Search the Community

Hi all I am experiencing lags that makes DCS unplayable. I went through the forum however found no solution. I have pretty decent PC for DCS I9 12900K; RTX3080; 32GB DDR5; DCS installed on SSD My FPS are stable locked on 80Hz. I tried it with VR and without VR. Every test run was the same resulting stable FPS but lag spikes. I don´t know how to describe these lags. I monitored harware usage via task manager and I found pretty obvious fact. Utilisation of GPU is dropping from like 80% to 40% avery few seconds and thats right when the lag in game occurs. (posting pictures from two sigleplayer test flights in F14 on caucaus) I would like to hear you experience playing DCS nowdays. To point out I had the same issue with 2.7 version. Few steps I did: All drivers are up to date (bios, gpu, cpu etc...) Tried every single settings in DCS Hot plugs disabled running full screen with fullscreen optimalistaon turned off. Fxo metashaders didn´t help either. Even complete reinstall of DCS DCS OPEN BETA running on Windows 11

Hi, I want to report a general decrease of framerate by about 13%. This might be to the new cloud and lighting effects, however I think It might be useful to let you know this. Since the 2.7.6 to 2.7.7 - Performance-Loss Bug I have a small replay I regularly check before updates. These are now the differences: 2.7.18 27-10-2022, 16:05:09 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 8549 frames rendered in 101.203 s Average framerate : 84.4 FPS Minimum framerate : 56.9 FPS Maximum framerate : 109.9 FPS 1% low framerate : 58.7 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 33.7 FPS 2.8.0 30-10-2022, 20:50:31 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 7452 frames rendered in 101.015 s Average framerate : 73.7 FPS Minimum framerate : 51.4 FPS Maximum framerate : 92.6 FPS 1% low framerate : 52.8 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 47.7 FPS My PC in short: Ryzen 7 3700X, AMD 6900XT (Adrenalin 22.10.2), 64GB RAM, Windows 10 21H2 Unfortunately, I can only share a actual 2.8 log file (attached). Currently I try to make space on my drive, to update the stable and -counterverify the original numbers. I will post the log for this later. What I've done so far: - Delete fxo - Delete metashader2 - Removed Scripts-Folder As soon as the stable is ready I'll try diffent settings to compare the impacts. But meanwhile, if someone has valuable suggestions, I am open for tipps. EDIT: I finally could find some place for the stable and installed it. I've created two more flight, one in very bad weather, the other without. Also changed the modules. But the results are very compareable. 30-10-2022, 22:11:55 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 5598 frames rendered in 74.672 s 2.7.18 Beirut_4_2 Average framerate : 74.9 FPS Minimum framerate : 56.6 FPS Maximum framerate : 99.8 FPS 1% low framerate : 56.6 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 55.1 FPS 30-10-2022, 22:15:30 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 6445 frames rendered in 63.859 s 2.7.18 Beirut_4_3 Average framerate : 100.9 FPS Minimum framerate : 72.7 FPS Maximum framerate : 137.7 FPS 1% low framerate : 72.4 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 70.8 FPS 30-10-2022, 22:19:27 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 4906 frames rendered in 74.469 s 2.8.0 Beirut_4_2 Average framerate : 65.8 FPS Minimum framerate : 52.2 FPS Maximum framerate : 87.3 FPS 1% low framerate : 51.6 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 47.5 FPS 30-10-2022, 22:21:04 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 5590 frames rendered in 63.438 s 2.8.0 Beirut_4_3 Average framerate : 88.1 FPS Minimum framerate : 60.8 FPS Maximum framerate : 115.7 FPS 1% low framerate : 60.1 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 58.6 FPS EDIT2: Updated Title EDIT3: Corrected GPU Number dcs.log Performance_Fly_4_1_Beirut.trk Performance_Fly_4_2_Beirut.trk Performance_Fly_4_3_Beirut.trk dcs_2.7.18.log

Hello fellows, As it was the case with previous verisons this bug still persists in 2.8 for me. I can't get DCS to use my GPU at its maximum potential. GPU usage is all over the place bouncing up to 70-80% with low FPS around 60-70 varying up to 80-90 at higher altitudes. I have attached various photos with my settings and with the actual performance taken both in multiplayer and is singleplayer. Here are my specs: Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 8-Core Processor 3.80 GHz Installed RAM 32.0 GB System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor Edition Windows 11 Pro Version 22H2 Installed on ‎29/‎10/‎2022 OS build 22621.819 GPU Nvidia 3080Ti Nvidia Driver 526.86 Release Date 11/10/2022 OS and DCS storage Samsung SSD 980 Pro 1TB I don't see any bottlenecks nor limits in my system and I have already tried multiple settings and solutions found on other threads (vsync on-off/fast in game settings and Nvidia Control Pannel, setting fps limits to 144 etc.) but nothing worked. Do you get the same issues or have other solutions that I should try? Thanks. (GPU usage in multiplayer) (GPU usage in singleplayer) (DCS Settings and Nvidia Control Panel)

Hi all, I'm new to the forums so please forgive any errors on my part, out of the blue I've started to have sudden and constant frame drops, game hitches, and freezes and I really don't know what to do about it. The performance issues occur in all of my modules on all of the maps in and out of multiplayer. My specs: 16 gb ram RTX 2070 graphics cardx Intel i7-9700 @3 GHz My game was running fine until it wasn't pretty much. I have a log file for a session that triggered to make an account to get help (see attached). All the best, Captin Pelley dcs.log

So i have seen so many forums about this problem but I'm gonna ask anyway. While playing DCS with minimal graphics settings I can get massive FPS drops. I'm able to fix these FPS drops by turning off my VR headset for about 10 sec and then turn it back on and with about 1/3rd of the time the FPS is fixed back to normal. If the FPS isn't fixed I turn the headset off and on again until it is fixed again. Every time I have one of these FPS drops I noticed that in task manager my GPU usage goes from giving 70% to DCS and 30% to my VR application > to 30% DCS and 70% to my VR application. I have noticed that this problem occurs more frequently in busy servers where there are a lot of players or a lot of enemy moving AI. But it isn't constant on these busy servers. I can just fly a little bit longer than normal until I get this FPS drop. I also have days where I play on a full Growling sidewinder PVP (for an hour) server and I never get any FPS drops. I have already tried several things: In Nvidia control panel I put power management for DCS only in to 'Prefer maximum power' and of the VR oculus application to 'Optimal power' In windows settings enable 'Hardware-accelerated GPU scheduling' and as well put in Graphics performance preference DCS in high performance I don't know any other possible fixes i can do. I've attached a video showing the FPS drop. You can visibly see when it starts to lag and as well as see at the same time the GPU usage of DCS drop [note that when i stopped recording i turned off and on my VR headset for ~10 sec and the FPS went back to normal as well as the GPU usage went back to 60/70ish %] Digital Combat Simulator Black Shark.mp4

Hello all, My brother've been having some serious issues with DCS for a long time time now, and I just had the idea to share it with you too, maybe someone can help. The issue is very simple, and a lot of people with cheaper PC's suffer with it. It's the high RAM usage. We tested this for a few months now, and this is what he's been experiencing: His game crashes after 10-15 minutes of playing on Caucasus map in multiplayer because he used all of his RAM. At this stage usually his whole PC shuts down, in a better case only DCS, maybe Discord too. I experimented with his settings to lower it to the most minimum settings that I can, but this didn't seem to extend his playtime. I also told him the obvious to close any programs running in the background that are not necessary, this only had a very minor impact of things. Here is his PC specs: ASUS Prime H310 M-E 2.0 Intel(R) i5-9600K 16GB DDR4 RAM running at 2400MHz RTX 3050 OC I know that 16GB's of RAM is not enough for DCS to comfortably run, but the strange thing is that I had the almost EXACT SAME PC config as he, but with a 6 gig GTX 1060 and never crashed the game because of not enough RAM. Here are his settings he's having now: I'm open to any ideas, and thank you all in advance.

Hello fellows, As it was the case with previous verisons this bug still persists in 2.8 for me. I can't get DCS to use my GPU at its maximum potential. GPU usage is all over the place bouncing up to 70-80% with low FPS around 60-70 varying up to 80-90 at higher altitudes. I have attached various photos with my settings and with the actual performance taken both in multiplayer and is singleplayer. Here are my specs: Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 8-Core Processor 3.80 GHz Installed RAM 32.0 GB System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor Edition Windows 11 Pro Version 22H2 Installed on ‎29/‎10/‎2022 OS build 22621.819 GPU Nvidia 3080Ti Nvidia Driver 526.86 Release Date 11/10/2022 OS and DCS storage Samsung SSD 980 Pro 1TB I don't see any bottlenecks nor limits in my system and I have already tried multiple settings and solutions found on other threads (vsync on-off/fast in game settings and Nvidia Control Pannel, setting fps limits to 144 etc.) but nothing worked. Do you get the same issues or have other solutions that I should try? Thanks. (GPU usage in multiplayer) (GPU usage in singleplayer) (DCS Settings and Nvidia Control Panel)

-camera -1.163894 0.025086 -4.804912 -cameradir -0.921525 -0.247110 -0.299548 In the west of Guam int airport, the town next to USN hospital, it got to 8FPS I could run 60+FPS in Dubai, what happened here??? Do we really need those detailed "bikes" and building fences, cargo palletes and road cones? why not replace them with a texture or some else come on ED we dont need a unplayable Monalisa See this screen shot, RTX 3070 i7-10700 32Gb RAM down to 15 vase flower pots and "mini fence" great 11 fps

Worse performance in VR than before the update with the stand alone MT version (Minus 15-25 FPS), also MT only runs in OpenXR with Steam VR. Here are all of the ways I have tried to start DCS MT and non-MT. Non-MT started directly from the Virtual Desktop tray icon uses the Oculus runtime and gets me between 35-54 FPS, no jitters. I have attached all of the logs and screen shots Big Newy asked for. The short mission recording is too big so here is a link to it on my YouTube channel. The key here for Oculus and Pico users (the two most affordable headsets) and there are more of us than you think. 15 million Quest 2 and 590,000 Pico 4 sold, is that these headsets perform horribly with DCS in Steam/OpenXR. But ONLY with DCS, I run MSFS 2022, VTOL VR, Assetto Corsa Competizione, Project Cars 2, F1 2020 and the list goes on at high or ultra settings in Steam VR with no issues. Don't get me wrong, I think DCS is the best combat flight simulator in public access at this time. On triple screens with Opentrack, I have no performance issues with most settings maxed out. However, the depth perception and immersion in VR gives me a huge advantage low level in the A-10 and helicopters, simply because I know exactly how far my wing tips/rotors are from the trees I am flying between. I have gotten several kills on MIG 29s by making them come down to my playground to get a shot at me. My better half remarked the other day that I spend more hours trying to get DCS to work reliably in VR than I do flying. But in spite of all of that, I really am pulling for the DCS Team because there is nothing out there with combat aircraft that is as real as DCS. Please for us Oculus runtime folks, don't force us to go to Steam VR/ OpenXR. The attached game video is actually the best it has done yet, until the enemy and friendlies activate, then FPS tanks, down around 12 FPS. Enemy strength is only 4 BTRs and 40 infantry with AKs. Blue force is 3 APCs, one M60 tank and 40 infantry. The only aircraft are us four UH-1s. EDIT Forgot to include the computer specs. System Specs, MOBO=ASRock X570 Pro4 CPU=AMD Ryzen 7 5700X, 8 core GPU=Zotac RTX 3060 Ti RAM=TEAMGROUP T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4 32GB Kit (2x16GB) 3200MHz (PC4-25600) CL16 Desktop Memory Module DCS Openbeta on a dedicated 2TB NVMe M.2 drive Headset=Pico 4, CAT 8 Ethernet direct from a dedicated 5G router to an Ethernet to USB C adapter, steady 1200 MBPs.In game network latency never above 3 MS. Newest versions of Pico 4 software, Virtual Desktop, NVIDIA driver (GeForce Experience not installed). Fresh Windows 10 install with all updates. VR benchmark = 97. MSI Afterburner undervolted at 0.975/1995 MHz on a curve, power @110%, Fan Control Program (CPU and GPU temps never above 65, because of the Corsair air flow case with 4 chassis fans and a massive Assasin CPU air cooler). Edit I have run repair and clean and have deleted the contents of the FXO and Metashaders folders. Still the same. Launch procedure Start Pico 4 headset. Start Virtual Desktop App in Pico 4 (Virtual Desktop streamer already running on PC). Right click on Virtual Desktop tray icon. Click on launch game, file explorer window opens, navigate to F:\DCS World OpenBeta\bin\DCS.exe Double click on .exe DCS launches without starting Steam or Steam VR, in Oculus runtime (runtime shown in VD performance display in headset), Log shows this 2023-03-10 22:39:38.250 INFO APP (8372): Command line: "F:\DCS World OpenBeta\bin\DCS.exe" 2023-03-10 22:39:38.250 INFO APP (8372): DCS/2.8.3.37556 (x86_64; Windows NT 10.0.19045) 2023-03-10 22:40:02.109 INFO VISUALIZER (8372): VRG skip, ask for support if you own VRG helmet 2023-03-10 22:40:02.367 INFO VISUALIZER (8372): LAUNCH IN VR OculusRift: OculusRift : Oculus Rift S Same process with MT Log shows this and DCS starts Steam VR, runtime now shown as Openvr, main menu screen is below my vision level but keyboard down arrow re-centers view. Loading screen super jittery, takes a long time to load, progress bars do not show, just Steam VR "Waiting on DCS". Performance drop, average FPS 25-35 with Spacewarp (reprojection) disabled, unplayable with it on, ghosting everywhere. Stuttering, random short freezes (1-2 seconds). 2023-03-11 00:22:39.856 INFO APP (12060): Command line: "F:\DCS World OpenBeta\bin-mt\DCS.exe" 2023-03-11 00:22:39.856 INFO APP (12060): DCS/2.8.3.37556 (x86_64; MT; Windows NT 10.0.19045) 2023-03-11 00:23:04.436 INFO VISUALIZER (12060): LAUNCH IN VR OpenXR: SteamVR/OpenXR : oculus Launched directly from modified shortcut on desktop with this command line and OpenXR Toolkit running, F:\DCS World OpenBeta\bin-mt\DCS.exe" --force_enable_VR --force_OpenXR, runtime shows as OpenXR Still launches Steam VR, same symptoms as with F:\DCS World OpenBeta\bin-mt\DCS.exe, slightly better performance, I think because of OpenXR Toolkit. Log shows this 2023-03-10 20:46:20.932 INFO APP (Main): Command line: "F:\DCS World OpenBeta\bin-mt\DCS.exe" --force_enable_VR --force_OpenXR 2023-03-10 20:46:20.932 INFO APP (Main): DCS/2.8.3.37556 (x86_64; MT; Windows NT 10.0.19045) 2023-03-10 20:46:52.517 INFO VISUALIZER (Main): LAUNCH IN VR OpenXR: SteamVR/OpenXR : oculus dcs.log_3_12_2023_1811.txt DxDiag.txt

Hi everybody, this topic is intended to clear out some misinterpretation regarding structural strength of simulated airframes here in DCS. During my evaluation and testing of simulated modules I have encountered certain damage model behavior that I found not to be inline with industry specifications and standards, historically and current, respectively in cases of ultimate load excess leading to catastrophic failure on wing structure, partially or in full. As an examples, I point to the occurrences of catastrophic wing disintegration in case of F14, F5, JAS37, MiG21, Su27, J11, Su33 etc. in cases of exceeding nominal limitations given in pilot manuals that occur instantly without prior warnings. My professional background covers field of structural evaluations of mechanical structures in high load conditions with application of crucial factor of safety that is applied on high stress elements of design with respect to fatigue impact on strength degradation over the life span of any high risk mechanical construction that aims to preserve design itself as lives of operators involved. Being involved in such evaluations, I find factor of safety the most important element of design that ensures design itself to be safe even after exceeding defined limitations in user manual in certain conditions. Thus, I will give some brief insights on allowed ranges and consequences of exceeding limitations not stated in manuals. At first, the observed behavior of named modules do not represent real life performance. The initial state of fresh spawned module is projected to be factory rolled state, meaning that there is a minimal work hours accumulated on airframe, theoretically. That implies that the state of structure is at peak strength without any developed structural imperfections and potential seeds of catastrophic failures. The most important structural degradation comes from fatigue induced cracks that are initiated and developed during life span of airframe within work envelope with higher expectancy towards end of life. In practice, that means that initial strength of airframe is, based on fatique evaluation, multiplied in such manner that, within nominal operational limits, able to withstand forces and moments induced on critical elements that keep the design safe on point of reaching end of design lifespan. Initial design safety factor is, founded by FAR, in range of 1.5 FOS(Factor of Safety) for civil aviation projects. Keep in mind that civil aviation designs are not expected to withstand battle damage of any kind but only environmental threats that include rough weather, turbulence and stress cycles induced mostly by landing shocks. Thus, military aviation projects are designed in such way that is mandatory to expect higher values of structural loads and performance limitation impact. As stated by FAR, as historical reference, in practice, that would imply that 9G civilian aircraft is safe to withstand 13.5G ultimate load stress without entering plastic, permanent, deformation of geometry. The ultimate load criteria is to be satisfied in time frame of not more than 3 seconds without plastic deformation assuring the geometry of airframe to return to initial state. That observation is based by FAR, simplified for initial reference. The MIL standards are product manufacturer's specific and are not standardized globally. Those designs do imply structural strength requirements that that exceed civil aviation in many areas simply because of nature of design and operative environment. So, this post is mostly intended to Module Developers, booth to ED and subcontractors, to revise the state of catastrophic failure occurrence in their modules as those practices do not reflect the nature of design they try to accurately replicate in DCS. If referring to pilot manuals, those limitations are intended to preserve airframe in full life cycle span, which means that initial state of fresh airframe is, based by fatigue evaluation, at least in 3-5 FOS range. Taking the lowest state into account, fresh 9G airframe should be able to withstand 27Gs without inducing structural catastrophic failure as wing separation is by nature. Nevertheless, this number might appear overrated but the industry does prove this to be the case as this is basic fatigue requirement and those same fatigue evaluations are expedited in at least the double lifespan working cycles. During that evaluation every weak spot is evaluated and reinforced to compensate possibility of occurrences of cracks that might lead to most undesired outcome. Keep in mind that military airframes, intended to be operational at high mach numbers, do have additional scopes of concern as thermal impact on weakening of structure, density fluctuation in airstream, as much as raw size of airframe aggregates bending moments on wingbox that grow exponentially in respect to length of wing against wing root chord length. My conclusive standpoint is that all involved should redefine the limitations on airframe structure and allow higher margin of safety that should be applied on simulated modules in addition to safety limitations extracted from pilot manuals. The most ideal presentation of structural failure should be presented in a way that, in cases of exceeding nominal limitations, pilot should be warned of incoming catastrophic failure in progressive manner starting from indicative sound (bumps and twists), rivet/bolt loosing and popup(damage module texture), control surface/flap separation (su25T example), permanent plastic deformation (extracted from wing flex feature) with aerodynamic performance degradation and ultimately wing/control surface separation leading to catastrophic event as loss of wing or portion of wing structure is. By rule of thumb the minimal FOS should be around 2 meaning that fresh 9G certified airframe should have to be subjected to at least 18G of force for catastrophic failure to occur and progressive cycle of damage should occur at FOS of 1.5 starting form 13.5G on referenced airframe above 3 second load condition. Thank you for your time. I do expect the corrections of this behavior to be accepted and implemented on future updates based on tools and methods available, but for a start, limitations should be set at FOS of 1.5 without entering permanent deformation on lift surfaces. Regards, J.

Hey, Im having a little trouble with the Sinai map, mostly around cities. With my usual settings (Image 1), I get 22fps in the middle of Cairo, with the Ka-50 III "Takeoff from helipad" mission. Turning down the settings significantly (Image 2), and loading the mission back up yields no change in performance. Nothing running except for DCS and OpenTrack, plus task manager CPU load wasnt super high, but GPU was. DCS was using a little under 10Gb of RAM, out of 32. Specs are: Ryzen 5 2600, Radeon RX 570 8Gb, 32Gb DDR4 3600Mhz RAM. Deleted FXO and Metashaders2 and renamed export.lua to export.lua.old, as there was some wierd socket stuff happening there from the DCS UFC app. Only saw a 2-3Fps improvement, but may have been a coincidence. Any ideas why Im not seeing any performance change, and what I could do to improve things?

Hi, I had a little challenge here. Was trying to recreate the P-42 record in climb that was set on March 20, 1987 committed on heavily modified Su-27 flanker and has set the score of roughly 55secs. The weight of the empty aircraft (without fuel and pilot) was 14,100 kg. The engine thrust increased from 12 500 to 13 600 kgf. Some parts removed and replaced by appropriate parts to achieve best starting position. My setup included civilian Su-27 with total wight (ME calculated) of 17344kg with 1% of unlimited fuel meaning no extra fuel is carried. I was not able to remove pylons as there's no such options plausible in DCS Flanker right now what actually increased wetted/projected area by some 5% rude estimation. What I can do is reduce weight of fuel drastically to emulate weight loss to match the criteria of record plane which can also help to compensate increased thrust done on original test bed by 2.2t(2x1100kgf). For reference Su27 empty weight is set as 16,380kg by external source so the DCS ME(17250kg) difference in ~1 tone is not understood if you take the weight of pilot and accessories that would otherwise be included in weight estimation. So the result was that it took me more than 2 minutes to reach 12km in comparison to P-42 55secs never reaching supersonic climb as on record breaking plane. What do you think? Is DCS Flanker under performing? Flanker Empty Climb.trk