posted 03-27- 11:15 AM               

---

Is there a view messed up or something on the B-17 in PP5.3? The first view (I think) just looks at the navigator's bubble, which you get a nice shot of by just looking forward.

Of note:
I made a multi-bomber Africa mission (9 109E7's,1 190A8 - oops, 9 mancs, 1 lanc -oops, 18 B-17's, 9 F4F escort, 9 SM.79 - definitely needs fixed) and the FPS hoovered around 5FPS (is this related to sim rate?). Most realistic (aside from the mix of bombers) flight I've ever watched (at 5FPS, it was unplayable). Bombers as far as the eye could see, archie not dead on, but still damaged 60% of the bombers, and the escort pulled off the interceptors. If only I had the right number of 190's and Lanc's plus had the FM right on the SM.79.

IP: Logged

posted 03-27- 12:42 PM               

---

Hey Whirlwind. I don't profess to be an expert here, but the view you describe is a position in the B17. Don't know myself, what you can do from this position, but it's always been there. As for the fps being so low, that has everything to do with how many a/c you have in the mission. The more planes the computer is controlling the slower it's going to run. I only have an AMD 300 with a Blaster Banshee 16meg video card and if I have more than 5 planes in the air in a mission (especially alot of bombers), I'm lucky to get 5fps. I'm sure with a really fast pent. and fantastic video card you can fly more planes under AI control before your fps really suffers, but for the average Joe's computer, you can't get that number too high before you suffer in fps quality. Now, for online play, as long as most of the A/C are being flown by humans and not AI, then a large number of planes in a mission shouldn't matter. It all comes down to how much AI is flying. Hope my info is good. Hope it's helpful

IP: Logged

posted 03-27- 05:44 PM               

---

QTip, I'm pretty sure that the FPS is only a CPU issue.. but still, on my AMDK62 500 with 16mg PCI V3 2000 I have a mission with 27 B17's, 3P47's and 5 109's @9fps, and although a little slow, it is actually playable, I think my experience of playing SDOE on an ATI Mach64 (4mb) has kinda helped put FPS into perspective for me, I mean, ok, the faster the better, but to play well, anything above 15fps seems smooth enough to me to fly normally. Even now in the missions I creat I don't get above 25fps, but then, I hate this 2 on 2 thing, much prefere making strike missions etc that use bombed up fighters or bombers, with escorts.

But yes, that crew position was always there, and no, I have not got a clue what it's for other than eyecandy.

------------------
JV~44 "Naturlich"

If you can't beat em.... out run em!
there again, you could go buy a shiny new F4U, and kick some butt!!!
<b>Nats FS-SDOE Site</b>

IP: Logged

posted 03-27- 06:14 PM               

---

Nat is right. I forget who it was, but someone conducted some pretty extensive tests on this and it was discovered that reducing the polygon count of bombers had little affect on framerate. Even so, I think the bombers could be a little more heavily LODed, so to speak.
Anyway, I wonder if there are any other optimizations that can make them less of a burden on the CPU.

[This message has been edited by JT (edited 03-27-2000).]

IP: Logged

posted 03-27- 07:05 PM               

---

Oh, uh, actually, I'm not really complaining about the FPS. I expect it from that many bombers and planes in the air. If the game had a spreadsheet for a flight engine, then FPS would be polygon limited as opposed to physic engine limited. I've no complaints about the current flight dynamics. SDOE, by name, seems to target squad sized battles.

IP: Logged