SOW System specs

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by baronWastelan

Which is the prefered OS for running S-o'W: Windows 98 or Linux?

CP/M:

A minimal 8-bit CP/M system would contain the following components:

* A computer terminal using the ASCII character set (very early systems used a teleprinter instead)
* An Intel 8080 (and later the 8085) or Zilog Z80 microprocessor
* At least 16 kilobytes of RAM
* A means to bootstrap the first sector of the diskette
* At least one floppy disk drive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M

[Skarphol]

Oh, I'm way ahead of you all!
I built a new computer with SOW:BOB in mind around christmas 2006!
I'm not kidding!

It runs Il-2 pretty well, though..

And to all you norwegians out there: Happy constitution day!

Skarphol

[Avimimus]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

Hi Oleg, with the release of SOW only 4 months away would it be possible to let us have the system specs required to run this game.

Many Thanks

Tree_UK: It is a good question, but I'd assume Q1 or Q2 is more plausible.

Still... Oleg did say that he'd give us a ballpark estimate within six months to release.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by fireflyerz

What!!! , how dare you , who do you think you are , you shoud be banned for such insults , now take all your 50 p's and GET OUT.

Actually, some of my 50p's are in your pocket so can I have them back? Also, Oleg owes me a fiver so what can we do about that?

[gibxxi]

Originally Posted by Qpassa

Minimum:

i7 920
12 GB RAM
Nvidia 480

This is what worries me. And looking at the screen-shots that have been posted, i can see it being distinct possibility. My system meets those requirements on everything but graphics.

Currently have 2xGTX260's in SLI, but I honestly don't think it's going to be enough, especially at low altitude. Hell, WoP starts jerking slightly for me at 1280*1024 down at low altitude, so I think most people who think they can run at full detail on their current systems are in for a disappointment.

Regards.

[SG1_Gunkan]

I7 or I5? Wait to I9?

I and going to buy a new computer, and some people say that for gaming, I5 is better.

[gibxxi]

I don't know about you, but when I build a computer, i do so with longevity in mind. I usually upgrade the graphics hardware at some point in it's operational life, but the core components stay the same, barring any mishap.

It's all about price vs. performance. The Core i5 & i3 are aimed at mainstream / budget markets, and a lot of people will build systems around them because the money they save they can put toward a better graphics card, or cards.

The Core-i7 is undoubtedly a better processor than the Core-i5, both for gaming and general use. Whether it is better for YOU depends on how much of your budget is left over for the remainder of the system.

But bear this in mind, the boards for the Core series of CPU's can only take other CPU's in that series. So upgrading a core-i5 to a Core-i7 later on will mandate a replacement motherboard as well as the processor.

Replacing these parts later is a lot more difficult than the graphics card, so I'd say if gaming is not your only usage, buy a Core-i7 and get a decent graphics card when you can afford to. It may save you headaches in the long term.

Otherwise, if it's too expensive for you to consider, get the Core-i5 or even the Phenom and mate it with a powerful graphics card.

Regards.

[Flanker35M]

S!

So if SoW is running in both DirectX 9 and DirectX 11 then the minimum requirements can be pretty reasonable as most of today's computers are more than capable of running this.

The Minimum Requirements are IMO a joke as they usually present the crappiest settings that the game runs on, forget fancy smoke or lighting, high polygon count, sharp textures etc. The minimum could straight be the Recommended as it usually represents normal graphical settings that are playable and look reasonably good.

I would say any Intel/AMD dual/triple/quad/six core can run SoW, rest is up to your GPU. 8800 or greater from nVidia and from ATI 4xxx and greater will fit the playable section, of course my opinion. For those craving for the DX 11 and max details you will need crapload of memory, fastest CPU on the market and best GPU or more (SLI/XFire) to get that.

[BG-09]

Pilots, just start to save and collect money for the new PC...a lot of money...

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

8800 or greater from nVidia and from ATI 4xxx and greater will fit the playable section

For nVidia you're probably right, but Ati make all sorts of things in the HD 4xxx range, things less than the GF 8600 that you (rightly, in my view) exclude.

The system with Ati (for desktop systems only, they seem to be going berzerk with the laptop card numbering system) seems to be yxxx where y is year/generation number, yzxx where z is a range number, such that for any given year/generation more z = more capability, then yzwx where for any y and z, a higher w is stronger, then we have yzws, where 's' is pretty much always '0'.

So, HD 2600 is four generations ago, and it's less than HD 2900, but from there on with the 2x00 series you are stuck with suffixes to find out what else is happening. Then you get the HD 3zw0 series, they drop the suffixes (hooray), the HD 3870 is better than the HD3850 (which is pretty close to the GF 8800), the HD 3850 is better than the HD 3670 is better than the HD 3650 and so on. It doesn't follow that the 3850 is less than the 2900, though it might be, I don't know about that. The HD 4870 is less than the later HD 4890, the HD 3850 is less than the HD 4850, but when it comes to the HD 3850 you can't be sure just from the numbers that it's less than the HD 4830, though I think in fact it probably is.

There are HD 4550 cards, which are definitely less powerful than the GF 8600.