Sorry, It's just, for a living I build and sell Custom gaming PCs for the past few years, I've sold loads and loads of PCs, I frequent PC forums every day. I research everything till i know every little fact about it before I purchase.

I really do know what I mean, I'm not arguing this point for the fun of it, I just don't like when people are misinformed. I'll post some sources in abit.

Sorry Cyph3r111, but i agrea completly with Urufu on this one.

Your claim about the Card rebranding could have been a mistake/confusion... but claiming this:
"its common knowledge that over 1Gb vram is merely marketting as its bottlenecked due to other components on the card (bus width for example)."
Shows to me that you dont really know what your talking about...

Also if you build Game Rigs for a living why the hell you got such an out dated rig and underpowered rig your self? (in your sig)

Quoting Urufu_Shinjiro:
"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."
It seems to be moot in more ways than one - IL2's demands on graphics cards are minuscule by today's standards - anything over 60fps seems a waste for all 60HZ displays, and even a lowly 8800 doesn't drop below that, *ever*. With all the rendering options available cranked up (the config file at the beginning of this thread). So, i'm wondering how anyone could benefit from throwing more card at il-2? I'm sure it's fun to bench it & watch framerates which look like a weekly salary, but ...
All that said, I'm running a 185.something driver (old), the new (190/191 beta) work great on everything *but* IL-2 for me - dropping the frame rates into the 30's. On both 32 and 64bit win7's. Go figure...

quote:

Originally posted by NDS_Camp.:
Sorry Cyph3r111, but i agrea completly with Urufu on this one.

Your claim about the Card rebranding could have been a mistake/confusion... but claiming this:
"its common knowledge that over 1Gb vram is merely marketting as its bottlenecked due to other components on the card (bus width for example)."
Shows to me that you dont really know what your talking about...

Also if you build Game Rigs for a living why the hell you got such an out dated rig and underpowered rig your self? (in your sig)

Wait wait, you guys don't believe about the Nvidia rebranding? My god, a google search would reveal it!

Click here:

http://techlime.com/graphics-c...eforce-gts-250-cards

"Nvidia will be rebranding their 55nm G92 based GeForce 9800 GTX+ card to become GeForce GTS 250."

The 9800GTX is a rebrand 8800GTS 512Mb which more vram which is EASY for vendors to add, the 9800GTX+ is that same rebranded card just built at a lower manufacturing process.

Same story with the 9800GT which is just a 8800GT.

I'm sorry but this is all common knowledge, atleast so I thought.

Also, i meant 1gb+ of ram on that generation of graphics cards, which is the 8 series/9 series (which just so happens to be the 8 series)

Also, just becuase I build and sell thousand £ PC's doesnt mean I can afford to have one myself.

*EDIT*

Oh about the vram.

Good example here, The ATI 2900XT. It was 512mb on release, then they released a 1Gb version, but guess what... there wasn't a performance difference, past a certain amount of ram, the game just cant utilise all that vram, its known fact, then theres another point where the GPU can't utilise all the vram (like the 9500GT's with 2Gb of ram, its POINTLESS. It's just to make people think the card is better than it really is.)

However as time goes on, games get more complex and can utilise more vram, obviously. IL2 though, doesn't even use 256mb of vram (i've checked). And I run it at 1920x1200 + 16xAF + 16xAA @ max settings. So past 256mb vram, it doesnt matter how much vram you have, but go lower than 256mb vram, and there will be a performance hit.

BUT, say HYPOTHETICALLY, you have 8800GTX with 256mb, and say an 8500GT with 256mb, even though they've got the same amount of vram, the 8800GTX would performe much better. vram =/= performance. There's too many variables to consider to compare cards based solely on vram, just becuase one card has more vram than the other does not mean it's better.

With the case of the GTS250, is has 1Gb of ram over the 768Mb of the 8800Ultra becase the bus width of the GTS250 is 256, whereas the Ultra's bus width is higher @ 384, and so it can only rise in those increments. Admittedly if the GTS250 had 512mb ram it would've got a performance hit, it cant have 768Mb of ram due to the bus width, so the next step was 1Gb.

However the difference between the 768mb Ultra and the 1gb GTS250 is neglible, also due to the fact the 8800Ultra is better in some specs.

GOOGLE SEARCH if you don't believe me. It's not so much the fact you didn't know about this that bothers me, it's just that I read about this stuff every damn day and you're still claiming I'm wrong.


Sorry, obviously you don't have to believe me, but a quick google search and browse on a PC forum would reveal this info, there's no point denying it and misinforming others.

Hopefully I've made sense.

Seriously, we're still talking about this? No one said there wasn't rebranding, but you at first stated that the 8800Ultra was the same chip as the GTS250, and it's not, the former is G80 and the later is G92+. That's what he meant by mentioning your card rebranding mistake.

As for no games using a gig of VRAM, you should know better being on a flight sim forum, Rise of Flight has a meter on their graphics options menu that tells you how much VRAM would be in use with the settings you have selected. When you set the landscape to high, due to the large amount of large textures, in combination with AA and AF, the VRAM usage can get well over 1gb. What you say about VRAM was true maybe six months ago, but with the massive textures of todays games, that is no longer the case.

quote:

Originally posted by everclear180:

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.

If you want my config.ini file i can post when i get home. bu i know that last night i sat back and watched all the tracks (using the in game viewer, and the all_track file) and my average FPS for every single one was over 60, some high as 92, some as "low" as 60. The lowest FPS number as recorded by the counter was on the first track of the PF fighters set, (betty bombers attacking the carrier) and that was 30. The highest FPS i saw was 740, which i cant remember where but it was in a very low density area.

Sorry for the delay, been busy and off the computer the last little bit.


I ended up going back in drivers to 170 and worked my way up to the newest working drivers.

The problem is now fixed.

I thank you all for your efforts!

As to this nonsense:

"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 did upgrade.

From a 9600GS 512, designed to run off limited power supplies, to a GTS 250 1GB - the fastest card that my computer case will allow me to use with at 10.5 and only one slot available.

You actually need two slots available for the GTS, but I removed my IR to make room for it.

It also runs much cooler than than the 8000's and 9000's.


As a personal note, firstly, you should limit your comments to the topics at hand.
I posted looking for some guidance in finding proper settings, and some were gracious enough to offer advice.
You, on the other hand, used it as an opportunity to proclaim "lol", "get your money back", and blow smoke about building high end PC's for a living.
I think you'll find as you get older that you'll go farther in life by not assuming that you know all there is to know, and by being polite & courteous in your dealings with others.

And secondly.... and it makes the public-at-large's eyes roll nearly out of their heads when you claim to build high end PCs and yet have a computer more than several years behind the curve of even intermediate computer users.

Kids are buying back to school computers that blow the doors of your rig from Future Shop for less than $1000 CDN.
Might be something to consider the next time you decide to play the expert.


Thanks again to all who weighed in, much appreciated!

quote:

If you want my config.ini file i can post when i get home.

Hi Phil - glad you've got the frame rates up, but i was just trying to say (in too many words) that the config file posted at the top of this thread gives you the most eye candy IL-2's capable of, while the unmodified config, being more conservative, offers higher frame rates at the expense of slightly more pedestrian graphics (water and land most noticeable). You can either post your file, or simply rename it something like "config.inixxxxx", then load it in notepad, cut & paste the open GL section right from this thread (replacing the original one), and save the file right back as config.ini. The look will improve (though not dramatically), and, if the frame rates are still good - perfect. If not, just rename the new file as config.iniproblem", and rename your old file (the one with the xxx on the end) back to the original name. No risk, hardly any time wasted.
BTW, when i tried the latest-greatest driver from Nvidia, i think 190.1 beta, everything *but* IL-2 worked great, but IL-2 frame rates fell as low as 17fps (from a steady 59-60 with vertical clamp) Had to go back to 185 (on both win7 32 & 64). Oh, and in case you haven't checked this site out mission4today.com/index.php , it's an IL-2 dedicated site, with boards, all kinds of il-2 software, mission packs & skins, and ... good site.
Have fun.

I think you may be confused... i never had an issue with my graphics being bad or slow... they werent what i wanted after a reinstall to vista 64, and i found that to be my error... for some reason my ini files got mixed together, so a clean install was all i needed.

i never had an issue with low fps, and i am now using the 191.03s and i have a slightly higher result than i did with the 190s.

nothing too massive but an improvement still.

oh and ive been a member at Mission4Today for almost as long as i have been here..

this isnt new to me... not sure where that confusion came up.