Easy, I have most everything maxed in IL-2 at 1280 resolution on a Athlon 1600 and Geforce 3 TI500 which by today’s standards is going to get a bit dated come the New Year. My 3D scores are still in the 7,000’s, guys are double that now. I’m looking for a upgrade yet Christ, I’m running Aces High at 1600 res getting nearly 75 fps. And what the kicker is my friends GF4 system with 4X anti-aliased settings ON actually makes most screens shots for IL-2 look choppy, and not do it justice.
Eye candy aside, to claim arguably the best WWII flightsim ever made that is expanding to what looks to be even better is either just plain absurd, or a frustrated low end system user that hasn’t really played the sim enough to know better.
Granted, IL-2 has some flaws that make me wonder how they could do so much right, and miss a few points, but overall it nearly has killed my AH play.
Before, I used to pity the users in AH that were running low resolutions to get the minimum 20-30 fps, because I was wondering how it was 'too bad' they couldn’t have the same smooth gameplay and visuals I did. But lately as the updates are farther between, and the rest of the simulations are getting to unreal graphical goodness, I’ve lost my patience and pity.
AH should have mirrors, great realistic cockpits, aircraft that look like Supertards new P-51, system modeling, and better terrain to name a few. Tax a middle of the road CPU already.
Business is business, but whoopee, when you can’t run AH at 1024 res at 80+ fps, get a Xbox for $200 and move into your living room. Let the flightsim guys play at a reasonable level. E machines are cool for browsing the internet, but I’m getting pissed they set the level of game cpu usage. Maybe those rebates will come in some day and people will buy a new video card?
