New rig - all is silk smooth...

Originally Posted by mazex

Well, after all the patches CoD ran rather fine on my old E8400 rig, but today I finally got my new rig setup (look at sig) and CoD runs completely silk smoth on high settings... The lowest I can get is ~30 in cockpit at 30 feet over central London, but just a few hundred feet up I get ~70 fps over the city. On Black Death with high settings I get an average of 70 fps.

So - on a modern high end rig this game has no performance issues any more. Nice!

That's funny, I've got effectively the exact same spec as you and my game doesn't run silk-smooth at all. Runs pretty good, until the screen locks up, but by no means silk-smooth. That's on a new install of the game onto a fresh install of the OS.

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by Langnasen

That's funny, I've got effectively the exact same spec as you and my game doesn't run silk-smooth at all. Runs pretty good, until the screen locks up, but by no means silk-smooth. That's on a new install of the game onto a fresh install of the OS.

Really?

That sux..thats a more than decent rig you got there :\

[Jatta Raso]

happy for you but that's not a high end PC, that's more of a computer from outer space. further optimization still required for most of us users...

__________________
Q6600 2.4GHz (going OC 3.0GHz as soon as get better cooler)
Gainward GTX570 Phantom
2x2GB DDR2 800Mhz GSkill
1TB SATA 3 64MB
Asus P5K-E Wi-Fi
SyncMaster 24'' P2450 Monitor
Win 7 x64
Thrustmaster T.Flight Stick X

[smink1701]

I've got a pretty good system too and it runs the game like butter when I'm flying solo. But five minutes into a mission and i get lock and a failed launcher message. That is 100% porked code and not my rig.

[Avala]

I heard that programmers nowadays has new expression for bad coding.

It's "CoD-ha-ha"

So, if anything not working as it should be they just call it CoD, and try to blame it on customer's bad and old computer.

Sneaky sort, those programmers . . .

[Blackdog_kt]

There's no denying the sims needs optimizing, but i run it just fine on a two year old PC:

Asus P6T deluxe motherboard
i7 920 @ 2.7Ghz
Ati 4890 1GB
normal hard drives (no SSD)
3GB or RAM (yes, only three)
win7 x64 Pro


My only problems in regards to usability is that some times loadouts go missing or the menus go funky but work fine the next time i fire it up. As for performance, the problem is not lack of it but that it's sometimes inconsistent.

All in all, i get nothing game-breaking after the latest beta patch, running 30-60 FPS with occasional dips to 25 and only split-second pauses the first time a certain texture loads (no more of the initial continuous stuttering) depending on amount of aircraft, clouds and the terrain i'm flying over.

So how do it do it? Well, i just don't expect to run everything on high with anything less than top of the line hardware, that's how
I run it at 1680x1050 with most settings on medium, model details and land shading on high, vsync on, shadows and roads on, SSAO off, AA off (since people say it doesn't work much anyway).

Sure, there's still room for improvement, lot's of it. At the same time though, a lot of complaints come from people who expect to run it maxed out on 1920x1080 or higher with hardware older than mine, that's not realistic and will probably never happen.
At the same time, too many people are obsessed with running it at the maximum possible settings, completely disregarding the fact that CoD on medium is slightly better than IL2 on max, they just see an option and want to max it out no matter what.
I've seen people with dual cores getting higher FPS than me, but most of it is probably due to my low RAM and them usually having nVidia GPUs of the same generation as my Ati 4890 or newer, more powerful GPUs of either brand.

[Tiger27]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

There's no denying the sims needs optimizing, but i run it just fine on a two year old PC:

Asus P6T deluxe motherboard
i7 920 @ 2.7Ghz
Ati 4890 1GB
normal hard drives (no SSD)
3GB or RAM (yes, only three)
win7 x64 Pro


My only problems in regards to usability is that some times loadouts go missing or the menus go funky but work fine the next time i fire it up. As for performance, the problem is not lack of it but that it's sometimes inconsistent.

All in all, i get nothing game-breaking after the latest beta patch, running 30-60 FPS with occasional dips to 25 and only split-second pauses the first time a certain texture loads (no more of the initial continuous stuttering) depending on amount of aircraft, clouds and the terrain i'm flying over.

So how do it do it? Well, i just don't expect to run everything on high with anything less than top of the line hardware, that's how
I run it at 1680x1050 with most settings on medium, model details and land shading on high, vsync on, shadows and roads on, SSAO off, AA off (since people say it doesn't work much anyway).

Sure, there's still room for improvement, lot's of it. At the same time though, a lot of complaints come from people who expect to run it maxed out on 1920x1080 or higher with hardware older than mine, that's not realistic and will probably never happen.
At the same time, too many people are obsessed with running it at the maximum possible settings, completely disregarding the fact that CoD on medium is slightly better than IL2 on max, they just see an option and want to max it out no matter what.
I've seen people with dual cores getting higher FPS than me, but most of it is probably due to my low RAM and them usually having nVidia GPUs of the same generation as my Ati 4890 or newer, more powerful GPUs of either brand.

Similar specs to you BD except I have an 8800gt, it runs fine for me, with settings medium to high, vsync on, unfortunatley shadows off, I am running at 1680x1050 as that is my screens natural res, so this probably helps a bit.

I have no problems running missions over land or sea, although there is the occasional load pause when bombers first come into view, I can run any of the QMB missions resonably nicely.

A lot can also depend on what beta you are running, or if you are running the beta patch.

[Rattlehead]

Originally Posted by Jatta Raso

happy for you but that's not a high end PC, that's more of a computer from outer space. further optimization still required for most of us users...

Not really.

It's a very, very nice system but that's what constitutes a high end system today.
Now, something like quad SLi is pretty much from outer space...I agree though that most of us have to tweak things to get the most from the game.

[mazex]

Originally Posted by Langnasen

That's funny, I've got effectively the exact same spec as you and my game doesn't run silk-smooth at all. Runs pretty good, until the screen locks up, but by no means silk-smooth. That's on a new install of the game onto a fresh install of the OS.

Mmm, but I'm running on a Samsung 2233RZ monitor (I love the 120Hz too much to swap it out!). So the resolution I use is 1680*1050. I guess you're not on your 30'' ?

Originally Posted by mazex

Mmm, but I'm running on a Samsung 2233RZ monitor (I love the 120Hz too much to swap it out!). So the resolution I use is 1680*1050. I guess you're not on your 30'' ?

I run it on my 30" but at 2560x1600 I get the jerkiness down low over land (to be expected generally speaking, though it doesn't happen in RoF) AND at 1920x1200, which I do NOT expect.

It's not a show-stopper, it's most noticable if I look away from straight ahead, and even looking 90-degrees sideways at 50m altitude it's not too bad. But RoF has zero and IS "silk-smooth".
The real show-stopper is the lock-ups. And the inability to run FSAA and AF is leaving the image looking very poor.