Having a bit of a problem with my Il-2 right now.

Just upgraded my graphics card from an Nvidia 9600 512 card to a Nvidia GTS 250 1 GB card....


.... and Il-2 looks awful.

Just terrible.
It's as if the AA isn't even working anymore.

The game looked beautiful on my old 512 card, but I can't seem to get the graphics out of the stone age with this one, no matter how much I fiddle with the Nvidia control panel, or the in game graphics options.


Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

These types of questions are better to ask on Community Help.

It should run fine on your card but I don't know what the issue is, maybe your resolution is low? Maybe the settings in the conf.ini file reset to low settings?

Can you take a screenshot? Also what settings do you have set in the nvidia control panel? Please post a copy of your conf.ini file.

Posted this a few times before, think its usefull to you also though you might need to turn some settings down a little to get it running good on your system:

Set everything in the nVidea controle pannel to Default/nVidia recomended...

Than edit these into your OpenGL section of the Conf.ini file:

[Render_OpenGL]
TexQual=3
TexMipFilter=3
TexCompress=0
TexFlags.UseDither=1
TexFlags.UseAlpha=0
TexFlags.UseIndex=0
TexFlags.PolygonStipple=0
TexFlags.UseClampedSprites=0
TexFlags.DrawLandByTriangles=0
TexFlags.UseVertexArrays=1
TexFlags.DisableAPIExtensions=0
TexFlags.ARBMultitextureExt=1
TexFlags.TexEnvCombineExt=1
TexFlags.SecondaryColorExt=1
TexFlags.VertexArrayExt=1
TexFlags.ClipHintExt=0
TexFlags.UsePaletteExt=0
TexFlags.TexAnisotropicExt=1
TexFlags.TexCompressARBExt=0

TexFlags.TexEnvCombine4NV=1
TexFlags.TexEnvCombineDot3=1
TexFlags.DepthClampNV=1
TexFlags.SeparateSpecular=1
TexFlags.TextureShaderNV=1

HardwareShaders=1

Shadows=2
Specular=2
SpecularLight=2
DiffuseLight=2
DynamicalLights=1
MeshDetail=2
VisibilityDistance=3

Sky=2
Forest=3
LandShading=3
LandDetails=2
LandGeom=3
TexLarge=1
TexLandQual=3
TexLandLarge=1

VideoSetupId=17
Water=4
Effects=2
ForceShaders1x=0

PolygonOffsetFactor=-0.15
PolygonOffsetUnits=-3.0


After doing that Do NOT go into the games own Video settings or it will overwrite these changes again.

In the nVidia Controle pannel under the profile for IL2 set these ONLY, leave all others default!

Antialiasing - Mode = Override any application setting
Antialiasing - Setting = 16xQ (or lower if it impacts performance to much)
Antialiasing - Transparency = Supersampling

Multi-display/mixed-GPU acceleration = Use global setting(Multiple display performance mode)
You can try to set this to "Single" if you still have problems.

changing anything else than those to anything other than Default/Recomended might only give (more) glitches or/and slow down performance.
All the other settings are set in the Conf.ini and could conflict with the nVidia controle pannel settings.

As far as i know these are the best posible settings for the new nVidia cards so i hope these work for you also.

p.s. dont forget before edeting the Conf.ini file to make sure you have OpenGL selected in IL2 Setup.

Download these "latest" DLL graphics files: http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/att...d=83185&d=1205425809
They solve some graphics glitches and increase the view distance with newer videocards.

I had the exact same problem, it turned out that the nvidia control panel was not making a lot of difference to the game graphics. I installed nhancer http://www.nhancer.com/ and if you are using the latest drivers then you will need to run the patch, its all really quite easy as long as you read the manual.

I've found that the nvidia 190.xx drivers' control panel ignors custom settings for IL-2 Forgotten Battles and other games as well (under XP Home). I'm using 186.xx with my 8800gts 512MB and the image quality breath-taking and silky smooth (usually) at 1280x1024. I use NDS_Camp. settings (except effects=1), along with nvidia driver 'High Quality' mode and forced v-sync. Good Luck, S!

nhancer is NOT the answer... make clean (unedited) conf.ini file.. i found that the more i changed in there the less the new drivers worked..

I had the same issue then i deleted my conf.ini, and ran the setup, and tweaked my nvidia control panel and have no issues with the increased view, more detailed trees and better water.

I found that the 190 drivers are good, but the new modded 191s i got from guru3d are slightly better- no micro stutters, and no flashing shadows..

also i run at 1920x1200x32, everything maxed out, 16AS, 32AA, High quality, no vsync.

Wait. LOL, you 'upgraded' from a 9600 to a GT250 (which is merely a rebranded 9800GT, which is turn is also a rebranded 8800GT)?? Hah!!

I can't add anything to help you probably apart from what the other guys have said, but I can say, return the GTS 250, get your money back, it's not a worthy upgrade from a 9600.

Also check reviews comparing the 9600 + 8800GT/9800GT/GTS 250 <---- all those are the same card remember.

GTS250 is a rebranded 8800GTS 512MB with 1024MB VRAM.

Going from dual 8800 ultras to dual 250GTSs made quite a difference in most my games actually..

rebranded or not, the extra vRAM definately helped.

quote:

make clean (unedited) conf.ini file.. i found that the more i changed in there the less the new drivers worked.

(Phil_C)
Hi Phil
The conf.ini section which NDS_Camp posted is simply all the graphic options set to the maximum which il2 will accept, that is, those settings will give you all the whistles and bells the game's capable of. An unmodified conf.ini has much more conservative settings, and would give higher fps at the expense of detail. Your box with sli'ed vid.cards should have absolutely *no* problem with IL2, so try to track down the problenm - perhaps *post* your conf.ini? IL2's an old game, and won't even *know* what to do with all that vid mem - what is it, between the pair of them, 2Gigs? I run a cheap-o box much like (but worse than) Cyph3r111's, air cooled, the cheapest asus mobo, and with the conf.ini set to the posted one above, fps never drop below 70 - IL2's an old game... Just for giggles, when you're flying IL2, hit <shift tab>, and at the prompt type "fps START SHOW" (make sure fps is lower case, the rest upper), hit return, and hit <shift tab> again. You should see the frame rate at the top of the screen, without any app running in the background (sorry if you already know this). I'm brand spankin' new to this forum, so, again, apologies if this is all ancient history.

i have no issues anymore, it was just an issue i had with my config file being modded by me for the widescreen and after reinstalling it again after my vista 64 upgrade i had a mesh of the 2 files for some reason... my problem has been solved... im not sure about the OP's tho.

quote:

Originally posted by NDS_Camp.:
GTS250 is a rebranded 8800GTS 512MB with 1024MB VRAM.

Whoops, I actually meant to put 9800GTX ect, i missed the 'X' its not a rebranded 8800GTS 512mb, its the GTX. Many sources confirm this.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil_C:
Going from dual 8800 ultras to dual 250GTSs made quite a difference in most my games actually..

rebranded or not, the extra vRAM definately helped.

LOLWHAT. The 8800Ultra is more powerful than the GTS 250!?! Again, refer to many sources and benchmarks. The 8800Ultra is more powerufl

um im not sure of your sources but mased on my benchmarks in my programs under my settings, my dual 250 setup with basically 2 gigs of video ram are running much better FPS than my dual 8800 ultras with barely a gig.

again id love to see your sources as to where your getting your information... and i have confirmed what i am saying through several sites, including Guru3d.

if you have informatio otherwise id love to see it tho.. post links if you can.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil_C:
um im not sure of your sources but mased on my benchmarks in my programs under my settings, my dual 250 setup with basically 2 gigs of video ram are running much better FPS than my dual 8800 ultras with barely a gig.

again id love to see your sources as to where your getting your information... and i have confirmed what i am saying through several sites, including Guru3d.

if you have informatio otherwise id love to see it tho.. post links if you can.

First off, its common knowledge that over 1Gb vram is merely marketting as its bottlenecked due to other components on the card (bus width for example).

Also, due to the way SLI works, it only inializes the vram on ONE of the two cards, so a Dual 8800Ultra setup would be using 768Mb ram, but the dual GTS250 would have 1Gb.

However, the amount of ram is NOT an indication of performance, it's merely marketting (like those 9500GT's with 2Gb of vram). Obviously a decent amount of ram would help, but the difference between 768mb and 1Gb is vastly neglible at this point in time.

Also, the specs of the 8800Ultra are better than the GTS250. For example the 8800Ultra has a 384bit memory bus, where as the GTS250 only has a 256bit bus, becuase of this, the memory bandwidth alone on the 8800Ultra is over 40gb/s faster.

Well admittedly, in real world scenario, both SLI setups are VERY VERY close performance wise, my point was, it was a MIGHTY waste of money to upgrade to a card of equal performance.

Ive gotta head out to work, but a quick google search would indeed prove what I'm saying is true.

Cyph3r111, you're actually wrong on this one, the 8800 ultra is a G80 chip, whereas the GTS 250 is a G92+ chip, it is clocked high, has higher fill rates, and with modern games with large textures and high res with lots of AA and AF you can indeed exceed 1gb VRAM in some cases. In an SLI setup the scaling is even more dependent on the amount of VRAM, so SLI ultras and SLI 250's would be a very different animal.

Same thin i found out while researching - i have the link at home but its a direct comparison of the 2 cards..

while not massive improvement, the dual 250s are doing much better than my dual 8800s at the settings i use...

When i get home i can post the link i have.

Argh, I give up, go on a PC forum and search. You'll see what I mean.

http://www.gpureview.com/show_...?card1=515&card2=606


The link i mentioned before, notice how the specs list the 8800 being a g80 and the 250 being a g92....

the only thing that the 250 scores lower on is memory bandwith and pixel fill rate.. everything else is higher than that of the 8800.

and like i said, the increase shows up

quote:

Originally posted by Cyph3r111:
Argh, I give up, go on a PC forum and search. You'll see what I mean.

Lol, I love how it has to be us that is wrong and you give up. It's not possible YOU are mistaken? Can you show some data to support your argument, Phil_C showed some for his.

But it's all moot anyway, if Phil_C is getting higher FPS with his 2 GTS 250's than he was with two 8800 Ultras, then the answer for him is obvious.