Game Unplayable

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Buchon

Indeed, they have a very low performance in DX10, we are talking about a dump of the first generation of DX10 cards.

You posted it while I was writting....

Thanks, your two posts explain a lot.

One more question: If the DX10 performance of a GPU is lousy (compared to its DX9 performance), is it worthwhile to have the game in Win7 OS, but making it run in DX9?

~S~

[Buchon]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

You posted it while I was writting....

Thanks, your two posts explain a lot.

One more question: If the DX10 performance of a GPU is lousy (compared to its DX9 performance), is it worthwhile to have the game in Win7 OS, but making it run in DX9?

~S~

My experience doing this with other games show that the differences are minimal, depending of how the game behavior is in Windows 7 it runs better or worse.

But overall the differences are no appreciable.

The question is :

Now days, there any advantage sticking in Windows XP ?

[Spinnetti]

So, lets break this down. by what they claim:

OPERATING SYSTEM: Windows® 7 / Vista SP2 / Windows XP SP3
I'm on Win7 Ultimate/64 bit. - Max spec.

PROCESSOR: Pentium® Dual-Core 2.0GHz or Athlon™ X2 3800+ (Intel Core i5 2.66GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 2.6GHz recommended)
I've got a i7 2.8 - Above their recommendation

RAM: 2GB (4GB recommended)
I've got 4GB DDR3 - their recommendation at least

VIDEO CARD: DirectX® 9.0c compliant, 512Mb Video Card (1GB DirectX® 10 recommended) - See supported List*
I've got a ATI4850

So according to their requirements, my machine should run this excellent - as it does EVERY OTHER GAME I've ever tried except this one (including Crysis variants, COD, etc.)

Its a slide show for me. My screens native resolution is 2560x1440, and even cutting that in half and putting the graphics on "medium" with no other changes is unplayable.

Definitely false advertising. IL2 is the best game I've ever had, so I'll stick with it, but I'm severely disappointed. (this is on all versions including the latest April 27 beta patch)...

[swiss]

You're surprised a three years old mid-end card doesn't let you play the game with all bells and whistles on?
Are you serious?

I got a 260, i also have to turn the resolution down(1200), 70% on high, trees low. ~40fps.
That's more than I expected. It was always clear the game will need a very strong GPU. Why do think some people here bought 580 SLI setups in advance?

-Trees are a killer.
-Your poor little card has to fill a 27" screen

*confused*


edit: And min specs means the game barely runs...

[Gamekeeper]

I thought I'd answer here as I saw your post on M4T which lacked any system detail.
You have a good system apart from the ATI 4850 which is an old graphics card and comes in at the low end of recommended cards with 512mb (1GB recommended), trying to run it at a resolution of 2560x1440 at medium settings is asking a bit much of it. Try low graphics settings and a much lower resolution and you should see an improvement in FPS. If you upgrade the card to match the specs of the rest of yousystem then the settings you use should work and give reasonable results.

[janpitor]

Tou can also try lower textures setting...for this resolution maybe low...and turn SSAO off every case

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Spinnetti

I'm on Win7 Ultimate/64 bit. - Max spec.

I've got a i7 2.8 - Above their recommendation

I've got 4GB DDR3 - their recommendation at least

I've got a ATI4850

My screens native resolution is 2560x1440, and even cutting that in half and putting the graphics on "medium" with no other changes is unplayable.

Hallo Spinnetti,

Nice machine, nice setup (Win6 64), you have a Ferarri, unvortunately on a set of "wooden" tyres. As other mentioned already, your GPU is the main and probably only problem, mainly due to the 512Mb VRAM which are exhausted all too easily in this game.

By the way, no offence but minimum configuration used to be 640x480 (since you know the IL2 times, I dare to remind you). Everything higher than this, you are taking your chances.

The rest I have posted already in this thread if you go through them you can find most necessary optimisations and use GPU-Z to see how fast zou VRAM reached its limit.

You should be able to fly great with your machine although not at resolution you expect...

Happy flying!

[Aty2]

error

[RE77ACTION]

Hi, my first post...

I think the game is really good playable (offline) with a combination of settings and hardware below. I get frame rates between 30 and 90 with an average of about 50 in most missions. And I think the game still looks good. Only big cities at low altitude are really unplayable (FPS well below 20). I did came to these settings with many runnings of the Black Death track.

The strange thing is that nor my CPU nor my GPU run ever at full utilization. And no, I have luckily no problems with 'underclocking' of the GPU because it scales up nicely when I start the game. In Black Death my GPU runs between 37% and 71%. In the same track my CPU core 1 runs at about 80% on average (never 100% for a moment) while core 2,3 and 4 do respectively 45%,35% and 35% on average.

Two more examples of not using up all my hardware is given in the following.
1) I can put on SSAO (100% GPU powered) and it totally doesn't matter for the frame rate although my GPU gets 5% or 10% more utilization. I leave it off by choice because I don't see any visual improvement.
2) Overclocking my GPU and GDDR5 memory gives totally no difference in frame rate in this game.

I've upped my PCIE bus speed to 110 and it gave me a little improvement in frame rate. I also tried 120 but higher than 110 didn't give better results. I've eventually settled for 114 because my FSB is also 14% OCed and this would possibly prevent any synchronization issues (although not noticeable, so it's only between my ears). WARNING, I don't want to encourage anybody to OC his/her PCIE bus because it brings serious risks, for example data corruption on your storage devices (especially in RAID (as I have)). Do so on your own risk!

At first I installed the game on my HDD. But after some messages of this forum that installing it on your SSD could improve issues with stuttering I tried running it from my SSD. In my opinion it really doesn't matter at all. I see totally no difference. The stuttering looks just the same and keeps being mild in my case.

My biggest question is where the real bottleneck lies for my system and thus for others. I'm thinking of replacing my CPU for a 1090T or maybe 1100T (both 6 cores, more speed per core and better to OC) in the hope my GPU gets a better data delivery. But still have my doubts because (as I said) I'm not utilizing my current CPU for the full. Maybe it's just the (currently unoptimized) code of this game that's keeping the utilization down. I will wait for reports of other users who've upgraded their CPU's for the cause

Settings are as follows:

version: 1.00.14101
resolution: 1920x1200
full screen: on
model detail: medium
buildings detail: high
land detail: medium
forest: medium
visual effects: high
texture quality: original
anti-aliasing: off
anti-epilepsy filter: off
SSAO: off
damage decals: high
building amount: low
land shading: medium
grass: on
shadows: on
roads: on

Hardware is as follows (also in signature, but that's probably dynamic and will change in every post when updated):

cpu: Atlon II X4 640 @ 3.42
memory: 8 GB DDR3 1600 @ 1824
gpu: 6970 2GB @ 910 / 1425
storage: SSD 180 (3 in raid 0) + HDD 500 (7200)
mb: ASUS M4A79XTD EVO @ FSB 228 / PCIE 114

[KG26_Alpha]

Nice first post.
Welcome to the forums.