Game Unplayable

[Verhängnis]

Surely my Title of topic is not new to you.
Firstly, before releasing a game, please unsure that your minimum system requirements are actually correct, my system specs are as follows:

-Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33 GHz
-RAM: 3.5 Gb
-Video Card: GeForce 9800 GT @ 512mb
-Direct X: 10

Therefore they are above the minimum, and the game is completely unplayable.

And I think the poll in my thread here would agree:
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,15330.0/viewresults.html

Btw I tested the game settings with everything on the lowest, no roads, trees, buildings etc except for:

*2 x Anti-A
*SSAO On
*Model Detail High
*Texture quality Original
*Special effects etc High
*Ground detail Medium

The game is laggy, stutters and well, you can fly... but it takes a few seconds before much happens, this is over water!
To think I should be able to fly in combat with these settings without too much trouble is rediculous.

In the menus, the Plane loadout section does not load at all and if it does the Drop down menu's are blank, similiar for the Pilot customization area, very often does the Pilot model dissapear when I change things.

So I hope my Hundred Dollars serves you well and you can actually make your product worth it, because right now, my IL-2 1946 looks alot better than CoD, and the great thing is it only cost me 20 bucks!

So does this mean I have to wait many years before CoD starts to look better than or as good as your previous games???

I tried the Black Death Benchmarking track and well, it is not even worth posting my FPS as it is less than 25 and I don't need a counter to tell me that, it eventually froze my game anyway...

So I really hope all our money helps get the issues fixed.
Overall I am extremely dissapointed with the game and you should be aswell.:!:

[robtek]

Well, as this game was released waaay too early the min. requirements are ay more or less, educated guess.
But it was stated that todays "high-end" computers could run it a medium settings.
If you compare your rig with a actual "high-end" rig it is rather lower "med-end" :-D
The min. requirements are plain wrong, but then, to really enjoy any demanding software you have to upgrade anyway.
I believe a higher "med-end" graphic-card with at least 1 gig vram and a bit overclocking your cpu would help a lot.

And for disappointment, i am not, but then i dont race against a F1 racer in a vw-beetle either :-D

[baronWastelan]

your video settings are not correct for your old weak hardware:

*SSAO On
*Model Detail High
*Texture quality Original

[335th_GRAthos]

Surely my Title of topic is not new to you.
Firstly, before releasing a game, please unsure that your minimum system requirements are actually correct, my system specs are as follows:

-Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33 GHz
-RAM: 3.5 Gb
-Video Card: GeForce 9800 GT @ 512mb
-Direct X: 10

Therefore they are above the minimum, and the game is completely unplayable.

*2 x Anti-A
*SSAO On
*Model Detail High
*Texture quality Original
*Special effects etc High
*Ground detail Medium


Well, I would hae thought that anybody with some brain, when he reads MINIMUM, he also tries the game with MINIMUM settings first and increases the settings later.
Obviously you have not done so and obviouly you have little understading yet of the settings you are changing, wich is understandable and nothingto critisize about. But your lack of knowledge or even worse, your half-knowledge, is not an excuse to open your mouth for others as well.

Change your settings *Texture quality from Original to the lowest possible and try again.

Overall I am extremely dissapointed with the game and you should be as well.

No thanks, I have brains and I use them...

~S~

[Tiger27]

Surely my Title of topic is not new to you.
Firstly, before releasing a game, please unsure that your minimum system requirements are actually correct, my system specs are as follows:

-Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33 GHz
-RAM: 3.5 Gb
-Video Card: GeForce 9800 GT @ 512mb
-Direct X: 10

Therefore they are above the minimum, and the game is completely unplayable.

And I think the poll in my thread here would agree:
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,15330.0/viewresults.html

Btw I tested the game settings with everything on the lowest, no roads, trees, buildings etc except for:

*2 x Anti-A
*SSAO On
*Model Detail High
*Texture quality Original
*Special effects etc High
*Ground detail Medium

The game is laggy, stutters and well, you can fly... but it takes a few seconds before much happens, this is over water!
To think I should be able to fly in combat with these settings without too much trouble is rediculous.

In the menus, the Plane loadout section does not load at all and if it does the Drop down menu's are blank, similiar for the Pilot customization area, very often does the Pilot model dissapear when I change things.

So I hope my Hundred Dollars serves you well and you can actually make your product worth it, because right now, my IL-2 1946 looks alot better than CoD, and the great thing is it only cost me 20 bucks!

So does this mean I have to wait many years before CoD starts to look better than or as good as your previous games???

I tried the Black Death Benchmarking track and well, it is not even worth posting my FPS as it is less than 25 and I don't need a counter to tell me that, it eventually froze my game anyway...

So I really hope all our money helps get the issues fixed.
Overall I am extremely dissapointed with the game and you should be aswell.:!:

Not only are your settings on way to high for the minimum spec hardware, you are also expecting to get more than 25fps on the blackdeath track which is used as a stress test, I think you are expecting way too much from what is really quite old hardware.

[janpitor]

SSAO and texture quality are the things to play with...SSAO off and Textures high on GTX480, so for your card text. medium/low

[TonyD]

It really irks me when posters on various forums slag CoD because they cannot run it on high settings on dated hardware, ‘… like they can with IL2 1946’ Good grief, Verhängnis, that sim is a decade old and shouldn’t be used as a comparison at all. If you spend some time reading up on this forum you will find people with similar hardware to yours that have managed to get it to run acceptably, with the correct settings.

As stated by others above, trying to run the texture detail on ‘Original’ with your setup is never going to work, and SSAO is a big fps killer too. A bit of time spent tweaking can definitely yield results, although to expect miracles with your hardware, being as it only just meets the minimum spec as far as graphics cards go, is unrealistic. With a bit of research you will learn that a GeForce 9800 is architecturally little more than a re-named 8800, and is currently more than 3 generations old.

I am not disappointed with CoD at all, as with all the updates and optimised settings I can run it with decent graphic quality, even on my hardly-new system. I do agree that the minimum spec is somewhat optimistic currently, but this may improve with further updates. Upgrading your hardware is probably still your best choice, as then you will be able to enjoy it closer to what was intended.

Rant over.

[Verhängnis]

Well before you told me to, I did try the game on the lowest possible settings, everything either off or lowest, and well the sim ran smoothly, although not as smooth as those with higher end PC's, but the point is, it looked Horrible, my eyes were burning!

Just like the developers said, run it on lowest settings and it will look like some arcade game from the 90's, they were right.

And I'm not saying you should be dissapointed, I'm saying the Developers should be dissapointed, surely they know it is bad for business when half the community of customers can't even play the damn thing or even want to, anybody with my settings or lower cannot play!

I think you will find that most of us 1946 flyers would agree, what did they expect?
Not everyone has the latest Rig, Many people right now are going through financial problems and can't afford a new computer, and I thought that one of Olegs Promises was that his games could run on low end computers?
I think I remember him saying this about IL-2 1946.
And I mean seriously there is not even multi-core support???

Like you said, we the group with low-end PC's who can't run the game love to complain and rant, well it seems you (The group with high end PC's) love to tell us to lower the settings,buy new computers and get over it, if you couldn't run the game you would be saying the exact same things.

This sim is unfinished, half my Menu's dont even load, some of the controls for the game do nothing and some things do others, eg. Open Canopy...More like do that...but tell me my Pitot Tube is heating.

I do believe that they will address these issues in Patches, but how long will we have to wait?

[335th_GRAthos]

OK, now you are talking...

Now that your machine is working reasonably, change to:
*Model Detail High
*Special effects High

You should not be having degration in performance but graphics should look much better.

You did not mention two things:
Your Screen Resolution: No need to bother writting 1400x + I am flying this game at 1280x and I have GPUs a few generations higher than yours....

You Operating System: Win7 I presume because you mentioned DX10
Win7-64 bit is the right thing to have.


Your GPU is unfortunately very "minimum" for this game, 512Mb RAM is not enough for this game and because of this you have stutters (as son as the VRAM is filled up).
1,5Gb VRAM and higher is the right place to be.

And for the last point, actually the game supports many CPUs, Quad-Core is the right thing to have so, you are either not looking correctly or you have put the correct patches yet.
(ps. Do not use the ProcessAfinityMask if you have Win7, let Win7 take care of everything)


Happy Flying

~S~

[Bobb4]

Not sure if Tree is still banned but he hit the nail on the head with the game, the lack of ingame video's etc... It is not finished.
The game will never work properly on anything but a new gen system.
No matter how much optimisation the developers do.
And even if they do get it working even halfway il2 will look better to anyone with a low end machine.
No amount of ranting or complaining is going to change that fact.
If you want the bells and whistles you will have to fork out the cash.
Thats not a boast it is a life lesson. My dual core 2.4 with 8800gt was battling with RoF.
My new system runs RoF maxed out but cannot run CoD fully maxed out. Honestly looking at RoF on my new system and the explosions match CoD, the trees look better...
So what is my point, simple buy a new system or accept that you will never be truly happy with CoD.
And even with a new system you will still not be completely happy ;)

[Verhängnis]

Ok I run the game fullscreen at Native Resolution of 1600 x 900, although I would be happy to run it a 1024 x 768 which I think is the highest 'windowed' setting.

I am also using Windows XP but I still have Direct X 10 running.

Quoted from resident Java and Computer Expert Storebor:

"The game currently can't utilize multi core systems well, hence a hexa-core system is of no use at all.
The perfect system has a high clock speed combined with large 2nd/3rd level cache.
Dual Core 3.3 GHz will do better than quad core 2.2 GHz."

Ok just tested with only effects and models on High, everything else, low or off.It was flyable with I more than 25 fps and not much lag at all, abit of stuttering still though, this was in a Bf-110 flight of four at altitude over Land and sea together.

Now testing in windowed 1024 x 768 with ground/landscape detail high.

[maclean525]

????

Can't believe folks are saying to throw hardware at COD to solve the issues!!!! COD does not even come close to fully utilizing the hardware, THAT'S the problem. It not fully optimized code, it needs lots more work. Simple as that. Buying expensive hardware is not going to solve anything.

[Ploughman]

I have a similar system to the OP. A Q6600 quad core processor at 2.4mhz, 4gb of RAM, Visat32, and a 1gb 9800gt.

The game runs quite fine with 8xAA, SOAO off, models High, landscape Medium, Shadows and Roads on, Grass off, Textures High, Effects High, buildings Low, trees low, resolution is 1920x1080. Occassional stutters over land and built up areas but I could always trim the visuals some more but I just love the eye candy, dogfighting over the sea is very smooth even with large formations. It's true to say the game on initial release was a total mess, but they've got it very playable in a month and I can do more with it than I thought I'd be able to do already, and I look forward to enjoying the rest of the sim's evolution.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

I am also using Windows XP but I still have Direct X 10 running.

This bit caught my attention. How precisely are you managing this?

He's not, it's impossible. This is also half his problem, because DX9 runs way slower than DX10 in this game.

[KG26_Alpha]

I am also using Windows XP but I still have Direct X 10 running.
.






For DX9 Graphics cards you need to make some changes to the conf.ini's

conf.ini
Render=D3D10_0 changed to Render=D3D9


Copy this line

D3D9

Enter here as below.

C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover

[BOB]
Render=D3D9

Also in

C:\Users\Steve\Documents\1C SoftClub\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover

[BOB]
EpilepsyFilter=0
Render=D3D9

[window]
DepthBits =24
StencilBits=8
DrawIfNotFocused=0
SaveAspect=0
Render=D3D9 < replace the DX10 line
width=1680
height=1050
ColourBits=32
FullScreen=1
ChangeScreenRes=1

Read more: http://ikg26.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=il2cliffsofdover&action=display&thread=1421#ixzz1KeqqPu1L

[Oldschool61]

-Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33 GHz
-RAM: 3.5 Gb
-Video Card: GeForce 9800 GT @ 512mb
-Direct X: 10

Btw I tested the game settings with everything on the lowest, no roads, trees, buildings etc except for:

*2 x Anti-A
*SSAO On
*Model Detail High
*Texture quality Original
*Special effects etc High
*Ground detail Medium



Turn off AA
SSao off
textures low
grass off
shadows off
resolution 1024x768 max and then see how it plays

[Oldschool61]

He's not, it's impossible. This is also half his problem, because DX9 runs way slower than DX10 in this game.

There are some people who claim they have hacks to install DX10 on XP.
Not something I would want to try though. Not that I know anything about hacks..

[335th_GRAthos]

OK, we are coming forward....

#1. I am sorry, with 512MB VRAM you have to stay low. 1024x will be good, WINDOW MODE is a must for the time being (in order to check the performance) you may be able to go higher.
The trick is easy: run in Window mode, use the mouse cursor to extend the window the way it suits you. CoD will save automaticaly the resolution to its settings.
Your VRAM is your biggest challenge, you have a MINIMUM System (because of your GPU) so minimum is what will work for you (so setting things to HIGH is taking chances).
If you want to experiment, you need a tool like GPU-Z or GPU-Observer in order to monitor your VRAM: Is it reaching its MAX, you are in trouble (=stutter).

#2. If you use WinXP then forget about high resolutions, this game needs Win7-64bit
This is the best invesment you can do (besides investing a hell of a lot of money for a good GPU).
Besides WinXP is using DX9 as far as I know... ;-)
@KG26_Alpha: I am sorry Alpha, this beats me; How will you be able to run CoD in DX10 mode on an Operating System that does not have DX10 ???? You rewrite computer history here...


#3. I do not know what expert Storebor is but he is for sure no CoD expert ;-)
What CoD does with multi core CPUs I wrote you before so I waste no more but,
as a picture is worth more than 1000 words, here is your CoD with eight cores running (4+4virtual).
This is a screenshot 3840x Desktop resolution, move sliders to the right to see the game
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/CoD_3840x1024_1280x1024_beta14_CPUload2.jpg

Look at the amount of VRAM (Memory Used) in GPU-Z, imagine how fast your GPU reaches its limit...



I hope this helps,
Happy Flying!

[Rattlehead]

I think people get irate when their computer meets minimum specs, but then the game fails to run properly. ('Properly' meaning at decent framerates and decent levels of detail.)

The thing is though, that over and over it's been demonstrated in PC games that 'minimum spec' is not something to bank on.
If it's minimum spec, the game is going to run badly. Maybe with some tweaking it will run better, but it will never run well with the eye candy enabled.

You pays your monies and makes your choices. ;)

The code isn't optimized that's true, but older rigs will struggle regardless and that's just life.

[TonyD]

... My dual core 2.4 with 8800gt was battling with RoF...

I too tried RoF on a dual-core (Athlon-II 3.0GHz) and an 8800 and found it unplayable. I have since upgraded this machine to an Athlon-II X4, and passed the 8800 onto a nephew who was in dire need of something better than he had. I put an even older X1950pro 256MB (equivalent to a 7800) into this machine, and was astonished to find that the game was now playable, without having to reduce the resolution or turn too much of the eye-candy off. Obviously the quad-core cpu is making up for the graphics deficit, but I really didn’t think that it would make that much of a difference. The fact that RoF uses DX9 correctly also helps.

With the current work load that the dev’s have, they probably haven’t spent much time optimising the engine for DX9, but I’m sure this will come. I only bought RoF late last year, but from what I’ve read, it had very similar problems to those currently being experienced in CoD when it was released. If that’s anything to go by, they will sort it out, and most likely before the US release. If it still requires a quad-core at that stage, you may be right, but I (optimistically) don’t think so.

[SEE]

I'm gobsmacked at how well my minimum specs machine performs with CoD following the patches and the last beta. It was pretty awful on initial release.

I use the settings below and haven't had the problems some report with ATI cards.

1280 x 768 60hz
Model, Visual - high
Building, Land, Textures,Damage Decals,Landshading - Medium
Buildings amount - Low
Grass - on
Shadows, Roads - Off
AA - off
SSAO - Off
Clouds - Off

Room for improvements sure in terms of visuals, but playable!

Duel Core - 4GB - Win7/64 - GTS250

[Oldschool61]

I'm gobsmacked at how well my minimum specs machine performs with CoD following the patches and the last beta. It was pretty awful on initial release.

I use the settings below and haven't had the problems some report with ATI cards.

1280 x 768 60hz
Model, Visual - high
Building, Land, Textures,Damage Decals,Landshading - Medium
Buildings amount - Low
Grass - on
Shadows, Roads - Off
AA - off
SSAO - Off
Clouds - Off

Room for improvements sure in terms of visuals, but playable!

Duel Core - 4GB - Win7/64 - GTS250

Why not turn off grass and turn on roads and buildings higher

[SEE]

Good thinking, haven't tried buldings higher or roads. I switch 'grass' on only for all missions that are ground starts as it looks too bland with 'grass' off. I still get 30fps on the deck which is fine for me. Having grass on doesn't seem to make a fat lot of difference to fps when I am up and away but wondering if increasing 'buildings' and roads will? I will try it.....

[KG26_Alpha]

Besides WinXP is using DX9 as far as I know... ;-)

@KG26_Alpha: I am sorry Alpha, this beats me; How will you be able to run CoD in DX10 mode on an Operating System that does not have DX10 ???? You rewrite computer history here...


!

What are you talking about.







.

[Oldschool61]

What are you talking about.







.

there are installers that claim to install DX10 on win XP but to many hoops to jump through and also stability issues I think

[Verhängnis]

"DirectX 10 ships with and is only available with Windows Vista and later; previous versions of Windows such as Windows XP are not able to officially run DirectX 10-exclusive applications. Rather, programs that are run on a Windows XP system with DirectX 10 simply resort to using the code from DirectX 9.0c, the latest version for Windows XP computers, although there are unofficial projects to port DirectX 10 to Windows XP."

According to Dxdiag I am running Direct X 10 but it seems it has no effect.

Btw Storebore is a Programmer, he's part of the Aviator Mod team and developes some of their most advanced code like their Air-to-air Rocket code in the 1956 Pack.

[KG26_Alpha]

According to Dxdiag I am running Direct X 10 but it seems it has no effect.





Hold on a sec

The Op's video card is a Dx9 card 9800GT how does a Dx9 card run under Dx10 ? It dont (properly)

Install Dx9 on your XP system

How do you expect to get correct CoD results with non standard Dx versions then come to the forums moaning your ass off its unplayable ......................... anyway...........


I showed how to use DX9 in CoD conf files as its set to DX10 default a few posts back.

What's all the other posts for ?????

Here it is again.


For DX9 Graphics cards you need to make some changes to the conf.ini's

conf.ini
Render=D3D10_0 changed to Render=D3D9


Copy this line

D3D9

Enter here as below.

C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover


Render=D3D9

Also in

C:\Users\Steve\Documents\1C SoftClub\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover

[BOB]
EpilepsyFilter=0
Render=D3D9

[window]
DepthBits =24
StencilBits=8
DrawIfNotFocused=0
SaveAspect=0
Render=D3D9 < replace the DX10 line
width=1680
height=1050
ColourBits=32
FullScreen=1
ChangeScreenRes=1

Read more: http://ikg26.proboards.com/index.cgi...#ixzz1KeqqPu1L

[B]If I'm not getting what's being asked here then my bad I suppose.






.

[Avala]

OK, we are coming forward....

#1. I am sorry, with 512MB VRAM you have to stay low. 1024x will be good, WINDOW MODE is a must for the time being (in order to check the performance) you may be able to go higher.
The trick is easy: run in Window mode, use the mouse cursor to extend the window the way it suits you. CoD will save automaticaly the resolution to its settings.
Your VRAM is your biggest challenge, you have a MINIMUM System (because of your GPU) so minimum is what will work for you (so setting things to HIGH is taking chances).
If you want to experiment, you need a tool like GPU-Z or GPU-Observer in order to monitor your VRAM: Is it reaching its MAX, you are in trouble (=stutter).

#2. If you use WinXP then forget about high resolutions, this game needs Win7-64bit
This is the best invesment you can do (besides investing a hell of a lot of money for a good GPU).
Besides WinXP is using DX9 as far as I know... ;-)
@KG26_Alpha: I am sorry Alpha, this beats me; How will you be able to run CoD in DX10 mode on an Operating System that does not have DX10 ???? You rewrite computer history here...


#3. I do not know what expert Storebor is but he is for sure no CoD expert ;-)
What CoD does with multi core CPUs I wrote you before so I waste no more but,
as a picture is worth more than 1000 words, here is your CoD with eight cores running (4+4virtual).
This is a screenshot 3840x Desktop resolution, move sliders to the right to see the game
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/CoD_3840x1024_1280x1024_beta14_CPUload2.jpg

Look at the amount of VRAM (Memory Used) in GPU-Z, imagine how fast your GPU reaches its limit...



I hope this helps,
Happy Flying!

You ARE Cod expert than? I see . . . (you don’t know sh... what you are talking about :P )

By the way, Luthier just called and asked again what your bank account number is. He will make the payment at the monday he said ;)

[jibo]

Avala are you the one who made the Avala's Benghali map ?

[Buchon]

Hold on a sec

The Op's video card is a Dx9 card 9800GT how does a Dx9 card run under Dx10 ? It dont (properly)


9800GT is a dx10 card, if I recall correctly is a dumped 8800GT.

Go here and click Specifications :

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_9800gt_us.html


Verhängnis, I strongly recommend you upgrade to Windows 7, all your problems will disappear and the game is other in DX10.

You should put that card under DX10.

[Peril]

I get 60fps on what some would call a 'slow' system?

*2 x Anti-A
*SSAO On
*Model Detail High
*Texture quality Original
*Special effects etc High
*Ground detail Medium

You need to turn off the things you left on, SAO and AA do the biggest damage on my sys. Also run lower resolution, why does everyone want this max when it does so much harm to good FPS?? I run 1280x800 and it's fine, so good I can now turn up some other fancy bits like shadows.. I average 60fps now and happy as a pig in mud.

Your expectations are well above your systems capability but not if the system is set at low settings, including the resolution...

Ask yourself, 'have I done everything I can'?

I'm guessing you weren't around for WarBirds 1.11 or earlier?? Now that was unplayable on a SX 386, although not to bad on a 486 and 256 colours, and rocked on a Voodoo card and a P1. Gives you a totally different perspective on what is 'minimum' settings, heheheh.

[KG26_Alpha]

9800GT is a dx10 card, if I recall correctly is a dumped 8800GT.

Go here and click Specifications :

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_9800gt_us.html


Verhängnis, I strongly recommend you upgrade to Windows 7, all your problems will disappear and the game is other in DX10.

You should put that card under DX10.


Thxz for the correction.

When I was testing a 9800GTX+ I got much better fps results with DX9 settings than DX10 in CoD

My point was to the OP that he should run CoD under XP with DX9

Your suggestion of getting Win 7 wont solve the poor performance of the GPU he has.

[Buchon]

Thxz for the correction.

When I was testing a 9800GTX+ I got much better fps results with DX9 settings than DX10 in CoD

My point was to the OP that he should run CoD under XP with DX9

Your suggestion of getting Win 7 wont solve the poor performance of the GPU he has.

Indeed, they have a very low performance in DX10, we are talking about a dump of the first generation of DX10 cards.

The nVidia 9800GTX is a dumped 8800GTX Ultra, if I recall correctly, nVidia just did a core revision of the 8xxx series in the 9xxx series.

But if you tweak down those DX10 effects, like shadows and shaders, the game should run fine in non excessive high resolutions, in 1920x1200 you can have problems with 512mb of vram.

If the game runs better with that card in DX9 than in DX10 is how should be indeed, but is weird that in some cases is just the opposite with this game, I guess is a matter of drivers or hardware.

With my ATI 5870 the performance in DX9 is terrible while in DX10 is smooth and pretty.

[335th_GRAthos]

When I was testing a 9800GTX+ I got much better fps results with DX9 settings than DX10 in CoD

My point was to the OP that he should run CoD under XP with DX9

Your suggestion of getting Win 7 wont solve the poor performance of the GPU he has.


That is good to know Alpha, did you benchmark the 9800GTX with WinXP+DX9 and Win7+DX10 ?
It would b bad news to all people who hope to upgrade to Win7 in order to solve the performance issues with WinXP.
I presume it is because the 9800GTX runs DX10 but NOT DX10.1
The older NVIDIA cards were running a DX10 version with shader model 4.0 and later generations were running DX10.1 with shader version 4.1

I do not know for sure what shader model CoD needs. According to an interview in pcgameshardware Oleg Maddox gave (11thMarch), CoD uses all DX10 and DX10.1 features.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,815544/Technikinterview-zu-IL-2-Sturmovik-Cliffs-of-Dover-DirectX-11-noch-zu-instabil-bis-zu-1000-Kilometer-Sichtweite/Rennspiel-Sportspiel-Simulation/News/
If this is true then the GTX9800 can handle the shader model 4.0 but not the shader model 4.1 features CoD has in DX10 and this makes it slower in DX10 mode.


Hunter in Ubisoft posted a great link showing, among other information, which DX version and shader model NVIDIA cards have, worthwile having when going shopping for a second hand NV card:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/132



~S~

[Buchon]

DX10.1 is a small revision of shader model and a little Antialiasing optimization, if you have plugged a DX10 card instead a DX10.1 capable card those optimizations will not appears but you should can run the game anyways with DX10 only.

So if you are using a DX10 card instead a DX10.1 capable card the game should switch to shader model 4.0, instead 4.1, automatically.

[335th_GRAthos]

Indeed, they have a very low performance in DX10, we are talking about a dump of the first generation of DX10 cards.

You posted it while I was writting....

Thanks, your two posts explain a lot.

One more question: If the DX10 performance of a GPU is lousy (compared to its DX9 performance), is it worthwhile to have the game in Win7 OS, but making it run in DX9?

~S~

[Buchon]

You posted it while I was writting....

Thanks, your two posts explain a lot.

One more question: If the DX10 performance of a GPU is lousy (compared to its DX9 performance), is it worthwhile to have the game in Win7 OS, but making it run in DX9?

~S~

My experience doing this with other games show that the differences are minimal, depending of how the game behavior is in Windows 7 it runs better or worse.

But overall the differences are no appreciable.

The question is :

Now days, there any advantage sticking in Windows XP ?

[Spinnetti]

So, lets break this down. by what they claim:

OPERATING SYSTEM: Windows® 7 / Vista SP2 / Windows XP SP3
I'm on Win7 Ultimate/64 bit. - Max spec.

PROCESSOR: Pentium® Dual-Core 2.0GHz or Athlon™ X2 3800+ (Intel Core i5 2.66GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 2.6GHz recommended)
I've got a i7 2.8 - Above their recommendation

RAM: 2GB (4GB recommended)
I've got 4GB DDR3 - their recommendation at least

VIDEO CARD: DirectX® 9.0c compliant, 512Mb Video Card (1GB DirectX® 10 recommended) - See supported List*
I've got a ATI4850

So according to their requirements, my machine should run this excellent - as it does EVERY OTHER GAME I've ever tried except this one (including Crysis variants, COD, etc.)

Its a slide show for me. My screens native resolution is 2560x1440, and even cutting that in half and putting the graphics on "medium" with no other changes is unplayable.

Definitely false advertising. IL2 is the best game I've ever had, so I'll stick with it, but I'm severely disappointed. (this is on all versions including the latest April 27 beta patch)...

[swiss]

You're surprised a three years old mid-end card doesn't let you play the game with all bells and whistles on?
Are you serious?

I got a 260, i also have to turn the resolution down(1200), 70% on high, trees low. ~40fps.
That's more than I expected. It was always clear the game will need a very strong GPU. Why do think some people here bought 580 SLI setups in advance?

-Trees are a killer.
-Your poor little card has to fill a 27" screen

*confused*


edit: And min specs means the game barely runs...

[Gamekeeper]

I thought I'd answer here as I saw your post on M4T which lacked any system detail.
You have a good system apart from the ATI 4850 which is an old graphics card and comes in at the low end of recommended cards with 512mb (1GB recommended), trying to run it at a resolution of 2560x1440 at medium settings is asking a bit much of it. Try low graphics settings and a much lower resolution and you should see an improvement in FPS. If you upgrade the card to match the specs of the rest of yousystem then the settings you use should work and give reasonable results.

[janpitor]

Tou can also try lower textures setting...for this resolution maybe low...and turn SSAO off every case

[335th_GRAthos]

I'm on Win7 Ultimate/64 bit. - Max spec.

I've got a i7 2.8 - Above their recommendation

I've got 4GB DDR3 - their recommendation at least

I've got a ATI4850

My screens native resolution is 2560x1440, and even cutting that in half and putting the graphics on "medium" with no other changes is unplayable.

Hallo Spinnetti,

Nice machine, nice setup (Win6 64), you have a Ferarri, unvortunately on a set of "wooden" tyres. As other mentioned already, your GPU is the main and probably only problem, mainly due to the 512Mb VRAM which are exhausted all too easily in this game.

By the way, no offence but minimum configuration used to be 640x480 (since you know the IL2 times, I dare to remind you). Everything higher than this, you are taking your chances.

The rest I have posted already in this thread if you go through them you can find most necessary optimisations and use GPU-Z to see how fast zou VRAM reached its limit.

You should be able to fly great with your machine although not at resolution you expect...

Happy flying!

[Aty2]

error

[RE77ACTION]

Hi, my first post...

I think the game is really good playable (offline) with a combination of settings and hardware below. I get frame rates between 30 and 90 with an average of about 50 in most missions. And I think the game still looks good. Only big cities at low altitude are really unplayable (FPS well below 20). I did came to these settings with many runnings of the Black Death track.

The strange thing is that nor my CPU nor my GPU run ever at full utilization. And no, I have luckily no problems with 'underclocking' of the GPU because it scales up nicely when I start the game. In Black Death my GPU runs between 37% and 71%. In the same track my CPU core 1 runs at about 80% on average (never 100% for a moment) while core 2,3 and 4 do respectively 45%,35% and 35% on average.

Two more examples of not using up all my hardware is given in the following.
1) I can put on SSAO (100% GPU powered) and it totally doesn't matter for the frame rate although my GPU gets 5% or 10% more utilization. I leave it off by choice because I don't see any visual improvement.
2) Overclocking my GPU and GDDR5 memory gives totally no difference in frame rate in this game.

I've upped my PCIE bus speed to 110 and it gave me a little improvement in frame rate. I also tried 120 but higher than 110 didn't give better results. I've eventually settled for 114 because my FSB is also 14% OCed and this would possibly prevent any synchronization issues (although not noticeable, so it's only between my ears). WARNING, I don't want to encourage anybody to OC his/her PCIE bus because it brings serious risks, for example data corruption on your storage devices (especially in RAID (as I have)). Do so on your own risk!

At first I installed the game on my HDD. But after some messages of this forum that installing it on your SSD could improve issues with stuttering I tried running it from my SSD. In my opinion it really doesn't matter at all. I see totally no difference. The stuttering looks just the same and keeps being mild in my case.

My biggest question is where the real bottleneck lies for my system and thus for others. I'm thinking of replacing my CPU for a 1090T or maybe 1100T (both 6 cores, more speed per core and better to OC) in the hope my GPU gets a better data delivery. But still have my doubts because (as I said) I'm not utilizing my current CPU for the full. Maybe it's just the (currently unoptimized) code of this game that's keeping the utilization down. I will wait for reports of other users who've upgraded their CPU's for the cause

Settings are as follows:

version: 1.00.14101
resolution: 1920x1200
full screen: on
model detail: medium
buildings detail: high
land detail: medium
forest: medium
visual effects: high
texture quality: original
anti-aliasing: off
anti-epilepsy filter: off
SSAO: off
damage decals: high
building amount: low
land shading: medium
grass: on
shadows: on
roads: on

Hardware is as follows (also in signature, but that's probably dynamic and will change in every post when updated):

cpu: Atlon II X4 640 @ 3.42
memory: 8 GB DDR3 1600 @ 1824
gpu: 6970 2GB @ 910 / 1425
storage: SSD 180 (3 in raid 0) + HDD 500 (7200)
mb: ASUS M4A79XTD EVO @ FSB 228 / PCIE 114

[KG26_Alpha]

Nice first post.
Welcome to the forums.

[Rattlehead]

RE77Action - why are you running model detail on only medium? You should be able to put it on high with little to no ill effect.

[TonyD]

... I'm thinking of replacing my CPU for a 1090T or maybe 1100T ...

Hi, nice lucid post. For what it's worth, I don't think you'll see any improvement in CoD with with one of those cpu's, since it isn't using your current one fully (the extra L3 cache may have some effect, but I doubt it will be much). Out of interest, I clocked my cpu to 4Ghz to see if it would improve anything, but it made no noticeable difference.

[Edit: just ran Black Death with both cpu settings, just to check again:
3.4Ghz: avg.41, max.93, min.10
4.0Ghz: avg.44, max.102, min10
All other settings the same, adjusted cpu speed with the multiplier, re-start between tests, one run only.

Ps: I think your bottleneck, as with others, is the current state of the software, and throwing expensive harware at it will yeild minimal results]

[RE77ACTION]

I've model detail on medium because it gives me one FPS extra in Black Death (average 32 vs 30/31). When testing the FPS in black death I use every time the following consistent procedure. Every test I start the game clean from Windows, load and start the track for 5 seconds and then exit the track. Then load it again, wait 5 seconds and start the track for the second time. From this run I take the average from the absolute beginning (includes building the screen and loading all textures) to the absolute end. The reason for this is because I've learned that the game is not always consistent in its FPS returns when running each benchmark right after the other. Another reason is that I like to restart the game when changing settings, even when the game itself doesn't ask for it. This is just to be sure.

The biggest performance hit I get from shadows. Shadows cost me easily 30-40% in frame rate. However, I think it's worth it because it adds enormous to the overall experience.

I've played extensively with all the settings and I have to get my FPS from somewhere. It's a tradeoff that I'm willing to make because the loss in quality between medium and high is in my opinion minor. But I clearly understand that others would make other choices on personal preference and hardware.

[RE77ACTION]

@TonyD:

Thanks for your experience with upping your CPU performance! My CPU isn't the strongest one when it comes to OC. With 3,42 Ghz @ 1,525V (stable) I'm at my absolute max unfortunately. I which I could go higher to test the difference. Typing this gives me new inspiration, because I could of course go lower to test the difference. I'll be back later today to give my results.

[RE77ACTION]

As promised I've tested the Black Death track several times with scaled down CPU performance. For this test I've lowered the multiplier of my CPU from 15 to 13 and kept everything else the same (FSB still 227+1 (because of smiley error when I type eight in numbers). This way we know we are only testing the CPU and not things like memory, NB, SB, etc. The CPU runs now with 4 cores on 2,96 GHz instead my originally overclocked 3,42 GHz.

The results are pretty staggering if you ask me. The average frame rate dropped from 32 to 29 which is a decrease of about 9.5% while I decreased the CPU speed with about 13,5%. The strange thing here is that the CPU utilization is about the same as it was with higher CPU speeds. And still none of the cores reached ever 100% for a moment.

Maybe I and many others get never 100% utilization shown because the game uses functions which saturates only a part of the processor. And saturating only that part never translates to full utilization in a graph. I'm no expert on this, but I vaguely remind that I once read something like this.

It looks to me that my processor is a bottleneck even when it never shows a full 100% utilization in any one of its cores. In these tests I've grown stronger towards a better CPU. However more CPU power will give diminishing returns as this little test already showed.

I hope someone else will find these results useful.

[TonyD]

...
The average frame rate dropped from 32 to 29 which is a decrease of about 9.5% while I decreased the CPU speed with about 13,5%. ...

I was a bit surprised to see the difference mine produced at a higher speed, the feeling in the game is not nearly as apparent as the result would suggest. Although a 7.3% increase in average frame rate is not huge, especially for a ~17% increase in cpu speed, it could be beneficial if frame rates were marginal to start with. Another benefit of the cpu’s that you are considering is the fact that they have unlocked multipliers, which is handy when overclocking. I don’t really use this feature since it negates using Cool’n’Quiet – I tend to leave it standard (my RAM won’t run much faster than 533MHz, which it does by default on my mobo, and is faster this way than running at 400MHz and then increasing the ‘FSB’).

An upgrade I intend doing shortly is replacing my gfx card with a 6950 or 6970, which is due, but am going to wait for Bulldozer before deciding on a new cpu/mobo/RAM (currently leaning towards SandyBridge, although I'm an AMD fan). I just hope that some of issues that the game has with these cards are resolved by then, as my current one works flawlessly.

Good luck with your decision ;)

[RE77ACTION]

@TonyD and others:

That's exactly what I meant with diminishing returns. Your CPU (although the same operating clock speed) is better because its more efficient while your graphics card is a little less (no offence). It's to be expected that you will get less FPS increase when raising your CPU speed. I expect the difference will get bigger when you upgrade to a 6950 or 6970.

After seeing TUSA/TX-Gunslingers beautiful post in another tread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=22417) I saw that his GPU (5870) peaks often at 100% for longer periods while mine peaks at about 71% for only very short periods. If I can lift this percentage to 100%, this would mean at least a 40% increase in performance which would be clearly noticeable in a heavy game like this. Besides, I can use the power for other things too (like heavy multilayer Photoshopping). So, I've enough excuses ;). However I will probably first await the next patch.

[RE77ACTION]

In the meantime I've replaced my AMD Atlon II X4 640 CPU for a Phenom II X6 1100T. The cost of these CPU's have come down greatly where I live. Maybe it is because everybody is waiting on arrival of the Bulldozer. I suspect the prices will rise again somewhat when people see that these Bulldozer CPU's won't be cheap. I thought it would be nice to give some comments on my new CPU.

Even at default clock speed of the 1100T, the game performed better than with my old overclocked processor. But I didn't buy this CPU to run it at default clock speeds. At this moment I have it stable running at 3,76 GHz. If I want to go higher (and I want), I have to replace my Zalman CPU fan (which is more silent than overclocking oriented).

Since the upgrade of my CPU I've benchmarked the Black Death track at 41 FPS on average (was 32) with the same settings, game version and same measuring method as before. This is a performance increase of 28% and it's very noticeable. The frame rate improved the most at the heaviest part of the track (where the planes on the ground are blown away by the explosions). With my old CPU the frame rate would drop here for a short moment to 8 or 9 FPS. With my new CPU it drops shortly to 21 or 22 FPS. This is at worst a performance increase of 133% on the heaviest part of the Black Death track. The power counts here where it's needed the most.

At the technical side, the upgrade provided me with a better utilized GPU which will now hit 100% occasionally (was 72% if I'm correct). This shows that a 6970 needs a good CPU to support it. I also noticed that core 1 of my new CPU is now fully utilized which wasn't the case with my old CPU (at least it didn't translate to that in a graph).

All in all I'm very happy with this cost effective upgrade. I really enjoy flying with this machine! ;)

[335th_GRAthos]

Great stuff!

Thanks for sharing!
(it seems I will overclock my i7 2.9GHz after all....)

~S~

[RE77ACTION]

Great stuff!

Thanks for sharing!
(it seems I will overclock my i7 2.9GHz after all....)

~S~

I think that overclocking your CPU could get you even better performance. A SLI setup with cards like yours is very data hungry. Besides, you have a great CPU for overclocking. But of course, its on your own risk... ;)

[Widowmaker214]

These kinda msgs are actually a bit funny.

This is not 'Angry Birds'. Flight sims are historically known to be the most hardware straining games out there.

And no, this will not run on your iphone either.

I build my gaming rigs specifically for flight sims. Why, because I love them.

For CLOD, Im running a 990x stocked at 3.65ghz, 12GB DDR3 1600 @ CAS 7, Killer Nic (on the mobo), a vertex 3 Sata III SSD, and twin EVGA GTX 590s

With that, and the graphics settings mostly on high.. @ 1920x1080 I can get about 40+ FPS most of the time. And thats on one graphics core.
I havnt seen any improvement setting the affinity mask to 63 yet.. so Im assuming that hasnt been tweaked. Plus I have three more graphics cores waiting for SLI support.

And yes, I built this rig just for the release of this sim. Yeah it was expensive, but new, cheap sandybridge packages should be able to produce pretty good results too.

Bottom line.. these things require power. If you cant feed it, don't complain.

Every new sim pushes hardware.. its supposed to.

The game perfect? No. lots to be done yet.. but Id rather have it out, getting used to the new game... than still be waiting.
I cant believe how bitchy people get. Its not like this is vaporware, or that they don't support their product. They always have and I see this being no different. They work hard and are proud of what they produce, so its only a matter of time till things get ironed out.
The shelf life of this one, Im hoping is going to be another good 10 years. So.. CHILL OUT.
Ive already been very impressed with what Ive seen as improvements over IL2 46. not just the great graphics and lighting but A lot more realism as far as what aircraft CAN do.
(no more attempting to turn and burn in a 109) and so on.

Me. Happy.