Benchmark il2: what are your minimum fps ?
 

Had this benchmark ntrk tested in french forums, so far best result is 11. Wondering if anyone here will be able to get acceptable min fps of 25 to 30 ?

Use internal fps display (maj+tab for console, then type fps START SHOW).

http://www.filefront.com/17464168/Fi...sBenchmark.zip

My result with UP2.01

mini 8, average à 44,i5 760@ 3.8ghz, 8Go RAM, GTX 470.

AAx4 AF application, 1280x800, perfect,water=4,forest=2,landgeom=3

Ill bench it when I get home tonight. What exactly is pathing for the bench? Hopefully something cool and not just a quick zip over some building filled city.

Benching at 1280x800 doesn't really show realistic performance though. Run it at the res you're using. Unless you ARE using 1280x800 that is. :D

Ran it at your settings and recieved min:9 average:40 first time through, then at the very start of the track as the track reloaded it started off at 0 and (of course) didn't move, averages were the same.

Q9400@3.7, 4 Gg ddr3 -1333Mhz, EVGA GTX460 SC

Skoshi Tiger and I have very similar results.

On first run through I started the track, immediately hit pause, started the FPS tracking and I go a minimum of 3. Second time around I let the track load, I waited maybe half a second and then hit pause and started the tracking. On that I got 9.

It's the first 30 seconds where the frame rate drops to a 9. I was at 11 for the first several seconds and then it briefly dropped to 9 before it was back at 11.

I've got a Core i7 870 with 4GB of DDR3 RAM and a GeForce GTS 250 512mb running on IL-2 1946 4.09m stock at 1280x1024 with 4xFSAA and 2x AF. Under normal gaming circumstances I can often have sessions where my FPS minimum is 65 or 80... but this track and circumstance is just brutal. Actually I think it very clearly shows where the limits of the IL-2 engine are considering a wide range of systems are getting similar results.

@kimosabi 1280x800 IS my gaming resolution for IL2 ATM, maybe i can increase it with my new system, but i want a game as smooth as possible, and this test shows exactly that it is pretty difficult to keep it smooth in every circumstance.

I'm a bit sad indeed, i had hopes for, 10 years later, being able to zoom over berlin with a decent visual action, and it's not the case.

Anyway, for who wants to stress a CPU and see what overclock give in terms of min fps, this bench is a good reference i think, more suited to present CPUs than the old blackdeath or kamikaze.

Thanks for your results guys :)

With my current vid card (gtx 460 2048), after looking around the first 360 degrees, FPS goes to 60(VSYNC on) at 1680 x 1050, however with stock game, and stays there just about irregardless of what happens in the screen. Multiple big bombs at close range sometimes drop it a little but this is most probably thanks to the not so well done/optimized Effects=2.

Look like some kind of bug caused by the zoom level. The track play max framerate if I change the zoom level on the plane.

The narrow field of view increases the draw distance of objects (normal) so there are more objects that are being considered for calculation. For whatever reason... static objects (i.e. houses and buildings) bog the game engine down when present on screen in great numbers. They bog it down considerably more than they should with the number of polys being displayed.

Please help - I'd like to try this out but get error message when I try and unzip it the downloaded folder - the message says that the folder is "empty" (tried "extract" under Windows 7 and also 7-Zip).

What am I doing wrong?

big issue is... the graphics and physics engine was never designed to handle the kinda stuff it does now, so it does it so inefficiently...

All these GIANT textures and hundreds of thousands of polygons in just a single frame was never intended...

The engine is designed to run on a system that's got a 450MHz processor with a 66MHz FSB, 128MB of 33MHz ram and a 32MB videocard running at 150MHz..

and a faster computer doesn't make up for that fact. sorta like putting a bigger engine on an airframe... if the airframe can't handle that bigger engine, doesn't matter how much more powerful the engine is, it actually has a negative effect on it...

Check out the size of the zip file. The one I downloaded was 747kbytes. Other than that I not exactly sure what could be the problem. Mine worked ok on windows 7.


Cheers!