I don't know if is possible or even good. But I think of all those guys I play with that won't buy RoF because their computer can not handle it. I would never want the great physics of this game dumbed down nor the AI. But maybe if the current great graphics would be swapped for something that is no more demanding than the games 10 to 12 years ago - then these friends could enjoy this great game.

I don't want to see the devs wasting their time dumbing down the graphics. We need all hands on deck pushing this sim forward!

I agree with Toadvine lets not take a step back.

Agreed, I just posted in another thread that I can't wait till budget permits a quad core and better video card, but meanwhile I run fine with the graphical settings turned down a bit and it still looks great. This concept is raised every time a new program starts pushing the limits of existing hardware, adopting a Luddite attitude is always an attempt to sweep back the sea.

EDIT- Just noticed your comment about wishing for graphics of 10-12 years ago to accommodate your friends?? Those people are living in the Stone age in computer reckoning. I'm a physical basket case in a power wheelchair on permanent disability and even I was able to have this machine built in 2009 in anticipation of ROF. Tell 'em to quit blowing their dough on beer!

=MFC=Gunloon

True about not going backwards. But I think graphic appearence is outstanding where it is. Little need to further that, at this point. I'd rather see developer effort go into improving FMs and weather modeling (windshear, thermals, etc.,) i.e. how things behave rather than how things look.

An of course the mind dumbing task of planting wind socks at every airfield.
_
/Bjorn

Just turn down the graphics settings man.

Odd request as you can turn down the settings...I've only just bought and I prefer HDR off for a start and bloom...the only graphics I feel could be improved is the landscape which looks cartoony as it is compared to OFF phase 3 HitR landscape, though I imagine it would require a total reworking...also no mans land needs some work..the planes are spot on and I feel work cans top on them totally....take OFF landscape with RoF planes and OFF campaign and you have the ultimate...

When I was an admin at Warbirds of Prey a couple of years ago, we had a guy complaining that he was having trouble running Il-2 after a patch. He was running Windows NT!

I was just thinking about what might be done for those retired guys who don't have the income to spend on a decent computer. I have a monster just built for RoF. But I have plenty on online buddies who are just scrapping by. I suspect turning the graphics down as far as possible would not be that big of help.

Yup, yup - and yup. Well said.

You're correct. I'm afraid if your buddies are using 10-12 year old computers they couldn't handle all the calculations for ROF's flight and aerodynamic modeling even if the graphics were wire frame stick figures. The devs do what they can to keep the workload light...I'm amazed my slightly-above-minimum-specs PC does so well, especially with the graphic enhancements of the 1.016 update...but time does march on.

=MFC=Gunloon

I thought you meant that RoF would look like Borderlands.

That would be fantastic.

Amen to that, i was astonished how well RoF ran on my aging dual core PC with a 1/2 than demanded 512 mb graphic card. I then bought a cheap and mediocre 1 Gb 9800GT card and it took a leap forward. I guess with a 280GTX or better i will not need a new processor as well.

The problem is more Win7 with its new but at the same time somehow backwards (lol) threading architecture ruining the framerate, rather than the hardware. The workload for this sim is still low if compared to FS X or so i think, and it runs much better on WinXP, than on Vista and Win7.

If you set the landscape graphics to "medium" settings you can still let the planes' details at "high", and the sim will neither look cartoonish nor stutter.
The RoF team regularly brings out new small updates after the major ones, caring for workload and playability, so i am quite optimistic - with the exception of being ever able to land the Nieuport 17 at full revs while only using the blip switch LOL

Greetings,
Catfish

If you want to play PC games/sims then having a system that can handle the software requirements adequately is a pre-requisite. Every hobby requires monetary input and this one is no different. I've invested a hell of a lot of money in kit, just to play flight sims - they're my only serious PC games - and I wouldn't have it any other way. I've enjoyed every minute, but my rig is now quite old and I can't run RoF in full graphic splendour, and I can't afford to upgrade.
What to do? Either give up my hobby or give up something else (in my case, beer , or maybe the wife ) in order to find the dosh for a new PC. I reckon BoB:SoW is going run pretty slow on this rig, except with all the bells and whistles turned down, so I'll be looking to find the cash somehow. But ask Oleg or the RoF guys to make a weedier version of the sim? Hell no. I want cinema quality graphics (or better) and a real-life feel to my flying, and long may game development progress towards it.

Cartoonish?



Dont see that

One thing I always appreciated about Il-2 was that it was scalable... even 1946 could be run on my 7 year old PC- not with all the bells and whistles, but it ran smooth. Compare that to CFS3, came out at the same time, ran like a dog on low settings and by the time I had a PC that could run it, looked awful. Il-2 code just seemed to be optimised a lot better.

Agreed. It took about five or six years before I could see Il-2 in all its glory, but no matter what it always played well.

I dont see the issue, on my system which is hardly top of the line, I can run off line single missions with most of the graphics at max. This sim, despite its beauty is not extremely demanding.


As others have said, you can turn down the graphics and they still look good.

If they can't run this sim then it's unlikely they'll be able to run anything that was made in the last 6 mos. seems kinda silly to ask for a graphically less demanding game doesn't it? You can go to Newegg.com and virtually build a PC for under 6-700 dollars less even if you know what to buy and you just have to cut corners, but realistically you can build a rig that can have some room for upgrading with enough cajones to run this or anything else for not too much. It really isn't that hard. and if you aren't sure it's a sure bet you know or can find someone willing to show you how. There's probably You Tube videos showing how to do it. Take the plunge, save some money, and learn how to make it yourself.

Considering you could build a mid end system for 500 bucks that can handle this game fine.. Its not The devs that should dumb down the game but your friends should ah you know actually upgrade there systems.

If they can't play this game, the hell they can't play any of the newer games anyway. Time for an upgrade it sounds like to me.