*Sigh*

[DukeIronHand 8]

Looks like I may have to live and fly vicariously through my fellow pilots here for a while.

 

Just went to the WOFF page and read the reccomended specs to run WOFF.

 

No XP support? I get that XP is old but it does what I want just fine.

And my 1 GB video card, that I bought specially for WOFF (granted two years ago), is apparently not enough.

 

At least with my CPU and RAM I may be cool...

 

Anyone plan on running, or trying to run, WOFF on a 32-bit system?

 

I may have to wait for a new CP before I buy WOFF if it is a download.

If its a DVD I can buy it and wait in the wings...sigh!

Edited December 9, 2013 by DukeIronHand

[HumanDrone 4]

DukeIronHand, glad to see you around!  Word is, it runs on XP 32 bit - it just isn't supported or suggested, because Micro$oft isn't supporting XP after April 2014.  I saw something to that effect over on the other forum.

 

If possible, try and get a 64 bit machine with Window 7 on it - I've been doing fine, we have not moved to Windows 8 at work and that suits me fine.  I know that's way easier said than done, but it's the best I can come up with..

[DukeIronHand 8]

Alrighty!

 

My hopes are high again - thanks for the "word" on 32 bit but if I have problems I can't complain as I have been forewarned I suppose.

My CP, though old, has been upgraded several times hardware-wise but I have always liked XP and never felt a need to switch.

 

My rig runs all the newest graphic intensive stuff quite well so I never thought I would be under gunned for WOFF.

 

We will give it a shot - I have only been waiting years for this after all!

 

S!

[Slartibartfast 153]

Just checked myself my 3 year old 1gb card will not be enough... oh well off to buy a new one... Ram and CPU should be fine as I am running an AMD quad core running around 3.5 so I will be running medium setups... Though I may Overclock the CPU if required...

Edited December 10, 2013 by Slartibartfast

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Great to see you here DukeIronHand, and I am keeping my fingers crossed for you and other here that have expressed this concern.  I am waiting as well to see how my system runs WOFF as I am using XP Pro 64 which will also be unsupported this coming April.

 

Slarti, what card are you currently running and does your mobo have SLI capabilities?  I added a second card and went this route myself.

 

.

[Wayfarer 5]

Over at the other place there are several confirmations that it has been run successfully on 'non-supported' systems.  I think they are just covering themselves a little with the official line.

I am going to have to get some more RAM and a new graphics card just to get into the 'medium' level.  Plus at the moment my computer doesn't like CFS3/OFF anyway so I have got to address this first.

[DukeIronHand 8]

Thanks for the welcome back.

I have been here all along just lurking for several years (!) as stupid Real Life has denied me a lot of flying time

so no exciting aerial adventures to report.

 

Luckily though retirement is just around the corner - glad I lived long enough to see WOFF released.

 

If I had died prior I would have been mighty P.O.'ed!

 

EDIT: I see my spelling ain't improved a bit...

Edited December 10, 2013 by DukeIronHand

[Tamper 9]

Given the announcement about WOFF's release, I've seen and read a lot recently about system requirements, most notably the GPU (video card).  I think there is some confusion, and I'm honestly concerned some of the talk is actually "scaring off" some people.  Not scaring them away from WOFF, mind you, but scaring them into thinking their video card isn't good enough.  That would be a shame because it might keep someone from buying WOFF (and supporting this wonderful sim), and/or cause them to go out and buy a new card when they might not need it.

 

First, a disclaimer: I am definitely NOT trying to second-guess the OBD team and their judgment about what it takes to run their new product, so please - don't break out the flamethrowers!

 

That being said, I think there is some confusion about the 'series' numbers of Nvidia cards, and how these numbers progress over time.   The first thing to recognize is that marketing plays a role in the product names/numbers.  I say this because, for example, a 500-series GTX card with a high tens and ones number - like a 580, is more powerful than a 600-series card with a lower tens and ones number (like a 640).  Marketing influence might make one choice or another seem better, but it's not always technically accurate.  The marketing people want you to constantly buy new cards, and you're less likely to do that if you understand what you have is practically as good as the next big thing.

 

The "official" WOFF specs call for between a GTX640(***) at the low end and GTX670 or better at the 'recommended' end.  However, this is not (or should not be taken) to say that anything less than a 600-series card won't work.  Even some cards down into the 400-series can compete just fine with the 600 series, depending on the exact models, and the system it's used in.

 

For example, the official WOFF page cites a GTX640*** as the "low-end", but what may not be clear is that several different Nvidia GT640 cards have been produced, and not all are the same (see here).  One is actually a 're-branded' GT545 (note not even a GTX-class card; rather, the lesser GT class), meaning the "guts" are the same.  Also, the memory bus width on the various models ranges from 64-bit up to 192-bit, and this can make a substantial difference in the performance of the card.

 

Another example might be a GTX570, which - while it will admittedly use more power, will also smoke the shorts off the GTX650 which is mid-range according to the WOFF recommendations. A GTX465 can also outperform a GTX650, in some respects.

 

I thought it was worth mentioning that you don't necessarily have to have a 600-series card to be at the level of performance the official recommendations list.  There are some online tools that help with knowing the difference, one of which is in the link above that shows the internal specs of the various Nvidia GPUs since the earliest versions; another is Hardware Compare, which will allow you to put in two cards (even AMD/ATI, for that bunch) and see how they theoretically stack up, based on projections of performance factor measurements like memory bandwidth, fill rates, etc (the things that make cards work).

 

Another good source of comparative info is the Graphics Card Hierarchy table, updated every so often by the staff at Tom's Hardware.  This table and the data it's based upon show that, in spite of marketing and ever-increasing number schemes, the relative, overall performance of graphics cards might be closer than you think.  One example: It puts the GTX580 in the same level as the GTX660 - but more importantly, indicates that an upgrade probably would leave you less than blown away, unless you can afford to go on up to a GTX780 (which helps to make an upgrade decision that is really worth the money).

 

So, I recommend using available recources like these to see where your card (or one you're thinking about buying) lies in terms of performance.  Even if you are at the low end now, there is info that will help you decide how to best apply the ever-tight dollar :)

 

Two things to remember:  One, a lot of the naming of these cards is marketing (and don't be surprised to see that certain cards are 're-branded' versions of earlier cards, because they do this).  Two, within each 'hundred series' (400, 500, 600...) the higher end of that hundred is generally better than the lower end of the next hundred - 570 better than 650, for example.  One key difference with each "hundred series" is they do seem to reduce power consumption, so this may be a more important factor in your final decision.

 

Of course, all this is subject to a healthy dose of your mileage may vary.  There are many factors that determine graphics performance, but hopefully this will make WOFF more accessible to many who thought their graphics might not be up to snuff.

 

Regards.

 

(***edit: The WOFF page cites a "GTX640", but it appears there is no such thing.  I presume the page is referring to the GT640, as referenced in the link I provided)

Edited December 11, 2013 by Tamper

[von Baur 54]

Lots of very good info, Tamper. Thanx.

[HumanDrone 4]

Thanks as well, Tamper!  Looks like I may have a fighting chance, at least computer-wise. I think the new AI will still keep me at "Human Drone" status (if not "Human Cadaver" status)!

Edited December 11, 2013 by HumanDrone

[Tamper 9]

*lol* HumanDrone, not to worry, I'm betting we'll all be "targets" for quite a while.

 

Actually, your situation is a perfect example of something I was discussing above:  While your 570 might not be quite as capable as the 670 that is at the high-end recommendations of the WOFF page, it wouldn't make sense for you to spend ~$275 on a GTX670, because the upgrade from where you are already would be fairly "meh"...you might double texel rate (for texture filtering), and run slightly cooler w/less power - but you'd also lose a 25+% better pixel rate with your 580 (which has a lot to do with max frame rates).

 

The 780, by comparison, while it would cost a good deal more, would give you a 50% increase in memory speed, 3.5x the texel rate, and a 10+% bump in the GPU core speed (before overclocking, that is).  Those figures represent what is a decent performance "upgrade"...anything less, probably wouldn't feel worth the cost overall.

 

Mostly because you already *have* a very capable card, there's not much reason for you to upgrade, unless you could afford to spend $500(+) on a 780.  (Speaking entirely for myself, and my wallet, I cannot justify such a ridiculous amount of money on a video card, regardless of increase in performance *lol*).

[Wayfarer 5]

Thanks Tamper.  We currently have a 512mb GeForce 9600GT, so I think some kind of upgrade will be required but your information about the comparative merits of different cards is most useful.

[RamblingSid 3]

HI folks,

 

look, I've just upgraded to a GTX770 and have a GTX570 surplus to requirements.

PM me if you think a GTX570 will help.

 

Cheers.

 

RS

 

PS fwiw the 770 is a major improvement over the 570: smoother, minimal jaggies, less popping,

higher frame rates (40-60), uses less power, very quiet. 

Edited December 11, 2013 by RamblingSid

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Excellent write-up Tamper, thank you for sharing this info, it has already proved very helpful.

 

RamblingSid, your new card sounds like it should do the trick and then some.  Also, very nice of you to make your old card available to one of our fellow OFFers, perhaps Wayfarer can make it work in his current system and put his old 9800GT out to pasture.

 

.

[Tamper 9]

I'm glad the info helps :)

 

Rambling Sid's post offers a chance to corroborate:

 

PS fwiw the 770 is a major improvement over the 570: smoother, minimal jaggies, less popping,

higher frame rates (40-60), uses less power, very quiet. 

 

And that's pretty much what you'd expect; Hardware Compare shows the 770's memory is 50% faster, the 770 has a 14% higher pixel rate, and the texel rate is a whopping *twice* that of the 570.  (Although the power consumption appears to be roughly the same; again this information is based on specs - in this case, the TDP of each card, not actually what they run at - therefore it will vary for several reasons...the 'quieter' part might be due to a new fan, with new bearings, and/or better types of bearing/better fan design and/or better firmware fan control.)

 

And, true to form, the Graphics Card Hierarchy puts the 770 exactly three levels above the 570, which is fairly consistent with what they recommend ("You can use this hierarchy to compare the pricing between two cards, to see which one is a better deal, and also to determine if an upgrade is worthwhile. I don’t recommend upgrading your graphics card unless the replacement card is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel, and you may not even notice any worthwhile difference in performance.")

 

Another thought is something Lou mentioned above: The SLI route.  Many of you are in what I would call a 'textbook' case for SLI.  Often we read about someone buying two brand-new cards and running them in SLI, which you can certainly do, and you will see better performance, most often, over just one of the same card.  But the argument in this case is that you'd do better - if buying new - to spend your money on a single card, at a higher level, than two brand-new cards.  In part, this is because SLI typically yields about 50% performance increase, very generally speaking.  So you don't really get double for twice the cost.  You can figure out a single-card setup that offers the same 50% performance increase, and then look to see if you can find a better deal on one card than buying two new ones for SLI.  (It will vary a lot, I can tell you.)

 

That said, when you already have a decent card - I had a single 570, for example - and you want a performance boost but can't spring the several hundred dollars a new card might cost, this is where SLI can really offer a good deal.  Personally I was lucky to get a great deal on two 570 cards (each with more memory than my single card had) thanks to a nice fellow here at CA, so for less than a new card, I got a fairly substantial boost in performance.

 

Actually, had I just bought another single 570 like I already had, it would've been far, far less than a new card (maybe ~$150).  Although it's true the memory is not doubled in SLI - it actually remains the same as it was with the single card - you do get the benefit of two processors and (theoretically) twice the bus width.

 

So, if you're unable to afford a few hundred bucks for the kind of new card WOFF needs, you're really a good candidate for considering a dual-card arrangement.

 

Of course, suggesting SLI often brings out the flamethrowers, but it's really each person's choice.  It is typically less attractive if buying new (though not always), and I personally don't think it was really ever intended for that.  I think the intent was buying a second, "like" card, as the prices come down due to release of newer technology cards.  I've done it several times now, starting with two 9800GT's back when, and it does work as advertised; I found very little to dislike about it, in my own experience.  One thing to consider is power, because two older cards will almost certainly use a lot more power than a single newer card.

 

Perhaps Lou would favor us with a report of his own experiences with having gone the SLI route (hint, hint)

 

Best, gents :)

Edited December 11, 2013 by Tamper

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Well I can take a hint.  

 

I am very pleased with my current system which I upgraded to an SLI set-up at the beginning of this year, (due to finding a super deal on a brand new old stock EVGA GTX 460 SC that was an identical match to the one I already had).  Here are the specs:

 

CPU: Intel Core i7-2600K Sandy Bridge 3.4GHz (4.2GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core

CPU Fan: Arctic Super Cooler

Memory: Corsair Vengeance 16gb (4 x 4gb) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)

Mobo: ASUS Sabertooth P67

Hard Drives: 2 Western Digital 640 GB Caviar Black SATA

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

Video Cards: 2 EVGA GTX 460 SC 1024mb cards in SLI configuration

PS: Corsair HX 850 Watt

Windows XP Pro 64-bit OS

LG 27" flat screen LCD monitor, 1920 x 1080 native resolution

Four large case fans, plus the PS, CPU, mobo, and card fans

Saitek AV8R joystick

Saitek Pro Flight rudder pedals

Track IR4 with IR5 software

 

Sliders are set at 5-4-4-5-5 and OFF runs silky, silky smooth regardless of how much is going on in the air and on the ground.  Track IR pans beautifully and there are no white jaggies no matter how fast I look around.  I am very anxious to see how WOFF does on this system and I will keep you all posted on that as soon as I get back home and can download the sim and get it set up.  Oh the excitement of it all! 

 

.

Edited December 11, 2013 by RAF_Louvert

[DukeIronHand 8]

Well thanks for the excellent information on video cards and the chart.

I think I am in pretty good shape with my hardware set-up.

Looks like the only bug-a-boo may be my XP OS.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

These are very 'high end'...even on a Low End performance!..I mean, if your card can run FSX maxed out..it must sure as hell run WOFF surely?

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

High numbers, don't always mean 'Better Cards'

 

 

[MigBuster 2,884]

For NVidia or ATI/AMD its best to look at the series and work out which ones are actually the low/mid/high end

 

• Low end card traditionally always **** for flight sims IME - always avoid
• Mid end usually good enough
• Higher end is normally the only range that lets you max out settings for new games

 

I have the GTX670 in that list - which is a mid end 600 series - and rightly beaten by the higher GTX 680 and 690 

 

Notice how the older 590 high end from the 500 series beats it too (this consistent with all series ive seen over the years)

 

I think Nvidia are on the 700 series now (without looking)

Edited December 12, 2013 by MigBuster

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I'm about to find out how my card performs...I'm 'quietly' confident...but we'll see

[HumanDrone 4]

I need to stop back and thank Tamper for using my card as an example and giving me a nice comparative evaluation while he was at it!

[theultimat 5]

Hi guys,

 

I'm concerned my card will have problems running WOFF. It's an old HD 6670, and if I recall correctly it did at times have some severe frame rate drops on OFF. I'd love to be able to take to the skies of WOFF, but I can't afford a new graphics card at the moment, so there doesn't seem much point in buying it if I won't be able to run it. Using the Hardware Compare site Tamper posted about (those posts were really great by the way, thanks!), I can see that my card isn't really up to much at all, and it is infact worse - the card on the comparisson site has GDDR5 memory, while my card is on GDDR3. You can also spot it on the chart UK_Widowmaker posted near the poor-performance end, so I'm not very optimisitc.

 

Anyway, any advice either way by those more experienced in such matters would be greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks in advance.

[DukeIronHand 8]

The min vid card specs have me a lttle concerned also but I seem to have no problem running any graphics intensive sims I buy so I am pretty confident.

 

Granted I ain't bought a new sim in probably 18 months...

[Adger 87]

Hi guys,

 

I'm concerned my card will have problems running WOFF. It's an old HD 6670, and if I recall correctly it did at times have some severe frame rate drops on OFF. I'd love to be able to take to the skies of WOFF, but I can't afford a new graphics card at the moment, so there doesn't seem much point in buying it if I won't be able to run it. Using the Hardware Compare site Tamper posted about (those posts were really great by the way, thanks!), I can see that my card isn't really up to much at all, and it is infact worse - the card on the comparisson site has GDDR5 memory, while my card is on GDDR3. You can also spot it on the chart UK_Widowmaker posted near the poor-performance end, so I'm not very optimisitc.

 

Anyway, any advice either way by those more experienced in such matters would be greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

Hi Ultimat sorry ive only just seen your post..........ive got a Amd phenom 2 x4 955 processor,only 4 gb of ddr2 ram and a 1gb 5770........Woff runs perfect ,it seems better optimized than OFF,ive got it on 5,4,4,5,5 settings and the fps are more than adequate,ive not had one stutter or CTD,in your cards CCC set AA=8 and AF=8,any info you require just post mate or send me a PM