|
|
#21
11-19-2008, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
More gigahertz is going to be a necessity? How much "more", even the best today CPU cant go over 4GHz too much and game that wont run decently on most mid-range machines with vital features on, would be marketing disaster.
Future lies in multicore CPU, that's sure, but SoW develpment was started in sometimes in 2005 and is hard to elieve that Oleg targeted "recomended specs" at CoreI7 Extreme OC to >4Ghz.. 
|
|
#22
11-19-2008, 03:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
the warrior creed: crap happens to the other guy!
|
|
#23
11-19-2008, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I got you point, in SoW there wiil be probably a lot of "hidden" features or at least "hooks" for them for further develpment that will be activated as needed. So, there is no single PC config for whole SoW lifetime just as it was with IL2 series.
Question now is: what rig as a starter? Buying quadcore prematurely might be costly mistake while not futureproof by any sense, maybe Oleg will tell us more in May.
|
|
#25
11-19-2008, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Now that he's had that success he will build an engine that can be extended or a better way to put it... Scale over time. Developers make products nothing more. He will build it and if there is a level of sucess you will see addons and support. I think you guys are a bit too worried about the hardware specs. If the game lasts as long a IL2 did then all this discussion is a waste of time. PCs are going to be different 8 years from now.
|
|
#26
11-19-2008, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Exactly... but more like 2 years.
|
|
#28
11-19-2008, 11:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Missing bottleneck....
In my feeble mind the missing link is the monitor. Consider that our current fastest LCD Monitors cannot "in effect" properly present much more than about 60 Hertz "refresh rates". To my thinking then any time FPS is above this number you will not see it because the LCD monitor cannot update the screen more than 60 or 75 times a second. In the remaining discussion I will refer to 60 Mhz as I cannot see the diff between 75 and 60 on my "2ms" Viewsonic which is highly rated by those that have the gear to rank responsiveness of LCD's. Note that as of yet even the best "2ms" LCDs are closer to 8 or 10 ms average since all colors are not are not as responsive as the fastest.
For those of you out there that have a "2ms" refresh rate monitor and are showing 60 FPS at high detail in your app/game just go disable VSYNC and see if your FPS are significantly higher. When I do this my FPS jump from 60 to over 1xx in some of the more taxing games. Watch something like a plane or car move across the screen. When comparing 60 FPS vs 100 FPS does the object look like a solid moving object or does it appear to ghost/flicker/not be a solid focused object that moves? My observations are that at 100 FPS the object does not appear any more solid/focused than at 60, the ojects/game is not any smoother. At these higher FPS you may see a byproduct of the fact that LCD cannot refresh fast enough (above 60 FPS) you may observe monitor artifacts like texture smearing/tearing. This is why games that with given hardware are often suggested that we switch VSYNC to on, note that when you do so your FPS drop to either 60 or 75. In contrast for LCD's 30 vs 60 FPS is noticeably different since the LCD can effect double its screen writing/refreshing when going from 30 to 60 within its technological capacity. Do the above with a good CRT monitor that truely refreshes at 60, 75, 80, above = you will see the differences as the CRT can truely process these higher FPS. Unfortunately the LCD of today's technology at "2 ms" cannot present your eyeballs the benefit of hardware that can process higher FPS...UNLESS YOUR LCD CAN SHOW IT! I wont even start to address Input Lag.....this only adds to my observations and conclusion above. You may wish to research: Refresh Rate VSYNC Screen Tearing CRT refresh rates LCD's and how they are very different from CRTs GTG : Grey to Grey On Off On Input Lag Pixelanne ( I think is the name) - a great little program that is used to compare "refresh rates"/responsitivity of both CRT and LCD monitors. I cannot locate this as my spelling may be wrong. Please correct me if you know. All these contribute to my thoughts of the "Missing Bottleneck" (limitations of current LCD technology)....my opinion posted as it might be of value to one or two of you who might prefer not to waste money on higher FPS that you never see/enjoy. Last edited by SPUDLEY1977; 11-19-2008 at 11:29 PM.
|
|
#29
11-20-2008, 12:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Spudley, good posting there. I have been looking at monitors trying to divine what brand/model I should get. I'll miss the crt's capability in some ways but not the footprint or the weight. My wife's pc still has a crt, which I am using.
As I understand input lag, isn't thata technology issue for some lcd monitors? I mean I think some monitors suffer input lag worse than other when displaying other than the native resolution. Isn't that where the problem lies: resizing to a differerent resolution causes input lag? Additional to GTG, isn't there a similar measurement for black to white? I suppose anyone who can afford one might invest in a new lcd monitor capable of 120hz. I'm not talking about an lcd tv, but a pc monitor. I think I read about one somewhere recently. At any rate, I agree with your premise that the monitor can be the missing bottleneck. I'll have to choose wisely. Flyby out
__________________
the warrior creed: crap happens to the other guy!
|
|
#30
11-20-2008, 01:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's the minimum frame rates that we can notice and complain about. Even so, with each new generation of hardware that come our way, most of us will be cranking up the detail level higher and higher until we get unacceptable frame rates and then ease off abit. I view that as just a fact of life and one of the things that makes it good to be alive now, and be in a position to take advantage of it. Last edited by Skoshi Tiger; 11-20-2008 at 01:59 AM.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
