Do I need 32GB of Memory now?

[Demon_]

No, the RAM consumption depend on the mission involved. With 2.5 and all new features included, the consumption hit the limit (16GB) recommended by ED. They work to lower this consumption: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3444654&postcount=1

So, wait before making any move.

[BitMaster]

You can easily top the 16GB with a big mission. Let alone the PageFile it needs.

 

All in all, DCS is using RAM like Monsters eat cookies, I love it.

 

Nothing worse than a program that will not and cannot use the hardware.

Now DCS can and does use it and all start screaming. I wait for the core hunger it will develop once properly refined, haha.

[NineLine]

I own 16 GB of ram ddr4, offline game in single-player.

The maximum ram I use is 8 GB of ram, is it normal or do I have a problem with my machine?

 

Nope, that is about the same for me.

[cichlidfan]

If ED gets the memory usage under control then 32GB should not be necessary. However, my next sim rig build will be 64GB since I believe in lots of headroom and future-proofing.

[NineLine]

You can easily top the 16GB with a big mission. Let alone the PageFile it needs.

 

All in all, DCS is using RAM like Monsters eat cookies, I love it.

 

Nothing worse than a program that will not and cannot use the hardware.

Now DCS can and does use it and all start screaming. I wait for the core hunger it will develop once properly refined, haha.

 

 

Mission Design has a responsibility as well. You need to work within the limits of the sim, and 2.5 brought changes that need to be adjusted for, ED is working hard to make it better, but there is no unlimited ceiling for mission designers either.

[Fisherman82]

Mission Design has a responsibility as well. You need to work within the limits of the sim, and 2.5 brought changes that need to be adjusted for, ED is working hard to make it better, but there is no unlimited ceiling for mission designers either.

The problem is that it is difficult to know what the limits of the sim is for me atleast because it is not written anywere. There are no recomendations as far as I know what the maximum amount of units are in a mission for example and also how different kinds of units affect the performance. Like the maximum number of active units you can have at any one time and how many unactivated.

 

In DCS 1.5 I made some missions that I had no problems with at all but now the framerates in those missions are down to like 25 to 30. Ok, I admit that I have alot of units because I want a "living" atmosphere but I wasnt expecting that 2.5 would behave so different than 1.5 in some aspects. When experimenting with this I have found for example that uncontrolled units very far away cause fps loss aswell as units set for late activation that has not activated yet. I find this a bit strange because I dont understand how the new features in 2.5 can be applicated to that kind of units so the fps goes down. I mean I can see how 20 aircraft in a furball would reduce fps but not how 20 unactivated aircraft can cause the same. Its like 2.5 does a lot more calculations for units that is not doing anything or is not active at all compared to 1.5.

 

I have tried to find someone on the forum that has noted this or can explain it but no one has commented my postings on the matter.

 

Skickat från min D5503 via Tapatalk

Edited April 26, 2018 by Fisherman82

[NineLine]

Its a tough thing to put in writing, there are so many variables to this. I mean I have seen someone with similar specs as me have issues I dont, it could come down to how much they have running in the background. While ED does need to make sure everything is optimized, everyone has to realize how many more objects the Black Sea map brought with 2.5, and how more demanding 2.5 is than 1.5. Its going to be faster for us as users to trace out those limits.

 

The problem is that it is difficult to know what the limits of the sim is for me atleast because it is not written anywere. There are no recomendations as far as I know what the maximum amount of units are in a mission for example and also how different kinds of units affect the performance. Like the maximum number of active units you can have at any one time and how many unactivated.

 

In DCS 1.5 I made some missions that I had no problems with at all but now the framerates in those missions are down to like 25 to 30. Ok, I admit that I have alot of units because I want a "living" atmosphere but I wasnt expecting that 2.5 would behave so different than 1.5 in some aspects. When experimenting with this I have found for example that uncontrolled units very far away cause fps loss aswell as units set for late activation that has not activated yet. I find this a bit strange because I dont understand how the new features in 2.5 can be applicated to that kind of units so the fps goes down. I mean I can see how 20 aircraft in a furball would reduce fps but not how 20 unactivated aircraft can cause the same. Its like 2.5 does a lot more calculations for units that is not doing anything or is not active at all compared to 1.5.

 

I have tried to find someone on the forum that has noted this or can explain it but no one has commented my postings on the matter.

 

Skickat från min D5503 via Tapatalk

[Johnny_Rico]

So to re-cap, DCS has now gotten more ineffecient or uses more resources than before

Missions designers need to use less resources in their missions ....

but ED has no idea of what these limits are ?

[Fisherman82]

Actually it is the same in Nevada for me, in a free flight I get like around 80-90 fps over the desert and perfectly fine around 50-55 fps over Las Vegas. But if im flying over Rachel and have 40 uncontrolled aircraft sitting on the ramp at Nellis I can see a major fps drop, I would say a drop of about 20-25 fps.

Its a tough thing to put in writing, there are so many variables to this. I mean I have seen someone with similar specs as me have issues I dont, it could come down to how much they have running in the background. While ED does need to make sure everything is optimized, everyone has to realize how many more objects the Black Sea map brought with 2.5, and how more demanding 2.5 is than 1.5. Its going to be faster for us as users to trace out those limits.

 

Skickat från min D5503 via Tapatalk

[NineLine]

So to re-cap, DCS has now gotten more ineffecient or uses more resources than before

Missions designers need to use less resources in their missions ....

but ED has no idea of what these limits are ?

 

*sigh*....

 

Are you really not seeing the differences from 1.5 to 2.5? I mean work with me a little here, you understand that what worked in the Black Sea map in 1.5 might not in 2.5?

 

Of course mission designers have to adjust missions if they use a crazy amount of units. Again, things change, there are more things going on in the new terrains than what we saw in the old times...

 

ED can give you a limit based on your machine, but that wont work for the next guy with a different machine... AGAIN, there are so many variables, connection speed, computer power... on and on. I doubt ED can give you an exact number.

[NineLine]

Actually it is the same in Nevada for me, in a free flight I get like around 80-90 fps over the desert and perfectly fine around 50-55 fps over Las Vegas. But if im flying over Rachel and have 40 uncontrolled aircraft sitting on the ramp at Nellis I can see a major fps drop, I would say a drop of about 20-25 fps.

 

Skickat från min D5503 via Tapatalk

 

Do you need 40 uncontrolled aircraft sitting on the ramp?

[Fisherman82]

Do you need 40 uncontrolled aircraft sitting on the ramp?

Thats a wierd question to ask, Its like asking "do you have to have the world populated at all?". Or "Do you have to have the graphics set to high?"

 

But l will answer it:

It depends on how you look at it, obviusly I dont the same way I dont have to play DCS at all if I dont want to. But if im flying in DCS and want to use Nellis as a airport for landing for example I dont think its realistic to land there with the whole base totally abandoned. Nellis has got to have atleast 80 parking spaces if I remember right, having the base half populated is not to demand to much.

 

I can also ask that kind of question:

"Do you really need to have the hotels on The Strip in Las Vegas perfectly modeled with high details for low level flying in a combat sim? How often does combat aircraft fly low level over The Strip in real life compared to say, Nellis AFB?"

 

It wont help me understand the problem though.

 

The 40 units at Nellis was an example, it could have been 15 and 5 vehicles, 10 uncontrolled aircraft at Tonopah, 5 civilian aircraft flying around (of which none has been activated) and 5 tents in the middle of the desert. Would that also be to expect to much and pushing the limit to much do you think?

 

This seem to be a very sensitive question since I get a answer like this in return when Im only trying to understand the logic behind how it all works and if this is something that can be fixed with more RAM for example.

 

I don't think I have the described symptoms of the memory issue. I never hit the roof of my 16 gb and I have no crashes. My CPU and GPU is not pushed to their limits either.

 

It does not help to cut preload radius and lowering graphics settings, sure I get more fps due to the reduced settings, but the drop from the existence of units that dont do anything and is not shown on my screen remains in a way that was not present in 1.5 or 2.2.

 

I also have many triggers in the mission, some with continus action that I thought could be demanding and a cause for fps loss. Deleting all of them had no impact at all though, the only thing that helps is to delete units.

 

 

 

 

 

Skickat från min D5503 via Tapatalk

[NineLine]

Thats a wierd question to ask, Its like asking "do you have to have the world populated at all?". Or "Do you have to have the graphics set to high?"

 

But l will answer it:

It depends on how you look at it, obviusly I dont the same way I dont have to play DCS at all if I dont want to. But if im flying in DCS and want to use Nellis as a airport for landing for example I dont think its realistic to land there with the whole base totally abandoned. Nellis has got to have atleast 80 parking spaces if I remember right, having the base half populated is not to demand to much.

 

I can also ask that kind of question:

"Do you really need to have the hotels on The Strip in Las Vegas perfectly modeled with high details for low level flying in a combat sim? How often does combat aircraft fly low level over The Strip in real life compared to say, Nellis AFB?"

 

It wont help me understand the problem though.

 

The 40 units at Nellis was an example, it could have been 15 and 5 vehicles, 10 uncontrolled aircraft at Tonopah, 5 civilian aircraft flying around (of which none has been activated) and 5 tents in the middle of the desert. Would that also be to expect to much and pushing the limit to much do you think?

 

This seem to be a very sensitive question since I get a answer like this in return when Im only trying to understand the logic behind how it all works and if this is something that can be fixed with more RAM for example.

 

I don't think I have the described symptoms of the memory issue. I never hit the roof of my 16 gb and I have no crashes. My CPU and GPU is not pushed to their limits either.

 

It does not help to cut preload radius and lowering graphics settings, sure I get more fps due to the reduced settings, but the drop from the existence of units that dont do anything and is not shown on my screen remains in a way that was not present in 1.5 or 2.2.

 

I also have many triggers in the mission, some with continus action that I thought could be demanding and a cause for fps loss. Deleting all of them had no impact at all though, the only thing that helps is to delete units.

 

 

 

 

 

Skickat från min D5503 via Tapatalk

 

 

Is it a weird question though? Could Static aircraft be less taxing on the system? How much does that add to your mission, is it needed? I mean you have to balance. I would love if you could put 400 uncontrolled aircraft in your mission, but there is a line. If 40 uncontrolled aircraft is an issue, then you need to look at work arounds.

 

Its fair to ask ED to continue optimizing, its unfair not to look at your own mission design decisions and ask where you can cut some fat as well, right?

[Fisherman82]

Is it a weird question though? Could Static aircraft be less taxing on the system? How much does that add to your mission, is it needed? I mean you have to balance. I would love if you could put 400 uncontrolled aircraft in your mission, but there is a line. If 40 uncontrolled aircraft is an issue, then you need to look at work arounds.

 

Its fair to ask ED to continue optimizing, its unfair not to look at your own mission design decisions and ask where you can cut some fat as well, right?

Yes it is a wierd question since it indicates that I am the cause of the problem because of the way I designed a mission that worked perfectly fine before on a map that has not changed.

 

It would be fair if it was only for the reworked Caucasus map where a lot of new features has been added as you say.

It would at least have some logic.

 

But now I feel its a bit to much, a mission that was playable in 2.1 in Nevada is now unplayable without stripping away very much content that I spent much time creating. Im not so pleased about that since the Nevada map itself has not changed the way Caucasus has.

 

The work around I would prefer is to upgrade my system so that it is playable agan, I can accept that. As a first atempt I changed my gtx 970 for a gtx 1080. That got me much better performance in the way that I can now run free flight missions with max graphics settings. But it had no effect on the issue with my non essential units. I could double my RAM if I want to and get a better CPU and motherboard. If I upgrade my whole computer I dont think I should have to also cut fat to get missions on a map that was anounced feature complete some time ago playable again.

 

Something has to have changed in the way units are handled in the simulation apart from the memory issue, Its like all units demands the same computerpower all the time as if they where active on the screen regardles of if they are visible or not and if they even are activated.

 

Skickat från min D5503 via Tapatalk

[NineLine]

Where is the mission, can you share it? What server, etc.I can submit to the team if the performance change was so drastic.

[Fisherman82]

Where is the mission, can you share it? What server, etc.I can submit to the team if the performance change was so drastic.

Im away for a couple of days but I will try to remember it when I get home. Its single player so its only on my computer.

 

Skickat från min D5503 via Tapatalk

[NineLine]

Im away for a couple of days but I will try to remember it when I get home. Its single player so its only on my computer.

 

Skickat från min D5503 via Tapatalk

 

If you want to send it by PM, you can do that as well. SP makes it easier to test as well. If its the version you ran on earlier versions as well, that would be helpful so I can see if I can gauge the differences.

 

Include your full PC specs as well if you dont mind and I will have a look and report/pass to the team as needed.

[NineLine]

Ran some quick tests:

 

My Settings (I run my settings a little above what I probably should):

 

 

40 Uncontrolled Aircraft

 

 

 

 

150 Uncontrolled Aircraft

 

 

40 Static Aircraft

 

 

150 Static Aircraft

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by NineLine

[Fisherman82]

Ran some quick tests:

It would be fun to know what happens with the fps if you move yourself very far away from them and also if you set the uncontrolled ones to late activation. Most interesting would be the difference in fps between a screen where you are looking att the ramp with no units at all in the mission vs the same where you have the 40 or 150 uncontrolled ones set to late activation. Its clear from your test though that its better to use statics than uncontrolled.

 

Skickat från min D5503 via Tapatalk

Edited April 27, 2018 by NineLine

[BitMaster]

FWIW, I joined BF Server last night with 40+ Pilots online, DCS 2.5.1 OB, Ka-50 + Su-25T.

 

my RAM never exceeded ~11GB, 22GB Swapfile, All on HIGH/Extreme.

 

Overall very smooth, a few hiccups but nothing dramatic, other than my flying ;)

 

The RAM fix seems to work, usually my RAM usage was a bit higher before.

[firmek]

Basically, if I get it correctly, from a performance perspective it's better to use the static aircrafts instead of the AI uncontrolled.

[David OC]

Basically, if I get it correctly, from a performance perspective it's better to use the static aircrafts instead of the AI uncontrolled.

 

Yes, if you don't need the aircraft to move at some point, it's always better to use a static object. I'm guessing the engine will keep checking what AI objects are doing, might do, AI OFF /AI ON etc.

 

-

[sze5003]

Ran some quick tests:

Very nice..do you guys have some sort of settings you use for testing in VR? Or that you recommend? I'm assuming your system may be similar to mine because outside of VR I never had any issue running everything on high.
Edited April 27, 2018 by NineLine

[David OC]

Very nice..do you guys have some sort of settings you use for testing in VR? Or that you recommend? I'm assuming your system may be similar to mine because outside of VR I never had any issue running everything on high.

 

I did a very quick test in VR on low default VR option settings, 1070 with a PD of 1.5.

 

Unit total 168

 

Pretty much Held 45 fps wit the Rift, you can take a look HERE. Not tested in 2.5.1 tho, so will need to.

 

-

Edited April 27, 2018 by David OC

[Captain Spears]

Went to 32GB recently because I started playing online. My machine isn't top of the line and could handle DCS in single-player just fine. Online it struggled somewhat, so for $150 I installed more RAM and no longer have those minor stutters and stalls.