This kinda sucks

[Vraciu]

This is what the game maxed out looks like in video settings and the graphical detail section.
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
Scroll right to see full image
Its so funny how people whine about graphics and don't even know how to turn them up, let alone have the hardware for it

I agree.   Guilty as charged!

[SilverZ06]

This is what the game maxed out looks like in video settings and the graphical detail section.
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
Scroll right to see full image
Its so funny how people whine about graphics and don't even know how to turn them up, let alone have the hardware for it

That looks pretty good sitting still in a picture. If you (or anyone else) could get 30fps in the air I'd be surprised, let alone in a furball or even around a field or town with those settings. The game is not playable at those settings.

[olds442]

That looks pretty good sitting still in a picture. If you (or anyone else) could get 30fps in the air I'd be surprised, let alone in a furball or even around a field or town with those settings. The game is not playable at those settings.

Horse crap, ive been playing with those settings for 6 months now (when i got this new card) and ive been in 80 people missions (54 buffs and 26 fighter escorts) and the lowest FPS i got EVER in that mission was 48.

EDIT: Don't believe me here:

Shooting guns, clipboard opened, puffy ack firing, 8in shelling base, multiple friendly and enemy cons.
55 FPS (note it dropped because I took the SS, it was constant 60fps the whole time)

There is nothing wrong with the graphics engine or how the game renders objects, its peoples computers or too many applications open. Because the system I have could be built today for about 1,100 $

Note the blur in the screen shot is because of the way screen shots are taken.

[SilverZ06]

well that is better than i expected. what card are you running and can you get me a screen shot of you actually closer to the action not 4k out?

[Max]

Vraciu....dude, you aint right bruh. 

[Vraciu]

Vraciu....dude, you aint right bruh. 

Says the guy who thinks "bruh" is a word.   

 

[Vraciu]

well that is better than i expected. what card are you running and can you get me a screen shot of you actually closer to the action not 4k out?

Yes, please.   The cockpit looks cartoonish.  Not much better than mine, frankly.   The water looks better though.

[guncrasher]

well that is better than i expected. what card are you running and can you get me a screen shot of you actually closer to the action not 4k out?

I get the same picture with 465 cards except for em that I don't have on.  have yet to see a fur ball where I get less that 45 and 99% I get 60 fps.


semp

[RotBaron]

Olds: I have a 660Ti too (MSI.)  On certain maps and and at certain bases my frps drop, sometimes considerably. I also get big drops when the furball starts to get near ~50 or greater in immediate vicinity. I am however running a somewhat older machine with this new card. I turn off all the unnecessary programs I can find. I turn AVG av off, but it still keeps running 3 programs even when "disabled." I don't use shadows and no ground clutter either, yet there is no way I could keep steady frps around 80 ppl. My background programs running total ~44, and my CPU usage is usually in the 2-5% range (I know Skuzzy recommends that it be lower and near a steady zero if possible.) What do you think the difference is?

I should note to the above though, that the majority of the time my frps are steady at the said settings.

Also, what does the set field of view setting correspond to?

[Vraciu]

Olds: I have a 660Ti too (MSI.)  On certain maps and and at certain bases my frps drop, sometimes considerably. I also get big drops when the furball starts to get near ~50 or greater in immediate vicinity. I am however running a somewhat older machine with this new card. I turn off all the unnecessary programs I can find. I turn AVG av off, but it still keeps running 3 programs even when "disabled." I don't use shadows and no ground clutter either, yet there is no way I could keep steady frps around 80 ppl. My background programs running total ~44, and my CPU usage is usually in the 2-5% range (I know Skuzzy recommends that it be lower and near a steady zero if possible.) What do you think the difference is?

Why does it IL-2 ( along with other eye candy sims run) just fine?   Is it the engine in AH that causes issues or just the sheer number of players?   IOW, all things being equal, is a Massive Multiplayer game more resource intensive than one that isn't?

[JOACH1M]

I got this feeling that this guy is a shade troll.

[JOACH1M]

Why is it IL-2 and other eye candy sims run just fine?   Is it the engine in AH that causes issues or just the sheer number of players?   IOW, all,things being equal, is a Massive Multiplayer game more resource intensive than one that isn't?

its because AH maps one is massive and has a longer view of objects

[Vraciu]

its because AH maps one is massive and has a longer view of objects

Objects as in terrain and trees, vehicles only, or all of the aforementioned?

If I get an FPS drop will it help to reduce the object display range?  That seems obvious but I want to be sure.  

[Vraciu]

I got this feeling that this guy is a shade troll.

Gimme a break, man.  I am trying to learn.   

[Max]

I got this feeling that this guy is a shade troll.

Maybe Midway has succumbed to the Dark Side