Limaro

Btw. I no did the hardware upgrate I was mentioning before. And on a mission I've created, having 22 Groups of Ground units with each between 15 and 30 Units, I dropped down to ~57 FPS, which then was CPU limited. Now, with the 9800X3D it was back to 120 (vsync) limit. If I would have known this, I would have upgrated earlier. I still believe there are many ways to use the benchmarks. For us, and Ed.

My thought was, that It allows to compare the different hardware from other players. It'll show me, - if my system performs "normally", - how well different components performs and influence FPS and 1%percentile

Thanks for your feedback, I see you already thought of many of the problems it will bring, too. I think, the solution cannot be only one track - there must be at least two. 1. A pure graphic test, maybe on marianas 2. A CPU test, with lots of ground units driving on the road. (can be caucasus) The graphic test ideally not only runs with one set of settings. But I cannot say what would be the best approach for that. I once programmed a small tool, in which I configured a set of different graphic settings, and the tool automatically set this, started DCS, run a track, recorded the performance and wrote it into a file. I had the mode to run all combinations of the configured settings (which can take veeery long time). It showed, that all settings did not interfere with each other, the drop of performance was per-setting. With this knowledge, I changed it into the way, that all settings are tested, but not all combinations (With one default from which the other change). This gave me the possibility to generate screenhots, to that it became visible, how it looks like, when changing things. My goal was to compare it with the next dcs version. Then, an update, and my tracks did not work any more and I stopped doing this. The point is there there are infinite ways of testing. I just think DCS should go into the race with something. To find out, how settings, count of units, even some modules, weather, etc. influence GPU and CPU.

Right now, everyone measures performance in completely different ways — with different missions, modules, and settings — which makes it nearly impossible to compare results or provide meaningful feedback. With an integrated benchmarking system, we could all test under the exact same conditions. Why this matters for players We could finally find the optimal hardware and graphics settings for our rigs without guesswork. We’d have a reliable way to compare upgrades (e.g., “Will a 9950X3D really outperform my 9800X3D in a heavy mission?”). Squadrons could make sure everyone has a smooth experience before big multiplayer events. Why this matters for ED Consistent performance data across thousands of users would make diagnosing and prioritizing performance issues much easier. It would help separate true “bugs” from cases where users just have mismatched settings. It could even serve as a tool for measuring improvements with each patch and verifying optimization progress. Example Benchmark Scenarios GPU Test: Empty map, no units — great for isolating GPU performance. Mixed Scenario: Moderate number of ground units and some AI aircraft — balanced test. Full Stress Test: Large-scale battle with lots of AI, explosions, and scripting — perfect for CPU benchmarking and mission-load testing. Having this tool would give ED a goldmine of telemetry data and would give us players confidence that we are making the most of our hardware. It could even be automated to submit anonymized results, helping ED continuously improve performance. I think this would be a win for everyone — players get clarity, ED gets better data, and DCS gets even closer to being the ultimate combat flight sim. Thanks

When using COM, the menu pops up shoing the name like ARC-210. It would help a lot to also show its currently tuned frequency. this makes it easier to distingushe the radio when not being familiar with the module and its radios.

tried again, coult not reproduce...

Hi, since long time I came back a little to this nice SU-25T. I was doing the startup training. And immediately on my first rolling I got a very unpleasant wobbeling. I guess it's meant to simulate the ground affecting the aircraft. However, it's really extreme. It feals like a very hard jitter, giving me a fast headake. I have no real "experiance" with real jets of course. The only thing mabe going into this direction was a flight with a very small helicopter. It shook and trembled violently. But only the whole aircraft - with me a little bit - NOT the world arround me looking outside. Maybe the effect of the SU-25T could be reduced to the aircraft if really needed, but not on the outside. Regards

Hi, back since long time to the SU-25T. Ruring the training mission About the "Shkval Sensor with KH-29T and KAB500Kr" I hang because my space key was not accepted. After deactivating active pause by hand, I'd guess 5 minutes, it continued from its own.

About the not saved flags and group activations: That would be very cool that an once activated group remains active after loading. However, for those who also struggle with this, there is a little workarround that works for me at the moment. Let's assume, you want to activate a group (lets call it SupportForces) using the F10 Menu. (Set flag, activate group trigger rule). In order to restore this state after loading do the following: - Create an additional single unit group (lets call it twintrigger) far away which is active from beginning - a kind of activation-twin - Add a small trigger zone just beside it - Add a waypoint to move twintrigger into the zone - Add a 'hold' to the initial waypoint - > but with 'condition stop' flag, in order to make the twintrigger move only when flag is set - Add a trigger to set this flag whenever you activate your SupportForces . - Important: Add a trigger, to also enable SupportForces when 'Parts of twintrigger is within the zone Or maybe I oversaw an other, very obvious way to do it. in this case.. never mind

You can Test the App "Process Lasso" to improve workload of CPU.

Hi there, I just want to share my experiance upgrading the system as the results are quite impressive. As the title says, I upgrated my GPU. Before I did so, I created a small session in Afghanistan and recorded the replay with MSI Afterburner before I made the changes. Afterwards, I run the same clip recording again with MSI Afterburner. These are the results: AMD 6900 XT 23-05-2025, 17:14:30 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 5091 frames rendered in 74.281 s Average framerate : 68.5 FPS Minimum framerate : 53.5 FPS Maximum framerate : 92.9 FPS 1% low framerate : 39.8 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 39.7 FPS RTX 5080 24-05-2025, 15:38:24 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 12052 frames rendered in 77.281 s Average framerate : 155.9 FPS Minimum framerate : 125.4 FPS Maximum framerate : 197.8 FPS 1% low framerate : 39.4 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 22.1 FPS Honestly, I did not expect this increase of performance. By test sites I expected about 80%plus, bus this is now 127% plus. I am playing 2D in 4k. My CPU is a AMD 5800X3D, 64 GB DDR4 3200 RAM, X570 Mainboard I know this a very short "test" and would not fulfill verbose analysis. Just one run - in Afghanistan in a F/A18 from inside and outside, no other planes and just ~75 seconds. However, I think this can help one or another when thinking to upgrade. @ED It would be great to have a common benchmarking function to get more reliable results across the whole community. Kind regards Limaro Benchmark_Afgh.trk options.lua

Thanks for your feedback @razo+r and @Theodore42. I Managed to reproduce it, It's related with the pressure and RPM. Even though it's not happening often, I now know what to do better

Hi, I am currenlty very confused. I flew the P51 very gently, started an attack of a ship, and right after the attack my engine failed. I dont see a reason for that. Maybe some Veterans here can help me out. I made a video of the whole situation also showing the whole cockpit switches. - I verified that I was not hit by external view and TacView - I was to high to get hit by the bombs. PS: Thanks to ED, that Track-Files work so reliably now

Thanks, this showed the first issue. I accidently hat a trail formation in the default setup in my 0th waypoint. This is solved. Also I fixed the crashing. ONe group was only set to stay in formation until WP1. However, some groups still fall back out of the formation just before the bombing. I "solved" that now by setting the waypoint where bombing starts not so farm from the bombing location itself. Something confused me in that video. I previously saw the one from the grim reapers, and there they configure only the leader, telling that all settings are inherited from "slaves" of the formation. in that one now, he tells to improve performance to only set ROE for some groups. Did this change meanwhile?

Hi, I am currently deperately trying to get a bomber group to work. I currently have three problems. 1. The very first group (B17-1), the leader of all, is also a set of three B17, (actually like all the other groups). However, it's the only one where the second and third plane are placed far behind the first, and they need many miles to catch up. 2. Just before the carpet bombing, the B17-5 and B17-7 are starting to fall behind without any noticable reason. 3. After the bombing many plances are crashing in each other. Are there three tricks to fix this behaviours? I've attached the mission B17Crash.miz