Setting up Dcs A10

Hi

I am running DCS A10 on a Phenom 1100T x6 at 3.4 ghz with Ati 6070,s in XFIRE. Using SSD and 3 24" monitors . 8Gb of Corsair ram also.

I'm currently running all high In GUI with HDR off. Xfire turned off. Getting avg 30 50 fps.

Any tips on gaining further performance? What are other eyefinity users running and getting performance wise?

Cheers

Gary

Hello,

Let me get this straight: you are getting 30-50 FPS on a tripple monitor setup and you want a better performance?

Cheers,

:P to be more "constructive":D

MTFDarkEagle just want to say that you are very lucky to have 30-50 FPS in DCS with a TH setup.

There are many topics about gaining performance on this forum. >> use the forum-search

...Well, most of them are about to isolate a single culprit of a individual system...

But as a starter have a look at this thread - I have optimised my system using this instruction - and now I'm very happy to run everything on "HIGH" (and beyond -using some file edits) on 3840x1790 while (almost) never drooping underneath of 30FPS.

Got stutters? Odd lag? This helped us! - ED Forums

Further - also visit both threads in my signature!

damn spoiled brat ;)

damn spoiled brat ;)

Also not a very constructive reply - but I chuckled also! :)

BTW:

@Irishlad200000

welcome to your first steps using a "game" that really calculates flight-physics and other stuff like the avionic-systems under the hood in real-time without using scripting or using GPU shaders just for the look.

:P

 

Also not a very constructive reply - but I chuckled also! :)

Not meant to be constructive and yes it was borderline.

And the ;) is very important and is meant with a smile :)

The average human eye can't detect individual frames after 24 fps.

Im running 20-25 fps depending on the mission. No stutters. It's fine.

Lucky f@%*king bugger ... :crash::rolleyes:

The average human eye can't detect individual frames after 24 fps.

 

Im running 20-25 fps depending on the mission. No stutters. It's fine.

That's nonsense, human eye/brain aren't computers working in cycles, so speaking strictly in fps terms in relation to what is precieved as fluent motion, and what not, is nonsense. The image itself, sharpness, contrast..etc play a huge role. I.e. the eye will detect a totally white frame that is much shorter then 1/24 of a second.

Yes, a movie appears fluent in 24fps, but that's because it's blurred, so the brain has bigger problem distinguish between individual frames, then in sharp pictures/movement generated by computer. And even in movies people have no problem to distinguish a 24fps movie from a 48fps one.

I personally see the difference between 24fps and 60fps.

:)Before this starts to turn into one of these "but I can see also that it is not fluent at 60hz".....thread :

Short: TurboHog and winz , you are both right... in a way or another! :)

And here is the long version about the "why":

First: Human seeing system can easily distinguish if a information is brought to it at 24FPS or at 60...

beyond this it gets really hard to be aware of a higher frequency.

And here is a demonstration that we only see what we want to see - keep it in mind when reading following Q/A - so there are many other factors that are influencing how we see something ...:

Q: Why 24 FPS for a movie is enough to look fluent/smooth?

A: the live pictures of a movie have motion-blur .

So the change from one picture to another is blending into another - and our brain gets tricked - so we (believe to) see a fluent movement.

It's getting even better when the Movie is interlaced - you see between the picture change both at the same time blended in to each other .

So it is even more smooth than just one picture after another.

Q: Why is 24FPS not sufficient in computer generated image for a fluent movement ?

A: Each frame is very sharp and crisp - our brain sees each frame without the "info" that it is moving.(missing motion-blur) .

So to get a absolute fluent computer generated image we have to use at least 60FPS or use some tricks in the post-processing. Yes - you guessed right! we have to simulate motion-blur.

But this technique is still very resource hungry and isn't always matching our real-live experience and seems not to "fit". - so its only practical to do it for CGI movies - but we will have still to wait some years until it will be satisfying rendered in real-time applications.

But when this is done - there should be no problem that a real-time CGI image will look also very smooth at only 30FPS.

Q: what can I do to overcome this dilemma in dcs ?

A: I have locked my FPS at 30 via a file edit in the Eagle DynamicsDCS WorldConfiggraphics.cfg

line # 329 >>> MaxFPS = 29;

So I don't see big jumps between frame rates - a steady 30FPS can look much more smooth as a moving image that jumps often between e.g. 30-50.

So I just "trained" my brain to "learn" that 30FPS is a smooth picture. <I just have to stop to think about it all the time...

But when I have not locked the FPS I get always distracted and reminded that 30FPS isn't fluent... because I get distracted by the change in FPS (but I don't get this irritation when locked on 30FPS...)

I hope you get my point. :) - don't know how to explain it better.

Be happy with the performance you have. Its about as good as you're going to get.

 

 

First: Human seeing system can easily distinguish if a information is brought to it at 24FPS or at 60...

beyond this it gets really hard to be aware of a higher frequency.

 

 

 

So to get a absolute fluent computer generated image we have to use at least 60FPS or use some tricks in the post-processing. Yes - you guessed right! we have to simulate motion-blur.

 

except there will be a distinct difference between looking at something @ 60Hz and something @ 100Hz

The 60Hz mentioned in the (A) refers to CRT monitors and the headaches caused by looking at the monitor running less than 60Hz for 20 minutes or more. The "flickering" at less than 60Hz on a CRT is apparent even on a static desktop screen, possibly because of the way the CRT draws the image onscreen.

Earlier LCD screens (all had, and some later ones still do have "Judder" when they run at less than its native refresh rate.. this is particularly noticeable when viewing terrain travelling horizontally (L > R or R < L) across the screen. LED backlit LCD's are marginally better, but the judder remains.

--------------`

and yeah, if the OP is getting those rates with that setup, I'd be happy with that.

yes you are right! :)

But this is exactly why I wrote

it gets really hard to be aware of a higher frequency

edit:

a CTR darkens out between each frame build > The electron-beam that refreshes the image is also responsible for the illumination.

...even if we are not really aware of it - the eyes getting very tired because of this.

That is causing the headache - as the eyes have to fight with a image that changes light intensity very quickly between each frame.

Something that isn't happening with a LCD screen.

A LCD has always the same illumination > only the "LCD" refresh while the back-light stays on.

Conclusion : We can't compare 60Hz of a CTR with 60Hz of a LCD.

Peter Jackson's having a real challenge with filming The Hobbit, because he's filming the 1st ever Hollywood blockbuster @48FPS, and test-audiences sure as hell can tell the difference between that and 24FPS... not that they like the results, but that's a different conversation.

that's because a whole image is flashed up on the screen and the 48fps (from memory) gives a sharper HD type quality to the film.

Trouble is, when shooting at 48fps twice the film stock is needed... and it certainly ain't cheap.

Its not "hard" so much Peter P, it just depends on the method of which the images are presented on. Film, Television, CRT and LCD are all different.

when shooting at 48fps twice the film stock is needed... and it certainly ain't cheap..

:D Even if Peter Jackson is from new-Zealand....I hope he is clever enough to use digital-cameras....

Because shipping the movie-reels to each cinema on this planet from down-under will probable very expensive.:D

 

Its not "hard" so much Peter P, it just depends on the method of which the images are presented on. Film, Television, CRT and LCD are all different.

Yes you are right! :)

But that is exactly why I wrote also this:

And here is a demonstration that we only see what we want to see - keep it in mind when reading following Q/A - so there are many other factors that are influencing how we see something ...:

:D I get the slight feeling that I should have named them all....;) But than I would still writing at posting #10.

Back on topic:

:)It is something like this: "30-50 FPS aren't enough to have fun with DCS !? How to get more!?"

 

Conclusion : We can't compare 60Hz of a CTR with 60Hz of a LCD.

 

True :) , except that both have inherent faults at less than 60Hz for the CRT and native refresh rate for the LCD ;)

Yes ! You are right again:)

..but I get the slight feeling that I get also some serious "inherent faults" when I start to write another reply in this thread.... ;)

..and I'm not talking about my eyes - I'm talking what's behind them....:P (..or still left..)

..whatever:

Have a good day!

Trouble is, when shooting at 48fps twice the film stock is needed... and it certainly ain't cheap.

Hardly a problem since the movie is shot and distributed in digital format so theres no film stock being used at all... :P

:P well there ya go

It was an older 60fps attempt, I was recalling... so thanks for the jog