For those who fly Career Mode on max settings: What ar your PC specs?

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

To start with, in multiplayer, I can fly at 9/10 Ultra graphics setting with no problems.   

 

That said, I started a career mode on hard difficulty and with dense frontline activity.  (It's awesome to see all the ground positions and AI guns fighting it out with the chaos of dogfighting above.)

But, even though I get not real change in frame rate, the entire battle seems to change to 1/2 speed when the action gets going.  It's more like a real-time strategy game speed at that point. - No, I am not accidentally hitting the time-augmentation keys.

 

At that point it is obvious to say that reducing settings and selecting less-dense frontline activity is a possible solution. 

 

However, what I want to know is what kind of CPU/motherboard/RAM beef is really needed to make the max/ultra/most AI entities packed into each mission, settings work at true speeds. 

In other words, I can see my rig is a bit behind, but if yours runs fine with all the bells and whistles selected, what do you use?

This information will probably be a factor in any upgrades/new equipment I plan for in the future.

 

Thanks!    

                               ~S~

[TheOldCrow]

I have a Ryzen 5 2600, and a Radeon Rx 580 8GB and on max settings with dense activity I see fps right around 45 and dips down to 25-30. If I up it to moderate activity I'm usually at around 80 the entire time

[40plus]

Ryzen 7 1700x not overclocked, 16GB RAM, 1080ti

Maxed out visuals, front activity heavy

 

Play in VR, monitor mirroring my view running at 4k and experience the occasional slow down when things get dicey.

 

Toying around with upgrading my CPU to the 3700x. Just have to convince the wife that I "need" to.

[356thFS_Melonfish]

I play at ultra settings too, I highly recommend following this post:

 

My rig is as follows:

I5 4670K oc'd to 4.2ghz

Corsair 1866mhz ram x16gb

Asus GTX 970

120gb SSD.

24" 1080p monitor.

 

thats it, it happily chugs along with good framerates all over, i'm considering reshade next too.

[Elem]

All settings maxed out on PC spec in my signature below. FPS @ 40+ when down and dirty, to @ 90+ when up in the wide blue yonder! No graphics issues, stutter, tearing, freezing etc. 

[Lusekofte]

I messed with the settings. And got a little trackir stutter now and then 

[Voidhunger]

23 minutes ago, Elem said:

All settings maxed out on PC spec in my signature below. FPS @ 40+ when down and dirty, to @ 90+ when up in the wide blue yonder! No graphics issues, stutter, tearing, freezing etc. 

 

Im very interested too, but not in FPS but in fluid (no slowdowns) gameplay.

medium or dense frontline activity

1 minute ago, LuseKofte said:

I messed with the settings. And got a little trackir stutter now and then 

I have stutters when I set shadows to high or ultra

[-TBC-AeroAce]

FPS IS not the whole story.  I can have it a 60 fps but the game is running at half speed.

[Elem]

50 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

FPS IS not the whole story.  I can have it a 60 fps but the game is running at half speed.

Bizarre!

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, Elem said:

Bizarre!

 

It's CPU vs GPU.  The game runs by executing a continuous loop.  That is CPU.  Being CPU bound, your graphics card can keep up just fine but the game itself is lagging because a computational loop (every AI decision, every AI control input, every plane movement, every bullet movement, every smoke calculation, etc.) is taking more time than the real time slice that it represents.  End result is 90 frames per second visually but your plane only moved half the distance that it should have in that second.

 

BTW, that is the core of many of the limitations of this game.  Optimizing all of the calculations in a processing loop such that they are completed faster than the time slice that the represent.

Edited August 14, 2019 by PatrickAWlson

[Elem]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

It's CPU vs GPU.  The game runs by executing a continuous loop.  That is CPU.  Being CPU bound, your graphics card can keep up just fine but the game itself is lagging because a computational loop (every AI decision, every AI control input, every plane movement, every bullet movement, every smoke calculation, etc.) is taking more time than the real time slice that it represents.  End result is 90 frames per second visually but your plane only moved half the distance that it should have in that second.

 

BTW, that is the core of many of the limitations of this game.  Optimizing all of the calculations in a processing loop such that they are completed faster than the time slice that the represent.

Gotcha! Ta.

[senseispcc]

A old pc can still do it...proof!

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

 

8 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

It's CPU vs GPU.  The game runs by executing a continuous loop.  That is CPU.  Being CPU bound, your graphics card can keep up just fine but the game itself is lagging because a computational loop (every AI decision, every AI control input, every plane movement, every bullet movement, every smoke calculation, etc.) is taking more time than the real time slice that it represents.  End result is 90 frames per second visually but your plane only moved half the distance that it should have in that second.

 

BTW, that is the core of many of the limitations of this game.  Optimizing all of the calculations in a processing loop such that they are completed faster than the time slice that the represent.

 

This exactly.  I'm sure the devs wouldn't put this out without it being fully possible to run it at these settings with no problem.  After all, as far as I can assess, they consistently show their dedication to a high standard product and showing it with regular updates that stay on-goal  for what they promise.  

 

Hence, my rig may either have a bottleneck or is simply great for now, but if I want the full experience will require me to plan upgrading.  That's why I asked what specs people were using that the heaviest settings run fine on.  

I never thought "The game won't do it.",  and I am 100% sure my GPU is fine.  I was always sure my CPU, Motherboard or RAM was what was lacking.  I'm pretty sure that those parts are all well-matched, but I'm not 100% 

[Voidhunger]

5 hours ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

 

 

This exactly.  I'm sure the devs wouldn't put this out without it being fully possible to run it at these settings with no problem.  After all, as far as I can assess, they consistently show their dedication to a high standard product and showing it with regular updates that stay on-goal  for what they promise.  

 

Hence, my rig may either have a bottleneck or is simply great for now, but if I want the full experience will require me to plan upgrading.  That's why I asked what specs people were using that the heaviest settings run fine on.  

I never thought "The game won't do it.",  and I am 100% sure my GPU is fine.  I was always sure my CPU, Motherboard or RAM was what was lacking.  I'm pretty sure that those parts are all well-matched, but I'm not 100% 

Yeah sure. i would like to have at least some experience with low frontline activity. Good is that in intense dogfight i have time to prepare coffee and play with kids and when im returning to base with 8x time i can go to sleep and after i wake up i can touch down while i sipping another coffee.