Increasing time scale

[RedKestrel]

1 minute ago, Voidhunger said:

 

Its the game engine. Those slowdowns and heavines are probably tolerated by majority of people.

I cant believe that you all have same fluidness (not FPS) when you start mission and at the frontline with fighters, flak, big town and ground units.

I don't play career mode or really SP much at all. There is some stutteriness in MP sometimes, and lag obviously, but in general online play has different issues. My CPU is older so I'm sure I would have problems if I was in your shoes.
Other people seem to have seen bigger improvements with the new CPUs, I'm just suggesting you take a look at some of the things they've tried. Maybe there is an easy solution, maybe not, but it can't hurt.

[dburne]

16 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

With my new 5800x I am getting more CPU utilization than with my old 4820k, also GPU (1070) now runs at >95% most of the time and delivers almost constant 120fps at 1440p. 

4x acceleration mostly no problem.

 

Nice, I would love to see that much acceleration.

[Gambit21]

On 1/15/2021 at 10:52 AM, 216th_Jordan said:

With my new 5800x I am getting more CPU utilization than with my old 4820k, also GPU (1070) now runs at >95% most of the time and delivers almost constant 120fps at 1440p. 

4x acceleration mostly no problem.

 

Nice!

I have my 5800x in hand finally (sweet spot of Ryzen 5000 series thank you very much)

 

Now I just need the 3080.

I suppose that I could just build the new rig with my existing 1080 for the moment...but...I just can’t.

 

Plus I don’t want to demonstrate to the household CFO that I technically don’t need the new card.

(new ground-up build)

[Irishratticus72]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Nice!

I have my 5800x in hand finally (sweet spot of Ryzen 5000 series thank you very much)

 

Now I just need the 3080.

I suppose that I could just build the new rig with my existing 1080 for the moment...but...I just can’t.

 

Plus I don’t want to demonstrate to the household CFO that I technically don’t need the new card.

(new ground-up build)

I must have the same CFO as you....... ?

[dburne]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Nice!

I have my 5800x in hand finally (sweet spot of Ryzen 5000 series thank you very much)

 

Now I just need the 3080.

I suppose that I could just build the new rig with my existing 1080 for the moment...but...I just can’t.

 

Plus I don’t want to demonstrate to the household CFO that I technically don’t need the new card.

(new ground-up build)

 

 

Those are the best!

[hebog5]

Tried that, could not hit a thing!

[IckyATLAS]

On 1/16/2021 at 10:23 PM, Gambit21 said:

 

Nice!

I have my 5800x in hand finally (sweet spot of Ryzen 5000 series thank you very much)

 

Now I just need the 3080.

I suppose that I could just build the new rig with my existing 1080 for the moment...but...I just can’t.

 

Plus I don’t want to demonstrate to the household CFO that I technically don’t need the new card.

(new ground-up build)

I am still waiting to see if Intel will catch up in single thread performance with the upcoming Rocket Lake. 

Having been an Intel/3dFx/Nvidia fan for all my life up to now, AMD has been able to have me noticing that maybe I should change my preferred color mix from sky blue/green to hellish red/orange. I may end up maybe Red/Green or Blue/Orange. Anyway with all the benchmarks around and Intel statements, I am lost at the moment. ?

 

 

[blue_max]

3 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

I am still waiting to see if Intel will catch up in single thread performance with the upcoming Rocket Lake. 

Having been an Intel/3dFx/Nvidia fan for all my life up to now, AMD has been able to have me noticing that maybe I should change my preferred color mix from sky blue/green to hellish red/orange. I may end up maybe Red/Green or Blue/Orange. Anyway with all the benchmarks around and Intel statements, I am lost at the moment. ?

 

 

Haha why? Intel has been doing a terrible job for years now. and both Intel and Nvidia have shown that their business ethics are terrible. Very bad for the overall gaming ecosystem. I got myself a Ryzen 5900 and it's awesome. And my 5700XT is doing very well (although I wouldn't buy it for the current inflated prices, but all prices for GPUs are batshit insane at the moment).

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

I am still waiting to see if Intel will catch up in single thread performance with the upcoming Rocket Lake. 

Having been an Intel/3dFx/Nvidia fan for all my life up to now, AMD has been able to have me noticing that maybe I should change my preferred color mix from sky blue/green to hellish red/orange. I may end up maybe Red/Green or Blue/Orange. Anyway with all the benchmarks around and Intel statements, I am lost at the moment. ?

 

 

 

As Max above just said, Intel's record is clear.

 

I ran an i5 2500k for a long time and it was a fantastic processor. Then after 5 years I went shopping for an upgrade, and in that 5 years Intel managed to increase performance by 21%....yes 21% over five years. That's when I went back to AMD (Ryzen 1700) and now the 5800X.

 

I wouldn't expect much from Rocket Lack. Maybe Intel will turn it around, but don't hold your breath.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

59 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I ran an i5 2500k for a long time and it was a fantastic processor. Then after 5 years I went shopping for an upgrade, and in that 5 years Intel managed to increase performance by 21%....yes 21% over five years. That's when I went back to AMD (Ryzen 1700)

 

To be fair, in 2017 it was possible to purchase a i7-7700K that would have outperformed the Ryzen 1700 by by 39% in the vital (for gaming) single thread performance. In that respect, Intel retained its lead for a long time.

 

Of course, the 5800X is another story as it's at the top of the chart at the moment.

[Gambit21]

7 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

To be fair, in 2017 it was possible to purchase a i7-7700K that would have outperformed the Ryzen 1700 by by 39% in the vital (for gaming) single thread performance. In that respect, Intel retained its lead for a long time.

 

Of course, the 5800X is another story as it's at the top of the chart at the moment.

 

I was doing 3D rendering as well.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I was doing 3D rendering as well.

 

I see. In that case having twice the cores must have been very exciting indeed.

 

For my gaming builds, it was nice to have competition from Zen and Zen+, but the performance wasn't compelling.

[Avimimus]

I bought a new computer for the first time in order to run Cliffs of Dover... I picked the components very carefully. I'm still running it after nine years (albeit I had to replace a video card). I do get a bit of stutter over Rhineland though... I'll probably upgrade in a year or two. Anyway, I'm amazed I was able to keep it going this long.

 

It'd be really nice if we had a time-skip function in this sim - but I think I've already mentioned that?

[Voidhunger]

After more and more testing even on different rigs (to eliminate problem with my CPU), I can clearly say that the career mode is unplayable.

There are some improvements in speed if you lower the overal details to low or balanced and lowering the visibility to normal, but then the game looks awful. (and of course shadows, distatng buildings, and other things) Scattered density, AI difficulty low or medium. 

 

Im totaly frustrated, I just bought new PC just to be able finaly play career mode.  It was so expensive, mainly the new GPU and it was a waste of money.

Once you reach the frontline it looks like you are swiming in the swamp, even the sound of the engine is slower.  Missions like escort/attack bombers or attack the ground attack planes are absolutely frustrating to play. 

 

[Noisemaker]

I'm running IL-2 GB on a I7-3930K (2013 CPU) in turbo mode on an Asus Sabertooth X79 SLI MB.  16GB RAM.  Game installed on a Samsung 840 Evo (Not OS drive).  Windows 7.  When I played with my old graphic card NVIDIA GTX 650, I had slowdowns and low frame rates, but since upgrading to a 1080, I run a stable 60FPS and encounter only very rare slight stutters when aircraft spawn or the first time I use my quick views.  Time compression works as it should up to the full 8x (I timed it with a stopwatch watching the in game clock).  Graphics are set pretty close to Ultra, and the game looks amazing (mostly...).

The FPS is limited by my monitor btw, and I find it perfectly useable, but may upgrade at some point.

Just adding this to point out that the game is playable even with older equipment.

[Voidhunger]

Tested it with my old i5 4670k cpu and gtx 980 and my new system 5600x + rtx3060ti

 

My brother was building new system so i took the opportunity to test the game with his old pc and the new.

 

Amd procesor(cant remember name) with gtx 1080 and now with ryzen 5600x with rtx 3070.

 

Its still the same. Reach the frontline game and sound is slow.

 

And now with the constant changing settings in the menu a i have sometimes totaly broken sound. I don't know how to fix it, without reinstaling the whole game.

[sniperton]

52 minutes ago, Noisemaker said:

Time compression works as it should up to the full 8x (I timed it with a stopwatch watching the in game clock).

Are you sure you checked it in career mode?

Just asking because I have a generally weaker, but newer CPU with a higher single thread rating, and 2x compression is the maximum I can get in career mode, with the game speed dropping below 1x in busier situations.

[Noisemaker]

1 hour ago, sniperton said:

Are you sure you checked it in career mode?

Just asking because I have a generally weaker, but newer CPU with a higher single thread rating, and 2x compression is the maximum I can get in career mode, with the game speed dropping below 1x in busier situations.

I only fly career mode (For now).

[Voidhunger]

1 hour ago, Noisemaker said:

I only fly career mode (For now).

Just to remind you even if the game is showing 8x speed in hud the actual speed is different. If use acceleration in busy situation hud is showing 8x but you can see by the planes and ground that actual speed is 1x. 

[Noisemaker]

58 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

Just to remind you even if the game is showing 8x speed in hud the actual speed is different. If use acceleration in busy situation hud is showing 8x but you can see by the planes and ground that actual speed is 1x. 

Like I said, I measured with a stopwatch (iPhone) the difference between real time and game time, and the game achieved 8x time compression (Well, 7.8 or something like that if we want to be accurate).  Measured over a 20 minute flight (Game time) back from the front to home base.  I can assure you at 8x time compression the plane is unflyable, as any tiny flight input results in enormous changes in vector.  It's only possible in auto level.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Noisemaker
Clarity

[Voidhunger]

15 minutes ago, Noisemaker said:

Like I said, I measured with a stopwatch (iPhone) the difference between real time and game time, and the game achieved 8x time compression (Well, 7.8 or something like that if we want to be accurate).  Measured over a 20 minute flight (Game time) back from the front to home base.  I can assure you at 8x time compression the plane is unflyable, as any tiny flight input results in enormous changes in vector.  It's only possible in auto level.

Sure but in heavy mission like attack ground attack planes? On Kuban map? At the frontline with all the planes and ground units?

Edited January 24, 2021 by Voidhunger

[Noisemaker]

1 hour ago, Voidhunger said:

Sure but in heavy mission like attack ground attack planes? On Kuban map? At the frontline with all the planes and ground units?

Yes.  Kuban map, spitfire ground attack (truck interdiction), frontline actively high. No issues.  Same with my Spit (bodenplatte ), Yak 1b(Kuban, formerly Spit Vb), Hurricane (Stalingrad), U2 (Kuban), P40 (Moscow), and A20 (Stalingrad) careers.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Voidhunger, just looking at your computer specs in your signature, I'd say you simply do not have enough RAM.  The large maps (Kuban/Rhineland) combined with all the AI units in a campaign scenario are simply over taxing your onboard memory.  The best thing I ever did for my machine was to go from 16g. to 32g.

[Noisemaker]

4 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Voidhunger, just looking at your computer specs in your signature, I'd say you simply do not have enough RAM.  The large maps (Kuban/Rhineland) combined with all the AI units in a campaign scenario are simply over taxing your onboard memory.  The best thing I ever did for my machine was to go from 16g. to 32g.

Yet my experience is perfectly fine with 16GB.  I think the issue lies elsewhere. Given the various configurations of PCs, the issue can be hard to track down.  Would that the game could play on a mac. [Can of worms].

[Voidhunger]

21 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Voidhunger, just looking at your computer specs in your signature, I'd say you simply do not have enough RAM.  The large maps (Kuban/Rhineland) combined with all the AI units in a campaign scenario are simply over taxing your onboard memory.  The best thing I ever did for my machine was to go from 16g. to 32g.

 

I forgot to change my new pc config in the signature. I have Ryzen 5600x 16Gb RAM 3600 and RTX 3060ti

29 minutes ago, Noisemaker said:

Yet my experience is perfectly fine with 16GB.  I think the issue lies elsewhere. Given the various configurations of PCs, the issue can be hard to track down.  Would that the game could play on a mac. [Can of worms].

I have fresh new PC and everything is running fine and it is massive improvement  in other games.