[REPORTED] Performance Issues

[speed-of-heat]

the issue is with shadows largely, if you run with them you get a big FPS rate drop if you dont run with them you dont

[Minsky]

We don't know this for sure.

Removing the animated crew (fully or partially) can more or less solve this issue as well.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

the issue is with shadows largely, if you run with them you get a big FPS rate drop if you dont run with them you dont

 

Fyi I’m running flat shadows and to be honest doesn’t run any better. Sometimes 45 ish but def stutter.

[marcoscosta]

Sorry mayns414, but Minsky is right. I have a GTX1070 and my 2D performance is very very good with 130fps in med/low settings, but fall to 45 in SC. A performance 65% lower just for SC crew is beyond of acceptable. In VR is just impraticable.

 

I'm quit this module and use only the Stennis when I need to takeoff from carrier. I really don't care anymore.

[speed-of-heat]

any shadows seems to have a big FPS impact , and no we don't know it for sure... but simple observed behavior says removing them make the perf issue go... and yes removing the crew also works ... if you have shadows... of course you are reducing the number of shadows cast by removing the crew...

[Minsky]

Well, hello again.

 

Just replaced my GPU with the 2060 Super.

Reinstalled video drivers, cleaned shaders etc - the usual stuff.

Left my previous (pretty conservative) DCS settings.

Loaded the same "Supercarrier - Cold Start" mission.

And what do we see?

 

Less than 30 fps on the deck:

 

 

More than 100 fps away from the deck:

 

 

 

 

I look forward to the experts saying that now I should upgrade my CPU, memory or headphones.

[TOViper]

Well, hello again.

 

Just replaced my GPU with the 2060 Super.

Reinstalled video drivers, cleaned shaders etc - the usual stuff.

Left my previous (pretty conservative) DCS settings.

Loaded the same "Supercarrier - Cold Start" mission.

And what do we see?

Less than 30 fps on the deck:

More than 100 fps away from the deck:

I look forward to the experts saying that now I should upgrade my CPU, memory or headphones.

 

Hey Minsky, just for my understanding: What happens if you turn OFF shadows (not terrain shadows!).

I had/have issues with shadows when flying to/from/nearby the SC, but currently I have much better hardware than you. Thanks for infos!

Edited August 6, 2020 by TOViper

[Minsky]

What happens if you turn OFF shadows (not terrain shadows!).

 

Massive performance increase, as stated in the first post.

[...]

Where is the problem? We all get the same FPS on the Supercarrier that we would get with a PMDG 737 anywhere on the map of any other flight simulator. Welcome to reality. You get excellent performance on the rest of the map because the trees and buildings are low-quality textures, and you come back to reality when you zoom into an ultra-detailed environment. If we don't want details on performance impact, let's go back to Stennis.

[TOViper]

Since day one I suspected the deck crew as "the problem".

Shadows at any equal or higher setting than FLAT is super critical for my computer.

Even with shadows set to FLAT its not working satisfyingly.

 

I really hope the guys at ED find something to optimize regarding shadows.

I really do! :noexpression:

 

BTW: Minsky, thanks for the hard work you have done so far, I appreciate this, even if you earn "bashing" because of your old hardware.

 

It is always easy to say this. What is happening in the background in the engine is sometimes something completly not understandable from outside.

I know I most probably will earn bashing too for standing on your side, but I don't care about that too much.

For me its much more interesting to find the technical reason/problem behind it, or at least help out with my experiences using the sim.

I did a post somewhere in the forums about shadows beeing projected several times through matter, which is physically wrong behaviour.

But I fear that e.g. limiting this would require the engine to take into consideration material and other things to render this corretly, so the engine might deliver more frames not doing this.

 

Cheerz

Edited August 6, 2020 by TOViper

[Minsky]

You get excellent performance on the rest of the map because the trees and buildings are low-quality textures, and you come back to reality when you zoom into an ultra-detailed environment.

 

Not gonna argue with you over this nonsense, buddy.

[Minsky]

BTW: Minsky, thanks for the hard work you have done so far, I appreciate this, even if you earn "bashing" because of your old hardware.

 

Well, it's not that old anymore :)

At or above the recommended system requirements for the "high" graphics settings.

Although the SC is barely usable even on "medium".

 

For me its much more interesting to find the technical reason/problem behind it, or at least help out with my experiences using the sim.

 

What amuses me the most, is that people in this topic talk as if there never been any paradoxical or anecdotal bugs in DCS. Like this one.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Minsky

[...]

Well, it's not that old anymore :)

At or above the recommended system requirements for the "high" graphics settings.

Although the SC is barely usable even on "medium".

 

 

 

What amuses me the most, is that people in this topic talk as if there never been any paradoxical or anecdotal bugs in DCS. Like this one.

 

 

Nor do I pretend to argue with Dmitriy. The point is that all DCS maps have been developed with low-detail textures. The trees and buildings are modeled in such a way that they don't have a huge impact on performance, but when we hit the Supercarrier we get the same FPS that we would get in any other airplane simulator like PMDG's 737. Have you tried the Presets? Maybe that helps more than looking for manual settings, because in DCS 2 + 2 they are not 4. Did you know that the SA page performance issues were actually caused by an NVIDIA driver version? Most of the people who came out of tunnel vision managed to fix it by reverting to an older version of the driver.

 

 

I don't mean to argue and respect your point, but please understand the more graphic detail, the more impact on performance.

[...]

The main one interested in a performance improvement would be me, but while the miracle comes, I can be grateful to be able to move in the Supercarrier in a stable and fluid way thanks to the realization that my PC cannot afford to fill the supercarrier platform with static elements that increase the graphic load.

 

 

EDIT: I just saw, furthermore, that you don't put much of your share with a visual range in ULTRA and vegatation to the maximum.

Edited August 6, 2020 by La Unión | Atazar

[Minsky]

I don't mean to argue and respect your point, but please understand the more graphic detail, the more impact on performance.

 

Please re-read the first post. This issue has nothing to do with the amount of polygons or textures, or visual range, or vegetation, or whatever.

 

My point is that this issue:

 

1. exists

 

2. can be caused by literally anything, even something stupidly obvious or seemingly unrelated

 

But some people here acting like there's no problem at all. Like this humongous performance hit is totally normal. And that we must "solve" it by adding disproportionate amounts of computing power.

 

We're not asking for Stennis-like performance.

 

We're asking why is this thing is so godawfully slow.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Minsky

[fagulha]

Well, it's not that old anymore :)

At or above the recommended system requirements for the "high" graphics settings.

Although the SC is barely usable even on "medium".

 

 

 

What amuses me the most, is that people in this topic talk as if there never been any paradoxical or anecdotal bugs in DCS. Like this one.

 

I tested and i my FPS in VR drop as soon i turn on the Batteries on the Hornet. With the SC i have a good performance overall (i use a crowded deck with mods). but i can say it´s far from good because as soon i take off my fps stay at 45. Poor optimization. And the patch before gave me better performance in the SC. Then get worse. When i look to the island the frames suffer, and more at night with the lights. It´s not only hardware issue, it´s optimization. That´s my humble opinion. Of course it´s a little subjective because everyone have different rigs and DCS configs, but overall we all can agree it needs better optimization.

I have Shadows to FLAT, going to try without Shadows to test.

MSAA x2, SS 1.5 (in DCS VR Options), Textures High, Visibility High, AF 16x, SS 1.0 (in SteamVR).

 

I7 4790k 4.5ghz, 32 DDR3 Ram, SSD´s M.2, ZOTAC GTX 1080Ti 11gb, Valve Index.

 

Best regards,

F.

[...]

Please re-read the first post. This issue has nothing to do with the amount of polygons or textures, or visual range, or vegetation, or whatever.

 

My point is that this issue:

 

1. exists

 

2. can be caused by literally anything, even something stupidly obvious or seemingly unrelated

 

But some people here acting like there's no problem at all. Like this humongous performance hit is totally normal. And that we must "solve" it by adding disproportionate amounts of computing power.

 

We're not asking for Stennis-like performance.

 

We're asking why is this thing is so godawfully slow.

 

 

From my point of view it is not as "tremendously" slow as you put it. I repeat, 30/35 FPS is what you would get in other simulators flying a PMDG 737.

[Minsky]

From my point of view it is not as "tremendously" slow as you put it. I repeat, 30/35 FPS is what you would get in other simulators flying a PMDG 737.

 

How is this even comparable with other simulators and PMDG?

 

With my old GTX960 I had:

 

* 40-60 fps with PMDG 738.

* 20-40 fps with the new NGXu, but not because of its complexity, but solely because PMDG implemented dynamic lights (well-known resource hog)

* 40-60 fps with the most complex DCS modules on the most complex DCS maps

 

What does this tell us?

Exactly nothing.

It's like comparing apples and jet fuel.

 

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

First, people were telling me that I should upgrade.

Now they're telling me that 30/35 fps is "enough".

[...]

How is this even comparable with other simulators and PMDG?

 

With my old GTX960 I had:

 

* 40-60 fps with PMDG 738.

* 20-40 fps with the new NGXu, but not because of its complexity, but solely because PMDG implemented dynamic lights (well-known resource hog)

* 40-60 fps with the most complex DCS modules on the most complex DCS maps

 

What does this tell us?

Exactly nothing.

It's like comparing apples and jet fuel.

 

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

First, people were telling me that I should upgrade.

Now they're telling me that 30/35 fps is "enough".

 

 

I highly doubt that you had 40/60 FPS at London Heathrow. As in DCS, your performance in other simulators will depend on the quality of the textures of the area you are in. You are the one who compares the performance of the Supercarrier with the general performance in areas of the simulator with less graphic quality.

 

 

I'm not saying 30/35 FPS is enough. I say that they are reasonable considering the quality of the textures and the graphic load in equipment like ours, in my case a GTX 1060.

Edited August 6, 2020 by La Unión | Atazar

[TOViper]

How is this even comparable with other simulators and PMDG?

With my old GTX960 I had:

* 40-60 fps with PMDG 738.

* 20-40 fps with the new NGXu, but not because of its complexity, but solely because PMDG implemented dynamic lights (well-known resource hog)

* 40-60 fps with the most complex DCS modules on the most complex DCS maps

What does this tell us?

Exactly nothing.

It's like comparing apples and jet fuel.

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

First, people were telling me that I should upgrade.

Now they're telling me that 30/35 fps is "enough".

 

It seems for (only) some guys around here it's easier to say "shut up", instead of supporting you. You invested much work for no honor, did you?

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).

 

I personally have little to no experiences with the support @ED, and I can't say if this is a strategy at all, but I personally can follow what you have collected/written, so a programmer at ED would have best chances to really get your point I fully support.

I share the same opinion with "statrekmike". Why always buy the hotest and newest things, that waste our planet? Optimization must take precedence over wasting of resources.

 

@ED/Nineline:

Maybe it would be an idea of having the texture quality in two or three settings.

 

In the Hawk (yeah, I know ...) we had an option in the SPECIAL TAB of DCS for changing the resolution of cockpits.

Why not having an option "complexity LOW/MED/HIGH" for the SC?

Edited August 6, 2020 by TOViper

[...]

It seems for (only) some guys around here it's easier to say "shut up", instead of supporting you. You invested much work for no honor, did you?

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).

 

I personally have little to no experiences with the support @ED, and I can't say if this is a strategy at all, but I personally can follow what you have collected/written, so a programmer at ED would have best chances to really get your point I fully support.

I share the same opinion with "statrekmike". Why always buy the hotest and newest things, that waste our planet? Optimization must take precedence over wasting of resources.

 

@ED/Nineline:

Maybe it would be an idea of having the texture quality in two or three settings.

 

In the Hawk (yeah, I know ...) we had an option in the SPECIAL TAB of DCS for changing the resolution of cockpits.

Why not having an option "complexity LOW/MED/HIGH" for the SC?

 

 

You already have the low / medium / high complexity option in the general settings.

 

When you configure your graphical panel, you must think that you are now at sea, but then you may be flying between trees and buildings, therefore you must reduce the general settings.

 

I haven't even seen Matt Wagner set vegetation and visual range to maximum in ULTRA mode.

 

I still wonder who would want a Supercarrier to turn into a Stennis by reducing the quality of the textures and eliminating the deck crew.

Edited August 6, 2020 by La Unión | Atazar

[Rmnsvn]

I highly doubt that you had 40/60 FPS at London Heathrow. As in DCS, your performance in other simulators will depend on the quality of the textures of the area you are in. You are the one who compares the performance of the Supercarrier with the general performance in areas of the simulator with less graphic quality.

 

 

I'm not saying 30/35 FPS is enough. I say that they are reasonable considering the quality of the textures and the graphic load in equipment like ours, in my case a GTX 1060.

 

Dude it's not reasonable when folks with 2080 go from 200+ to 50 FPS just turning on the shadows. Bother to browse the thread before getting into discussion. Performance hit is expectable. 3-4 times performance hit caused by shadows and only shadows is unacceptable. If u r good with 30 - fine, glad for you. I'm not satisfied when I have 50 over Dubai at low level and 25 on the deck in the middle of the sea. I get 40-50 in UUEE in NGXu btw which is quite complex place.

Minsky did a great job researching the problem and at least his first post is worth reading. It explanes why he's unhappy with performance the simplest way possible.

[...]

Dude it's not reasonable when folks with 2080 go from 200+ to 50 FPS just turning on the shadows. Bother to browse the thread before getting into discussion. Performance hit is expectable. 3-4 times performance hit caused by shadows and only shadows is unacceptable. If u r good with 30 - fine, glad for you. I'm not satisfied when I have 50 over Dubai at low level and 25 on the deck in the middle of the sea. I get 40-50 in UUEE in NGXu btw which is quite complex place.

Minsky did a great job researching the problem and at least his first post is worth reading. It explanes why he's unhappy with performance the simplest way possible.

 

 

If it is reasonable. When you have 100 + FPS in the rest of the map, you're flying over low-quality textures, it's that simple.

 

 

Here is a screenshot of a tree and a house in DCS. Now you understand why the 2080 has 100 + FPS on the whole stage and 50 FPS on the Supercarrier?

[ATTACH]244284[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]244285[/ATTACH]

Edited August 6, 2020 by La Unión | Atazar

[TOViper]

I still wonder who would want a Supercarrier to turn into a Stennis by reducing the quality of the textures and eliminating the deck crew.

 

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.

Edited August 6, 2020 by TOViper

[Minsky]

I highly doubt that you had 40/60 FPS at London Heathrow. As in DCS, your performance in other simulators will depend on the quality of the textures of the area you are in. You are the one who compares the performance of the Supercarrier with the general performance in areas of the simulator with less graphic quality.

 

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.