Richrach

I have pondered this overnight and looked at it from a troubleshooting perspective. While I do not know the ins and outs of the DCS software, I do know troubleshooting very well as a test pilot, aircraft designer/builder, and avionics installer. I have a reasonable level of expertise in the basics. To really find out if the problem is embedded in the DCS architecture or is a resources (CPU/GPU/RAM/VRAM) issue, one has to do the following. 1. Tools needed: Software that can track CPU/GPU/RAM/VRAM usage real time. I use CPUID HWMon because it covers everything and works best for me. I would also run MSI Afterburner as it provides a graphic timeline that one can use to correlate the problem seen with where in the system the problem is. Lining up the graphs for each system should point out quickly what is failing or causing the issue or at least what components are experiencing the problem. Just knowing this last bit can go a long way to solving the issue. 2. Run DCS and recreate the problem. Take screen shots or otherwise document the problem for comparison. You now have the problem baseline. 3. Turn EVERY setting in DCS down to its minimum. Every means every, guys. Just turning off one or two things you think might be the problem is not going to cut it. You are starting out not knowing anything. Now is not the time to try to read the last chapter in the book. Start at page one, chapter one. To put it in simple pilot terms it would be like entering a dogfight with your landing gear down... i.e. stupid. If the problem goes away you now have the solution baseline. If it does not go away, you know the problem is not in your hardware being overtasked,a but actually does reside in the DCS program. Take screen shots, add them to the original baseline shots, and send them to DCS. Your work is now over and you can wait for DCS to solve it from their end knowing you have given them all you can to help identify and solve the problem. 4. If the problem went away start adding higher settings until the problem reappears. One at a time. The point problems reappear corresponds to the limits of your system. At that point one can try different combinations of settings to personalize the game to one's own taste. By way of example, I run 50FPS because the settings I use for that give me an excellent experience. I can vary the settings in different ways and get up to 65-70FPS but the feel is not as good as the 50FPS game. My choice based on subjective opinion. You may arrive at totally different combinations and that is fine. The bottom line is you have found the limits of your system in terms of utilization and can adjust for your own taste as needed. *** Again, if Step 3 shows the problem followed you to the minimum settings, it is likely in the DCS software. However, if you do not follow this procedure to positively verify what the issue is, one has no room to claim DSC is the problem because you have no way to back that accusation up. - Richrach, King of the 50FPS Hill!

Forgot to mention, I did start in DCS with an I5-4570 processor and a GTX-960 GPU with 8GB RAM. I progressed through different processors and GPUs, so I did play the game of upgrade-upgrade-upgrade before realizing I did not have to keep up with everyone else's reported performance to have fun. Having a blast now at my rock solid 50FPS. I hope you/they find the problem and iron it out. - Richrach

AhSoul, copy. In my time in DCS I have been in the camp or trying to eke out the maximum from my system. What is being described may well be a problem for some certain systems and players, no question. My experience tells me, with possible exceptions, it is still likely because systems are being asked to do too much too fast. This is why I posted all the info from my own system to players could check my data against their own observations to see if my input is helpful. If not? Over to DCS to smooth out the problem if they can find it. Thank you for your excellent perspective. - Richrach

The basic issue is this: What percent of your CPU, GPU, RAM and VRAM are being utilized? If you are maxing out any of these, you are going to get stutters and problems. Any means any. If you are only using 85% of your GPU, but your CPU is maxed out, stutter. CPU okay, but VRAM maxed out? Stutter. When you demand your system run at capacity, then shift all the processing to another entirely different screen/process, you are going to get stutter/freeze as the maxed out system must shed something to comply with your desire. Any of the four critical components being at 98% or more is going to buy you stutter. Nothing is going to stop that. (Note: If your CPU is in turbo mode, it is possible to register more than 100% utilization while still actually being below max load. See my screen shot in a previous post. The P-cores say they are at 111%, but the max is actually 139%. Temperatures, while not shown, for my CPU are below the mid-70s and the computer will run like this all day long without throttling. In the past, I would run the CPU high enough to generate 90 degree plus CPU temperatures and had near-legendary stutter issues... well no kidding.) So far, no one experiencing this problem has posted their utilization(s) from HWMon or anywhere else. That is why I did. I have zero problems since I dialed back my utilization and have eliminated the problems with stutter, lag, and freezing. I had all those issues myself until I throttled my expectations back to a level my system could handle. My system is less powerful than many of those complaining of having a stutter problem. This indicates the first place to look to resolve the issue is demand (settings too high), or a corruption of a file/files within the computer itself. Has anyone having this problem tried to turn EVERY setting down to its lowest and checked to see if the problem still exists? That would be the first step in true troubleshooting. If the problem goes away, the next step is to introduce higher settings one at a time until one finds the level at which the problem appears again, then dial back into the acceptable zone. Time consuming, but logical. - Richrach

I made a comment on another thread, but starting a new one toward Pimax specifically seems like the right way to get info to Pimax users. Having run the gamut of try this, do that, increase-your-FPS-by-2753%-to-2,000,000FPS-using-this-one-little-trick-on-a-GTX-960-card, here is where I have arrived. System: i5-12600KF, overclock 51/38 RTX-4070 undervolted to 925mV from 1070mV, capped at 2700MHz (down from factory OC of 2910MHz... yes, I said down). VRAM overclocked 1400MHz 64GB DDR4, 3600 MHz Pimax 8K Plus System capped at 50FPS (NVIDIA and DCS capped). Zero stutter. Zero playability problems. 100% fun. Please see the screen shots for the rest of my settings. I hope these are of value to someone out there. The bottom line is this: Are you here to "fly" a "sim" or is the fun for you in having the fastest system/getting one more FPS? I have been in both camps, and there is merit to both. If you are in the later, stop complaining about how DCS does not work well enough for you. If you are in the former, study everyone's input, test it on your own system, and get back to having fun "flying". - Richrach

Apparently, my write-up did not survive being posted. Here is the condensed version. The above post lists my settings and observations in the game. By capping FPS to 50 with the above I am getting zero stutter, zero problems, completely smooth play, and great graphics. I have tried all the suggestions in the forums and elsewhere for maxing out FPS, overclocking, tweaking, and the like. Here is where I have settled. It appears too many guys are so focused on maxing out their settings and are missing some key thoughts. Here is the synopsis: - CPU/GPU/VRAM/RAM. If you are maxing out any of these, you are by definition going to get stutter and problems. Maxing means maxing. At some point you will exceed the max, and when you do, stutter and other problems happen. It is not a sprint, it is a marathon. Plan/play accordingly. - If you look at my settings and utilization in the previous post, you will see I am well within the limits of my system. This means my computer is happy. Happy computer = happy player. Watch the following video, which is the best explanation of what I just posted I have ever seen. This guy deserves a great deal of respect for making it all so simple. - Richrach

I have not flown either model in DCS, but I did fly the baby Hornet in real life and got time in the F-14A simulator. They were radically different in handling and performance, not even close. The Tomcat was a traditional fighter, flying on the edge of stability for the sake of maneuverability. It was like flying on the head of a pin trying to maintain directional control. The Hornet with its fly-by-wire systems was very much like the F-16 in most respects, with the exception of the side stick. I will say the F-16 was the hardest modern jet to fly I have experience with because its side stick had so little movement. You had no real sense of proportionality to your inputs. Traditional sticks with their large movement arcs are much easier to fly in real life, even the FBW birds. Most guys I flew with hated flying the F-16 in the goo (IFR) because of the lack of real feedback from the controls. This problem transfers over to simulators as well, with the minimal stick movement most have. The extensions made for some sticks are a real boon for realism, as is VR. One person's experience. Your mileage may vary - Richrach

The past week has shown some interesting things that should find their way into DCS regarding SAM systems. 1. Operator, operator, operator. Israeli Air Defenses had a 99% success rate against drones, ballistic and cruise missiles shot barrage style. Iran apparently had a very poor success rate, nearing zero. Operator, operator, operator. Application to DCS>>> The lower skill levels modeled in DCS need to be just that, LOWER = INEFFECTIVE at the lowest setting. 2. Newer systems have serious weaknesses. The vaunted SA-10 and SA-15 combination was incapable of stopping Israel's attack. Whether or not it included aircraft or just missiles, these systems appear to have a negligible ability to shoot down threats. Of course the other side is Israel's defenses, Iron Dome, David's Sling, etc. were quite successful. Application to DCS>>> These systems (FSU/Russia/China) have too high a probability of success in the game and should be toned down accordingly. See #1, this may be due to training but could be modeled in DCS. 3. Historical evidence (Viet Nam, Desert Storm, Kosovo, and now Israel's back and forth with Iran) have shown SAMs have significant weaknesses not modeled in DCS. DCS has made SAMs ten feet tall when they are really just average height. SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 have clear weaknesses that have been exploited for decades and UNCLAS books and documents abound on these. In the game they can be show stoppers. AAA falls into the same category. The enhancement of capabilities for SAMs vs threats is genuinely laughable. If SAMs were as good as they are in the game, no country would bother with having an air force, they would just buy SAMs and call it a day. 4. As with the lack of an SA-7 equivalent threat these problems in DCS are significant oversights for such an otherwise incredible game. r, Richrach

I flew with women, petite women who could manage that. One of the best sticks I ever flew with was a gal in the TA-4J Skyhawk. She could outfly anyone 1v1 in that bird. It was amazing to experience. CDR Kimbell. Platinum blonde. Hot, in person and in a jet. Oh, the memories... Making me all nostalgic, Gunfreak.

That setting could be scraped altogether in DCS, for the sake of also easing and simplifying development. If a person cannot fly a Viper, there is no hope for them. The FBW system in that jet makes it so primitive a chimp could fly it in real life from BLK 25 on. Ditch the simplified model for this bird and save it for something that had analog flight controls.

Now that this goes all the way down to 12th Gen CPUs it sure would be great if it worked for DCS, IF it works for DCS. Sure could make life easier.

Tholozor, thank you for the clarification. Your answer demonstrates the problem perfectly and that I was right. These radars are significant enough historically to be included in the place-able unit category but are not found there. This is akin to the SA-7 being absent, which is also a significant oversight. Personal note: I have personally fought on and/or over three continents, and these radars were part of the EOB for all three. SA-7 was part of every pre-mission brief taking off from land bases. If people are serious enough to seek to fly MiG-21s, MiG-29s, SU-27s, F-4s, F-5s, Tomcats, and other aircraft of their era(s), this is an issue which should be addressed based on the fidelity of the experience they are clearly desiring. One old Warhorse's opinion.

just shutdown are restarted. No Barlock (Radar P-37) or Sidenet (Radar PRW_11) available for Syrian map. - What countries are they linked to? Should be USSR and Russia since they were designed in the Soviet. Screen shots of my game showing they do not appear in Air Defense for either Russia or USSR. If I am just flat missing it, point it out and I will sit in the corner with the "dunce" cap on. My scenarios are from 973, when Sidenet and Barlock were on the front lines everywhere. Have personal experience with both, operating and opposing. dcs.log

Both these radars need to actually be in the game. They are already modeled, obviously, since they are in the game's encyclopedia. As radars used throughout the world, even to this day, they are significant and worthy of the time to flesh out.

Flappie, this has not come up again in my missions. Must be a glitch in my system so I marked it solved. ???

Now, I do not know much about the sim world and people who enjoy flying in it. I do know about tactical aviation, specifically combat aviation, specifically carrier aviation. I can tell you from 25 years experience and nine combat deployments overseas there are NO GROWNUPS FLYING THERE. No grownup or even smart person would willingly do that in real life, and I include myself in that characterization. - Richrach

I have been through and done just about every combination of everything recommended on the forums and elsewhere to improve frame times and frame rate. What I have found that works best (i5-12600KF, RTX-4070, 64GB DDR4, Pimax 8KX set to large FOV, 1.3 render quality) is turning everything off in NVIDIA control panel except CUDA, Low latency, and Vertical sync to fast. DLAA, Antisotropic filtering 8x in DCS. No ghosting, solid frame rates at 50 (which I limit in DCS) and great playability. No OC on the GPU, my CPU is OC at 50 all cores, which is not as high as it can go (52P/41I), but going higher does nothing for VR and heats up the CPU too much for me. Done chasing the latest and greatest fad. Most are too specific to a particular setup. One fella's observations.

Flappie, it might be my system. I have not been able to reproduce the problem for a few days. I did have M-60's engaging and hitting targets as far as 4.138 Nautical Miles, not kilometers. Now, I will admit to personally having hit a tank at 4.5 NM with a 105mm... howitzer, but that was well within a howitzer's range. Oh, the good ol' days... I am working on a new mission in the same region that will use the M-60. If the problem comes up again I will bring it here, otherwise I will mark your last as the solution. THANK YOU for the support!

Silver Dragon, thank you for the clarifications.

Thank you for acknowledged the current "Persain Gulf" map should have been named The Straits of Hormuz or something akin to that. That this was the working name until it was actually put out tells me it was a political decision, not one based on the actual map. The historical conflicts in the region and the tensions there are not subjective at all. They are historical and real-world fact. If historical and actual geopolitical issues are not relevant to the maps offered, why offer WWII maps that are completely based on both? The reality is the Persain Gulf map offers the eye candy of Dubai (been there, too many times), but little else. The area of historical battles and probable future events all lie outside the confines of this map. Even the Straits themselves are not where the real fighting has been or will be. Look at where US Carriers have operated and will likely operate in the Gulf, none are found in the DCS map. Yes, I agree, a whole world map would be quite amazing. Until such is available, the smaller area maps should reflect history and actual spheres of conflict. To date in this region this has not been the case. I have been in or over almost all the countries we have been discussing, fought in most of them over multiple decades, and have many years of my life there in the cultures.

Okay, lets talk the title of the thread: Iran, Iraq, jordan, syria, and all of the middle east. Why is it none of the maps available cover enough area to actually have meaningful, historical, real-world, conflicts? Sinai does not cover all of Israel, not even to Jerusalem and the major air base at Ramat David. Same with Syria in the other direction and the major bases to the South, and again, Jerusalem. Jordan is not modeled on any of the maps in any meaningful way. Iraq is not modeled on any of the maps in any meaningful way. The Persian Gulf map does not cover the major areas and participants in historical conflicts. Qatar, Kuwait, Eastern Saudi Arabia, Southern Iraq and Bahrain are not modeled. Is it even realistic to call it the Persian Gulf... more like the Straits of Hormuz. Iran's wars with Iraq cannot be replicated, especially northern Iran-Iraq. Desert Storm? None of the maps available address the core issue which is this: What is available, either by accident or intentionally, prevents crafting meaningful campaigns over regions that have historically been contested, except in piecemeal fashion. Dude?

Sirrah, referring to the one they made two weeks ago, yes, I am aware. It was still juuusssssstttttt a bit late. The two weeks before the back end of a rollout window that has already been four and a half months is slightly off the mark. The issue is not the delay. The issue is not fessing up earlier and saying it might be late. Once they put word out of a possible delay (whatever the reason), all is well. Until then, are they just late? Did the company fold? Did the CEO take the hot programmer to Tahiti and not come back? Have space aliens landed? You get the idea. The time to say something might be late was two months ago. Then, if everything works out, everyone is happy and thinks you are great! It is about keeping that good relationship with your customers so they are happy to plunk down money early for the next product and the ones after that. Richrach

I guess I am happy a map for Afghanistan is now available to pre-order for the helo bubbas to play on. Still waiting for my last pre-order item to become available, the F-4 Phantom. Someday, maybe. 3 NOV 2023 Unleashing the DCS: F-4E Phantom II DCS: F-4E brings this cold-war legend to the skies of DCS, so strap in and prepare for a wild ride.” – Heatblur Simulations Today you can save -25% whilst pre-purchasing the DCS: F-4E Phantom II. This discount will not be available once the module is released to early access. Still strapping in... five months later... In my day an "Alert-5" meant five minutes, not months.

Building a mission on the Syrian map. M-60 tanks have a range ring in excess of 4NM and are engaging at that range with moving targets. T-55 has a range around 1.3NM. Chieftain MBT had a range of about 1.87NM. The later two are reasonable. Clearly, the M-60 105MM gun does not have a range like this.