2.1: (Much) better FPS in both NTTR and Normandy

So, the early reports of bad performance in Normandy and Nevada in 2.1 had me thinking that I would be stuck on 1.5 until the optimizations rolled out, because, as it was, even under 2.0, I was struggling on some missions in NTTR (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=186730).

However, the actual results were surprising!

On a simple mission, with just one a/c, I'm getting no less than 45 FPS low over Cannes, and 90 FPS high everywhere. The instant action dogfights (Spit, for e.g.), also gives me 90 FPS.

Even more surprising, the instant action F-5E take off in NTTR also gives me 45 FPS on the ground and 90 FPS after taking off, dropping back to 45 FPS when I fly over the built up areas. I was getting a steady 22/23 in 2.0 here before!

The F5E BFM FPS still sucks though.

I must admit to being stumped for the discrepancies between what other folks are reporting and my experience . Some of the people who reported good performance in 2.0 in the above thread are now saying their FPS sucks in 2.1. Furthermore, there are other people with much better rigs than mine who have trouble with 2.1 (or at least, worse than me). I am not sure what might be the issue here.

I have:

- i7-4790K @ 4.7Mhz

- 16GB DD3 @1833

- Gigabyte 1080TI Gaming OC (but not overclocked)

- Asus Sabertooth Z97 Mark 1

- Oculus Rift CV1, running with 1.3 Super-Sampling / OD (set in Oculus Tray Tool)

I have not even begin to experiment with tweaking with the graphics settings. Plan to do that later.

For the record, I currently have:

http://imgur.com/a/WMFJR

(p.s., the Spitfire gunsight is STILL messed up, tho ...)

I'm on of the people bitching about performance. Not using the new Deferred Shaders and stuff give a big boost but still almost not flyable.

I've got a 1070 otherwise pretty much the same rig as you.

I'm running with no MSAA or Anisotropic filtering and lower graph in general and I still struggle with 30 fps in Normandy. PlusI also have weird stuttering that other ppl talk about.

To be fair, most people that complain probably dont have a 1080Ti. It is pretty powerful card. Maybe it is just brute-forcing through whatever problem/leak/bug or whatever (no expert) that is causing the low FPS for us other mortals :). Of course I might very well be wrong.

 

 

Try ENABELING "Deferred Shading" .... that is where the problems aris, if combined with in-game AA settings.

have you tried texture to Medium ( game still nice and no more RAM saturation problems )

 

 

Try ENABELING "Deferred Shading" .... that is where the problems aris, if combined with in-game AA settings.

 

Ah, got it. Will give it a try. I disabled this without trying it, I think, because I saw posts about the cockpits being washed out.

I'm on of the people bitching about performance. Not using the new Deferred Shaders and stuff give a big boost but still almost not flyable.

I've got a 1070 otherwise pretty much the same rig as you.

I'm running with no MSAA or Anisotropic filtering and lower graph in general and I still struggle with 30 fps in Normandy. PlusI also have weird stuttering that other ppl talk about.

 

To be fair, most people that complain probably dont have a 1080Ti. It is pretty powerful card. Maybe it is just brute-forcing through whatever problem/leak/bug or whatever (no expert) that is causing the low FPS for us other mortals :). Of course I might very well be wrong.

Yep, the 1080Ti might be absorbing some of the inefficiencies here. But two key things remain:

(1) Even with the same reference point (i.e., my machine and my graphic settings), I am getting significantly better performance in 2.1 than 2.0 in at least some of the same benchmarks (e.g., NTTR F-5E instant action take off)

(2) Some of the folks who had similar or better performances than me with 2.0 are reporting worse performances in 2.1 .

All the folks who reported better performance than me in 2.0 had faster memory, better CPU's, or better MOBO's, or some combination thereof, even if their GPU's were the same or worse. This led me to think that my CPU/MOBO/RAM may have been the bottleneck with 2.0. I was tempted to spend a lot of money to upgrade for the meagre gains ... but was talked out of this by folks!

Maybe with 2.1 giving better performance, more of the heavy-lifting is done by the GPU rather than the CPU, leading to relative better performance in my case? Or maybe this is all an illusion? Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

I myself got way better in 2.0 over Nevada than I can achieve in 2.1 over Normandy.

No matter how far I turn down the settings I can not achieve 90 fps whilst flying over Normandy. I can get it to maintain a solid 45 fps (ASW) by having MSAA and AF off along with shadows off, only time I have seen 90 fps is when over nothing but water.

Hoping there will be some optimizations to come down the pike.

I myself got way better in 2.0 over Nevada than I can achieve in 2.1 over Normandy.

No matter how far I turn down the settings I can not achieve 90 fps whilst flying over Normandy. I can get it to maintain a solid 45 fps (ASW) by having MSAA and AF off along with shadows off, only time I have seen 90 fps is when over nothing but water.

 

Hoping there will be some optimizations to come down the pike.

Yes, this is one of the perplexing contrasts I was referring to. I'm getting easy 90 FPS over most parts of Normandy (terrain/land), at least with the simple missions (not too many other things going on). And it looks like by every measurable respect, your rig is pretty much beefier than mine. So something weird is going on. FWIW, I've also:

(1) switched off Window's gaming mode (I'm running W10 Creators Update)

(2) running off a SSD

(3) switched off Window's full-screen compatibility mode

(4) disabled hyper-threading

(5) completely disabled Windows indexing (http://www.online-tech-tips.com/computer-tips/simple-ways-to-increase-your-computers-performace-turn-off-indexing-on-your-local-drives/)

Well thought might be on to something, as I had gotten the Creators Update 2 or 3 weeks ago, went into setting and checked and Game Mode was set to On. I disable all Game Mode settings, but did not make a difference for me, performance still the same...

If you are able to get 90 fps over the Normandy terrain in VR, count your lucky stars you are golden! Maybe your Ti card makes all the difference.

There is no way I can achieve 90 fps over Normandy, not a chance. I struggle just to get the settings down low enough to be able to maintain a min of 45 fps for ASW and stutter free. This is with no MSAA and no AF!

No Creators Update here and also a 1080Ti, but impossible for me to get 90fps in 2.1. Performance is much worse than 2.0. No matter how much I lower the settings. 2D Performance on monitor is great with high settings, but no chance when switching to VR.

Bearfoot, most people started with deferred shading on and medium/high in-game AA an AF settings (as they were used to in pre-patch versions). All these together have been officially confirmed to cause significant performance drop, though.

Sure, with these options pretty much off, as set up by You, the performance will be back to normal, but we don't want to have them off, after all the shading and PBR are the crucial and most advertised elements of friday's update.

Yeah I have pretty much thrown in the towel at this point. I have spent more time tweaking and testing this weekend trying to get a decent performance in VR than I care to even think about.

I am wore out.

Hopefully especially with it being early Alpha some optimizations will be coming down the road. I think I am now going to wait to see what the next update might bring.

Sure, with these options pretty much off, as set up by You, the performance will be back to normal, but we don't want to have them off, after all the shading and PBR are the crucial and most advertised elements of friday's update.

I have even tried that, with them all off I still get no where near the performance, I sure can't reach 90 fps over Normandy. And that is just me flying alone.

Maybe with 2.1 giving better performance, more of the heavy-lifting is done by the GPU rather than the CPU, leading to relative better performance in my case? Or maybe this is all an illusion? Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

1) Caught in a landslide.

2) No escape from reality.

Open your eyes! Look up to the skies and see:

• I'm just a poor boy
  
• I need no sympathy because I'm:
  
  • Easy come, easy go
    
  • Little high, little low
    

1) Caught in a landslide.

2) No escape from reality.

 

Open your eyes! Look up to the skies and see:

• I'm just a poor boy
  
• I need no sympathy because I'm:
  
  • Easy come, easy go
    
  • Little high, little low
    

Hah! You were the only one who got it! (Or, alternatively, liked it enough to respond!)

Bearfoot, most people started with deferred shading on and medium/high in-game AA an AF settings (as they were used to in pre-patch versions). All these together have been officially confirmed to cause significant performance drop, though.

 

Sure, with these options pretty much off, as set up by You, the performance will be back to normal, but we don't want to have them off, after all the shading and PBR are the crucial and most advertised elements of friday's update.

Yep, that makes sense.

But that only covers a portion of the folks, tho. There are other folks who are reporting bad performance with everything off and/or turned low. And in many cases, their rigs are equal or superior to mine. E.g., ram0506.

No Creators Update here and also a 1080Ti, but impossible for me to get 90fps in 2.1. Performance is much worse than 2.0. No matter how much I lower the settings. 2D Performance on monitor is great with high settings, but no chance when switching to VR.

You have got some pretty respectable horsepower. Makes no sense! Have you tried disabling windows indexing? Apparently, files get written/changed when a mission is loaded, and if indexing is on, Windows will try to index the constantly changing files. Also, are both the OS and game on SSD?

eSo, here is where things get crazy.

I switched on the deferred shading. And, just to get things a little heavier, upped the shadows, MSAA, and anisotropic filtering. Sure enough, FPS dropped to to 35-40, sometimes touching 45 (ASW on).

Ok, well and good.

Switch everything back.

Not seeing my 90 FPS anymore over Normandy! With ASW off, see that I'm getting 60-70 FPS, sometimes touching 90. But with ASW, steady 45 FPS, over land at least (sea gives me 90). Switch everything to the minimum. Same. 45 FPS easy, no matter where I am over land, high or low, but no more of that sweet 90 I had before. NTTR still gives me 90.

What gives?? Is it possible that switching deferred shading on somehow changes things --- maybe in some pre-compiled graphics/images --- from which there is no going back, even after it is switched off? I can live with the 45 FPS for now, and am looking forward to optimizations, but the logic of what I am seeing befuddles me ...

Hi Bearfoot,

OS and DCS are both on SSD, I tried disabling windows indexing, but this doesn`t seem to have any effect on performance. 2D is ok, VR is a pain.

As I´m getting tired of tweaking my settings (did that already for weeks with the closed Alpha of Normandy), I will wait for possible improvements and fixes with the next updates.

the game isn't to stare at FPS numbers and play with graphics settings.

the game is to fly aircraft.

so i can understand why some of you are getting frustrated.

turn your fps counters off and just fly.

and you will have lots more fun..

with NTTR the FPS used to change with every patch..

i stopped looking at the FPS counter a long time ago

to retain my sanity.

im sure this is going to be the same, its an alpha we all volunteered for :)

xplane11 has worse FPS... and worse terrain, but better clouds.

the game isn't to stare at FPS numbers and play with graphics settings.

 

the game is to fly aircraft.

so i can understand why some of you are getting frustrated.

 

turn your fps counters off and just fly.

and you will have lots more fun..

 

with NTTR the FPS used to change with every patch..

i stopped looking at the FPS counter a long time ago

to retain my sanity.

im sure this is going to be the same, its an alpha we all volunteered for :)

 

xplane11 has worse FPS... and worse terrain, but better clouds.

Pretty silly thing to say in the VR forum where FPS dictates whether you can fly at all.

The problem is that Vr need 90 if less picture is jiddery, it not as in monitor jidderness is not equal in every eye so picture beomes corrupt!

The problem is that Vr need 90 if less picture is jiddery, it not as in monitor jidderness is not equal in every eye so picture beomes corrupt!

Well if I just stay out above nothing but water and no other planes, I can maintain 90 fps for the best experience. Makes for a pretty dull experience though...

I am not sure why, but I keep going in and tweaking and testing - guess I am looking for a holy grail or something - but it just ain't happening for me. I have gotten to where I can run flat cockpit shadows, and 2x MSAA and 4x AF, very little trees/grass. Can maintain 45 fps ASW most of time, but occasionally dips down into the 30's down low over Normandy and then the stuttering starts.

Who knows what would happen in a heavy action combat scenario as all my testing is still just instant action Spitfire take off mission in Normandy. Even with all my eye candy turned way down and/or off, it still looks nice. I can only imagine how great it would look in VR if one was able to run with pumping much more eye candy into it. Maybe someday.

Is it just me that is ok with 45fps and ASW? Density at 1.5 and i find it just fine - no motion / VR sickness and plenty smooth to fly around the trees.

I just can't wait to start using the terrain / trees properly against the AAA in the helos...

90Fps would be great but I am managing with 45...

I'm totally fine with 45fps with asw as well. Considering the huge leap in visual fidelity I'm more than happy with the alpha state. Great work fellas!