Pathetic performance
 

Hi!

Firstly let me congratulate the team on releasing IL-2 that I have been waiting for ages. As I the devs seem only to be active on this forum I opted for this before UBI's forums.

Basically with almost everything turned to max except for AA 4X and building density (not at unlimited) I've got some major performance issues. Now I now that you're going to want to say that my computer is unable to handle it but that may not be the truth. My setting is as following: I7 930, nVIDIA 470GTX and 6Gb of RAM.

Basically I'm getting about 1/3 FPS (yes 0,33...). I literally counted the numbers the game refreshed itself in 1 minute. Now the problem is that my GPU's usage is really low (about 5%). I took it from quite a short timescope but it's all the time like this when trying to play IL-2 COD. Nothing besides Skype, MSI Afterburner (only to monitor GPU usage) and Steam naturally were running in the background.

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/v...FS/IL-2COD.jpg (935kb picture)

Ubisoft and 1CPublishing I'm afraid this is absolutly pathetic and definitly the worst performing game I've ever bought (bought it from Justflight). Crysis 2 runs happily at max settings...

Regards

Magnus

You may want to read some post before taking a dump on 1C.

You have some tweeking to do before you can get it to perform at a confortable level of performance.

Only a few beleived that we would have the hardware to run it with everything maxed out right out the box. These few were obviously dreaming.

Check this forum for Conf.ini setup and in game settings. It will get better.

Also have you turned of the terrible epi filter? If not do so...

Regards,

Yeah there is something really wrong, i have seen videos where 1-2 plane fly over a water, there is about 20fps, and those computers was not old. There is not even land in horizon, why only 20fps over water, really weird...

Kankkis

To be fair Cryengine 3 is tremendously well coded and optimized.
It both looks and performs better then its own predecessor.

Hi!
Firstly as far as I'm aware it can't be turned off in the Ubisoft version. Secondly my GPU is THROTTLING DOWN whereas I expect it to be at about 100%. Core and shader clock have both gone down from stock and temperatures are normal.
Thanks for trying to help though. :)
Yea, but I thought and still believe that Oleg & CO can do far better than where Il-2 COD is at right now. If this game engine is to last for as long as they plan...

Uh, you've done something seriously wrong if you're getting 0.33 FPS.

There are performance issues, but certainly not that bad.

Please check your drivers and PC for any issues, and I'm also unsure whether JustFlight has used their wrapper for CoD, but that may be a source of problems as well.

Agreed.
Just mentioned it because most people automaticaly think "Crysis=ultimate torture test".

In fact I'm almost certain that Crysis 2 renders a manyfold of both geometry and textures more fluidly then CloD does at the moment.
But Crytek is the biggest studio in Europe, Maddox games is a niche developer.
I hope that pure dedication will make up for numbers to our benefit.

Well newest official GPU drivers are installed and no other game show any faults. The game seems to be installed right though. Thanks to all for their help though. :)

The only game I have this stupid CPU-GPU low-usage problem is Arma2 Arrowhead. In A2 the higher I am overclocking the lower the gpu usage. Crazy...

True, +1
Now you can add CloD to your list, for now...

MugiSNK

SF22 congrats for your game.:)

There's a patch coming probably tomorow, that should improve quite a bit the performance and will alow western version users to disable the epifail filter.
I'd say, enjoy what you can until then. Setup controlers, explore the sim and other things until that patch is released.

Have fun.:grin:

Thank you.

Yea, it just came out and GPU usage is a bit better but still very low and unplayable. :(

Bummer.:(

Hmm, think I discovered why it lags so much. After looking at my Afterburner stats it showed that all memory was constantly used to the fullest extent and it looks like that's the limiting factor (1280Mb). After decreasing the number of houses and trees performance seems to have improved. Despite that I think the dev team needs to improve on the GPU usage if possible. Will continue investigating this tomorrow. But for now it looks good.

Interesting. Maybe I should go for the 3GB gtx 580 instead of the 1,5

Better wait for some more observations from more professional people but as I see it this is the case.

I cant believe that in 6 years of development that the code is stilol this messed up. I know maddox is small but perhaps sometimes you need to hire a programmer that can handle this type of work

After my stint of developing for the largest investment banks in the world, i was in charge of deliverring applications that, in manies eyes would have been a miracle to get done on time. For example, singlehandedly i built a back office brokerage application dealing with trade algorythms to produce trade data (yes confirming settling ond amounts of money to settle in millions) to confirm with brokers, full GUI, fully working, documented. I had 4 days to do it. And i did it, the whole thing fully working with no bugs. with 4 nights of 3 hours sleep. but was told to do it by management without doing overtime and fit it somehow into 9-5 job so i had to even lie and say i did it 9-5. after completion i was then hit by the clients with more features to add.

If you focus on what you know you can deliver, and get basics working such issues as FPS, at least, with Agile methodology, a customer would be partially satisfied. I feel sad for IL2 team really i do. But really am a bit mystified how its still not ready, they should know the code inside out by now. after all this time.

What? I`m telling you, DON`T EVER compare this game to Crysis2 that is a less of a game than Crysis! It has less graphics and NO physics!

Crysis is not a flight Sim, so thats instant fail! lol
they dont make flight sims, because they cant. its too complicated for consoles.

+1
Crysis 2, no physics?

one of the games that makes sense to compare is Arma2. And it had similar problems in the beginning. So calm down and hope the support is as good as Bohemia Interactive. I think it is.

I'm sorry but the comparison is sound.
Performance decrease over cities or other spots with high object count comes down to the renderer and is not directly connected to the number of computing cycles the CPU does for heavy duty sim lifting.
A polygon is a polygon and 1 GB of texture data is 1 GB of texture data no matter the genre.

When it comes to those object hotspots ( and Crysis / Crysis 2 are one giant geometry/texturemass hotspot ) a seamless and efficient LOD system and rendering pipeline that is streamlined to deliver front end results ( read only shows things the player actually sees ) are paramount.

At the moment Cliffs of Dover both fails at the front end optimization and piles the complex simulation running behind it on top without spreading the workload to free resources ( if one can believe the benchmarks people have been doing for their multi cores ).

That said I firmly believe that the coders at MG know what they are doing and what we are looking at is basicaly a "feature complete" version that has just begun to evolve to Gold status.

Isnt ARMA 2 dead? I heard a lot went back to ARMA 1. well, wasnt the fix for ARMA 2 one the reverting back to Sahrani map from ARMA 1?

Do love that game, in fact youve just reminded me, after i get a new GPU that works with it i will buy it, even if it is dead, the coops are great in that.

Far from dead.
The second expansion is gonna come out soon in fact.
And they have a constant beta patch process up.
It has come quite far.
So far that I can't even honestly compare it to Arma 2 1.0.
The leap from Arma 2 to the up to date version of Arrowhead is about as large as the step from Arma 1 to 2.

You have no reason to expect to be able to run COD at max settings with your rig, except for your own ego. COD is a flight simulator, not a FPS. Try about medium settings, the game will still look fantastic, and it should run pretty well once they get the initial bugs stomped.

Thanks for the info on that Hunin, my gaming freinds seem to have ditched it. But i really liked Arma 1, just didnt have a pc capable of Arma 2. I will look into getting arrowhead soon. :) see you on there maybe.

My system seamed like it was stuttering quite badly on medium settings in the training missions. I ran fraps and it said I was getting a constant 30-34FPS. It just didn't add up.

Then I turned off 'head shake' and the game played alot more smoothly.

It's not going to fix all framefrate problems but it's worth a try.

Cheers!

It's better optimized thats for sure but Crysis 1 looks way more beautiful especially in open environments, and its easy to see that Crysis 2 is not a true sequel to Crysis 1, having them both i was utterly disappointed by this console-port crap.
The engine has obviously been redone to fit the consoles and the gameplay(corridor shooter) and game as well, its no longer a decent PC game in any way, gone are also the mod tools support and the ability to have decent options in game.

I am hoping something is wrong.....
 

I am hoping something went wrong with the distribution, as performance for me is also bad.

My CE edition unlocked yesterday evening in Australia and I gave the game a quick run last night after getting home from a meeting.

My system specs are as follows:
i7 clocket at 3331 Mhz
ATI Radeon HD 5870
RAM: 6142 Mb
Windows 7 64 bit, running off a SSD

Running at 1920x1200 resolution I was getting only about 20fps with the graphics turned down.

This morning the option came to turn off the eip-filter, and unfortunately I have had no significant increase in frame rate.

Neither the graphics card nor the CPU is heavily loaded during flight. There appeared to be only one CPU being loaded by the game as the other 4 only had slight loads which I would have accounted for the system monitor and fraps.

I have not yet turned off head shake as that was turned on in my settings.

In comparison I ran up my copy of wings of prey. I run that at 2560x1600 with detail on max. Flying around the south of England (with similar number of trees/buildings (and I will say more realistic looking trees/buildings) I am able to achieve over 60fps on the same rig.

There appears to be a bottleneck somewhere that is preventing the software from utilising the hardware available.

I have just tried IL2 COD. The only thing I have to say it seems like an Alpha version instead of the release version. Horribly poor performance even in online maps which is incredible to me given the small size of the online maps.

I think I'll keep an eye on the coming patches and see if performance improves but right now I have to say goodbye to be able to even play online maps.

Stuttering and low frame rate. I don't think it's a ram problem but the way buildings and trees are shown. Just my guess.

My Specs

CPU QuadCore 2 2.50
GPU ATI 5770 1GB
RAM 4GB
Win 7 64 bits.

Wasted cores, a GPU that is barely being touched. It looks like we have to wait for Cliffs of Dover to catch up to the hardware.

People need to stop making idiotic crysis comparisons - especially since cryengine 3 is cut down in a large variety of ways and polished to run super smooth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k
*corrected below, I meant engine not game :P

More like
Crysis 1 == Cod,
Crysis 2 == WOP if anything

Sorry I meant
Cryengine 2 (crysis) = COD
Cryengine 3 (crysis 2) = WOP

(cryengine 1 = farcry)

I LOVE YOU

Thank you from all the daytraders who were at the desk when the stop losses got hit and the dow dipped 10% in 2 minutes. They should of payed you more ^^

Well actually I am in FOREX not stocks but its the same for high frequency trading.
Question- if you know about FX when facilitating a exchange, does the program automatically break up the order into units or does the desk decide if/how it will be divided up?

Thanks :grin:

Im happy I got the russian version,only wasted 8 quid.

agree. would have like to have been in the room when it was announced it was going gold. programmer: "you fecking what?"

This game is very very laggy even on single player running on the lowest settings for me,my rig should be more than capable of running it successfully.

Medium or above and I CTD :(

In light of this continually growing Technical threads sub-forum, I have to wonder if 128 player online was ever a realistic vision???

Yeah, I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and say that my PC is well over the recommended specs for the game and I get an appalling framerate at the lowest settings.

Guys, please, take your time, work out what's going on, and fix it, I've been looking forward to this a long time, and it's annoying that now it's here I can't play it.

Very playable for me, even over land, with the occasional stutter. Less playable over London obviously. Seems like those with the most problems have NVidia cards, particularly those cards with less VRAM.

Yeah, looks like it. Not much VRAM left there.

S!

It is strange how CoD fills the VRAM so quickly and keeps it filled to the maximum at all times. Is it a feature or a possible memory leak? For example, as given in other thread, World of Tanks had a memory leak which caused the VRAM to clog up and game began to drop detail levels. Of course this helped only a bit until the memory was full again. In the end game became unplayable and graphical artifacts were an indication of this(red tiles on ground textures).

Does CoD automatically adjust detail levels in such situation? I doubt it if we have to restart the application in most cases when making changes in Video options.

Just a wild guess from my part when looking at those memory usages. From what I've been reading the 1Gb VRAM on a GPU is good enough until you go to very high resolutions with lot of FSAA enabled. In CoD many seem to use not more than 2-4x FSAA and less than 1920x1200 resolution, which is not out of reach on other games with a GPU having 1Gb or more VRAM.

Need to tweak a bit to see if it helps any..

Oh, need to mention! I run at only 1280x1024 due to my crappy monitor. Too used to it now, don't really think about it. :confused: I'll let you know what difference 1680x1050 makes in about a week's time, not that it'll matter by then.

WTF is goin on?
 

I have just downloaded COD,the game runs slow as hell even on low settings,thought my pc would be ok for the game on medium settings but the FPS is seriously bad,this game needs patching badly:evil::evil::evil:

Come on, how many days has the Russian version been out? And how many posts have there been about it?

You can't seriously tell me you expected it to be perfect on release?

Playable! We were expecting it to be playable on release.

Well...both of you have me on that one.:oops:

I can't even see pilots or aircraft in the menu let alone fly any missons. I have updated all the drivers I can...blah blah blah, anyway I think the premature release(:shock:) may have been out of the Maddox team's hands.

I am being philosophical on this, plus I am still really enjoying IL 2, so I can wait.

Well , it's been 6 years. How long is a piece of string....

Probably Ubisoft got fed up with waiting , we'd probably be waiting another few years if 1c had there way