Amazed by High-res Skin

[Olham 164]

I have always been flying with skins on "normal resolution", because damage isn't shown

in "high resolution". But testing Herr Prop-Wasche's new FM for the Albatros, I though I

should try out, how my new Jasta 37 skin would look on "high res".

And I must say, it DOES make quite a difference!

 

I wonder, if any of you guys tried it, or are even flying "high-res" more often?

 

 

Edited June 19, 2011 by Olham

[DukeIronHand 8]

I fly "Normal Skins" for the damage (of course) but the high rez shot is indeed beautiful.

 

Wonder why the high rez skins can't show damage?

 

Just as well - probably be too much for my older system anyway.

 

Does look nice though!

 

EDIT: I was so impressed with the screen shot it went over my head - new Alb FM?

Edited June 19, 2011 by DukeIronHand

[Olham 164]

Yes, Herr Prop-Wasche is working on the FM (flight model) and DM (damage model) for several planes.

He asked me to testfly the Albatros versions, which I am doing right now.

 

So far I have only tried out the Albatros D.Va, and I must say, that he did an excellent job on it!

I had complained, that the craft was powerless far below it's service ceiling already.

Now he has found a way, which keeps the impression of heavyness (heavy on the controls),

but eliminates the weakness at higher altitudes.

The craft felt absolutely true - a heavy fighter with a 185 PS engine, as it should be!

When HPW has these models finished, he will make them available for all to download.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Olham

[DukeIronHand 8]

I will be eagerly awaiting.

[Olham 164]

When they are all as good as the Albatros D.Va, then he made his masterpiece, Duke.

He doesn't make the plane at all any sort of "ueber" - it just feels more right, it's heavy,

but it doesn't blubber like a dying soap foam machine at 11.000 feet. Excellent job!

Edited June 19, 2011 by Olham

[Macklroy 2]

Olham, I 'only" fly the high res skins. I can never see the tiny little holes anyway, and all "major" damage is still displayed with high res.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Olham, I 'only" fly the high res skins. I can never see the tiny little holes anyway, and all "major" damage is still displayed with high res.

 

I think I'm gonna start flying High Res too...for that very reason

[Olham 164]

I'd like to see your Camel again then in "high res" then, Widowmaker.

[33LIMA 972]

Can't wait to try the HPW FM for tha Albatros, I know the RFC (Lewis) reported a captured example heavy on the controls but the stock OFF FM seems to me just too unresponsive.

 

BTW Olham as a frequent Alb driver, do you find the Albatros LODs (DV and DIII ant least) have the undercarriage disappearing at about 240 yards/metres? Mine do and I find it a bit distracting, they are clearly visible as Albatros but very visibly have no wheels, until they snap into view at close range. Was wondering if it's just me. The Walfisch is definitely better. either the higher LOD 3-d model is in view for a longer range or it has a better mid-range LOD model.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I'd like to see your Camel again then in "high res" then, Widowmaker.

 

It doesn't look much different Olham to be honest.....the SE looks a bit different though...I'll post a screenie of them both later

 

ps: the change in AA tip you suggested certainly makes a big difference!...I avoided doing it for FPS reasons...but it hasnt affected it much at all...a possible 2-5fps drop...which is certainly livable..so thanks again

Edited June 22, 2011 by UK_Widowmaker

[Hasse Wind 46]

Can't wait to try the HPW FM for tha Albatros, I know the RFC (Lewis) reported a captured example heavy on the controls but the stock OFF FM seems to me just too unresponsive.

 

Lewis was used to much more nimble Entente aircraft, so the Alb must have felt heavy compared to some Nupe, for example. Apples and oranges...

 

I'm also looking forward to the HPW FM. I use his improved N.28 FM, and it's great. Also his DM mod works really well.

[Olham 164]

Can't wait to try the HPW FM for tha Albatros, I know the RFC (Lewis) reported a captured example

heavy on the controls but the stock OFF FM seems to me just too unresponsive.

I read a test report from one RFC pilot (can't remember who), who found the Albatros very different to the RFC's

nimble and agile light craft, but he also noticed positively, that the Albatros was a "calm", well balanced and

easy to fly type, which he could imagine made aiming and shooting much easier.

He also noted the great overall vision you had from it's cockpit.

 

As Hasse Wind said, you will find her heavy and far less responsive, when you come from a nimble turn fighter,

but on the other hand, I find those turn fighters always too nervous for aiming and hitting anything.

It is surely a question of what you get used to - and I love the Albatros' predictable, reliable behaviour.

 

 

BTW Olham as a frequent Alb driver, do you find the Albatros LODs (DV and DIII ant least) have the undercarriage disappearing at about 240 yards/metres?

What is LOD? In my sim, the undercarriage doesn't disappear (see my screenshots).

[DukeIronHand 8]

For those of you flying high rez skins are you experiencing a frame rate loss?

Especially in multi-plane dogfights?

[Olham 164]

Not me, no. Since I have my Intel i5 CPU, all works fine, although I still run the same ATI HD4870 (1 GB).

[Macklroy 2]

Didnt notice any difference in performance with high or reg res skins on either one of my machines Duke.

 

 

[DukeIronHand 8]

S!

[+Polovski 456]

We spent a lot of time on research and testing on the Albatros FM feel and overall I think we have it about right, and of course everyone has an opinion.

 

It's a solid war machine designed for killing with 2 guns and loads of ammo, not a twitchy delicate flying machine like the Brits made. The RFC pilot test report commented on the very heavy feel of the Albatros controls and response compared to the light allied craft like Nieuports.

[33LIMA 972]

I read a test report from one RFC pilot (can't remember who), who found the Albatros very different to the RFC's

nimble and agile light craft, but he also noticed positively, that the Albatros was a "calm", well balanced and

easy to fly type, which he could imagine made aiming and shooting much easier.

He also noted the great overall vision you had from it's cockpit.

 

As Hasse Wind said, you will find her heavy and far less responsive, when you come from a nimble turn fighter,

but on the other hand, I find those turn fighters always too nervous for aiming and hitting anything.

It is surely a question of what you get used to - and I love the Albatros' predictable, reliable behaviour.

 

 

 

What is LOD? In my sim, the undercarriage doesn't disappear (see my screenshots).

 

 

Hi Olham

 

LOD = Level Of Detail, whereby a sim substitutes different, more detailed 3-D models of things - planes in this case - as you get closer. In EAW for example I think it went from a dot, to a 2-D cross, to a basic 3-D plane, to the full 3-D plane which you see when it is close. There was a utility for EAW which let you push the LOD settings out. In RD3d too IIRC, tho the transitions from one LOD to the other could sometimes be sudden and a bit too visible.

 

In OFF, I can see what looks the switch from second closest LOD, to closest LOD, in the Alb DIII and DV. With labels on, at a range of about 240 (yards/metres? - had to tell with the CFS3 'fisheye lens' view) looking at my wingmen as they close up behind me, I can see their undercarriage quite suddenly appear, like they suddenly lowered it! Before that, they had none; I can see fuselage, tail and wings fairly clearly, but no undercart. I don't think it's there but just not clear, or that it's a resolution issue; I'm playing at my monitor's native 1600x900, with now 4xAA. Flying Rolands, I can see the undercarriage on them further away - even tho it is not very clear, it is there. On the DIII and DV, it is invisible till they are close, and suddenly pops into view. Usually this is an LOD issue. In CFS3 config/Custom Settings/Texture info I see there is a slider for 'Max Model LOD' which may affect this - mine is at the default 100. I will try varying this - may I ask, what is yours set at?

 

At the other extreme - longer range - maybe it's the sim, maybe it's my settings - I dislike the fact that planes seem invisible over about a mile, sometimes closer - after takeoff as I swing around on my first circuit just a couple of hundred feet up and just outside the airfield boundary, I often have a very hard time seeing my own wingmen while they are still on or starting their takeoff run.

 

In First Eagles/FE2, on spotting the puffs of 'Archie', I would cautiously approach, gaining height if necessary and swinging around so as to come in behind and above the enemy, or maybe to cut them off. I could rely on picking out the individual planes quite a way off, and at least establish numbers, formation, height and heading. If I liked what I saw and got a bit closer, I could see whether they were scouts or 2 seaters. All this, while still maintaining enough separation to give me the option of engaging or not. In OFF I'm finding that I have to get a lot closer to get the same picture, and in doing so I am closing down on my options, more than once having to engage under unfavourable terms which I could have avoided, had I got the picture sooner. I like to be able to play the calculating McCudden/Mannock/MvR/Boelcke way, not Ball/Guymemer, and pick my fights not charge in, I'm not good enough for that! I do not like using either the 'radar'/TAC (which I set at 1 mile), or labels, or padlock, to 'see' things that are invisible on the screen. It's quite frustrating, getting quite close to a skyfull of AA fire, and still be unabIe to 'eyeball' the targets, unless they are against sky or clouds, and even then they seem to have to be quite close. I think LOD models visible at longer range would help. I tried your FOV guide to see if a more 'zoomed in' screen helped to make distant planes clearer but that didn't seem to help.

 

Maybe with different settings I could avoid disappearing Albatros undercarriage and see planes further away, but I haven't found the magic formula yet.

[33LIMA 972]

We spent a lot of time on research and testing on the Albatros FM feel and overall I think we have it about right, and of course everyone has an opinion.

 

It's a solid war machine designed for killing with 2 guns and loads of ammo, not a twitchy delicate flying machine like the Brits made. The RFC pilot test report commented on the very heavy feel of the Albatros controls and response compared to the light allied craft like Nieuports.

 

 

Fair comment, by mid-1917 MvR seemed to have regarded the DV - 'that accursed Albatros' I think he called it, even if he may have been over-stating it a bit to help push for better kit - as entirely outclassed and for my sins it's the DV I especially like to fly. If I want to have fun in an Albatros I suppose I should instead fly DIIs or DIIIs against their natural prey, FEs, BEs and DH2s. That's the best thing about OFF, the range of flyables...and the landscapes, that's the TWO best things about OFF, the planes and the landscapes...and the weather, that's the THREE best things about OFF...Cardinal Biggles, the soft cushions!

 

Edited June 23, 2011 by 33LIMA

[Olham 164]

The disappearing undercarriage was never mentioned by anyone before you, LIMA - must be a problem of your system.

 

The D.V was not so outclassed in mid-1917; Arthur Lee Gould mentions the RNAS boys asking for the Camel,

because they regard their Sopwith Triplanes as being outclassed by the Albatros D.V ! The Triplane!

 

"...the three best things are the planes, the landscapes, and the weather - and the depth of the campaign,

that's the four... - ahh, I'll come in again!"

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

We spent a lot of time on research and testing on the Albatros FM feel and overall I think we have it about right, and of course everyone has an opinion.

 

It's a solid war machine designed for killing with 2 guns and loads of ammo, not a twitchy delicate flying machine like the Brits made. The RFC pilot test report commented on the very heavy feel of the Albatros controls and response compared to the light allied craft like Nieuports.

 

Hi, all.

 

I am trying to be very careful about the changes I am making to the FM's of the various aeroplanes. For those that will be willing to try them, I don't think they will find anything too out of the ordinary. The major difference that I think people will notice is that the AI will not "belly flop' so much in the Albatros. IOW, they won't zoom up, hang on their prop, and stall in front of your guns like they sometimes do now. At low altitudes, this behavior also sometimes causes them to crash into the ground tail first. I think my changes to the Albatros FM has at least partially solves these problems. The main drawback is that the Alb FM will feel slightly heavier on the controls for the human pilot, but not too significant.

 

Other FM changes will include slight changes to the top speed and ceiling--for some of the Albs there will be decreases, for others, increases. Turn rates will be almost identical. In the end, though, my FM will simply represent my interpretation of the FM. It is not meant to supplant the official version, nor do i make any claims that mine will be better or any more authentic than the official one.

[von Baur 54]

The D.V was not so outclassed in mid-1917; Arthur Lee Gould mentions the RNAS boys asking for the Camel,

because they regard their Sopwith Triplanes as being outclassed by the Albatros D.V ! The Triplane!

 

 

The grass is always greener...