Will we see bigger battles?
 

I´m really excited to play this game when it comes out here in Norway on the 31st, but there is still one thing I´m wondering about. All the pics and videos we have seen so far have been with relatively small battles. I know that the game is currently extremely demanding to run, and that it will remain so even though updates will fix some stuttering issues.

But does the engine actually support large scale battles? Are we only seeing hardware limitations here? Say - in 5 years, will we be able to have something like 100 bombers and 100 fighters in the air at the same time, without crippling even the fastest of computers?

As far as I know, your own PC is the limit on that one, like in the original IL2 you can keep adding objects until your system cant handle it.

For online, I think your connection speed also matters.

No your pc is not the limit. When a $1000 cpu performes the same as a $200 cpu its the programmers/devs fault not the hardwares fault.

That's your world Heliocon, not ours. From videos I've seen clear differences between various systems.

I have a 4GHz i7-920 GPU and with more than a handful of planes the stutters and pauses become unbearable. So no, you won't see large air battles for a very long time in CoD, well unless the devs can work a miracle.

The game engine is designed to have as many aircraft as your system can handle. The problem is that the code needs to be further optimized. People are struggling with just a few aircraft in the air. This situation will definitely improve over time. How much time is the question.

from talking in our squad and personal experience, GPU not CPU is making all the diff.

got less than a GTX460/470, forget playing it except over water at low res.

It doesn't matter, there are videos with people running QXXX and EXXX.
The difference between Q i7's are hardly a massive jump by the way. The game simply does not use 100% like most other games. Though, I recon it can be optimised to 100 or so players as they have obviously at some point tried it with current hardware.

I think that in some years we will have large battles, i remember when IL-2 was release and my computer could not handle 30 planes in the air

stick to the topic, yes the engine supports large battles, as in Il2 it may be a while before some have the hardware to play them though.

Why not do what 85% of the rest of the game market does and develop for consoles. That market seems content with the results they get and developers don't have to worry about thousands of system configurations. Limited hardware, limited gameplay = short life span. Better yet, build app games for the iphone and ipad...the casual gamers are the new black.

This is a complicated sim, much more complicated than anything else on the market right now. The more complicated these sims get, there is a chance there will be more problems to contend with. The key point here before we start finger pointing is to give the dev's more time to sort it out. It's bad business for them to leave a 6 year development debt when 75% of the game hasn't been released to the market yet.

Off topic there a bit, apologies.


As far as planes go, I'm sure more will be available as we progress through the timeline. From a gameplay standpoint personally I don't like 100+ planes in the air at one spot. Very limited ammo means most of the the pc's resources are being used as cinematics rather than adding anything to gameplay. You're lucky to have enough ammo to shoot down 1 maybe 2 HE 111's before windchester.

Online should be optimized as there isn't the need for AI to occupy CPU cycles, so having more human planes might be easier on the system than having same number of AI.

Not sure on anything yet, still awaiting my CE and apparently a patch or two ;)

Console ---- wash your mouth out with soap.

Sorry, as an adult I could never get into waving around a little potato looking thingy and doing IL2 or COD. LOL

Sod16 point me to some vids of people with a q6600.
I know sli etc is stuffed by people with epilepsy etc and patches are to come. But I will have to upgrade and wonder if I have to go all out or not.. Show me a system running full graphics with 45+ fps always. Maybe two early for that....

I am getting about 8fps with my set-up.
Below is giving me 8-14fps over land and 14-30fps over water on low to medium settings


Win64 7 ultimate Professional
Panasonic 42' LCD @ native 1980x1080
Q6600 oc to 4.0ghz - fan air cooled
8gig ddr3 OCZ ram
780i EVGA MB
128 OCZ SSD
2x 285GTX SLI

Yeooooww!

I don't have COD yet, but if you are having FPS issues I can just imagine what I'll be having with my system.

When I look at your specs I see - whew! lots of expense and then you tell us your FPS. Hard to believe a sim that has been in the works nearly six years and the kind of hardware we have now ... isn't cutting it?

My gosh, there has to be alot of efficiency that we have to pick up in configuration of COD.

Yeah I know. I am Devastated and shocked myself. But I have faith in the Team.

I would happily go out and spend a couple of grand on Saturday to upgrade me and my brother to identical riggs. But I am waiting to see some hard evidence from others on High FPS on full graphics and their PC specs first.

Until then I can just play around in the skinning and maybe look at the mission builder.

God I hope performance, sli and epilepsy issues are patched and released by Saturday morning AEST. I want to LAN till I fall asleep and then LAN some more..

There are a few getting much higher fps after some optimizations. Try running only one video card and lowering your resolution. There are a number of other options, like turn off the mirror, and clickable cockpits I've seen in the forums. Like you say you probably still have the epilepsy on, which you should be able to turn off soon.

Did I disupute that? I just made a generalised statement which so far is overall true. Hardware makes a differance but if a cpu 4x more powerful can only produce 1.2x the performance then its the softwares fault. Get a grip.

As far as I know COD has the same limit on number of aircraft as IL2 -

4 flights X 4 Squadrons..so 64 aircraft on each side = total 128

Multiplayer is also 128 total


This may well change in years to come, although IL2 never increased.:(



.

So anyone with a medium to low spec PC should forget about online dogfight servers where there maybe more than 60 planes???

My "high-end" system can handle 6 planes, so I would not keep my hopes up for 120 quite yet ;)

He wont reply - he has a bad habit of jumping in to make totaly unsupported and illogical statements and then dissapear back into the woodwork.

When people say the game is dependent on hardware, and better hardware gets only a small performance boost, not to mention the fact that the software doesnt even use the latest software/hardware methods, they are lying.

The game obviously need optimization - thats software based and it means that they are not efficiently using system rescources. Now in the future beyond the immediate optimization I hope we will see them work on actually getting it to use 4+ cores like a modern pc uses.

If they didnt make claims such as "it will look as good as an fps on the ground" and "it will push hardware for generations to come" (paraphrasing) people wouldnt be so critical. But since thats what they said, I dont think its unfair to criticise if what they deliver is not inline with the promise.

I am really curious what my new system can handle with this game...
Anyone got a guess for me? Got a new system about two weeks ago:

Case: Aerocool BX-500
Energy: ANTEC SIGNATURE 750 WATT

Motherboard: ASROCK P67 EXTREME4
Processor: INTEL I7 2600K
Cooler: INTEL ORG. COOLER
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 16GB (4x4 GB) DDR3, 1600 Mhz, CL8

Harddisk: WD 1TB SATA II
DVD: ASUS DVDRW 24x DUAL LAYER SATA
Videocard: ASUS EAH5770 CUCORE 1Gb DDR5

Not yet perfect system, but i bought/created it for the future so i can upgrade it big time... first must wait for some money haha... First upgrade will be a second videocard...

In my experience playing IL-2 on Hyperlobby there were dozens of servers with maybe 5 to 40 people on each server and nobody was compalining to much. From the performance we've seen so far its doubtfull that 60 people will be playing on the COD servers anytime soon, but very few people will have a problem with it. The new game engine is designed for 128 and I have no doubt there will be that many playing on a single server at some point, but no idea when.

Of course it needs optimization. Your the poster child why developers should never let the public know what there trying to achieve. The developer bent over backwards trying to say no promises were being made, and yet you still throw it in their face. Maybe you should try and develop something then you might gain some respect for what the developer have achieved so far.

Fellas,

It is my understanding that in MP the dedicated machine is doing the majority of the work with regards to AI calculations and objects. In theory, at least from what little I know, all you should be doing joining a MP battle is seeing and computing your own physics. All the other planes in the sky should be computed/calculated by the dedicated machine with your machine, obviously, having to draw them. IMO, you should actually have better performance online because of this. In a SP mission your own machine has to calculate everything. I think it's a big relief on systems with dedicated machines for MP, but time will tell.

We bought this as our dedicated machine for MP servers with COD in mind:

Two Intel Xeon L5640 processors (twelve physical 2.26ghz cores on QPI + hyperthreading + turbo)
48 GB DDR3 ECC memory
1000mbps (1 gigabyte per second) upload/download bandwidth

We want to be able to recreate the Battle of Britain in a huge campaign. I think once things get more optimized and the dedicated machine is able to take the stress it's supposed to be able to use, the much larger battles will come. I want to see 1000 planes in a MP mission someday!

No, you are a moron.

Seriously, I have never seen you contribute anything. 128 players? BS, the fact is you have no idea what you are talking about. Dont tell people what you "think" or "feel" because you dont know shit.

Its called reality, welcome to it. The devs are not making the game out of the goodness of their hearts - its a buisness. What am I throwing in their face exactly? That what they have said doesnt match what the game is? THey are selling a product. As for "developing" thats a pretty childing comment, especially since I have done modeling work before and know what it entails. WHat they have acheived is great, but it needed more time and more programming (1 programmer is not enough for this project).

Stop deluding yourself fanboy - that is the 1 and only time I have ever said that to anyone on this forum, and if anyone deserves the title its you. I have been in closed betas for (Darkfall online, Mortal online, Age of conan, warhammer online, Mount and Blade, Ruse and a bunch of other titles) and thats non-public / closed NDA betas. I know the differance between a finished and unpolished product.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...916#post245916
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19819
and as usual all you do is make idiotic comments with no backing. So if you continue to do so I will feed you back your own medicine like I did in this thread after you went after tree. If you dont like his comment, and cant contest it without anything but overzealous fanboyism, please dont post it. If you have a thought out post, then post it.

I see your posts are still full of your typical bullshit, poster child. Wow... you know the difference between a finished and unfinished product... amazing. You know the game need optimizations....amazing. What you don't have is any foresight or any idea how difficult this complex project is. If you had a clue you would cut the developer some slack. Don't worry though as you get older you'll find the universe doesn't revolve around your wants and needs, but your mother will still love you.

You know I had a longer post here, but seriously its enough now it needs to stop.