Give me some encouragement

[JG14_Jagr]

Turn shadows off completely and do it again.

[Husar]

5 hours ago, Spadizzle said:

 

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is....really bad. It's crazy to me how more people are not annoyed by this. It shouldn't be like this. I have a hard time understanding how game developers all sat in a room together, saw this, and then said "yeah, looks good, let's release" lol

Yes, it’s hard to believe they didn’t notice it or review it properly before release.

 

5 hours ago, JG14_Jagr said:

Turn shadows off completely and do it again.

It's a geometry change . Besides, this shouldn't look like this with or without shadows.

 

[JG14_Jagr]

When I look at it and tried to simulate what you did it appears to me that there is no geometric change (other than distant mountain ranges popping into the bubble) and what you are calling geometric changes are shadows popping in and out.  I wasn't recording it but without shadows I don't see what you are pointing out.  I'm on an AMD 9070XT with the 26.7.1 drivers, not sure if that makes a difference.

[AndreiTomescu]

I'm also on a 9070xt, same driver, since the latest is broken (don't use, game crash) and this shimmering is there, but much more rare, like much less frequent, like once at every 2 sec. And totally acceptable, for me.

Shadows on minimal.

Great idea, to turn shadows off! Maybe will lower cpu usage, also? Maybe? 

What would be more taxing on cpu? Shadows or reflections? 

That video looks like i see landscape when I put time compression at 8x. 

Will try shadows off. Just to check how it looks.

[Husar]

37 minutes ago, JG14_Jagr said:

When I look at it and tried to simulate what you did it appears to me that there is no geometric change (other than distant mountain ranges popping into the bubble) and what you are calling geometric changes are shadows popping in and out.  I wasn't recording it but without shadows I don't see what you are pointing out.  I'm on an AMD 9070XT with the 26.7.1 drivers, not sure if that makes a difference.

With shadows turned off, the geometry changes shape.

 

7 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

I'm also on a 9070xt, same driver, since the latest is broken (don't use, game crash) and this shimmering is there, but much more rare, like much less frequent, like once at every 2 sec. And totally acceptable, for me.

Shadows on minimal.

Great idea, to turn shadows off! Maybe will lower cpu usage, also? Maybe? 

What would be more taxing on cpu? Shadows or reflections? 

That video looks like i see landscape when I put time compression at 8x. 

Will try shadows off. Just to check how it looks.

Just F11 free camera. Shadows do make the shape-changing look worse, but it’s obvious even without them.

[JG14_Jagr]

So I'm watching your video and the only thing changing is the trees filling out to the higher LOD  Am I missing something or were your talking about that?

[Husar]

1 hour ago, JG14_Jagr said:

So I'm watching your video and the only thing changing is the trees filling out to the higher LOD  Am I missing something or were your talking about that?

What? How you don't see mountains shape changing at 4K , and yes it a part of lod low poly and higher poly mountains . Anyway mountain changing as a part of screeny look bad and that is more important not that is a shadow or trees fault, which is not.

Edited September 10 by Husar

[BlitzPig_EL]

1 hour ago, JG14_Jagr said:

So I'm watching your video and the only thing changing is the trees filling out to the higher LOD  Am I missing something or were your talking about that?

Don't feel bad, I don't see the difference other than shadows and trees either,  I guess I'm just a prole with a 2K monitor, but I'm a happy prole, wiht a stable 144 frames per second view of the sim.

Edited September 10 by BlitzPig_EL

[Husar]

33 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Don't feel bad, I don't see the difference other than shadows and trees either,  I guess I'm just a prole with a 2K monitor, but I'm a happy prole, wiht a stable 144 frames per second view of the sim.

BTW, don’t look at the nearby mountains where the trees are popping in. Look farther away, before the trees appear. Before that happens, you can already see the mountains changing shape.

 

Edited September 10 by Husar

[Dash,Polder]

Might bother me were it a space shuttle orbiter simulation, that scene is not what will be viewed from an aircraft in a cockpit perspective while flying. 

I've seen far worse from inside a cockpit actually flying, try the Nevada map some time in that other sim.  Entire mountains physically shift and reposition.

[Husar]

6 minutes ago, Dash,Polder said:

Might bother me were it a space shuttle orbiter simulation, that scene is not what will be viewed from an aircraft in a cockpit perspective while flying. 

I've seen far worse from inside a cockpit actually flying, try the Nevada map some time in that other sim.  Entire mountains physically shift and reposition.

It’s a issue because we all noticed it while flying the planes, not by using the camera and I use camera at height which plane do fly. 

Edited September 10 by Husar

[Husar]

54 minutes ago, Dash,Polder said:

Might bother me were it a space shuttle orbiter simulation, that scene is not what will be viewed from an aircraft in a cockpit perspective while flying. 

I've seen far worse from inside a cockpit actually flying, try the Nevada map some time in that other sim.  Entire mountains physically shift and reposition.

I’ve seen better results in the same sim as well.

[Whittle]

I also see geometry variations when zooming in and out whilst flying. For example, switching between wide and narrow view changed the geometry of a ridge, which had the effect of showing or hiding a lake or river which was behind it. I change zoom constantly when searching for contacts and navigating by ground features (ie. almost entire PvP flights), so this is not an "edge case".

I assume they'll work this out when priorities allow it, because it's pretty jarring as it stands.

[kestrel79]

On 9/8/2026 at 9:14 PM, Spadizzle said:

 

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is....really bad. It's crazy to me how more people are not annoyed by this. It shouldn't be like this. I have a hard time understanding how game developers all sat in a room together, saw this, and then said "yeah, looks good, let's release" lol

I noticed it on one of my first flights in the sim. I assumed I had a setting lowered or wrong but then checked and I had all the draw distance settings maxed out. Agreed it's annoying and hope it can get fixed or better in time.

[FuriousMeow]

I'm not sure what miracle you all are expecting.

The other Sim, where this is better supposedly, is the terrain poly the same? Like the most mountainous map? I don't know, only have two fairly flat maps that look the same geometry wise to less detailed poly mesh  in GB where this isn't noticed due to the low poly terrain mesh.   Same with GB, the highest poly map is Kuban and this behavior can be seen but its less extreme because - lower poly - but still evident.

One way or another this will be noticeable. Either it goes from a bigger flatter object or what's going on right now. Or third option - runs like molasses.

Edited September 13 by FuriousMeow

[Koziolek]

But why it happens with barely any load on the computer? At least according to the fps counter. 140 FPS and 1% load is a long way from it to have to run like molasses

Edited September 15 by Koziolek

[FuriousMeow]

Because that's how Level of Detail works. It adjust the geometry based on distance, not on load. And that game load has nothing to do with the load on the gpu which is what has to draw all those triangles.

Edited September 15 by FuriousMeow

[Husar]

3 hours ago, FuriousMeow said:

Because that's how Level of Detail works. It adjust the geometry based on distance, not on load. And that game load has nothing to do with the load on the gpu which is what has to draw all those triangles.

IMHO, it shouldn’t be much of a strain on the GPU to draw more polygons up front. The mountain shapes in LOD 0 aren’t that polygon-heavy as dozens of small objects.

 

[FuriousMeow]

30 minutes ago, Husar said:

IMHO, it shouldn’t be much of a strain on the GPU to draw more polygons up front. The mountain shapes in LOD 0 aren’t that polygon-heavy as dozens of small objects.

 

The detailed terrain mesh is a lot, the polygons to detail the terrain out so there's very little to no noticeable visible change will result in a big impact. The mountains are using lots of small triangles in the nearest view, those are just as costly as single objects. Its not the size of the object, a bunch of tiny huts could have just as many triangles as a small ridgeline. 

Edited September 15 by FuriousMeow

[Husar]

9 hours ago, FuriousMeow said:

The detailed terrain mesh is a lot, the polygons to detail the terrain out so there's very little to no noticeable visible change will result in a big impact. The mountains are using lots of small triangles in the nearest view, those are just as costly as single objects. Its not the size of the object, a bunch of tiny huts could have just as many triangles as a small ridgeline. 

I know that object size isn't a measure of polygon count, but small objects can be more complex models and use more polygons. Mountains at LOD 0, when they're in view, are rendered faster than objects placed on a flat surface.

 

[FuriousMeow]

The object render is because of how the engine handles rendering in blocks and in order to not overload the system. That's not a measure of complexity of the terrain vs objects just the order in which they are rendered. Less complex objects can render after far more complex ones. 

[Spadizzle]

On 9/12/2026 at 9:42 PM, FuriousMeow said:

I'm not sure what miracle you all are expecting.

The other Sim, where this is better supposedly, is the terrain poly the same? Like the most mountainous map? I don't know, only have two fairly flat maps that look the same geometry wise to less detailed poly mesh  in GB where this isn't noticed due to the low poly terrain mesh.   Same with GB, the highest poly map is Kuban and this behavior can be seen but its less extreme because - lower poly - but still evident.

One way or another this will be noticeable. Either it goes from a bigger flatter object or what's going on right now. Or third option - runs like molasses.

Miracle? Expecting 2026 graphical capability is expecting a miracle? With the hardware demands of this game? Really? 16GB graphics card recommended and this is what we get on official release? Dude, I spent $600 on a new graphics card specifically for this game. I've been supporting Great Battles since 2013. I have a higher standard for these guys, I guess.

Im sorry, but...as it stands, this "pop-in" effect and constant resolution change of terrain leaves Korea still several steps below nearly every map in "that other sim". The Caucasus has a lot of mountains. I dont see anything even slightly close to this effect happening there.

"Turn off shadows" should not be the fix. I'm not going to play this game without shadows. That's just absurd. 

I've said a million times I love this game and know they work hard as heck on it. But this problem with the terrain is awful and I have trouble understanding how it is present. It should be the primary issue they are working on. Throwing more paid DLC at us while this glaring issue is present is not the way to go.

[Spadizzle]

8 hours ago, FuriousMeow said:

The object render is because of how the engine handles rendering in blocks and in order to not overload the system. That's not a measure of complexity of the terrain vs objects just the order in which they are rendered. Less complex objects can render after far more complex ones. 

I honestly don't care what the reason is for why it does it. It's absolutely hideous to see mountain peaks literally appear from nowhere en masse every time I zoom in to try and spot something. Flying to my objective and a whole entire mountain or island appears from nothing as I pass overhead. Rivers appear from nothing. Far away mountain peaks are all the same pointy triangle. Cloud shadows appear and disappear with zooming. It shouldn't be happening in a graphically demanding 2026 flight simulator. 

People keep saying Great Battles had the same thing. But I played Great Battles to death for over a decade and never saw anything as visually jarring as what I see in Korea. Not even close. The worst thing I saw in Great Battles was the tree LOD radius and that was only if you zoom in and concentrate hard as heck on the trees. You could see them render as the radius moved. Not even a small issue for me.

There's way too much gaslighting going on with people who support this game at all costs. When we settle for mediocrity, everyone suffers. Im not saying the game is mediocre. Its not. But this issue is unacceptable for a game that costs this much and requires the hardware it does. 

If this is something that isnt fixable in the long run, then they clearly bit off more than they can chew. And that's a damn shame. 

[Spadizzle]

On 9/10/2026 at 12:52 PM, Dash,Polder said:

Might bother me were it a space shuttle orbiter simulation, that scene is not what will be viewed from an aircraft in a cockpit perspective while flying. 

I've seen far worse from inside a cockpit actually flying, try the Nevada map some time in that other sim.  Entire mountains physically shift and reposition.

Who plays the Nevada map? Lol. Joking aside, I've played almost all the other maps in "that other sim" and they don't have any issue even remotely close to this. And some of those maps came out ten years ago or more. 

What is the point of all this highly detailed terrain and graphical beauty if it doesn't render correctly? It's a little hard to enjoy the high detail when huge swathes of it "pop-in" or don't render correctly. 

"Look at that beautiful winding river.....just ignore the fact that a huge portion of it isn't there and doesn't render until you're super close"

[AEthelraedUnraed]

12 hours ago, Spadizzle said:

Miracle? Expecting 2026 graphical capability is expecting a miracle? With the hardware demands of this game? Really? 16GB graphics card recommended and this is what we get on official release? Dude, I spent $600 on a new graphics card specifically for this game. I've been supporting Great Battles since 2013. I have a higher standard for these guys, I guess.

That's a non-sequitur. What Korea's hardware requirements are, is unrelated to the relative cost of different terrain LOD'ing solutions.

12 hours ago, Spadizzle said:

2026 graphical capability

Could you clarify what "2026 graphical capability" means?

IL2 is very different from e.g. a shooter, that only needs to render objects in the direct neighbourhood of the camera. It's also very different from e.g. MSFS, which doesn't really have to do any physics or AI calculations except for the player, and as a result has a higher graphics budget. The only other game I know that is comparable, is DCS. Which of DCS/IL2 has better graphics, is IMO a question of preference.

12 hours ago, Spadizzle said:

Im sorry, but...as it stands, this "pop-in" effect and constant resolution change of terrain leaves Korea still several steps below nearly every map in "that other sim". The Caucasus has a lot of mountains. I dont see anything even slightly close to this effect happening there.

12 hours ago, Spadizzle said:

People keep saying Great Battles had the same thing. But I played Great Battles to death for over a decade and never saw anything as visually jarring as what I see in Korea. Not even close. The worst thing I saw in Great Battles was the tree LOD radius and that was only if you zoom in and concentrate hard as heck on the trees. You could see them render as the radius moved. Not even a small issue for me.

FuriousMeow already treated those points. If you want to bring your point across, you should maybe reply to his arguments rather than repeat what was already said.

12 hours ago, Spadizzle said:

I honestly don't care what the reason is for why it does it.

....That's just ridiculous. There may be very good reasons for it. In engineering, there's nothing that comes free. Solving the LOD issue might put so much extra strain on the GPU, that performance drops unacceptably much in other areas. Best case: it doesn't cost much extra GPU but requires a development investment which comes at the cost of fixing other bugs and introducing new content. It's all a very fine balance, and there is no good solution that satisfies everyone as not everyone has the same demands. It's obvious that you think the terrain LOD is a major issue; I on the other hand hadn't even noticed it until I read this thread. If the average customer is of my opinion, i.e. that there are other issues that are much more important to fix, then that would be an excellent reason for not spending more development time on this.

13 hours ago, Spadizzle said:

There's way too much gaslighting going on with people who support this game at all costs. When we settle for mediocrity, everyone suffers.

Not sure what you mean to say with this. IL2 is early in its lifecycle and there are still many issues. But when I see posts where people try to influence the Devs into fixing one particular issue, by claiming that that particular one is unworthy of "2026 graphics", that the reasons for that issue don't matter and it should be the Devs' primary focus regardless, then I tend to push back. Not because I think that this issue shouldn't be fixed (it should), but because in the grand scale of things it is just one of many and there's no reason your personal pet peeve should receive more attention than others. I'm sure the Devs are by now perfectly aware of it, and I'm sure that with their better knowledge of Korea's graphics engine as well as their customers' expectations, they have a much better priority list than you or I could come up with.