

Hippo
Members-
Posts
1093 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Hippo
-
I hate to be critical, especially as you personally always make so much of an effort responding on here, with almost superhuman patience. However, the above statement is concerning. The frame rate issues that have been repeatedly reported are so severe that it seems that nothing should need to be highlighted. The team should be seeing this as the top issue and devoting all their efforts to fix it. The above statement, unfortunately, can lead to the impression that the issue is being underestimated or even ignored. On top of that the issue remains after two updates, which points to it being serious and possibly not fixable without considerable effort. I'm sorry to be skeptical, but there's a strong echo here of the deferred shading (but many times worse) performance debacle. Speaking for myself, if this goes through to stable, I'll stay on 2.5.5 and will not purchase anything until this issue is fixed. Obviously, how ED choose to communicate is up to them, but in an ideal world I think the following should be communicated clearly: - an acknowledgment that they are fully aware of a very serious performance impact ("they are working of fps issues" doesn't really cut it). - what they think is causing the issue - what they are doing about it - approximate ETA for fix - confirmation that this issue will not go on to stable My own report is below. Flying the 1st mission from a campaign I bought, I get 5fps, where previously on 2.5.5 I was getting 40 fps, with dips to 25. This makes it unusable. My own settings are already low. If I go any lower, the visual quality will make it so that the game is not worth bothering with. I see no need for logs, tracks, etc. One of your testers just has to fly the mission and they will instantly see the issue. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4237111&postcount=2 EDIT: By 1st mission above, I mean the mission that follows the one in the link, where you start parked at Nellis, in the cockpit, and there are lots of parked aircraft nearby.
-
I find your post quite extraordinary. Of all the posts on these forums you criticise the testing methodology of the OP? His post is already superior to the overwhelming majority simply because it includes screenshots and numbers. We are all just users of a game volunteering our time for free on this. I'm not quite sure what you're expecting. ... I'll take the liberty of responding on behalf of the OP for this one. Yes, he knows.
-
RE: Lighting. TBH, the main thing I noticed is that everything is brighter than it was. Night I think was improved. Outside with lights appearing brighter, and things that should be darker, appearing to be so. But couldn't this just have been done by changing textures and lighting coefficients? Inside the cockpit, the way the landing gear handle (f18c) lights up the cockpit around it and similar effects. By day nothing in particular shouted out at at me; I did feel that things looked a bit more "like reality", but this could just be down to everything being brighter. Again, TBH, I haven't taken the trouble to compare in any detail. I haven't even bothered turning on SSLR, not even once, after I read about the fps impact of that. (This is all in VR, to be clear). Now, in the change log, we get this: I have not seen any more detailed descriptions regarding lighting changes. Have any been presented by ED? As far as I can tell street lights are baked in (Caucasus). TBH I've only tested with moonless nights so far. Wasn't lighting from weapons dynamic already? The improvement at night was very welcome, but I think (and hope) is only the beginning, as much still needs to be done. I have sympathy with both your points of view: on the one hand, clearly something fundamental has changed, unfortunately ED seems to not have gone to the trouble of providing details. On the other, practical observable benefits seem to be very few so far, and possibly at great cost. (Sure, still WIP).
-
Sorry, but going completely off topic: in general, how much of what is discussed here is replicated in the Russian forums? Do you get the impression that much of what is discussed here (in English) gets to the developers?
-
All fair enough, although the OP was discussing VR. I still haven't gotten over deferred shading, I'm afraid. My own situation: 2.5.5 OB: 80fps in a mission with the f-18 and nothing else going on. 2.5.6 OB: I have to give up anti-aliasing to keep 80fps. It does make a difference.
-
20% is NOT "slight" or "marginal". In VR, where we are already pushing limits, it is extremely undesirable. The question is, is the new lighting "and stuff" worth it? I think, in VR, night is better, but have to question if it has to come at the price of a 20% reduction in fps? By day, I couldn't say. A 20% fps decrease should not be "unsurprising". It's this sort of attitude that has severely damaged the VR experience over the past couple of years. I accept that's it's still in beta, and optimisation is probably still ongoing. Let's come back to this when the changes go into stable. In the meantime, anyone who cares about VR should be highlighting any decrease in performance. Once it's gone, it's very difficult to get it back again.
-
I think that there are two distinct effects: a general frame rate loss of up to 20%, as you describe, which can be seen even in missions with no other objects. The other is a much more severe frame rate loss > 80 % when (AI) objects are introduced. My concern at the moment is that the severe (AI?) object effect is masking the other one, which is being overlooked. A 20% fps decrease is still a serious problem.
-
For testing I used Maple Flag's Aggressor Campaign mission "Arrival", which is a mission where you watch a transport coming in to land at Nellis. First two screenshots are 2.5.5, the next two are 2.5.6. The fps are around 15 or less throughout in 2.5.6. I get 80 at first in 2.5.5 and then 40 (ASW) as I get closer to the runway. The graphs from MSI AB on the left show the stats from the start of the mission until the transport lands in each case. Notice that at the initial menu screen there is an fps drop of around 20%. This is probably in the ballpark (15%) of what I am seeing in missions where there are no other objects and the severe frame rate drop does not occur. Although not a disastrous frame rate drop, in VR we really need every bit of performance, so this is most unwelcome. From my past experience, changes in fps at the main menu do reflect fps changes in the game. Are you also seeing this? I notice that you are seeing your CPU max out at 100%. Curiously I am not seeing that, so I'm puzzled as to what's going on: CPU at around 70%, and GPU at 13%. I am entirely unfamiliar with your HMD and its details. I have ASW on and as soon as 80 fps can't be maintained it drops to 40%, hence the sudden cliff-edge drops in 2.5.5. Settings are the same for both tests. The white squares are my labels, which should be almost transparent, but that was broken in an update over a year ago, and has never been fixed. Just saying ED. Very annoying as this is vital, imho, in VR. I am also enhancing AA by using 2x w/ MFAA in nVidia Control Panel.
-
I will take that as meaning that it doesn't automatically reduce. You are quite busy already, so I won't bother you with a grovelling for forgiveness PM. I will carry on enjoying the exhilaration of living on the edge, and revel in my badboy credentials.
-
Thank you. I see this often. However, in my personal experience, it has never made the slightest bit of difference, including here and now. Can someone from ED please verify whether carrying out this step by users is a required part of the update process? Surely ED wouldn't be so unprofessional as to not deal with this automatically as part of the update process? I expect that ED will respond that it should never be necessary to do this, but am happy to be corrected.
-
Thanks for the update. Just a couple of things: When I (and I'm sure most) report an fps drop here, I'm (we're) doing just that: reporting it - not complaining - I am fully aware it's a beta. If I were going to complain, it would be about how such a severe fps impact could make it through internal testing. ;). For every subsequent update, if I continue to experience this issue I will continue to report it, on the assumption that it is helpful to do so. Which settings in particular do you think will have the greatest effect?
-
I can see that you're new here, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just trolling. With the F-18, try taking off from a runway in a mission where you're reading 40 fps. You will notice that the HUD display looks distorted, and that there are distortions around the canopy frame. Why? Because ASW is kicking in: whilst the Rift continues to function at 80 fps - half of those frames are being interpolated. Sometimes this works well, and as in this case, sometimes it doesn't. At 80 fps you will not see this happen. As a general rule, statements of this type (fps don't matter) instantly make me wary regarding a poster's credibility. Do you think if this was in any way plausible that HMD manufacturers would bother with refresh rates higher than 40 Hz, ASW, etc? Just think about it. Before you accuse others of not checking, perhaps you should follow your own advice and try to do what I did here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4221938&postcount=73 In a simple mission with just the F-18 in it, there is a repeatable, verifiable increase in GPU utilisation. The only difference is the version of DCS I am running. It just happens that of late I had been working on a number of simple missions with just an F-18 in them so noticed a decrease of around 10% - 15% fps (enough to tip me over from 80 fps to ASW kicking in and 40 fps) in those circumstances. However, when I tried a mission with lots of ground objects, the fps drop was severe. Again, the only difference was in the DCS version: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4227381&postcount=100 Many people have reported similar experiences. I suspect that you will very likely notice a difference between 40 fps and 10 fps. Perhaps you should make your testing and descriptions a bit more detailed yourself. P.S. I did forget to include my PD (slap on the wrist for me) - it's 1.2.
-
It is not immediately obvious to me what the point is in telling people to roll back to 2.5.5 in a thread where people are reporting issues relating to the latest 2.5.6 open beta. I have just gone to the trouble of running a couple of, admittedly fairly simple, tests, and have found that I get the same reduction (from 2.5.5) in performance that I did in the previous OB. This in a thread relating to performance in 2.5.6, in a forum dedicated to reporting issues with game performance. I don't think "roll back to 2.5.5" is the appropriate response, suggest instead "thanks for beta testing for free".
-
No, I didn't. I just omitted a part of it. My observation was only wrt performance, hence my selective quote.
-
From my limited testing, performance remains suboptimal. Unchanged from the previous OB.
-
OB 2.5.6.44266 - performance remains unchanged (i.e. from worse to a lot worse than 2.5.5).
-
I'm not sure anyone has complained about that. But surely if issues come up in the openbeta, they should be reported - isn't that the point? The concern, of course, is that they are not resolved and just go on to stable anyway. (E.g. label transparency :(, which was broken over a year ago and has still not been fixed.)
-
I've been at 90% for ages and feel like I'm walking on eggshells.
-
EDIT. Pls ignore.
-
Please make Radar elevation usable with rotary an option
Hippo replied to falcon_120's topic in Wish List
The reason there are compromises is because most people are sitting in front of a computer screen with consumer game joysticks, a keyboard, and a mouse, playing a computer game, and not in sitting a real F-18 cockpit. Adding another controller binding option is a minor bit of work. Being an option, people can choose to use it according to preference. -
Just tried this. Entirely agree. I'm surprised that adjusting DDI night/day, brightness, contrast makes no difference to the image, only to the symbols - is this correct?
-
Please make Radar elevation usable with rotary an option
Hippo replied to falcon_120's topic in Wish List
I take your point, but this is a game and there is a multitude of physical controller options out there. It is up to the developer to try to be flexible and accommodate these options. Mapping the ant elev and FLIR zoom to one axis does not have to be the only option - these could be split: ant elev to absolute axis, FLIR zoom to something else (buttons?), and obviously keep what we have now (simulating the control on the F18 HOTAS) as an option as well. An analogue wheel / slider of this type is so common on so many throttles that this assignment should've been offered from the beginning. I find it very strange that this wasn't even considered as it would've been very easy to implement. -
From the NATOPS: From this (and I remain quite confused) I deduce that: 1. the INS + GPS is what should be in the DCS F-18 (going by aircraft number)? 2. this (INS + GPS) system is more advanced that EGI (because it appears in later aircraft)? Can someone explain in layman's terms what the difference is between these two / four systems described above? Has ED ever confirmed which is being simulated in the DCS F-18? Just from going through chapter 24, it seems like a lot of work remains to be done. Has ED ever stated how closely the simulation will match what's in the NATOPS (AIMS, etc).?
-
I was just wondering what the thinking was behind not allowing GPS in these missions? Is this what is actually done in F-18's IRL for this type of exercise? At this point in time, is it all supposed to work correctly in DCS, from searches it seems that it's been buggy on and off in the past?
-
RE: Red Force Departure Routes Chart
Hippo replied to Hippo's topic in F/A-18C Aggressors BFM Campaign
Yes it does, thank you. Sorry - I hadn't worked out that FLEX was also the name of the departure procedure. P.S. What does the line of five triangles on the chart (p9) represent?