This sim is flyable with a "Low Specs PC"

[RickRuski]

I have just received my C.O.D through the mail in the last couple of days and have spent not a lot of time experimenting with settings but have it flyable. This gives me a lot of encoragement to be patient and let the guys and gals at 1C do their stuff. Here are my pc specs: -

E6600 Core 2 Duo 2.4 gig
6gig ram
550w p/s
9600gt 1gig ram
2x HDD (1 x 1Tb--1 x 320gig) both are partitioned

C.O.D is installed on drive "I" a dedicated "Steam" drive of 200g (this is the only instal in that drive)

I am getting fps over water of 30--35 fps and over land 20--25 fps.

Here are my video settings: -

AA= off
Model details=high
Blds=medium
Land=Medium
Forest=Medium
Visual=High
Texture=High
Damage=Medium
Bld. amount=Low
Shading=Medium

Grass=off
Shadows=off
Roads=on

Some of you are going to say why don't you upgrade your pc (basically it is too expensive in NZ to up grade to a top end pc, probably about $3000-00NZD. I hope to do slower changes and upgrades as the game gets optimised).

This post is to give encouragement to people like myself not to give up on this sim, try some tweeking of your own. looking at a lot of moans from many it nearly put me off buying this, but I'm glad I have. Lets be more patient and let the people at 1c bring this sim to its full potential. I seem to remember when R.O.F was first released there were similar cries of dispair, but after some time of optomizing it is now regarded as amazing graphically.

[RE77ACTION]

You could even get an extra FPS by setting your model detail to medium. It makes the 'wire frame' of the planes less complex and thus visually less smooth. But I personally find the degradation of graphics minor. I even think I like it better because model detail on high makes the planes too 'plastic' for my taste. But hey, probably lots will disagree... ;)

[RickRuski]

Thanks for that RE77, tried that but it made no difference to fps. Will keep trying diferent settings to get the best I can. looking forward to the next patch, hoping there will be some more optimization. One of the biggest killers to fps that I have found on my system is clouds, have that turned off except when flyng channel missions.

[Buchon]

Interesting to everyone to know is under what resolution are you running IL2COD on that system.

[RE77ACTION]

Model detail medium vs high gave me about 5% extra FPS in the Black Death track. And because I don't mind the difference in graphical quality, it's a good tradeoff for me. The difference should be most noticeable when dog fighting with lots of planes. And in these situation it's nice to have the game as smooth as possible.

According to the CloD manual, model detail has a strong influence on performance. I personally think that clouds and shadows have the biggest impact. In your case, these are (mostly) off already.

Today I've tried the beta patch (ver 1.00.14413). I think it could possibly improve performance for most people. So now and then the frame rate is fractionally lower than before but on the other hand higher above big cities. Most important is that it runs MUCH smoother. The look and feel of the game have improved a great deal (more than the frame rate would suggest).

[Sokol1]

Bld. amount=Low

You test in Unlimited?

In my low end system (C2D@2.6Gha/4Ram/Gf250GTS1Gb) @ 1200x1024(60Hz)
I don see negative difference in performance using Unlimited, and building pop-up is low.

Sokol1

[RickRuski]

Hi Sokol,
I'm running windows 7 64bit @ 1280x960 with a 19'' monitor. My system is dx11 but my graphics card is not. I would like to hear from anyone who has made an upgrade from dx10 to a dx11 card and found an improvement in fps (not just one or two but at least 5fps). I know through testing that if I run without "cockpit on" I will get a fps jump upward of about 10fps both over land and water. Another thing is combat height, the higher you are during combat the better. As most of the combat with bombers wasn't at ground level my system seems to be handling things ok. Sure I do have some minor stuttering down low when trying to finish off the enemy who is trying to escape but that is short lived as we gain height. During WW2 most of the combat was up high anyway, I can remember British people saying that most times they couldn't see the aircraft just the trails of the dogfights up high.
If your going to fly low sight seeing you probably won't last long anyway.

I'm also running the "beta patch"

[Rickusty]

I have almost the same system as you, without the 1TB drive (2x 320GB)and a 9800GT 1GB.

I'm running 1680x1050 Vsync on, AA on, with only Models and Damage on high, rest low or very low, and I'm getting around the same performance FPS wise. Get the latest beta patch, it might have killed multiplayer, but it improved my single player a good bit.

Same here. Very good FPS all around.
CDE7500
4 gb RAM ddr2800
GTS450

Multiplayer has become unplayable though.

[RickRuski]

Have just found about a 5fps rise with one little change. When you launch your mission with cockpit "on" you can see most of your dash board, in the bf109 though the gunsight reticile is off set. Hit "Shift-F1" not only will it give the 109 reticile centre but also about 5fps increase (at least it does with my system) with all cockpit views.

Don't know if anyone else has found this, it certainly helps with a low specs pc flyability.

[Blackdog_kt]

Why should we lie? If it works it works, if it doesn't then it doesn't.

Maybe we should try a fund raising and buy you airline tickets to come visit some of us and see it for yourself :-P

[RickRuski]

have found a few more fps by altering some graphics settings, here are my latest: -

Mod Details--high
Buildings---Medium
Land---Medium
Forest---Low
Visual Eff---High
Texture---High
Damage---Medium
Building Amount---Low
Shading---Low

Grass=off
Shadows=off
Roads=on

Sorry "omgclod" if you can't get your system working, but some of us with low specs pc have by trying different settings. We have managed to achieve reasonable performance by keeping at it and experimenting. My system is standard (not o/c) and I'm not very savy with altering bios etc (in fact it scares the @%#* out of me even thinking about it). Dont give up, I found that the "beta patch" helped, once the game is more optimised we will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Here's my system specs: -

Asus P5b mb
E6600 core 2 duo 2.4gig
6gig ram 1066 DDR2
9600gt 1 gig vram
1x HDD 1Tb
1x HDD 320g
550w p/s

This basic rig is 5 years old but I have upgraded the ram from 2gig --6gig and added the 1Tb HDD. Both HDD's are partitioned with all my il2 series on drives separate from "C". I have one partition as a special "Steam" drive with only COD on that.

[Tiger27]

liars, this game doesnt work on medium settings on medium pcs :evil:

What, why would we lie, maybe people will help you to get it running, although with your attitude I doubt it, personally I have enough children at home needing help with their games, grow up!

[pupaxx]

I would like your comment to a quick test I made here
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=22665

I experimented various setting how u'll see, I wonder why (from medium settings to high, tested also forest=0) I have near to zero fps improvement.
Is the bottleneck elsewhere?
In this test cpu usage: Cpu1 mostly 70% Cpu 2-3-4- 40-45% more or less
Ram usage 75% more or less
VRam 95-98%
very strange 4me
Cheers

[RickRuski]

Here's a screen capture from my system. See fraps fps.

[robtek]

:-P good joke, good joke :grin:

maybe you are right, and its me and the other 90% of user who got problems with the game :rolleyes: (and the pc magazins, they are also jerks... :-P)

Well, i dont know about you and the "90% users" with problems, but that the pc-magazines are jerks is a fact!

[RE77ACTION]

I would like your comment to a quick test I made here
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=22665

I experimented various setting how u'll see, I wonder why (from medium settings to high, tested also forest=0) I have near to zero fps improvement.
Is the bottleneck elsewhere?
In this test cpu usage: Cpu1 mostly 70% Cpu 2-3-4- 40-45% more or less
Ram usage 75% more or less
VRam 95-98%
very strange 4me
Cheers

I've done too some testing with my system. I found the CPU a bottleneck in my system while never utilizing a core at 100%. Read my posts (4th post and later on page 5 and 6) http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=22155&page=5

In the meantime I've upgraded my system (will later post the results in that thread) with a AMD 1100T processor in place of my old AMD X4 640. The result is that with this processor at least one core is utilized at 100%. In my opinion it is that some processors don't give full utilization in the graph because saturation of certain instruction sets won't translate to full utilization in a graph. However the processor is still fully utilized. Since my upgrade I see also a better utilization of my graphics card.

@RickRuski: Nice to see you have found a good compromise between performance and eye candy on your system. And probably with time it will only get better as the code gets optimized. I also wouldn't recommend overclocking your system if you aren't comfortable with it or have the cash to replace damaged components. However, I have to say that I have never damaged one component in more than ten years overclocking. The only thing is that I probably have worn out some components sooner than I would have without overclocking (due to electromigration). But most of the time components are written of due to technological advances before that happens.

[RickRuski]

I have to admit that there are some settings that I have turned "off" to be able to get reasonable game play. With a low specs system you can't expect to have all settings "on". In the realisim settings the only thing I have "on" at the moment is "vulnerability", also I have "clouds off" (these are a big hit on my system) also I fly "cockpit on" but in "shift-F1" mode (this I find gives me about 5fps extra), if I fly "no cockpit" I can have about a 8---10fps increase. I am still experimenting with "realisim" settings to see what I can have on without to big a fps hit, will post my results.

Hope to have an upgrade to my system in the next 2---3 months but will hold back until further patches have come through, don't know wether to upgrade cpu or graphics first. If I decide on cpu it will mean about a $1000-00NZD upgrade as it will be new M/B,cpu and Ram (probably an i5 or i7 system).

[Rattlehead]

If I decide on cpu it will mean about a $1000-00NZD upgrade as it will be new M/B,cpu and Ram (probably an i5 or i7 system).

True, but also with newer video cards your PSU might be taking strain. Not necessarily, but it's a possibility, so that might require an upgrade if you switch to a high end video card.

Personally, I'm waiting for AMD's Bulldozer before making a decision. I did earmark the 2500k as the processor for my next upgrade, but since Bulldozer's release isn't far off (according to websites) I think I'll just wait a bit longer and see.

[RickRuski]

Hi Rattlehead,
Yes that is a possibility, I have a 550w ps at the moment and cards that I would go for can be handled by that, if not I will have to bite the bullet. I'm like you, waiting to see what develops with the patches. At least I can get this running with reasonable frame rates at the moment. Will continue to try different settings to gain what improvement I can.

[Thee_oddball]

you guys have to remember something...when the new intel/amd come out this year they wont be cheap!..they will most likley be over $350 not to mention the cost of the board..
i was wrong to tell people earlier to "wait and see"...any of the phenom or I series CPU's will do the job right now and in a year plus when the latest and greatest CPU's come down in price THEN start thinking about an upgrade...unless money is no concern to you.

S!