performance expectation on NEVADA

[cichlidfan]

That's why I bought a DX11 card... oh wait...

 

So you (ED) are telling me that at the lowest texture quality, at the lowest view distance, w/o AA and AF, with the lowest display resolution possible, the game requires at least 2gb of vram? That's just ridiculous. :)

 

Actually, if you were to run the sim on a 640x480 monitor, I am sure you would get outstanding performance with everything set to low. However, I don't think it would be an enjoyable experience.

 

EDIT: With a five year old video card that can be bought used for less that $100, currently, what did you really expect?

Edited September 17, 2015 by cichlidfan

[=4c=Nikola]

Well, even 1680*1050 is like 20% smaller frame buffer than 1920*1080.

 

EDIT: With a five year old video card that can be bought used for less that $100, currently, what did you really expect?

 

That's exactly what I bought.

Edited September 17, 2015 by =4c=Nikola

[NineLine]

That's why I bought a DX11 card... oh wait...

 

So you (ED) are telling me that at the lowest texture quality, at the lowest view distance, w/o AA and AF, with the lowest display resolution possible, the game requires at least 2gb of vram? That's just ridiculous. :)

 

I tried to tell them it needed to run on my Atari 2600, but they just laughed at me.

 

But seriously, I think 2Gb of vram is pretty standard for anyone doing any sort of serious gaming/simming. Least on more modern graphic engines.

 

All that said, as they optimize, specs may drop a little... but those are good numbers to shoot for.

[NeilWillis]

I agree, I am getting very poor results on my ZX81 - even with the 16K memory expansion! Trying to load it from a cassette player takes days!

[joebloggs]

Like I said if people are serious about PC gaming you must move with the times. Even Xbox and PlayStation bring out new consoles to replace their old ones. Don't get stuck in the past if you want to game on the PC, just go buy yourself a Geforce 970. The Geforce 970 GTX doesn't cost the earth either like other Nvidia card have in the past.

[WildBillKelsoe]

so would a GTX980 Ti, a FX-9590 and 8 GB RAM and 1024 Mb HDD wouldn't run this thing?

 

I have GTX650 Ti, FX-8150 and really want to know if Nevada would run. Looks like I have to start saving. Oh, Corsair are bringing down a 980 with liquid cooling. I bet this will be heavy.

[NineLine]

Like I said if people are serious about PC gaming you must move with the times. Even Xbox and PlayStation bring out new consoles to replace their old ones. Don't get stuck in the past if you want to game on the PC, just go buy yourself a Geforce 970. The Geforce 970 GTX doesn't cost the earth either like other Nvidia card have in the past.

 

I was testing with a 580GTX with 3G of vram, it did just fine, a 970 is still pretty expensive for some people on a budget, actually I would argue its really expensive for all people on a budget. If you can, swing for the fences, but ED isnt forcing you too.

 

Not too long you are going to have 1.5, you will see where you are at then.

[=4c=Nikola]

I agree, I am getting very poor results on my ZX81 - even with the 16K memory expansion! Trying to load it from a cassette player takes days!

 

Very funny.

 

Like I said if people are serious about PC gaming you must move with the times. Even Xbox and PlayStation bring out new consoles to replace their old ones. Don't get stuck in the past if you want to game on the PC, just go buy yourself a Geforce 970. The Geforce 970 GTX doesn't cost the earth either like other Nvidia card have in the past.

 

It's like 420e - very expensive.

 

Anyway, if it works, nice, if it doesn't, oh well, can live without it. 1.2 is still playable.

Edited September 17, 2015 by =4c=Nikola

[joebloggs]

I was testing with a 580GTX with 3G of vram, it did just fine, a 970 is still pretty expensive for some people on a budget, actually I would argue its really expensive for all people on a budget. If you can, swing for the fences, but ED isnt forcing you too.

 

Not too long you are going to have 1.5, you will see where you are at then.

 

I was meaning for PC games in general, but you're right when it comes to just DCS. I know DCS is more about Cpu then Gpu, but I'm looking forward so see if that changes with 1.5 & 2.0. When you consider people pay £400 for a new console though, I wouldn't call a Geforce 970 expensive.

Having to buy a whole new PC is expensive, but my i7 930 overcocked to 4.0 Ghz has served me well for DCS for the last 4 years.

Edited September 17, 2015 by joebloggs

[NineLine]

I know DCS is more about Cpu then Gpu,

 

That is changing with 1.5/2.0 & EDGE.

 

When you consider people pay £400 for a new console though, I wouldn't call a Geforce 970 expensive.

 

I can neither afford a new console nor a 970, so yes, 400 in any currency is expensive, I built a decent puter with our tax return this year, and I was able to buy most of the components, processor, memory, motherboard, but I wasnt able to get a new GPU as that would have almost doubled my budget, its a pricey hobby :)

Edited September 17, 2015 by NineLine

[joebloggs]

That is changing with 1.5/2.0 & EDGE.

 

 

 

I can neither afford a new console nor a 970, so yes, 400 in any currency is expensive, I built a decent puter with our tax return this year, and I was able to buy most of the components, processor, memory, motherboard, but I wasnt able to get a new GPU as that would have almost doubled my budget, its a pricey hobby :)

 

Yeah, but look at the fun you have flying all these lovely planes. My oldman pays £800 a year to hit a ball around a golf course :)

 

I'm hoping my i7 930 still holds up otherwise it's a new Pc for me :helpsmilie:

[Ryback]

Well 2 gb vram as minimum requirement is little harsh.Minimum requirement is for mainstream player that cant afford pro gaming machine.. Imagine that you put as minimum joystick requirement the Warthog.. Should have been 1 gb..Then you can push recommended settings as much as you want i..I am waiting this for years now just for performance sake..and now this.. :(

[BIGNEWY]

I would wait until release and then try, no point getting depressed just yet :)

[NineLine]

No matter where they draw the line, someone is always going to get left behind, that said, I dont think 2G of vram is the equivalent of the TH Warthog.

[Mustang]

Thought i'd throw this in here, i'm running 1.5/2.0 on a £100 (now possibly sub £100) R9 270 2gb card and get very nice performance for what it is, i even developed the Caucasus terrain textures based on what i could do with this card.

[Boberro]

You meant performance in busy world or alone?

Plenty of users get excited but they forget they see one plane in movie, while it is not to be "forever alone" :)

[=4c=Nikola]

I would wait until release and then try, no point getting depressed just yet :)

 

Absolutely, I believe it will work just fine at 1gb of vram.

 

No matter where they draw the line, someone is always going to get left behind, that said, I dont think 2G of vram is the equivalent of the TH Warthog.

 

Actually, it's pretty close to that. No point buying underpowered 2gb vram card.

[joebloggs]

Well 2 gb vram as minimum requirement is little harsh.Minimum requirement is for mainstream player that cant afford pro gaming machine.. Imagine that you put as minimum joystick requirement the Warthog.. Should have been 1 gb..Then you can push recommended settings as much as you want i..I am waiting this for years now just for performance sake..and now this.. :(

 

Sorry, but this is where I think you are totally wrong. How are sims or games supposed to progress if everything stays still? You would get more people complaining that the game industry was staying still while they paid for new hardware. It's not like 2GB of VRam is something new either. I mean, Graphics cards with 2GB of VRam and more have been out for how many years now?

[Ryback]

Sorry, but this is where I think you are totally wrong. How are sims or games supposed to progress if everything stays still? You would get more people complaining that the game industry was staying still while they paid for new hardware. It's not like 2GB of VRam is something new either. I mean, Graphics cards with 2GB of VRam and more have been out for how many years now?

 

Well i have a 2 gb vram card.I just said "oh god i'm just at the limit".I expected better actually.Improved performance sentence brought me here..Improved performance over the existing hardware? Improved performance on the new hardware?

Like BIGNEWY said i will wait for it..and see.I agree with 2 gb vram is not the end of world but going over, it is..

[=4c=Nikola]

I agree with 2 gb vram is not the end of world but going over, it is..

Yea, if 2gb is minimum, how much is optimal? 4gb? 6gb?

[msalama]

I'm not wondering the 2GB spec at all, actually. 1GB cards are obsolete, because a high-resolution world consisting of large objects needs lots of memory and bandwidth to run smoothly. That's just the way it is in this day and age, I'm afraid.

[OnlyforDCS]

A lot of entitled people here. What did you guys expect? THis is a new game engine, you can't have the same minimum requirements for DCS World 2.0 as you did for DCS World 1.0. It's not feasible if you want things to look and run better than they did.

 

Look at any other PC game sequel in the history of PC gaming. Did Quake 2 have the same requirements as Quake 1? What about TF2 compared to TF?

It's already pretty damn awesome that as long as you meet the minimum requirements your PC is expected to perform the same or better in DCS World 2, compared to DCS World 1....

 

I don't think I can stress enough how rare this last point is in PC gaming in general and especially in the simulation genre....

Edited September 18, 2015 by OnlyforDCS

[joebloggs]

I agree with 2 gb vram is not the end of world but going over, it is..

 

So how long do we stay at 2GB of VRam if more could improve a game? I'm afraid things don't work the way you want them to. The game industry wants to move forwards. I know hardware can be expensive for some, but where not even talking about brand new hardware here. DCS is using 2GB of Vram to improve their game and these Graphics Cards have been out for sometime now. I think they have given people plenty of time to upgrade to something more suitable for gaming.

 

Why are you worried that they will go over the 2GB mark? Because at some point in the future you might need more Vram for DCS. We've now got cards with 6GB Vram and I'd say you're lucky this isn't something like Assassins Creed where you need that. At some point in the future you might need it for DCS though so I wouldn't stay on 2GB for ever.

[sobek]

Just sayin, i'm running a 2GB vram 7870, a 3 1/2 years old card that wasn't top of the line when it was released and i can't say that i'm not satisfied with the performance i get.

 

So all you guys getting their panties in a bunch over the specs:

 

Edited September 18, 2015 by sobek

[S-GERAT]

You meant performance in busy world or alone?

Plenty of users get excited but they forget they see one plane in movie, while it is not to be "forever alone" :)

 

That's my fear with the new engine, if ED have not enhanced the CPU usage, the new version is going to be a failure to me. In my case I'm not worried with the graphics, because all the years there are newer cards..

 

The problem is with the CPU's, I have a I52500k overclocked at 4.2 Ghz, and the newest processors aren't really a lot more powerful compared with mine, so the upgrade didn't worth the value..

 

And with my CPU a lot of times DCS World is running very bad.. :cry: