[REPORTED] Performance Issues

[statrekmike]

Alot to render on the island - that aside and with respect do not expect to run the latest software with older hardware. Its brutal i know and not meant to offend its just the reality of the situation.

 

With a 2080+ its playable.

 

 

Some on this thread keep saying this but it doesn't really tackle the real issue we are talking about. Saying "You need a 2080+" to get the supercarrier to run as well as EVERYTHING ELSE in DCS doesn't really make any sense. The performance issues we are seeing here are not reasonable and saying "just get the newest possible hardware" (or something to that effect) will only make it harder to actually discuss the issue.

 

People who are getting good performance in ALL OTHER parts of the sim should not be told to get better hardware just to get this one, singular aspect to work even nearly as well.

[ThorBrasil]

Are your missions full of AI and/or statics? Can you try removing some and test? I know AI and statics can heavily impact performance. Thanks.

 

Right here me removing everything and leaving only the SC the performance is horrible!

[ThorBrasil]

Some on this thread keep saying this but it doesn't really tackle the real issue we are talking about. Saying "You need a 2080+" to get the supercarrier to run as well as EVERYTHING ELSE in DCS doesn't really make any sense. The performance issues we are seeing here are not reasonable and saying "just get the newest possible hardware" (or something to that effect) will only make it harder to actually discuss the issue.

 

People who are getting good performance in ALL OTHER parts of the sim should not be told to get better hardware just to get this one, singular aspect to work even nearly as well.

 

:beer:

[VFA41_Lion]

Alot to render on the island - that aside and with respect do not expect to run the latest software with older hardware. Its brutal i know and not meant to offend its just the reality of the situation.

 

With a 2080+ its playable.

 

Just buy a $1000 graphics card to make the Supercarrier run at 30 frames per second?

 

lol ok bud

[Minsky]

People who are getting good performance in ALL OTHER parts of the sim should not be told to get better hardware just to get this one, singular aspect to work even nearly as well.

 

Exactly.

 

Why stuffing your new module with features and textures up to the point when it's only playable on a high-level hardware? And ignoring those who fall between your own "recommended" and "minimum" system reqs.

 

Now, the official minimum system requirements for the Supercarrier are i3@2.8, 8Gb RAM, and GTX 760. I don't even want to imagine how it will run on these.

[Mars Exulte]

In your examples, note the number "TRG" as in "triangles" the little shapes that make up objects. You'll see the Supercarrier + attending aircraft vs the Stennis + whatever you had on it is about 2.5x-3.0x as many triangles, which coincidentally aligns with your approximately 1/3rd FPS. There's your performance loss. It's not hard to figure out.

 

 

Higher res carrier + more aircraft on deck = lower framerates. Easy. That's not an "optimisation" or "bug" thing, it's a basic math thing. And an I5 and 960 are definitely sub-optimal for this stuff. The solution to your issue is to use the less demanding carrier, and have fewer aircraft on deck.

Edited May 21, 2020 by zhukov032186

[jross194]

The $1000 I would need to upgrade my GTX1080 will buy a LOT of modules. I can't do both anymore. Or more correctly, repeatedly and regularly.

[Mars Exulte]

Exactly.

 

Why stuffing your new module with features and textures up to the point when it's only playable on a high-level hardware? And ignoring those who fall between your own "recommended" and "minimum" system reqs.

 

Now, the official minimum system requirements for the Supercarrier are i3@2.8, 8Gb RAM, and GTX 760. I don't even want to imagine how it will run on these.

 

The F-14 has higher demands than most/all other modules, people buying it need to be aware of that, as an example of modules being different. Also, as mentioned in my above post, people cramming too much stuff in doesn't help. Just because you CAN put 20-30 aircraft on deck, doesn't mean YOUR computer can do that. With a few aircraft, you probably CAN run it on those specs. You aren't going to do it with 20-30 aircraft, though.

 

I'm getting usable performance with a deck full of aircraft in VR, with a liquid cooled 1080ti. If I pare it back a bit and had half as many planes on deck, I'd probably double my performance. That's just common sense.

 

The only real solution for this, is if more than a certain number of objects are within a certain range, it dials up the LOD switching. Your stuff will look crappier when your system is overwhelmed, but your FPS will improve. When fewer objects are present, LOD switching will be less aggressive.

Edited May 21, 2020 by zhukov032186

[Gat0 Loc0]

In your examples, note the number "TRG" as in "triangles" the little shapes that make up objects. You'll see the Supercarrier + attending aircraft vs the Stennis + whatever you had on it is about 2.5x-3.0x as many triangles, which coincidentally aligns with your approximately 1/3rd FPS. There's your performance loss. It's not hard to figure out.

 

 

Higher res carrier + more aircraft on deck = lower framerates. Easy. That's not an "optimisation" or "bug" thing, it's a basic math thing. And an I5 and 960 are definitely sub-optimal for this stuff. The solution to your issue is to use the less demanding carrier, and have fewer aircraft on deck.

 

 

 

 

Agree 100%. An i5 at 3.2ghz and a 960 just wont cut it

[statrekmike]

In your examples, note the number "TRG" as in "triangles" the little shapes that make up objects. You'll see the Supercarrier + attending aircraft vs the Stennis + whatever you had on it is about 2.5x-3.0x as many triangles, which coincidentally aligns with your approximately 1/3rd FPS. There's your performance loss. It's not hard to figure out.

 

 

Higher res carrier + more aircraft on deck = lower framerates. Easy. That's not an "optimisation" or "bug" thing, it's a basic math thing. And an I5 and 960 are definitely sub-optimal for this stuff. The solution to your issue is to use the less demanding carrier, and have fewer aircraft on deck.

 

Nobody is debating that the Supercarrier has a higher graphical detail level, higher resolution textures, and a generally more complex model. That is obvious. Likewise, it is obvious that even in the best possible scenario, the Supercarrier would not run as well as the older ones. Again, nobody is debating this on a basic level.

 

What we are debating is whether or not the rather dramatic performance hit we are seeing is ONLY the result of more complex models and textures or if there is something else dragging performance down.

 

Beyond all that, we REALLY need to move past using those with 9 series GTX cards as the ONLY example. I have a GTX 1070 that I run on a 1080p monitor. By all rights, I should see at least reasonably decent performance with the Supercarrier with my current setup because the rest of DCS runs fantastic for me. Sadly, I do not. My performance is cut down more than half and to be bluntly honest, I can't really see why that is. I know that the models and textures are better than the original carriers but are they so much better that I should be seeing less than half my usual performance?

 

If this is the kind of performance that ED desired and intended, the minimum system requirements for the Supercarrier module should shift DRAMATICALLY upward and that will sadly create even more hurdles for new players with systems that would normally run DCS perfectly fine.

 

The performance we are getting now is not really okay. I don't normally get like this about DCS and usually I am quite quick to forgive their technical issues but the idea that people with GTX 10 series cards should just shut up and get 2080's is absurd to the highest degree and does NOTHING to confront and hopefully solve the issue.

[Minsky]

In your examples, note the number "TRG" as in "triangles" the little shapes that make up objects. You'll see the Supercarrier + attending aircraft vs the Stennis + whatever you had on it is about 2.5x-3.0x as many triangles, which coincidentally aligns with your approximately 1/3rd FPS. There's your performance loss. It's not hard to figure out.

 

You like the numbers? Let's have some.

 

A single Supecarrier.

3.0 mil triangles. 25 fps:

 

Stennis with a bunch of pretty heavy models.

5.5 mil triangles. 40 fps:

 

How about Stennis with 9.4 million triangles?

It's like three Supercarriers, but with more fps:

 

FYI, half a dozen textures can hit your performance much harder than a few million polys.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Minsky

[Thinder]

The gtx-960 is a 5 year old low range graphics card, maybe it is time to update it?

 

That's exactly what I thought when I read his specs.

 

I upgrade my PC just to be able to keep up with the increasing demands of online games, but DCS I worth it, the problem is mostly textures, so you'll need 8 GB of RAM to cope with it.

[Wizard_03]

From the store page:

 

 

Recommended system requirements (HIGH graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+ at 3+ GHz or AMD FX / Ryzen; RAM: 16 GB (32 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 120 GB on Solid State Drive (SSD); Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 / AMD Radeon RX VEGA 56 with 8GB VRAM or better; Joystick; requires internet activation.

 

 

 

So According to this a 1070 should allow you to run high settings and still have good Frames. 60 plus would be reasonable IMHO.

 

I'm exceeding all of those recommendations Significantly in some cases and still seeing performance excursions It's not horrifying but it seems some optimization is in order on ED's side according to their own recommendations here and in the user manual.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Wizard_03

[cthulhu68]

A single Supecarrier.

3.0 mil triangles. 25 fps:

I have similar gpu in my rig (I7 6700, GTX 970 4gig, 16gig RAM) with pretty high settings and get the same 20fps and stuttery in that Caucasus cold start mission but with SC and 6-8 statics in a fast mission I didn't see less than 30fps and it was playable. Im surprised you're only getting 5fps more with empty carrier. Not that 30fps is much better but at least you don't feel performance drop much at 30fps.

[VFA41_Lion]

GTX 1080 on a 1080p monitor should not be limited to 30 FPS at medium-high settings at daytime, nevermind 20 fps at night time.

 

On an empty mission.

[kunterbunt]

Sorry if this was already discussed, but have you seen this thread?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=274106

Similar problem but then solved.

[Proteuswave]

Running RX480 8gb vram , i7 6700 , 32gb ram and dcs is installed on a ssd also getting huge unplayable frame drops going anywhere near the SC running at 1080p and I've fiddled with graphics settings turning certain things completely off etc. In general missions that don't have the SC I've seen improvements since the patch before in terms of performance which has made me happy at least.

[Ratcatcher]

I am also experiencing very poor performance around the carrier. My rig isn't cutting edge but is it that poor (see sig)?

 

Having read through the thread I see a lot focusing on the capability of the orginal OP's system, which I think is clouding the issue somewhat, as is the idea that its too many aircraft / ground assets, when a few users have clearly just plonked an empty carrier on the sea and have experienced the same poor performance.

 

I will try further testing today and clear my shader cache. I will also ensure SSLR is disabled to see if that improves things.

[average_pilot]

I'm pretty sure there is a lot more of detail rendered when flying low over Krashnodar that when alone in the middle of the sea on the deck of the supercarrier.

 

 

It's hard trying to discuss a potential performance bug with all this "the problem is your hardware" noise.

 

 

Clearly it's affecting a sub-set of the users, but still it's an existing problem.

[Papa Saubär]

Some test carrier start with stennis and supercarrier, this missions are from ED.

 

All with the newest version of DCS and cleared shaders and caches.

 

First Setup

i9 9900kf @5 GHz, RTX 2080Ti, 32 GB DDR4

 

Settings

 

 

 

 

 

STENNIS

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERCARRIER

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second Setup

i7 8700k, GTX 1080, 32 GB DDR4

 

Settings

 

 

 

 

 

STENNIS

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERCARRIER

 

 

 

 

 

I lose a minimum of 60 frames per second for both systems.

HWMonitor1 SC, 1. Setup.txt

HWMonitor1 SC, 2. Setup.txt

Edited May 21, 2020 by Papa Saubär

[RAF_JAGUAR]

I am not tech savy so apologies but for reference i have the settings turned up pretty high and my GTX 1070 on a 244mhz monitor around the carrier sits between 48-50 FPS. As soon as i lose sight of the carrier i get a fps rate of 75-80. As soon as i see the carrier it drops again.

 

It also "jerked" for the first time ever in DCS when i was close in tonight. Alienware cooling fans didn't like it either, they went full afterburner for a good 20 seconds.

[hawk2495]

Same here, that island is FPS black hole, If I look anywhere else on SC I get high 40s FPS in F-14 cockpit, once I look at the island its down to 20 FPS.

 

I was doing a test on a clean deck. My hit was when I looked over toward the LSO station. Maybe the displays are causing a hit? They appear to be active at all times..

[RAF_JAGUAR]

I was doing a test on a clean deck. My hit was when I looked over toward the LSO station. Maybe the displays are causing a hit? They appear to be active at all times..

 

I don't think they are. First time i loaded the LSO position the screens were not there. They appeared about 20 seconds later.

[Strider32]

Through my testing, shadows were causing the FPS drop. I stay at 60fps constant under most circumstances. On Supercarrier, I get 38 looking toward the stern. I turned the shadows to Off and FPS was back up to 60 on the deck.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Hornet_101

[Dunx]

Through my testing, shadows were causing the FPS drop. I stay at 60fps constant under most circumstances. On Supercarrier, i get 38 looking toward the stern. I turned the shadows to Off and FPS was back up to 60 constant.

 

+1