Bluelight

The issue talked about here mainly effects VR even though I demonstrated it in 2D. The main people saying they have no trouble are people playing 2D and who don't realize how their framerate is dropping, how improperly their hardware is being utilized, or how to measure any of it. Of course this depends on where on the map it's tested and alot of factors but i can tell u that anybody using the Vive who says they get 90fps all the time everywhere is full of it. It is not possible no matter what settings or hardware you have. They may be mostly 90/45fps and don't realize they are in reprojection most of the time but even then, certain heavy towns drop the framerate to 30 and starts to judder and become unplayable.

1. No idea. I have heard rumors that 2.5 could be better. I'm skeptical though. 2. There is no spec that will fix it. Even a 1080 wouldnt fix it because the game only utilizes aabout 40% of any card you use.

#1. You're obviously a fan boy so responding to you is probably a waste of time but I'll give it 1 go. #2. MANY people in this forum share my opinion of not only the poor performance with VR but in the 2D game as well. The difference is it doesn't effect the 2D version as much as VR but based on the numbers and tests, the engine performs worst than any other game I have seen in utilizing GPU and CPU power and there is really no excuse to have such poor performance in such an expensive product. Oh and by the way, they wouldn't have added VR to the game if they didn't care about it. #3. I have a long history in the forums of talking about these issues and providing LOADS of evidence.. begging for the devs and testers (who I know for a fact have seen my posts) to respond and explain these things but the same result always happens. They ignore the threads completely (even though they saw it.. I have evidence of that but wont get into it cause they told me not to.) If they don't ignore completely, then they give a quick generic response that does not apply to the situation at all and is not a fix for the problem. I have also talked with people in the forums who got generic responses when submitting tickets that don't fix the problem. All of these reasons and more, formed my opinion. #4. I am a paying customer, having bought several modules for this game. That gives me every right to say what I am saying. Not only for that reason, but because of my experiences and the people who have shared their experiences with me that are the same. Just cause your experience differs doesn't mean you need to create a post that has no purpose other than to attack me. #5. I am a graphics expert and professional visual FX artist so yes, I know a thing or two about graphical optimization in not only games, but film and have the experience to back it up. Having said all of that, I have a right to my opinion and my opinion is based on evidence as well as my experiences and many others who I have talked with here. Your opinion is based on nothing more than your own experience and using that, you want to call others who you know nothing about, arrogant. LOL :lol: I'd say the only real arrogant person is one who jumps into a conversation that he hasn't followed fully, with someone he knows nothing about, halfcocked, and tries (and fails) to make him feel bad for his opinion. Thats about all I have to say to you. Now lets get back to trying to solve the problems here.

My honest opinion after going round and round in the forums and elsewhere about the poor performance of DCS is that they have no intention of ever fixing this or evolving it to work correctly with VR because of what some have written here, that it would be too much work and would result in having to start over from scratch almost on the engine. Because of this, I believe truly that they don't care much about optimizing for higher FPS or care about these complaints and they are just trying to squeeze as much money out of this current engine as possible before one day being forced to start over or call it quits.

Hey I saw in another thread where you guys were talking about deleting the options file.. does that only get rid of the graphical settings and such so you start from default or does it get rid of key bindings also? I would like to know. Also, now that you have messed around with 1.5.4 for a while, do you recommend staying with 1.5.3 still or is 1.5.4 actually better? I can't afford anymore FPS hits using VR so I haven't updated (or played) since 1.5.4 came out but would like to try again.

What was the result of your ticket Jack?

EVERY GPU.. pretty much doesn't matter when the game won't utilize more than about 40% of any GPU.

You've repeatedly said that you know that this is the issue.. what is being done to remedy it? Directx12? Cutting down on having so many objects? (over 2000 objects and aprox 240,000 triangles on complete low settings and view distance is still too much.) Would it make a difference to combine clusters of objects into one model instead of having them all separate? Are the models not optimized? Alot of the buildings look they should only consist of 5 polys so that number shouldn't be much higher in triangles once tessellated. How about having a setting that allows users to control the amount of trees generated within the view distance instead of having that number set? I keep hearing rumors of a new "edge engine" and rumors of some sort of 2.5 merge. Is that going to solve the directx api bottleneck that you talk about? With all due respect to you, and all the devs/mods/testers... I feel like it is much more helpful and useful to bounce around suggestions and talk about solutions rather than just keep saying that there is no fix for it and this is just how it is. There is a lot that is possible without having to completely recreate the game from scratch.

Yep.. Just like I figured and I was told that I can't talk about "that thing that happened to me" or it would happen again! Thanks for the kind words. I do appreciate it. Another thing I was told in PM from a mod is that supposedly they are working on fixing performance issues in 2.5. That was the only answer I got from him when I asked him personally to respond here about these performance problems. I shouldn't have to relay that why couldn't he post it himself here? So it's very unfortunate how we are being treated.. I too am put off by it. The fact that we know mods are here but they refuse to chime in just says a lot IMO.

Yep you are getting the exact same thing as me but the devs keep arguing that there is no problem and it is how the game is meant to work which is ridiculous to me. Anytime I try to engage in a detailed discussion with them about this they ignore me or don't ever respond to begin with. Really irritating. I'd like to know how many triangles something like a simple building has in this game. If is it more than a few.. then the models are not optimized worth a crap. Same for trees. Literally these buildings are very very low poly.. they appear to consist of usually around 5 polys but depending on how many times it is tesselated, what starts out at 5 polys could turn into 100 triangles which would be absolutely nonsense and is not how game models are supposed to be created. The less triangles or polys, the better.

For God sakes Skatezilla... where do I begin: 1. Yes this all makes sense but you are making excuses for POOR PERFORMANCE in game. This is a repetitive thing here that we, the paying customers, need to stop accepting. How many single core gaming PC's exist in 2016!? Probably none unless someone is nostalgic and likes that sort of thing. 4 cores is the standard for gaming now... I realize changing things to work differently is hard.. but what you are saying is "our engine is old and out of date and doesn't perform well with current CPUs etc, deal with it!" Not good enough! If you have an old car and you keep putting fresh paint jobs, accessories, new tires, and spinner rims on it but you never rebuild the engine... you still have a piece of crap car that you are trying to pass off as something more. You can never have a car, or game, that can run well in current times without rebuilding or upgrading the engine. 2. Yes, makes sense but still an excuse for why you must use a 4 core machine but the game won't run correctly with it. 3. Are you serious? No it is designed for a single core or 2 core machine but that isn't the standard for gaming anymore and this game is supposed to be VR compatible!! The standard for VR is 4 cores! That is the minimum... therefore, your game MUST perform correctly with 4 cores or atleast utilize the resources it is meant to efficiently, to get a high frame rate enough for VR. 4. Yes, this is great that you know what the problem is but turning the draw distance down DOES NOT fix it. I have my visibility down to low and my tree draw distance on the minimum and yet I can look to the left of my heli in one mission and see over 2000 objects being loaded on screen with over 270,000 triangles. The GPU actually slows down from a whopping 40% to 30% sometimes and goes from boost clock to normal... all the while the fps drops like crazy because nothing is being utilized to help maintain the fps. I have invited you to my thread about this before and thusfar you have not stopped by to help there with the specifics and watch the videos with the numbers showing what I am talking about... proving that draw distance doesn't fix the problem. If there was a way to select how many objects were drawn per town or trees, or more control over it.. it may help but these are all bandaids for the problem of this engine not utilizing currently hardware in a way thats acceptable for VR. Again, please stop by this thread so you can show the irritated people there that someone is paying attention, like you did here, and lets discuss the specifics of this further. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=169738

Pretty sure it doesn't affect anything if you don't have a VR headset. Don't worry about it.

Well that makes sense, long over due on that model. I would really appreciate it if you could pop over to my thread about performance and help us with this draw command thing when you have a moment. I really want to get some answers to questions there and hopefully a solution. Thanks http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=169738

WHY!?!?!?!? Skate, please tell me the logic behind increasing the poly count of a model SO much when the game engine is only using half of most people's GPU to render the model and not running the main CPU core at 100% either?? I wish you would look at my thread about this with the videos I showed running MSI afterburner proving it. Unless 1.5.4 is going to run a gpu at 99% like most other games, how could such a huge increase in polys do anything but hurt the performance of the game... especially in VR where every little FPS matters?

Ok well that makes sense then. I didn't know there was a limit on how many points you could use at once. thanks