Charlie-1

On item 1), I'm sure I read doing research that loss of defenition of edges is a downside of DS due to the fact it has to align the second shading render with the first 'geometry' render absolutely exactly, which may explain the fuzzy text on cockpit displays, gauges etc? I don't know, but I'll try and find where I read it.

I appreciate what you are saying and agree with you. Standing still isn't an option. What I am yet to hear is why ED chose DS as the best way forward? I presume they made some statement a while back or maybe we're not privileged to that information and never find out. I've said it before on here that there are other video games / sims around with much better photo-real graphics already with much better performance, but won't go there. I guess I've learned never to pre-order or buy anything from ED again until they are released, established and plenty of info /testimonials available to endorse their state of completion and performance. I would have saved on the Normandy map and probably the Hawk too, which for some reason is an FPS killer. In the meantime, at least have the option to still use the older versions like 1.58 and 2.5 , which is unusual, but very good of ED indeed.

I guess it all comes down to an individuals perception of advancement in technology. For me with respect to a game / sim would be to improve both the visual and combat experience whilst also improving performance and reducing hardware dependancy. I am yet to understand the 'advancement' DS brings that outweighs the negative impact the change has made. It's not a win win situation, which as a product developer myself, is what I always strive for when advancing a product, but with a cost saving too. I have many of the planes and terrains of DCS, but for me Normandy was a waste of money due to the low performance with graphics settings needed to make it look anything like decent. DS is needed for one. You can have my Spitfire if you want. I never fly it in DCS as it's a better experience flying the MkVb over Kuban, Stalingrad etc. MkIX imminent too, which is where my money will be spent, again down to better gaming and graphical experience. Just my personal opinion.

There are some great advances in 2.5.1, such as the off-line mode and memory manager seems to load missions a lot faster than 2.5. However, I guess what I am looking for is some reassurance from ED, that despite the initial set back in performance and quality of detail, that they have every confidence DS is the best choice available the end result will be better resolution, and run slicker than it was before. I appreciate the comprehensive work that must be going on behind the scenes, but some sort of road map would be great if available. Luckily my PC will still run 2.5.1 in VR with reasonable results, but at the moment it's not as good experience as it is in 2.5. If ED wish to push ahead in the DS route that is their perogative, however they will alienate / discriminate against the existing lower end new entry users, who potentially have the most potential to spend on the offering of 20 or so planes plus the maps, whereas existing, elite players will possibly now be buying just the latest ones as they are released, which is what, 2 releases per year? People will altimately vote with their wallet and feet, so if nice trees is what battle sim pilots are after there shouldn't be a problem lol.

Well as 2.5.1 has singled out a rendering method that negatively affects both performance and image detail amongst the other issues I started my post with, (and I have read a fair bit about the science behind DS before posting) then the issue is 2.5.1 and why I asked the question if the reasoning to use DS has been given by ED anywhere?

The presence of the deferred shading 'off' button primarily.. There is no choice for users going forward, despite the huge negative impact on game quality and performance. That's a bold step for a technology that's no where near ready. It's not good for PR, especially for the customer base on a budget with lower end spec machines? I also have a gaming notebook, barely a year old cost £800 will just about run with DS on at 60 FPS with no MSAA. So I ask again from the Devs , why the move to DS?

Awesome! That's a lot better, thanks @snowsniper :thumbup:

A lot of passion about driving the game forward which is awesome, but my original point is have the Devs given an explanation why they opted for DS over other rendering methods/ engines etc considering the negative impacts and mountain of work to do. There must be a technical reason, so because it's progress doesn't really answer the question.

The forum and in particular the thread 'Open Beta Bugs and Problems' is here for us to give feedback is it not? I am doing just that and asked if the devs have given an explanation for the reasons for the change that's causing a lot of 'issues in this beta.

From what I have read, Deferred Shading's advantage over Pre-shading is when there are hundreds or even thousands of light sources to contend with, so the added time penalty of the second shading process more than pays off. As there is usually only one light source out there with us and our attention is the detail of cockpit dials and other information, choosing a shading means which negatively affects MSAA and resolution seems a bit odd to say the least. That's why I wondered if the Devs have given their explanation anywhere? I am guessing the time extra time now used for shading is the time the process used to have for carrying out MSAA.

I've spent weeks and weeks playing with settings trying to optimise performance of 2.5.1 beta version to try and get both performance and image quality anything like as good as was before DS was introduced and especially in VR. Going back to V1.58 is like a breath of fresh air and wow for quality and immersion. With this in mind, I'm sure I'm not the only devoted player wondering why the move? Has this been explained anywhere please? :helpsmilie: EDIT: For reference, observations of Deferred Shading so far. 1) Detail in image quality worse, cockpit text illegible without zooming in. 2) FPS performance down by 30% 3) Cockpits either too dark or rest of world too bright. 4) Sea is almost black except where suns reflections are. 5) Night lights barely visible 6) Delay re-shading scene when changing views. Especially from map back to cockpit view. 7) Plane surface appear over-shiny

Sorry if I've missed this in other posts but as well as the high contrast and saturation issues mentioned previously, has anyone else had trouble seeing the effect of the nose wheel light on the runway from the cockpit with DS on? I was trying to get it working the other day for ages until I realised from an external view it was on. Much better with DS off.

I get you StrongHarm about building from the ground up. .. Tbh, I don't know much about the history of VR support in DCS as it had it when I discovered it at version 1.57 I think it was. The nearest/ best example of a Sim with better VR performance would be DCS V2.5, and even 1.57/8. Sorry to have gone round in a full circle, but VR performance was better and view clearer in those and the only reason for the downgrade is the method of rendering has changed in 2.51. I'm still not sure of the motive for the change in rendering, because it hasn't improved the bottom end of the FPS scale around previously known trouble spots such as buildings, which have always been a subject for complaint. It's why I always fly Nevada or out at sea. Best way to ensure high FPS lol All I can hope is there is method in the madness and the new DS rendering is to be optimised and will be even more effective than before.. Otherwise there would be no point in the negative performance change, which must also deter entry level players who's kit that would have been just fine before no longer will, or be good enough to enjoy the game anyway. We'll see how it goes.

I have read your post, but for me the best performance and image quality is to let Supersampling in Steam VR do the work,besides 2.5 is the value I use for all other VR games and don't really want to keep changing for DCS. I think you're right about the AA settings in the control panel, but they haven't done any harm either. I noticed I've got to set optimise for performance not power as well. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it that my kit is not optimised for VR when it works perfectly with every other Sim without problem. Steam VR test would suggest it's not bad either (See attached). I would suggest as DCS is the only thing that's changed recently, it's their code that seriously needs optimising rather than defending them and suggesting I need to spend another £500 upgrading my graphics card. You will see there are other guys on here with 1080ti's who have also been hit hard.

So more experimenting with settings in 2.51 this evening and its now looking sharp with stable 45 to 60 FPS and smooth flight, roll and view out the side down to the ground. I have ground shadows on, hi res terrain. As others have suggested keep in game and AA off. I have PD set to 1.0 but use Steam VR to super sample at x2.5 and Nvidia to do AA at x4. I found pre-rendered frames option too, but not confirmed if it had helped yet. (See image settings attached if they help any)

Thanks StrongHarm..I will check out your link and let you know..I was trying out different settings yesterday eve in Nevada and I have to say some of the visuals at dusk are are just stunning as a result of DS turned on, so can see its potential. I did a bit of reading up on DS today and realised there are pros and cons, with extra delay adding a second process to render shadows on each frame, but then only rendering shadows for objects and faces that can be seen. I'm guessing ED are aiming for the time saved to be more than the extra time added. If they can do that and adjust some of the wacky colours/ effects I am seeing in cockpits we could be onto a winner! :thumbup:

Eaglecash867: I have seen slight stutters in the game, but that was in the early days when I was running with an old AMD 4300 processor I think it was and GTX1060 from a HDD. I don't remember seeing them these days but put most improvement down to moving to the SSD. I presume you'll have yours loaded on there? I've got all AF's except Eagle County, so let me know how it looks if you go for it. Have you tried the Biplanes yet? very feisty indeed, but a joy to fly for a different experience! :)

:thumbup:Absolutely all of the above! I've been reading up about rendering today, I wanted to know what DS is all about.. And well now I have a much better understanding. It's right, it's intended for improved rendering of scenes with multiple light sources, but adds another process to render shadows after the Base image. One advantage it does have though is to only render shadows for surfaces and objects you can see.. So this will save time over traditional forward shading. Based on these differences should we expect a performance increase or decrease? I'm guessing ED were aiming for the increase, but somethings not working right. Will they fix it, will it ever be better than before.. Who knows! What I do know is as Flighter says, I am not buying better kit when I have other sims and games running VR with superb performance.

I'm no expert but from what I'm reading the advantage of Deferred Shading is for efficient rendering of scenes with hundreds or thousands of light sources. Other than that its less effective than forward shading due to its dual pass process. Might explain the performance hit?

Glad to hear you're pleased with FS2.. It's a different purpose to DCS, but for the cost it's not bad at all considered. Gets a bit lonely though with nothing to shoot at or bomb! lol More importantly, how does VR performance run for you? That was the reason I mentioned it, as an example of efficient VR rendering. PS.. If you haven't already, there is the free hi res content you can download, like SW USA.

I agree with you there the physics are nothing like as genuine as DCS make it feel to fly and there are no weapons. DCS does a fantastic job in those respects. TBH, I did the same thing getting a refund before I found out about the high-res downloadable content like, airports and great chunks of the USA terrain so tried it again. Once those are included, I would say it's a good example of getting a 2D mouse clickable cockpit with navigation into VR efficiently. Testing again today, some positive things DS has given in VR.. Nevada at dusk, smoke trails from missiles, scratches on the canopy! -- wow..very nice

Why ask for other examples of good quality & efficient rendering of a game/ sim whatever into VR then just say they're different!! :megalol::megalol:

I'm sorry, would you like to elaborate???

Sounds like you've got some awesome toys where you work.. I'm not jealous at all !:thumbup: Have a look at FS2 on youtube.. loads of vids on there.. Just one example of how VR can be implemented with out the massive overhead. Not much game play though, but just nice for a relaxing flight with most emphasis over your side of the pond! :) There are many games now with good native, and non-intrusive photo real VR support. Project cars 2 for instance, which looks equally awesome on the monitor or in VR. With this in mind..I'm not sure of the motive for ED going down the DS route, so any info would be useful?

Really!! where did you find that? :thumbup: It fly's real nice too btw, although DCS' flight models seem more finely tuned and probably more realistic. Especially when it comes to slowing down on the runway.