|
|
|
|
#1
06-24-2011, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"There is always room for optimisations, I'd like the 20% fps I lost in the last few patches back too please.
__________________ i5 2500k - Asus P8P67Pro - 8GB DDR3 - Geforce Ti 560 1GB 270.61 Drivers - Xonar DG - W7 X64 SP1 Reply With Quote" People are funny! I have the same VGA, less RAM (4 GB), less CPU power (Phenom x4 3.4GHz) and have fluid gameplay and better FPS in every pacth released... People don't know how to use computers. Some people need ASAP to buy a console to play games. Boring. 
|
|
#2
06-24-2011, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My last post was misread. I wrote: "Did anybody manage to re-produce this sound bug guys?" I do not ask who has it. Because if you do not know why one has it (and another not), it is difficult to find quick fixes.
Unless if you scrap everything and restart from scratch, which is what 1C is doing... As far as the hardware is concerned, IL2 was always a nice market: You pay fifty EUR for the game and fifteen thousand for the HW you need to buy afterwards... When I started IL2 we had 640x480 and details set to low. Took 2 years to start getting real graphics cards (ATI 9800XT) and increase settings and resolutions and 24fps was the ultimate gaming machine. With this game everybody complains why he has less than 30fps at 1900x with all settings maxed out....because your graphics cards are new therefore you should! Sorry it does not work this way... This game will be played with max settings after two or three generations of graphic cards touched the market. You asked (at least I hope the ones complaining also did) for a flight sim with depth and eye candy. Well, here it is. And the price to pay as well. If you want to fly nice landscapes with good fps, buy HAWX 2 it is excellent and works with the current GPUs. If on the other side you want a flight simulation with a lot of ground work then..... The only thing that I fail to grasp is how these poor SW developers make money when the ratio game vs hardware is so overwhelmingly disproportionate... ~S~
|
|
#4
06-24-2011, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
First quick impressions: General overall if slight improvement.Cloud and tree shadows even better. Aircraft shininess toned down and skin weathering improved from beta, looks more natural. Shadows, reflections and general look of cockpit canopy perspex and armoured glass seems better. No graphical artifacts appearing. However I have got a slight drop in fps, which is not suprising as I run everything set to maximum on a midrange system. I am pleased it runs as well as it dose and it is still very smooth.
One thing I am sure will hit the performance will be the water getting fixed. As I understand it it is just a place holder at the moment. Eventually it will be transparent with a decent shoreline. I think you should even be able to see submarines diving below the surface. When that happens I really will have to turn down some settings and/or upgrade. I can't find the post but I am sure that is what Luthier said.
|
|
#8
06-24-2011, 09:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
06-24-2011, 09:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
removed.
Last edited by Ali Fish; 06-24-2011 at 10:15 PM.
|
|
#10
06-25-2011, 05:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks Luthier.
How is BR.20M radio compass supposed to work ? I put a radio beacon in a mission, adjusted the frequency of primary navigation receiver to that of the beacon, but nothing apparently happens... the radio compass indicator (assuming that I correctly identified it, it should be the leftmost on the top row just below the main gyro compass) is always pointing to the extreme left and does never move. Thanks Maraz
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
