Benchmark il2: what are your minimum fps ?

[rollnloop]

@kimosabi 1280x800 IS my gaming resolution for IL2 ATM, maybe i can increase it with my new system, but i want a game as smooth as possible, and this test shows exactly that it is pretty difficult to keep it smooth in every circumstance.

I'm a bit sad indeed, i had hopes for, 10 years later, being able to zoom over berlin with a decent visual action, and it's not the case.

Anyway, for who wants to stress a CPU and see what overclock give in terms of min fps, this bench is a good reference i think, more suited to present CPUs than the old blackdeath or kamikaze.

Thanks for your results guys

[Erkki]

With my current vid card (gtx 460 204, after looking around the first 360 degrees, FPS goes to 60(VSYNC on) at 1680 x 1050, however with stock game, and stays there just about irregardless of what happens in the screen. Multiple big bombs at close range sometimes drop it a little but this is most probably thanks to the not so well done/optimized Effects=2.

[AKA_Tenn]

I'm a bit sad indeed, i had hopes for, 10 years later, being able to zoom over berlin with a decent visual action, and it's not the case.

big issue is... the graphics and physics engine was never designed to handle the kinda stuff it does now, so it does it so inefficiently...

All these GIANT textures and hundreds of thousands of polygons in just a single frame was never intended...

The engine is designed to run on a system that's got a 450MHz processor with a 66MHz FSB, 128MB of 33MHz ram and a 32MB videocard running at 150MHz..

and a faster computer doesn't make up for that fact. sorta like putting a bigger engine on an airframe... if the airframe can't handle that bigger engine, doesn't matter how much more powerful the engine is, it actually has a negative effect on it...