Why not pay for Vulkan?

[Red Squirrel]

I wasn´t really too interested in the “Vulkan for DCS” discussion as I had no real idea what this could practically mean…until a few days ago when thanks to the YouTube algorithm I was made aware that “in one of my other simulators” (I understand that I´m not supposed to specifically name other games…) an update with Vulkan support has come out (that has already happened a few moth ago, so YT was a little slow this time, but better late than never…). I gave it a try and - with my hardware unchanged - the performance went from really unplayable (I haven’t touched that Certain Other Simulator Which Is Not To Be Named (hereinafter “COSWINTBN”) for a year or so because of the extremely poor performance in VR…) to really, really nice and smooth even in the most demanding sceneries (eg NYC). Absolutely amazing…I can now fully understand why this seems to be on top of the wishlist for so many VR simmers in DCS, it definitely is on mine now!

 

In contrast to what I would assume are the wishes of at least most VR Users, unfortunately, it doesn´t seem to be on ED´s to do list…Since I´m absolutely sure the the ED devs take great pride in their work and really strive to make DCS as good as it can reasonably get my guess is that commercial necessities are in the way. Vulkan integration seems to be quite demanding and resource intensive. For us, DCS is a hobby, for the ED guys it´s what pays their bills so I can see why they are reluctant to devote a substantial amount of their (limited) development capacity away from “payed stuff” into an improvement which will as such not “make money”. I think this is totally legitimate.

 

So, why not pay for Vulkan to make development commercially feasible? I would be more than willing to pay for a “Vulkan Performance Module” (especially if you bear in mind what many of us – including me – spend on hardware upgrades). In the COSWINTBN, Vulcan support can be toggled on and off, so Vulkan support can be made an “extra” which people who buy the “Vulkan Performance Module” can use and others not…

 

Wouldn´t that sort of make everyone happy?

[Gladman]

It may be viable for single player however it would be a tough one for online groups. When you consider what the cost is to an individual starting out in this hobby and then add the required modules for terrain/aircraft/carriers, yet another paid module can make or break it in some cases.

[Mars Exulte]

Why not let Eagle Dynamics figure out their own business plan? They have people that get paid to do that. If they need financial suggestions from their playerbase, they probably deserve to go out of business.

[Notso]

Is Vulkan something ED would have to adopt to code the game to? Or is it some kind of add on that individuals can choose to use or not. If the former and it brings significant performance enhancements in VR, I'm not sure why ED has not already gone down the Vulkan road.

 

I will go read the other thread to catch up on what Vulkan is and does, so I apologize in advance if my question is stupid.

[Snappy]

Why not let Eagle Dynamics figure out their own business plan? They have people that get paid to do that. If they need financial suggestions from their playerbase, they probably deserve to go out of business.

 

To my own surprise I find myself for once in agreement with Zhukov..;)

 

 

Regards,

 

Snappy

[Mars Exulte]

Is Vulkan something ED would have to adopt to code the game to? Or is it some kind of add on that individuals can choose to use or not. If the former and it brings significant performance enhancements in VR, I'm not sure why ED has not already gone down the Vulkan road.

 

I will go read the other thread to catch up on what Vulkan is and does, so I apologize in advance if my question is stupid.

 

Vulkan is a graphics API like DirectX, OpenGL, etc. It should help with making more efficient usage of GPU (graphics card) resources. ED have been working on the conversion for several years already. It will not require anything different on the user side, just sit back and enjoy the performance gains (or lack thereof).

 

@Snappy

*bows*

Edited July 23, 2020 by zhukov032186

[rrohde]

DCS going Vulkan is in good company, along with Star Citizen, X4, X-plane, etc. There's a reason why a lot of heavy hitting studios go that route.

 

I cannot wait. :)

[SharpeXB]

I don’t think there is any magic bullet for VR performance though. Bottom line is it will always be more demanding to run higher frame rates in 3D vs lower rates in 2D. And any extra performance overhead created by Vulkan or whatever, will get eaten up by increases in game graphics, objects etc. Games are constantly evolving to be more and more demanding. DCS has never sat still in this regard so why would that happen now? VR will always lag 2D in performance.

[Gladman]

I don’t think there is any magic bullet for VR performance though. Bottom line is it will always be more demanding to run higher frame rates in 3D vs lower rates in 2D. And any extra performance overhead created by Vulkan or whatever, will get eaten up by increases in game graphics, objects etc. Games are constantly evolving to be more and more demanding. DCS has never sat still in this regard so why would that happen now? VR will always lag 2D in performance.

 

Sure VR will always lag 2D, however, if ED decided to implement SLI which is from what I understand one of the many tools it offers, we could see at minimum, an ability to sustain higher frame rates.

[Evoman]

Ahh, ED has already announced back around January that they have already been working on the integration of Vulkan support into DCS. So end of discussion.

 

 

 

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/newsletters/newsletter10012020-nre707qr8er2uuith0j6he84jyjdmz1z.html

Edited July 23, 2020 by Evoman

[SkateZilla]

Vulkan Discussion is Here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=217784

 

DCS Running on Vulkan was first announced to be in development here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=196539

[Fri13]

The idea that Vulcan would be "pay to get Vulcan module" is just illogical.

First ED needs to rewrite their graphics etc engines for the new Vulcan, as it is as big as going from DX9 to DX11 or even more so.

 

But then ED would need to support two platforms, a free DirectX and payware Vulcan API.

 

Now you see why it is similar as if ED would today support DCS World 1.2.x series next to 2.x series. It would be just nightmare for everyone.

 

If we are going to talk about payment methods for ED, then it would be time for discussion in other place and we don't know enough what ED could really do differently than they do now.

 

If someone is worried about ED success etc, buy module keys and gift those to people who would be potential future customers for other modules.

 

It is just likely better that ED makes their engine free, improve it as much they can and then sell modules as this far. So free Vulcan engine update etc.

 

The Vulcan will be come. It is not question if, but when. But if ED is currently developing new terrain engine, new weather engine, new lighting engine, new damage modeling, new AI etc etc. They can not just push priority to something that would require redoing something else that is major features.

 

So they need to work all in correct order and cross check each that they minimize risk to be required redo something else.

 

I just ended a 1:45 long flight with Mi-8, all graphically were maxed out and there were only about 130 units on the map etc. And I didn't have any ghosting or warping visually in normal operation, until I emptied all gun pods in one full burst at close range that truly put FPS down. Do I need Vulcan? Not really. Do I want Vulcan? Yes, as why not improve all? As I can generate such missions that will stress frame rate on knees.

 

But more I am waiting to see better utilization of the multi-core processors first, then graphics cards.

 

Would I pay for such upgrades? Not directly, but with other means like maps, campaigns, modules like Mi-24 etc. All kind content that use those technologies and I am interested.

 

And I am interested to see more payware module variants for funding development. Like make a Mi-24P as base variant for 59,99 price and then offer Mi-24V and Mi-24VP each with 29,99 price with requirement to own base variant.

 

C-101 just received GN430 GPS module for 14,99 price. Nice way to add content to both.

 

I could see nice packages for ground units, like "USA Army Pack '60-'75" or "USA Army pack '75-'95" that includes tens of ground units from those eras.

Same for various other countries, overlapping same eras and specializing to their major historical events etc.

 

Those could be used to fund DCS core development.

[ngreenaway]

The idea that Vulcan would be "pay to get Vulcan module" is just illogical.

First ED needs to rewrite their graphics etc engines for the new Vulcan, as it is as big as going from DX9 to DX11 or even more so.

 

But then ED would need to support two platforms, a free DirectX and payware Vulcan API.

 

 

-snip-

 

 

And I am interested to see more payware module variants for funding development. Like make a Mi-24P as base variant for 59,99 price and then offer Mi-24V and Mi-24VP each with 29,99 price with requirement to own base variant.

 

C-101 just received GN430 GPS module for 14,99 price. Nice way to add content to both.

 

I could see nice packages for ground units, like "USA Army Pack '60-'75" or "USA Army pack '75-'95" that includes tens of ground units from those eras.

Same for various other countries, overlapping same eras and specializing to their major historical events etc.

 

Those could be used to fund DCS core development.

 

for once, you and i are in complete agreement, on all these points Fri

 

im stunned

[Leaderface]

ED is in the need to accomodate and fusion many things in a 3.0 version of the game and will take time.

Allthough they are almost transforming in a AAA workforce considering the number of people working at ED....

They are in the need to improve the terrain technology, graphics, improve the 3D models they use so they don´t get crashed when the game engine is updated, improved clouds that also works the same on multiplayer, damage model, multi CPU usage..... etc, etc.

 

Eventually they surely will need to revamp all the code and use that work for other 20 years.

I would take advantage on that revamp and rewrite DCS to play on next gen consoles too.

 

Hard work.

Edited July 24, 2020 by Leaderface

[SkateZilla]

The idea that Vulcan would be "pay to get Vulcan module" is just illogical.

First ED needs to rewrite their graphics etc engines for the new Vulcan, as it is as big as going from DX9 to DX11 or even more so.

 

But then ED would need to support two platforms, a free DirectX and payware Vulcan API.

 

Now you see why it is similar as if ED would today support DCS World 1.2.x series next to 2.x series. It would be just nightmare for everyone.

 

 

The Use of "Vulcan" and "Illogical" together is a sign of too much Star Trek, (coming from some one that binged ST: Voyager start to finish for the 5th time during the pandemic.)

 

That being Said, there's no Need to retain the DX11 API, it's Done, Old, and Has Too much CPU overhead for High Object Count Simulations.

 

Vulkan Works on ALL Windows Platforms Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10. If you can run DCS Now w/ DX11, then You will be able to Run it fine, if not extremely better with Vulkan* (*Performance is an assumption as Vulkan removes the rendering and API CPU Overhead.).

 

V-U-L-K-AN

 

This is Vulcan:

Edited July 24, 2020 by SkateZilla

[mrprime]

You can't throw money at these problems and expect them to go faster, 9 women can't deliver a baby in a month, stuff takes time. I worked on a project based on UE3 codebase that ported to Vulkan and it took well over a year, full time, of a very experienced programmer who specialised in rendering, and while UE3 wasn't the greatest game engine, there was at least support and places he could turn, I should imagine doing this work with proprietary tech is.. daunting.

[Fri13]

The Use of "Vulcan" and "Illogical" together is a sign of too much Star Trek, (coming from some one that binged ST: Voyager start to finish for the 5th time during the pandemic.)

 

LOL

 

I wished someone would spot that... :-P

 

That being Said, there's no Need to retain the DX11 API, it's Done, Old, and Has Too much CPU overhead for High Object Count Simulations.

 

Yes, it is already last generation, but you can not port everything from DX11 to DX12 just so easily. And what then when DX13 comes out (if it comes out)? Redo again large changes?

 

Vulkan Works on ALL Windows Platforms Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10. If you can run DCS Now w/ DX11, then You will be able to Run it fine, if not extremely better with Vulkan* (*Performance is an assumption as Vulkan removes the rendering and API CPU Overhead.).

 

Yes (assuming it works better), but it still requires rewriting. Going between DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan, Metal etc is not easy task at all.

 

The idea that original poster had was that you pay for Vulkan version, and without paying you keep using the current one.... That is DirectX 11 version. So anyways ED would be forced to maintain two versions.

 

 

V-U-L-K-AN

 

This is Vulcan:

 

I remember it still as a "M-A-N-T-L-E" as "Mantis", as in Marvel Comics.... :-P

[Fri13]

You can't throw money at these problems and expect them to go faster, 9 women can't deliver a baby in a month, stuff takes time. I worked on a project based on UE3 codebase that ported to Vulkan and it took well over a year, full time, of a very experienced programmer who specialised in rendering, and while UE3 wasn't the greatest game engine, there was at least support and places he could turn, I should imagine doing this work with proprietary tech is.. daunting.

 

I am just slightly interested about the engines ED has developed for the DCS World, this just for the information that they have in past evaluated various commercially available engines (like Unreal Engine etc) and come to conclusion that it is better to make a own in-house engine.

 

And while all these engines has been developed far further in their capabilities, it is possible that today it could be better to actually use something like Unreal Engine 5.... But, and it is a BIG but, you would give away control of development and future etc.

 

I like what I have seen so far how ED has improved the DCS World. Like compare the Lock-On to first DCS World releases, and then just to 1.2x series and finally to first 1.5 ones. Just alone the lighting effects that came (was it this year?) not long time ago are very very good for what the game is all about. Like looking the shadows rendering that has transformed from a ugly shaders to very good looking (smooth, hard etc shadows). Are there things to be made more accurate? Sure... But at some point it call comes to what is border between "bling bling" and "good enough"?

 

There are many areas that draws people to some games, like right now we can hear people raving about MSF2020 graphics, that I already find unwarranted by many parts and DCS World to be better many ways, but it is again something that when game is so tightly integrated to some other product (their used world mapping data) it sets own limitations.

 

In DCS World it is not just graphics that matter, it is the combat element. And that is as big how the combat happens as how it looks. Be it a explosion of bomb or damage modeling of that explosion, they become as important.

IMHO the ED needs to add more visual effects for things like bomb explosions and unit damages etc. All that they must be doing based new damage modeling and such, but if there is no way to model it all with graphics engine, there is no sense to do those.

 

I have seen so many games to fall because their decision to use already old game engines, where they can not use newer version of engine because it is too big leap and work.

 

And if we split DCS world to various different parts that each is individually updated, the graphics engine getting Vulkan support is one of those major ones, as it is not just EDGE again but it is about multi-core support and everything else in the DCS World from AI to physics modeling and such. Very very big things needs to be changed as this one major piece will affect all and make possibility to use completely new resources that previously was not possible.

 

Some might see "Now I can run this at 144 FPS all the time", while some see it "I can get better AI" or "I can utilize all 24 cores (48 threads) that I paid for".

Like what kind a performance increase there could be if one could designate single core for almost every flying aircraft in 20 km radius? It could even lead that no more SFM for any AI, but all running with PFM.

What if each explosion gets almost own core for its damage modeling calculations and not affect at all the player own flying experience?

 

But what use is with all that, if it would not be available for everyone and everyone could enjoy from those capabilities by purchasing modules to fly?

The main question still would be, "Should DCS World be Free or Not Free?".

 

I like the idea that one can download, install DCS World as Free, get a two aircrafts (Su-25T and TF-51) to test, try, play etc. I like the idea so much that I would actually even replace the Su-25T with L-39. You get two versions, one trainer and one light combat variant. This as such to turn the Su-25T as a full module (personal wish that Su-25A would become such).

But at some point when there is no more buyers for old modules, and those requires upgrades (like KA-50 and A-10C are now receiving like first time after 10 years) there is always the question "Is it worth it?" that needs answering. And I think that their idea to add newer variants of those ("BS3" and "A-10C Suite 9 etc") is nice way to do it.

 

It is interesting to look back to this date in 2030 and see how DCS World in 2020 "looks old and ugly" like we today can look a Lock-On. Or does it?

I don't personally care so much for the finer details if still I can't have better combat simulation, and if it requires getting away from DirectX, so be it. But to get on chains that some other engine developer controls the updates, no thank you!

[SkateZilla]

LOL

 

I wished someone would spot that... :-P

 

I will happily announce that I am both a Trekkie and Gater (Stargate). I will get every Star Trek or Stargate Pun/Reference/Easter Egg, Every single one of them.

 

 

 

 

LOL

Yes, it is already last generation, but you can not port everything from DX11 to DX12 just so easily. And what then when DX13 comes out (if it comes out)? Redo again large changes?

 

Yes (assuming it works better), but it still requires rewriting. Going between DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan, Metal etc is not easy task at all.

 

 

DirectX 13 is not Planned (Or at least on a 4 yr MS Roadmap).

 

Next is DirectX 12 Ultimate, which will be the unifying API behind Xbox One X, Xbox Series X, Xbox Series S and Windows 10.

 

DirectX 11 is more than a generation old.

 

It's 12 years old, and since DX11 takes it's core from DX10, it's technically almost 14 Years old, based on Hardware from 2005.

You can according to Microsoft "Port DX11 to DX12 Easily", however, without the re-writing of the engine to take advantage of DX12 Features, it's simply a Graphics Engine running on DX12's API using DX11_0 Compatibility Mode. There would be ZERO performance or graphical benefit of doing this.

 

A good Full Re-write of the GFX Engine to Vulkan would be a extensive process, but worth it in the end, everything would be fresh for vulkan. I for one can wait to see what the GFX Engineers come up with in terms of new shaders and effects for the GFX Engine. It Seems like we are already pushing DX11 to the brink. Things like High Object Counts, Vast View Distances, V.R. Headsets, Multiple Viewports, Screen Space Reflections, etc etc., DirectX 11 was not designed with those things in mind, so each one of those pushes the API over and past what it was conceived to do. (remember DX12 took DX10s core and expanded it, in 2008, no one was even worried about VR, or 5 screens wide (affordably), or ScreenSpace Reflections, or Ray Tracing etc.

 

LOL

The idea that original poster had was that you pay for Vulkan version, and without paying you keep using the current one.... That is DirectX 11 version. So anyways ED would be forced to maintain two versions.

 

Yeah no, DX11 is dying, let it go in peace, there will be too much parity between the two, and costs would be double if not more trying to support to GFX API's that are vastly different.

 

It ED went DX12, I could see maybe retaining DX11_0 Compatibility Modes, but even then, every GPU in the last 10 years was already DX12 compatible out of the Box anyway, so there would be no point.

 

Not to even mention as long as DX11 remains part of DCS, the limitations it brings will continue to apply (Object Counts being limited, View Distance, Shaders/Effects/Raytracing etc etc).

Edited July 26, 2020 by SkateZilla

[ngreenaway]

V-U-L-K-AN

 

This is Vulcan:

 

 

 

There, that's better. Fixed it for you

[Mr_sukebe]

I get the impression that ED have already made the decision to stop further development of the existing engine, and bring in a replacement, just they did with the move from 1.5 to 2.5.

 

The question is whether they'll create it themselves, or buy in something like Unreal tech. My guess is that they increased dev team have been beavering away to do the above.

[Fri13]

I get the impression that ED have already made the decision to stop further development of the existing engine, and bring in a replacement, just they did with the move from 1.5 to 2.5.

 

The question is whether they'll create it themselves, or buy in something like Unreal tech. My guess is that they increased dev team have been beavering away to do the above.

 

I could believe that they still make their own engines, and improve them by generation to another. They need to maintain compatibility for everything else existing already. More modules means more compatibility requirements. If they would suddenly adapt Unreal Engine, it would likely mean that all needs to be redone, all modules and all maps.

[reece146]

Using UE means shipping a bunch of their cash flow to Unreal. I forget the amounts but as a small publisher ED would have zero leverage to negotiate for a decent rate.

 

They have the skills to build an engine in house, and I expect a good proportion of their flight models/CFD relies on their engine (pre/post calcs depending on local conditions?).

 

Porting to Vulkan will give them new longevity I guess. This is probably part of the refactoring they are supposedly doing now.

 

Given the results of the last few months I have high hopes for where they are headed. Seems like lots of clean up is being done, reliability added. When I hop into DCS now I expect less issues than compared to six months ago.

 

ED, keep it up!

[upyr1]

Paying for vulkan is a bad idea. When ever you even think if X should be pay or not just ask yourself, how bad off will you be if you are the only person in a squad with out it.