[REPORTED] Performance Issues

[Minsky]

I think it would be a good idea to collect all your knowledge, and forward it as PDF to a person at ED which you think is able to understand what you are talking about (I would ask Nineline).

 

Waiting for Nineline is probably not the best strategy. I'll sit till the next patch (19.08 IIRC) and then, providing it bring no improvements, will ask the Russian devs directly.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Minsky

[...]

Believe it or not, but yes, I had about 40 fps at EGLL with the old 738. It's quite achievable with a well-tuned sim.

 

The quality of textures doesn't mean anything in the "other sim". It's autogen and scenery objects that matters. And not because they're complex and detailed, but because they are so poorly optimized - much like their dynamic lights.

 

You just keep giving us irrelevant examples instead of reading the first post. Stop trying to derail this thread, please.

 

 

No one can beat irrelevant examples, friend. You started the thread comparing the Supercarrier to the Stennis, until your feet stopped.

[Minsky]

No one can beat irrelevant examples, friend. You started the thread comparing the Supercarrier to the Stennis, until your feet stopped.

 

Quite the contrary. Stennis comparison was the first obvious step. And then my feet went much further - it's all in the first post :D

[...]

Did I say to eliminate the crew?

 

Also, I have no isses with HIGH settings, no matter which map and which mission I currently fly, thanks to help of BigNewy and Nineline, and many other guys around in the forum that are able to give useful information.

But I have issues with the SC. Therefore, can you please read my post again and write an answer with useful information, which makes me think you got what we are talking about here? Please. Thank you. Nothing personal ... just a little. :smartass:

 

If Nineline and Minsky would read my post above, I would be happy.

Besides, I fear that the complexity of the model - according to what I understand reading the very first posts of this thread and believing what Minsky is saying - seems not the biggest issue.

One of my issues (this is what I can say for sure) is a SHADOW setting higher than OFF. It is EATING frames like hell, even in FLAT (!). What I am asking ED for - as many others do but others not - ED to dig into an optimization of SC.

 

 

I have already given you useful information, you decide whether to use it or discard it. You can't claim to have the same performance in low resolution areas as you do in ultra-detailed settings. The sooner you understand it, the better for everyone.

[...]

Quite the contrary. Stennis comparison was the first obvious step. And then my feet went much further - it's all in the first post :D

 

 

If you understood the obvious, no one should have told you that it is obvious that the Stennis gives you better performance.

[...]

Waiting for Nineline is probably not the best strategy. I'll sit till the next patch (19.08 IIRC) and then, providing it bring no improvements, will ask the Russian devs directly.

 

 

:doh::doh::doh:

[Rmnsvn]

:doh::doh::doh:

 

Just read the first post lol :lol:

You're just raising questions the others have raised. Right, I'll do that for ya. Minsky has manually reduced all the textures to low res and it gave no improvement. He removed all the crew and it did increase FPS to Stennis level. He did put the crew back and switched off the shadows - FPS was equally good to the rest of the map. Why can't you just accept there COULD be smth wrong like Mig 21 radar bug or Hornet SA bug?

[...]

Just read the first post lol :lol:

You're just raising questions the others have raised. Right, I'll do that for ya. Minsky has manually reduced all the textures to low res and it gave no improvement. He removed all the crew and it did increase FPS to Stennis level. He did put the crew back and switched off the shadows - FPS was equally good to the rest of the map. Why can't you just accept there COULD be smth wrong like Mig 21 radar bug or Hornet SA bug?

 

The Hornet SA bug was a bug in an NVIDIA driver version that was fixed by reverting to a previous version.

Edited August 6, 2020 by La Unión | Atazar

[Minsky]

The Hornet SA bug was a bug in an NVIDIA driver version that was fixed by reverting to a previous version.

 

Does it matter?

 

It was a bug.

 

It was identified, confirmed and resolved.

 

I don't care if SuperCarrier's woes are caused by a bad driver or a solar flare. I want them to be confirmed and resolved, or officially dismissed.

[...]

Does it matter?

 

It was a bug.

 

It was identified, confirmed and resolved.

 

I don't care if SuperCarrier's woes are caused by a bad driver or a solar flare. I want them to be confirmed and resolved, or officially dismissed.

 

 

Of course it matters, especially if you are trying to hold ED responsible for problems caused by NVIDIA, Windows or other platforms.

[TOViper]

Waiting for Nineline is probably not the best strategy. I'll sit till the next patch (19.08 IIRC) and then, providing it bring no improvements, will ask the Russian devs directly.

If you need help in testing scenarios (maybe other system configuration than your's) give me a call, I will support as best as I can.

[Minsky]

Of course it matters, especially if you are trying to hold ED responsible for problems caused by NVIDIA, Windows or other platforms.

 

I don't know who's responsible for this. And frankly I don't care. I'm a user, not a detective (although I spent a lot my own time trying to pinpoint this issue and make ED's life easier).

 

ED sold me this module.

I meet their requirements.

This module doesn't perform as advertised.

Not my other games or Windows apps, but this particular DCS module.

So of course I'm asking the seller for help.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Minsky

[ThorBrasil]

I don't know who's responsible for this. And frankly I don't care. I'm a user, not a detective (although I spent a lot my own time trying to pinpoint this issue and make ED's life easier).

 

ED sold me this module.

I meet their requirements.

This module doesn't perform as advertised.

Not my other games or Windows apps, but this particular DCS module.

So of course I'm asking the seller for help.

 

The problem affects everyone. You're not alone! :thumbup:

[imacken]

I wouldn't say it affects everyone.

I don't want to get into the unpleasantness surrounding this thread, but please see attached images. I am not seeing the issue on the SC using TrackIR. As can be seen, I am running at 4K resolution, shadows on High and I am maxed out at my frame-limited 58fps on the deck of the SC in the Hornet Cold Start mission.

Being on the SC has no effect on my fps at all using TrackIR. Now VR, that's a different matter entirely. In VR, with shadows on, I see 30fps, with shadows off, I see the solid, motion reprojected, 45fps on the SC like everywhere else.

[Harker]

I wouldn't say it affects everyone.

I don't want to get into the unpleasantness surrounding this thread, but please see attached images. I am not seeing the issue on the SC using TrackIR. As can be seen, I am running at 4K resolution, shadows on High and I am maxed out at my frame-limited 58fps on the deck of the SC in the Hornet Cold Start mission.

Being on the SC has no effect on my fps at all using TrackIR. Now VR, that's a different matter entirely. In VR, with shadows on, I see 30fps, with shadows off, I see the solid, motion reprojected, 45fps on the SC like everywhere else.

We have a similar setup and options. In my case, with TIR in 4K, the SC is fine during the day (locked 60), but if I look at the island in the evening or night, when the lights are on, my FPS will drop to 52-55. If it's raining and it's night, the combined effect of the lit island and the rain drops on the canopy will lower the FPS even more, to around 45-50.

 

The one main difference between our options is that I have maxed out my visibility, so probably that accounts for a few fps, but it shouldn't make a big difference on the boat.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Harker

[bad_turbulence]

I wouldn't say it affects everyone.

I don't want to get into the unpleasantness surrounding this thread, but please see attached images. I am not seeing the issue on the SC using TrackIR. As can be seen, I am running at 4K resolution, shadows on High and I am maxed out at my frame-limited 58fps on the deck of the SC in the Hornet Cold Start mission.

Being on the SC has no effect on my fps at all using TrackIR. Now VR, that's a different matter entirely. In VR, with shadows on, I see 30fps, with shadows off, I see the solid, motion reprojected, 45fps on the SC like everywhere else.

 

with 5.0GHz CPU, I don't doubt you are getting those numbers. 5 is going to be the de-facto standard with DCS and gaming in general in 2 years.

[TOViper]

I kindly ask anybody responsible for programming shadows at ED to look into details, since the performance of shadows is really awful on the SC, which is very sad.

I know it consists of many objects, edges and planes, I know! I hope and I believe that there is something you can do on this issue, which makes many people sad about.

 

Anyway, please look into the pictures, they show different shadow settings with a single SC on the map with 1 single F-18 standing COLD (battery OFF) on the SC.

Please tell us what can be done do to increase performance other than not using shadows or buying a new GFX card.

 

1. pic: Shadows OFF (180 fps limited by graphics.lua)

2. pic: Shadows FLAT ONLY (152 fps)

3. pic: Shadows LOW (75 fps)

4. pic: Shadows HIGH (74 fps)

 

 

System settings: Rest of the system is looking like this:

["graphics"] = {
	["DOF"] = 0,
	["LensEffects"] = 2,
	["MSAA"] = 0,
	["SSAA"] = 0,
	["SSAO"] = 0,
	["SSLR"] = 0,
	["anisotropy"] = 3,
	["aspect"] = 1.7777777777778,
	["chimneySmokeDensity"] = 0,
	["civTraffic"] = "low",
	["clouds"] = 1,
	["clutterMaxDistance"] = 750,
	["cockpitGI"] = 0,
	["effects"] = 3,
	["flatTerrainShadows"] = 2,
	["forestDistanceFactor"] = 0.5,
	["fullScreen"] = false,
	["heatBlr"] = 0,
	["height"] = 1080,
	["lights"] = 2,
	["messagesFontScale"] = 1,
	["motionBlur"] = 0,
	["multiMonitorSetup"] = "1camera",
	["outputGamma"] = 2.2,
	["preloadRadius"] = 150000,
	["rainDroplets"] = false,
	["scaleGui"] = 1,
	["shadowTree"] = false,
	["shadows"] = 4,
	["sync"] = false,
	["terrainTextures"] = "min",
	["textures"] = 0,
	["treesVisibility"] = 5000,
	["useDeferredShading"] = 0,
	["visibRange"] = "Low",
	["water"] = 0,
	["width"] = 1920,

 

Shadows.lua (for the default-map setting):

default = {

	{	--flat only
		1,
		{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7000},	
		{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7000}	
	},
	{	--low
		1024,										-- size of shadowmap
		{0.02, 20.0, 70.0, 250.0, 1000.0, 7000},	-- split distances outside
		{0.02, 2.0,  20.0, 130.0, 1000.0, 7000}		-- split distances in cockpit
	},
	{	--medium
		2048,
		{0.02, 20.0, 70.0, 250.0, 1000.0, 7000},		
		{0.02, 2.0,  20.0, 130.0, 1000.0, 7000}
	},
	{	--high
		4096,
		{0.02, 25.0, 100.0, 400.0, 1500.0, 7000},	
		{0.02, 2.5,  25.0,  250.0, 1500.0, 7000}
	},
	{	--ultra
		8192,
		{0.02, 25.0, 100.0, 500.0, 2000.0, 7000},	
		{0.02, 2.5,  25.0,  300.0, 2000.0, 7000}
	},

 

I used this mission file:

SCTesting2.miz

[Minsky]

I noticed one interesting thing.

 

When I look at the Island, my frames are low (<30 fps) and GPU is working only at ~60%

 

But when looking in the opposite direction, performance is a lot better (>70 fps) and GPU usage jumps to 100%

 

CPU & memory usage is roughly the same between two shots, so they're probably not my limiting factor.

 

 

[TOViper]

I noticed one interesting thing.

When I look at the Island, my frames are low (<30 fps) and GPU is working only at ~60%

 

 

THAT is really weird.

Why the heck is DCS not using "full power" (GPU AND CPU) to show more frames when there is "room" on both? It seems to me that DCS is some kind of "downthrottling" the DCS core engine around the SC with your processor/GFX combination.

I know that DCS is never putting the CPU to 100 during "normal operations".

 

The tip to delete metashaders & fxo after EACH change of settings in NVIDIA control panel was one thing I read somewhere yesterday. I couldn't believe before reading it, but I did this step yesterday after setting NVIDIA to my preferred settings (all superlow), and after compiling all the fxo's I got 30% more frames instantly. What again is costing frames is flying during night when the lights of the SC are on. This kills my fps from stable 45 down to 22 in VR, no matter if shadows are ON or OFF.

 

 

Can you send me your mission file please?

Edited August 9, 2020 by TOViper

[Minsky]

Here's another test. This time with the ultra low-res SuperCarrier textures.

 

As you can see, my VRAM isn't even maxed out. GPU & CPU & RAM usage is also low. But sill <30 fps.

 

Latest drivers, fresh shaders, no background apps.

 

Edited August 9, 2020 by Minsky

[Minsky]

Can you send me your mission file please?

 

I'm always using default "Supercarrier - Cold start" mission.

[TOViper]

Can you share the options.lua (the one with which you created the screenshots) as well please?

[Minsky]

Can you share the options.lua (the one with which you created the screenshots) as well please?

 

options.lua

[Minsky]

Please keep in mind that this topic is not just about low fps and poor performance. It is about disproportionately huge and unexplainable performance hit caused by the Supercarrier.

 

 

Summary of the first 34 pages of this topic:

 

0. Still not fixed in the latest 2.5.6.52437

 

1. It is very likely that this issue is caused by the animated crew, their shadows or BOTH:

 

- Most, if not all, affected users are reporting massive performance gain after changing the in-game shadows to "Flat Only" or "Off".

 

- Removing just a few of the animated crew members can improve the performance significantly. Proof.

 

- Removing all animated crew members can more or less solve this issue. Proof.

 

- Likewise, loading the Supercarrier into the ModelViewer (with full shadows and animations, but without the animated crew) shows excellent performance and very low GPU usage. Proof.

 

2. This issue has nothing to do with the amount of polygons on screen: Proof. It persists even with the simplified Supercarrier's model: Proof.

 

3. This issue has nothing to do with the Supercarrier's textures: Proof.

 

4. This issue has nothing to do with the amount of AI units, location or mission: Proof.

 

5. There are people with a very wide range of hardware in this topic (incl. GTX 960, GTX 1060, GTX 1070, GTX 1080, GTX 1080Ti, RTX 2060, RTX 2070 and so on) who are affected by this issue and dissatisfied with the Supercarrier's performance.

 

6. At least in my case (i5@3.2 / 32Gb / RTX 2060 8Gb) the performance is poor, and yet my GPU, VRAM, RAM & CPU are clearly under-utilized: Proof 1, Proof 2.

 

7. If your performance with the Supercarrier is smooth, it doesn't mean you are not affected: drops from 100 to 50 fps aren't always noticeable without using a FPS monitor.

[statrekmike]

I really hope we get some kind of official comment about this soon. This isn't a minor issue and is especially glaring when you consider that many new players coming into DCS will not know that they need a computer that vastly exceeds the recommended requirements for "high" in order to get relatively consistent performance.

 

Something needs to be done. ED needs to find some way to make the Supercarrier's performance at least mostly line up with the rest of the sims performance.