KA-50 Project

[rattler]

This is not a rant so please read all. It is going to lead to a question. Some history first. We all know that when Lockon was released, it was ahead of it's time by approx. 5 years before a computer could run with full settings for full enjoyment. Now we have DCS:BS, new engine, new graphics which they say is going to blow us away, a KA-50 that is so detailed that just about every switch in the cockpit is useable, have to get it wamed up, input combat data etc., recheck before takeoff and many more things like de-icing ect. all exciting things for sure, weather etc., the list is very long so I will end it as you get the idea. IMO I think ED has gone from a Combat Flight Sim "game". You know what I mean, to a very close to RL Combat Heliocopter "Simulator". Close to what they did with the A10A for the USAF. Don't forget how big the flight manuals for this are going to be. Extremely step IMHO. Now the question. We know the lovely graphics in MS FSX and how slow todays computers handle that sim. What kind of computer are we going to need to fly DCS:BS in all it's fuctionality. Not just basic. I would like to hear some of your thoughts on this as I may be way off base on this but DCS:BS is going to be a Big Flight Sim of some kind so has ED pushed it out of the Game and into a Simulator environment? Most of us can not afford a $5000 dollar computer just to run one game. Now remember gentlemen this is not downing ED and DCS:BS, just a winded question as to what we will need to fly this once it comes to retail so keep your replies to the point please. Don't want this to be a rant thread but rather an informitive one. Cheers to all.:thumbup:

[Glowing_Amraam]

My pc has 3 year old specs, and at the moment im borrowing a Geforce 8800GT and i can enjoy the sim with the same graphics you can see from the movies/screenshots pretty much :)

 

Though the engine has been tuned, it's still the same graphics engine from Lock On.

[SuperKungFu]

yea its not a new game engine, its a tweaked engine.

 

My suggestion is to have a strong cpu. Black Shark not only requires a descent graphics card, but it should have a strong cpu to handle all the calculation the game is done such as AFM.

[Boberro]

Of course DCS:BS seems to be very detailed, so requirements grow up, it is normal. Question is how much? Here we can look closer how developers worked to create better performance. One can do better, another worse. I trust testers and I am pleased, requirements won't go so far up :)

[RedTiger]

This has pretty much been covered, IMO.

 

Go find the thread Wags posted for the latest producer's note. Take note of how smooth that note is in comparison to the previous ones (and in comparison to LOMAC in a comparable mission). Wags is using an E6850 3.0, 8800 geforce, 2 gigs of RAM. Nothing overclocked.

 

All my questions about performance have basically been answered. No concerns here.

[rattler]

Ok, sounds good so far. I have an intel core 2 duo 2.4gh, 4gb ram ddr2, and a new ASUS En9600GT TOP(over clocked for factory) still room to OC. all fairly new about 1 year or less. So would this run DCS:BS and if not what would be your suggestions. I just mentioned the 3 main componants got great coolers extra, so the rest should not be an issue. Cheers and thanks for the informative info. This is what I am looking for . Thanks guy's.

[SuperKungFu]

your cpu might be a slight bottleneck but don't go off running buying a new one. When it comes out, see for yourself how it performs and judge. There are also ways to optimize the fps a bit which would be revealed later.

[rattler]

your cpu might be a slight bottleneck but don't go off running buying a new one. When it comes out, see for yourself how it performs and judge. There are also ways to optimize the fps a bit which would be revealed later.

 

yours sounds quite similar other than the graphics card. Mine is 512mb ddr3, x52 also. Runs LOFC smooth as silk. Hope same for BS. cheers Super, always nice to chat with you. Always good info. Thanks.

[deviletk]

Ill buy a 3ghz dual core and OC it plus 2-4gb 800mhz ram and use my 8800 card. I notice that this will be a very cheap upgrade. My computer is around 3 years something i think: 2ghz 3800+ dual core AMD and 2gb pc3200 and a 8800 card all overclocked to the max. It has serverd me well up to this point, but i know that LOMAC is laggier than everything else i play so since DCS is the same engine but more advanced (and with performance tweaks) i definatelly need a new one. And as it seems, the specs im going for seem to work wich makes me happy as we are not talking about astronomical sums. :) RAM 4GB (Corsair) plus an CPU 3ghz (AMD X2), and a good MoBo i found for around 300€ (around 400$ roughly i think). Keeping all the other stuff like PSU and case etc from this system.

 

Bottom line is that it wont be too sweaty to upgrade if you have a fairly new system.

Edited September 11, 2008 by deviletk

[Malleus]

We all know that when Lockon was released, it was ahead of it's time by approx. 5 years before a computer could run with full settings for full enjoyment.

...

 

I thought Lock On was released in that state because ED didn't have time and resources to properly optimize and finish it. And I though part of the work on DCS:BS went into optimizing and tweaking the engine.

[JimMack]

A personal opinion: For those buying a new PC, and are wondering which OS. I would suggest XP and not Vista for running DCS:BS at max performance, at least until a Vista SP2 or whatever is released.

DCS:BS runs OK on Vista, see my specs below.

Note my XP Desktop has option of 2 graphic cards, and the ATI 9800 Pro is not adequate, I am using it to define a minimum spec.

I will need to upgrade the desktop to 2 GB.

 

When we go code final, and only then, we will post minimum and recommended PC specifications.

Edited September 11, 2008 by JimMack
factual

[rattler]

Now that sounds like a very sensible answer. So at present we are only assuming what it will require. waiting till that final test is done sounds reasonable and it never pays to guess.Cheers. Thanks very much for that piece of info.:thumbup:

[rattler]

I thought Lock On was released in that state because ED didn't have time and resources to properly optimize and finish it. And I though part of the work on DCS:BS went into optimizing and tweaking the engine.

 

Don't thinks so. It was way ahead of the stated minimum specs at time of release. Main issue. It was UBI that originally released Lockon. ED took over when UBI Soft felt it would not support Lockon so a deal was struck Ed took over produced an update and then produced LOFC. Now ED is going in a direction they think that will keep them in the Combat Sim game and no one can fault them for that. Lots have dropped off and they continue to support. They are a small company so they have to utilize their resource to the utmost which means setting priorties that we as gamers may not like as it could delay a sim project but at least they are in business and committed to flight sims. If I have something wrong here, I am sure someone will correct me.Cheers

[crazysundog]

Good info!! Thanks guys!!

 

I'll be purchasing my new computer in 3 loooooonng weeks. I am going to use Vista as my OS, because I dont have the urge to upgrade later.

 

However, I wouldn't mind a couple of opinions on my system before its too late to change my mind...

 

Intel Quadcore Q6600 @ 2.4ghz

Asus P5N32 E SLI mobo

4 Gb Ram (not sure of make/model)

500 Gb HD @ 7200 rpm

GeForce 8800GT Factory OC'ed to 667 MB

 

whaddya people think? lingering questions on my mind are: should i go with 2 GPU's? Can I get a better CPU/Mobo for the same price range?

 

 

22" LG LCD monitor/2 ms response time

[slug88]

2 GPU's is definitely not wise, as most games don't support it, and something like a 9800 GT would probably be both faster and cheaper. Also, I would go for a fast dual core rather than the quad core you've got, again because almost no game today will support more than two cores, and it's something that won't be supported for quite some time. Also, the 8800GT, while a quality card, is already quite old, and by today's standard probably falls on the low end of mid range. I believe that, at the moment, the best bang for your buck will come from the ATI HD4870 series of cards (or was it 4850? don't recall). Remember that for most games, your video card will be the single most critical component, so you don't want to skimp out on it.

[hitman]

Get a similar system to what I have. I made it impossibly expensive, but that was almost 5 months ago, so prices dropped pretty drastically. I would go for an Intel Q9400 which is basically the same price as a Q6600. There are a few games that do support quad cores, World in Conflict is one of them.

 

Like Slug mentioned above, dont bother with Sli or crossfire, since it doesnt really benefit anything. I should know. Get a decent high end card like the GT280 or the ATI equivalent. I get decent framerates (very decent in FSX, Crysis, and any other simulators I have in my profile) with my 9600GT at either high or max settings. Offset that with the 4gbs of DDR2-8000 Mushkin ram @ 1066mhz, youll have a smoking system. My computer scores 5.9 in Vista experience. Make sure you have a decent enough power supply, I cannot recommend anything before that.

 

One last thing, if you absolutely HAVE to have SLi, go with MSI. Asus went to crap over the past few years. Personally, I would go with an Intel chipset, since the Nvidia chipsets have the chance to BSOD on playing avi's and mpegs, and Nvidia isnt fixing it anytime soon.

[Malleus]

Don't thinks so. It was way ahead of the stated minimum specs at time of release. Main issue. It was UBI that originally released Lockon. ED took over when UBI Soft felt it would not support Lockon so a deal was struck Ed took over produced an update and then produced LOFC.

 

Ubisoft was merely the publisher of LO, the developer was ED from the start. LO is/was that unoptimized and unfinished because of what I said in my earlier post - Ubisoft didn't give ED the time and resources they need.

Now the point is that BS looks a lot better than LO, but does it demand a that more powerful PC too? I selfishly hope that the engine has been optimized and tweaked, because atm there's slim chance for me to properly play this otherwise...

[Groove]

The specs will be not PR motivated, as Wags stated already.

 

Although dont expect to be able to play this one with some 4 years old with max fps...

[-Skipper-]

I'd like to point out 2 things:

 

1st: If you really fear an upgrade, don't do it. Wait until the game was released, test it on your PC and then start thinking about what to upgrade and how much to invest. An SLI-Setting, for example, helps you a lot less with LockOn, than a fast CPU, Mainboard and RAM.

 

2nd: A new PC capable of playing a modern game does not need to cost 5.000$. Best example: Crysis. The developers have proven, that the game runs on a 600EUR PC with all maxed out settings. It just depends on what you buy and how well you can set up your system.

Example: You can buy a Motherboard from Asus for 400EUR, with remote control, integrated Creative X-FI-card, passive cooling, fluorescent cables and a lot of blinking lights. But you get the same chipset, even the same hardware + bulk X-FI, for less than 100 EUR, just without the fency gadgets, you're never going to use anyway. Same is for CPU and many other parts.

I have recently upgraded from my old rig and got a decent MoBo, C2D 6600, 4Gig 1066 and ATI/AMD 4780 for less than 400 Euros. That cheap MoBo is capable of running my C2D at 4GHz (aircooled at 57°C max).

Just don't fall for rumours or hardware advertising!

[deviletk]

Well said Skipper. :thumbup:

 

Im trying to help out as many as i can around me, like friends and their friends. Tedious job, but i cant stand hearing someone saying they will go buy a new computer and dont put it together themselves as the price tags i hear are a joke when building it yourself goes very fast and isnt hard at all (except i seem to forget the 12V cable every damn time :megalol: ).

 

I checked how i can step it up for DCS:BS on my older rig and 300€ will do it, and i got around 3 months to do it as well so it wont be a sweaty buy.

[rattler]

Would not consider Vysta, it will be gone by the time we get DCS:BS and not saying BS will take a long time but Vysta was just an interm OS before the next big one only had a 3-4 year support before a new OS launch. Stay with XP till the dust settles a bit. They rest is up to you.Cheers.

[crazysundog]

So I've changed a couple of things on my new rig, the mobo and monitor.

 

Intel Quadcore Q6600 @ 2.4ghz

Asus Striker Extreme

4 Gb Ram Kingston 2 x 2GB

500 Gb HD @ 7200 rpm

GeForce 8800GT Factory OC'ed to 667 MB

Coolermaster 750watt PSU

24" LG monitor- 5ms response, 2000:1 CR, 1920x1200

 

The reason I'm sticking with Vista is because I've almost never used XP, and have been using vista on my laptop problem free for 8 months. If the rumour mill/bandwagon was telling the truth, then Windows 95 was the best OS ever, and windows has progressively gone downhill with every new iteration, and Vista is only good for loading a screensaver then exploding your computer. Maybe if i start seeing some major bugs I'll believe the sky is falling!!!

[hitman]

I like Vista when its not quirky. I think Windows 2000 Professional was the best verion of windows microsucks ever produced. Used it for damn near 4 years without even having to reformat and it ran as well as the day I bought the computer. Moved from Windows Me straight to that, went to Xp for a few years....Had more problems with Xp than I ever did with Windows 2000, but I had more problems with Vista x64 than I have had with any other system combined. BUT...I havent had one problem the last 2 months since I reinstalled Vista. Seems like the patches are starting to finally work.

[crazysundog]

I should also have mentioned that I don't run many different types of apps., and that goes a long way to not having any OS issues. This rig will be my first actual gaming computer, and I'm having a proffesional build it. That being said, I want to keep it simple... no Overclocking for me...

 

Question: I'm getting a 750w PSU, with a case that has 6 fans... if i upgrade my CPU, or get another GPU, should I invest in water cooling? How much does it help, really?

 

p.s. not trying to hijack your thread rattler, but i feel this is continuing your original thoughts. i am buying this rig almost solely for use with BlackShark, and would like some input on specs.

Edited September 13, 2008 by crazysundog

[telepathiclove]

Water cooling can make a huge difference to temperatures, but it isn't necessary unless you do big overclocks, and volume wouldn't be a reason to get watercooling either.

 

As for the case, why a case with 6 fans? Just two is enough if it's all done well, with 120mm fans. Then put a pair of yate loons or sharkoon fans in there. Then you can get a good heatsink&fan for your CPU and with the right PSU, you can have a very quiet and cool PC.

Edited September 13, 2008 by telepathiclove