statrekmike

I really hope we get some kind of official comment about this soon. This isn't a minor issue and is especially glaring when you consider that many new players coming into DCS will not know that they need a computer that vastly exceeds the recommended requirements for "high" in order to get relatively consistent performance. Something needs to be done. ED needs to find some way to make the Supercarrier's performance at least mostly line up with the rest of the sims performance.

The F-14 has always been a bit worse in terms of performance when compared to the Hornet. Obviously it will be a bigger issue for some systems more than others but I can't say that there has ever been a time where the F-14 had higher FPS than the Hornet. I mean, the F-14 obviously uses much higher resolution textures and more intricate model work, it is going to be a bit heavier on systems as a result.

"Hypocrisy" may not be the right word. I mean, I consider myself to be very much on the "rivet counter" side of the overall equation but even I understand that there is really only so much that can be realistically simulated before you leave the scope of the intended simulation environment. As I said before. People who are looking for realism in DCS as a priority are not talking about anything outside of the aircraft, its various systems, and the procedures involved in using those systems. It is obvious that anything outside the cockpit isn't really within the scope of the simulation. Nobody is asking ED to come and kill them when they crash. Nobody is asking ED to make us file paperwork after every mission. You know that and I know that so lets not go to that extreme when it accomplishes nothing and only serves to make the overall discussion less productive.

So when you use the Supercarrier, do you not see a framerate drop at all? Is your framerate the same as it would be when using the older Stennis model or even a airbase? Even my friends with extremely high-end systems are encountering notable FPS loss even if it doesn't really impact the playability.

We know that Minsky's system is old. We know that it is a serious contributor to his performance issues. There is no reason and nothing to be gained by dwelling on that. This thread is largely about the overall performance issues with the Supercarrier and fighting over how old a user's system is isn't going to move that discussion in any useful direction. There is objectively a serious performance hit with the Supercarrier on EVERY system. It might not render the experience unplayable (especially for those with very high-end systems) but it is still a issue that needs to be looked at seriously by ED.

To be bluntly honest, I think that worrying about Minsky's hardware specifically misses the larger point. I agree that his hardware is past the upgrade point but that isn't really the crux of this thread. Let's use my system as a example. I run a i7 6700K, 32 gigs of RAM, have DCS installed on a m.2 SSD, and use a GTX 1070 as my GPU. I am running in 1080p so I have been able to run DCS at quite high settings without any significant issues. When I create a scenario where I spawn on a Supercarrier with a empty deck (aside from the default deck crew) and no other objects but my own aircraft, I experience almost a 50% loss in overall FPS. I go from a pretty steady 60 FPS to 30 FPS. This is especially the case when I look at the carrier's superstructure specifically. When I asked some of the guys in my group that have much, much better systems, they also encounter a significant loss in FPS when using the Supercarrier. It doesn't render the experience unplayable but it is a huge loss in performance that seems to be deeply connected to shadows. This tells me that there is a issue with how shadows are rendered and makes it a optimization problem that ED really should explore and try to solve or mitigate. To be blunt. Arguing about people with low-end systems will not help ED understand our issue and will only make it harder to actually get them to look at it seriously.

It is true that Minsky's GPU is quite outdated (and this will be even more of a issue when even mainstream games go beyond his card's capabilities when the new consoles come up (and minimum requirements go up across the board). That being said, Minsky's rig isn't exactly the whole issue here. So I have a few people in my group with VERY high-end systems (including ones with 2080 Super's in them). All of them have encountered a pretty severe framerate drop when using the Supercarrier specifically. This isn't to say that their performance is rendered unplayable. They just encountered major framerate drops when compared to everything else in the sim. The problem isn't if it is playable or not. The problem is that the Supercarrier goes above and beyond DCS World's base-level system requirements to such a degree that either there is something wrong in terms of optimization that really should be dealt with (perhaps shadows need to be tuned for the Superstructure area, I don't know) or the system requirements for DCS need to go up quite a bit to keep up. I don't have a bad computer (and easily meet the "high" requirement for the Supercarrier) but I still see a significant performance loss that doesn't really make a lot of sense. There is something going on that shouldn't be so flippantly dismissed as "you need a better computer" or something to that effect. Again. It isn't about if it is playable or not. It is about the total performance hit across even high-end systems that exceed the recommended requirements.

I see responses like this come up in these kinds of discussions and to be blunt, it doesn't really help to go to such a absurd extreme. I am pretty confident that you understand that your "reductio ad absurdum" example isn't what anyone really wants. What people want is DCS to continue to be a platform that tries its best to provide realistic, immersive aircraft to explore and interact with. Obviously there should be options for those that want to tone down the complexity (perhaps MAC is that solution in the long run) but this idea that it is either "make DCS accessible" or "I want to actually file paperwork, go through real-life briefings, and actually have a chance of dying in combat" with no in between is silly and doesn't help the conversation move forward.

I don't really think it is a "either/or" scenario. Additionally. I don't think either of us have any true, substantiated insight into what the rather silent majority of DCS players wants out of the sim. We can only really speak for ourselves and perhaps the trends we see in the very vocal minority that exists on the forums and in the somewhat larger subset of DCS players that engage with the community online in other areas. Here is the thing about my general preference towards "rivet counter" levels of detail (like circuit breakers). I like having it as a option. Obviously not everyone will (like yourself) but at the same time, you also are often not required to even interact with those deeper levels of simulation. Sometimes they are simply not essential unless the mission maker specifically requires it. Sometimes you even have options you can change that remove those deeper levels as a significant factor. Heck, in pretty much every module we have now, your average player probably only learns and interacts with thirty-five to forty percent of the system functionality and is perfectly happy with just that. The extra functionality is still there. They just understand that they don't have to interact with it. So with all that said. When you are quite likely never required to even interact with those circuit breakers and other "rivet counter" features. Why decry their presence for others that do go that deep? DCS may be complex but it seldom puts a lot of pressure on players to engage with EVERYTHING on offer system-wise. Finally. I hate to break it to you but even if DCS modules were to suddenly get rid of all the more complex system interactions, the sim would still not have much mass market appeal. Flight sims were big back in the day because the PC gaming market was smaller and generally older. The gaming audience is much younger on average now and several orders of magnitude larger. Obviously genres that target older, more financially stable gamers will fall by the wayside in the mass market. DCS being complex isn't what keeps it from being a mass market game, DCS being a combat flight sim in general is. The addition or subtraction of some of the more in-depth system interactions won't change that. To piggy back on your claim about Falcon 4 being the death knell of flight sims. Did you consider the larger context? By the time Falcon 4 came out, the flight sim genre was already on life support. The PC gaming audience was getting larger and younger. Suddenly shooters and multiplayer focused games like MMO's and the like became a lot more lucrative to publishers. Even less realistic survey sims like some of the Jane's stuff was probably not seen as worthwhile compared to more lucrative, safer bets like multiplayer shooters and MMO's. It wasn't that the flight sim audience left because the genre got too complex. It was that bigger audiences with different, simpler demands became the focus of publishers.

I can see where you are personally coming from but you should also be willing to consider that there are indeed players who do enjoy the option for system failures (perhaps as a way to add tension during a mission or to make a trip back to base more interesting). Having systems that are simulated finely enough to support full bit tests are systems that are simulated enough for interesting failures. That is the big reason why many of us want those circuit breakers and bit tests that you don't personally care about, we want those systems to be there so we can interact with them on either a gameplay level or a mission design level. You don't have to ever interact with them if you don't want to but don't be so quick to dismiss those that do.

So the first step in the troubleshooting process is to determine if your throttle is actually getting enough power to operate properly. Just plugging it into your standard issue USB 2 port that you might find on the back of your computer, the front, or even a USB 2 hub will not certainly not provide enough power and will give you the "ghost inputs" that you are getting now. Generally speaking, the X56 throttle needs to either be plugged into a USB 3 port on the computer or (preferably) plugged into a powered (and it is very important that it is powered) USB 3 hub. The hub is the most certain solution out of the two and will more than likely get rid of your issue. I had this issue myself and going to a powered USB 3 hub fixed it right up.

This misses the point of the issue. When I make a mission full of particularly demanding modules on a particularly demanding map (like the Persian Gulf), I certainly notice a drop in performance on my rig but it is one that makes sense based on what I have going on. I can understand how a bunch of Tomcats sitting on the tarmac on Al Dhafra can cause a noticeable performance impact. Even then, the performance impact is proportional and isn't severe at all. Keep in mind, I run DCS on a i7 6700k, 32 gigs of RAM, and a GTX 1070. I usually run DCS quite smoothly at a mix of mostly high and medium settings. I can't max out DCS comfortably but I can get it looking as good as I would expect for a computer like mine. Now. If I were to leave my settings as they usually are and place a single Supercarrier far out to the western edge of the Persian Gulf map (where high-detail terrain is too far away to render). I would see a 50% performance drop with only myself on the deck. I am not even talking about a lot of AI assets or static objects. Just me in a plane on a empty deck in the middle of the ocean. If I look at the superstructure of the carrier, my FPS drops more than 50%. This seems a bit much. It is still playable but if I want those frames back, I have to turn off shadows and to be bluntly honest, that isn't a real solution at all. That makes the game look awful to say the least. As another user said above. If this were someone that happens across a wider variety of conditions in DCS, it would probably be a sign that the minimum requirements have crept up and people need to catch up but we are not. We are talking about ONE thing that cuts performance in half and even recent 20 series cards are seeing a pretty significant (even if not unplayable) impact. There is something wrong here. Telling people to turn off major graphic elements or even raising the system requirements is a band-aid over a bullet wound. It is clear that there is a significant optimization pass required for the Supercarrier and that might mean ED will have to tweak some things to keep DCS in something even remotely close to reasonable and proportional system requirements.

I don't know if "spike" is the word I would go for. My point was that AI planes (especially those with high detail models like the F-14 and the like) will have a impact on performance if they are near enough. Likewise, the AI itself (regardless of the quality of the model/textures used) will obviously impact CPU performance. My larger point overall is that AI aircraft are not really the issue being discussed in this specific thread. We have always known that AI impacts performance to varying degrees. What we are trying to figure out is why the Supercarrier on its own is impacting performance in such a extreme manner.

The AI has always been a significant factor. It makes sense that AI assets would cause performance drops on one level or another. The issue we are trying to get to the bottom of here is why the Supercarrier itself (separate from any other AI or static objects) has such a massive performance impact.

What do you mean?

Assuming it is indeed the antenna that is causing the problem, I don't think they will need to get rid of it. Perhaps they need only tweak it so that it doesn't create such a nonproportional hit on performance.

To be blunt, it is indeed the antenna and its particular way of casting shadows that is causing the 50%+ drop in overall performance (regardless of how playable it is for various systems after such a hit), it really needs to be changed so that it still looks okay but isn't as taxing. It would be such a small, nearly insignificant cost compared to the performance that we would get in return. To be even more blunt, even if I were in the subset of players that has a 1080ti or a 2070+ GPU, I would still be hammering on this issue as hard as I have been. Maybe it would help if ED (or ED's community managers) could help us understand what exactly it is that is happening under the hood that is creating such a sudden, massive performance drop because as thing stand, it looks like this is a graphics issue and it is probably one that can be fixed (or at least mostly fixed) by adjusting some aspects of the superstructure model. Losing 50% of one's performance just by looking at the Superstructure doesn't seem intentional. Raising the system requirements doesn't really seem like a solution and it doesn't really acknowledge the reality that a good chunk of your playerbase now has to turn off important graphics settings just to get decent performance on one of your most anticipated modules. Again. I don't like being this harsh. I really do always try to see things from ED's perspective and tend not to react harshly to bugs and such. It is just that this one really is a big one and while some (those with high-end GPU's) may not notice the hit very much, it exists none the less and measures should aggressively be taken to mitigate that impact as much as possible for those that easily fall into the recommended requirements for "high" graphics settings.

I really do think that ED should take a very close look at where they can reduce shadow complexity on the superstructure specifically. If anything, if it does turn out that they can get it to run well on anything less than a 1080ti or a 2080+, they should find a way to provide a option for those with GPU's that "only" have 8 gigs or RAM or so.

That is odd, you would think there would be some (even minor) performance impact.

To be honest, while I agree that the system requirements (across the board) need to be adjusted upward, I do not think that doing it just for the Supercarrier is the right move. I mean, I know that a GTX 1070 isn't exactly a top of the line card or anything but a 50% drop in framerate just from looking at the carrier's Superstructure (again, on a empty deck) seems excessive to say the least. If this were a CPU load issue, I would probably be more understanding but since this is a GPU issue, I suspect that there are graphical aspects that could be downscaled to increase performance SIGNIFICANTLY while not really impacting the overall user-experience. If anything, it might be worth creating a alternate "skin" that can be enabled in the special options (or in the mission editor) that would cut some of the texture resolutions in half. Even that might make a dent in the framerate problem. A lot of us are aware that DCS is a beast to optimize due to the aging engine it is built on top of. We get that it makes things difficult in terms of the performance/visuals balance but unless ED is willing to make a RTX 20 series card the minimum requirement for "high" settings (and any shadows at all), it might be a good idea to explore other ways to ease the burden on systems even if that means lowering some graphical details when possible/practical on the carrier itself (and perhaps even the deck crew and deck assets as well). DCS and its component modules should still run okay on a 10 series card. It isn't so old a card that it should already be entirely out of the picture DCS-wise.

When I turned off vsync, my overall framerates when up a good bit. That being said, it is not ideal since I now have awful screen tearing and the framerate isn't steady.

So everyone who is having through, can you do me a favor? Try turning off vsync and see what happens. This may help us collectively narrow down the problem.

I appreciate the direct response and I also appreciate the difficulty involved in striking a balance between visual fidelity and economical use of system resources. That being said, I don't think it would be terribly wrong for me to presume that quite a few players are running 1060's, 1070's, and the like. It isn't like we are trying to squeeze high settings out of GTX 960's and 970's, the 10 series cards are still quite popular and capable. If the Supercarrier can't run with reasonable settings (as in, not turning off major effects like shadows or at least some low anti-aliasing settings) with a 1070, there is something wrong that needs to be fixed. Maybe there is some bug somewhere that is sucking up a lot of resources. Either way, the vibe I am getting here is that if we want to maintain the settings we can more than comfortably use in all other parts of the sim, we should expect to plunk down $500+ for a new video card. That seems kinda extreme to me. To be blunt, the Supercarrier isn't so visually elaborate as to justify the sudden framerate drop. Likewise, since the framerates only drop when you look at the superstructure, I suspect there is something going on with the graphics of that superstructure. Outside of graphics, perhaps this is a issue not unlike what we saw when the Harrier first released and all the various targeting pod, DMT, and other sensor images were rendering at once even when the pages were not selected. It could be something along those lines where there is some sort of supercarrier feature that is hogging up resources even when it is not used. Again, I really hate to be blunt but this massive performance drop seems like it is more due to some kind of bug than it is simply a matter of the Supercarrier being more resource intensive. As it stands, if someone wants to get as much out of the Supercarrier as they get out of DCS without it (in terms of graphics and performance), they will need a system that is better than even the recommended system requirements for "high" settings (outside of VR). This can't be intentional.

This is my feeling as well. I can understand that it will perform in proportion to its level of detail in the same way that older modules with lower resolution cockpits (like the Huey) tend to run a bit better than newer modules with much more complex cockpits. Still, even then, it is not a big difference. Right now, the performance drop I am seeing doesn't really seem proportional to the added model/texture complexity. It is too drastic and to specific to the superstructure to be a simple matter of not having a good enough computer (as if a i7 6700k, 32 gigs of RAM, and a GTX 1070 shouldn't be good enough anyway). Since shadow settings seem to have the biggest impact, I suspect that there is something going wrong in that department. Hopefully ED figures out a solution soon because as thing stand right now, the Supercarrier requires a significant, frankly unacceptable drop in settings in order to run even remotely well. This would be a bit more understandable if EVERYTHING else in the sim didn't run fantastic without dropping any settings at all. I am sorry for being so harsh. It is just a bummer to wait for something only to find that you can't really enjoy it due to a rather odd and unexplained performance drop-off. I am hardly one of those people that freaks out when something runs at 55 FPS rather than 60. I tend to be pretty forgiving in that regard. That said, something is clearly happening that goes beyond not having a good enough system. There is some kind of bug or issue that is making the shadows so costly on the Supercarrier.

Yeah, I have had the same experience. If I even have shadows set to low, I have SEVERE framerate issues when looking in the general direction of the carrier's superstructure. Even with all types of anti-aliasing off, I still encounter massive framerate drops. When I turn shadows off or turn them to flat (which is pretty much the same as having them off), the sim looks awful but I get a significant performance boost and it is playable even with my usual 1.5 SSAA enabled (to remove the distracting jaggies). The issue here seems to be shadows. As I said before, I think that this might have something to do with some of the parts of the superstructure where you have a lot of thin, almost "wire mesh" looking parts (like one of the spinning antenna's and some of the walkways). Those create very complex shadows and while I am sure it looks great for people with VERY high-end graphics cards, it may be a big reason why the Supercarrier hits systems with even GTX 1070's way too hard. For what it is worth, here is my suggestion. If it is possible, try to find a way to reduce the complexity of certain parts of the Supercarrier where you get that "wire mesh" look (again, one of the spinning antenna dishes and some of the walkways). Perhaps by having them cast simple shadows (as if they were a solid piece and not a bunch of relatively thin pieces of metal put together), we might see better framerates without seriously compromising the graphical quality of the carrier itself. Heck, perhaps even find a way to provide a "flat shadows for Supercarrier" option that will set only the shadows cast by the various parts of the Supercarrier to flat while the rest of the shadows run as usual. It wouldn't look as great but it would potentially solve the issue. I could be wrong about this but it is the only thing I can think of.