Moezilla

@Flappie I remember you contacted Aerges about this issue when the MiG-29 LODs were added. As of the April 10th update there has been no change yet. Has it been acknowledged and work is ongoing, or does it need another bump?

I think it looks ok. The 12700k has 8 P-cores(which are hyper-threaded to allow 16 threads) and 4 E-cores. So 0-15 are the P-cores and 16-19 are the E-cores. Both the performance and efficiency classes that DCS assigns are sorted in descending order of power so the class 0 efficiency group is the most efficient (the e-cores), and the class 0 performance is the lowest (e-cores again). Maybe DCS choosing to exclude e-cores completely could help.

Reproduced with the Huey track posted by OP

Mag3 did add a new lower detail LOD which is transitioned to at 1000m. They also changed the cull distance from 20000m to 10000m. There could be some edge cases at very high FOV (e.g. 21:9 screens at min zoom), or if the new LOD slider is reduced below 1.0, where the MiG-21 model might be culled while still in visual range. I've seen anecdotal evidence about it but I haven't been playing DCS lately to test it, and the reports about 2.9 MP performance have left me uninterested in trying again until I hear about improvements.

@evilnate @Lasko @TobiasA - do you think it can happen on server startup and first mission load as well, or only when the next mission is loaded to a running server with attached clients? It sounds hard to reproduce, but an important issue to track down and squash.

Nice straw man. If your point is that some server owners should be on stable and some on OB, then as a player you can always ask them. Some might be happy to run stable for a while and let 2.9 mature and get to a state ready to be a "stable" release. But if, in the meantime, a map or aircraft is released into early access on OB, or the bugs are squashed in the next OB build, then I think the voices would rise asking to switch back to OB. It's a choice for server owners at the end of the day and, personally, I think OB is usually the right one. In this case, with the RAM usage issue (among others), there is a strong argument to revert to stable for servers with a heavy A2G focus and a high client cap. But, on the other hand, I've seen 2.9 run pretty well on a 60+ slot server with an A2A focused mission, so it's not all doom and gloom.

One of the latest bugs in the dedicated server wasn't spotted in closed beta testing but was spotted when the server was put under heavy stress by the MP community using the open beta build. If the MP community was only on stable then that bug would have been included in the next stable build. Also, long-standing MP bugs have been fixed due to determined open beta users not giving up on bug reports, even though they persisted across several builds, including stable.

A lot of important bug fixes that affect MP usually first appear in the OB branch. Modules launching in early access mode usually make their debut in an OB build. If the MP community switched to Stable there would be a lot less stress-testing of the OB builds and so, bugs would inevitably creep into the Stable branch.

The 5800X3D has a single CCD, so your data supports OP's contention that, on multi-CCD CPUs, DCS performance is degraded if both CCDs are used by the game.

MiG-29 now has lods as of DCS Open Beta version 2.9.0.46801 Thanks @Flappie for keeping us updated on this.

Thanks Flappie. The MB-339 has no lods. The MiG-21 and Mirage F1CE have lod transitions in their .lods file but some, or all of the transitions re-use the highest detail LOD0 model. All would be worth a bump as it has been a long time since these issues were reported to the 3rd party developers and no changes have happened. EDIT: I see you have reported the MB-339 issue. Thanks again.

Issue still present in DCS Open Beta 2.8.8.43704 @Flappie Is there a chance the fix will make it into 2.9?

Just ran the Huey track in MT with @abelian's tetrad tool to check for object build-up (craters and effects wouldn't show up here only units, weapons, etc) plus a combo of HWInfo, RTSS, and Task Manager to track system metrics. The only thing of note (and not unexpected) is that when the framerate starts to drop the GPU usage also drops, potentially hinting at a CPU bottleneck of some kind. RAM, VRAM and virtual memory usage as reported by the system are not out of the ordinary. The 20nm (~37Km) distance thing is interesting for sure, hopefully it's a useful hint.

Thanks for your work on this mod @Why485 It definitely accomplishes it's stated aims of mitigating the higher-than-1080p spotting penalty, and capping dot visibility at a reasonable limit. Hopefully this mod, plus the community poll and feedback, will inform ED's next changes to the dot shader, as this file will inevitably become part of the IC system very soon.

Issue still present in: DCS Open Beta 2.8.3.37854.1 DCS Open Beta 2.8.3.38090 DCS Open Beta 2.8.4.38947

Please add LODs for the 3D model to help improve performance on multiplayer servers. Fewer tris is important but also consider reducing object count in the LODs as DCS considers these when calculating lighting and shadows. This change would benefit all of the multiplayer community.

Issue still present in DCS Open Beta 2.8.2.35759 & 2.8.3.37556

This issue has been reported by @NineLine but it was handled inside a report for a different issue which has now been resolved and will likely be closed in the future. I'm creating this thread to have a place to track it's progress through different Open Beta updates until it is resolved. The MiG-29 variants in DCS do not have lighter LODs. Under certain conditions the full detail model will still render at a range of more than 75km. The evidence for this issue is the .lods file for each variant and the absence of relevant .edm files in the shapes folder. This issue is still present in DCS Open Beta 2.8.2.35632

That particular issue seems to have been fixed, and that's great, but more testing will have to be done on live servers to be sure that all sources of the objects have been found.

@BIGNEWY@Flappie I recreated the issue with the MiG-21 with a simple mission. When the MiG-21 jettisons the UB-32 pods with the S-5 rockets, 66 objects are created, 2 (the pods) are cleaned up but 64 objects are not (likely the rockets) and are shifted to the map origin point as in the original report when they reach the "ground". Thinking about the 76 objects in the GAW mission it is likely that the pods and other stores which are jettisoned together are counted in that total but only the rockets (hydra in that case) are not cleaned up correctly. So something like 8xpods + 56 rockets + some other stores could get you to 76 initial objects created. I hope these latest discoveries will lead to a comprehensive fix and the players won't have to create a track and report for every pod/munition combination. type99_jettison_test.miz

I know right now you need some tracks but I just wanted to add my separate confirmation regarding the jettisoned objects. This time it is from the MiG-21. Data was gathered on Enigma's Dynamic Cold War server using @abelian's tool. Two large groups of objects (58 and 66) seem to have been created by two separate MiG-21s who also seem to have been in close proximity. The groups of objects were created within roughly 2 seconds of each other and proceed to lose altitude until they reach 0 units of altitude and then their position shifts to the map origin point where they remain, as was reported by @rurounijones. The objects had been in existence for over 23 minutes when I left the server.

A v2.0 would be great but that will take some time and, as you say, will probably need to wait for the F4U to be released and post-launch bug-fixes applied, before it becomes the focus. For the multiplayer Cold War server enjoyers, adding even one lighter LOD to the current MiG-21 would make a big difference at busy airbases or in multi-aircraft dogfights. ED's multi-threaded update is coming, and will help, but it shouldn't be seen as a cure-all or used as a bulldozer.

The 3d model of the Mirage F1CE is very detailed and beautiful. But for multiplayer servers it can be quite heavy when there are multiple Mirage F1s close by because, at the moment, DCS multiplayer is very hard on CPUs when dealing with high object counts & shadows enabled. The F1CE LOD transitions at 50m and 100m still use the LOD0 model. Are the Mirage-F101/02 files going to be replaced with lighter models when there is time?

Thanks @okopanja , I have reported the issue on the bug tracker.

The MB-339 has a beautiful 3D model but it would be helpful for performance on multiplayer servers if there were some simpler LODs added. Multiplayer in DCS is currently very hard on CPUs, especially with shadows enabled, so reducing load where possible will help all players.