20 FPS more on Spit with ATI 4870 !

[Skinny]

Originally Posted by IbnSolmyr

No, sorry, mine is a 2 Go Vapor-X one. (A card that i no longer find on the market nor in the benchmarks...)

But thats even better . See the link above and run the benches if you can. Would be great to compare 512Mb with 2GB card, other things being as equal as possible.

[Hellman]

Hi guys.

So far I'm not getting good numbers at all. I was running a GT 240 1gb with the original IL2:FB and getting 30-60FPS. I had 2x HD4870's but the open gl shaders for those were crap a year ago and was getting 10fps. Not good after spending £600 on cards!

Obviously the GT240 is crap with COD and gets 4-5fps on Lowish settings but I bought it for IL2:FB.

My question is this...... I was looking at getting a GTX580 which, with the coming COD improvements, should see me get a very high frame rate.

But,

After reading madfin's comment on upgrading his ATI card I'm thinking HD6970. The problem is that our squad will still be flying FB for years to come and my ATI experience with it has been less than good. I want a card suitable for both games.

Will a newer ATI card(the 6970, say) sort it so that I can run both games smoothly? Is it that ATI now have better drivers/shaders etc?

Or should I just pay the money and get a gtx 570 or 580?

Oh, my resolution is 1920x1200.

And after reading more on this tread I'm moving towards a GTX580, or would 2 x 570's be a better option? Not really worried about the cost so much.

~S~

86FG_Wolf.

[Skinny]

maybe the patch will change things, but as it is, you want as much videoram as possible. SLI/xfire doesnt double your available vram (textures are duplicated on each card), so that is not the way to go -even if a future patch will enable it, for now it doesnt even work.

The best somewhat affordable solution is probably a 2GB ATI card, but I share your concern about drivers. If you can afford it, a 3GB 580 GTX would be your best bet. One of these:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...14&subcat=1812

Pricey, but people are reporting excellent results, even London map being smooth.

[Hellman]

OMG, I'm going to have to spend £470 on a card to play COD???

There is no way that a game like this, where they are quoting that a minimum spec would be a GT250, should require a 3gb card to run smoothly.

I have been an avid follower of this games progress in development for over 7yrs.

I've been an IL2 addict for the last 4yrs, and on an off since 2002.

This is becoming ridiculous now don't you think?

I appreciate that your comment is only good advice, but it's kinda obvious that a space shuttle will go quicker that a jet. The problem is, not many people can afford a space shuttle.

I bought a new rig 18mths ago in preparation for this game alone. 1gb Asus motherboard, 2.87gb quad core, 2 Radeon HD4870 2gb dual cores, 8gb ddr3 ram, 300gb 10,000rpm hd, and another 1tb of space for good measure. Nearly £2000 of rig. And I can't run a flight sim?????????

Somebody pick me up off the floor.

[Skinny]

Can you do me a favor and run that benchmark for me pretty please?
Here is what to do and how:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...4&postcount=15

Here are my results:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20438

Your 4870 with 2GB ought to be miles better than my 4870 512Mb in this game (the fact you have 2 doesnt change anything at the moment, as crossfire isnt functional yet), and im getting quite playable results over water at least.

[IbnSolmyr]

Originally Posted by Skinny

But thats even better . See the link above and run the benches if you can. Would be great to compare 512Mb with 2GB card, other things being as equal as possible.

Yes, i'll do it soon. But right now, i'm trying to kill a few planes... But even if it's not the most important, rest of the rig will interfere with the results.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by Hellman

OMG, I'm going to have to spend £470 on a card to play COD???

There is no way that a game like this, where they are quoting that a minimum spec would be a GT250, should require a 3gb card to run smoothly.

I have been an avid follower of this games progress in development for over 7yrs.

I've been an IL2 addict for the last 4yrs, and on an off since 2002.

This is becoming ridiculous now don't you think?

I appreciate that your comment is only good advice, but it's kinda obvious that a space shuttle will go quicker that a jet. The problem is, not many people can afford a space shuttle.

I bought a new rig 18mths ago in preparation for this game alone. 1gb Asus motherboard, 2.87gb quad core, 2 Radeon HD4870 2gb dual cores, 8gb ddr3 ram, 300gb 10,000rpm hd, and another 1tb of space for good measure. Nearly £2000 of rig. And I can't run a flight sim?????????

Somebody pick me up off the floor.

Try playing with a realistic resolution like 1280X740ish

Why does everyone think that every game is going to run at ultra high resolutions....IF most here would run at more realistic resolution levels they could almost double there fps its not that hard to figure out. Im starting to think some of you guys aren't that bright.

[Hellman]

" bought a new rig 18mths ago in preparation for this game alone. 1gb Asus motherboard, 2.87gb quad core, 2 Radeon HD4870 2gb dual cores, 8gb ddr3 ram, 300gb 10,000rpm hd, and another 1tb of space for good measure. Nearly £2000 of rig. And I can't run a flight sim?????????"

That's why!

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by Hellman

" Nearly £2000 of rig. And I can't run a flight sim?????????"!

Why? It runs great with overclocked CPU (2.8=>3.8 ) and 4890 at least for me. Details in my sig.

[Hellman]

That "first ground-sea battle is wicked!