Pathetic performance

[MugiSNK]

Originally Posted by carguy_

What? I`m telling you, DON`T EVER compare this game to Crysis2 that is a less of a game than Crysis! It has less graphics and NO physics!

+1
Crysis 2, no physics?

[JumpingHubert]

one of the games that makes sense to compare is Arma2. And it had similar problems in the beginning. So calm down and hope the support is as good as Bohemia Interactive. I think it is.

[Hunin]

Originally Posted by carguy_

What? I`m telling you, DON`T EVER compare this game to Crysis2 that is a less of a game than Crysis! It has less graphics and NO physics!

I'm sorry but the comparison is sound.
Performance decrease over cities or other spots with high object count comes down to the renderer and is not directly connected to the number of computing cycles the CPU does for heavy duty sim lifting.
A polygon is a polygon and 1 GB of texture data is 1 GB of texture data no matter the genre.

When it comes to those object hotspots ( and Crysis / Crysis 2 are one giant geometry/texturemass hotspot ) a seamless and efficient LOD system and rendering pipeline that is streamlined to deliver front end results ( read only shows things the player actually sees ) are paramount.

At the moment Cliffs of Dover both fails at the front end optimization and piles the complex simulation running behind it on top without spreading the workload to free resources ( if one can believe the benchmarks people have been doing for their multi cores ).

That said I firmly believe that the coders at MG know what they are doing and what we are looking at is basicaly a "feature complete" version that has just begun to evolve to Gold status.

[Shrike_UK]

Originally Posted by JumpingHubert

one of the games that makes sense to compare is Arma2. And it had similar problems in the beginning. So calm down and hope the support is as good as Bohemia Interactive. I think it is.

Isnt ARMA 2 dead? I heard a lot went back to ARMA 1. well, wasnt the fix for ARMA 2 one the reverting back to Sahrani map from ARMA 1?

Do love that game, in fact youve just reminded me, after i get a new GPU that works with it i will buy it, even if it is dead, the coops are great in that.

[Hunin]

Far from dead.
The second expansion is gonna come out soon in fact.
And they have a constant beta patch process up.
It has come quite far.
So far that I can't even honestly compare it to Arma 2 1.0.
The leap from Arma 2 to the up to date version of Arrowhead is about as large as the step from Arma 1 to 2.

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by SF22

Hi!

Firstly let me congratulate the team on releasing IL-2 that I have been waiting for ages. As I the devs seem only to be active on this forum I opted for this before UBI's forums.

Basically with almost everything turned to max except for AA 4X and building density (not at unlimited) I've got some major performance issues. Now I now that you're going to want to say that my computer is unable to handle it but that may not be the truth. My setting is as following: I7 930, nVIDIA 470GTX and 6Gb of RAM.

Basically I'm getting about 1/3 FPS (yes 0,33...). I literally counted the numbers the game refreshed itself in 1 minute. Now the problem is that my GPU's usage is really low (about 5%). I took it from quite a short timescope but it's all the time like this when trying to play IL-2 COD. Nothing besides Skype, MSI Afterburner (only to monitor GPU usage) and Steam naturally were running in the background.

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/v...FS/IL-2COD.jpg (935kb picture)

Ubisoft and 1CPublishing I'm afraid this is absolutly pathetic and definitly the worst performing game I've ever bought (bought it from Justflight). Crysis 2 runs happily at max settings...

Regards

Magnus

You have no reason to expect to be able to run COD at max settings with your rig, except for your own ego. COD is a flight simulator, not a FPS. Try about medium settings, the game will still look fantastic, and it should run pretty well once they get the initial bugs stomped.

[Shrike_UK]

Originally Posted by Hunin

Far from dead.
The second expansion is gonna come out soon in fact.
And they have a constant beta patch process up.
It has come quite far.
So far that I can't even honestly compare it to Arma 2 1.0.
The leap from Arma 2 to the up to date version of Arrowhead is about as large as the step from Arma 1 to 2.

Thanks for the info on that Hunin, my gaming freinds seem to have ditched it. But i really liked Arma 1, just didnt have a pc capable of Arma 2. I will look into getting arrowhead soon. see you on there maybe.

[Skoshi Tiger]

My system seamed like it was stuttering quite badly on medium settings in the training missions. I ran fraps and it said I was getting a constant 30-34FPS. It just didn't add up.

Then I turned off 'head shake' and the game played alot more smoothly.

It's not going to fix all framefrate problems but it's worth a try.

Cheers!

[zauii]

Originally Posted by Hunin

To be fair Cryengine 3 is tremendously well coded and optimized.
It both looks and performs better then its own predecessor.

It's better optimized thats for sure but Crysis 1 looks way more beautiful especially in open environments, and its easy to see that Crysis 2 is not a true sequel to Crysis 1, having them both i was utterly disappointed by this console-port crap.
The engine has obviously been redone to fit the consoles and the gameplay(corridor shooter) and game as well, its no longer a decent PC game in any way, gone are also the mod tools support and the ability to have decent options in game.

[Johno1942]

I am hoping something went wrong with the distribution, as performance for me is also bad.

My CE edition unlocked yesterday evening in Australia and I gave the game a quick run last night after getting home from a meeting.

My system specs are as follows:
i7 clocket at 3331 Mhz
ATI Radeon HD 5870
RAM: 6142 Mb
Windows 7 64 bit, running off a SSD

Running at 1920x1200 resolution I was getting only about 20fps with the graphics turned down.

This morning the option came to turn off the eip-filter, and unfortunately I have had no significant increase in frame rate.

Neither the graphics card nor the CPU is heavily loaded during flight. There appeared to be only one CPU being loaded by the game as the other 4 only had slight loads which I would have accounted for the system monitor and fraps.

I have not yet turned off head shake as that was turned on in my settings.

In comparison I ran up my copy of wings of prey. I run that at 2560x1600 with detail on max. Flying around the south of England (with similar number of trees/buildings (and I will say more realistic looking trees/buildings) I am able to achieve over 60fps on the same rig.

There appears to be a bottleneck somewhere that is preventing the software from utilising the hardware available.