Sharkh

I have read the history of the FW-190 not so long ago and my guess is tha a part of it might come from the different armaments. The A8 had 4xMG151 on the wings while the older models from A3 mostly used only 2XMG151 and 2xMGFF(lot lighter than the MG151) and for example the A3 used MG17 what was also lighter than the MG131 used on the A8. I think some model had smaller internal fuel capacity . The A8 also carried more bigger caliber ammunition obviously so it also adds to its flight weight. Some additional weight must come from somewhere else reading the original data sheets and comparing the weights between different models so I would guess that these extra weights might come from additional armor protection .

I have tested the different MSAA and SSAA setting with a prerecorded short low level flight on my system (FW-190D9 instant action Takeoff Normandy with lots of trees everywhere and also buildings) What I found that there is no point to use SSAA 2.0 because the performance impact is so huge and the difference between the 1.5X and 2.0 barely noticable and that the MSAA 4X and 2X although seems less power hungry but somehow it felt it does more micro stutter. The datas of my tests also confirm this that the MSAA does more micro stutter. (at least on my sytem) So personally I found the best to use SSAA 1.5X or NOAA at all. My results (using the afterburner benchmark). DCS:World OB 2.5.6.47404 (my settings at the bottom) (used extreme visibility and almost the highest settings trying to maximize the impactof the AA) NOAA Average framerate : 81.1 FPS Minimum framerate : 66.3 FPS Maximum framerate : 99.3 FPS 1% low framerate : 64.7 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 39.6 FPS MSAA-2X Average framerate : 75.4 FPS Minimum framerate : 46.8 FPS Maximum framerate : 97.1 FPS 1% low framerate : 38.6 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 26.3 FPS SSAA-1.5X Average framerate : 68.4 FPS Minimum framerate : 53.8 FPS Maximum framerate : 93.8 FPS 1% low framerate : 53.5 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 38.2 FPS MSAA-4X Average framerate : 68.7 FPS Minimum framerate : 46.4 FPS Maximum framerate : 96.5 FPS 1% low framerate : 37.5 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 26.3 FPS SSAA-2.0X Average framerate : 52.8 FPS Minimum framerate : 41.3 FPS Maximum framerate : 68.6 FPS 1% low framerate : 37.9 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 30.1 FPS Maybe on different configs the conclusion would be different but I though this might be useful for someone with similar system who don't have the time or the will to test these for hours. :D My settings I used for my tests

Have you tried the "adaptive half" vsync in the nvidia control panel? So if you have a 120hz screen than I guess it will lock the fps at 60. I have a differrent device for head tracking and I have 60hz screen so I just use the built in Vsync to lock the fps at 60 and I found this the best and everything is smooth. (Locking my fps at 60 without vsync feels worse.)

It might not be the best but I got better results consistently the lower I set it and the lowest setting I have tried was 50. Maybe different configuration will produce different result . I have just wanted to post about my experience that the maximum settings might not be the best in every case on every system.

I know this thread is old a bit but I just wanted to add my 2 cent in case someone finds this thread again since it was the first google find for me just now looking for the answer for the same question. So with the hardware seen in my signiture even though most of the commenter said set it to max is a good option for better PCs my experience is the total opposite. I have created a 2 min replay for benchmarking reason at Normandy flying the FW-190D9 from takeoff so I can record the datas of the FPS more consistently and get some idea how can I fine tune my DCS graphical setting to get the best performance with least graphical fidelity loss. It turned out this setting on my hardware when maxed out(at 150) only does more stutter than good . Also looked less smooth to my the eyes. My test was done with the beta 2.5.6.47403. (Using Ultra Visibility settings and almost everything maxed 1080p) At 150 my the results. Average framerate : 82.6 FPS Minimum framerate : 1.9 FPS Maximum framerate : 101.1 FPS 1% low framerate : 35.4 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 1.9 FPS At 100 Average framerate : 86.2 FPS Minimum framerate : 40.9 FPS Maximum framerate : 106.9 FPS 1% low framerate : 45.4 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 2.1 FPS And with 50 Average framerate : 87.9 FPS Minimum framerate : 41.9 FPS Maximum framerate : 106.9 FPS 1% low framerate : 59.6 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 2.2 FPS So I stick with 50 for now. It seems set it to the max it does not help always even when newer hardwares are used.

I am not sure if these engines when they were "brand new" and had been used probably very frequently blew out a grey smoke like that on startup.

I have experienced the same thing flying Bf109 and the Fw190d9 so its not just me? :D I feel sometimes the engine lose its power slowly if I use it roughly so the maximum speed decrease noticeably but the bird still able to fly without much issue. The engine won't stop but after a while it starts to stutter more and more than shut down. So there are obviously many stages of damage now. I don't have too many hours flying these moduels but two years ago I don't remember I have experienced things like this flying the Dora.

You can try to use reshade . You can tune the colors to your liking easily using different color correction shaders and curves.

Really interesting discussion. I have only a few dozen hour with the D9 but what i noticed recently compared to what I have experienced playing the Dora about two years ago that sometimes I don't know why and how but now I felt it quickly lost its power because after a short climb what last only about 2-3 minute with mw-50 the maximum speed dercreased drastically while I don't remember it was like this back than. (back than I just lost engine power for no reason :D) I have just experienced the same thing a few days ago with the bf-109 btw. So I am not sure if I did something wrong and its just that the cooling system modelling became more accurate in the past two year and my "wrong doings" had no consequences back than just the way it has by now. Maybe I am wrong but as I remember I have read something at this forum somewhere about "code rewrites" of some old codes about how systems like cooling are programmed and all this in preparation of the new upcomming damage model update so its also worth to consider that these differences in top speeds might be due to these work in progress system changes like new codes in the systems like cooling or MW50 itself.

My other 16GB memory came and installed so I just wanted to report back. Fw-190A8 "Instant action - freeflight". Same stutter same fps drops. It can be still the mission I guess but still this noticable fps drop is strange compared to the performance playing anything with any other module.

Nice catch! :) I haven't seen this either yet.

Personally I also find the trees looks sometimes bad or unrealistic because from specific light and day settings they looks too sharp around the edges so their 3d models can't blend together viually like real trees would from distance and stand out each as a separate model with something like a "halo" around them what makes them look a bit artifical . DCS is a combat simulator so I guess performance is the priority here over visuals but still I think DCS do its job really well with its graphics. But this effect botherhed me a lot so I decided to download reshade with every available shader available with the hope that maybe I can eliminate this a bit somehow. (I have never felt I need reshade for DCS before. ) I found a custom shader "FilmicBloom.fx" (I don't know why its called bloom when its effect feels like blur) and with a specific setting this shader could make the trees look a bit more natural and realistic to my eyes but there is a drawback that everything looks a bit more blurry but its nothing drastical but I am playing only singleplayer on flat screen so for MP it might be a handicap. I started to use some other shader (but nothing drastical) what makes DCS trees visually a bit better to my liking like curves or tonemaps and using SMAA or FXAA of reshade instead of the built in MSAA of DCS. I suggest anyone who have small complaits about the visuals of DCS that its worth a try and there are many many shader available so maybe one of them will be able to smooth these a bit with little peroformance cost.

"don't seem to understand that any plane can boom and zoom" Sure just like how any plane can turn. ehh Btw I doubt that the boom and zoom tactic means hit and run only... I think It means you play with your energy advantage over your opponent and not that you will run after your first attack missed. Just because every plane can boom and zoom that does not mean that it has a point to do so and all of them have the specifics to use this tactic efficently. I mean not every airfract will gain the same speed while diving or have the tolerance to high speeds and g loads. Or have the same climbing power. So if a plane have this advantage in boom and zoom while disadvantage in turn than that plane shouldn't engage in level flight but use boom and zoom what does not mean fleeing. Depending on the altitude and the specific of the plane climb away or dive way while trying to make you opponent follow while doing specific maneuvers to force him to lose energy than turn the table with your extra energy gained over your opponent due to your frame having and advantage in these maneuvers. I am not an expert but personally I feel that executing the boom and zoom tactic in 1v1 combat efficently is not easy at all and it does not mean fleeing from combat but trying stay out of fireing range than engage only when enough advantage of speed or height is gained .

Sure but I guess if someone wants to play a simulator with 4k or in VR than probably have the budget and the will to buy the best GPU and the best CPU available. I wonder if your complaint about 10-20fps on ground was with 4k or in VR ?

What I could read up about the anton is that its more heavy with similar engine power so I wonder if those reports did cover every little detail. I mean I am not an expert but I guess its also possible that a pair of MG151 or other heavy "not essential parts" of the bird had been removed to increase their overal performance in dogfights against the spitfire IX when it was necessary. Like how could they have a chance when according to the technical spreadsheets available the A8 had about +800kg weight to carry with similar engine porwer. For example I have read that the cover plates of the landing gears had been removed from the Bf-109 in some situation or there had been Ace pilots who asked one pair of their MG to be removed to gain additional performance to help them in dogfights. Beside the comparison reports might not take the pilots combat experience under consideration.

I had only a simple GTX980 and and an AMD FX8350 no so long ago but even with that I could get 30+ frames on the ground with maximum quality settings with lots of other vehicles moving around. The last time my fps went to 10-20 on the ground was with DX9 and the DCS 1.5 and before or now when trying to play missions what needs more than 16GB ram for smooth gameplay but I only have 16 than it drops significantly . Personally I thought that most of the gound performance issue was solved with dx11 after 2.5. You don't need 2080ti at all for flat screen 1080 stable 60fps gameplay a better CPU is more important I guess.

Really? Good to know. My only ww2 module is the Dora and I like it and its sound already but not so much as the BF109 so I am looking forward to it. I think my next module will be the BF-109 because I realized I like it better than my Dora and this sound will push me over the fence :D not to mention it also has DLC content available and lot more user made files . The Dora barely has anything to play with. :( I hope that will change in the future.

I have just tried out all the WW2 warbirds a few days ago thanks to the opportunity of the Free for All month and I have to say I am really impressed by the sound of the BF-109K4 . I felt its sound quality really stands out from the rest but I was not sure if its just that the real BF109K4 really have so much better sound to my ears compared to the the rest IRL these sounds recorded from as a source or it is due to a recent update. I have just watched the interview with Nick Grey about ED's upcomming P-47 module and at 53:20 where he mentioned that the BF-109 module has just got a sound update. I told myself "Hmm.. Is this why?" So I am really interested about this subject of the upcomming sound improvements of the modules especially the WW2 warbirds using the new methods and equiments recoding their sound and I wonder which module will be the next which one will get this kind of overhaul and when can we expect these to happen? Are these imrpovements going to be noted in the patch notes or we will have to check them out from time to time to find it out? I have no idea how did the the BF-109K4 engine sound before this update but now I think the engine of the BF-109K4 sounds awesome compared to the rest! Especially from flyby perspetive.

"non nazi" skins? The default liveries are non-nazi skins already. The only markings these default liveries have are the same markings the german airforce uses till to this day on their F-16, Eurofighter , etc. . Personally I downloaded the original nazi liveres for the german aircrafts and I wouldn't mind to use original USSR liveries either or Japanes or whatever. It doesn't mean that anyone who use these does support these ideologies its just mean that just how I choose to play a simulator for its realism for same reason I would like to use historically accurate liveries. I guess they censored these default liveries exactly not to get people offended at the expense of historical accuracy while it seems it was not enough because there are opinions like this based on false interpretation of these different markings.

Is there any chance its the free flight mission of the Anton? I ask because I had the same issue with the Anton with the free flight instant mission but my guess is that its the mission itself what cause the fps drops because of its memory requirements and I have also only 16GB just like you. Than I have created a custom mission myself for normandy free flight and with that my FPS was normal.

I have just watched the whole interview and haven't heard anything as such. Yes, there was a question around fifteen minutes in the interview where he answered with huge enthusiasm talking about the British and USAF WW2 airplanes and said something that after they have made these modules "they had to made the German planes whatnot". I think just because he sounded less enthusiastic about these airplanes and it could give the impression that they were only needed as an opposition by that time that does not mean at all that ED does not care these modules. Its just that they are not Nick Gray's "favourite". I am pretty sure that most of the people who have been involved creating these modules and now take care them are just as enthusiastic about them as him about other WW2 planes. Beside I noticed that he also mentioned that the BF-109K4 have just got a sound update and realized why I found its sound so incerdible good when I tried it in the free trial. Its sounded so much better than the rest that It helped me fall in love with the modul and now I am planning to get it. I am not sure but as I have understood from the interview this module got this sound update first so how can you say that "nobody gives a rat" about the axis planes?

I guess its not so hard . What we download and update its the client version of DCS so Its just that the the server version of DCS won't be updated to include the new assets. So supercarrier assets will be missing on server side.

I have tried other missions where my FPS seemed stable with the Anton so It might be that its just this mission due to its memory requirements. I have only 16Gb. (Just ordered an other 16Gb so I will be able to test it next week if it will help or not with this specific mission to rule out if its due to low memory or not)

Thats why I was thinking its the mission so I will try different missions also but still I have played heavier missions with other modules and I have never got this low FPS.

I think these should not center the view at the same time. Are you sure you did not bind the "reset view,zoom normal, etc." to the same buttons or something what can be accidentaly pressed just when you try to slow zoom in/out? I am not sure if you are new to dcs or not so I am not aware if you know about these so sorry if you do but you can check what your buttons activate when press them when you are on the config page and the "all" is selected and you can also search for things like "view center" etc. there if you choose search from the drop down menu to find the problems easier. Sometimes different controllers are binded automatically to things they are not supposed to activate. Like rudder pedals are binded to pitch and yaw etc. so its worth checking.