statrekmike

I just tried that, it didn't seem to do anything to overall performance.

I really hope the solution doesn't just become "if you are experiencing massive FPS loss, turn off shadows" because DCS looks pretty bad without shadows (and flat shadows for that matter). I don't really get how I could be a member of a minority here. My computer is not exactly a unusual build. I have a hard time believing that this is not a issue that effects everyone but perhaps having a very high-end computer helps brute force through the problem without much notice. That being said, I have put a lot of money into upgrades as DCS has come along over the years but I am not plunking down $800+ on a high-end GPU just so that the Supercarrier and ONLY the Supercarrier can run as well as the rest of the sim. My GTX 1070 should be enough to not see such a drastic drop in performance.

So I just spent some time messing with settings again. As said before, it runs okay when you turn shadows off or run only flat shadows. The moment you turn on low shadows or above, the framerate (specifically when you look at the superstructure) goes down quite massively. I have a theory about this. When looking at the carrier model in detail, there are a lot of railings, cables, and even some of the antenna that really stack up the shadow rendering count. Perhaps some of these shadows could be removed and perhaps the antenna shadow casting ability could be simplified. I know that might bother some but it is a VERY small price to pay for reasonable performance on even rather decent systems. At the risk of sounding like I am pestering. Was this something that came up during the extensive testing? I can't imagine that everyone doing testing is running a bleeding edge gaming rig with at least a 2080 under the hood. This issue isn't exactly subtle and makes itself VERY visible even on systems that can otherwise run DCS like a champ. To put it bluntly. There is clearly something wrong. It is one thing if performance were to take a big hit with a VERY busy deck with lots of Tomcats or something but even on a empty deck, the performance takes a MASSIVE hit when you look at the general superstructure area of the ship. This can't be by design, it is far too drastic.

Unfortunately, for anyone still using a 1080p monitor (not a insignificant amount of DCS players I would wager), some kind of anti-aliasing is required because DCS looks pretty rough without it. I am sure this is less of a issue on 2k and 4k monitors but turning off anti-aliasing isn't a solution as much as it is a rather drastic band-aid over a sucking chest wound.

I can concur when it comes to shadows. When I turn them off, my framerates shoot straight up. Since turning off shadows isn't a real option (since it makes the sim look outright awful), it might be worth looking into finding ways to simplify the shadows or reduce them wherever possible. If anything, this may allow the Supercarrier to run well on systems that normally fit well inside the recommended requirements for "high settings". I hate to be such a bummer about this. I don't like being this forceful but this is a big deal. While people shouldn't expect great results with a GTX 960 or some other outdated card, they should expect at least reasonably decent results with a better card like a 1070 or similar. A GTX 2080 should not be the minimum requirement to run the supercarrier even remotely as well as one runs the rest of the sim.

Nobody is debating that the Supercarrier has a higher graphical detail level, higher resolution textures, and a generally more complex model. That is obvious. Likewise, it is obvious that even in the best possible scenario, the Supercarrier would not run as well as the older ones. Again, nobody is debating this on a basic level. What we are debating is whether or not the rather dramatic performance hit we are seeing is ONLY the result of more complex models and textures or if there is something else dragging performance down. Beyond all that, we REALLY need to move past using those with 9 series GTX cards as the ONLY example. I have a GTX 1070 that I run on a 1080p monitor. By all rights, I should see at least reasonably decent performance with the Supercarrier with my current setup because the rest of DCS runs fantastic for me. Sadly, I do not. My performance is cut down more than half and to be bluntly honest, I can't really see why that is. I know that the models and textures are better than the original carriers but are they so much better that I should be seeing less than half my usual performance? If this is the kind of performance that ED desired and intended, the minimum system requirements for the Supercarrier module should shift DRAMATICALLY upward and that will sadly create even more hurdles for new players with systems that would normally run DCS perfectly fine. The performance we are getting now is not really okay. I don't normally get like this about DCS and usually I am quite quick to forgive their technical issues but the idea that people with GTX 10 series cards should just shut up and get 2080's is absurd to the highest degree and does NOTHING to confront and hopefully solve the issue.

Some on this thread keep saying this but it doesn't really tackle the real issue we are talking about. Saying "You need a 2080+" to get the supercarrier to run as well as EVERYTHING ELSE in DCS doesn't really make any sense. The performance issues we are seeing here are not reasonable and saying "just get the newest possible hardware" (or something to that effect) will only make it harder to actually discuss the issue. People who are getting good performance in ALL OTHER parts of the sim should not be told to get better hardware just to get this one, singular aspect to work even nearly as well.

Turning off the shadows makes the sim look awful. You are correct that it is a good way to get performance back but it is not a real solution considering the visual cost.

My point before was that maybe some of those high res textures could be dropped down. As it stands, there is a unacceptable difference in performance between using the supercarrier and not using it. There really shouldn't be that huge of a performance gap. We all expected a minor hit due to the higher detail models and such but this is a MASSIVE hit and with the system requirements for DCS already quite high (and the rather beefy systems people are running in the DCS fanbase as we speak), the hit we are seeing is just too much. If this is a issue of too many high resolution textures, they should either offer lower resolution alternatives for those that wish to use them or create a specific setting to use lower res alternatives. The goal here really needs to be a relatively consistent performance experience with or without the supercarrier. Right now, the difference is massive and undeniable.

That was the first thing I did and performance was still significantly lower on the supercarrier when compared to anything else in DCS right now. There has to be more going on here than simply "get a better computer" or something to that effect.

I agree that comparing it to the older Stennis model is silly but comparing supercarrier performance to performance without it should probably be the focus here and right now, it isn't looking very good. To be honest, I gotta wonder if this is a issue where there is TOO MUCH going on with the supercarrier. Perhaps some options to downscale the textures would help?

My PC is not low-end and the performance hit I am taking by simply spawning on a empty supercarrier deck is pretty severe. The problem here isn't the specs that people are running, it is the MASSIVE performance hit regardless of specs. It is one thing if we lost a few frames here and there but it seems like there is some kind of major optimization issue or even a bug that is causing the performance hit we are seeing here. Seriously, I can do ANYTHING ELSE in DCS and get fantastic framerates but the moment I spawn on a empty supercarrier, my framerate nosedives. That can't possibly be what was intended.

Yeah, I am running a i7 6700k, 32 gigs of RAM, a GTX 1070 (at 1080p through a monitor) and I am seeing a rather massive drop in overall performance overall. Heck, I am seeing a significant drop when it is only the Supercarrier with a empty deck (save for a single player aircraft that I am occupying) and nothing else in the mission. This must be a bug or something. There is more going on here than simply not having the right hardware. If anything, they may need to offer a option to downscale some of the detail in order to offer acceptable performance on a wider variety of systems. As of right now, even high-end systems are getting hit pretty hard to say the least.

Why add a slider when there are already controls in the cockpit that can control brightness of the various displays? Why not just make those functional instead?

Speaking for myself? Yes. I mean, not all the time but I would at least like the option to fly a authentic feeling mission for the DCS module I buy. That is the key point here. Thus far, ED and third parties have smartly kept to aircraft that operate on a scale that works for the maps that we have and will have in the future. While it is possible for players to fly very abbreviated missions with the modules we have, it is also possible for a certain subset of players to create and fly authentically scaled missions quite comfortably. If ED or a third party were to suddenly start doing large strategic scale aircraft, it would not be possible to create realistic/authentic feeling missions for them AT ALL. I am sure that some would still have fun with them regardless but I suspect that ED wants all the modules to have at least the potential for a mostly realistic/authentic mission in the framework provided.

There are more than likely two (probably controversial) issues that really need to be considered. 1.) The B-17 was strategic bomber and a big part of its design (and thus flying experience) was based around range, high altitude performance, and everything that goes with that. While I know this is something that some will balk at, DCS maps are simply not large enough to really support a B-17 taking off, flying to the target, and landing without the experience feeling rather abbreviated to say the least. 2.) Multi-crew is still kinda coming into its own for DCS and the B-17 would really, really require good, stable, fully functional multi-crew on a level that would at least be difficult to develop. If you were to suggest something smaller like the A-20, Blenheim, or the like, I think they would be a good fit for DCS's obvious emphasis on tactical (rather than strategic) scale aircraft operations. Likewise, the fewer seats and positions, the easier it would be to make.

Just follow the procedure to bring the gear up or down and observe the indicator on the cockpit. I am not sure what else to tell you.

Going from tricycle landing gear jets and even prop planes (like the Yak) to tail-draggers is difficult. You really do need to kinda change how you think about ground handling and you REALLY need to pay attention to how much throttle you are applying and how fast you let the plane get on the ground. Just taxiing is a process you will have to practice. It is hard at first but if you take things REALLY slow, have a VERY light hand on the throttle, and understand how the differential braking or even tail-wheel steering works (depending on the aircraft) FULLY, you should be able to get the plane from parked to the runway. Take-off is another difficult thing. You need to pay attention to the steps as they are outlined in the manual and like taxiing, you need to have a good handle on throttle control and not apply throttle too slow or too fast. You need to be smooth and deliberate as you add power but you don't want to take too long about it. Again. This is something you will need to deliberately practice and accept that there will be more than a few burning airplane wrecks on the side of the runway as a result of your efforts. Some other helpful hints. 1.) When you go to take off, ONLY use as much flaps as you REALLY need. In a relatively clean configuration, most WWII aircraft in DCS don't really need flaps for take off and having your flaps out too much can make it harder to take off without stalling and winging over into the ground. If you are carrying a heavy load, only add a bit of flaps. If you are clean, don't bother at all. 2.) Every WWII aircraft in DCS has some form of trim and there is a specific way you should set that trim to make your life easier on take-off. This is especially the case with the P-51 and Spitfire where rudder trim is really, really important. 3.) Precise and careful rudder and differential braking will be required during the take-off roll. It takes practice and a willingness to really learn how to properly do it but once it "clicks" in your head, you will find take-offs pretty straightforward. Like taxiing, less input is better. Be careful about how much rudder and brake you are applying and don't let the aircraft get ahead of you. Practicing is going to be a important factor in getting this stuff right but what's more important is practicing good habits and actually learning the correct process (and not just some vague one you might find on youtube that may actually make things harder for you). It is frustrating at first but given time and a bit of elbow grease, it is something you can certainly get pretty good at.

You are speaking of the F-5 in general and in that sense, you are absolutely correct that it was (and probably still is) used as a front-line combat aircraft in some nations. That being said, I am not talking about the airframe in general, I am talking about the very specific version that is modeled in DCS. The version we have is the DACT version through and through and its capabilities reflect that.

The book 'Black Aces High' really digs into the air to ground operations of Tomcats in Kosovo. It is a pretty solid book and does get into quite a bit of detail about how well the Tomcat performed in that role.

You can be a bit rougher but it is like any other aircraft in the sense that you do need to be aware of stall speeds and such. If the MiG-21 is giving you trouble in that regard, it might be a sign that you should work on developing a lighter hand on the stick since that will help you in not only the MiG but also every other module (including the F-5). The radar is a interesting thing. Like the MiG-21 an the MiG-19, the radar isn't really meant to search for targets at all and is more of a fire control radar for your guns once you are in range to attack. You would not really use your own radar to find targets anyway as other external radar assets are going to be guiding you to the target anyway (like AWACS or some form of GCI). The F-5 module is great as long as you understand what you are actually getting. The version we have is essentially more of a air combat trainer (it is specifically modeled after a DACT aircraft) and as such, it isn't really intended for front line combat scenarios. You can "get by" in such scenarios but you will inevitably see why the versions of the F-5 that got exported and used as front line combat aircraft were modified over time to be more combat capable with better radar, more avionics, and more reasonable weapon selections.

Do you really think the USAF would use a F-16 in combat that can't use most of its air to ground weapons, a good chunk of its navigation system, and many other missing systems?

We can all get into loud arguments about this but at the end of the day, it is ED that holds the final say and perhaps we should MAYBE consider that they may have their own reasons to not include such weapons. Perhaps it does simply come down to only using weapons that are available on a very, very specific airframe during a very specific timeframe but maybe it goes beyond that. Maybe ED was simply not able to get the minimum amount of documentation that they require to feel comfortable implementing such a thing. Perhaps they were told that such weapons would be a no go for them as part of their relationship with Boeing and the like. It is easy for us to say "it would be easy! Why don't they just do it already!" but there may be more to it than simply ED not giving you what you want for the fun of it.

A simple "photo mode" with perhaps a filter applied is probably the most useful and least difficult to develop. It would probably not be useful for the kind of scenarios that are often favored on public servers but it would be a fantastic tool for smaller private groups who want to do campaigns that involve taking pictures in one flight that would be used for briefings in the next mission.

Oh please. If it was a "pre-order con", they wouldn't have so clearly laid out their intentions and what issues they are dealing with right now and in the near future.