VAOZoky

To me Arma2 is much more then "game". I look at it as "war simulator" :smilewink:

Rocket got job at BI and free hands to develop DayZ further maybe even stand alone game

Is it enough or should i clock it more? As for gfx HD4850 is able to do: 1000000000000 floating point operation per second run outerra with much over 60fps and unless DCS can utilise GPGPU it should be more than enough to handle textures and render poligons or lack of them in DCS: Only thing that come to my mind is OPTIMIZATION!

I understand that I cant compare DCS with BF3 or Crysis graphics wise, but its comperable with FC2. While DCS sertanly looks betten then FC2 im afraid that so much increase in requirements is not justified. Im not trying to argue with anyone here, im just stateing how DCS performs on my computer.

So now you are saying that my cpu is bottleneck. So should i jump to future and grab one i90 32500k @42GHz so i can play DCS? Turn off HDR and they look same to me. About water: I already told that turning water to low dont produce same fps gain as it uset to in FC because they improved water quality. One thing i bet u didnt know is that FC/DCS engine render water even under ground. That is one of the biggest reason for fps loss between FC and DCS. When you make better comparison you will have right to bitch about mine. Again, turn HDR off and they look the same First thing: They are not even remotly same engine. BF2 use Refractor Engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractor_Engine and BF3 Frostbite Engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frostbite_(game_engine). Second: DCS engine is modified FC engine so i can compare them. Third: BF3 looks much better on low then BF2 on high. I couldn't find any BF2 screenshots but im preaty sure it doesn't look this good

If u can halp me in any way to find what is so gpu demanding i will be happy panda:) And ones again i play BF3 on daily basis with high-very high settings 2xAA and 8xAF with this "old and obsolite" 4850 so i simply cannot accept argument that its not powerful to run DCS with some normal fps. As soon as i finish downloading patch for BF3 (2+gb relised yesterday) i will make some screenshot with my settings so u can see what this card can actualy do. Untill now i didnt need to upgrade (but i plan to) because i dont use 3 monitors, i dont go nazi with AA and AF and i have only 19' screen with tiny 1440x900. And exept DCS im yet to encounter game that i cant run on high with my computer. S!

I dont think that its good to have that high requirement for DCS own sake. If u can play DCS only with top notch hardware then not many people will enjoy it and that is bad for anyone.

Funny thing u mention draw distances because me and my squadmates noticed how drawdistances in DCS look somewhat poor textured and blury compared to FC ones

As u can see FC max setting look much better then DCS:W lowest possible and still has better fps. The "there is more then meets the eye" thing is the problem because there is obviously some performance leek.

I hope you're right

right click anywhere on desktop and open ccc/info page/ software

Somehow its not too old for Crysis with HDR, shadows, AA, AF and all other goodies. This just proves my hypothesis that DCS in not well optimized

In FC yes and in DCS no I used to have them on until 1.0.1.0 and after that my fps got huge hit so i had to turn them off

I know that HD4850 in not top-of-the-line anymore BUT if its good for Crysis, BF3, Arma2 etc. why cant it run DCS with some normal fps when DCS does not realy look that good to start with. Above titles have huge requirements but atleast they justify it with good looks.

DCS:A10C 1.1.1.1 is out of beta but still have bad performance

@Viper: what gfxcard do u have and what version of DCS:World u use? my specs: i5 2500K @4.2 HD4850 1gb 8gb RAM screen res: 1440x900

As i promised here are screenshots from my experiment (no AI, Gelendzik) FC2maxout (with ricardoHDpit): DCS:World mix of low-med-high that i normaly use: DCS:World all low and turned off everything i can: Now u see what im talking about when i say that DCS in super unoptimized

While i was sleeping i was dreaming of simple performance test for DCS (I know, I know, I'm crazy)*. Because Su25T has AFM in both FC2 and DCS:World we can compere fps on empty mision with no AI and no waypoints...only Su25T on some runway that didnt change model (like Gelendzik). This way we can see how much unoptimized/optimized DCS realy is. You need to turn HDR and some other stuff off before u do the test so that FC2 and DCS look same. I didnt test this yet because i just woke-up and had need to share this with you. *I have phd in matematics and comuter science

You didnt understand me well. I have that fps when i turn everything to low (usualy i fly with mix of low-medium-high with 2xAA). And all my previous posts in other topics about how u can gain significant fps by turning water to low arent true anymore. Last good version of DCS (performance wise) for me was 1.0.0.9. With it i got ~40fps and today with DCS:World i got ~25 at most with same settings.

Until someone make atleast FC quality sim with it, Outerra will be useless to me and i will keep bitching about DCS performance because I care :wub:

One more thing. In FC2 i get great fps. At last opfor i got over 120fps average with fps somethimes going over 200+ at max settings. Facelift of DCS does'nt justify that much loss of fps for me :(

I have i5 2500k @4.2Ghz HD4850 1gb and 8gb RAM and i have terible performance. At high quality i get ~18-20fps. At low i got ~45-50 over town and that is not acceptable. Dont even ask me what fps i get when i drop some bombs:mad:. Now if someone want to say that 4850 is bad card, well i get 35-40fps in Crysis with mix of high-very high settings. BF3 same thing. Shogun 2:total war DX9 benchmark high settings with ultra unit size 49.2 average fps with 2xAA and 4xAF. Another power-hog ARMA2 runs suprisingly well with 37 average fps at high settings (AA low AF normal) in dayz mod. My steam name is z0ky so u can check that im not makeing this up. I think that ED should stop with new features and fix (optimize) existing ones! Now that i think of it, i dont now single game/sim that runs bad on my computer. And here is the list of my resourse-heavy games/sims: Supreme Commander + Forged Alliance Shogun2:Total War Civilization 5 ArmA 2 + OA Crysis + Warhead + Crysis 2 Skyrim Battlefield 3 + Back to Karkand FSX + REX + GEX + UTX max settings ~25fps over large city at night Silent Hunter 5 ... Every one of those supports quadcore and that's the HUGE problem with DCS. It supports only 1.1 core (0.1 goes to sound engine). I've seen screenshots of nevada with fps counter and it does'nt look optimistic to me (76-114 on empty map with F2 view). I get similar fps in DCS with F2 view on map with AI (50-80fps). PS. my screen is 19' wide 1440x900

Oh u have new build (I want one too:))

I see same bug as Novum. In both tracks S25 and S13 goes higher then aimed and he fired within max engagement range

I had to remove it from registy too