Frame rate. Mig 21vA10c!

[Caspet]

Hi all.

 

Can anyone explain to me the reason why I am getting such a difference in frame rates between these two modules? A10c on two monitors ( 24" @ 1920 x 1080 for my main view and a 10" @1024 x 768 for my Cougar MFCD's, Mig 21 on one screen 24" @ 1920 x 1080 for main view.)

 

I turn of the second monitor for the Mig but I only achieve between 15 and 20ish fps and with the A10c I get 45-60 fps. I've tested this by creating my own mission and swapping aircraft.

 

My spec is:- AMD FX-6100 overclocked to 4300 mhz, Radeon 7950, 3 gig and 16 Gig of ram.

 

Any idea's?

 

Thanks in advance, hope your all having a cracking weekend. :thumbup:

[Aginor]

It is the model/texture complexity of the MiG-21, this is a known issue. Leatherneck is working on it AFAIK.

[Caspet]

It is the model/texture complexity of the MiG-21, this is a known issue. Leatherneck is working on it AFAIK.

 

Thanks for that. I thought that might be the case. Shame really as it's my favorite module to date :)

[Devrim]

Definitely. I can't get in the pit because of FPS.

[Kuky]

I get 32fps in A-10C and 25fps in MiG-21Bis on Runway (Kutaisi) (high settings, 4K res, GTX980, i7 3930K@4.4GHz, 16GB RAM)

[Random]

Mig21 batters my machine too. Rarely drops below 35fps but thats still 10 or more less than the other modules!

[ARM505]

Well, I get decent, albeit lower frame rates in the -21 too. But when it loads, I'm always like 'Whoah, that's like a photograph!' all over again. Seriously, each I time I fire it up again it's impressive, especially at certain times of the day with the shadows and light adding to the look. So I think a little slack should be cut, it's simply more demanding to add this level of graphical fidelity. Not to say they can't improve the optimisation, but there is a limit of course...

[Hadwell]

I have a half decent, all be it starting to age machine, and yeah, the mig-21 is maybe on average 20% more demanding than say... the a-10c... on my machine.

 

its not THAT bad unless you're running a machine far worse than mine...

 

take a look a my sig for specs (is almost 4 years old now)...

 

or if you're running a machine as old or older than mine... what the hell do you really have to complain about other than a crappy computer?

 

and yeah, ATI/AMD+DCS = no, plain and simple... no...

Edited December 13, 2014 by Hadwell

[ff4life4]

Im averaging 45-60 fps with the Mig-21.

 

Running an I7 3770 and a Gtx 660. I do have the view distance on Medium though, but I prefer the smoothness, and when flying high I don't notice anyway.

 

I know its Cliche to say this but I feel that the Mig21 will have good frames with EDGE, as if I recall it was built for the Edge engine which was supposed to be released a while ago.

[ThorBrasil]

A10C 35FPS, MiG21 15-25FPS.

[Dolphin887]

MiG-21 have very complex systems structure which update many times per second or per delta-time; this is the main cause of high CPU load. Atop on that, real time Star Force protection consumes some none-neglectable resources (not much, but still...). Main cause of high graphic load is high detailed and objec-complex cockpit and external model. When these two are combined, you have significant FPS drop comparing to other modules.

 

We did all we could to lover the hardware load for 21. To further improve your FPS you might try to compromise with some of your graphic settings, and find out which renders the best FPS increase per minimum change.

[ThorBrasil]

MiG-21 have very complex systems structure which update many times per second or per delta-time; this is the main cause of high CPU load. Atop on that, real time Star Force protection consumes some none-neglectable resources (not much, but still...). Main cause of high graphic load is high detailed and objec-complex cockpit and external model. When these two are combined, you have significant FPS drop comparing to other modules.

 

We did all we could to lover the hardware load for 21. To further improve your FPS you might try to compromise with some of your graphic settings, and find out which renders the best FPS increase per minimum change.

 

What I do not understand is that even putting all the DCS world in low. is the same thing when everything is on top. same performance.

[Cyb0rg]

What I do not understand is that even putting all the DCS world in low. is the same thing when everything is on top. same performance.

 

Same here. Some settings don't have any relevance in FPS either low or high. EDGE is around the corner. Hopefully they'll release it this year.

[ThorBrasil]

Same here. Some settings don't have any relevance in FPS either low or high. EDGE is around the corner. Hopefully they'll release it this year.

Hopefully still skirt this year! +1

[Hadwell]

What I do not understand is that even putting all the DCS world in low. is the same thing when everything is on top. same performance.

 

the graphics settings adjust the GPU load.

 

if you get the same framerate regardless of settings, its because your single-core CPU performance isn't good enough.

 

if you have a program designed to run using 16 threads, and you have a CPU that has 16 1GHz cores, then that CPU is faster than a 4GHZ 1-core CPU.

 

if you have a program designed to run using 1 thread (like DCS), then that 4GHz 1-core is far better.

 

and then you need to take into account that a 4GHz AMD CPU, or a 4GHz core2 are far slower than a 4GHz I7 CPU...in single-threaded performance.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Hadwell

[ThorBrasil]

the graphics settings adjust the GPU load.

 

if you get the same framerate regardless of settings, its because your single-core CPU performance isn't good enough.

 

if you have a program designed to run using 16 threads, and you have a CPU that has 16 1GHz cores, then that CPU is faster than a 4GHZ 1-core CPU.

 

if you have a program designed to run using 1 thread (like DCS), then that 4GHz 1-core is far better.

 

and then you need to take into account that a 4GHz AMD CPU, or a 4GHz core2 are far slower than a 4GHz I7 CPU...in single-threaded performance.

 

My CPU is a i7-2600K. Video Card Radeon 6970 2GB. 16GB RAM DDR3. Do you have any tips to improve?

[Grizzly1606688174]

MiG-21 have very complex systems structure which update many times per second or per delta-time; this is the main cause of high CPU load. Atop on that, real time Star Force protection consumes some none-neglectable resources (not much, but still...). Main cause of high graphic load is high detailed and objec-complex cockpit and external model. When these two are combined, you have significant FPS drop comparing to other modules.

 

We did all we could to lover the hardware load for 21. To further improve your FPS you might try to compromise with some of your graphic settings, and find out which renders the best FPS increase per minimum change.

 

//Whine on

 

Baah..

High CPU load?

Complex systems?

Real time Star Force protection?

 

You mean like every other module?

 

 

Sure it's a nice cockpit.. But come on.

Make a lower poly cockpit version as a JSGME download or something because this is insane.

Otherwise you should label it as a "poor performance machine" in the sales section or something so people dont get dissapointed when they recieve a plane that destroys their entire game performance even when everything else in DCS works perfect. :music_whistling:

 

You are litterally asking everyone to turn their otherwise fine working DCS graphics and settings down to a really crappy quality (Medium distances/no shadows etc) just to get decent frames with this bird because you want an awesome looking cockpit. The entire A-G workings of this bird is set up so you are highly dependant on seeing the ground as much as possible.

If it was just for high alt. A-A it could see the point in turning down the ground details.

 

I really hope you still have some things you can tweak and turn down or that you find some.

 

If I had known this bad performance would possibly live on in the final build, I probably wouldnt have spend my money on it. But thats the risk you take when spending money on beta's.

 

Thanks for creating an awesome working/flying plane in a useless shell.

Graphics might come first for kids and battlefield. In a simulator I believe mechanics and performance should be first priority.

 

//Whine off

 

Also:

System:

i7-4770K

8GB RAM PC3-10700H XMP-1600 800MHz

Nvidia GTX-690

 

As I see it, my hardware doesnt fail either. :noexpression:

 

Off to other.. things....

Edited December 18, 2014 by <Grizzly>

[Hadwell]

My CPU is a i7-2600K. Video Card Radeon 6970 2GB. 16GB RAM DDR3. Do you have any tips to improve?

 

overclock it to 4.5~ GHz, get a GTX780 or better...

 

i get 60 fps on average with everything in drop down menus on high, civ traffic off, 2xAA and HDR off, preload radius at 150,000, trees 6000 and clutter/bushes at 450

 

although in some situations it will drop to the 20's and 30s... on average 60, max 140

 

this game, regardless of the plane you fly, has the worst min to max framerates of any game I've ever played

[Flycat]

From above thread,Does it means that the DCSworld doesn't optimize for multi-core or muliti-thread CPU?

[Hadwell]

From above thread,Does it means that the DCSworld doesn't optimize for multi-core or muliti-thread CPU?

 

DCS is single-threaded, single-threaded means it only uses one core

 

a cpu core can only do one thing at a time, so it very quickly switches between tasks, so fast you don't even notice it's only actually running one thing at a time... each of those individual things the core is doing is called a thread, and DCS only really uses 1, even though behind the scenes DCS uses lots of threads, their all sitting there waiting their turn on 1 core, even if your machine has 4+ and could technically be doing more than 1 thing at a time.

 

same thing goes with GPUs... DCS doesn't support SLI, so if you're running a GTX690 for example, you're actually running a GTX680, since your second gpu core (that makes it a 690) is just sitting there parked...

 

this being said... for dcs, as it currently is, to get good framerates, its not the quantity of cores your cpu has, but the quality, and for gpus... better to spend a few more dollars and get a gtx 980 over say... a pair of 970s (just an example)

Edited December 18, 2014 by Hadwell

[ThorBrasil]

//Whine on

 

Baah..

High CPU load?

Complex systems?

Real time Star Force protection?

 

You mean like every other module?

 

 

Sure it's a nice cockpit.. But come on.

Make a lower poly cockpit version as a JSGME download or something because this is insane.

Otherwise you should label it as a "poor performance machine" in the sales section or something so people dont get dissapointed when they recieve a plane that destroys their entire game performance even when everything else in DCS works perfect. :music_whistling:

 

You are litterally asking everyone to turn their otherwise fine working DCS graphics and settings down to a really crappy quality (Medium distances/no shadows etc) just to get decent frames with this bird because you want an awesome looking cockpit. The entire A-G workings of this bird is set up so you are highly dependant on seeing the ground as much as possible.

If it was just for high alt. A-A it could see the point in turning down the ground details.

 

I really hope you still have some things you can tweak and turn down or that you find some.

 

If I had known this bad performance would possibly live on in the final build, I probably wouldnt have spend my money on it. But thats the risk you take when spending money on beta's.

 

Thanks for creating an awesome working/flying plane in a useless shell.

Graphics might come first for kids and battlefield. In a simulator I believe mechanics and performance should be first priority.

 

//Whine off

 

Also:

System:

i7-4770K

8GB RAM PC3-10700H XMP-1600 800MHz

Nvidia GTX-690

 

As I see it, my hardware doesnt fail either. :noexpression:

 

Off to other.. things....

 

+1

[SNAFU]

Sure, I have less FPS in the MiG than in the A-10C, but I have even less FPS in the TF-51.

 

But IMO the MiG Cockpit is the best cockpit we have in DCS I happily take a little hit on the performance, which is more influenced by mission design and weather, than by the cockpit design.

 

Since I do not believe that we see another supersonic fighter with this level of detail for the next 3-5 years, I will live in the MiG for quite a while and I think it is good choice to go for the demanding side, knowing that hard- and software will better the experience over the time and the cockpit will still not be dated in a few years.

 

All maxed out, with very high visibility mod and other texture mods, I have a around 30FPS on a medium lively map. On an empty map I have 40-60FPS, so DCS unit AI hits the game performance to a high degree, not so much the graphic settings or cockpit model, since I only have 3-5 more FPS in an A-10C.

 

So LN is going the right way, IMO.

 

i7-2600 (no overclocking)

SSD

8GB RAM 1333MHz

780Ti

Edited December 18, 2014 by SNAFU

[Flycat]

Oh,it's not a good news,I only knows dcs doesn't support multi-core GPU,however I don't have two graphic card.But nowadays the CPU been sold on the market was multi-core you know.And most of games and software had supported multi-thread CPU.So I thought ED should do something on it,that will save our money and buy more module;).

 

:D:D:D

[Buzzles]

Oh,it's not a good news,I only knows dcs doesn't support multi-core GPU,however I don't have two graphic card.But nowadays the CPU been sold on the market was multi-core you know.And most of games and software had supported multi-thread CPU.So I thought ED should do something on it,that will save our money and buy more module;).

 

We're off topic, but read this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135473

 

ED are moving toward mutli-core GPU support with 2.0, a lot of which will come via DX11. We'll see a sizable improvement in performance when a lot more GFX related tasks get handed off to them.

 

As for multi-cpu core, it's a myth that a lot of games use it. Some might claim to, but game engines aren't well suited to going down that route due to the sheer amount of dependances between systems. Trying to thread it all can simply just leave you with a bunch of much more complex code that performs worse. Some systems can be offloaded easily, like ED have done with sound for DCS (which does indeed run on a different core), but a lot can't. You also generally have to design for it from scratch.

 

I personally feel a lot of peoples problems with trying to run Mig21 on lower-mid rigs will go when 2.0 launches just due to the DX-11 change and the focus on GPU work.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Buzzles

[Grizzly1606688174]

I personally feel a lot of peoples problems with trying to run Mig21 on lower-mid rigs will go when 2.0 launches just due to the DX-11 change and the focus on GPU work.

 

But but but...

 

It's not on lower-mid rigs.....