DD #305 - Video Card Survey

[Redwo1f]

Hmmm, just thinking out loud here, sort-of-speak...

 

Might I suggest that if the requirements become a significant enough increase over current, that 1C somehow make any further updates past that point as "optional/opt-in"? 

I mean, only if that happens - that way those that don't have the horsepower to nicely handle any increase in requirements (and can't afford or are otherwise unable (or choose not to) upgrade could at least continue to enjoy the sim to that point (be it no further patches)? -- would that be feasible? ...just a thought throwing it out there.

 

Though I hope I would be okay with a nvidia 1660 super 6gb @ 1080p (?) -- but there are certainly going to be some really low end people who might appreciate this. 

idk

[CSW_Hot_Dog]

Hi @Jason_Williams, about new engine and GPU requirements, if I have RTX3080 and playing in Reverb G2, does it also means that graphics will be also more demanding on this high-end set up in this new engine and thus I will have lower FPS? Or does it affect only low-end GPUs with less VRAM?

 

Thanks in advance for the answer...

[JG1_Vonrd]

I assume that the Devs are aware of Chiliwili69's benchmark thread. It would seem that there is a wealth of information there. Perusing the spreadsheet is interesting...

Here's the spreadsheet...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gJmnz_nVxI6_dG_UYNCCpZVK2-f8NBy-y1gia77Hu_k/edit#gid=1266758920

[oc2209]

I understand change is inescapable, so I won't bother lamenting it.

 

However, I'm wondering what the rough timeline is for these upgrades.

 

As in, will GPU requirements significantly change before Normandy's released, or well after?

[Drum]

Figured out the answer to my question, sorry...

Edited January 28, 2022 by Drum
figured it out.

[kendo]

1 hour ago, Jawbreaker1-6 said:

So if things run pretty well on 2-4GB of VRAM now if we bumped it up to say, to say 6GB VRAM minimum, would that kind of be what the Devs are looking at?  Higher than 6GB VRAM?

 

Impossible for any of us to say right now - and expect the devs won't have made firm decisions until they see the results (otherwise what's the point of asking?).

 

But...looking at the results so far, under 4% of respondents have less than 4GB VRAM, so they could likely double the min requrements without leaving too many behind (and I do feel for those responding on the really old cards, but they've kept the requirements incredibly low for a long time. Expect to progress we'll need to accept the need for slightly more capable systems)

 

Also, incredibly surprised how few Radeon AMD users there are - only about 6%

Edited January 28, 2022 by kendo

[Laddie]

I have to say I'm not stubborn about upgrading. I bought my first proper gaming desktop PC about 4 years ago, at the time I got the best I could afford, which included a 1080 Ti card, including monitor, it got close to £2,000. Then they brought out the 2000 range of cards not long after my purchase, and whilst I was contemplating that, they hinted at a 3000 range and higher. It's a feckin scam, so no I aint stubborn, and I aint stupidly handing out money, hand over fist. 

 

What I do like the sound of though, is the whiff of an engine upgrade ?

[BBAS_Tiki_Joe]

Have a 3080ti, All for a graphics updates but please please please do not sacrifice VR performance for the sake of improved 2D graphics. A 3080ti is already barely enough for the fidelity I crave LOL. A little selfish in that regards.

[simfan2015]

I have an rtx 3070 OC with Intel 12700k OC, Ddr5. I, personally, sure would appreciate even better visuals. I have a near contant 120 fps and even if this would get down to 60 or so... We can always tune down the options, so I personally would even prefer il-2 to target say, rtx 3090 ti cards... when that gets us immersive graphics of the future. The 4000 series cards are coming this year still, so... Jason... Go for it! 

[Bungmiester]

I have a 1060 6gb and the game runs great, I don't use VR , have tried VR on my nephews playstaion and found it to uncomfortable and to heavy. I upgraded my monitor instead which suits me fine and dandy.

I think we are caught between a rock and a hard place at the moment. I would like to upgrade myself but the graphics card market is just to high at the moment. The developers would like to push the boundries further, which is great but whats the point of a flight sim that no one can run except if you have very deep pockets, With the cost of living sky rocketing here in the uk at the moment this puts even more of a squeeze on my hard earned cash and less spare money to upgrade.

[JG_deserteagle540]

With the Gpu prices through the roof at the moment, I won't be buying a new card this year.

Maybe in 2023 when the prices drop again?

[LufberyJAA]

So . . . my card isn't on the list. It's an MSI Nvidia GEForce GT 1030 -- which actually runs IL-2 pretty well!

[Drum]

I quit smoking two years ago and saved nearly 10k which has since been rolled into my new CPU, VR and HOTAS system.  Plus, I'm healthier to boot, too...

[Strewth]

Just my two bob's worth here, but I am wondering why some are so reactive to the post and the poll. I think it's a nice touch for the development team to communicate with the customers in order to help with their own direction. This is not something you often see in other platforms.
Also, most times, just because the bar is raised in the sim overall, does not mean that people automatically get cut out. They have a screen called graphics options and it allows a whole lot of scaling back on settings for older cards and systems. Usually it just means the max settings are a bit higher and the way I see it, it could be something as simple as: Do we put resources into scaling up the upper end of the graphics settings? Are there enough people using hardware that would support an upgrade? Or, is it a waste of resources due to majority of the community using older systems?
Surely, a busy development team would not dive head first into and waste time and money on an upgrade that NO ONE would even notice or be able to use.
I may be wrong. But, I do not see this as a "cut out" for existing players. I see it as an opportunity for the team to validate raising the top of the bar and as usual, still cater for the older systems.

Personally, I am grateful to Jason and the team for communicating and asking questions.
Only one other question probably should have been asked IMHO. "Do you play with VR" and "Type"

Cheers Team and thanks for the co-operative development.

 

[Pennix_LeGaulois]

I truly hate to be that guy, because it has been an absolute pleasure to enjoy all the upgrades you've provided to the sim for the past 2 years and a half I've playing your sim...

 

But please keep in mind the huge gap there is between power required to play on screen, and the power required to play in VR.

My rtx 2060 super is already pretty maxed out in what I'm guessing is an average-end VR experience (oculus rift s with a mix of medium & high settings in game), quickly deeping below the 80fps target when it gets busy.

 

I'm pretty sure you have that in mind considering you manage to upgrade the clouds to amazing level while reducing the GPU load... But I feel better having said it out loud ! 

[RAAF492SQNOz_Steve]

5 hours ago, Vortice said:

So if only 5% of participants have an RTX 3090 or 3090Ti how come 10% claim to have more than 12GB of Vram? ?

Some of the AMD cards have more than 12 Gb RAM so do not forget to consider them as well.

 

Figures still do not add up though so your question is reasonable.

Edited January 28, 2022 by RAAF492SQNOz_Steve
Typo's

[hambone389]

  I have a I7-1070KF CPU 3.80 HZ

[RAAF492SQNOz_Steve]

2 hours ago, Redwo1f said:

Hmmm, just thinking out loud here, sort-of-speak...

 

Might I suggest that if the requirements become a significant enough increase over current, that 1C somehow make any further updates past that point as "optional/opt-in"? 

I mean, only if that happens - that way those that don't have the horsepower to nicely handle any increase in requirements (and can't afford or are otherwise unable (or choose not to) upgrade could at least continue to enjoy the sim to that point (be it no further patches)? -- would that be feasible? ...just a thought throwing it out there.

 

Though I hope I would be okay with a nvidia 1660 super 6gb @ 1080p (?) -- but there are certainly going to be some really low end people who might appreciate this. 

idk

Unfortunately I suspect that this approach would end up become  a support nightmare for the devs going forward. Guaranteed to negatively impact all players in the medium to longer term

 

The other option would be to provide the ability to provide access to a "snapshot in time" version but even this approach would come un-stuck quickly/ eventually with multiplayer.

 

Kudos to Jason and the Team for asking and I am glad I am not the one making the final decision.  I am running recent PC hardware so selfishly fall into the lets upgrade the min PC spec.............

Edited January 28, 2022 by RAAF492SQNOz_Steve

[Luftschiff]

As said above, and especially since we're talking about an engine upgrade, supporting two versions is extremely unlikely. Assuming it's even possible is a bit of a stretch, and trying to manage two live branches with different engine tech is a nightmare scenario even for a huge studio with enormous budget. It would split the player base too, but more importantly it's technically and economically unfeasible.

 

The guys with 3090's being worried can stop though. Jeez.

[Indigene]

Thank you for the survey. I simply can't afford a new laptop (current laptop: GTX 1650Ti). I work two jobs and have the common pile of bills. A sweet RTX 3000 level laptop would be sweet. It is what it is, though, I have a good life, even if I can't afford such luxuries.?

[JG52Rittmeister]

Hey there I use a Nvidia 1660 with an ASUS Board Intel I9 . I agreed the most Ppl here, like to upgrade but hey when they Release a new video Card it coast more then the double Price or sold out in Minutes. However I buy a new one when the prices are drop. For the Game my system works good.

[carlao]

1660ti on a Dell. Runs ok.

[cardboard_killer]

I have an RX 580 OC, with 8 gigs of vram, and it does the job for me, I assume due to the 8 gigs. I built my box last year and used the 580 as a placeholder until the new 3000 series (or radeons) came out, but the prices have been sky high. Looking around, it would cost me more today to buy another RX 580 than I paid for the one I got two years ago. Insane. Of course, though, I understand the need to upgrade the engine. I hope that even then, I can still play with reduced graphics settings until I can swing a new card.

[DragonDaddy]

When you read the different topics on this forum you will notice common themes: people want more, bigger, better, faster, more advanced. They want their personal desires fulfilled. So do I. They want this sim to do everything and be the best ever. So do I. In order to do this you have to continue to move forward. 
 

Sims and video games have always been know to continually challenge hardware capabilities. I accepted this when I got involved with virtual flying more than 20 years ago. Although I respect the concerns others have posted here, I wouldn’t want IL2 to become a relic because the developers capabilities were limited to their users hardware. 

[=ILS=_ppph]

All I care about is not to sacrifice the VR performance with the new engine. I like to spend more money to keep my system up to the task. But I do not want to lose my friends who still play the 2D version of it.

[Gambit21]

I think a “plan to buy as soon as available” option might have been telling. I’d have said 3070, but as it stands my answer is 1080. That might change before the year is done though.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I'm guessing, based on the returns so far that we are looking at 1080 cards as the upcoming minimum (and whatever the AMD equivalent is). Are the 10 or 20 series cards the minimum threshold for DX12?

 

I just bumped up to a monster card/system, so I'm covered either way.

[Redwo1f]

2 hours ago, RAAF492SQNOz_Steve said:

Unfortunately I suspect that this approach would end up become  a support nightmare for the devs going forward. Guaranteed to negatively impact all players in the medium to longer term

 

The other option would be to provide the ability to provide access to a "snapshot in time" version but even this approach would come un-stuck quickly/ eventually with multiplayer.

 

Kudos to Jason and the Team for asking and I am glad I am not the one making the final decision.  I am running recent PC hardware so selfishly fall into the lets upgrade the min PC spec.............

 

No, not talking about supporting two different branches.

Just if the situation occurs that I outlined, allowing those that have lower powered systems to essentially opt-out of any sort of upgrade (rather than an automatic massive patch forced upon their purchased game that renders it less than desirable on their systems), and still keep what they got and play on (and probably limited to single player as well). That's all I am suggesting - to not render the game next to useless for those who had it running fine before but are now out of the mix because of money or availability of parts or hardships (or whatever). --- so allowing people to enjoy what they already bought and paid for.

.................................

 

Also, this would all have to be post Normandy (or at the minimum a DLC expansion to Normandy). I am not opposed to progress whatsoever - however, as far as business is concerned, they've already pre-sold their product (Normandy) without mention of any sort of series requirements increase like is being floated now. Those that have lower end systems and pre purchased would certainly have the right to a refund if it materializes (and I don't think 1C is going to want to be doing that).

 

Again, I am not opposed at all to building a better game --- just need to also consider the situation and fairness in the end to the consumer as well.  

It's a bit of a tricky situation with the integrated approach of GBS --- for all its advantages, this is potentially going to be a big disadvantage to part of the consumer base depending on what happens and how it is addressed in the end. Just hope there can be a win win for all.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Redwo1f

[ShamrockOneFive]

9 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I'm guessing, based on the returns so far that we are looking at 1080 cards as the upcoming minimum (and whatever the AMD equivalent is). Are the 10 or 20 series cards the minimum threshold for DX12?

 

I just bumped up to a monster card/system, so I'm covered either way.

 

I don't think it'll be that radical of a jump. Right now the system requirements call for a 2GB VRAM card (exceptionally low by 2022 standards). Bumping that up to 4GB and it looks like all but a couple of people are already at or above that spec. A few might need to drop render distance or AA settings to keep high frame rates. Back when I had a GTX 960 I had to do that when Kuban came out and the default render distance increased.

Edited January 29, 2022 by ShamrockOneFive

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

14 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

I don't think it'll be that radical of a jump. Right now the system requirements call for a 2GB VRAM card (exceptionally low by 2022 standards). Bumping that up to 4GB and it looks like all but a couple of people are already at or above that spec. A few might need to drop render distance or AA settings to keep high frame rates. Back when I had a GTX 960 I had to do that when Kuban came out and the default render distance increased.

 

I'd be really suprised, again looking at the numbers, if they decided to make a jump that it'd be anything less than a 1050/60 card. Anything less and it wouldn't be worth the effort in the first place both from a user numbers and a performance advantage point of view.

[Lloydy]

I use a rtx 3090 and I feel that IL-2 is just playable when using VR. I'm already impenitently waiting for the next gen cards to come out this year so that I can turn up the AA and still maintain 90 fps as I'm very sensitives to jaggies and low fps. 

I'm very excited for engine upgrades to keep the game current and would love to see implementation of DLSS as it has brilliant AA and performance increase. I hear Microsoft flight sim devs are implementing DLSS and they said it gives  large performance and fidelity increase.

[Nift]

Well, I'm not buying another graphics card or new PC components until prices get to manageable, non-insane levels.  Maybe in 2 years.

[Kernel29]

38 minutes ago, Redwo1f said:

 

No, not talking about supporting two different branches.

Just if the situation occurs that I outlined, allowing those that have lower powered systems to essentially opt-out of any sort of upgrade (rather than an automatic massive patch forced upon their purchased game that renders it less than desirable on their systems), and still keep what they got and play on (and probably limited to single player as well). That's all I am suggesting - to not render the game next to useless for those who had it running fine before but are now out of the mix because of money or availability of parts or hardships (or whatever). --- so allowing people to enjoy what they already bought and paid for.

.................................

 

Also, this would all have to be post Normandy (or at the minimum a DLC expansion to Normandy). I am not opposed to progress whatsoever - however, as far as business is concerned, they've already pre-sold their product (Normandy) without mention of any sort of series requirements increase like is being floated now. Those that have lower end systems and pre purchased would certainly have the right to a refund if it materializes (and I don't think 1C is going to want to be doing that).

 

Again, I am not opposed at all to building a better game --- just need to also consider the situation and fairness in the end to the consumer as well.  

It's a bit of a tricky situation with the integrated approach of GBS --- for all its advantages, this is potentially going to be a big disadvantage to part of the consumer base depending on what happens and how it is addressed in the end. Just hope there can be a win win for all.

 

Yup, this is exactly what I was thinking. I'd be happy to just "freeze" my Il2-BoX version to a version I can still play, even if it's unsupported. Really, as Redwol1f was saying, merely choosing to "opt out" of future updates and accepting the consequences of such, but by no means forcing the devs to support and maintain an obsolete version of the game. I totally understand, and support, the need to develop the game further and keep it evolving. I'd just like to have the option to keep playing my own crappy but playable version, if possible, since I do own the game anyways.

[Denum]

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

As in, will GPU requirements significantly change before Normandy's released, or well after?

 

Would expect Q2/Q3 if I was guessing.

 

At very least sometime within this year. I'm guessing the Normandy map is allowing some changes that folks running decade old gear will... Struggle with. 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Denum

[Majpalmer]

I wish they had also asked:

 

Do you play with TrackIR or equivalent?

 

Do you play with VR? 

 

I use TRackIr, and it doesn't seem to impact anything, at least noticeably. 

 

But I've read, seen, and been told that VR does impact performance. 

 

I'd really like to know what percentage are flying VR.

 

 

[RossMarBow]

I have a 5700 xt which I paid $250 USD for
My tech rule is only upgrade if its twice as fast and the same price as what it was replacing

[Bearded_Pilot]

How "More than 12 GB" is at 148 though?
When I look at the cards above it doesn't add up 

 

1 hour ago, Denum said:

 

Would expect Q2/Q3 if I was guessing.

 

At very least sometime within this year. I'm guessing the Normandy map is allowing some changes that folks running decade old gear will... Struggle with. 

 

 

And I wouldn't mind at all, folks need to upgrade their computer, the devs can't hold back the simulator because of a few potatoes.
That'd be a shame tbh.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Jeffon

[Frinik22]

Frankly the game engine could use an upgrade. The game's graphics are not bad but nothing spectacular and they are not going to set the standard fro photorealism. For those will older GPUs I think the golden rule is to make sure you have at least 4 gbs of vram and also try to upgrade your RAM to 32 gbs from 16 if you can afford it. A new game engine will probably have more complex and richer textures and  VRAM ( video memory  and RAM are going to matter equally. Those with less than 4 gbs of vram I am afraid you will have to accept playing at medium settings or even lower.  I am playing with a 2017  Acer Predator GX-792 laptop with 32gbs or ram, an intel i7 7700HQ( 2.8ghz) and a GTX 1080 with 8gbs of Gddr5X vram. This is more than enough to play most games at high or highest settings including this one. I can afford to upgrade and may do so ( another gaming laptop .No desktop for me) later this year when ddr5 ram becomes mainstream.

[EpicSmileyMan64]

I am quite lucky I can run this game at all on my 750TI, I traded it for some halo collectible I got from salvation army for about 3 bucks. I would be stuck with a 280 if I didn't make that trade. It runs fine but with a bit of hitching at the start of a quick match.

[Crockett]

If I need to update my video card, I'll also have to get a new motherboard and memory because my old motherboard has the best video card I can put in it. I feel we need to have the option to update the game -- or play as is -- so we don't need to update our hardware! I've put a lot of money into this sim so far and I'd hate not to be able to fly because I can't afford to update my whole computer at this time!