No NASA computers, but people play with 45-50 fps in 50 planes battle (36 of them- bombers).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pBiR...embedded#at=11

Some "crazy" people even dare to fight bombers over land that was so shocked it even forgot to turn everything into slideshow!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... p;feature=player_embedded

Developers said that next patch will sort out bad fps over towns.

Quote from Tom Servo :

I only drive stock cars in Shift2.

For that matter, it might not be that physically accurate, but the atmosphere and an actual feel for speed makes up for it.

Also, imma leavin' this here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9LdqRdvpMg

Great video, I love the combination of external and internal cams and absence of "cool tune" in the background. Thanks for sharing!

Quote from BlueFlame :

He's saying Above average is hard for an average joe to afford. Note the word average. You get what you pay for, but for a game the same price as other new games, you'd expect it not to take so much out of your PC, more than other games brought out at the same time do. That's why alot of people are shifting to console gaming, as for the computer, making a new game generally demanads more from the customers hardware, nobody wants to pay 50$ for a game but another 300$ to actually play it with sufficient clearity and linearity.

I know what you mean! But flight sims NEVER worked that way Top hardware was always needed to play freshly released flight sim.

Here is another vid- intercepting a flight of mobers with figther cover. My 460gtx is not capable of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... ure=player_embedded#at=11

Quote from Gills4life :

I am making the point that my PC is not average. I updated components to some of the lastest and fastest just for the new IL2, and yet it is still running like a slideshow over busy terrain particularly at low altitude like Matrixi stated. The land objects don't even look that great because they flicker and pop up!

You do not say what your PC is made of, but you video card is "chevrolet lacetti" equiv.

Here is a vid from a guy who does not get slideshow above land. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcHFQ9dSb1I

Quote from BlueFlame :

You are right Borsch, but in those days hardware was generally cheaper. Alot of people when the original IL-2 came out, were only just beginning in home computing, so there was no demand for the hardware like there is now.

Well, my my mum bought my first PC in 1999- pentium2 400MHz, 64mb RAM, 8mb Voodoo2 graphics card. 1800£. My current Dell C2D 2.66, 2Gb ram, 8800gts(now 460gtx) - 500£ two years ago.

Quote from Gills4life :

I see people barely reaching 30fps. It should be optimised better than that regardless of how demanding the game is, it's still buggy as hell. So many objects randomly pop up and flicker. It doesn't look good on land, it just looks really busy and buggy. Over water it runs much better. I can run it pretty much maxed out over water without too much problem, and the water does look beautiful. My computer is far from slow and it's struggling big time over land. At the moment I can run Battle of Britain 2 maxed out with the latest patch and graphical updates and it looks much better over land particularly and runs way smoother. CoD needs fixing mate.

1C released a post on their forum acknowledging the complaints themselves and said they are optimising the game a lot further. So even they are identifying problems. It's not all down to my PC being too slow, my PC is pretty up to date and still runs the game like a slideshow. They say that they will be optimising performance over terrain to get around double the fps possible at the moment over London. They are also enhancing multicore support which they say "easily" doubles the fps. If these things were done before release then there wouldn't be a problem. The game was released unfinished, saying the game is so visually intense that it will only work well on the most recently released hardware because it is a flight sim is a load of bollocks. If what 1C say is true, once they've made these tweaks the game should run smooth as silk on my system and on systems far worse than mine.

I'm not arguing against a general statement that it was rushed, it is buggy. I am only saying that no optimisation will make it fly on high settings on average computers. I could be wrong as I only make an inference based on the past sims, but like I said, in the past ALL major sims were complete system hogs (IL2, LockOn, FS9, FSX, A10). To run them with eyecandy one had to wait several years for affordable hardware to be become powerful enough (heck, I could not run original LockOn maxed out 4 years after its release on affordable C2Duo/8800gts), or buy the absolute top of the line stuff and still turn many options down. Just like you, I have gtx460, it is a "reasonably priced card" and I never expected it to pull the weight of CoD. I'll have to wait and upgrade.

Crysis2 is amazing looking, but it has very limited play area, nowere near the 1000km sq of CoD. Wings Of Prey has small maps (50km sq?), very limited draw distance with lots of fog, almost no graphical damage modeling.

So basically, I am only saying that flight sims have always ran badly on reasonably priced systems upon their release. Such is their nature. I do not believe that some "optimisation" will change that for CoD, at least not for us with gtx460s it wont.

Look here- top hardware, med-high settings, bomber intercept over London=40 fps.
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthre ... he_compl.html#Post3256346

Last edited by Borsch, Sat, 2 Apr 2011 14:41.

I think that flight sims fans have forgotten that that genre have ALWAYS demanded the most current , most expensive hardware. This is not Crysis or Need for Speed or even iRacing, the massive scale and complexity of modeled world is on a different level.

Whenever a new flight sim came out, one knew that he had to get the best PC available at the time of the release to enjoy it- original Il2, LockOn, FSX, A-10 to metion but the most recent ones and that trend was always the same.

Top of the range processors and graphics cards are a must. If you read 1c forum you will see that people with nice i7s and top radeons and nvidias are enjoying CoD now.

Quote from JJ72 :

I've played it for 6 hours or so on the PS3, very very good game.

no complaint with the physics even, just some car's have very odd default setup like the caterham, when some like the supra has really sweet balance. The FF is actually quite good.

can't get use to the helmet cam though, can't tell how much the car is yawing with that cam, so I just use the cockpit cam, which still have some nice head movement.

The AI is real good as well.

Completely agree! Some cars are balanced very well- I drove Seat Leon, Some Aston Martin (on time trial challenge), AE86. Some other cars are exactly like they were taken straight from Shift1 - never wanting to go straight (911, Elise). I have not tried any other cars yet.

With the "balanced cars" the only thing that stops this from being a "sim" for me is that it is a bit too easy to recover weight of the car (even the 'balanced' car), there is almost no @point of no return@. But the way cars react to acceleration, the understeer and oversteer are all in a different league to Shift1. Unfortunately I do not own a console to compare with GT or Forza.

The "unbalanced cars' feel EXACTLY like Shift1 did.

900 degree steering is good on balanced cars.

Quote from Byku :

! You would a hero for most of us motoring fans .

+10000000!

Bought a Toyota Yaris SR 1.3 about a year ago- I think its a perfect cheap small economical car (50.4 combined economy). Paid 1.5k for an Xreg. Nothing rattles, workes like clockwork (all SRs of that period were Japanese built! Some Yari are French built -booo). The engine is so smooth and quiet that I have turned the ignition key on several occasions while at the lights (with the engine running I mean). Highly, highly recommended car.

I did my research and it was rated 5 stars on Honest John, was highly praised on BMI (albeit in a modified form. Great driving position, handles well. Only downside is motorway- a bit noisy. Not rattles, but tyre noise - the wheels are a bit small after all...

Looks cool as well imho- Here is my baby


PS Diesel Yaris will do 70mpg but the car is no longer "cheap"...

<a href="http://s905.photobucket.com/albums/ac259/borsch1/?action=view&current=21122010184.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac259/borsch1/21122010184.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Last edited by Borsch, Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:02.

Quote from vlado_skopsko :

Its also good thing to rev match your downshifts.

Could kindly explain this bit in more detail? I have DFPro wheel (so no clutch).

Quote from E.Reiljans :

Just use some encoder with aoTuV support (preferably 5.6 and newer), it achieves transparent compression at ~192 kbit/s.

Never heard of it before, thanks for sharing! I will use it in my foobar from now on

Ok, I think I cracked it! Its a bug in the game that is related to the encoding bitrate. My tracks were .ogg at highest (500) kbps bitrate encoding when I had the "skip to next track after random number of seconds time". There is no skipping problem with 200 kbps .oggs.

I like to have music for replays and dont want to turn on foobar for each replay specifically. Hope the devs will adress the bug and high bitrate ogg will also be playable in the future

Quote from Juhavee1 :

What should i do becose the track songs about 10sec and then it change to next track and that plays too about 10secs..?

I have the same problem... Could anyone help?

Hello to all pistonheads, petrolheads and motorheads

Glad to join you all! Very NICE Sim, that LFS!