[REPORTED]2.5.6 Performance

[ThorBrasil]

[DCS 2.5.6.50321 Open Beta]

I liked the night lighting. Before, I couldn't even see the lighting of the light ports, etc. Now DCS performance in general has dropped a lot. Losing about 10/15 FPS with this update.

[TAW_Impalor]

I could fly the Quick F-18 BVR 8v8 mission earlier this week, but it's a slideshow now with FPS dropping to low teens. I reduced visibility one step to Medium and deleted fxo and metashaders. I cannot tune down features every week, my patience is hair thin. The fact that DCS made a buggy OB 2.5.6 into new Stable tells a lot. They don't care about our experience. They just want to sell more modules like the Supercarrier, faster.

[Gryzor]

[DCS 2.5.6.50321 Open Beta]

I liked the night lighting. Before, I couldn't even see the lighting of the light ports, etc. Now DCS performance in general has dropped a lot. Losing about 10/15 FPS with this update.

 

It´s not makes sense, don´t understad what improvements ED was working on, I remember Bignewy saying that "performance will increase in the following patches...". Another promise broken (not for Bignewy, I understad he is a representative from ED). Appart of the promise of another one magic VR code to be "merged"... It´s just the same history that happened in the past year with Wags comments saying to expect an increase of "50% more fps"... I´m tired of those magic bullets just watching the reality how performance goes...

 

Please look the other 2WW sim ED: Even that now they improved the graphical engine with deferred shading, performance has increased a lot (even in VR its possible now to mantain 90fps with higher detail settings).

 

With DCS, beta or not beta, patch after patch we´re seeing how performance degrades in VR, just reaching to the point that no PC in earth could even mantain a stable ASW 45 pfs.

 

5 years ago I bought all modules without doubt. Now, even I don´t consider to buy new channel terrain or P-47... just not for having 15 fps in VR with my high end PC (5.1 Ghz 2080ti 32GB)...better no, thanks.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Gryzor

[ThorBrasil]

It´s not makes sense, don´t understad what improvements ED was working on, I remember Bignewy saying that "performance will increase in the following patches...". Another promise broken (not for Bignewy, I understad he is a representative from ED). Appart of the promise of another one magic VR code to be "merged"... It´s just the same history that happened in the past year with Wags comments saying to expect an increase of "50% more fps"... I´m tired of those magic bullets just watching the reality how performance goes...

 

Please look the other 2WW sim ED: Even that now they improved the graphical engine with deferred shading, performance has increased a lot (even in VR its possible now to mantain 90fps with higher detail settings).

 

With DCS, beta or not beta, patch after patch we´re seeing how performance degrades in VR, just reaching to the point that no PC in earth could even mantain a stable ASW 45 pfs.

 

5 years ago I bought all modules without doubt. Now, even I don´t consider to buy new channel terrain or P-47... just not for having 15 fps in VR with my high end PC (5.1 Ghz 2080ti 32GB)...better no, thanks.

 

I thought about buying the P47D and the channel map, but I gave up! My PC won't be able to handle the DCS in a while. And I don't have a bad PC to be suffering like that.

[ThorBrasil]

The modules I have already purchased. SuperCarrier, CombinedArms, WWII Units, Persian Gulf, Nevada, F86, MiG-15, MiG-21, M2000, C-101, L-39, Harrier, F-5E, A-10C, F-14, F-16, F-15C, F-18C, CTII, Yak-52, F-5, P-51D, Huey, Mi8, Ka-50, MiG-29, All GPS, Su-25A. Having said all that, I will not buy the P47D and the Channel map until I see an improvement in DCS performance. And look, this is not just my opinion, but of many people I know.

[veenee]

The modules I have already purchased. SuperCarrier, CombinedArms, WWII Units, Persian Gulf, Nevada, F86, MiG-15, MiG-21, M2000, C-101, L-39, Harrier, F-5E, A-10C, F-14, F-16, F-15C, F-18C, CTII, Yak-52, F-5, P-51D, Huey, Mi8, Ka-50, MiG-29, All GPS, Su-25A. Having said all that, I will not buy the P47D and the Channel map until I see an improvement in DCS performance. And look, this is not just my opinion, but of many people I know.

 

 

Agreed.

[hreich]

I already spent around 1500 usd on DCS...But after performance degradation i will restrain myself from any oher module purchase until they fix FPS...

[Arkangel]

+100000

[Gripen 4-1]

I already spent around 1500 usd on DCS...But after performance degradation i will restrain myself from any oher module purchase until they fix FPS...

 

+1

[Charly314159]

+1 even for non ED modules.

 

ED has totally lost control over their code because they are focused on releasing paid modules to keep money flowing.

I am pretty sure that performance improvement they are promising are based on community mods being integrated in the game (central only msaa from be shader mod for example).

 

For me since 2.5.6 DCS has never looked so bad in VR (0.9 pd no msaa) and has never run so poorly. And I am really worried about it's future...

[crazyeddie]

Vanilla game, no mods, with the latest update on a high end PC. From hitting the exe to getting a simple mission of 1 aircraft on the Caucasus map to actually fly took just short of 7 minutes, that has been the worst time frame tested over the last 2 day, sometimes its been a little less, but not by much. Tried it again with all my Mods added, no difference. Not unplayable, but unacceptable.

[heroe]

The performance is improved in a patch and next time it drops again, with the performance we have been taking one step forward and one backwards for a long time.

[Proteuswave]

The modules I have already purchased. SuperCarrier, CombinedArms, WWII Units, Persian Gulf, Nevada, F86, MiG-15, MiG-21, M2000, C-101, L-39, Harrier, F-5E, A-10C, F-14, F-16, F-15C, F-18C, CTII, Yak-52, F-5, P-51D, Huey, Mi8, Ka-50, MiG-29, All GPS, Su-25A. Having said all that, I will not buy the P47D and the Channel map until I see an improvement in DCS performance. And look, this is not just my opinion, but of many people I know.

 

 

Agreed.

[Gryzor]

@ED: Fix the damm sim for VR we´re now 5 months without solutions since 2.5.6 disaster (NEAR A HALF YEAR???)... not only in FPS, images not rendered in one EYE, this in pathetic. Stop launching unplayable modules and optimize & put vulkan on play you won´t see any $$$ until fixed.

[zK_RazOR]

Before the Super Carrier my DCS worked with an average of 25-30fps (yes, I have an average PC). After that launch, the frames dropped to 19. And after the launch of the P-47/Channel map and updates my frames went to 11. And I just closed the DCS and gave up flying.

 

For those who don't receive a salary in US dollars, each module is expensive (I pay almost 6x the original amount) and paying for something to not be able to use is complicated.

 

Honestly, stop the releases, clean up this mess.

[JDM]

@ED: Fix the damm sim for VR we´re now 5 months without solutions since 2.5.6 disaster (NEAR A HALF YEAR???)... not only in FPS, images not rendered in one EYE, this in pathetic. Stop launching unplayable modules and optimize & put vulkan on play you won´t see any $$$ until fixed.

 

Users will not pay money for switching to the API Vulcan

[Svsmokey]

I would ! Like many others , i would prefer to see core improvements before any more features , maps or modules . If that means paying for 3.0 , i'm all in .

As it stands in VR , we have had features introduced that we are reluctant to choose to use , either because the implementations are severely compromised trying to maintain performance , (default shadows , lod's , ) or direct performance impacts (mirrors , clouds , ai , statics , aa , etc , etc) .

 

Give me Vulkan , multithreading and VR optimisation before any more pretties i can't use , modules that fly from airfields with godawful shimmering or new maps with further performance penalties .

[vracan]

I would ! Like many others , i would prefer to see core improvements before any more features , maps or modules . If that means paying for 3.0 , i'm all in .

As it stands in VR , we have had features introduced that we are reluctant to choose to use , either because the implementations are severely compromised trying to maintain performance , (default shadows , lod's , ) or direct performance impacts (mirrors , clouds , ai , statics , aa , etc , etc) .

 

Give me Vulkan , multithreading and VR optimisation before any more pretties i can't use , modules that fly from airfields with godawful shimmering or new maps with further performance penalties .

 

Yes fully agree with you. DCS is falling way behind in true progress compared to other flight sims. Adding features/bellsnwhistles to broken code is just distraction not progress.

Edited June 6, 2020 by vracan

[speed-of-heat]

I would ! Like many others , i would prefer to see core improvements before any more features , maps or modules . If that means paying for 3.0 , i'm all in .

As it stands in VR , we have had features introduced that we are reluctant to choose to use , either because the implementations are severely compromised trying to maintain performance , (default shadows , lod's , ) or direct performance impacts (mirrors , clouds , ai , statics , aa , etc , etc) .

 

Give me Vulkan , multithreading and VR optimisation before any more pretties i can't use , modules that fly from airfields with godawful shimmering or new maps with further performance penalties .

 

Me too, genuinely, please take my money... I am cool with the only fixes being perf ones. The problem for ED is these are not the only voices they hear, and we have people clamouring for new features and modules before they are ready. And I also understand that it might mean months to fix. Again, just look at the number of complaints that people didn’t have access to 2.5.6 on stable...because they wanted the whistles and bells, despite people saying there would be a perf problem.

 

Ed genuinely can’t win here.

 

But if I had a vote...and I don’t really, it would be stop all other DEV work, and put everyone on perf, stand down the DEV team against any feature that is not perf improvement related. Make that commitment and show me it’s happening I will buy a couple of modules I don’t want, or I will pay for the “upgrade” to Vulcan or whatever...

[TOViper]

I would.

50 bucks for a "VR module", with improvements which gave me stable frame rate at 90Hz would be OK (this is the frame rate I usually get when using a normal computer screen with 2560x1440 with medium detail settings).

The other solution would be to buy a super computer to even have 45 fps with a simple Rift CV1, which costs about 3000 bucks, so ... more supercomputers need more power, need resources, old computers produce waste ... all this shit comes up all the time.

Better solution: optimize code.

 

AND to ED: never stop improving DCS!!!

Edited June 6, 2020 by TOViper
bugs != bucks ;-)

[ThorBrasil]

For me there is no need to pay for a performance module. This is absurd! I believe that one of the villains in DCS that ends up with performance is the trees. When I get close to them, they drop about 20/30 FPS.

[vracan]

For me there is no need to pay for a performance module. This is absurd! I believe that one of the villains in DCS that ends up with performance is the trees. When I get close to them, they drop about 20/30 FPS.

 

not obsurd if we have no choice and that's what it takes for them to seriously put manpower to do something about it. Without proper performance I simply dont play DCS and put my money elsewhere.

Edited June 6, 2020 by vracan

[ThorBrasil]

not obsurd if we have no choice and that's what it takes for them to seriously put manpower to do something about it. Without proper performance I simply dont play DCS and put my money elsewhere.

 

I'm dying to buy the P-47D and the Canal map, but due to the performance I gave up on buying it. I'm hoping ED will put the DCS on the axis.

[mig45]

Oh my god it happens my car doesn’t brake immediately, I have to wait a certain amount of time, do I have to buy an anchor as other users advised me?

Oh .. ‘moved’ … are you sure ?

[Vertigo72]

The overwhelming majority of DCS players want ED to spend more resources on fixing performance and the base game, rather than constantly putting out new modules no one ever asked for. Especially new modules that achieve the exact opposite of what we want, like causing more performance issues and new bugs in the base layer that affect everyone.

 

The problem is, ED have developers and mouths to feed, and they pretty much only make money from selling (new) modules so stopping all new content creation and asking them to focus on the game base for a year, is not very different from asking them to work a year for free. Its a cool idea, but its just not realistic.

 

The irony is that many people would be quite willing to chip in for fixes rather than new content, but the only way to "chip in" is buying new content and thus giving ED the wrong signal and the incentive to do exactly the opposite of what you wanted.

 

We risk getting in a death spiral where a lack of funding or resources leads to a push to release ever more content, which inevitably leads to more bugs and issues that need urgent fixing, diverting even more resources away from working on the game core and possibly angering more customers which may cause a decline in sales, which, well they can only counter with more content! until you get to a point where you can basically not afford to maintain or upgrade the game core. The thing we all sorely want to see fixed, but that no one pays for. Or even can pay for.

 

ED seriously needs to come up with a solution, find a revenue source or tweak the business model in a way that ensures their revenue is not solely dependent on ever more, new (game breaking) content, -which most of us arent really asking for at the point anyway- but that also allows them to profit financially from the things we are asking for, and even willing to pay for, like reworking the base layer, graphics / VR engine, weather model, campaigns, fixing old bugs and all the things that are not saleable as modules.

 

There are many ways to achieve that, but they all have significant drawbacks. Mention the word "subscription" and 2/3 of the forum light their pitch forks, even if no one is forced and the model is offered as an optional alternative to buying modules. Other solutions like charging a fee for DCSW V3 are only slightly less controversial but has nasty side effects like fragmenting the user base, the need for ED and third party developers to support multiple platforms. They can not NOT fix the viper or F18 or super carrier in v2.5 if v3 is a paying upgrade. It also means giving up the free on ramp.

 

This thread is not right place to discus how this can be solved best, I have my ideas, you will have yours, and none will be universally liked, in fact, all of them will be widely disliked, but I really hope someone sends a signal upstairs and ED come up with something. And even if we will dislike their solution, Im hopeful we will all love the long term outcome.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Vertigo72