tree system does not work.

[scampaboy]

I have quite a low end GPU and CPU but 24 Gb of RAM I set the trees at 90 to 100 % and pre load at 100% i do get some trees popping up but it is usually at distances of 10 to 15 k when i'm at altitude.

 

Flying low at helicopter speeds or at a10 speeds I don't get any pop up trees at all as far as I can see.

Also my draw distance is set medium i can't set it high because then i get serious frame drops.

What I would love to see is the 1.5.8 textures on the 2.5 trees, but this is a matter of taste.

 

Maybe the OP could try these settings and then balance visual quality to get better frames. The graphics usage post helped me a lot to understand the relation between the settings and the memory be it GPU memory or RAM.

 

To be fair I was lucky I changed a setting and it seemed to work so I left it, I fear some people get into a state where they are making too many changes and adjustments.

 

I think my biggest problem was i was getting in the cockpit taking off stuttering and then changing something

Just Fly !!!! enjoy what we have already.

[BIGNEWY]

The tree view distance is being discussed internally so we may see some more tweaks. But this wont help users with lower end machines as it will depend on how high the tree distance is set in the settings.

[SkateZilla]

Rendering Cards are Not Meant for Gaming... Add in the Fact that it's barely above the GTX 1050 in Specs..

 

You're basically trying to run a Graphically Intensive Game, w/ the smallest wrong engine to drive it.

[DaveRindner]

Quadro P4000 and P5000 shares same chip with 1070Ti and 1080 .

But not 1080Ti. 1080Ti Quadro sibling is P6000. An extravagantly expensive GPU with more RAM then 1080Ti.

[KorovaMB]

In reading this thread, I think there's a lot of people jumping to incorrect conclusions. There are possible solutions to the OP's issue that have nothing to do with downgrading the game for those with high end systems. This is, rather, about the scalability of the hardware requirements. Most video games have a wide enough range of hardware that can acceptably run the game that users with high end machines enjoy awesome graphics, while users with older systems lose eye candy but still can enjoy the game play. Perhaps a solution where the number of trees per sq. mile gets reduced by the slider, but the render distance can still be set far away, would allow people with lower systems to avoid watching trees popping constantly and still get decent frame rates.

 

Everyone should remember that the success of the game will be greater if it can cater to a broader customer base, not just those with relatively new systems.

[Zimmerdylan]

In reading this thread, I think there's a lot of people jumping to incorrect conclusions. There are possible solutions to the OP's issue that have nothing to do with downgrading the game for those with high end systems. This is, rather, about the scalability of the hardware requirements. Most video games have a wide enough range of hardware that can acceptably run the game that users with high end machines enjoy awesome graphics, while users with older systems lose eye candy but still can enjoy the game play. Perhaps a solution where the number of trees per sq. mile gets reduced by the slider, but the render distance can still be set far away, would allow people with lower systems to avoid watching trees popping constantly and still get decent frame rates.

 

Everyone should remember that the success of the game will be greater if it can cater to a broader customer base, not just those with relatively new systems.

 

 

Having that slider option is nothing new. Other sims have this and it works fine for them. There are also sliders for many other details that DCS does not have. Until now, it really wasn't all that big of a deal. But it would seem that it is a viable option for them these days.

I do kind of believe that it would be a bit short sighted of ED not to keep trying to cater to the people who can't or won't spring for high end systems. There is a huge niche for the casual gamer market. I fall into that category. But once a game or sim starts to consume more money or time than I am willing to invest, I'll just move on to something else. I know a lot of guys who share my philosophy on this.

Although I do not believe ED are intentionally omitting lower end users, it seems inevitable that systems become obsolete. The problem there is that the computer gaming industry sees the demand rising and pricing accordingly. I'm not apt to play that game with them. Upgrading is OK. Upgrading to obscene amounts of $$$$ is just not something I am willing to do. $1000 for a video card, it's just out of the question. I pay that for tools that I use to make money, not toys.:D

[JIMJAM]

Zimmerdylan you might be in the wrong genre. Sims have and will always be expensive.

I remember when F-19 stealth fighter by Microprose came out in 1988 I bought a Tandy 1000 RSX computer from Radio Shack running at a amazing 25 mhz for about $2000 which in today's money is just over $4200 :shocking:

 

Ran ok but if you wanted a few more lines, triangles, dots etc for the "high" graphic quality you needed the fastest of the fast systems. A year later A-10 tank killer came out and I was back at the store. The salesmen were all in amazement and ask "Why the hell do you need all that power?"

Dropped another $2 grand+. I remember them joking that gamers made the bulk of their high end sales. People forget MS Flight sim has been around 35 years and even with Lockheed freaking Martin's programmers tweaking and gutting it, the sim still requires the fastest of fast to get the most out of it. My version is almost 200 gigs.

Hell just my TM Warthog controller cost more than my 1st car.

 

Wait till you try VR and see the minimum requirements to run that.:cry:

[Zimmerdylan]

Zimmerdylan you might be in the wrong genre. Sims have and will always be expensive.

I remember when F-19 stealth fighter by Microprose came out in 1988 I bought a Tandy 1000 RSX computer from Radio Shack running at a amazing 25 mhz for about $2000 which in today's money is just over $4200 :shocking:

 

Ran ok but if you wanted a few more lines, triangles, dots etc for the "high" graphic quality you needed the fastest of the fast systems. A year later A-10 tank killer came out and I was back at the store. The salesmen were all in amazement and ask "Why the hell do you need all that power?"

Dropped another $2 grand+. I remember them joking that gamers made the bulk of their high end sales. People forget MS Flight sim has been around 35 years and even with Lockheed freaking Martin's programmers tweaking and gutting it, the sim still requires the fastest of fast to get the most out of it. My version is almost 200 gigs.

Hell just my TM Warthog controller cost more than my 1st car.

 

Wait till you try VR and see the minimum requirements to run that.:cry:

 

 

You see....That's the difference between a casual player and someone who has to have all of the bells and whistles. There are those who see DCS as a game. That would be me. And then there re those who would get downright indignant if you called it anything less than a realistic simulator.

I started with FSX, and went into XPlane 9, up to 10 and 11. And in 2010, into DCS. I found DCS to be far less taxing on my system at that time than any other sim. Yet it was by far the most superior in my opinion. But other than already having a $1000 computer that I needed to run my business on, I never invested more than $400 into a graphics card. I never had any issues running DCS. I still do not have too many issues. Surprisingly, Im running an I5 @ 3.10 G, with an Nvidia 660 Ti, and 16 gigs of RAM. It runs DCS very respectably @ 30 FPS in downtown Las Vegas at medium low settings. This is all that I need because I do not take any of this all that seriously. I will never upgrade to VR. I have no interest in it.

So no.....I'm not in the wrong era, genre, or whatever. I just have different expectations than a person who makes this their main hobby. DCS is just a couple of hour a week game for me. It's not my whole leisure life. However.....guys like me make up a fair number of DCS players. And although we do not play all of the time, a majority of us do purchase almost all of the modules that get released. So our business is no less important to DCS than the hard core enthusiast.

[PeaceSells]

Perhaps a solution where the number of trees per sq. mile gets reduced by the slider, but the render distance can still be set far away, would allow people with lower systems to avoid watching trees popping constantly and still get decent frame rates.

 

A slider to reduce no. of trees per sq. mile would unfortunately give problems in multiplayer and even in singleplayer missions, where some players would have trees in places that other players don't.

[PeaceSells]

The vehicles should be made transparent or hide at given distances and motion/stationary flags for visuals (Mk1 eyeballs) or start to reveal them with optical enhancements.

 

I'm not a great fan of making vehicles transparent... It would make you be sure there isn't a defense vehicle there, when there is. The whole chopper/plane/CAS thing revolves about knowing where there is enemy, where there isn't, and where there MIGHT be.

[schurem]

deferred shading and msaa do NOT go together. its either or. not both.

[tflash]

I was planning to visit Caucasus to see the beautiful green pop-up trees! We don't have those in Belgium. ;) Honestly it doesn't bother me, I guessed it had to do with a graphics performance compromise that I am happy to take since performance and framerate are very good!

[Boberro]

I was planning to visit Caucasus to see the beautiful green pop-up trees! We don't have those in Belgium.!

 

It is hardly to see any trees in NL too hehehe

Ok, maybe instead of making 3D objects of trees, it would be better just to put old good low res bitmap (it would be flat, I mean it would stay like tree but not as 3D object). Then GPU has less to do, especially when we multiply 3D tree x n amount.

[Bad_Karma-701]

A slider to reduce no. of trees per sq. mile would unfortunately give problems in multiplayer and even in singleplayer missions, where some players would have trees in places that other players don't.

 

easy to fix for MP servers the slider is locked to server setting or server overrides user settings.

[eaglecash867]

How about a switch in the graphics settings that lets you toggle between the old trees and the new ones? That would be a good way to provide the best visual experience depending on whether or not you're flying a helicopter (where you're down so low you can't see very far anyway and 3D detailed trees would make for a better experience), or a relatively faster/higher fixed wing aircraft (where the new trees are more of an annoyance than a benefit). Would that be possible? :book:

[draconus]

How about a switch in the graphics settings that lets you toggle between the old trees and the new ones?

1. There is already a switch: 1.5 for old trees and 2.5 for new. No dev is going to go back to old tech after all work done on new engine!

2. I am on really low spec rig and the trees settings make so tiny performance hit I don't know what are you people talking about on those 5 pages. Set it 100% and forget about it. If your fps hurts look for big performance eaters like civ. traffic, visibility, shadows quality, AA, etc. and lower them. That's the point of all this settings existence. I have almost all on low and it's beautiful and flyable with Deferred Shading.

3. For one more time: this is Open Beta, it means WIP. And you can still choose 1.5 if 2.5 is not working for you. (or not if you have DLC terrains)

Edited March 21, 2018 by draconus

[PeaceSells]

2. I am on really low spec rig and the trees settings make so tiny performance hit I don't know what are you people talking about on those 5 pages. Set it 100% and forget about it. If your fps hurts look for big performance eaters like civ. traffic, visibility, shadows quality, AA, etc. and lower them.

 

Exactly. I have trees always set to 100%. My only observation is that, even so, trees pop in and out, specially when you use zoom.

[DaveRindner]

I turned off AA, aniso filter . I need to wait until the my new rig arrives. That one is XEON W-2125, 64gb ram, Quadro P4000. It will run 2560X1440 panel and one 1920X1080 panel. Both are Q series gaming and graphics panels. I know my current is dated, that is why new one is incoming. Just for heck of it, I set settings as follows;

Textures: High

Terrain Textures: High

Civ. Traffic: Med

Visibility Range: Med

Heat Blur: low

Shadows: flat only

Resolution: 2560X1440

Aspect: 1.778

Monitors: 1

Res. of Cockpit Displays: 512

MSAA: 0

DOF: OFF

Lens Effect: Flare+ Dirt

HDR: Off

Deffered Shading: ON

Anisotropic filter: OFF

Terrain Shadows: Flat

Cockpit GI: OFF

 

Clutter/Grass: 0

Trees Visibility: 30%

Preload Radius: 100000

Smoke density: 1

Gamma: 1.4

 

Disable Aero : ON

Vsync: off

Full Screen : ON

Scale GUI: OFF

 

Observed FPS with current rig. I-3770K, 32gb ram, Quadro K4000. 14-24 fps in Georgia, 16-25 in NTTR.

 

To get 48-60 FPS with the new rig, the performance of DCS 2.5 would have to be 2X (200%) better overall. I I expect 2X maybe 3X performance increase, and that is excellent. So I can expect 48-60 with DCS 2.5 at the settings above . About average performance with a way above average system. The single biggest FPS drag in those config is trees with Deffered Shade. Civ. traffic at low or med has no impact on my FPS, but non-flat shadows do.

With P4000 I should get either 1070, 1070Ti or 1080 FPS. I doubt that P4000 could give same FPS as 1080Ti or TitanXp. BTW, new TitanV (Volta) has really bad DX11/12 performance, and marginal OpenCL. Compared to 1080Ti, and TitanXP. The thought is that drivers for Volta (Quadro) and Ampere (game) are not there yet.

[BIGNEWY]

I turned off AA, aniso filter . I need to wait until the my new rig arrives. That one is XEON W-2125, 64gb ram, Quadro P4000. It will run 2560X1440 panel and one 1920X1080 panel. Both are Q series gaming and graphics panels. I know my current is dated, that is why new one is incoming. Just for heck of it, I set settings as follows;

Textures: High

Terrain Textures: High

Civ. Traffic: Med

Visibility Range: Med

Heat Blur: low

Shadows: flat only

Resolution: 2560X1440

Aspect: 1.778

Monitors: 1

Res. of Cockpit Displays: 512

MSAA: 0

DOF: OFF

Lens Effect: Flare+ Dirt

HDR: Off

Deffered Shading: ON

Anisotropic filter: OFF

Terrain Shadows: Flat

Cockpit GI: OFF

 

Clutter/Grass: 0

Trees Visibility: 30%

Preload Radius: 100000

Smoke density: 1

Gamma: 1.4

 

Disable Aero : ON

Vsync: off

Full Screen : ON

Scale GUI: OFF

 

Observed FPS with current rig. I-3770K, 32gb ram, Quadro K4000. 14-24 fps in Georgia, 16-25 in NTTR.

 

To get 48-60 FPS with the new rig, the performance of DCS 2.5 would have to be 2X (200%) better overall. I I expect 2X maybe 3X performance increase, and that is excellent. So I can expect 48-60 with DCS 2.5 at the settings above . About average performance with a way above average system. The single biggest FPS drag in those config is trees with Deffered Shade. Civ. traffic at low or med has no impact on my FPS, but non-flat shadows do.

With P4000 I should get either 1070, 1070Ti or 1080 FPS. I doubt that P4000 could give same FPS as 1080Ti or TitanXp. BTW, new TitanV (Volta) has really bad DX11/12 performance, and marginal OpenCL. Compared to 1080Ti, and TitanXP. The thought is that drivers for Volta (Quadro) and Ampere (game) are not there yet.

 

That makes no sense,

 

I run a 4790k, GTX 1080, 16GB RAM all on high settings and shadows and extreme view distance and get 60 to 100+ FPS, so your calculations are a little off

[Buckeye]

deferred shading and msaa do NOT go together. its either or. not both.

 

I run both together, and I do so in VR with a boosted PD and the DCS preset "High" settings plus I turn AF up to 8x and move the sliders to the right :music_whistling:

[eaglecash867]

3. For one more time: this is Open Beta, it means WIP. And you can still choose 1.5 if 2.5 is not working for you. (or not if you have DLC terrains)

 

Yes, I think most of here understand what an Open Beta is. It was made that way so the community as a whole can take part in the work in progress by voicing criticism and maybe even throw an idea or two out there for consideration. People have different things they focus on in the sim, which is what the 5 pages of discussion is about. As PeaceSells pointed out, the trees still pop in and out, even at 100%. In VR, where I fly exclusively, its VERY distracting, and the devs aren't going to be able to fix something if we don't tell them what we think is broken. It was just an idea, dude, no need for anybody to get their blood pressure elevated over it. :D

[Haukka81]

Yes, I think most of here understand what an Open Beta is. It was made that way so the community as a whole can take part in the work in progress by voicing criticism and maybe even throw an idea or two out there for consideration. People have different things they focus on in the sim, which is what the 5 pages of discussion is about. As PeaceSells pointed out, the trees still pop in and out, even at 100%. In VR, where I fly exclusively, its VERY distracting, and the devs aren't going to be able to fix something if we don't tell them what we think is broken. It was just an idea, dude, no need for anybody to get their blood pressure elevated over it. :D

 

Set your vis range to extreme = no more pop

[PeaceSells]

Set your vis range to extreme = no more pop

 

There is pop with vis range set to extreme and trees vis set to 100%. Just zoom in and out and you will see.

[Haukka81]

There is pop with vis range set to extreme and trees vis set to 100%. Just zoom in and out and you will see.

 

Ok , i dont use vr zoom lot. Slow zoom in vr makes me feel bit weird , but yes. When zooming there is pop.

[DaveRindner]

Right. In your case GTX 1080 is giving you your high frame rate. Hopefully P4K, once it arrives, will give that.

I have Keppler architecture GPU, which is only may be 25%-30% faster , perhaps less depending on application, then Fermi architecture.

Unfortunately, my current rig, a legacy platform, has PCI-X 2.0 , and 400 watt(maybe) power supply. 1070Ti, 1080, 1080Ti, TitanXp all require power supplies that start, at minimum, at 600 watts. Two 1080Ti or two P4000 running in SLI require 850 or more watt power supply. So I cannot upgrade my current rig without effectively rebuilding it, and I see no reason for that. My mainboard is IvyBridge and I7-3770K is fastest CPU it can take. PCI-X 2.0 may, in likelyhood, prevent any GPU with PCI-X 3.0 bus, from operating at its maximum performance. Memory is maxed out, and power supply is 400 watt proprietary (HP). I am exploring a possiblity of replacing K4000 with either GTX 1060 or Quadro P2000. Those boards are highest that my rig can power, and PCI-X step down from 3 to 2 is un unknown quantity .