CoD new engine vs IL2 old engine & graphics

[Wiskey-Charlie]

Have been reading many threads with people wanting info about CoD specs. Most of what I read it sounds like people expect to have to have a super mega PC to run the new CoD with high settings like in the case of the original IL2. I don't think there ever was or ever will be a PC that can run Il2 perfectly. I think the engine was limited to what it could do.

My question is..........

I know the new CoD engine will process graphics better than the old IL2 engine , but to what extent ? Maybe we may not require as much high end hardware as some people might think ?

My flight simulator PC specs are (most hardware is from 2008 build).......

ASUS P5N-E
Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo CPU E6850 @ 3.00GHz 900 Mhz
4094 MB (Ram)
Windows 7 ultimate 64 bit operating System
Nvidia Geforce 285 GTX Display adapter
Matrox TripleHead2Go Digital Edition....3-LG 24 WIDESCREEN LCD

On this PC I can run the old IL2 at max settings and I will get stutters with missions that have too many aircraft, ships, land details all at one time to be processed. And of course I get the buildings popping in and out and also the funky shore line jitters.

On this same PC I can run WoP with its new graphics engine at max settings and the graphics are absolutely beautiful and smooth as silk. No Stutters, No buildings popping in and out, could not ask for any better!

So, I am hoping that CoD graphics engine is similar to that of WoP and am hoping that my current PC will run CoD just fine?

[The Kraken]

As you noted yourself, Il2 is more limited by the amount of objects you put into a mission, not the graphics themselves. Cliffs of Dover will hopefully have some optimisations here, and multicore processing will also help to a certain degree compared to Il2, but in the end you will always need more CPU power with more active objects in a mission.

Which is also the main difference to WoP, because not only is the world there tiny and without too many AI objects, but CoD will definitely have more refined flight model, ballistics, damage and radar/line of sight calculations (and who knows what else). So don't expect the same performance there.

Graphics alone should probably not be too demanding; we've heard and seen quite often by now how much the game is to support mid-range hardware (whatever that means in the end). I'd expect that CoD can look much better and still run faster than Il2 when you take out the AI aspect (i.e. free flight missions). That is also true for WoP of course.

[Wiskey-Charlie]

Originally Posted by The Kraken

As you noted yourself, Il2 is more limited by the amount of objects you put into a mission, not the graphics themselves. Cliffs of Dover will hopefully have some optimisations here, and multicore processing will also help to a certain degree compared to Il2, but in the end you will always need more CPU power with more active objects in a mission.

Which is also the main difference to WoP, because not only is the world there tiny and without too many AI objects, but CoD will definitely have more refined flight model, ballistics, damage and radar/line of sight calculations (and who knows what else). So don't expect the same performance there.

Graphics alone should probably not be too demanding; we've heard and seen quite often by now how much the game is to support mid-range hardware (whatever that means in the end). I'd expect that CoD can look much better and still run faster than Il2 when you take out the AI aspect (i.e. free flight missions). That is also true for WoP of course.

Good points, that makes since. Hope I can play with at least medium settings with what I have, could be a while before I can afford new MB,Ram,Core i7 and latest display adapter.

But one of my points was, because of the new graphics engine am thinking there will be improvements across the board (no matter what your hardware is) like no more buildings popping in and out. That is huge to me.

[Wiskey-Charlie]

You can answer your own question with a high degree of accuracy by running FSX on your PC. [spoiler: CPU = bottleneck]

So you don't think CoD's new engine/technology will process graphics any different than does FSX? If that's the case then I do need to upgrade. What is the best processor on the market today for gaming?

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Wiskey-Charlie

So you don't think CoD's new engine/technology will process graphics any different than does FSX? If that's the case then I do need to upgrade. What is the best processor on the market today for gaming?

With the arrival of Sandy Bridge it's a pretty easy choice. Either go for the Core i5-2500K or the i7-2600K. Custom PC magazine was raving about them - the i5-2500K in particular, which beats or matches the mighty Core i7-980X in many tasks for a quarter of the price. (no thanks to Intel for the confusing naming scheme )

Planning to upgrade myself in the near future with the i5-2500K.

[Wiskey-Charlie]

Core i5-2500K or the i7-2600K

The more I think about it, sure would like to see CoD in all its glory. Laying off of the credit card is going to take a lot of will power on my part.

I see hardware prices are much better than years past............

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...664&CatId=6982

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...013&CatId=3433

Looks like I could get it done for about $500. Very tempting

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by kendo65

With the arrival of Sandy Bridge it's a pretty easy choice. Either go for the Core i5-2500K or the i7-2600K. Custom PC magazine was raving about them - the i5-2500K in particular, which beats or matches the mighty Core i7-980X in many tasks for a quarter of the price. (no thanks to Intel for the confusing naming scheme )

Planning to upgrade myself in the near future with the i5-2500K.

Uh what? No it doesnt, please post where you saw this. Its alittle misleading, the only way it could beat the 980 is if it was running a limited amount of threads, like say 4 (1 per core) while the 980 has 6 cores but can only use 4 threads and since the quad has a higher native clock it beats it. But the new intel cpu's are a rip off, most have integrated graphics which you have to pay for in the chip cost and are a money waste. Also they are no faster than the previous I7 generation, what they did was change the architecture from 40->32nm which reduces net heat from the CPU and therefore allows a higher stock clock speed. In reality a normal i7 (like a 930/940) can outperform the new range when OC'ed properly. The current new range of intel CPU's are there mid-low range sandy bridge, the high range wont come until end 2011/2012 so until then the 980+ is king (also is 32nm unlike other 1g i7s).

[baronWastelan]

Originally Posted by Wiskey-Charlie

So you don't think CoD's new engine/technology will process graphics any different than does FSX? If that's the case then I do need to upgrade. What is the best processor on the market today for gaming?

Originally Posted by luthier

--snip--

My system isn't good enough to run the game at full settings while flying over populated areas, especially over London.

That's actually the fault of the CPU. Even if we replace all objects on the screen with single pixels, it doesn't run any faster. There's just so many objects around you being tracked - buildings and trees - that constantly updating their location relative to you takes a lot of resources.

My card is mostly maxed out by textures of tons of different objects, againt in populated areas. Airfields are the worst in this respect. You're seeing a ton of high-res objects at the highest level of detail. The game uses dynamic texture loading, and you'd see various textures cycle through lower LODs, try to load a higher one, run out of memory, and swap back to lower detail.

We have specific graphic options for that which allow you to limit the number of objects on the screen and their detail. Going to medium object density is hardly noticeable, especially compared to Il-2. Going to medium object detail is even less apparent unless you're taking an up-close look at a truck or a building.

My guess is that with a GTX285, you would have to have the very fastest consumer-grade CPU available today, along with 6GB of very fast RAM, before your GPU would be the limiting component - assuming most of your airborne activity is over 4,000 ft. (Based on my experience with multiple flight sims over the past 12 years, and Luthier's statement).

[baronWastelan]

Originally Posted by Wiskey-Charlie

Have been reading many threads with people wanting info about CoD specs. Most of what I read it sounds like people expect to have to have a super mega PC to run the new CoD with high settings like in the case of the original IL2. I don't think there ever was or ever will be a PC that can run Il2 perfectly. I think the engine was limited to what it could do.

My question is..........

I know the new CoD engine will process graphics better than the old IL2 engine , but to what extent ? Maybe we may not require as much high end hardware as some people might think ?

My flight simulator PC specs are (most hardware is from 2008 build).......

ASUS P5N-E
Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo CPU E6850 @ 3.00GHz 900 Mhz
4094 MB (Ram)
Windows 7 ultimate 64 bit operating System
Nvidia Geforce 285 GTX Display adapter
Matrox TripleHead2Go Digital Edition....3-LG 24 WIDESCREEN LCD

On this PC I can run the old IL2 at max settings and I will get stutters with missions that have too many aircraft, ships, land details all at one time to be processed. And of course I get the buildings popping in and out and also the funky shore line jitters.

On this same PC I can run WoP with its new graphics engine at max settings and the graphics are absolutely beautiful and smooth as silk. No Stutters, No buildings popping in and out, could not ask for any better!

So, I am hoping that CoD graphics engine is similar to that of WoP and am hoping that my current PC will run CoD just fine?

You can answer your own question with a high degree of accuracy by running FSX on your PC. [spoiler: CPU = bottleneck]