PDA

View Full Version : CoD new engine vs IL2 old engine & graphics


Wiskey-Charlie
01-26-2011, 09:32 PM
Have been reading many threads with people wanting info about CoD specs. Most of what I read it sounds like people expect to have to have a super mega PC to run the new CoD with high settings like in the case of the original IL2. I don't think there ever was or ever will be a PC that can run Il2 perfectly. I think the engine was limited to what it could do.

My question is..........

I know the new CoD engine will process graphics better than the old IL2 engine , but to what extent ? Maybe we may not require as much high end hardware as some people might think ?

My flight simulator PC specs are (most hardware is from 2008 build).......

ASUS P5N-E
Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo CPU E6850 @ 3.00GHz 900 Mhz
4094 MB (Ram)
Windows 7 ultimate 64 bit operating System
Nvidia Geforce 285 GTX Display adapter
Matrox TripleHead2Go Digital Edition....3-LG 24 WIDESCREEN LCD

On this PC I can run the old IL2 at max settings and I will get stutters with missions that have too many aircraft, ships, land details all at one time to be processed. And of course I get the buildings popping in and out and also the funky shore line jitters.

On this same PC I can run WoP with its new graphics engine at max settings and the graphics are absolutely beautiful and smooth as silk. No Stutters, No buildings popping in and out, could not ask for any better!

So, I am hoping that CoD graphics engine is similar to that of WoP and am hoping that my current PC will run CoD just fine?

The Kraken
01-26-2011, 09:47 PM
As you noted yourself, Il2 is more limited by the amount of objects you put into a mission, not the graphics themselves. Cliffs of Dover will hopefully have some optimisations here, and multicore processing will also help to a certain degree compared to Il2, but in the end you will always need more CPU power with more active objects in a mission.

Which is also the main difference to WoP, because not only is the world there tiny and without too many AI objects, but CoD will definitely have more refined flight model, ballistics, damage and radar/line of sight calculations (and who knows what else). So don't expect the same performance there.

Graphics alone should probably not be too demanding; we've heard and seen quite often by now how much the game is to support mid-range hardware (whatever that means in the end). I'd expect that CoD can look much better and still run faster than Il2 when you take out the AI aspect (i.e. free flight missions). That is also true for WoP of course.

baronWastelan
01-26-2011, 09:59 PM
Have been reading many threads with people wanting info about CoD specs. Most of what I read it sounds like people expect to have to have a super mega PC to run the new CoD with high settings like in the case of the original IL2. I don't think there ever was or ever will be a PC that can run Il2 perfectly. I think the engine was limited to what it could do.

My question is..........

I know the new CoD engine will process graphics better than the old IL2 engine , but to what extent ? Maybe we may not require as much high end hardware as some people might think ?

My flight simulator PC specs are (most hardware is from 2008 build).......

ASUS P5N-E
Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo CPU E6850 @ 3.00GHz 900 Mhz
4094 MB (Ram)
Windows 7 ultimate 64 bit operating System
Nvidia Geforce 285 GTX Display adapter
Matrox TripleHead2Go Digital Edition....3-LG 24 WIDESCREEN LCD

On this PC I can run the old IL2 at max settings and I will get stutters with missions that have too many aircraft, ships, land details all at one time to be processed. And of course I get the buildings popping in and out and also the funky shore line jitters.

On this same PC I can run WoP with its new graphics engine at max settings and the graphics are absolutely beautiful and smooth as silk. No Stutters, No buildings popping in and out, could not ask for any better!

So, I am hoping that CoD graphics engine is similar to that of WoP and am hoping that my current PC will run CoD just fine?

You can answer your own question with a high degree of accuracy by running FSX on your PC. [spoiler: CPU = bottleneck]

Wiskey-Charlie
01-26-2011, 10:15 PM
As you noted yourself, Il2 is more limited by the amount of objects you put into a mission, not the graphics themselves. Cliffs of Dover will hopefully have some optimisations here, and multicore processing will also help to a certain degree compared to Il2, but in the end you will always need more CPU power with more active objects in a mission.

Which is also the main difference to WoP, because not only is the world there tiny and without too many AI objects, but CoD will definitely have more refined flight model, ballistics, damage and radar/line of sight calculations (and who knows what else). So don't expect the same performance there.

Graphics alone should probably not be too demanding; we've heard and seen quite often by now how much the game is to support mid-range hardware (whatever that means in the end). I'd expect that CoD can look much better and still run faster than Il2 when you take out the AI aspect (i.e. free flight missions). That is also true for WoP of course.

Good points, that makes since. Hope I can play with at least medium settings with what I have, could be a while before I can afford new MB,Ram,Core i7 and latest display adapter.

But one of my points was, because of the new graphics engine am thinking there will be improvements across the board (no matter what your hardware is) like no more buildings popping in and out. That is huge to me.

Wiskey-Charlie
01-26-2011, 10:35 PM
You can answer your own question with a high degree of accuracy by running FSX on your PC. [spoiler: CPU = bottleneck]

So you don't think CoD's new engine/technology will process graphics any different than does FSX? If that's the case then I do need to upgrade. What is the best processor on the market today for gaming?

kendo65
01-26-2011, 11:43 PM
So you don't think CoD's new engine/technology will process graphics any different than does FSX? If that's the case then I do need to upgrade. What is the best processor on the market today for gaming?

With the arrival of Sandy Bridge it's a pretty easy choice. Either go for the Core i5-2500K or the i7-2600K. Custom PC magazine was raving about them - the i5-2500K in particular, which beats or matches the mighty Core i7-980X in many tasks for a quarter of the price. (no thanks to Intel for the confusing naming scheme :rolleyes:)

Planning to upgrade myself in the near future with the i5-2500K.

Wiskey-Charlie
01-27-2011, 12:24 AM
Core i5-2500K or the i7-2600K

The more I think about it, sure would like to see CoD in all its glory. Laying off of the credit card is going to take a lot of will power on my part.

I see hardware prices are much better than years past............

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7144664&CatId=6982

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6611013&CatId=3433

Looks like I could get it done for about $500. Very tempting :mrgreen:

Heliocon
01-27-2011, 08:53 AM
With the arrival of Sandy Bridge it's a pretty easy choice. Either go for the Core i5-2500K or the i7-2600K. Custom PC magazine was raving about them - the i5-2500K in particular, which beats or matches the mighty Core i7-980X in many tasks for a quarter of the price. (no thanks to Intel for the confusing naming scheme :rolleyes:)

Planning to upgrade myself in the near future with the i5-2500K.

Uh what? No it doesnt, please post where you saw this. Its alittle misleading, the only way it could beat the 980 is if it was running a limited amount of threads, like say 4 (1 per core) while the 980 has 6 cores but can only use 4 threads and since the quad has a higher native clock it beats it. But the new intel cpu's are a rip off, most have integrated graphics which you have to pay for in the chip cost and are a money waste. Also they are no faster than the previous I7 generation, what they did was change the architecture from 40->32nm which reduces net heat from the CPU and therefore allows a higher stock clock speed. In reality a normal i7 (like a 930/940) can outperform the new range when OC'ed properly. The current new range of intel CPU's are there mid-low range sandy bridge, the high range wont come until end 2011/2012 so until then the 980+ is king (also is 32nm unlike other 1g i7s).

David198502
01-27-2011, 09:32 AM
i considered to buy the i7-2600k gpu, as its pretty cheap. but as i dont have a clue about computers my question is if i have to buy anything else to make it run in my rig.or can i just buy the prozessor and put it in?

Troll2k
01-27-2011, 10:08 AM
The new 2nd generation i5 and i7 cpus(Sandy Bridge) use a new socket.The 1155.It requires a new motherboard to match.I believe the new motherboards also use ddr3 ram.So depending on what you have now you might need that too.

David198502
01-27-2011, 10:23 AM
another stupid question: is the motherboard the mainboard?
i have ddr3 ram.

kendo65
01-27-2011, 10:46 AM
Uh what? No it doesnt, please post where you saw this. Its alittle misleading, the only way it could beat the 980 is if it was running a limited amount of threads, like say 4 (1 per core) while the 980 has 6 cores but can only use 4 threads and since the quad has a higher native clock it beats it. But the new intel cpu's are a rip off, most have integrated graphics which you have to pay for in the chip cost and are a money waste. Also they are no faster than the previous I7 generation, what they did was change the architecture from 40->32nm which reduces net heat from the CPU and therefore allows a higher stock clock speed. In reality a normal i7 (like a 930/940) can outperform the new range when OC'ed properly. The current new range of intel CPU's are there mid-low range sandy bridge, the high range wont come until end 2011/2012 so until then the 980+ is king (also is 32nm unlike other 1g i7s).

I got the info from a magazine - Custom PC (UK) that did a fairly extensive test of the Core i5-2500K and the i7-2600K in their current issue.

I don't have the magazine to hand (in work currently), but the gist was that in all but very highly multi-threaded applications the Sandy Bridge processors are on a par or even beating the 980.

For gaming their recommendation was the i5-2500K. For video editing the i7-2600K was better. The i5-2500K was roughly on a par with the 980 in gaming (1fps lower in Crysis in their test, better in some other games).

As for being a "rip-off" they're actually very good value - gaming performance comparable to a 980 for a quarter of the price. (I take your point though that the 980 probably STILL is the ultimate processor for those wanting the maximum flexibility or for dealing with heavily multi-threaded apps, but for practical gaming and general purposes I think the Sandy Bridge are a great deal)

Others can make up their own minds but personally I can settle for a 1 fps difference if I'm saving 600 notes :)

(By the way the 'K' versions of the new processors are massively overclockable too)

---------------------------------

Edit: 28 Jan
I've read reviews in 2 other magazines since writing the above and they both back up Custom PC's view. In fact, if anything I wasn't forceful enough in my response above. I'll remedy that here - Sandy Bridge is described by Custom PC as "rendering almost every other processor redundant and pointless. The only reason you should look any further than the fastest LGA1155 CPU you can afford is if you use heavily multi-threaded, professional applications..."

The other mags (PCPRo and PC Format [if I remember correctly :confused: ) are making equally enthusiastic noises.

kendo65
01-27-2011, 10:47 AM
another stupid question: is the motherboard the mainboard?
i have ddr3 ram.

Yes :)

Sandy Bridge will need a different motherboard, but if you have 1.65V ddr3 (dual-channel) memory you can use it.

David198502
01-27-2011, 11:02 AM
hehe!i told you im a square when its about computers!thx for your patience with me.My Mainboard: Mainboard S-1156 INTEL DH55TC,Micro-ATX,bulk

swiss
01-27-2011, 11:11 AM
hehe!i told you im a square when its about computers!thx for your patience with me.My Mainboard: Mainboard S-1156 INTEL DH55TC,Micro-ATX,bulk

http://processormatch.intel.com/CompDB/SearchResult.aspx?BoardName=DH55TC

edit:

Found this: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mainboards/display/intel-dh55tc_9.html#sect0

Maybe worth replacing instead of upgrading.

David198502
01-27-2011, 11:13 AM
http://processormatch.intel.com/CompDB/SearchResult.aspx?BoardName=DH55TC

so that means no sandy bridge with this board.?!

swiss
01-27-2011, 11:21 AM
so that means no sandy bridge with this board.?!

LGA1155 - one fewer pins than current LGA1156 CPUs. These sockets are NOT compatible, so you cannot use an existing LGA1156 CPU in a new motherboard or visa versa. Not only is the position of pin-1 different, the socket notch has moved from 9mm to 11.5mm from the centre and the entire voltage plane layout has changed.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/04/21/intel-sandy-bridge-details-of-the-next-gen/1

nope

kendo65
01-27-2011, 11:23 AM
Hope I'm not stating the obvious too much here, but thought i'd add that Sandy Bridge - with the necessity of new motherboard, possibly ram, etc - may not be the best option cost-wise for those already with decent i5 or i7 sytems.

You may be better off looking at other upgrade paths - faster processor, more ram - or even overclocking.

For me personally, i've got a Core 2 Duo E8200 at stock 2.66GHz. Think a move to a quad-core is fast becoming a necessity. I may try out SOW/COD with my current system but expect I'll upgrade in the next few months.

David198502
01-27-2011, 11:31 AM
i have a dual core now and a quad would be very fine. now that i know that sandy bridge will not be my decision i wonder which one to get.the costs play a role for me, but i want something decent too.any suggestions?ah by the way thx for your quick answers.

David198502
01-27-2011, 11:41 AM
Found this: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mainboards/display/intel-dh55tc_9.html#sect0

Maybe worth replacing instead of upgrading.[/QUOTE]

so which mainboards should i consider to buy??to be honest, the main reason is COD why i want to make my pc more powerful,as i dont play any other games than il2.

thx swiss your links are really helpful!

swiss
01-27-2011, 11:47 AM
i have a dual core now and a quad would be very fine. now that i know that sandy bridge will not be my decision i wonder which one to get.the costs play a role for me, but i want something decent too.any suggestions?ah by the way thx for your quick answers.

Budget?

Max would be i7 860/870 - I guess.
They are ~$300.


But I'm AMD guy, wait for the intel boys to chime in.


as i dont play any other games than il2.


Sounds familiar. ;)

David198502
01-27-2011, 11:54 AM
300$ is ok!may its a bit less in euros.
what does the mainboard exactly do??will i get an increase in performance when i change my crappy one??

yep one year ago i became aware of the develpement of storm of war, and decided to buy 1946 to prepare myself for the upcoming game.this was the best decision i have made since then.il2 1946 was/is worth the 4euros ten times.i confess im an addict.

swiss
01-27-2011, 12:47 PM
300$ is ok!may its a bit less in euros.
what does the mainboard exactly do??will i get an increase in performance when i change my crappy one??



Basically the mobo lets the different components communicate.
If you got a crappy one it could bottleneck some parts, limit your OC- and upgrade options.

But again, I don't know enough about the intel stuff give you any advise on mobo selection.

Maybe you should start a new thread.

kendo65
01-27-2011, 01:30 PM
300$ is ok!may its a bit less in euros.
what does the mainboard exactly do??will i get an increase in performance when i change my crappy one??

yep one year ago i became aware of the develpement of storm of war, and decided to buy 1946 to prepare myself for the upcoming game.this was the best decision i have made since then.il2 1946 was/is worth the 4euros ten times.i confess im an addict.

Difficult to know what to advise on the motherboard. I had a read through the linked review and while performance-wise your board wasn't as fast as the others tested, the difference in numbers terms looked fairly negligible.

edit: heres a quote from the review:

"We have already pointed out many times that all mainboards run almost equally fast in nominal mode. This is quite natural and expected, as the boards work in identical conditions. But still, even though the performance difference is truly minor, I believe it is fair that Intel DH55TC is mostly the last one in this race: it is th slowest of the three."

They also talk about it lacking features - if you're finding that you are notmissing out on anything at the moment, then those are features you probably don't need.

Personally, I'd probably just stick with it and upgrade the processor.

I agree with Swiss: the i7 860/870 (hyperthreading 4 core) would be a big jump up.

There is also the Core i5 760 2.80GHz (no hyperthreading 4 core) which is well thought of for gaming purposes and is a fair bit cheaper.

PE_Tigar
01-27-2011, 02:04 PM
On MoBos - two things I learned not to save on are MoBos and PSUs. You may not use all the features of a premium MoBo, but it will come in handy when you want to set up RAID or smt like that. Same thing for PSUs - those 200W extra might come in handy for SLI or CF upgrade later.

I'm just wondering for how long Soc. 1366 and that other format for i5 will be with us. I've bought a Q9650 several months ago (my former processor was a bit long in the tooth) to tide me over until COD comes, but now I'm thinking I may well wait for another year or two for a complete new build because my current configuration runs the contemporary stuff (DCS: A-10C, RoF etc.) really well, albeit with not all eye candy. But I don't need that anyway (for the most part HDR, Bloom, depth of field etc are cartoonish and useless).

Finally, to know what to do and what to invest into, if looking at playing COD mostly (which I probably will) I'd have to know how well it scales with processor cores, GPUs, how much memory does it use, is .exe 64-bit or 32-bit. Guess I'll wait and see.

kendo65
01-27-2011, 02:12 PM
On MoBos - two things I learned not to save on are MoBos and PSUs. You may not use all the features of a premium MoBo, but it will come in handy when you want to set up RAID or smt like that. Same thing for PSUs - those 200W extra might come in handy for SLI or CF upgrade later.

I'm just wondering for how long Soc. 1366 and that other format for i5 will be with us. I've bought a Q9650 several months ago (my former processor was a bit long in the tooth) to tide me over until COD comes, but now I'm thinking I may well wait for another year or two for a complete new build because my current configuration runs the contemporary stuff (DCS: A-10C, RoF etc.) really well, albeit with not all eye candy. But I don't need that anyway (for the most part HDR, Bloom, depth of field etc are cartoonish and useless).

Finally, to know what to do and what to invest into, if looking at playing COD mostly (which I probably will) I'd have to know how well it scales with processor cores, GPUs, how much memory does it use, is .exe 64-bit or 32-bit. Guess I'll wait and see.

Good points. Oleg has mentioned there will be a 64 bit exe.

System specs are out!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18417

Wiskey-Charlie
01-27-2011, 05:09 PM
Ok,

OPERATING SYSTEM: Windows® 7 / Vista SP2 / Windows XP SP3 am good here with Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit

PROCESSOR: Pentium® Dual-Core 2.0GHz or Athlon™ X2 3800+(Intel Core i5 2.66GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 2.6GHz recommended) I have dual core 3.00GHZ (900mhz 775 socket I think), is i5 or i7 LGA1155 2.66GHZ quad core going to make a big diff? Will CoD really utilize those extra two cores? Is not 3.00GHZ better than 2.6GHZ?

RAM: 2GB (4GB recommended) Good here with 4GB RAM DDR2, would DDR3 realy make a big diff?

VIDEO CARD: DirectX® 9.0c compliant, 512Mb Video Card (1GB DirectX® 10 recommended) - See supported List* Am ok here with my GTX 285!

DIRECT X®: DirectX® 9.0c or DirectX® 10 (included on disc) Good here!

DVD-ROM DRIVE: 8X Good!

SOUND CARD: DirectX 9.0c compatible Good!

HARD DISK SPACE: 10GB No prob!

PERIPHERALS: Mouse, keyboard (joystick with throttle and rudder control recommended) Good

MULTIPLAY: Broadband connection with 128 kbps upstream or faster Good

*SUPPORTED VIDEO CARDS AT TIME OF RELEASE:ATI® 4850/4870/5830/5850/5770/5870/6870/6950/6970NVidia®: 8800/9800/250/260/275/285/460/465/470/480 My GTX 285 is in the middle of the pack.

Great news, although eventually would like to run at maxed settings, I think my current build will get me by and allow me time to save and build in the future thanks to CoD's up to date engine that utilizes even 2008 hardware better than IL2 ever did!

LoBiSoMeM
01-27-2011, 05:24 PM
PROCESSOR: Pentium® Dual-Core 2.0GHz or Athlon™ X2 3800+(Intel Core i5 2.66GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 2.6GHz recommended) I have dual core 3.00GHZ (900mhz 775 socket I think), is i5 or i7 LGA1155 2.66GHZ quad core going to make a big diff? Will CoD really utilize those extra two cores? Is not 3.00GHZ better than 2.6GHZ?

Go quad. ANYTHING runs better in a quad core than in a dual core. Just look at the amount of processes running in background in your W7 and think about it.

People tend to think only in "one thread", "the game" running in one core. That's not the way things work really.

Just look at the reviews regards performance in new multicore processors. Two more cores will sure improve your performance in IL-2:CoD.

kendo65
01-27-2011, 05:25 PM
Ok,
...

PROCESSOR: Pentium® Dual-Core 2.0GHz or Athlon™ X2 3800+(Intel Core i5 2.66GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 2.6GHz recommended) I have dual core 3.00GHZ (900mhz 775 socket I think), is i5 or i7 LGA1155 2.66GHZ quad core going to make a big diff? Will CoD really utilize those extra two cores? Is not 3.00GHZ better than 2.6GHZ?

I'm in a similar situation with E8200 dual core (2.66GHz). I think the fact that they have listed quad cores under the recommended listing looks like it will be beneficial to have the extra cores.


RAM: 2GB (4GB recommended) Good here with 4GB RAM DDR2, would DDR3 realy make a big diff?
...


Not so clear on this one. In most cases i don't think it will make a substantial difference

Heliocon
01-27-2011, 05:30 PM
I got the info from a magazine - Custom PC (UK) that did a fairly extensive test of the Core i5-2500K and the i7-2600K in their current issue.

I don't have the magazine to hand (in work currently), but the gist was that in all but very highly multi-threaded applications the Sandy Bridge processors are on a par or even beating the 980.

For gaming their recommendation was the i5-2500K. For video editing the i7-2600K was better. The i5-2500K was roughly on a par with the 980 in gaming (1fps lower in Crysis in their test, better in some other games).

As for being a "rip-off" they're actually very good value - gaming performance comparable to a 980 for a quarter of the price. (I take your point though that the 980 probably STILL is the ultimate processor for those wanting the maximum flexibility or for dealing with heavily multi-threaded apps, but for practical gaming and general purposes I think the Sandy Bridge are a great deal)

Others can make up their own minds but personally I can settle for a 1 fps difference if I'm saving 600 notes :)

(By the way the 'K' versions of the new processors are massively overclockable too)

Yep, the 980 is not at all a good choice for cost v performance unless you want to have it for a long long time (as I intend to use it for 4+ years).
The main thing I was trying to say is the sandbridge CPU is in fact no better then the 40nm i7 range, all you need to do is OC the i7 and they are about the same power, except SB cpu's are more expensive and contain a inbuilt gpu which is completely uneeded.
Basically current SB are glorified laptop cpus :P

(there is some talk I believe of the late 2011 SB cpus being 1366 socket. But get a decent mobo so you can upgrade later, it will save you $ in the long run.

WWFlybert
01-27-2011, 05:32 PM
Ok,

OPERATING SYSTEM: Windows® 7 / Vista SP2 / Windows XP SP3 am good here with Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit

PROCESSOR: Pentium® Dual-Core 2.0GHz or Athlon™ X2 3800+(Intel Core i5 2.66GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 2.6GHz recommended) I have dual core 3.00GHZ (900mhz 775 socket I think), is i5 or i7 LGA1155 2.66GHZ quad core going to make a big diff? Will CoD really utilize those extra two cores? Is not 3.00GHZ better than 2.6GHZ?

RAM: 2GB (4GB recommended) Good here with 4GB RAM DDR2, would DDR3 realy make a big diff?

VIDEO CARD: DirectX® 9.0c compliant, 512Mb Video Card (1GB DirectX® 10 recommended) - See supported List* Am ok here with my GTX 285!

DIRECT X®: DirectX® 9.0c or DirectX® 10 (included on disc) Good here!

DVD-ROM DRIVE: 8X Good!

SOUND CARD: DirectX 9.0c compatible Good!

HARD DISK SPACE: 10GB No prob!

PERIPHERALS: Mouse, keyboard (joystick with throttle and rudder control recommended) Good

MULTIPLAY: Broadband connection with 128 kbps upstream or faster Good

*SUPPORTED VIDEO CARDS AT TIME OF RELEASE:ATI® 4850/4870/5830/5850/5770/5870/6870/6950/6970NVidia®: 8800/9800/250/260/275/285/460/465/470/480 My GTX 285 is in the middle of the pack.

Great news, although eventually would like to run at maxed settings, I think my current build will get me by and allow me time to save and build in the future thanks to CoD's up to date engine that utilizes even 2008 hardware better than IL2 ever did!

I think the biggest improvement you'd have is going with a 1GB memory vid card with DDR 5 .. 700mhz core clock .. 1400mhz shader clock .. under $100

I just upgraded to a nvidia 430 (Fermi) for IL-2 .. DDR3 but made a huge difference on my old P4 3.2 HT compared to an older 512MB vid card .. was only $60 after mail in rebate.

Wiskey-Charlie
01-28-2011, 04:03 PM
Thanks for all the good advice and info, much appreciated :)

baronWastelan
02-04-2011, 08:56 PM
So you don't think CoD's new engine/technology will process graphics any different than does FSX? If that's the case then I do need to upgrade. What is the best processor on the market today for gaming?


--snip--

My system isn't good enough to run the game at full settings while flying over populated areas, especially over London.

That's actually the fault of the CPU. Even if we replace all objects on the screen with single pixels, it doesn't run any faster. There's just so many objects around you being tracked - buildings and trees - that constantly updating their location relative to you takes a lot of resources.

My card is mostly maxed out by textures of tons of different objects, againt in populated areas. Airfields are the worst in this respect. You're seeing a ton of high-res objects at the highest level of detail. The game uses dynamic texture loading, and you'd see various textures cycle through lower LODs, try to load a higher one, run out of memory, and swap back to lower detail.

We have specific graphic options for that which allow you to limit the number of objects on the screen and their detail. Going to medium object density is hardly noticeable, especially compared to Il-2. Going to medium object detail is even less apparent unless you're taking an up-close look at a truck or a building.


My guess is that with a GTX285, you would have to have the very fastest consumer-grade CPU available today, along with 6GB of very fast RAM, before your GPU would be the limiting component - assuming most of your airborne activity is over 4,000 ft. (Based on my experience with multiple flight sims over the past 12 years, and Luthier's statement).