Tell me! :)

[killen]

guys i need a favour: is this game still unplayable? i downloaded it first time, 5 months ago. i had a lot of fps issues with HD7770ghz ed. and i5 2400 then i uninstalled it.

Now, i want to re-download this game to see if something is improved. Is the campaign boring? how is the multiplayer now? bugs?

thank you guys! see you in the sky! (if this game is improved)

Edited July 26, 2015 by killen

[SharpeXB]

If you had fps problems with the game, they've added some new graphics options, controlling HDR and SSAO. Maybe that could help. Otherwise, yes the game has developed quite well. Just install it again and try it out.

If you felt the campaign was boring, they are working on some new styles of mission for it.

Multiplayer servers have increased to 64 players also.

[Willy__]

For SP flyiers: you should check out IL2Commander, made by Warhamm:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17397-check-out-il-2-commander-campaign-russian-app/

[Jade_Monkey]

Well, the 7770 is not precisely the fastest card around. I dont think your fps "issues" are gonna go away unless you upgrade your GPU.

[killen]

I hate this game, it is bad optimized and i don't find funny that i have throw away 30 euros for this [Edited].

toggling or not the HDR and SSAO doesn't make anything change. same framerate, different quality.

in single player runs well, instead in multiplayer doesn't. it runs at 40-50 fps max, and it is impossible for me to play.

i know it is not the best around this world, but i still play a lot of games in full hd resolution (7770 ghz ed. 1gb gddr5 remeber :3 )

Edited July 27, 2015 by Bearcat
Language

[Willy__]

Have you tried unchecking the "fullscreen" option on the launcher ? For some bizarre reason some people get better fps with that. Lowering the resolution also helps!

Edited July 26, 2015 by istruba

[killen]

Have you tried unchecking the "fullscreen" option on the launcher ? For some bizarre reason some people get better fps with that. Lowering the resolution also helps!

i played since now with fullscreen unchecked. now i will try with it checked. i feel sick lowering the resolution lelz, can't play in 1440x900

[killen]

i am not having fun because the game is a bit laggy

[Willy__]

Sorry, I meant that people get better fps with fullscreen unchecked. If you cant lower the resolotion you should lower the graphical settings and not use the anti aliasing. As others already stated, the 7770 is not the fastest card. HDR and SSAO dont impact much on the perfomance, the main heavy hitters on fps are the resolution and anti aliasing. Other than that, theres not much you can do besides upgrading your rig.  

 

Hope that helps with your issue. 

[Matt]

 

in single player runs well, instead in multiplayer doesn't. it runs at 40-50 fps max, and it is impossible for me to play.

40-50 FPS with a low-mid range card from 2012 is actually pretty good if you ask me.

[killen]

40-50 FPS with a low-mid range card from 2012 is actually pretty good if you ask me.

how you dare calling it a low mid range card >:D just kidding. i actually play other games in fullhd and i get 60 and more fps. i think another big problem is my cpu; i saw that this game is cpu intensive (cpu based? bah, you understood right?)

Sorry, I meant that people get better fps with fullscreen unchecked. If you cant lower the resolotion you should lower the graphical settings and not use the anti aliasing. As others already stated, the 7770 is not the fastest card. HDR and SSAO dont impact much on the perfomance, the main heavy hitters on fps are the resolution and anti aliasing. Other than that, theres not much you can do besides upgrading your rig.

 

Hope that helps with your issue. 

i already have lowered all gfx options

[216th_Jordan]

Please, don't subject your problems with this product as a problem for everyone. I find this game to be very well optimized, being able to play it at a high level of detail on a PC that is not based on latest generation technology is NOT a natural thing, and yet BOS offers that. 

 

Have you safely installed the latest drivers for your craphics card? are your processses stacked up and block your CPUs resources? Did you try overclocking your CPU?

 

 

But anyway...

Impossible to play at 40 - 50 fps? Check your standards mate.

[Mikey]

40-50fps looks like stutter, at least in a FLYING game its unacceptable for me, an upgrade from a 570 to 970 helped ALOT

[Alkyan]

The eyes are not limited in FPS but the average population is unable to see the difference between 40 FPS and more. I might be wrong but movies are around 24 FPS. Anyway 50 FPS is far from unplayable...

And I don't think that the fact that it is a flying game changes anything. Planes are fast in real life but on a screen not especially faster than other stuff in other games...

[SharpeXB]

I find anything less than a full 60 fps very noticeable and distracting. And yes films are 24fps but that's way too low for gaming.

In any game I'd turn down the setting to get 60fos before anything else.

[Potenz]

I hate this game, it is bad optimized and i don't find funny that i have throw away 30 euros for this shit.

toggling or not the HDR and SSAO doesn't make anything change. same framerate, different quality.

in single player runs well, instead in multiplayer doesn't. it runs at 40-50 fps max, and it is impossible for me to play.

i know it is not the best around this world, but i still play a lot of games in full hd resolution (7770 ghz ed. 1gb gddr5 remeber :3 )

so you say the game is rubish cause you have a crap PC??? Troll detected

[killen]

so you say the game is rubish cause you have a crap PC??? Troll detected

okai, i am not a troller, but i have seen many people complaining about fps issues or problems with stuttering. i would like to see modify gfx options from the config. file, but you can't do this anymore.

is my a crap pc? i know it is not like yours (sli of titan x? omg) but it is still a decent one, right? i played bf3 and bf4 in full hd with medium details sooo...

my standards are 60 fps and more, not 50-60. i am a maniac about having 60 fps and this is my problem.

don't tell me the game runs fine for you if you have a super-duper pc!

please don't start a flame, it is not my intention

 

PS: i was a bit nervous when i wrote about the optimization

Edited July 26, 2015 by killen

[CF-105]

i have seen many people complaining about fps issues or problems with stuttering.

 

don't tell me the game runs fine for you if you have a super-duper pc!

 

 

Please, I haven't been around the BoS forum for all that long, but even I have been around here much longer than you have.

This is the first time I've ever seen someone complaining about FPS or optimization since the game was released.

 

Also, my computer I bought for $1000 CAD, which is around 75 cents per american dollar, and on top of that, bought it here in Canada, where shipping costs from the States are gargantuan.

For a gaming PC, that's fairly cheap.

 

Comparing any flight sim to a FP shooter performance-wise is ridiculous.  BF3/4 are cakewalks compared to DCS or IL-2.  Getting 60 FPS in IL-2 on high graphics doesn't mean that DCS will be smooth at all, in fact, my FPS drops to 5-10 if I do a belly landing on unpaved terrain.

[killen]

Please, I haven't been around the BoS forum for all that long, but even I have been around here much longer than you have.

This is the first time I've ever seen someone complaining about FPS or optimization since the game was released.

 

Also, my computer I bought for $1000 CAD, which is around 75 cents per american dollar, and on top of that, bought it here in Canada, where shipping costs from the States are gargantuan.

For a gaming PC, that's fairly cheap.

 

Comparing any flight sim to a FP shooter performance-wise is ridiculous.  BF3/4 are cakewalks compared to DCS or IL-2.  Getting 60 FPS in IL-2 on high graphics doesn't mean that DCS will be smooth at all, in fact, my FPS drops to 5-10 if I do a belly landing on unpaved terrain.

DCS runs smooth at me (obviously not all maxed out). i saw people complaining about the non-custom gfx options.

btw, thank you all

[6./ZG26_Emil]

okai, i am not a troller, but i have seen many people complaining about fps issues or problems with stuttering. i would like to see modify gfx options from the config. file, but you can't do this anymore.

is my a crap pc? i know it is not like yours (sli of titan x? omg) but it is still a decent one, right? i played bf3 and bf4 in full hd with medium details sooo...

my standards are 60 fps and more, not 50-60. i am a maniac about having 60 fps and this is my problem.

don't tell me the game runs fine for you if you have a super-duper pc!

please don't start a flame, it is not my intention

 

PS: i was a bit nervous when i wrote about the optimization

 

This sim is one of the best optimized I've ever played so it seems like your PC isn't up to the job. 

Edited July 27, 2015 by JG5_Emil

[9./JG27golani79]

Impossible to play with 40-50fps?

 

come ooon ....

[216th_Jordan]

It might very well be that your CPU is your bottleneck so it might be helpful trying to overclock it a little.

[SYN_Mike77]

Stuttering is a different issue from fps (You can have stuttering game that runs at 60 fps!).  40-50 fps without stutters is extremely good.  One of the ways to optimize your enjoyment of the game might be to turn off your fps counter!  If you don't have a little number in the corner telling you you have "only" 45 fps you wont know about it. 

 

Anyone else old enough to remember when the target for games was 24 fps?  I remember reading an article back then that in blind test no one could tell the difference in anything above 30 fps and most people (if I'm remembering correctly about 75%) couldn't tell any difference in smooth games that ran above 20 fps.  Below 20 fps the majority of people had problems and at under12fps(!) the game became a slide show.  When the original IL2 came out my rig was in the low teens and I found it unplayable. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Strange. I got use to low fps back then. But i always was able to feel +/- 10 fps diffrence to 60. higher fps number the diffrence must be bigger to feel it. Beside fps - monitor Hz with low latency make big diffrence too. Today g-sync could be next option but i didnt test it in best benchmmark - fast pace quake world one

[SharpeXB]

Anyone else old enough to remember when the target for games was 24 fps? I remember reading an article back then that in blind test no one could tell the difference in anything above 30 fps and most people (if I'm remembering correctly about 75%) couldn't tell any difference in smooth games that ran above 20 fps.

Yeah that's because the graphics were so awful back then nobody cared ;-) Seriously they weren't sophisticated enough for anyone to perceive frame rates.

You can easily tell the difference between 24fps and 60. Just look at the difference between a film and a video

Off topic rant: I HATE these 120hz TVs today showing movies that look like Soap Operas!

Back on Topic: less than 60hz is discernible. 30 is awful but playable, barely. Games have faster action than movies and look really awful at the same 24 fps which looks good on film. Imagine a movie with the fast head turning first person view from a shooter or flight sim. The audience would be sick and having seizures in the theater.

I had a mid range PC for a while and when I upgraded and ran RoF at 60fps I was blown away by how great it looked. Everything takes on a smooth sharp glassy look just like the movies I hate on TV like that but in the game it looks incredible. Once you see that in a game you'll never go back to less than 60.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Seriously...fact

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alkyan]

Well, there is evidence of people able to "see" at 300 hundred FPS. Some U.S. pilots have been able to recognize planes showed during 1/300 sec. So you guys maybe as well. First test, were you able to discern the pornographic pictures inserted in the movie Fight club?

[-TBC-AeroAce]

The fps in this game is highly CPU based for example I upgraded from a 770 to a 970 and got less than 10% increase in fps for BOS. For other games such as far cry 3 or battlefield 4 I got more like a 30 to 40 % increase

[CF-105]

DCS runs smooth at me (obviously not all maxed out). i saw people complaining about the non-custom gfx options.

btw, thank you all

Whether I'm at max gfx or minimum, the smoke effect generated from a belly landing is absolutely terrible FPS-wise.

 

The rest of the game is perfectly fine though.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Seriously...fact

 

 

6GQlBhM.png

 

Nah, the fact is is that human vision can't be quantified in pixel-based resolutions or frames per second.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Nah, the fact is is that human vision can't be quantified in pixel-based resolutions or frames per second.

 

I read it on the internet...it must be true

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Well, there is evidence of people able to "see" at 300 hundred FPS. Some U.S. pilots have been able to recognize planes showed during 1/300 sec. So you guys maybe as well. First test, were you able to discern the pornographic pictures inserted in the movie Fight club?

The human eye doesn't see in frames per second... It is a constant stream of information that the brain cobbles up to form an image. Closest thing you can get to a "framerate" is that the neurons from the eye to the brain, and in the brain itself can fire off at over 200 times/second. But its unrepresentative since there are thousands of neurons, and its not just the neurons, certain cells in the retina for example are not triggered by certain directions of movement, are those cells running at 0 fps? No, they are just not stimulated.

Edited July 27, 2015 by RoflSeal

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I read it on the internet...it must be true

 

I feel you...

 

84% man...

 

http://www.theonion.com/article/study-84-couples-who-walk-around-exploring-new-nei-50710

[Sokol1]

 

 i played bf3 and bf4 in full hd with medium details sooo...

my standards are 60 fps and more, not 50-60. i am a maniac about having 60 fps and this is my problem.

 

The problem:you are a "FPS player" the "60 FPS" ones, for flight simulators the history is another, even with the best hardware in some situations you can get less...

[Alkyan]

The human eye doesn't see in frames per second... It is a constant stream of information that the brain cobbles up to form an image. Closest thing you can get to a "framerate" is that the neurons from the eye to the brain, and in the brain itself can fire off at over 200 times/second. But its unrepresentative since there are thousands of neurons, and its not just the neurons, certain cells in the retina for example are not triggered by certain directions of movement, are those cells running at 0 fps? No, they are just not stimulated.

Maybe it explains the "see"