Strike Fighters 2 Complete Edition until July 19th 2020

[+Menrva 4,200]

1 hour ago, UllyB said:

The reason is not the OS, but the other essential components on your pc.

This is bullshit. A 32bit OS will not allow you to use more than 4GBs, even if you have 16GBs on your machine. The same applies for software executables. Softwares which have been compiled to work natively on 64bit OSs will use more than 2GBs if available. If they are compiled as 32bit executables, only 2GBs (at max 4 in some instances) of your 16 will be allocated.

It has been explained numerous times, Strike Fighters 2 is poorly optimized. The engine is outdated, it looks like a game from early 2000s, and yet it performs poorly on systems which are way powerful. If TW will make the next edition of the game work natively only on 64bit OS, together with latest DirectX 12 libraries, many will see improvements on FPS without the need to buy a super PC with NASA specifics.

I have other videogames which look way better, and they even perform better than SF2 on my low-end machine.

Edited July 10, 2020 by Menrva

[rlwicker1967 32]

1 hour ago, Menrva said:

This is bullshit. A 32bit OS will not allow you to use more than 4GBs, even if you have 16GBs on your machine. The same applies for software executables. Softwares which have been compiled to work natively on 64bit OSs will use more than 2GBs if available. If they are compiled as 32bit executables, only 2GBs (at max 4 in some instances) of your 16 will be allocated.

It has been explained numerous times, Strike Fighters 2 is poorly optimized. The engine is outdated, it looks like a game from early 2000s, and yet it performs poorly on systems which are way powerful. If TW will make the next edition of the game work natively only on 64bit OS, together with latest DirectX 12 libraries, many will see improvements on FPS without the need to buy a super PC with NASA specifics.

I have other videogames which look way better, and they even perform better than SF2 on my low-end machine.

Man, I didn't even realize SF2 was only 32bit. It runs so smoothly on my Windows 10 i5 with 16GB and 1GB Video card. I have everything on High at least. I'm not getting 60fps but, I am getting 45-50. I'm gonna set things to UNLIMITED and see what happens. I'll check back later.

[rlwicker1967 32]

Well, this is what I got with everything turned up to maximum or unlimited. There started to be a little choppiness, but it was definitely playable. On Task Switch, memory usage showed only 556 MB. Chrome uses more than that with 5 tabs open. It's not even touching the memory. Now, I will not play with Unlimited unless there's a need to.

Just a note: In the F-4E without fuel tanks, there is a nice speed barrier at Mach 0.96. That can be maintained with 50% throttle on the deck. Anything more is just wasting fuel. I guess I'm going to try to put fuel on HARD but, I bet I'll have to make sure I go slow so the wingmen can catch up or they'll be going Bingo halfway to the target.

 

Edited July 10, 2020 by rlwicker1967

[rlwicker1967 32]

5 hours ago, UllyB said:

The reason is not the OS, but the other essential components on your pc. You need 16GB RAM, for no problems with fps. You also need a i7-3700 or BETTER, for game architecture and geometry, i5, for example is WEAK for carrying on its back a Win 10 game with tones of details, texture, and complex dynamic geometry as a flight simulator at maximum settings for graphics!. You also need at least a 7200rpm HDD, but that i think you already have, it's standard nowadays. You also will need a powerful graphic board (no videocard emulation or other crap) with REAL VRAM, at least 8GB VRAM. When you will got all these , your game will run at max settings with at least 60fps. I get a max of 125fps, but I have i7-8700, which is real power and a GTX 1070 with 8GB VRAM and 16GB RAM.

I'd have to disagree. My system is not even close to that and it runs smoothly on higher settings. I'm not trying to argue. I think I am just lucky to have a system without problems.

[TeargasHorse 287]

8 hours ago, UllyB said:

Download section , environment subsection, I think.

 

 

Edited July 10, 2020 by TeargasHorse
that was the wrong one, here it is

[+russouk2004 6,958]

Quote

I have other videogames which look way better, and they even perform better than SF2 on my low-end machine.

i AGREE i CAN RUN BLACK OPS 4 ON A Q6600 AND A 2GB HD7950 AND NO PROBS AS ITS OPTIMISED PROPERLY...

sorry for caps cant be arsed re writing lol

 

[rlwicker1967 32]

5 hours ago, TeargasHorse said:

 

 

WOW! That looks really nice! It pulls down graphics performance to 25 fps but, it is very playable. Thanks for the link!

[GunnySonics 127]

Not sure if i'm missing something here, I have SF2,E,V,I,EXP 2,NA, my SF2 folder is about 60GB with all the downloads i've got and i'm running W10 with 8GB RAM and I constantly get around 60FPS unless i'm flying a campaign around Hanoi which then drops to about 25-30FPS so I see no reason to spend $50 on purchasing SF2 complete unless i'm missing something I can't see what I would gain, maybe i've misread the replies?

I create most of my own missions and add alot of ground objects and aircraft to my missions but i've never seen them lagging or choking out.

Edited July 11, 2020 by GunnySonics

[UllyB 1,206]

On 7/10/2020 at 3:55 PM, Menrva said:

This is bullshit. A 32bit OS will not allow you to use more than 4GBs, even if you have 16GBs on your machine. The same applies for software executables. Softwares which have been compiled to work natively on 64bit OSs will use more than 2GBs if available. If they are compiled as 32bit executables, only 2GBs (at max 4 in some instances) of your 16 will be allocated.

It has been explained numerous times, Strike Fighters 2 is poorly optimized. The engine is outdated, it looks like a game from early 2000s, and yet it performs poorly on systems which are way powerful. If TW will make the next edition of the game work natively only on 64bit OS, together with latest DirectX 12 libraries, many will see improvements on FPS without the need to buy a super PC with NASA specifics.

I have other videogames which look way better, and they even perform better than SF2 on my low-end machine.

I left from the premise that the SF2 written for Win 7 is in 64bit, that is why I said what I said, which it extends to Win 10 as well, which is a Win 7 64bit with bugs solved. Where do you have the information that game is written in 32bit ? I searched the net , I didn't find any.  If your information is solid and the SF2 I know which was written for Win 7 is, really in 32bit, yes, then you are right. But this is one thing, and what I said, is another and it still stands as theory, because I thought that the game was written in 64bit for Win 7. That is why I said what I said and not because I don't have a clue how hardware and software works or I don't know what are the differences between a 32bit OS and a 64bit one.

Edited July 11, 2020 by UllyB

[UllyB 1,206]

23 hours ago, rlwicker1967 said:

I'd have to disagree. My system is not even close to that and it runs smoothly on higher settings. I'm not trying to argue. I think I am just lucky to have a system without problems.

Maybe your HDD is not fragmented. In this situation you wil, have a serious boost. However I agree, maybe you have a hardware combination  which compensates some possible hickups given by your old hardware. Only testing you'll see which the best combination would be.

[+Menrva 4,200]

29 minutes ago, UllyB said:

I left from the premise that the SF2 written for Win 7 is in 64bit, that is why I said what I said, which it extends to Win 10 as well, which is a Win 7 64bit with bugs solved. Where do you have the information that game is written in 32bit ? I searched the net , I didn't find any.

First of all, I was talking generally, I didn't say explicitly that SF2 is 32bit, but guess what? It is. It's a game from 2009. Back then, 64bit OS were not exactly common. TW would have killed themselves by making a product which works only on 64bit. What's the point if only a smaller audience would actually get to play it?

32 minutes ago, UllyB said:

That is why I said what I said and not because I don't have a clue how hardware and software works or I don't know what are the differences between a 32bit OS and a 64bit one.

Agree to disagree. You basically suggested rlwicker1967 to upgrade the PC to have 16GB RAM, a top of the line graphics card with 8GB VRAM etc. Basically, a super gaming PC which is adapt for much more complex, modern videogames. SF2 is an old game (2009) which uses a game engine that dates back to 2002! It does not perform well because it's not optimized properly, not because rlwicker's PC is not adapt. He's not trying to play Digital Combat Simulator or Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020. Strike Fighters 2, for how it looks, should work much better than it does on mid-end PCs.

28 minutes ago, UllyB said:

Maybe your HDD is not fragmented. In this situation you wil, have a serious boost. However I agree, maybe you have a hardware combination  which compensates some possible hickups given by your old hardware. Only testing you'll see which the best combination would be.

Again, another ignorant statement. Nobody uses FAT32 anymore, fragmentation issues are minimum on NTFS systems. Defragmentation on NTFS will not solve any bottlenecks or hiccups dependent on the load on GPU or CPU, on bad programming or outdated libraries used by certain videogames.

[TeargasHorse 287]

My install is HUGE at 133GB. It takes about 6 minutes to load. And my version of SF is 32 bit according to task manager. It breaks sometimes, I can get 5-6 missions in before it crashes. 

AMD Zambezi 8-core, 16 GB Ram, 8 GB video card.  

[UllyB 1,206]

- I didn't imply he was using a 32 bit FAT. I said, which is generally true, that a non fragmented HDD will get you better performance.

- A 32bit game/software is compatibile with a 64bit OS, generally, I won't get into detail why. You didn't know that ? So TK could have written a game for both playable in Win 7 64bit edition.It was not impossible.

Edited July 11, 2020 by UllyB

[+Menrva 4,200]

2 hours ago, UllyB said:

A 32bit game/software is compatibile with a 64bit OS, generally, I won't get into detail why. You didn't know that?

Thanks for not going into details. Most of us already know.

2 hours ago, UllyB said:

So TK could have written a game for both playable in Win 7 64bit edition.It was not impossible.

TK could have made a separate 64bit executable like many developers did for their games, but he didn't...

Edited July 11, 2020 by Menrva

[rlwicker1967 32]

6 hours ago, UllyB said:

Maybe your HDD is not fragmented. In this situation you wil, have a serious boost. However I agree, maybe you have a hardware combination  which compensates some possible hickups given by your old hardware. Only testing you'll see which the best combination would be.

My System

OS Name Microsoft Windows 10 Pro
Version 10.0.18362 Build 18362
Other OS Description Not Available
OS Manufacturer Microsoft Corporation
System Name ROBOT-PC
System Manufacturer Dell Inc.
System Model OptiPlex 3010
System Type x64-based PC
System SKU
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3470 CPU @ 3.20GHz, 3201 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 4 Logical Processor(s)
BIOS Version/Date Dell Inc. A10, 6/6/2013
SMBIOS Version 2.7
Embedded Controller Version 255.255
BIOS Mode Legacy
BaseBoard Manufacturer Dell Inc.
BaseBoard Product 042P49
BaseBoard Version A02
Platform Role Desktop
Secure Boot State Unsupported
PCR7 Configuration Binding Not Possible
Windows Directory C:\WINDOWS
System Directory C:\WINDOWS\system32
Boot Device \Device\HarddiskVolume1
Locale United States
Hardware Abstraction Layer Version = "10.0.18362.752"
User Name Robot-PC\Robot
Time Zone Eastern Daylight Time
Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 16.0 GB
Total Physical Memory 16.0 GB
Available Physical Memory 12.9 GB
Total Virtual Memory 32.0 GB
Available Virtual Memory 28.6 GB
Page File Space 16.0 GB
Page File C:\pagefile.sys
Kernel DMA Protection Off
Virtualization-based security Not enabled
Device Encryption Support Reasons for failed automatic device encryption: TPM is not usable, PCR7 binding is not supported, Hardware Security Test Interface failed and device is not Modern Standby, Un-allowed DMA capable bus/device(s) detected, TPM is not usable
Hyper-V - VM Monitor Mode Extensions Yes
Hyper-V - Second Level Address Translation Extensions Yes
Hyper-V - Virtualization Enabled in Firmware Yes
Hyper-V - Data Execution Protection Yes

[rlwicker1967 32]

Believe it or not, I picked this system out of a dumpster. I was driving for Super Shuttle and when they closed the local office, someone dumped this system in the dumpster. I asked the office manager if the system was working and he said they had stripped it. I could tell he was lying! I went back and snagged it. I was only wanting the case but, it was fully loaded with HDD and everything. I bought an SSD for it and bought Windows 10 Professional to install. I compose music on it with Studio One DAW (Digital Audio Workstation). You guys think these flight sims demand a lot from a computer, they aren't anything compared to processing digital audio in realtime. 

 

[+streakeagle 871]

On 7/10/2020 at 8:15 AM, UllyB said:

The reason is not the OS, but the other essential components on your pc. You need 16GB RAM, for no problems with fps. You also need a i7-3700 or BETTER, for game architecture and geometry, i5, for example is WEAK for carrying on its back a Win 10 game with tones of details, texture, and complex dynamic geometry as a flight simulator at maximum settings for graphics!. You also need at least a 7200rpm HDD, but that i think you already have, it's standard nowadays. You also will need a powerful graphic board (no videocard emulation or other crap) with REAL VRAM, at least 8GB VRAM. When you will got all these , your game will run at max settings with at least 60fps. I get a max of 125fps, but I have i7-8700, which is real power and a GTX 1070 with 8GB VRAM and 16GB RAM.

The differences between an i5 and an i7 are absolutely useless for an old game like this one. Single core clock speed is the only thing that really matters for cpu performance and an i5 clocked the same as in i7 from a given generation will perfom identically in older games. RAM capacity and speed are both useful. GPU speed and RAM capacity are useful. But there are tools where you can see how hard your gpu is being pushed. If it isn't pegged at its limits, it isn't a bottleneck. I have been flying DCS World with i5 for quite some time and my numbers are only slower than i7 and i9 cpus by the percentage difference in clock rates. I am running 4.4 GHz and most of the "high end guys" run at 5+ GHz. I fly VR on a Rift S, and can do so in SF2 without any limitations from flying with an i5. If I had money to blow, I would experiment with an i3 just to see if it would make a difference in my flight sims.

When flight sims start being coded to leverage more than 2 cores, AMD is going to take the title for cost-effective cpus. But until then, single core clock speed combined with the effective work per clock cycle will dominate flight sim performance, and i5s running at the same clock speeds at i7s and i9s will have identical frame rates and graphics quality for a given GPU and a given RAM size/speed. I am not sure what the minimum level of GPU it takes to max out SF2 performance, but I know a plain jane GTX 1080 is practically idling with a stock SF2 setup and my old AMD 7970 GHz edition could hold 60 fps vsync without a problem mixed with my i5 and 16 GB RAM. DCS World will chew up more RAM than any SF2 setup. With maxed out settings, DCS World can easily exceed 16 GB RAM on some terrains and some missions. I have 32 GB RAM. Only in certain cases is that RAM helping me. Most of the time, DCS World needs less than 16 GB RAM and SF2 normally doesn't even come close because its terrain quality, even with mods, is much lower quality and consumes much less resources.

Edited July 12, 2020 by streakeagle

[rlwicker1967 32]

Well damn, I'm not gonna be able to take advantage because I won't have the funds before the deadline. Maybe there will be another time. In the meantime, I will have fun with SF2 Europe and learn how to go against better AI.

[UllyB 1,206]

On 7/12/2020 at 5:48 AM, streakeagle said:

The differences between an i5 and an i7 are absolutely useless for an old game like this one. Single core clock speed is the only thing that really matters for cpu performance and an i5 clocked the same as in i7 from a given generation will perfom identically in older games. RAM capacity and speed are both useful. GPU speed and RAM capacity are useful. But there are tools where you can see how hard your gpu is being pushed. If it isn't pegged at its limits, it isn't a bottleneck. I have been flying DCS World with i5 for quite some time and my numbers are only slower than i7 and i9 cpus by the percentage difference in clock rates. I am running 4.4 GHz and most of the "high end guys" run at 5+ GHz. I fly VR on a Rift S, and can do so in SF2 without any limitations from flying with an i5. If I had money to blow, I would experiment with an i3 just to see if it would make a difference in my flight sims.

When flight sims start being coded to leverage more than 2 cores, AMD is going to take the title for cost-effective cpus. But until then, single core clock speed combined with the effective work per clock cycle will dominate flight sim performance, and i5s running at the same clock speeds at i7s and i9s will have identical frame rates and graphics quality for a given GPU and a given RAM size/speed. I am not sure what the minimum level of GPU it takes to max out SF2 performance, but I know a plain jane GTX 1080 is practically idling with a stock SF2 setup and my old AMD 7970 GHz edition could hold 60 fps vsync without a problem mixed with my i5 and 16 GB RAM. DCS World will chew up more RAM than any SF2 setup. With maxed out settings, DCS World can easily exceed 16 GB RAM on some terrains and some missions. I have 32 GB RAM. Only in certain cases is that RAM helping me. Most of the time, DCS World needs less than 16 GB RAM and SF2 normally doesn't even come close because its terrain quality, even with mods, is much lower quality and consumes much less resources.

DCS is well optimized, anyone knows that, that is why is works well with only a i5. In a flight sim there are two components which take the heavy load, one is CPU and the other is the GPU in matters of geometry calculation before rendering. Both, among other tasks, sustain the geometry making of the gameplay, especially the math behind the plane's "dance" in the sky, the missile trajectory etc. So CPU makes a BIG difference, whether you noticed it or not. A task manager or a tool like MIS Afterburner doesn't tell the whole story if there is the place you took your info, pressing ALT-TAB in the middle of the game. I know that from a guy who works for UBISoft (he worked for Looking Glass and DID, the "fathers" of military flight sims) and told/showed me these things 25 years ago.

[UllyB 1,206]

On 7/12/2020 at 3:36 AM, rlwicker1967 said:

 I compose music on it with Studio One DAW (Digital Audio Workstation). You guys think these flight sims demand a lot from a computer, they aren't anything compared to processing digital audio in realtime. 

 

No argument with your digital audio processing, but you are wrong about what a real flight sim demands. It dumps a heavy load on CPU and GPU, for creating the scene and the math behind the plane's trajectory, for example. You have no idea how much. It can bring down a computer depending on its power/components. Try to play a real sim with a low end CPU (with all to max, including geometry details etc) and you'll see what I mean.

[rlwicker1967 32]

On 7/19/2020 at 1:29 PM, UllyB said:

No argument with your digital audio processing, but you are wrong about what a real flight sim demands. It dumps a heavy load on CPU and GPU, for creating the scene and the math behind the plane's trajectory, for example. You have no idea how much. It can bring down a computer depending on its power/components. Try to play a real sim with a low end CPU (with all to max, including geometry details etc) and you'll see what I mean.

One more thing on this topic. If the game is limited to 4GB because of 32-bit, I still think there would be an advantage to having more ram because when other things are going on in the system, it shouldn't steal memory from the that which is allocated to the game. I remember having to make sure my browser didn't have a bunch of tabs open to get good framerates when I only had 4 GB. Now, I have 16 GB and I can have 10 browser tabs open and even my DAW loaded and I get amazing framerates still. That being said, using that one dude's cloud enhancement slowed me down quite a bit. In FSX-SE, I can have full clouds and almost full traffic and I get my minimum 26 FPS. I try to stick to no more than 30 FPS because I thought humans could only process 24 as they said in the film industry. To me, 60-120 FPS is overkill unless we're talking about having room for overhead when things get really intense.

[+Viper63a 667]

I missed out on that,  but thinking ANYONE already having paid and waiting for the Win10 edition should get Complete Edition for free?

:) 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Viper63a