[REPORTED] Performance Issues

[squirrelmeister]

I think you're barking on the wrong tree mate.

But you can try swapping the most detailed model to a less detailed.

Open "(main DCS folder)\CoreMods\tech\USS_Nimitz\Shapes\Nimitz_CVN_71.lods" and change it like this:

 

model = {    lods = {    {"Nimitz_CVN_71_LOD_3.edm",300.000000},        {"Nimitz_CVN_71_LOD_3.edm",1000.000000},        {"Nimitz_CVN_71_LOD_3.edm",3000.000000},        {"Nimitz_CVN_71_LOD_3.edm",15000.000000},        {"Nimitz_CVN_71_75_LOD_4.edm",50000.000000},    };    collision_shell = "Nimitz_CVN_71_Collision.edm";}

 

 

Oh man! Thanks for this tip. I will test it immediately and will report back!

 

 

Cheers:pilotfly:

[Minsky]

With the simplified SC model (no ropes, antennas and other small details, so shadows are a lot less complex) I see no performance gain at all.

 

I'm out of ideas.

 

[squirrelmeister]

With the simplified SC model (no ropes, antennas and other small details, so shadows are a lot less complex) I see no performance gain at all.

 

I'm out of ideas.

 

 

 

Affirm! It gave me a good 20% boost in FPS but...yeah it just looks like s**t and those details are what makes this model so nice.

 

Even if you put the LOD of 1 into the LOD Settings of the first one in the file, it does cast the shadows diferently and with way less detail in the shadows. But the performance boost is negligeble. I would go so far to say there is none gain at all which makes me very very curious about this whole situation.

 

 

I'm gonna test this whole thing today in VR (regarding the LOD I would only go as far as 1 in VR to see if it makes any difference at least in VR).

 

 

I'll report back later today.

 

 

 

 

Cheers :pilotfly:

[squirrelmeister]

Just for comparison, here is the different LOD settings:

 

 

First is normal settings (0 in the first line).

 

 

The second one is with a LOD of 1 (put in the filename - where the "0" is).

 

 

 

 

You can see the difference in details down left on the antenna, on the big square shaped antenna on top of the island and pay attention to the shadow (shadow is on the right side of the island) which is casted by the rotating antenna on the right side.

 

 

 

EDIT: The shadows are weird. It seems like they are more detailed with the less LOD setting or maybe it is just the different angles of the antenna casting shadows (when turning) - you can see it in the pictures!

 

 

The FPS is a little bit blurry since it is just 1920*1080. But as you can maybe make out, the difference isn't really there (both are between 90-115; fluctuating due to the planes etc. on board - but nonetheless no gain in FPS at all with this change of LOD)

Edited May 28, 2020 by squirrelmeister
Clarification

[bad_turbulence]

You know what's funny?

 

If I open SC in the ModelViewer, I see no performance hit at all - constant 62 fps*, no spikes, GPU usage is barely at 30%. With all shadows enabled, and animations playing non-stop.

 

*ModelViewer is probably capped at ~60 fps. Never saw more than that even with the simplest model loaded.

 

I think you're onto something there! What, I have no idea. But it would seem there is nothing wrong with the extra texture details and the rotation and detail of the radar dish

Edited May 28, 2020 by bad_turbulence

[Nealius]

The AI seems to be a big performance hog as well. When I trapped, parked, and was going through my shutdown list my frames were pretty good, then when I looked up to see a 4-ship of AI in the break at 800' my frames suddenly went to hell. Then as they disappeared in the distance my frames came back again.

[statrekmike]

The AI seems to be a big performance hog as well. When I trapped, parked, and was going through my shutdown list my frames were pretty good, then when I looked up to see a 4-ship of AI in the break at 800' my frames suddenly went to hell. Then as they disappeared in the distance my frames came back again.

 

 

The AI has always been a significant factor. It makes sense that AI assets would cause performance drops on one level or another. The issue we are trying to get to the bottom of here is why the Supercarrier itself (separate from any other AI or static objects) has such a massive performance impact.

[speed-of-heat]

wouldn't ai spike the CPU? not the GPU, unless the are leveraging the GPU for AI logic, doesn't seem likely ? (possible in theory but then ED would have to commit to a card manufacturer which doesn't seem like an approach the would take)

[statrekmike]

wouldn't ai spike the CPU? not the GPU, unless the are leveraging the GPU for AI logic, doesn't seem likely ? (possible in theory but then ED would have to commit to a card manufacturer which doesn't seem like an approach the would take)

 

 

I don't know if "spike" is the word I would go for. My point was that AI planes (especially those with high detail models like the F-14 and the like) will have a impact on performance if they are near enough. Likewise, the AI itself (regardless of the quality of the model/textures used) will obviously impact CPU performance.

 

My larger point overall is that AI aircraft are not really the issue being discussed in this specific thread. We have always known that AI impacts performance to varying degrees. What we are trying to figure out is why the Supercarrier on its own is impacting performance in such a extreme manner.

[speed-of-heat]

My point is still that it is gpu’s that are being hammered not cpu times... fwiw,if you do the cold start mission, when the aircraft on cat 2 launches there is a massive GPU spike lasts about 10 seconds or so as the engines are spooling up to take off... the gpu spike hits even if you are not directly looking at it, you get a smaller hit from the aircraft on cat 1 when iit launches... if i didn’t know better I would think it was the sound that was causing the issue... but I can’t see why sound would hit the gpu...unless someone was optimising for RTX.

 

THe high density of high resolution aircraft should be easy to check and see, though, just put yourself on the deck, with and without shadows and see if it makes any difference in game by adding aircraft...

[Harker]

My point is still that it is gpu’s that are being hammered not cpu times... fwiw,if you do the cold start mission, when the aircraft on cat 2 launches there is a massive GPU spike lasts about 10 seconds or so as the engines are spooling up to take off... the gpu spike hits even if you are not directly looking at it, you get a smaller hit from the aircraft on cat 1 when iit launches... if i didn’t know better I would think it was the sound that was causing the issue... but I can’t see why sound would hit the gpu...unless someone was optimising for RTX.

 

THe high density of high resolution aircraft should be easy to check and see, though, just put yourself on the deck, with and without shadows and see if it makes any difference in game by adding aircraft...

What would sound have to do with RTX?

[speed-of-heat]

It can be used to clean up voice calls.., it’s thin, but I can’t see (no pun intended) why spooling up engines would have such an impact if you aren’t looking at them... maybe heat blur is being modelled... but I don’t see the same hit on cat 3 4 lauhnches, it’s proximity based which makes me think sound...

[squirrelmeister]

Just one thing to add from my side...actually two things.

So I tried it yesterday in VR. It is very much different when you are on the Supercarrier or on an airfield. Which makes sense, at least a little bit.

But nothing new came up just that my frametimes are just bad in general haha.

 

 

@speed-of-heat: you say these problems are especially on cat 1 and 2, right?

Maybe this is something because I made a mission the other day on the Supercarrier where I did something which lead to queueing on the deck or in the hangar I should say. I got massive and I mean massive framedrops in that instance - from like 60 to 10-20. And the strange thing was or still is: It doesn't matter if you yourself were in queue or an AI. And what is even more strange, with everyone (all AI and myself) on deck...yeah you guessed it: no framedrops at all or just the usual "Supercarrier-Frames-Of-Death". I should test this again after the recent little patch which seems to do nothing, maybe this one got sorted out. And I think someone else posted that particular bug already.

 

 

Until later. Gotta get my nuts now!

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers

[speed-of-heat]

check it out

Frame rate of doom.trk

[petsild]

I let go of the track files and it is similar to another problem:https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=265097

 

Edit:

I did a simple test, limitations of smoke eliminates 90% frame drops on the Supercarrier.

 

x:\Xxx\DCS World 2.5\Config\Effects\ParticleSystem2\ExhaustTrailAir.Lua

 

ParticlesLimit = 0,

LODdistance = 0,

 

SpinDir = 0,

Edited May 30, 2020 by petsild

[squirrelmeister]

Just a question: Did anyone of you tried the new stable version? And should we stick with open beta or should we change to the stable version? I know that the versions are the same now and only one plane doesn't go with the stable version. Just curious if it would be better to wait til june the third as the dev team mentioned there is the next update for beta.

 

 

Hmm, I am a little bit overwhelmed what I should do and what I shouldn't do.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: The plane-thing was wrong. I thought I read something but turned out there wasn't anything about a plane...sorry o.O

Edited May 30, 2020 by squirrelmeister

[imacken]

Just a question: Did anyone of you tried the new stable version? And should we stick with open beta or should we change to the stable version? I know that the versions are the same now and only one plane doesn't go with the stable version. Just curious if it would be better to wait til june the third as the dev team mentioned there is the next update for beta.

 

 

Hmm, I am a little bit overwhelmed what I should do and what I shouldn't do.

 

The Stable and Beta are the same! what is this plane you mention?

[squirrelmeister]

The Stable and Beta are the same! what is this plane you mention?

 

 

:huh: I could swear I read something. But as I read to all stuff I read earlier, I can't find it anymore...:helpsmilie: so gonna edit it.

 

 

 

I'm curious, could be because it's friday:joystick::pilotfly:

[imacken]

:huh: I could swear I read something. But as I read to all stuff I read earlier, I can't find it anymore...:helpsmilie: so gonna edit it.

 

 

 

I'm curious, could be because it's friday:joystick::pilotfly:

 

You're probably thinking of the JF-17 which wasn't available on the old Stable release.

[squirrelmeister]

I knew I read something....but yeah that was the old stable version.

[Minsky]

Tried with the latest 2.5.6.50321 OB.

Still no improvements.

[chevyrules727]

I lost 10 FPS with the latest update using the Tomcat, shadows flat.

[Proteuswave]

No difference for me either.

[petsild]

Use default shadows instead of flat.

[Minsky]

Use default shadows instead of flat.

 

 

That gave me a couple (I mean, exactly 2) more frames, 20 > 22. Still unusable.

 

 

No performance increase with Stennis (the very same 56 fps):