I do not like 6DOF cockpit, I can re-use old 2D cockpit?

Went from 60-70 FPS in the Su-27 to 40 max and avg of about 30. My PC specs are in my sig. Not a bad machine at all. I take a massive hit in FPS with cockpit lights on. With lights off i average about 30 fps, lights on about 22 fps. When I'm in the F-15C everything is peachy with lights on or off at 50+ fps. Has anyone tried frostie's cockpit canopy scratch removal mod for the Su-27? Any difference?

I love my Su-27, can we do something about this ED? Pretty pleaaaaaase...

Well I'm sure we would all like a constant 60 FPS if we had the choice, but you obviously haven't played FSX, X Plane 10, Cliffs Of Dover, if you haven't seen a bad as engine as this one. The one good thing about this one is that the new engine might just make all these extra features worth while, or would you prefer it if they kept everything as it was until we saw what the other engine did? But take into account that we would have to wait a number of years to see what we see today.

So you are excusing the poor performance on the engine by comparing it with other bad engines?

No, i have not played those and i do not want to play those. Its is however just another poor excuse.

And where exactly did i imply i wanted to put features on hold? All i sad was the engine that is currently in use is simply not good enough, and that making excuses for it is pointless as most of the excuses that you see referrers to poor claims that somehow a flight sim is so much harder to run than any other type of video game it cant possibly be the cause of the engine itself being bad that makes it run slow.

Tordin, so to what sim exactly are you comparing then?

vast majority of battlefield players might chase better frame rate, but here that vast majority is capping their FPS at the "unplayable" 30 , and many do so in FSX too to this day. Bad engine? Sure, it is not the best, but reality is there is nothing better out there for flight sims.

I have literally never come across any game engine that works slower than this one does.

So what games are you comparing this to then? Because I cannot think of many more flight sims to compare it with. You could say IL2 1946, but the graphics are old, so that's why that game is able to give a good decent FPS now. The other thing about IL2 1946, is that it doesn't use anywhere near the calculations this game does hence the reason you get better FPS.

dont give me one of those "its a simulation, its much heavier to run etc etc

Hate to say it, but that's exactly the reason. The cpu is making so many calculations in a sim that it starts to slow things up. Games like Battlefield3 can be played at good FPS because they don't use the calculations these games do. Take a look at War Thunder, it has fantastic graphics and good FPS, but it's a smaller map with nothing much to calculate. I can be playing FC3, at 60 FPS if I just fly along and let go of a few missiles, but when it all starts happening below and above that's when I get a FPS hit. And that's because the Ai have started their War and along with that comes more calculations and more stress on the CPU.

Tordin, so to what sim exactly are you comparing then?

vast majority of battlefield players might chase better frame rate, but here that vast majority is capping their FPS at the "unplayable" 30 , and many do so in FSX too to this day. Bad engine? Sure, it is not the best, but reality is there is nothing better out there for flight sims.

Yes there is, Rise of Flight engine is way better looking, no ghost trees. Run fast, looks sexy. No fake buildings painted in ground... :music_whistling:

But wait, i forget my fan boy hat -> lets put it on.... oh dcs runs way better now :D:D

I'm sorry but I do not think you're correct on that.. Battlefield 3 doesn't have the "massive" space that say this sim has. How ever. Battlefield 3 is able to run on more then 1 core [don't give me DCS runs on two cores. that sound is on a different core that does not count] and multiple gpu's. The issue with FPS in DCS is the engine design plain and simple. I don't have the most top of the line computer how ever if this engine wasn't designed in the era of duel cores being top of the line 1000 dollar proccessors and had the ability to use as many cores as a cpu has to offer my computer would not hickup running it.

Well I'm not really wrong because all I was explaining is why this game doesn't run that well and why other games do. But we really shouldn't compare Battlefiled 3, with a Fight Sim and to be fair I did start out comparing this with other Sims. Can I also add that it is better to make a game that appeals to a much wider audience if you want to make any profit and continue to be in business. Lets face it not everybody could afford a Quad Core CPU then.

Well, if you're not happy with the 'it's a sim, it's more demanding', then there's fallback position number 2: It's a sim, the development team is MUCH smaller than the BF3 team, and the return on investment is MUCH lower - ergo, there is less investment in core technology.

Feel free to code a new multi-core, multi GPU DCS core engine - I'd be both extremely impressed and happy :)

Well I'm not really wrong because all I was explaining is why this game doesn't run that well and why other games do. But we really shouldn't compare Battlefiled 3, with a Fight Sim and to be fair I did start out comparing this with other Sims. Can I also add that it is better to make a game that appeals to a much wider audience if you want to make any profit and continue to be in business. Lets face it not everybody could afford a Quad Core CPU then.

Believe it or not, just because its a flight sim does not suddenly increase the difficulty of a calculation. The funny thing is, that its not the flight model that kills FPS. The engine will happily calculate the physics of 20-30 aircraft with no signs of slowdowns, yet simple

particle effects like smokestacks and explosions will literally kill the FPS. Just looking in the wrong direction is often enough to cut your framerate in two when really there is absolutely nothing going on, which again leads to the claim that its the complex calculations required for a simulator as opposed to any other type of game is just a load of BS.

Ergo, you didnt prove anything.

Consider also for a second that DCS honestly looks quite shit by modern standards.

Some of the aircraft models look fantastic, like the new Su-27, the F/A-18C etc, and some look like they came straight from the original LOMAC, and thats probably because they did.

The terrain is unimpressive, regardless of its size its not very pretty. Same can be said for effects like explosions etc, which greatly reduces the immersion factor and honestly, makes the game harder to enjoy for someone who might not be there primarily to fly.

Well, if you're not happy with the 'it's a sim, it's more demanding', then there's fallback position number 2: It's a sim, the development team is MUCH smaller than the BF3 team, and the return on investment is MUCH lower - ergo, there is less investment in core technology.

 

Feel free to code a new multi-core, multi GPU DCS core engine - I'd be both extremely impressed and happy :)

This is absolutely true, and im not criticizing ED as a developer nearly as much as im criticizing their sometimes fanatical core playerbase for spreading rumors and fallacies based on nothing but their misguided perception of how hardcore their software is.

It makes perfect sense for a small time (relative) developer like ED to work with existing tech as long as possible. Developing a new engine for any game or simulator is often more expensive and time consuming than creating the actual game itself, however currently its not keeping up and its by far in my opinion the biggest downfall of the simulator, and to the lack of interest around simulations in general.

I dont want to speak about specifics like adding full multicore support etc, because frankly its not the main problem. Its also incredibly hard to do. The main problem is the code doesnt scale on modern hardware to any significant degree, which means its just pissing away computing power while having not much better performance than you did 5+ years ago in LOMAC etc, and thats a pretty serious issue.

The FPS drop when activating lights is also very noticeable on the A-10C as well.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=103399

And for people who don't experience this. You are already bottlenecked by something else. VRAM, CPU whatever.

Regarding general FPS loss in the sim itself. The biggest FPS killer in the game is number of objects in the 3d models that are rendered.

I don't know where people get that it's due to flightmodels, avionics etc. That is purely rumor, myth++ put out from some peeps who have either heard it from someone who has heard it from someone else again. Or people who have no clue what they are talking about.

I did hour's of testing a while back ago to track down what killed my FPS at certain times. There are some interesting results there.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=101491

The main problem is the code doesnt scale on modern hardware to any significant degree, which means its just pissing away computing power while having not much better performance than you did 5+ years ago in LOMAC etc, and thats a pretty serious issue.

Well all I can say is that every developer must be tarred with the same brush. Because all of the flight Sims I have played including FSX, Cliffs of Dover, X plane 10 ect, all run at crappy FPS. Maybe they should take your advice and run with your idea which was to do what exactly? You would think these developers would be chomping at the bit to implement your idea if it would indeed create a massive FPS boost and bring much better playability to the Sim world. Just beats me why nobody wants to do it really if it's that good. Maybe someone from ED could answer this question? One of the testers or somebody else?

I dont want to speak about specifics like adding full multicore support etc, because frankly its not the main problem. Its also incredibly hard to do. The main problem is the code doesnt scale on modern hardware to any significant degree, which means its just pissing away computing power while having not much better performance than you did 5+ years ago in LOMAC etc, and thats a pretty serious issue.

I thought you were presenting some idea when you wrote about this. I was actually curious to know if ED could come up with something to make it better.

My bad, i read it as an attempt at mockery.

Either way, I dont think there is much they could do, as the basis of the engine is so old I think if there was room for improvement without an extensive redesign, i think they would have.

My point was rather about EDGE, and how multicore is thrown around quite often on this forum yet its not necessarily the solution, or necessary to even produce good results. A single well utilized core together with a well utilized GPU and efficient/optimized engine may very well be enough to power anything DCS needs.

Multithreading sounds great in theory, but its very hard to do properly when the process its running is not a consistent, predictable operation.

Something like a video editing software will be easier to code for multithreading, as the tasks it will be working with are predictable. They dont change, where as a game is a dynamic set op operations that changes every time new input is added.

Combine the above with the massive architectural gains we have seen in mainstream CPU's the last 6 years in single threaded applications, multicore might be unnecessarily expensive and complicated to implement with relatively small gains.

Ofcourse, i could be wrong and EDGE could be a fully fledged engine of comparable quality to CryENGINE 3 etc both in flexibility and performance. It would be a dream scenario tbh

So no, im not really presenting any new ideas. I think ED are aware of the issue, im still just trying to quell this "sim" myth that somehow DCS is such a terribly complicated engine it cant produce decent FPS.

lol Just kidding sorry.

Lets just hope EDGE can give the game a whole new life when it arrives. I seem to have been reading about it for what seems like an eternity now and still no release date in sight. I am looking at locking my game at 35 FPS for now, because it sure beats the hell out of having up and down FPS all the time.

Edge is cool how ever it is not going to run the Georgia maps. It is for Nevada only. Not that I have a problem with Nevada but unless ED is planning on making some sort of America is going to be attacked scenario it's "for fun" at least with the current region things like this may/could happen in real life and it will bring a more sense of realism. Sorry if I sounds like I'm fighting this how ever Let's be real the likely hood of any attack on use soil will be Nuclear or terrorist and not air warfare. The nevada map would be just used for target practice or "sim warfare like redflag"

 

Sorry but I don't like the idea of EDGE I don't think it's going to appeal to the masses unless they do in fact implement everything to it. That and having two engines for 1 game is retarded if they don't IMHO.. I just think Nevada isn't worth it's time. Should be more areas in the asiapac unless you can take off from Nevada with a tanker and fly across the pacific to Georgia.. talk about long flight time..

Edge won't be only for Nevada. But also for other DCS maps and 3th party map makers from what i have understand. So how can you be against edge if it gives is alot of improvements.

Edge... Its like santa... We want to belive :D

I belive that edge will look bit better but will be even heavier to run And trees are still ghost trees.

Well if EDGE is only for the Nevada map then it makes sod all difference to me, because I won't be buying that.

They definitely said that there are other terrains that are waiting for EDGE to be completed. Can't remember if it was EB or EN, but one of the two said that a short time ago on a forum after some moans about same old area.

Don't know how it can work that a terrain is ready, except for the architecture it will use - I'm no scenery coder - but this was definitely mentioned. Maybe he meant they are designed using the current code and will only be released once they are updated to EDGE.

I'm on the EDGE of my seat...

PS - I like this:

im not criticizing ED as a developer nearly as much as im criticizing their sometimes fanatical core playerbase for spreading rumors and fallacies based on nothing but their misguided perception of how hardcore their software is

You put it very well, matey ;)

EDGE is for the entire game, i mean what would the point be of having 2 graphics engines for one game, and not to mention it being a complete nightmare to code anything in, since youd have to do pretty much everything twice.

I mean you load the menu you start a mission in georgia and you have to load all the shaders for DX9 and all the other stuff. now you close it and go to Nevada and suddenly you need to switch to DX11 and load every all over again, its horrible even thinking about it, much less trying to make something work on this kind of setup.

its just that the Georgia terrain will most likely remain its loweres self while we'll get a nice sandy desert to do stuff in.

Testing out this issue for myself

It only appears to affect the Su-27, not any of the other aircraft.

and even then it's a drop from 60-40 fps which I'm not going to notice unless I'm running Fraps and looking for it, anything above 35 is smooth enough.

Yes, getting back to the subject at hand, I have pretty bad stutters in all 3 new 6DOF cockpits in FC3. I don't have any in the DCS aircraft, nor did I have any in v1.2.3

Later I'll do some tests and see exactly what framerates I'm getting. It definitely is not an aerodrome related issue, as it happens with air start missions, too.

My rig main bits:

SandyBridge i5 2500k @ 4.3GHz

Asus P8P67 Pro

6GB Corsair 1600MHz DDR3

Gigabyte GTX560Ti OC 1GB

Win7 H64

Thank you very much!However, delete "Mods\aircrafts\Flaming Cliffs\Cockpit\Resources\Model\Shape", cockpit there are problems。

 

 

 

Please help！！！

I can't be bothered reading the thread, so if you haven't fixed it yet, go to

C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Config\View\Snapviewsdefault.lua

Go to line 247: change x/y/z = 0.0000... as below.

    [13] = {--default view
       viewAngle = 88.727844,--FOV
       hAngle     = 0.000000,
       vAngle     = -9.678451,
       x_trans     = 0.000000,
       y_trans     = 0.000000,
       z_trans     = 0.000000,
       rollAngle = 0.000000,