, although i will missed how AI performed in 3.04
their maneuvers is exagerated to be exact.
And yes accuracy does'nt always mean to be more difficult.
Some who said that it is becoming more of an arcade game is way to wrong, ask any of your friend who knows about playing flight sim with play station just to simply fly this thing up or even get close to the enemy by 600 meter or simply climbing up to 2000 meter, if they can then you probably be right.

To be more accurate means to be more consistent in overall flight performance, that you will gain something of an experienced and not to be more difficult as many of you did comment

A very experienced combat pilot will tell you that the only difficulties you will encounter in an air combat is to overcome your fear, because you were trained to fly so it will become a natural thing to you, but the fear of loosing one's life is something you have to muster with respect.



Install it this way

FB+AEP+PF+3.03+3.04+4.00

Tully__
06-19-2005, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by Arcadeace:
Ya Tully but can you fly into one of those clouds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have done and haven't noticed any issues, but I was the only plane in the air at the time (practice mission). I'll reserve judgement http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ryl2005
06-21-2005, 02:07 AM
Correction it should be installed

this way
FB+AEP+PF+3.03+3.04+4.01

McThag
06-21-2005, 02:05 PM
I'm running an Athlon XP 2200 at 1.8 gHz, gig RAM and G Force FX 5200.

It's been very playable so far in quick combat.

The way the plane behaves seems "better" but it's nothing I can put my finger on.

I don't play online, so I might not have the same experience as others. But I thought that someone with ancient hardware should post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif