System requirements
 

A question about system requirements:
is it wrong to think that, to test and develop the full graphic funcionality of SOW, OM is using at worst a current hi-end machine? Or rather a dedicated graphic workstation?

Maybe this post may seem like yet another attempt to extort information again and again asked, but I'm just looking for opinions.
Cheers

Yep I'd also like to know, but the problem with opinions is:

They are like a backside...everyone's got one. :-P

I'm running a quad core 2.4 with 4gig RAM and a GTX260 and wonder if that'll be enough to run it when it finally hits the shelves.

..or better...
if i ware the game developer, would I use an expensive workstation not economically approachable by common people to create a new game?
I should wait months or years before a commercial pc would be able to run fully the new-created game. I should wait for a future pc capable to perform like a current workstation. Only in a future I could know how the game runs on a commercial pc.
Sorry for my english, I wish it's clear what I mean
Ciao

... if I were the developer....;)

You are not going to get system requirements until at the very least an official beta is announced.
No game producer/distributor is going to deliver a game in the current market that cannot be played on a mid-range system of the year it is released.
You may not get all the bells and whistles but it will play.
For all the bells and whistles you should be looking at a top-range system bought a year after the initial release of the game.

I think Bobb has summed it up, we should know more about system specs once the game goes beta, its my guess that getting SOW to run smooth will be the biggest problem.

ok... all clear,
I'm just curious to know on what kind of system bells and whistles are tested/developed in your opinion.
Thanks

I just hope that Oleg doesn't pull a "Crysis" and release a game that only 5% of the gaming population have computers capable of getting playable frame rates on. IL-2 was pretty system intensive on release day, and it took years for a PC to be able to play it with everything cranked to max and still not break the bank.

If this game is going to be a "CPU/GPU" killer then releasing the gaming specs at the last possible minute would be the best approach. Sometimes a week's difference can make a game "more playable" if Ati or Intel just did a price cut and made the rest follow suit.

I think it's been stated a few times that even though the title is developed with current hardware to save time compiling, it is heavily tested on older hardware to make sure it will be able to run on a wide range of PCs.
That's part of the reason the screenshots in the updates are mostly captures from lower detail settings (eg, DX9, no anti-aliasing etc).

I think SoW will scale pretty well thanks to the multi core optimization. I'm guessing that everyone with 1-2 year old hardware will be able to run it on lower detail settings, medium for current mid-range PCs and for full detail we might have to wait a couple of years for more powerful PCs.

In summary, it will run on a lot of different PC specs, just not at full detail.

+1
Think you've got it pretty much spot on there Blackdog_kt.

I've been thinking that it is funny/strange that they are posting quite low-res shots from Luthier's 'not cutting edge' machine - ie I'm sure that (even now) the game can be made to look better than this and no doubt will in final production release.

Maybe it's the old keep a lid on expectations, then knock 'em out when it counts strategy.

I hear what your saying guys, but what possible harm could it do to have just one High res screen shot with AA on in direct X 11?? It seems very strange that we have not seen one yet especially when the game supposed to be out next month (joke)

Oleg has stated hes holding some surprises back, maybe thats one of them. Still nothing to worry about, as it appears things are progressing. Maybe not to suit everyone or the developer, but its still progressing.

I'm really coming to the conclusion that SOW will look MUCH better (or be capable of this if hardware permits) than the current screenshots are suggesting. I think we all try to make allowances for the WIP quality of the screenshots - but I don't think we're making enough.

I'd draw a comparison with how il2 looks in original 4.07 compared to 4.09 - with much more functionality unlocked.

It's almost like a deliberate policy of expectation management by the developers. The screenshots we're seeing are almost completely low-res, DX9, little or no AA, settings turned down. I'm partly puzzled as to why they do it like this - I know that everything is labelled as WIP, but people inevitably make judgements of what the final game will look like based on what they see in the updates.

I can only conclude that they are intensely relaxed about the probable final release quality of the game and so are completely unconcerned to show us it in its low-res, low-setting, bollock-naked, rough and ready form. :)

A very strange marketing stratergy though, lets show the whole world how this product looks at its worst setting, its never been done before and i doubt again.

True - but that seems to be what they're doing - little or no AA, low settings. A lot (not all) of the screenshots are making me think of how il2 looks on low compared to high settings - ie the flatter lighting, lower detail, etc. I'd expect to see a bigger difference between SOW's lowest and highest settings than between il2's.

If they were really playing it safe we wouldn't see anything except a high-quality video a month or so before release. Putting out the stuff they are is like a band releasing bootleg rehearsal tapes of their new album. It's quite brave actually.

Remember the original 'Jurassic Island' pics from last year - they got crucified for that.

One of the things that made me think this is watching the videos of the interior aircraft models that were released on the bonus 1946 dvd (and are available online). The quality of those (presumably out of engine and in full detail) shows that there is much more there than is coming across in the pics. I'm putting the difference down to the 'rolled-off' settings that they're currently using. (may be barking up the wrong tree I know )

no pun intended by the way :)

These are development updates. Nothing to do with marketing.

True too, but in a way EVERYTHING they do concerning the game is marketing. (and all of it is being 'judged')

My thoughts concerning your replies is that OM is extremley relaxed in terms or relase date. He is well confident in selling capabilities of the product (a lot of people woud buy his product in any moment at any level of completeness), he turned on the enthusiasm in all of us.
No competitors exist in this area of interests (combat flight sims).
He weekly feeds an avid mass of people with some picture as Roman Emperoers drop breds to acclaiming people in Coliseum.
I don't think SOW is so ready. Maybe 4 or 5 months.
20000 copies of SOW are already sold (virtually).
Cheers

I doubt the developers are relaxed. They've been under tremendous pressure at-least since 2006 to get this done by Ubisoft and now but whatever publisher is paying the bills to get this done.

Yes - but I was referring to being relaxed about the final quality of the game - that is THEY KNOW how good it is going to be.

I'm sure financially, etc they are far from being relaxed.

In a way yes, what they are showing so far is aimed at people who are the most likely to buy the game anyway, and who will check back for how the final package looks once it's ready.

I guess for the superbowl ad they might still turn up the AA a notch...

I'm out for that one.

Super bowl, is that cricket or soccer (real football)?

:grin: