Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Erik

      2022 Support Drive   09/01/2022

      Our support drive for 2022 has kicked off. You can find out more about it here: Please Donate or Subscribe

redwolf

JUNIOR MEMBER
  • Content count

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Neutral

About redwolf

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Maple Ridge, BC, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

2,437 profile views
  1. No typo. And indeed just checked once again. V.1 had the higher FPS average vs. V.2 for some reason (5 run average) - (though v2 consistently had the higher minimum averages, even beating stock, however). Perhaps the bottom line is that they are close, and offer what many may consider an improvement to stock clouds while not generating that much/minimal FPS hit.
  2. Okay, some empirical results from testing (simply from my own personal system, using just Snipes Intercept DFW scenario (same method as in Benchmark Comparisons...thread): 4L0M's Cloud Mod v1.0 : -2.27% FPS vs stock (this is probably within margin of error) 4L0M's Cloud Mod v2.0: - 5.16% FPS vs stock - so yes, light on FPS hit (and indeed does appear to be a difference between the two, with v1.0 being the gentler of the two. Both look great (though the stock clouds are decent anyway - but prefer the look of the mod instead (more developed verticals, for example). As with everything, it is a cost-benefit analysis and evaluation for each individual.
  3. Was wondering the same thing. I just came across a V1 and a V2 and thought you might meant that (and I expected a lot smaller file size for V1), but alas, that wasn't the case (found on: https://thatoneplease.co/WOFF.html -- under Sky) - no specific 1MB package/option found. The 4L0M (v1) is lighter than BB's (which give my system a bit of a wallop - very noticeably so immediately), but how much so I haven't measured yet (nor compared to v2 or stock)).
  4. Hey VonS, thanks for this! Will give them a try. With the old lady under the hood, I am looking at only mods that increase FPS or maintains FPS (and certainly no more than a tiny modest increase) - so mentioning FPS experiences is particularly useful, thanks.
  5. Alrighty, this is probably my final update in this thread unless of course there are new updates to game or mods that may impact things - and again, this is only my experiences in testing to date (system specs in first post) - results could vary substantially depending on hardware, drivers, and individual settings. ......................... I mentioned earlier that fps actually seemed to be increasing by actually increasing workshop settings (particularly terrain related settings (Terrain Detail (TD), Scenery Density (SD), Terrain Shadow Detail (TS)) - and this through testing with stock has indeed proved to be the case (I have been altering them in unison pretty much - so which one in particular (or whether it is a combined effect), I do not know. However, I can tell you that in switching between 3-3-3, 2-2-2, and 4-4-2 all produced fps gains by increasing the settings (in the range of 5-10% (also held true with tuner mods as well) -- which at face value seems counter-intuitive, but nevertheless was what I experienced through the testing procedure. Surprisingly, 2-2-2 generating the lowest fps averages, 4-4-2 the best. Unknown regarding 5-5-2 as I don't have the breath of data there (though data suggests that upward trend may have reached peak at 4-4-2 (with a downward decline at 5-5-2 - but I can't conclusively confirm this in my case). ......................... I don't have fully fledge testing numbers of all the tuner mods (default settings), as quite frankly, I was wearing down and it was easier for me to concentrate on what helped me the most (as mentioned (and can be seen in the tech support forum) - I have issue with the virtual cockpit fluidity since moving to BH&H II from PE - with BH&H II perhaps performing at about 65% -70% fluidity in virtual cockpit pan as I had previously) - I know I couldn't stay at stock with current situation (and although fps increase with increase in workshop settings as mentioned, it didn't help my issue and perhaps was making it slightly worse with each iteration). VonS GPU tuner (PE) indeed helped a bit (giving me perhaps 75-80% in this regard), but still quite noticeable to me. Panama Red's tuners seemed to have the best impact for me regarding virtual cockpit (getting me to perhaps 85% of what I had) while both increasing average fps over stock by a fair bit and looking good too. For now, barring individual tweaking of the settings in the tuners, I will be sticking with that and I can report some fully benchmarked with it. ................................................. Results This is with terrain workshop settings increased to 4-4-2 and switched over to Panama Red's SI (Quality) (formerly balanced). This, all things considered, is looking to be the sweat spot for me and my system. Defend: 90.1 FPS average Snipes: 75.7 FPS average Large: 86.0 FPS average Overall FPS Average: 83.9 (for comparison purposes and rather indicative of what I mentioned above, at 2-2-2 with PR (balanced), the Average FPS was 73.5!) **a side note - purely anecdotal, in my experience I have seen far less micro-stutters with BH&H II vs PE - remarkably so. It hasn't entirely been eliminated however (not sure that will ever realistically be possible). What I have noticed (and I feel bad saying this as it is an amazing piece of work and has overall done a very good job both with image quality and fps improvement (hats off to you VonS!)) - is that if I have been seeing some stutter or noticing it more, it tends to happen more often the odd times it does occur with VonS Gpu tuner running (been using 1,2, + 4). Going back and forth between stock, PR, and VonS often enough now, I can say that at least that appears to be the case in my circumstance. Not sure why that is or whether that has just been an anomaly - or whether it is my Nvidia hardware or something unique to my system. Just I have seen it enough in comparison to suggest that this is happening a bit more for me with that tuner vs stock & PR. Happy Flying everyone!
  6. Ya, idk either. But I literally went from a perfectly working virtual with PE, uninstalled, installed BH&H II and it has been that way ever since - nothing installed in the intermediary at all. It is really odd. Pans perfectly with hat. Then switch to virtual cockpit and it is an entirely different matter. Anyway, even lowering stock and workshop terrain items down to 2 still causes issues - I just can't get away with stock an have a nicely running virtual cockpit. BTW, through a lot of trial and error, I found that Panama Red's SI mod does the best to mitigates the issue (whatever tuning it precisely does helps the most) and it is a lot better than any stock setting regarding virtual fluidity (plus bonus gives a fair bit of a FPS boost as well) - though it still isn't quite the way it used to be with PE (but I can live with it now -- btw running PR SI (Quality) with terrain settings now upped to 4 (was the best overall combo for the situation and my system to date).
  7. Regarding mods - for me a crucial situation with stock has been a real hit in the fluidity of virtual cockpit compared to PE (and I like to use virtual cockpit) - so that is a major impetus with me (plus having a lower system and trying to squeeze or get as close to previous performance I had). Ironically, I am now investigating an interesting turn of events - based on test findings to date and also VonS's and BB's comments, I am looking at actually increasing workshop settings and running the mods, and I'll be damned, I am liking what I am seeing so far! Suddenly got near smooth virtual as well and an actual INCREASE in fps. Early, but my gosh is it trending well...
  8. Thanks VonS. Just some numbers now (and yes, same identical testing procedure, yada, yada, yada... ) and these with the terrain workshop settings (TR, SC, TS lowered to 2-2-2) on my rig. FPS Averages (all runs, all scenarios combined): Stock: 74.7 VonS (Pe): 74.8 PR (Balanced) (PE): 73.5 So no real quantifiable difference in fps at those particular workshop settings (or at the very least, the results are certainly close enough and within the margin of error to suggest that they are the same). Indeed, when comparing the results to the prior testing with 3-3-3, both mods seem to have lost any benefit they were generating for me whatsoever - now falling back to stock levels.
  9. JSGME

    I don't have an extensive list - just been benchmarking differences between stock and the GPU tuners by VonS and Panama Red in BH&H II (and yes they work). I do know that VonS's FM's are incompatible (scrape point issues (sound related)) - but as to everything else, idk.
  10. Yes, I'd like to be higher in the terrain related settings as well, tbh - but if I am going to run with the virtual cockpit, it is going to have to be a give and take with BH&H II as it isn't working out well with Stock 3-3-3 for me (though non-virtual is absolutely fine - it is a shame it isn't matching PE here for me). So it's going to be either 3-3-3 (terrain related) with mods or 2-2-2 stock (or 2-2-2 stock with mods) at the moment --- still testing. And thanks for the info. Though I am not a modder myself (only real tweaking experience in the past with me has been reshade & settings there), the PR (balance) one, by description seems to suggest it works with all settings (high or low) and I thought VonS (PE) would be the same -- but you may be quite right. Testing through PR at lower right now and it isn't bearing too much fruit at the moment (similar to VonS)...but still testing.
  11. JSGME

    It works fine as is. Already been running and testing mods in BH&H II with it - no worries.
  12. Thanks. I haven't seen one yet. There is a rectangular'ish lake not that far from St. Omer (that could appear as a blue triangle depending on the positioning), so you perhaps could be seeing that - idk. But no, personally I haven't seen one so far (though I've been almost equally split between mods and stock). ................... Also interesting further discovers (but still early to tell conclusively), but the mods seem to have diminishing returns once one starts turning down the landscape settings in workshop (at least very much appear that way in my case anyway (eg. VonS PE is performing pretty much identical to stock fps when I brought TR, SC, and TS down to 2 (previously all at 3) - though the low end of the fps ranges are still up. PR (balanced) is looking to be the same so far too). It may indeed be the case that the benefit gained is enhanced the higher you go perhaps, but then hits close to par with stock when dropped below 3 - not sure, but looking that way.
  13. UPDATE: Though these have no actual barring in the FPS comparison between sets (as this has been strictly maintained/controlled in each case), these are my Workshop settings that I have been using with my system in both PE and now in BH&H II in case anyone was interested: AC 5 ,TR 3, SC 3, EF 5, CL 5, AS 5, TS 3, TBM 1, CSS 9, CSD 8, EnR 5, GL 5, DL 1 I utilized the exact same testing procedure as detailed in first post. I tested out Panama Red's "WOFF PE Scenery Improved (Balanced)" with BH&H II (it includes various fps tweaks (so is more than just its title, jsyk)) and also by suggestion and request, VonS's WOTR GPU tuner (properly installed and injected into BH&H II). I utilized both VonS_MaxFPSnGraphicsGPUtuner_ver1.1 with VonS_MaxFPSnGraphicsGPUtuner_ver1.2 - it was thought that the WOTR tunes may be better suited for BH&H II vs. his PE GPU tuner. I will consolidate data from previous testing for comparison purposes as well. Results (numbers indicate FPS average): BH&H II Stock With VonS GPU tuner (PE) With PR SI (Balanced) (PE) With VonS GPU tuner (WOTR) Defend 77.5 97.9 94.9 95.3 Snipes 64.1 73.1 76.6 65.1 Large DF 70.0 86.1 83.2 66.8 Average 70.5 85.7 84.9 75.7 Average Change vs Stock +22.6% + 20.4% +7.4% Obviously results can vary per system and settings. These have just been my precise experiences on mine through as controlled a testing procedure I could do (see disclaimer first post). And these all offer differences in visual experiences as well -- and those are far more subjective so I will leave it in this post as a purely factual numbers. Hope this has been interesting or useful to some of you - and thank you both VonS and Panama Red for your work with WOFF - outstanding! And thank you BH&H II developers for creating such an amazing simulation and indeed, tribute. It is absolutely incredible! (as is the series in totality). On a personal note, I am continuing to investigate settings/changes/alterations that can help me mitigate an issue near and dear to me that seems to be the only real drawback/negative - and that is the fluidity of mouse view in particular that has changed for me since moving to BH&H II - however, since it is of more personal nature, I will reframe from posting my continued investigation of it in here. Happy flying everyone!
  14. Guess what?

    LOL, I am a stone's throw from Vancouver - and yes, my internet is usually lightning fast -- just bad timing or bad luck (or as I said in simhq - just got a bad socket, lol). It's all good. I have it now and it was faster with the alternate link.
  15. Okay, I have been going back and forth with it on and off - and also took screenshots for myself to compare. Honestly, the visual distance is very similar - if anything, I can see further with VonS Gpu tuner tweaks I had installed (previously mentioned). No real difference in distance quality that I can see/or notice anyway. There is perhaps slightly less trees (but you really have to be looking for it). What is different however, is that VonS has a sharpening in the shaders I believe and also a bit of a difference in the lighting/colorization - tuned to the previous PE that was more undefined/soft and a bit lacking in that nice green with stock. However, this isn't necessary with BH&H II as the developers have already sharpened the landscape. With VonS (and this is difficult because unlike fps measuring, it is purely a measure of opinion/taste) I find it a bit too sharp and prefer the natural stock colorization (or lighting (if that is indeed impacting)) - Von S is appearing subtly a bit more yellow and/or lighter. Prefer stock here. And yes, Pol and Winder have done a fantastic job with the new edition for sure! In my case, since I am relatively "lower end" I suppose, I am just struggling a bit more than others I suppose to get better fps and maintain that awesome visual quality. Of particular concern to me personally however, is the mouse view (as I use that as my main way to look around (I have it mapped to mini-stick on throttle), and it has definitely taken a hit in fluidity vs PE with identical workshop settings. VonS has helped improved that -- though I am still examining (incidentally I just threw in Panama Red's Balance tweaks/mod and wow, that has the most significantly improved fluidity in my viewing than anything to date - while still keeping stock lighting/colorization (and looks to be quite good on my fps too (still testing - but trending really really well).) Still lots to look at --- and I absolutely LOVE THIS SIM! it is AMAZING!!!! So I am of course going to spend the time to get it the way I want it for my system and my tastes for sure! Happy Flying!
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..