The default bloom settings for the ultra preset apply to pretty much all lighting in the game and are, to me, extremely excessive. They seem to be that way to increase perceived contrast, which is what tone mapping and other effects are better for.
Comparing your second shots from srv, yeah there's less bloom there, but at least from my these are lights that are if not significantly more powerful then stadium lights, and bloom effect is often used to represent the 'overwhelming' part of light, so yeah, dunno, I don't notice it that much
Peter panning shadows are visible on most ships with fins and other narrow protrusions, except at the most oblique of angles, especially at the 200-500m range. The Beluga and Dolphin are prime examples.
Well I don't fly those regularly but i'll check with my Baluga.
The tweaks to texture resolution I mention apply to three things:
- The galaxy background.
- Planet surface textures.
- Reflections on shiny surfaces when viewed from outside the cockpit.
I know of no way to increase the texture resolutions for the things you mention.
I really can't see any difference in the planet surface textures in the srv picture, so yeah, as for galaxy background yeah that one entirely is up to personal taste, and in terms of reflective surfaces yeah I do see your point.
I can easily bench the difference between core parking enabled and disabled on heavily threaded memory/latency sensitive applications in Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 and have noticed some minor issues with affinities with it enabled in games (if you increase worker threads and have core parking enabled they tend to be stacked onto the same logical cores rather than waking up parked logical cores on the same physical core). I generally turn it off as disabling it can't harm anything other than low-moderate load power consumption, which I consider to be completely irrelevant on a desktop. I never recommend disabling it on laptops as it noticeably harms battery life.
It's not going to make a huge difference, and I expect people to use their own discretion, though maybe I'll include a stronger disclaimer when I edit the OP.
I'm not saying there isn't a responsiveness difference, but for the average user i'd still recommend power settings way before they mess with core parking.
I totally get you are recommending it to help people, but unfortunately, the average person, and this isn't to offend anyone, simply do not know what they are doing, and i've repaired countless of computers, where people in good faith followed online lists and recommendations and something went wrong all the wrong ways. That isn't to say it never goes right, I simply express how important it is to have a disclaimer around advanced tinkering with a computer.
Probably the bloom reduction. I basically cut the area and magnitude in half, but that may be too low for taste.
Nope not the bloom reduction, as said can't put my finger on it, I think it may be related to reflections they seem off, as in not reflecting entirely correctly anymore, though just saw you posted a tweak on the 17's which I must have skipped over, which mentions reflections could be that.
Last time I tried increasing LOD distance it did nothing, but I will test it again. It's possible I used an out of range value last time and then dismissed it.
If it does work, I'll probably have to drop down to 1440p as even with an overclocked 1080 ti I have essentially zero performance to spare around surface bases at 4k if I want to target a 60 fps minimum.
Well what is your terrain work at? having it at max is really not that great of an idea, your card should be more then fast enough to generate before you see it anyway, and if you max it out, it will cut significantly into your fps.
