DCS Graphical settings explanation?

[JazonXD]

Hi, can anyone enlighten me on the graphical settings and their impacts to performance in the game? Currently, I just upgraded from a GTX 750Ti to a 970 SSC and across the board in every other game and also benchmarks, the 970 is x2.5+ better than the 750 Ti. However in DCS, I used the exact same settings as the 750 Ti except for 8x MSAA instead of 4x and still I am getting about the same fps as the 750 Ti. Obviously I know that MSAA is going to tank performance but I'm not sure if it's supposed to do that by that much. So can anyone please help me point out some "limiting factors" to my gameplay experience? Thanks.

 

EDIT: I just tried NO anti aliasing at all and the frame rates were the EXACT SAME as if I had 8x MSAA... Clearly something weird is going on here. Can anyone please help?

Edited February 6, 2016 by JazonXD

[Fab]

I´m no expert, but I belive your ram as you only got 8 and your cpu, might be the reason...

[Oceandar]

DCS loves high frequency CPU.

 

See this thread

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157374

 

Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato

Edited February 6, 2016 by Oceandar

[Cibit]

Yes increase CPU clock and get more RAM and an SSD to run it on:)

[JazonXD]

DCS loves high frequency CPU.

 

See this thread

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157374

 

Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato

 

Yes increase CPU clock and get more RAM and an SSD to run it on:)

 

haha, locked cpu overhere... never would have thought cpu would be the bottleneck...

[JazonXD]

Okay, so I just tried some things again. I put on 8x MSAA and the frame rates I get while in the cockpit of the 15C were pretty bad, mid 40s and mid 50s. Occasionally up above 60s because I was looking at the sky OR I was at a MUCH higher altitude. However, if I put the mirrors away, the frame rates instantly jump to like 80+ even when I'm close to the ground WITH 8x MSAA... How can the mirrors possibly affect performance that much and is it even possible to run DCS WITH mirrors? When I had the 750 Ti, I was running 4x MSAA and I had to put the mirrors away. But WITH the mirrors, I am getting about the same performance as the 750 Ti even with my 970. Can anyone please help?

[Kuky]

Okay, so I just tried some things again. I put on 8x MSAA and the frame rates I get while in the cockpit of the 15C were pretty bad, mid 40s and mid 50s. Occasionally up above 60s because I was looking at the sky OR I was at a MUCH higher altitude. However, if I put the mirrors away, the frame rates instantly jump to like 80+ even when I'm close to the ground WITH 8x MSAA... How can the mirrors possibly affect performance that much and is it even possible to run DCS WITH mirrors? When I had the 750 Ti, I was running 4x MSAA and I had to put the mirrors away. But WITH the mirrors, I am getting about the same performance as the 750 Ti even with my 970. Can anyone please help?

 

Simple... mirrors are another full render of the sim, in opposite direction of your head view (to the front). For example.... you fly over a city and you no longer see city in front of you, but now mirror will see it.... so it will render all of the objects in them. If you are inside the large city, both head view and mirror view will render its own image... hence 2x the rendering and lower frame rate.

 

Also you don't really need 8x MSAA, 4x is enough. Difference will show when you fly low over forests.

[AG-51_Razor]

I thought that the human eye couldn't really detect frame rates much above 30 to 40 fps. Are you actually seeing a slide show are are you just looking at the fps counter?

 

I just recently upgraded from a GTX 750 to a 970 and I can't really say that my fps went up. With VSYNC checked on, I am pretty rock solid at 60 fps all the time with all settings at max.

[PiedDroit]

I thought that the human eye couldn't really detect frame rates much above 30 to 40 fps. Are you actually seeing a slide show are are you just looking at the fps counter?

 

I just recently upgraded from a GTX 750 to a 970 and I can't really say that my fps went up. With VSYNC checked on, I am pretty rock solid at 60 fps all the time with all settings at max.

For fast moving images, the higher, the better, trust me on that. As an example, Occulus recommends 90fps.

Maybe if your eye is 100% synchronized with a 30 fps image that also displays perfect motion blur you won't see a difference, otherwise, go for FPS :D

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

[JazonXD]

I thought that the human eye couldn't really detect frame rates much above 30 to 40 fps. Are you actually seeing a slide show are are you just looking at the fps counter?

 

I just recently upgraded from a GTX 750 to a 970 and I can't really say that my fps went up. With VSYNC checked on, I am pretty rock solid at 60 fps all the time with all settings at max.

 

your eyes dont see in "frames" but if you put in terms of frames, the human eye can see even up to 1000 frames per second. Air force pilots were flashed by an image of an aircraft for only 1 millisecond which is 1/1000 sec. and they were able to identify the aircraft. That means, they can see up to 1000fps if you put into the "frames" idea.

 

Also, what settings are you using? Are you using mirrors?

[Bushmanni]

That's the effect of persistence of vision I think. You can have even quicker flashes registering as long as they are bright enough. It's the same thing that enables you to see even the quickest of camera flashes. But if you show continually moving scene it's different. I doubt you can spot one skipped frame on a 1000fps screen.

 

And your internal framerate isn't just about seeing frames consciously but also feeling them unconsciously. You might not see difference between 60fps and 90fps but you can still feel it, 90fps giving much robust sense of the game following your inputs. It's like the difference if you wave a stiff carbon composite rod in your hand instead of one made of ABS plastic.

[Oceandar]

Personally, I wouldn't be worry to much about FPS as long as it rates around 60, 30 minimum.

 

Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato

[JazonXD]

That's the effect of persistence of vision I think. You can have even quicker flashes registering as long as they are bright enough. It's the same thing that enables you to see even the quickest of camera flashes. But if you show continually moving scene it's different. I doubt you can spot one skipped frame on a 1000fps screen.

 

And your internal framerate isn't just about seeing frames consciously but also feeling them unconsciously. You might not see difference between 60fps and 90fps but you can still feel it, 90fps giving much robust sense of the game following your inputs. It's like the difference if you wave a stiff carbon composite rod in your hand instead of one made of ABS plastic.

 

right, and it's that smoothness that I really need. Although I only have a 60Hz monitor, I know there is a difference between the trackir movements between 50-60fps and 80-90fps. For some reason, the 970 is not getting there when the mirrors are down... How can the mirrors take away so much performance?

[Rogue Trooper]

Try flat shadows on. This gave me another 18 - 20 fps down the strip at 80 feet. I now run at worst 55 fps downtown but get an average of around 65 fps, this keeps my Track ir smooth at all times.

 

With flat shadows off I got 32fps - 45 fps and Track ir was smearing when looking around.

[JazonXD]

Try flat shadows on. This gave me another 18 - 20 fps down the strip at 80 feet. I now run at worst 55 fps downtown but get an average of around 65 fps, this keeps my Track ir smooth at all times.

 

With flat shadows off I got 32fps - 45 fps and Track ir was smearing when looking around.

 

Thank you, I will try that. Do you have any idea what it actually is?

[gazmonalpha]

8gb of ram is fine anything more makes no difference in dcs

[JazonXD]

8gb of ram is fine anything more makes no difference in dcs

 

Yeah I would think so too. I see that the game really maxes out at around 6.7 ish total system memory anyway so I don't think the RAM is the limit here.

[Mustang]

8gb of ram is fine anything more makes no difference in dcs

 

If you play on your own in single player or a very limited server then yes 8gb is alright, but try joining in multiplayer with 50-60 clients and with alot going on and you'll be seeing RAM usage going anywhere from 10-12gb or or even more.

[gazmonalpha]

If you play on your own in single player or a very limited server then yes 8gb is alright, but try joining in multiplayer with 50-60 clients and with alot going on and you'll be seeing RAM usage going anywhere from 10-12gb or or even more.

 

I have 24gb of ram and it has made no significant difference from 8gb

 

I would say its more about CPU speed and graphics card, and what is running in the background?

[Oceandar]

I never see my RAM usage exceeds more than 7,5 Gb and that was in crowded server such as 104. But due to lack of time I never play more than 1 session at a time, usually 1-2 hours.

 

Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato

[jkeiltaylor]

8GB of RAM is more than enough for DCS. Along with mirrors, Depth of Field settings are a frame rate killer. Try turning that off.

[dburne]

Just my opinion, but in regards to system ram I would keep the following in mind, especially for folks currently maybe upgrading their system.

 

Min DCS 2.0 requirement = 8gb

Recommended = 16gb

 

I have been flying both 1.5 and 2.0 Open Alpha for some time. There is no doubt currently 2.0 uses more system ram than 1.5.

1.5 still uses the older terrain, and it is being upgraded to the 2.0 terrain level. Plus the new clouds have still not yet been implemented, along with some other things I am sure.

 

IMHO, as we progress along until the merger of 1.5 and 2.0 and eventually 2.0 becomes a release version, 8gb of ram is going to become tighter.

For the future, I would certainly recommend going with 16 gb to be safe.

[Dieter]

Just my opinion, but in regards to system ram I would keep the following in mind, especially for folks currently maybe upgrading their system.

 

Min DCS 2.0 requirement = 8gb

Recommended = 16gb

 

I have been flying both 1.5 and 2.0 Open Alpha for some time. There is no doubt currently 2.0 uses more system ram than 1.5.

1.5 still uses the older terrain, and it is being upgraded to the 2.0 terrain level. Plus the new clouds have still not yet been implemented, along with some other things I am sure.

 

IMHO, as we progress along until the merger of 1.5 and 2.0 and eventually 2.0 becomes a release version, 8gb of ram is going to become tighter.

For the future, I would certainly recommend going with 16 gb to be safe.

 

I have 16 Gb ram and 6 Gb on my graphics card and i can still see micro stutter very low above Las Vegas. This let me think the minimum Ram could be a bit more higher.

[JazonXD]

I have 24gb of ram and it has made no significant difference from 8gb

 

I would say its more about CPU speed and graphics card, and what is running in the background?

 

Nothing really running in the background. Nothing to make a difference. The main point of this post is about the performance delta that doesn't exist when upgrading from my 750 ti to the 970. When the mirrors are off, then I can clearly see the 970 shining but when the mirrors are on, the 970 performs just as poorly (or good) as the 750 ti, which really really confuses the shit out of me.

[JazonXD]

8GB of RAM is more than enough for DCS. Along with mirrors, Depth of Field settings are a frame rate killer. Try turning that off.

 

I have it off.