New rig - all is silk smooth...

[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'' ?

[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.

[mazex]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

Nice system mate... kinda sux though that you need all that to run it okay?

I upgraded my Rig too lately, if i compare it to the recommended spec on the DVD case though

Thanks I spent twice as much on my Athlon Thunderbird 1.3 Ghz system with a Geforce 3 in early 2002 to get IL2 running smooth

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.

[Remo]

Originally Posted by Langnasen

....
And the inability to run FSAA and AF is leaving the image looking very poor.

Get your eyes checked m8, at 2560x1600 FSAA is a nice to have , but don't do much for image quality.. only if you down size does i make a huge diff.

And if you can see the jaggies (jagged edges) on your 30" at 2560x1600 , then you should increase the distance to your screen..

Originally Posted by Remo

Get your eyes checked m8, at 2560x1600 FSAA is a nice to have , but don't do much for image quality.. only if you down size does i make a huge diff.

And if you can see the jaggies (jagged edges) on your 30" at 2560x1600 , then you should increase the distance to your screen..

Simple comparison between RoF and CoD at 2560x1600, both with x8 FSAA but RoF with also x16 AF, not one single jaggie to be seen in RoF, whereas in CoD there are shed-loads.

[kimosabi]

That's nice Mazex. Thanks for reporting back to us. I'm holding off for Ivy Bridge since I'm not flying anyway and if CoD survives this and that and expands this and that, it really is a good idea to upgrade. CHeers!

[Robin2k7]

i play the campaign and it runs pretty good ....still low over the terrain i have some hick ups and frame rate issues .

[Mad G]

S!

Congrats for your new rig. Good fly!

I´m running most Medium with some High´s, Vsync on, Grass off, 8xAA, 1920x1080@60Hz, clean 14413 install, 8xAA/8xAF in Nvidia CP.
Overall it flyies fine, specially over water. Over land I got micro stutters, not too bad, but you feel that is not flowing properlly. If I turn shadows off, it goes very, very smooth. Guess one of the problems are those flickering shadows under trees and trees also.
Besides that, the sim needs labor to fine tune it.

SP!

[Robin2k7]

[QUOTE=Mad G;282731]S!
problems are those flickering shadows under trees and trees also.
Besides that, the sim needs labor to fine tune it.

yes indeed it does !!!