Jump to content

CSW_FMF_Tommy544

Members
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About CSW_FMF_Tommy544

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark

Recent Profile Visitors

607 profile views
  1. I realized that I forgot to mention in my previous post that I am mainly interested in the VR performance, that's why I was talking about 80 fps - refresh rate of my Oculus Rift S. However, from the spreadsheet document it appears that if your GPU is not a bottleneck in your current settings, you need to have roughly twice as many FPS on monitor than what you want to achieve in VR. I guess it kind of makes sense, as you generally need to render the scene from 2 different view ports - eyes. In my case, that would be around 160 FPS on monitor, but it is difficult to determine what kind of CPU horse power is needed at the moment to achieve that.
  2. So guys, if I understand correctly, the Remagen 4.0 benchmarking method is not compatible with the newest patch and so I can't look at the performance numbers in the Google sheets file to see the effect the newest patch had on the distribution of the PC power requirements between CPU and GPU. From various comments I've seen in some threads and partially from my experience as well, it looks like the load was transferred more towards the GPU side. My main question is, how useful it is in the current state of the game engine to go for the fastest clock speeds on the CPU? Is it worth it to aim for an 5 GHz+ overclocked Intel CPU or is it now sufficient to run let's say run a Ryzen 7, 4.6 GHz CPU and spend more cash on a more powerful GPU in order to maintain relatively stable 80-90 fps? Can some of you share your experience with the couple newest patches? Thanks!
  3. Hi @The-Doctor, I recently changed my squad tag, but I have updated my reply in this thread with the correct new one right after I've done that. In case it's not enough to just edit the old reply (since you wrote there have been some problems with people changing their squad tags/nicknames), I'm writing a new one. CSW_FMF_Tommy544 + BoN Thank you
  4. Helicopters can't really fly - they're just so ugly that the earth immediately repels them.
  5. Sounds absolutely amazing! Can't wait to try the new toys. Huge thanks to all people who spent their time creating all these scripted campaigns that we are getting for free!
  6. I would also like to see some more options for zoom in VR. Ideally some configurable option with either one configurable zoom multiplier that users can set, multiple buttons that could be mapped for multiple zoom levels or ideally, just an axis support as it is on 2D zoom.
  7. Thank you Alonzo! I came to a similar conclusion and just have to decide whether getting max possible frame rate in IL-2 is worth buying a CPU that I would not normally recommend to anyone. I disagree with the m.2 SSD though. Sure, the newest ones PCIe 4 NVMe drives might not be the best bang-for-buck, but I see no point in buying SATA m.2 drives when PCIe 3 NVMe drives have been around for quite a few years now and you have at least 5x the data transfer speed compared to SATA. You probably won't notice a difference in IL-2 other than loading times, but for the general system performance it is in my opinion crucial.
  8. Hi everyone, I am currently running Oculus Rift S on my laptop with an external Thunderbolt 3 GPU. Considering my CPU boosts on all 4 cores only to 3.2 GHz and GTX 1070 in the eGPU enclosure I am quite surprised that I can get close to 40 fps in the air in not so crowded areas. On the ground and above big cities, the performance is of course worse than that. I am a big fan of the eGPU idea and to be honest, if I wasn't trying to run relatively CPU hungry simulators in VR, my setup is perfectly fine for casual gaming. However, I would like to upgrade my setup to have a more comfortable VR experience and I decided to build a desktop PC and for the start use my 1070 with an upgrade for the GPU in the future in mind. From the Google Sheets results it looks like Intel CPUs are still a bit better for this particular use case. If I understand it correctly, the game graphics settings used for this benchmark are set quite high and it should be possible to lower some of them, i.e. draw distance to get a consistent 80/90 fps as it seems like even the best rigs people have are having troubles reaching this performance level. My main concern is choosing a new CPU. For IL-2, i9-9900K seems to have no measurable advantage over i7-9700k and seems to be quite a bit more expensive. I really don't like Intel's move to remove hyper threading from i7 this generation and other than top performance in IL-2, Ryzen CPUs seem to have better performance overall and are much better value. Would you advise against R7 3800X/3700X for VR in IL-2? Are there any other specific areas to be careful about when choosing the rest of the components? I am of course planning to get some of the faster RAM sticks and run the system of of a m.2 nvme drive. I'm just wondering whether there are any other peculiarities that I might have missed in the results sheets. PS: It also seems like the the switch to deferred rendering is happening quite soon. I am very interested in seeing how that will impact VR performance and whether it redistributes CPU/GPU load. Thank you
  9. That looks awesome, thanks for posting that here!
  10. We used to run official races on the Air_Race server in Hyper Lobby every weekend. Honestly, it was the most enjoyable time I had in any flight sim. I was thinking whether it would be possible to recreate something similar in today's popular sims and I would definitely try to help if others would also be interested in air racing. There are a couple problems with simply taking the league concept we had in IL-2 1946. We used to choose a race course and 5 different planes that we would practice with during the week and then have official scored races on weekend. All racers always raced the same plane during a specific race to make it as fair and exciting as possible. Points would be awarded for each race and we would have 3-4 championships per year. The great thing about 1946 was that there was a big selection of planes keeping races fresh and everyone had access to all the planes. The way it is now with IL-2 GB, we would have to come up with some different system to allow anyone to compete and have some sensible scoring system to keep people interested in joining races regularly.
  11. I have a Rift S headset and I am also not sure how exactly is this feature supposed to work. 1) I measured my IPD and set it in the Oculus app settings (since it only has software IPD adjustment). Does Rift S still render images correctly in regards to IPD if you are running an app through Steam VR/OpenComposite or do these apps bypass these settings completely? 2) I also noticed that adjusting the IPD setting in IL-2 changes the scale of the cockpit noticeably. It is uncomfortable for my eyes in the extreme settings, but my eyes feel good in quite a wide range around the center. Since the values are displayed %, is there any way to determine the right setting for your eyes? I haven't sit in many warbird cockpits, so it is hard for me to determine what scale is the correct one.
  12. CSW_FMF_Tommy544 + BoN Thanks a lot, very generous of you
  13. Hi busdriver, that's a very generous gesture, count me in, please! Here is a music video that I think is brilliant 😀
  14. I think that is by design. You switch focus to some other app and by reducing framerate in IL2, you have more power available for the other app you want to interact with, which means it will run smoother, and when you switch back to IL2, you get full performance back.
×
×
  • Create New...