Pushing OFF to the Limits with Older Systems:

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Greetings All,

 

After reading through Redpiano's recent posts I thought I would mention again that while state-of-the-art gaming systems are very cool, you do not need one to push OFF well above and beyond. Now then, if you will all indulge me, ("What, again Lou?!") ... yes, I know, I can be tedious. But please, allow me to outline briefly my system and the most recent adjustments and tweaks I’ve made. To start with, here is what I am now flying after the latest graphics card upgrade:

 

CPU: Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0ghz Wolfdale 6mb 1333fsb 45nm with Arctic Cooler, (OC'd to 3.33)

Memory: 8gb DDR2 PC2-6400 800mhz, (set on ‘auto’ via the ASUS control panel)

Mobo: ASUS P5QL Pro

Hard Drive: 2 Western Digital 640 GB Caviar Black SATA

Opti Drive: LG 22X DVD+/RW Dual Layer SATA Rewrite

Video Card: EVGA GTX 460 SC

PS: Corsair HX 850 Watt

Windows XP Pro 64-bit OS

LG 22" flat screen LCD monitor, 1920 x 1080 native resolution

Three large case fans, plus the PS, CPU, and card fans

Saitek AV8R joystick

Saitek Pro Flight rudder pedals

Track IR4 with IR5 software

 

Out-of-the-box card speeds are as follows: core clock 867, shader clock 1735, memory clock 2025, with the fan at auto. I have not bothered to tweak these at all as this is already the OC version and everything is working great just as it is.

 

On my Windows XP Pro 64 I have gone through and disabled all the superfluous MicroSquish programs that run even if you don’t need them, (and believe me there are a lot of those). I also have my ‘C’ drive dedicated to the OS, with the ‘D’ drive carrying everything else, including the paging file.

 

With my current system tweaked as described I can now run sliders at 5-4-3-5-5. I initially had the sliders at 5-4-4-5-5 but discovered that the landscape actually looks better with the ‘Scenery’ moved down to ‘3’. I also have Ground Object Density on ‘high’. Temps inside the box are quite constant, running at a cool 20-to-30 C.

 

I used the Alsace region in August of 1918 as my benchmark, and even on a bright sunny day in a massive dogfight above the mud I have beautiful, smooth performance throughout the entire affair. The only artifacting I encounter are the occasional tiny white triangles along the very edge of the screen when I snap my head around very quickly, and only occasionally. And, I can make this go away entirely by moving ‘Terrain’ down to ‘3’ if I wish.

 

Here are a few screenshots of what the vistas are now like when flying my favorite WWI combat flight sim:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notice in particular the density of the trees and how far away they actually fill in. Really gives the landscape a much richer look.

 

I hope some of our newer flyers who are running older systems will find this info useful and encouraging.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

[Olham 164]

The only artifacting I encounter are the occasional tiny white triangles along the very edge of the screen when I snap my head

around very quickly, and only occasionally. And, I can make this go away entirely by moving ‘Terrain’ down to ‘3’ if I wish.

Lou, I have moved the "Terrain" slider back on "3" for this very reason; and also, because I found the terrain really too grainy on "4".

Just my taste - I am very happy with "3".

 

Notice in particular the density of the trees and how far away they actually fill in. Really gives the landscape a much richer look.

It does indeed, Lou, and I have set "Ground object density" back on "High". So far it worked (in the Marne region at least), and it looks

marvellous around La Selve airfield with the richer forests and woods.

 

I am really glad that you got a system now, that really can satisfy you with OFF - congrats, Lou!

 

.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Olham

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Thanks Olham, and I've been very satisfied with how my system runs OFF ever since I built it, but now I can at last have the additional ground objects in the Alsace and still keep everything running nice and smooth.

 

.

[Baldric 42]

Nice screens indeed. The last time I was more heavily involved in the KvC DiD I was using a 280 card and the graphics were very immersive then, and with the 460 I have now they are just that more immersive (along with the great campaign of course). Currently buzzing around Ypres in a Bebe c. Feb 1916 and last night was too busy gawking at the scenery through the cloud banks and then skimming the front lines (and avoiding the poison gas clouds!) when the Escadrille was jumped by the Bosche in their EIII's...just barely managed to nurse my kite home. Talk about white knuckle.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

I am right there with you Baldric. White knuckle indeed! Exciting, nerve-wracking, heart-pounding, breathtaking, and more. And all at the same time! You just gotta love this sim.

 

 

.

[Hauksbee 103]

Outstanding screen shots. Especially the top one.

[carrick58 23]

.

 

Greetings All,

 

After reading through Redpiano's recent posts I thought I would mention again that while state-of-the-art gaming systems are very cool, you do not need one to push OFF well above and beyond. Now then, if you will all indulge me, ("What, again Lou?!") ... yes, I know, I can be tedious. But please, allow me to outline briefly my system and the most recent adjustments and tweaks I’ve made. To start with, here is what I am now flying after the latest graphics card upgrade:

 

CPU: Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0ghz Wolfdale 6mb 1333fsb 45nm with Arctic Cooler, (OC'd to 3.33)

Memory: 8gb DDR2 PC2-6400 800mhz, (set on ‘auto’ via the ASUS control panel)

Mobo: ASUS P5QL Pro

Hard Drive: 2 Western Digital 640 GB Caviar Black SATA

Opti Drive: LG 22X DVD+/RW Dual Layer SATA Rewrite

Video Card: EVGA GTX 460 SC

PS: Corsair HX 850 Watt

Windows XP Pro 64-bit OS

LG 22" flat screen LCD monitor, 1920 x 1080 native resolution

Three large case fans, plus the PS, CPU, and card fans

Saitek AV8R joystick

Saitek Pro Flight rudder pedals

Track IR4 with IR5 software

 

Out-of-the-box card speeds are as follows: core clock 867, shader clock 1735, memory clock 2025, with the fan at auto. I have not bothered to tweak these at all as this is already the OC version and everything is working great just as it is.

 

On my Windows XP Pro 64 I have gone through and disabled all the superfluous MicroSquish programs that run even if you don’t need them, (and believe me there are a lot of those). I also have my ‘C’ drive dedicated to the OS, with the ‘D’ drive carrying everything else, including the paging file.

 

With my current system tweaked as described I can now run sliders at 5-4-3-5-5. I initially had the sliders at 5-4-4-5-5 but discovered that the landscape actually looks better with the ‘Scenery’ moved down to ‘3’. I also have Ground Object Density on ‘high’. Temps inside the box are quite constant, running at a cool 20-to-30 C.

 

I used the Alsace region in August of 1918 as my benchmark, and even on a bright sunny day in a massive dogfight above the mud I have beautiful, smooth performance throughout the entire affair. The only artifacting I encounter are the occasional tiny white triangles along the very edge of the screen when I snap my head around very quickly, and only occasionally. And, I can make this go away entirely by moving ‘Terrain’ down to ‘3’ if I wish.

 

Here are a few screenshots of what the vistas are now like when flying my favorite WWI combat flight sim:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notice in particular the density of the trees and how far away they actually fill in. Really gives the landscape a much richer look.

 

I hope some of our newer flyers who are running older systems will find this info useful and encouraging.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

 

Its OK Lou g o ahead and be tedious Love tweaking systems

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

That reminds me Carrick: It's Valentine's Day and my wife sweetly whispered a request in my ear first thing this morning. So, ever the dutiful husband, I began explaining to her in great detail how best to field strip an M1 Garand rifle. About midway through she stopped me and asked what I was on about. Silly me, I thought she had said do something pedantic.

 

.

[Olham 164]

[Adger 87]

just a quick question guys,i use sliders at 5,5,3,5,5 but what about Aircraft skins in workshop ,normal skins or hi res?, a daft question but does no vis damage actually mean just that,what skins do most of you use,thank you

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Adger, I usually fly with normal skins unless I am going to be snapping screenshots and then I will tic the hi res. And you say you run with terrain on 5? Have you had any issues with that? I ask because it has been repeated many times by the devs and others that terrain should not be set higher than 4.

 

.

[Olham 164]

Adger, I run Aircraft Skins on "High Res" since quite sometime. The skins will look much better.

 

You will still see that sort of damage like wings breaking off; but not "damage decals"; that means,

no bulletholes or ripped off patches of canvas. I can live very well with that, cause honestly: when do you

see that sort of damage on your opponent? How close can you go?

 

PS: could you post a screenshot with Terrain on "5"?

Edited February 15, 2012 by Olham

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Olham, I went in myself and tried it this AM, just to see what the difference was between 5-4-3-5-5 and 5-5-5-5-5. On my system, apart from a loss of about 12 FPS and a gain of a few more trees in the landscape there is no discernible difference. Here is a screenshot of my SE5 over Flanders near Abeele:

 

 

 

Honestly, apart from a handful of extra trees here and there the views are abolutely identical. So I am leaving things the way they are with my flying kit. I did however notice that the aircraft now look better on normal res than they do on hi res, so I won't be flipping over to the latter anymore for photo ops.

 

.

[Olham 164]

Honestly, apart from a handful of extra trees here and there the views are abolutely identical. So I am leaving things the way they are with my flying kit.

Thanks for the info and the screenshot, Lou - I had more or less expected that result, and will do the same.

 

I did however notice that the aircraft now look better on normal res than they do on hi res, so I won't be flipping over to the latter anymore for photo ops.

???

Seems it is a matter of taste then - when I see the Lozenge in "Normal res" and then in "High res", there is a visible difference to me, with the bias on "High res".

But one shouldn't argue about tastes.

God made it that way, so that the men don't all kill each other for the same woman, I guess.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

True enough Olham. I will agree with you though about the lozenge patterns on the German kites; those do look better in hi res. But for the rest, I see the markings and roundels and crosses and such as appearing more crisp in normal res. Go figure.

 

.

[Olham 164]

Are you sure, that there are not two wires on your your card linked the wrong way?

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

hee hee ... maybe. But compare these two shots of the same kite in the same locale and you decide:

 

 

 

 

 

I'm going with normal res for the majority of my flying. However, as you have noted and if I may paraphrase that sentiment: To each their own.

 

.

[Olham 164]

Hmmmmm.... - I see what you mean. And it's been when flying an SE5a, that I also found it difficult to decide, what's better.

On the right, "High Res" one, I prefer the wooden parts, and the tone of the green-brown colour.

But you are right - the left one looks much crisper. I guess, if I would fly the SE.5a, I might also chose "Normal res".

 

My self-made skins again, they look far better in "High res". Tricky, that!

Edited February 15, 2012 by Olham

[Baldric 42]

Nice find on the hi-res v. normal res. I'll try putting mine back to normal as I do like the look of that version. I have my scenery at 5 and have had no troubles running it...I still lose sight of the Nieuport 17's if they are down close to the deck when its snowy

[Olham 164]

Lou, now my graphic card (ATI HD5970) has also arrived (thank you a thousand tons, my friend Morris!).

 

I can see trees almost to the horizon now.

I realised, that "Terrain" on "5" doesn't work for me though - the forrest Terrain decals look strangely dark in the distance then.

Seems, less is more here; so I put "Terrain Detail" back on "3", where I used to have it.

 

Lou, I think that in our cases two very good cards have come to two men, who will REALLY enjoy them to the most!

 

 

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Beautiful Olham, the waters of "das Fragezeichen" and it's surronding area never looked better. Glad that you too are enjoying your new-found scenery.

 

.

[carrick58 23]

Olham: How do like the ATI 5970 Card ?

[Olham 164]

Haven't really tested it with anything else yet, Carrick.

I guess the games with more advanced graphics will show me fully, what step I have made.

For OFF it wasn't such a big step. I can now run "Ground object density" on "High", okay,

and all sliders (exept "Terrain detail") on full "5", but it did look good before, too, when

my sliders were on 5,3,4,5,5.

"Terrain detail" on "5" produces strangely dark terrain tiles for forest, so I put it back on "3",

which looks still great.

 

If you should be thinking of investing in some hardware, I think I would give you the advice

to get a faster CPU (probably with mobo and memory, if you make a big step);

also worth thinking about is an SSD drive, which should run the sim quite a bit faster.

There isn't really a big need for a card younger than my HD 4870 IMHO.

 

I guess the card will show a lot of improvement gained, with younger games, which use more advanced

graphic stuff like alpha layers for glinting and shimmering etc.

 

But I have only built it in yesterday, and only been flying twice. Need to check the Alsace with all the trees!

Edited February 18, 2012 by Olham