darkman222

A beer barrel, or a travel pod is a wish list item. A proper flight model is not. As long as youre not playing a "sim" with a snail logo.

Does it affect in cockpit view too?! Why do we care so much about the exterior views? Or am I missing something?

What do you mean? This highy realistic documentary released in 1991 showed the exact same pushback procedure we currently have in DCS.

The volumetric clouds in 2.5 looked great too. And in 2.7 they look the same but now they move and create up to 2ms CPU frame time. Which is not acceptable for just having static to moving clouds, if they cause the major problem. Dunno, new lighting is in Persian Gulf only but I dont use that map, so I am just talking about how the performance dropped in Caucasus, which has only moving clouds added in 2.7.

The thing is, if there is features that will cause a drop of CPU frame time, which is already a very very valuable good, there should be simply an option to deactivate. Moving clouds, okay, needs to be synced between clients. But new lighting, or shadows does not need to be in sync between clients. So if there is a weak or a VR client, let this person just switch the eye candy off , and the other client playing in 2D with a strong machine, he can keep the eye candy on.

Not sure if it is just that not everyone cares and complains because his PC has not been on the limit before the update, thus this person just does not realize it.

VR is very hardware demanding . You can compare both CPUs concerning single core performance https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/3100vs4236/Intel-i5-8600K-vs-Intel-i5-11600K So you should gain 22% CPU performance. Possibly 22% CPU frame time. If your PC is CPU bottlenecked it could help you jump from stuttery to smooth. Try fpsVR to see whats going on with your current PC. Say if you have a CPU frame time of 12 ms - 22% = 9,36 ms CPU frame time. Everything helps. But in my experience it depends on how the mission was built. And some MP and SP missions are built pretty hardware demanding and you wont be able to get a smooth experience even with the best CPU available. But chances for a smooth ride are getting better with every ms CPU frame time.

If you have the hard disk space, install the stable version before it also gets pushed to 2.8. You can blame 2.8 for the performance loss for sure. My personal guess is that people who dont see a performance drop just have not a system that was on the limit before 2.8. So they just dont realize it. If people in VR dont see a performance drop they might be using some kind of motion smoothing which does not care if they had 65 fps but now have only 55 fps, because it clamps it at 45 fps anyway. Just wild guesses. This needs to be fixed or adressed or whatever. I dont want to accept a performance drop and rely on that we get multithreading soon or not so soon. I am glad that it was announced. But it was announced for next year. That means 13 months from now.

What does stable mean anyway? Isnt it just a few releases / version numbers behind Beta? And released when the amount of known bugs in this version number is considered moderate?

Just my 2 cents. As long as we know that the jet we are seeing in the videos is our block 50 Viper, no matter what configuration the real jet has, and wether we know the configuration or not: There should be a configuration we should be able to find in game to recreate the edge pass. If we cant, the DCS F16 simply cant perform how the real jet performs shown in the videos under no conditions. Do we need to be able to do a knife edge pass in game? Is it a problem? I dont know. But logic tells me, if it was hard to achieve in real life, or only possible under certain conditions, it would not have been included for an air show performance.

Thanks. Where did your graph come from? If I trust your graph instead of cpubenchmark.net the difference is not 11 % but only 2,5 % instead according to what you posted.

As title says. I am running a high end system with an i9 12900 KF and thinking of upgrading to an 13900KF. Singlethread benchmarks tell that that I should expect more than 10 % higher single core speed https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5055vs4611/Intel-i9-13900KF-vs-Intel-i9-12900KF If I do the maths and I have a CPU frame time of 12,5 ms now I might end up with 11,25 ms. Could be worth it because the 2,8 update just threw my CPU performance down so I am experiencing more stutters than with 2,7 now. Basically 2.8 threw me back over the threshold where the CPU bottlenecks my GPU again. The only thing that seems suspect to me is that the 13900 FK has a lower clock speed of 3.0Ghz compared to the predecessor the 12900 KF with 3.2 Ghz which I currently use. Any experiences or ideas ?! Current system Specs:

@BIGNEWY Here is some more testing data. With my Varjo Aero this time too. Seems like an additional 1 ms CPU frame time happens using the latest OB compared to stable with both VR headsets. Creating the negative spikes in the GPU graph of the Aero. I have the same 1 ms CPU frame time loss on the Pimax too, although the CPU graph shows that the CPU frame time for the target frame rate of 90 fps should be sufficient, the GPU frame graph shows the loss of 1 ms. CPU graph shows it too, but is not marked as the bottle neck, but it could be too for the Pimax. So maybe it was misleading to me, that the performance drop using the Pimax came from the GPU , it might be coming from the CPU although the graph shows that the CPU frame time still should be sufficient. EDIT: In my ealier post with OB 2.8.0.32235.1 Open Beta the loss was only 0.3 ms on the CPU but about 2 ms for the GPU. Just as a heads up. Direct link to post below: EDIT2: I also attached my test mission with just an empty mission only 1 F16 over Batumi. Thats the same mission I used in my original test above. perf_test_caucasus.miz System Spcs:

I have installed stable along side with beta. What do you guys say now? Please stay on topic and move the OB vs stable discussion to a separate thread. Now I even have a direct comparison between OB and stable. And I am really sad when I see a bandit aircraft like a slide show passing me in a dogfight in latest OB. Again : Stay on topic and provide testing data. That performance drop stands in no relation to what we gained in visual appearance of DCS in the latest OB release.

I guess it was experienced by EDs VR testers but the considerations were to find out how the acceptance of the community was for improved visuals vs performance loss. Dont under estimate that the beta branch is also a market research tool.

Then VR users need an option to disable all the beauty which is nice, but unnecessary for gameplay and make DCS ugly but playable again. If the performance drop will be carried over to stable branch its basically over and we can wait another 3 years of hardware progession to get back to 2.7 performance level.

That CMDS_ALE47.lua will be checked for integrity is happening since 2.8. It once was checked before then the check was removed by public request because we dont have a DTC yet. Now the IC for CMDS_ALE47.lua came back in 2.8 but nobody complained this time. It does not make sense to modify that file at the moment.

I really hate this off topic. But let me put it that way. In case the performance drop once will be carried out to stable branch, if ED cant eliminate the reasons here in open beta, then I would consider DCS being split in two branches rather useless. If the performance drop stays in OB only, this would be the perfect proof that the concept of stable+beta is made use to full extent. Lets wait and see what happens over time to the stable version. In the meantime people in OB are the ones who feed the developers with testing data.

Please stay on topic. This is about the performance drop in Open Beta, and not the very helpful advice to switch to stable. We get it, we know it. Create your own appreciation thread for the stable branch and let people do their testing here.

I just hope that they wont sneak 2.8 with the performance loss into the stable branch after a while, when it got calm about the performance loss on Open Beta. If that happens, its over and we have to deal with it. Back to topic. No. Also the recent DCS 2.8.0.32937 Open Beta performs with a loss of 2 ms GPU frame time compared to 2.7 while on same settings with "low" preset and all shadows "off"

I guess its because of the philosophy how western cold war fighter jets are designed. Compared to russian Migs that can take off basically from a grass field, western air force jets rely on a well maintained runway. That way they can save weight on reinforcement structures of the wheels and put it into something else. Payload for example. Weaker gear and weaker brakes can be constructed very leightweight. Navy jets that are slammed onto a carrier deck and ground attack aircraft like the A10 are of course again designed differently. Other airforce jets gear like the F15s does not look very strong to me either.

..please stay on topic. My test results for the latest OB DCS 2.8.0.32937 Open Beta vs. DCS 2.7.18.30765 Open Beta is still a loss of 2 ms GPU frame time with the same setting with ALL shadows set to OFF on the "low" preset. A quick test with the recommended procedures which are mentioned in the " alt+enter / fullscreen" thread, which was linked above , did not help. Will try again tonight.

Can someone sum that procedure for me? Like in that images? And what do I do next? Go in game and press alt+enter to get into full screen to get better performance? Does not work for me. Neither alt+enter gives full screen , nor do it get my 2ms GPU frame time back I lost due to 2.8 (sorry the forum placed the images from bottom to top in wrong order, but you get the idea by my numerbering)

What flat shadows do you mean? "Terrain shadows" or "shadows" in the left column? With both of them off I still have had a loss of 2ms GPU frame time. I dont care if the look is broken. I care if disabling it just does nothing performance wise. null

In the meantime I am just satisfied with whatever DCS looks on the lowest presets as long as we get the lost performance back. Will do some testing later if there was something done that actually affects performance in a positive way...