Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-26-2011, 02:35 AM
machoo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Specs similar to Wings of Prey?

Graphics wise they look similar , I know physics will be more demanding but as far as I remember I ran WOP demo on full with no problems at all. I have an 8800GT , 4GB Ram ,Intel E7400 2.8Ghz cpu. If I got a new graphics card , what would you get?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-26-2011, 03:40 AM
Avimimus Avimimus is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 803
Default

I'd strongly recommend peripherals (stick and TrackIR), followed by high-speed ram (faster loading times, more aircraft in the air) and CPU - only then will my eyes turn to the video card.

Expect system requirements (in terms of processing) over the first year or two (ie. the next two release will assume 200-300% more power than the minimum requirements - although they will still run without the more power)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-26-2011, 03:47 AM
ElAurens's Avatar
ElAurens ElAurens is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Great Black Swamp of Ohio
Posts: 2,185
Default

There is no comparison between that ported console game and a full on PC simulation like Cliffs of Dover.

Map size and draw distances are far larger in Cliffs of Dover, just for starters. Then take into account the far more complex physics, and damage modeling, and the more intricate 3D models and you should see that Wings of Prey is not even in the same league.

Not saying your machine won't run CoD, just that using WoP is not a valid benchmark for estimating computer needs for CoD.
__________________


Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943.
~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-26-2011, 09:30 AM
Heliocon Heliocon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 651
Default

As someone who has said many times I think WOP looks graphically better atm then COD from the videos I have seen, keep this in mind:
COD is dx11 compatible, will in the future (if not on release) most likely integrate dx11 features. A consoles gpu power is equivalent to a high end 7800 or so card, I think they might of buffed the graphics interms of AA for the pc version but you will need a much more powerful machine to max COD out IF what they have said its mechanics and features are true.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-26-2011, 11:19 AM
BigPickle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Arma II is probably a good judge on how your system will cope, its one of the most system intensive pc games out there, so if your system runs that I would say its possible it will cope ok with CoD, I gauge Arma II as a high end benchmark for games tbh.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-26-2011, 11:42 AM
Tacoma74's Avatar
Tacoma74 Tacoma74 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElAurens View Post
There is no comparison between that ported console game and a full on PC simulation like Cliffs of Dover.

Map size and draw distances are far larger in Cliffs of Dover, just for starters. Then take into account the far more complex physics, and damage modeling, and the more intricate 3D models and you should see that Wings of Prey is not even in the same league.

Not saying your machine won't run CoD, just that using WoP is not a valid benchmark for estimating computer needs for CoD.
Exactly. Absolutely no comparison. And another thing to think about is the amount of room for future expansion. As far as i know there is very little for WoP (if any at all), thus it has no real future. But CoD will have so much headroom for future development that it will last for many years. Give it a couple years, when hardware is much more powerful... the game will follow. As hardware improves, than the game will improve along with it, much like the original IL-2. Oleg has said himself that we can expect it to only get better with time. But I think the reason the game is the way it is now is because of hardware limitations. Much has been left out because of this, but we can all expect it to be added in later, as long as our systems will allow. Its amazing how fast technology is improving, so have faith people.
__________________
- 2500k @ 4.8Ghz Lapped IHS - AsRock P67 Extreme4 Gen3 - MSI GTX 560 Ti 2Gb - Crutial M4 SATA3 64Gb SSD - 8Gb Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600Mhz @ 8-8-8-21 RAM - Silverstone 750w Fully Modular PSU - Antec 1200 ATX Case - Zalman 9700 Cooler - Win7 Ultimate x64 -
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-26-2011, 11:51 AM
swiss swiss is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Zürich, Swiss Confederation
Posts: 2,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avimimus View Post
I'd strongly recommend peripherals (stick and TrackIR), followed by high-speed ram (faster loading times, more aircraft in the air) and CPU - only then will my eyes turn to the video card.
Funny, Ram is the only thing I never noticed any change when upgraded - at least if you stay in the same family DDR2-500 vs DDR2-800 f.i.
DDR3(which requires different CPU and Mobo) would bring some advantage, but it can never have the same influence as a new GPU.

And overclocked Ram sticks are a joke imho - they don't perform that much better, but come in handy if you overclock the fsb.

Last edited by swiss; 01-26-2011 at 11:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-26-2011, 12:05 PM
Tacoma74's Avatar
Tacoma74 Tacoma74 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss View Post
Funny, Ram is the only thing I never noticed any change when upgraded - at least if you stay in the same family DDR2-500 vs DDR2-800 f.i.
DDR3(which requires different CPU and Mobo) would bring some advantage, but it can never have the same influence as a new GPU.
It makes more of a difference than you would think. If you're still running DDR2 ram i do believe its time for an upgrade. The biggest difference between DDR2 and DDR3 is of coarse the potential for higher speeds (hertz) due to the way the architecture of the RAM is designed. These higher speeds are going to be the biggest factor in how your computer runs. The amount of it seems to have a plateau effect though i think. As long as you have enough of it (probably 8Gbs is more than sufficient), than any more than that is almost pointless in my eyes. So what it really comes down to is the speed, latency and the timing rather than the capacity.
__________________
- 2500k @ 4.8Ghz Lapped IHS - AsRock P67 Extreme4 Gen3 - MSI GTX 560 Ti 2Gb - Crutial M4 SATA3 64Gb SSD - 8Gb Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600Mhz @ 8-8-8-21 RAM - Silverstone 750w Fully Modular PSU - Antec 1200 ATX Case - Zalman 9700 Cooler - Win7 Ultimate x64 -
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-26-2011, 12:38 PM
swiss swiss is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Zürich, Swiss Confederation
Posts: 2,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacoma74 View Post
It makes more of a difference than you would think. If you're still running DDR2 ram i do believe its time for an upgrade. The biggest difference between DDR2 and DDR3 is of coarse the potential for higher speeds (hertz) due to the way the architecture of the RAM is designed. These higher speeds are going to be the biggest factor in how your computer runs. The amount of it seems to have a plateau effect though i think. As long as you have enough of it (probably 8Gbs is more than sufficient), than any more than that is almost pointless in my eyes. So what it really comes down to is the speed, latency and the timing rather than the capacity.
I switched to DDR3 last year.
However, I think you guys overrate it a lot.

8Gb?
For what?!
CoD would be the first game to show any gains from over 4Gb.
Did Oleg even confirm the x64 exe?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-26-2011, 12:47 PM
Dano Dano is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Petersfield UK
Posts: 1,107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss View Post
Did Oleg even confirm the x64 exe?
I beleive he did confirm there would be an x64 executable.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.