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?

[Avimimus]

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)

[ElAurens]

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.

[Heliocon]

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.

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.

[Tacoma74]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

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.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

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.

[Tacoma74]

Originally Posted by swiss

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.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Tacoma74

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?

[Dano]

Originally Posted by swiss

Did Oleg even confirm the x64 exe?

I beleive he did confirm there would be an x64 executable.