PDA

View Full Version : lol @ system requirements



Avont29
08-18-2006, 08:32 PM
wow, did they miss the system requirements

they said something about 1.8 gig comp or something to run this game, blah


i have an amd athlon xp 1500+ 1.33ghz processor, a gig of ram, and a radeon 7000(32mb agp) graphics card, and i have my settings turned for opengl and picture quality on excellent, also i run in 640x480 16 bit color depth, and get good fps, no probs at ALL

TheGozr
08-18-2006, 09:59 PM
I'm sorry... I can anderstand the pain.

Avont29
08-18-2006, 10:09 PM
what pain? i have settings on high, and im gettting really decent fps http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif when the requirements said i needed a 64 mg card, and a 1.8gig processor

VW-IceFire
08-18-2006, 10:12 PM
Well done Avont. I think you've done a great job. You've identified how to make the game run well on your system and you've gotten it to work within your means. Lots of folks can't do that and get all ticked when it doesn't run perfectly.

The game is really quite efficient...it just prefers alot of power. What you might find as a bit of a load is flying over the major cities. Thats the true test...even the most powerful of systems are shakey on those.

Avont29
08-18-2006, 10:32 PM
thats weird, i havn't seen a city on this game :|

yea but i lag quite a bit in flak fields, or in aaa areas if thre about 3,000 bullets. and i lag A LOT, on ANY setting while on carrier, with other people and its raining, other than that, everything is great, game looks relaly good on high, i like the water textures and effects

LEBillfish
08-18-2006, 11:17 PM
I never get any lag on my system....However with a lot of folks on it's hard to keep up turning the knobs. Yet still, though it takes a while to render though might just be me not the system, major cities turn out well, it's just getting the fast action to show.

Ah well, my Etch-A-Sketch does ok never the less, even though I lost one knob and have to use vice grips to turn that knob......The vertical control one.......*wonders if plastic cups would work better then dixie cups and a string for an online connection...ehh who cares*
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F6_Ace
08-19-2006, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by Avont29:
wow, did they miss the system requirements

they said something about 1.8 gig comp or something to run this game, blah


i have an amd athlon xp 1500+ 1.33ghz processor, a gig of ram, and a radeon 7000(32mb agp) graphics card, and i have my settings turned for opengl and picture quality on excellent, also i run in 640x480 16 bit color depth, and get good fps, no probs at ALL

Good fps being what? type 'fps START SHOW' into the console to see a max/min/avg fps rate.

I would class 'good fps' as being always over 50 and I don't always get that with a more powerful setup than yours and 'lower' settings.

Fork-N-spoon
08-19-2006, 04:14 AM
You can thank the people that suffer from morephanism. As a result of people wanting "more," the game developer constantly releases new patches. As a result, the system requirements increase with each new patch. To fully appreciate how each patch degrades playability, install Forgotten battles 1.0 and play it. Then install each patch there after and watch game performance decrease. Forgotten Battles 1.0 requires significantly less to run than 4.05m.

Xiolablu3
08-19-2006, 06:01 AM
I would say good fps is anything over 30, I cant tell the difference over 30.

A new graphics card off ebay would enable you to bump the resolution up a lot Avont. The didfference between 640x480 and 1024x768 is massive.

Even a Geforce TI4600 off EBay for 20 would enable you to run the sim at 1024x768 without to many problems http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If you do decide to upgrade your graphics card, make sure you read up on the different types, or ask us here if the ard you are going to buy is any good. Just becasue its newer does NOT mean its better. A Geforce Ti4600 for example is streets ahead of a Geforce 5200. The 4600 being a good old card, while the 5200 is terrible. (A new graphics card is simple to put in, its just like putting a game into a Sega Megadrive)

Bearcat99
08-19-2006, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Avont29:
thats weird, i havn't seen a city on this game :|


I sure would like to be there when you get a better card.

Avont29
08-21-2006, 01:28 AM
wel when hvaing picture quality on excellent the fps bumps around, the highest i've seen it was like 45, but it kept going to 30 then 20 back to 40 just kept bumping around.


no lag though, stil runs smoothe
when i run with picture quality on medium, im getting around 20 fps, it stays in the 20's on medium picture quality

not going any faster than on excellent

but i think that fps star tshow **** is in accruate, im running pretty good on excellent quality and 640x480, 32 bitdepth

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6892/il2jm6.th.png (http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=il2jm6.png)

Avont29
08-21-2006, 01:34 AM
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9263/il2ko8.png (http://imageshack.us)

WWMaxGunz
08-21-2006, 02:24 AM
View range is what?

640x480x16 and Excellent settings... you don't see any contradiction there?

Professor_1942
08-21-2006, 03:02 AM
Just right-click on that picture, choose "Set as desktop background", and set the position field to "stretch".. it's AWESOME

Seriously though, it wasn't that many years ago that we thought that looked good.

money_money
08-21-2006, 03:32 AM
At that resolution, it looks more like IL2 LEGO.

isooAntti
08-21-2006, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by money_money:
At that resolution, it looks more like IL2 LEGO.

Wat! Lego? You should zee it on ze abacus me and Herman play it on, here in the deep of ze bonker! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


Zat is ze Stasse zu fahren, Avont...niemals kapitulieren http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

FritzGryphon
08-21-2006, 03:41 AM
I tried playing FB once on a K6-2 450mhz, 256mb ram and a Voodoo 3. It worked on the lowest settings, to the extent I could actually shoot down some AI. Wasn't pretty, though.

It hugely depends on the map you use, and the ground objects. I get 5x as many frames on the empty online maps as I do in downtown Berlin. You gotta tailor your play to your system.

BaronUnderpants
08-21-2006, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by Avont29:
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9263/il2ko8.png (http://imageshack.us)

It would look even better if u choose 1024x768x16 or 32 and tuned down to medium or low graphics settings.

I allways go with higher reselution over graphics.

Since i upgraded though i can run on high settings and average about 70 fps online http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

han freak solo
08-21-2006, 06:39 AM
Download this campaign.

Bushpigs by HH Dubbo (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4901084274)

When you take off and land at his homemade jungle strip it's nothing but a slideshow for me. LOTS of ground objects. In fact the trees don't even show until I'm about to touch down.

2GHz AMD Athlon XP2400+ / 1GB RAM / 128MB nVidia GeForce FX5500

WOLFMondo
08-21-2006, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:


The game is really quite efficient...

I have to totally disagree. Scalable yes, efficient, no. I've had 4 graphics cards in my games PC's that I've run this game on over the years. A Geforce 4Ti4200, ATI 9700 Pro, ATI X800XT and a ATI X1900XTX. There was also a 7900GTX breifly.

With FSAAX6 and AFX16 and the 1900 maxed out I get around 20-40 fps on the Kamikaze track yet I can play COD2 or FEAR with the same GFX card settings and get double the FPS and most of the time it sits on 60 which for a TFT is the maximum. These are much newer games and much more graphically intensive yet perform a ton better than FB/PF.

Each patch or expansion the requirements get higher. I remember running FB fine with 256mb + ti4200 but now anything less than 1GB and you can't run play online with 32 other players or equivilent in AI. You used to be able to max out all the settings with 768mb of RAM and a 9700 pro. Try that now and its a slide show.

Fork-N-spoon
08-21-2006, 08:13 AM
Let's not forget another aspect of this game, online game play. As soon as I connect to an online game, my older computers clunk to a halt.

Xiolablu3
08-21-2006, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:


The game is really quite efficient...

I have to totally disagree. Scalable yes, efficient, no. I've had 4 graphics cards in my games PC's that I've run this game on over the years. A Geforce 4Ti4200, ATI 9700 Pro, ATI X800XT and a ATI X1900XTX. There was also a 7900GTX breifly.

With FSAAX6 and AFX16 and the 1900 maxed out I get around 20-40 fps on the Kamikaze track yet I can play COD2 or FEAR with the same GFX card settings and get double the FPS and most of the time it sits on 60 which for a TFT is the maximum. These are much newer games and much more graphically intensive yet perform a ton better than FB/PF.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to know some things about programming to understand how good and efficient the IL2 engine is.
Have you any idea about he distances involved with a flight sim such as IL2 compared to a FPS shooter like COD2? On top of that COD loads different parts throughout the level, meaning that one level is infact split up into many smaller parts.

Il2 has to load every single detail on the massive 100 mile maps each time you play a sortie/mission/map. The sizes involved are incredible, its an awesome feat what Oleg has managed to pack into the game in such a small amount of memory.

Compare a map the size of a village in COD 2 to a small country in IL2, its an incredible feat. Its surprising the game doesnt stutter constantly even with 4gb of RAM.

IL2 has to keep tabs on a plane which is over the other side of the map 100 miles away while you are attacking those flak targets. It has to fire every flak gun on the 100 mile map each time an enemy plane gets near it, even if you dont see it. It has to work out dogfights all over the map, well you get the idea.

Its not surpriing that you can turn up the detail higher on a small (in area) game like COD2 which has a tiny tiny map in comparision with scripted events (no need to work out what that AI guy is doing over the other side of the map, he hasnt been 'triggered' yet).

I hope you understand and get the idea just what an amazing feat of programming the game is. (Or any flight sim with AI elements such as flak/npc planes/tanks/cars etc)

Other games of note in this respect are :- Boiling Point (massive areas with minimal loading), Oblivion (massive world minimal loading), STALKER (When it arrives)

Fork-N-spoon
08-21-2006, 08:51 AM
Xiolablue3, I'd never considered you points before, but now you've shown me exactly what this game has to do and impressed me with both your explanation and how well this game does. I can't speak for what the others are unhappy about, but my main problem wasn't with the game engine, but rather the people that insist on a new patch every other day.

The original game ran quite well for me, but each patch degraded the game play.

For me, Forgotten Battles 1.0 ran quite well on my PIII 1.4 Ghz, 1.5Gb ram, and an Fx5200Ultra. While it's true that this system couldn't run perfect mode, it could with an Fx6800GT. By the release of Pacific Fighters, this old PIII could no longer run Pacific fighters well enough for online game play.

The original game was fine, but the constant patching has obviously done something to it. I believe that this is reflected in the read me of each new patch, the system requirements consistently went up.

Yea for IL-2 F/B's game engine, nay for morephanism patch mongers!

Bearcat99
08-21-2006, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
Xiolablue3, I'd never considered you points before, but now you've shown me exactly what this game has to do and impressed me with both your explanation and how well this game does. I can't speak for what the others are unhappy about, but my main problem wasn't with the game engine, but rather the people that insist on a new patch every other day.
The original game ran quite well for me, but each patch degraded the game play.
For me, Forgotten Battles 1.0 ran quite well on my PIII 1.4 Ghz, 1.5Gb ram, and an Fx5200Ultra. While it's true that this system couldn't run perfect mode, it could with an Fx6800GT. By the release of Pacific Fighters, this old PIII could no longer run Pacific fighters well enough for online game play.
The original game was fine, but the constant patching has obviously done something to it. I believe that this is reflected in the read me of each new patch, the system requirements consistently went up.
Yea for IL-2 F/B's game engine, nay for morephanism patch mongers!

I totally disagree with you.. first off FB1.0 was a dog. The P-40s exploded in a dive... the Jug had a roll rate that was slower than an He-111..... there were no Ponies... no Spits.. no Zekes... Look at what Avont is running with..... this sim will run fine on a wide variety of rigs.. the problem comes in with people wanting perfect performance.. or close to it... on way less than perfect rigs. That is a part of the beauty of it.... He flies as often as he can.. online too.... he is the newest member of the 99th... and it's junior member... but he holds his own considering the rig he has.

TheGozr
08-21-2006, 03:37 PM
Agree with Bear

Fork-N-spoon
08-21-2006, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
Xiolablue3, I'd never considered you points before, but now you've shown me exactly what this game has to do and impressed me with both your explanation and how well this game does. I can't speak for what the others are unhappy about, but my main problem wasn't with the game engine, but rather the people that insist on a new patch every other day.
The original game ran quite well for me, but each patch degraded the game play.
For me, Forgotten Battles 1.0 ran quite well on my PIII 1.4 Ghz, 1.5Gb ram, and an Fx5200Ultra. While it's true that this system couldn't run perfect mode, it could with an Fx6800GT. By the release of Pacific Fighters, this old PIII could no longer run Pacific fighters well enough for online game play.
The original game was fine, but the constant patching has obviously done something to it. I believe that this is reflected in the read me of each new patch, the system requirements consistently went up.
Yea for IL-2 F/B's game engine, nay for morephanism patch mongers!

I totally disagree with you.. first off FB1.0 was a dog. The P-40s exploded in a dive... the Jug had a roll rate that was slower than an He-111..... there were no Ponies... no Spits.. no Zekes... Look at what Avont is running with..... this sim will run fine on a wide variety of rigs.. the problem comes in with people wanting perfect performance.. or close to it... on way less than perfect rigs. That is a part of the beauty of it.... He flies as often as he can.. online too.... he is the newest member of the 99th... and it's junior member... but he holds his own considering the rig he has. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Redtail, I disagree with you too.

stugumby
08-22-2006, 08:26 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif
graphics, we dont need no stinking graphics. arrghh my trees shimmer arghh.

actually, my old 1gig fx5200 128mb is doing quite well, i can enable perfrect landscape but gets chunky at anythong over 1028 by x. have set back to excellent and changed resolution up to 1280x760 and its ok there but if too may objects can get clunky. set my refresh rate to 85 and a bit of flicker so had to go down not up to get rid of flicker on ancient compaq 7550 monitor.

new machine has 3 gig ram, amd64 2.2 ghz and nv 6150, still tweaking and messing things up since new 91 driver, ran better with old i think, but im still tweaking on saturdays, still swapping from old to new. ran awesome at 1280x760 in 32 bit, but i didnt like the colors.

BaronUnderpants
08-22-2006, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:


The game is really quite efficient...

I have to totally disagree. Scalable yes, efficient, no. I've had 4 graphics cards in my games PC's that I've run this game on over the years. A Geforce 4Ti4200, ATI 9700 Pro, ATI X800XT and a ATI X1900XTX. There was also a 7900GTX breifly.

With FSAAX6 and AFX16 and the 1900 maxed out I get around 20-40 fps on the Kamikaze track yet I can play COD2 or FEAR with the same GFX card settings and get double the FPS and most of the time it sits on 60 which for a TFT is the maximum. These are much newer games and much more graphically intensive yet perform a ton better than FB/PF.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to know some things about programming to understand how good and efficient the IL2 engine is.
Have you any idea about he distances involved with a flight sim such as IL2 compared to a FPS shooter like COD2? On top of that COD loads different parts throughout the level, meaning that one level is infact split up into many smaller parts.

Il2 has to load every single detail on the massive 100 mile maps each time you play a sortie/mission/map. The sizes involved are incredible, its an awesome feat what Oleg has managed to pack into the game in such a small amount of memory.

Compare a map the size of a village in COD 2 to a small country in IL2, its an incredible feat. Its surprising the game doesnt stutter constantly even with 4gb of RAM.

IL2 has to keep tabs on a plane which is over the other side of the map 100 miles away while you are attacking those flak targets. It has to fire every flak gun on the 100 mile map each time an enemy plane gets near it, even if you dont see it. It has to work out dogfights all over the map, well you get the idea.

Its not surpriing that you can turn up the detail higher on a small (in area) game like COD2 which has a tiny tiny map in comparision with scripted events (no need to work out what that AI guy is doing over the other side of the map, he hasnt been 'triggered' yet).

I hope you understand and get the idea just what an amazing feat of programming the game is. (Or any flight sim with AI elements such as flak/npc planes/tanks/cars etc)

Other games of note in this respect are :- Boiling Point (massive areas with minimal loading), Oblivion (massive world minimal loading), STALKER (When it arrives) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Totally agree. My brother whos a CS fan of sort wouldnt even bother playing a server with a 100 ping in CS, wouldnt work. I get lag in Medal OF Honour with its itsy bitsy maps when someone get over selous with the Mg42......in this game we have sometimes 50 - 60 machineguns firing at the same time ( just an axample ). PF is in 3 axis ( 3D movement ) FPS games is in 2D and still u get lag.

Im suprised a Flight sim can work so well online as this game does.

Jaws2002
08-22-2006, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
Xiolablue3, I'd never considered you points before, but now you've shown me exactly what this game has to do and impressed me with both your explanation and how well this game does. I can't speak for what the others are unhappy about, but my main problem wasn't with the game engine, but rather the people that insist on a new patch every other day.

The original game ran quite well for me, but each patch degraded the game play.

For me, Forgotten Battles 1.0 ran quite well on my PIII 1.4 Ghz, 1.5Gb ram, and an Fx5200Ultra. While it's true that this system couldn't run perfect mode, it could with an Fx6800GT. By the release of Pacific Fighters, this old PIII could no longer run Pacific fighters well enough for online game play.

The original game was fine, but the constant patching has obviously done something to it. I believe that this is reflected in the read me of each new patch, the system requirements consistently went up.

Yea for IL-2 F/B's game engine, nay for morephanism patch mongers!

For some reason I got it the other way around. I was not able to run perfect mode with FB. After PF with the tweaks on water effects I'm running on perfect. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

WOLFMondo
08-22-2006, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:


The game is really quite efficient...

I have to totally disagree. Scalable yes, efficient, no. I've had 4 graphics cards in my games PC's that I've run this game on over the years. A Geforce 4Ti4200, ATI 9700 Pro, ATI X800XT and a ATI X1900XTX. There was also a 7900GTX breifly.

With FSAAX6 and AFX16 and the 1900 maxed out I get around 20-40 fps on the Kamikaze track yet I can play COD2 or FEAR with the same GFX card settings and get double the FPS and most of the time it sits on 60 which for a TFT is the maximum. These are much newer games and much more graphically intensive yet perform a ton better than FB/PF.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to know some things about programming to understand how good and efficient the IL2 engine is.
Have you any idea about he distances involved with a flight sim such as IL2 compared to a FPS shooter like COD2? On top of that COD loads different parts throughout the level, meaning that one level is infact split up into many smaller parts.

Il2 has to load every single detail on the massive 100 mile maps each time you play a sortie/mission/map. The sizes involved are incredible, its an awesome feat what Oleg has managed to pack into the game in such a small amount of memory.

Compare a map the size of a village in COD 2 to a small country in IL2, its an incredible feat. Its surprising the game doesnt stutter constantly even with 4gb of RAM.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have an idea of programming. I've worked in Software QA and Testing for 6 years and have several M of software releases under my belthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Small memory requirement? Dunno what you count as small but this sim takes up more with smaller textures than other games with newer larger textures that require a 256mb card.

The level of detail and objects on screen is what counts there. The LOD's help maintain frame rates in IL2 as far as graphic are concerned. You could have a FOV of 100 feet but have the same amount of objects on screen as a FOV of a 1000 miles. Distance is just scalability of the objects and the terrain. Other games use a polygon decay rather than a selection of LODs to reprent objects, as the object comes nearer or goes further away, polygons are added or detracted to alter the level of detail which helps with performance. Some allow you to even customise that like BF1942.

If you look at a village in CoD2 or say a map level segment on FEAR, there are probably more objects there and an IL2 map and the textures are certainly vastly more complex and much larger in size, Doom III had 80mb textures for instance. Look at LOMAC, the maps and objects are far more complicated.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
IL2 has to keep tabs on a plane which is over the other side of the map 100 miles away while you are attacking those flak targets. It has to fire every flak gun on the 100 mile map each time an enemy plane gets near it, even if you dont see it. It has to work out dogfights all over the map, well you get the idea.

Again, distance means nothing, a flak gun is just like a simply AI. Imagine BF1942 with 63 AI players and 1 human. Those 63 haven't just got AI to shoot back but to pilot planes, drop bombs, drive tanks, fire artillery, take flags. Flak gun AI is just shoot with % of accuracy when a plane comes in to view of it. Its a simple algorithm probably a few lines long and tracks the nearest target and not the most dangerous and won't go to another target until the current one is out of range.

Besides, if you can't see it, its just a little CPU load and online the server is dealing with all the calcualtions and just telling the clients the direction of fire etc. The client ain't making any calculations, it it did this game would be allot easier to hack than it is.

And given many AI planes have simple DM's thats less of a load on it CPU and memory. Until you can see anything offline, its just a little CPU load. The ballistics probably play merry hell with a CPU but why has this changed so much patch after patch that it requires a higher CPU now?

And keeping track of planes isnt a constraint either. Online I assume the server is just telling the clients where the planes are and all calculations are run by the server and sent to the client. A plane is only around 3mb as well so not exactly a massive burden on resources but why online does it get jerky if a new plane loads up? 3mb? I get occasional screen freezes and I have SATA300 drives in RAID 0 and 3GB of RAM. Go figure.

I give full respect for what these guys created, its old though, time to move rather than hacking up bits of code to get things to work that were never envisaged for this sim.

Xiolablu3
08-22-2006, 10:17 AM
Of course distance means something.

Why do you think that games which have massive maps cannot have as much detail on stuff? Memory limitations/Graphics card limitations.

One flak gun firing may not make a difference, but when there are 50-100 on a map that certainly adds some woek to the cpu. Add the AI planes/Cars/trucks/tanks on a massive six-hundred mile square map in the single player game and thats a big CPU load.

I repeat, a game like Call of Duty can do so much mopre because the scale of the whole thing is so much smaller.

If you know a bit about programming then you shouldnt be wondering why IL2/FB doesnt have graphics as good as COD2.

Make a 3d engine which only has around 1000metres view distance like Call Of Duty 2, and then make an engine which has to see for miles and miles. Its a LOT more work for the Gfx card and CPU to do, meaning less detail on objects/textures. Even Battlefield 2 scale is very small compared to IL2/FB.

If you know anything about graphics programming then you know what 'Overdraw' is. This is when the graphics card renders EVERYTHING in view and then deletes the things that are behind/out of view. Even if things arent in view, they still have to be worked out by both the Gfx card and the CPU.. Think how many things are in view in the IL2 engine with its hundreds of miles of terrain.

I cant be bothered to go into it any deeper, but if you do program, I am surprised you are saying that it makes no difference. It does, a LOT of difference.

I repeat, the reason that IL2/Rome/Oblivion etc cant have such good graphics as COD2/Doom is becasue of the areas/view distances involved.

An example :-

Did you notice when Doom3 came out that everything took place in little tiny rooms and the moment you went outside (in that little tiny bit where you needed oxygen?) the framerate PLUMMETED. Most computers werent pwerful enough to have such long view distances, with such good graphics quality at that time, which is why ID software made almost ALL the game take place in tiny little corridors and rooms. Now computers are more powerful, they have released Quake4 which has lots more open areas as computers are more powerful now and can handle the LARGER AREAS involved.

Now take that example and apply it to a flight sim in which you see hundreds of miles. Computers not long ago couldnt handle the Doom3 engine seeing more than around 100metres.

I hope thats a good enough example for you to understand.

WOLFMondo
08-22-2006, 10:38 AM
I don't think I need to understand, I think you need to.

I don't think IL2 uses any form of overdraw though, which is probably part of the problem.

Doom 3 had a ton of issues but was using large textures and complex scenes with AGPX4 and 32mb GFX cards (which were top of the line!).

Draw distance is just an object on screen, distance doesn't mean at thing, objects that the graphics card has to render is. Just because you can see 100000000 miles doesn't mean jack to the rendering engine, what matters to it is what it has to draw and its complexity. The further the distance the more objects or polygons you might want to draw to make it looks better.

Say you have 1000 polygons to play with. It doesn't matter what the distance is because you can only use 1000 polgons. Make an object and place it 10000000 miles away or 1cm away, its still 1000 polygons for the GFX card to render.

Its how you deal with distances is the issue, not the distance themselves since they mean nothing.

Its why you have polygon decay etc because as things move futher away less detail is required which helps maintain a steady amount of detail on screen. IL2 has LODs instead which might also be part of the problem.

As for CoD2, put insane amounts of bodies on and site at the top of the silohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

F6_Ace
08-22-2006, 10:50 AM
I have to agree with Wolf except with respect to the server handling the calcuations. I'd imagine that (and I may well be wrong) that the client involves itself with the calculations pertinent to it (i.e. the aircraft that it is handling itself). So, damage/FM is calculated at the client end(s) and then status information is fed back to the server/other clients for display purposes.

I doubt that a co-op host (or, indeed, a DF host) server is going to be able to calculate up to 64 (128?) *full* DM/FMs in 'real time'?

Xiolablu3
08-22-2006, 10:51 AM
Ah sorry, I started to explain it but its was like writing an exam.

I guess we will agree to disagree.

I still stand by my statement that IL2/FB cannot have such good graphics as newer games like COD2 becasue of the sheer distances and scale involved.

EDITEd to reply to F6 Ace :- Single player will be a lot more work than Multiplayer.

Xiolablu3
08-22-2006, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Draw distance is just an object on screen, distance doesn't mean at thing, objects that the graphics card has to render is.

Sure it does, there is so much more to see when the view distance is as long as IL2/FB.

Its quite simple :-

1 : Look out your window (COD2)

2: Levitate 1000 metres into the air and look (Il2/FB)

In which scenario do you see more? If you were rendering each scene, which would have more stuff in it?

Thats without thinking about what the AI flak gun is doing at the other side of the map. Call OF duty will never have this workload because nothing happens except for what happens around the player. (the game uses 'triggers' when you hit certain points, therefore the CPU doesnt have to worry about anything except the immediate scene.) NOTE : I am talking about single player here.

The CPU still has to keep tabs on that dogfight going on 100 miles over the other side of the map with AI planes. All the flak firing at them, cars, tanks moving about under them.

While you take off over your side of the map, perhaps under fire too.

A game engine uses more than just your graphics card.

F6_Ace
08-22-2006, 11:01 AM
Yes, that's my point. A player with a 'lesser rig' can involve him/herself with more complex scenarios online as the burden isn't entirely on their client.

A co-op hoster would, in my thinking, have the most burden especially if he had a lot of AI present whereas a DF server has relatively little burden as it isn't actually doing much at all.

Your point about Il-2 being a good piece of software is sound, though..it is [was] relatively resource efficient and very reliable. Unfortunately, it's become increasingly buggy and less efficient with all the [largely unnecessary] eye candy that has been added of late. Certainly enough to cause those people who DID have a rig that exceeded the min requirements when they first purchased FB/PF to encounter some problems. For example, on the back of my FB/PF boxes, it says 256MB min and 512MB recommended whereas we all know that you need about 1GB to get the thing running smoothly especially on certain maps (Leningrad). Then again, the PF box also said that there was a flyable Betty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
08-22-2006, 11:04 AM
I think the thing to remember is that its a very old engine now.

It would be better to compare SOW:BOB to Doom3.

Although you could argue that COD2 uses the Quake3 engine which is around the same age as IL2/FB engine I think?

There is so much more stuff for the computer to keep tabs on in a massive IL2/FB map and so each 'object' can have less detail. Thats one of the points I was trying to make.

COD2 has maybe only 30-40 soldiers at a time, moving around a tiny area firing guns. In that case all the effort can go into making them look realistic.

IL2 has to keep tabs on everything going on on a massive 100 mile map with maybe 100 planes dogfighting (If you use Lowengrins DCG generator) Flak guns, Tanks fighting each other, Soldiers jumping out of trucks as a plane attacks and all the rest.

I agree some of this will be missed out if the player doesnt see it, but lot of it (such as a big 30 plane furball that you dont see) does take place and has to be calculated. You see the damaged planes coming back to base after the fight.

Anyway, I am getting way too deep into this, and I really dont care that much anyway!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I think the IL2 engine R0XX0R5 Your B0XXeR5 for its age... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif