Jump to content

Hippo

Members
  • Posts

    1094
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hippo

  1. After further testing, what appears to be going on is that the mask affects "DCS's" AA, but does not affect nVidia's MFAA, which appears to still be applying to the entire image. Using MFAA in addition to DCS AA was recommended to me on here some months ago as a way of getting 4xAA at the cost of 2xAA. It seems to have almost no performance impact, so I recommend it to everyone in turn.
  2. If you look at the GPU usage % graph in my link, and in the corresponding ones in my previous posts for the same thread for mask 1.0, 0.42 and 0.1 you will see that I already done so: 1.0 - https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=236376&d=1590017239 0.42 - https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=236375&d=1590017239 0.1 - https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=236465&d=1590059601 The graphs show me flying the same mission in the same way for a few minutes each time. The GPU usage % decreases (not by a lot), as the mask goes from 1.0 -> 0.42 -> 0.1. With 0.1 I can sustain 80 fps throughout the mission, with the the other two settings ASW (40 fps) has to kick in to varying degrees as performance cannot be sustained.
  3. I definitely saw a difference in performance. See: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4341829&postcount=499 and my previous posts from yesterday in the thread. EDIT: I thought I'd add the following. I tried Kegetys mod with a recent 2.5.6 version and noticed that I was not getting the improvement I was used to getting on previous versions (I used to get a 25% fps bump, now no more than 10%). I reported it on his thread, but it seemed to be just me, so I just let it go and forgot about it. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4296328&postcount=1323 Now I notice that with this DCS change, the improvement is also small. To OP: If you get the same sort of improvement I'm seeing, then you're probably going to get no more than about 3 or 4 fps, which you'll probably not be able to pick up in your measurements if you're measuring fps in the range 34-38. So maybe you were expecting a greater increase than is being delivered by this update? This all makes me wonder if something has changed in the 2.5.6.x versions which makes the AA mask technique not as effective as it should be?
  4. Hippo

    VR MSAA mask?

    Agree. Disagree. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4341829&postcount=499
  5. I reckon turning shadows on ameliorates AA artefacts in the cockpit - like the ones I complain about in my previous post. However, that still leaves buildings and runways looking like crap in the scenery. It seems that you just can't win: I have to choose between shadows or AA as I can't have both. I refuse to run with ASW on 100% of the time - it's ok for flying an airliner, but not acceptable in DCS.
  6. I just tried the ka-50 instant action mission takeoff from Beslan. In this mission the light hits the cockpit so that straight edges shine. The mask can definitely be seen to be working here, I can tell you. Is there no way that this effect can optionally be turned off? There doesn't appear to be any amount of AA that can deal with it properly, and it's shimmery jaggedyness is just dreadful in VR? Other than in those conditions, what I described above does a good job imho of keeping jaggies at bay.
  7. For a mission with nothing going on, like the one I'm using to test, I aim for 80 fps. There's no way I can achieve that with shadows and AA. So, no - no shadows. I've found shadows to be a big frame rate hit. It really shouldn't be necessary to have run at near minimum settings with nothing going on to just scrape 80fps on my PC. The same system with a 1070 / CV1, as it was before the deferred rendering "upgrade", I could manage 90 fps with better AA and plenty of overhead for when things got busy. But I digress... and I think I've flogged that dead horse quite enough.
  8. A quick update. I just tried another test, this time with mask 0.1, and bloom off. Results are now on par with the last 2.5.5 OB. I didn't get a single drop out from 80 fps into ASW (40 fps). I was expecting to see major shimmering jaggies around the outside of a small core, but to my surprise, I hardly noticed anything - nothing like what I get with AA off. I am running 2xAA in DCS, and enhancing in nVidia Control panel as detailed here. Who knows how the settings are interacting with each other. Whatever, the upshot is I'm getting a result I'm happy with. It is entirely reasonable to point out that I could achieve a similar (or better) result with Kegetys. But it gets to be a drag setting up to work every time there's an update or when I want to test. And it does introduce issues.
  9. Believe me, I feel your pain - please don't shoot the messenger. Your point re Kegetys is entirely valid, still - better late than never. Personally I think VR DCS w/o AA does not provide an image quality that is acceptable. I would simply not use it if I had to turn off AA. And there's no way I'm going back to pancake. I've felt let down (and even betrayed) by ED since 2018 when they made the (deferred rendering) engine change that killed performance for VR /w AA - how they could've inflicted a 50% fps drop on their users remains inexplicable. Unfortunately, performance-wise, it's been downhill ever since. I am not optimistic that things are going to get better. However, we are where we are. All I can do is make my views known on here: I will NOT be giving ED any more money until I see efforts (and results) being made in this direction. I will certainly not be giving them any more money for pre-purchase or early access stuff that might only be completed by the time it requires a future version of the engine that I may no longer be able to run because of future graphical enhancements that tank performance. P.S. EDIT: From my very limited and specific test, performance appears to be getting close to what I was getting with 2.5.5. If you're not using AA, you'll probably see no difference - as I say, I feel your pain.
  10. Is an answer that ED really should provide in the patch notes. In its absence I can only speculate: The AA mask limits AA to an area in the centre of your view, its size specified by the number. I assume 0.5 is a rectangle half of your screen area. I only briefly tested last night and I have to say that visually I did not think that this was doing anything. If you run Kegetys's mod, it's very easy to see his implementation of this working. Bloom (sometimes referred to as light bloom or glow) is a computer graphics effect used in video games, demos, and high dynamic range rendering (HDRR) to reproduce an imaging artifact of real-world cameras. The effect produces fringes (or feathers) of light extending from the borders of bright areas in an image, contributing to the illusion of an extremely bright light overwhelming the camera or eye capturing the scene. It became widely used in video games after an article on the technique was published by the authors of Tron 2.0 in 2004. (with thanks to Wikipedia). Precisely how and where it's implemented in DCS - your guess is as good as mine.
  11. Performance notes 2.5.6.49314 Please see for reference: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...8&postcount=73 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...&postcount=324 Running my usual mission. We now have two new options under VR: bloom effect and MSAA Mask Size. I flew the mission twice, first with bloom ON, and mask at 1.00 (second image), this gave performance indistinguishable from 2.5.6.47404. I then ran the mission with Bloom off and mask at 0.42 (first image). This gave around 5%-10% less GPU util, so nearly as good as what I was getting with the last 2.5.5 OB. I was (surprise, surprise) hoping to see more of an improvement. Still, this is definitely a (continuation of a) move in the right direction, and to be welcomed. I think that finding as many graphics options as possible to offer to VR users to turn down to gain fps is an approach that is worth looking into further. Great to see the two new options - thank you. I cannot give up AA, as I find the shimmering jaggies from buildings, runways, and shiny cockpit edges unacceptable. And thanks for getting the landing lights working again on the Stennis at night. Very nice to have the ship lighting as well, although perhaps it's a bit too bright.
  12. None whatsoever. What the free for all proved to me is that I already own all the aircraft I really want. Paying for the others to try them for a short time, think "hmmm, that's nice", and then never use them again, is not only a waste of money, but worse, an incentive to ED to produce stuff I don't want. Improvements to the base game, many of which have been repeatedly requested for years on the Wish List forums, I'd be happy to pay for. The Supercarrier and F-16 I would ordinarily want. But they both seem to be at such an early stage of development, that I think I'll wait until they're much closer to completion.
  13. From CV NATOPS MANUAL. Dated 31/07/2009 - perhaps procedures have changed since then?
  14. Can I start to get excited and read this as VR performance has increased over current 2.5.6 OB?
  15. Hopefully one of the guys will respond. For this sort of thing, I like to go to the NATOPS documents, and mention them in case you weren't aware of them: I can't find any mention of the speed in the spin, so assume it's pilot's discretion. 300 - 350 kts works well for me. EDIT:
  16. Although I have a number of issues regarding early access / pre-ordering, my main issue with ED's financing model is that it distorts the market, and does not reward ED for providing what users of the product actually want. Personally, of all the DCS aircraft that are available there are only a few that I truly want. When I pay $x for an F-18 I would like that $x to go into F-18 development. I am very keen for the base engine, and VR performance, particularly, to be worked on, and am happy to pay for this. I do not want to buy an aircraft that I'm not going to use to fund this. I think the model that the company that makes the F-35 uses for its flight sim is the way to go: a chargeable base system upgrade every two years or so. I would be happy to pay around $100 - $200 for this. I would also be happy to pay a proportionate upgrade fee for each aircraft I actually want to own, every time there is a base product upgrade, to bring those aircraft up to date. P.S. Are you a fan of a certain space sim (best d* one ever) that has been going nowhere for nearly a decade? They have a business model that you might like.
  17. You need to raise a support ticket at their main site: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/
  18. Are you using the Microsoft Speech Recogniser 8.0 English - US? (in speech recognition properties). I am using two other (VAC for DCS, VoxATC for <other_sim>) voice recognition products, and they improved considerably when I changed from UK to US. This could all be a placebo, but I strongly suspect that these types of programs depend on the US variant being used for some reason. Worth a try. I am British, so don't speak "American", but the above change made a big difference. I realise that it sounds implausible, and that it could be due to something else, but I made no other changes that I'm aware of.
  19. The best I've ever been able to achieve is by deleting the following (I use a batch file, as the files are replaced every time DCS is updated): del "D:\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\terrains\Caucasus\Kneeboard\*.*" /Q del "D:\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\terrains\Nevada\Kneeboard\*.*" /Q del "D:\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\terrains\Normandy\Kneeboard\*.*" /Q del "D:\DCS World OpenBeta\Scripts\Aircrafts\_Common\Cockpit\KNEEBOARD\device\init.lua" Always backup before making changes. I am unfortunately always left with at least one blank page.
  20. TBH, I wasn't even considering VSI lag, and had assumed it's not modelled in DCS. I assume that the lag effect that is being modelled is engine spool time, which seems to be very long. Does it seem too long to you? I was referring to very minor thrust adjustments when I'm already very close to s+l. I get that adjustments will be necessary, but continuously? (calm day)
  21. Thank you - that was very interesting and certainly backs up your point. EDIT: But... doesn't it also suggest that the response to the throttle changes must be almost instant?
  22. Let me attempt to ask my question again. Set the aircraft with GEAR DOWN, FULL FLAPS on speed AOA. Attempt to fly as straight and level in this configuration as possible. Once nearly there, say you have a negative vertical velocity (vv), you make a small thrust increase and wait... 1. it now takes several (around 3) seconds for this thrust increase to cause a change in fpm (flight path marker) motion / vv. 2. the fpm very slowly oscillates up and down around a central point, rather than settling It seems to be impossible to end up with 0 vv, without constant throttle corrections, no matter how small. This is what I see in the sim, does the real aircraft behave in this way? The behaviour I see in the descent is the same in that I can't maintain a constant rate of descent - I see the same oscillations once I stop moving the throttle. I would expect that the vv would settle to a constant value (on a calm, no turbulence or gusts, day).
  23. (real life) Source for this claim, please.
  24. is very interesting, mainly because it's very clear at a decent res and you can see a lot of detail (hud on ddi, engine indications). It seems like the engine response is quicker to me. Notice how much the pilot is using the thrust levers. (Admittedly - bad weather, superhornet.)
  25. How realistic it is is precisely what I was hoping to get an informed opinion on. You did notice I said FLAPS FULL, GEAR DOWN and ON AOA? Are you telling me that you can keep the aircraft straight and level in this config (constant 0 fps vertical speed indication), without seeing the behaviours I described, and without constantly jiggling the throttles?
×
×
  • Create New...