same here...no worky with 190.68 drivers...bugger

You can understand why Neoqb haven't implemented combimed supersample aa from inside ROF, its just such a framerate hog. Its a shame because it cures all the shimmering landscape problems.

Removing the shimmering does reveal another problem though, ROF's terrain below 500ft really isn't that special.

"Removing the shimmering does reveal another problem though, ROF's terrain below 500ft really isn't that special."

You said it Mogster. The terrain is high on my list for improvement, it just doesn't really cut the mustard for a supposed "next gen" flight sim. Trees are good, but not much else. Not to mention the fact that you are perpetually flying over "Virtual Holland", its so flat. Makes Kiera Knightley look like chesty morgan by way of comparison lol . I just wish they could somehow recruit the terrain people from "Empire:Total War" (Only other thing I play apart from flight sims). But do they need to? The talent is obviously there, with the beautiful aircraft/City models, so I'm sure its within their scope to improve it? Heres hoping.

Maybe its a performance/frame rate thing. But if you look at what is planned for the next DCS module for example (and hopefully retrofitted to Black Shark) you can see what is possible. But what I know about programming/modelling etc you could write on the back of a postage stamp, and still have room. With all that said, I can live with it for the time being, its "functional", fine from altitude, and I still love Falcon4, eye candy isn't everything. Flight models and "feel" come first for me. But eye candy is nice. And I like nice things.

Mongo like candy

Ming

If you google their forums you can d/l a beta version that does run with the latest nvid drivers.

cheers simbo....will have a look for them

ok...did the new nhancer stuff,now....

we have 3 sets of settings Nhancer, Nvidia and ROF...do i turn off settings in ROF(AA and AF) and Nvidia and let Nhancer do the work?

We're not flying missions with lighting like that in the basic-training shots above. I hope. So FSAA dramas are fairly irrelevant

I love the French countryside as rendered by neocube, to me it looks very realistic under realistic weather conditions as in the shot below. There could be more farmhouses and more sharply-defined smaller roads, hedgerows, churches and so on but the terrain only looks flat when you're above 1000ft. That's how it looks in reality at that height. Drive around the lawn and see what it looks like. Quite lumpy isn't it after all

Ming

You want a teleportation of the Alp mountains on the Flandre fields????
Of course the terrain is flat... because in reality it IS flat.
The terrain elevation model is totally accurate.
(And by the way, if you have time, fly a bit over the map SE, you will see some hills).

Yes the terrain looks fine to me,,,sooooo much better than Microshaft FX

I asked the same question mate and no reply yet !!

here are the links for new nhancer which supports the latest nvidia drivers

Nhancer 2.5.3 Beta 1 (32Bit)
Nhancer 2.5.3 Beta 1 (64bit)

Bonjour Rama, mon ami No need for the sarcasm about the Alps, not quite what I'm after. Ok you're French. I'll be honest, I have only visited the South of France (North when a kid on a school trip, but can barely remember.) But what I will say is that a "topographical" study of where I live in the North East of England would make one think the area is "totally flat", when in fact it is anything but. No expert on the subject, but one would assume there has to be a minimum level of elevation for this to be noted on said map. Hence it appearing to be flat. A walk 10 minutes from where I live down the "Burn" tells a very different tale. I am fairly sure the same applies to the area of France in question. No amount of google photos will dissuade me, I could easily find one showing different.

The terrain looks terrible by todays standards Rama, sorry but its the truth. It looks like an 8 year old kid on sedatives has been unleashed with a crayon. This is an accurate representation of rural France? Sacre bleu! Makes one wonder how you became the agricultural Euro-powerhouse you are today. France is overwhelmingly agrarian, this much I know. The French have always been farmers....par excellence So where are the fields of (I'm guessing here) wheat and maize? Ok, war affects agriculture we know, but folk still need to eat. Please don't tell me you are saying this terrain looks anywhere near half decent, and I haven't even mentioned lighting.

In fairness, like most I have not explored the whole map. I may be pleasantly surprised. Then again a flying pig may do a Kamikaze attack through my window as I write, and slap me in the face with a Trout. Highly unlikely, but not beyond the realms of possibility.

And please don't call me a "Rosbeef", Rama. That would really hurt my feelings

As did I, however it did not apply the settings. I've had this issue with nHancer before. Once I've manually activated it, the changes are evident in the nvapps file, and I don't need to do it again.

must

190.38 drivers

I've had this issue with nHancer before

You've got it again

Ming

Really? Go to page 2. To be clearer:


AA and AF should be overridden by making changes to your driver level settings using nHancer. Leave vSynch on app controlled, and set that in RoF. As always, post effects may disable AA settings, so be sure those are off. nHancer changes the same file that you modify when using the nVidia control panel, so nHancer settings will be undone if you adjust the RoF profile there. N time to repeat my suggested settings, but they are in the post on page 2 also.

Its not always foggy in N France From reading Yeates and Lewis I'm not sure WW1 flyers would have left the ground in those sorts of conditions, they seem to have been grounded for days at a time by low cloud.

Lighting does make a big difference, ROF's and IL2's terrain looks far more interesting a 7am/7pm the 12noon, the dev's should change the time of their free fly missions. ROF's terain is OK but as you say there's just a lack of buildings and sharp features in Neoqb's terrain to make it look more exciting. DCS Black shark's environment is much better and its being upgraded.

Here's a screen from ED's DCS, a deliberately chosen flat bit This runs very well and looks real something which IL2's and ROF's terrain do not imo.

As you said, you're not an expert... I am (I'm a mapping ingeneer).
When I say that the elevation model for neoqb's map is accurate, I know it... since I provided it... (derived from real and accurate data of course...).



The terrain looks "terrible" to you, because (as you almost said) you have a preconcieved idea about how it should be... but no real knowing of it... don't mixt "the truth" with YOUR truth.
Terrain textures were made from real aerial photos (I also provided), and the texturing job is (in my point of view) well done, showing well the area field distribution.
It is also made with the use of digitized map of 1900 (I also provided). The road network and railroad network is then accurate as are the rivers and the forest areas.

What is missing on the map is towns (only a part of them are built), villages (almost none are on the map) and individual farms.
This is probably what gives you the feeling of "emptyness" (gives me also if I fly low). The problem is that the map is huge, and if you place an accurate density of villages and individual farms on it... it would be unloadable.

Now, the mission editors allows to place whatever you want on the map, and for local missions it could be done... I have no doubt some mission designers will do it for individual local missions. But doing it for the whole map is a daunting task... and quite useless, since the map would be unloadable.


This isn't very important... but in 1900, maize wasn't cultivated in France NE


I'm sorry to tell you that I find this terrain much better than "half decent", except for the lack of small villages and farms (and I include the lighting)
I also fly in real... and I must say that with RoF it's the real first time I have the impression to fly virtually on something "close to real" with a bit of altitude, with good sence of altitude depth and believable lighting.


Use the mission editor to place a flight on the SE side on the map, and you will be able to see the hills (same places as they are in real...)

Rama, ED's DCS engine manages to load a large map with individual houses and farms modelled and the ground textures are far more detailed than ROF's. ROF's ground textures are quite bland and repetetive.

DCS isn't perfect by any means, there's some blurry textures around low down but its the best NOE terrain available in a flightsim.

As you said, you're not an expert... I am (I'm a mapping ingeneer).
When I say that the elevation model for neoqb's map is accurate, I know it... since I provided it... (derived from real and accurate data of course...)

Never argue with opinionated amateurs Rama, it's a waste of breath

Tell me mate, what are those two mounds/hillocks very close to the aerodrome at Bruay? I can't quite see their scale, seen in the FreeFly/Takeoff mission. They remind me of hill forts and burial mounds found in southern England

Ming