performance of different maps

[twistking]

Hello,

can someone very roughly lay out how the different dcs terrains compare in terms of performance?

 

I understand that syria and the channel are very heavy and i will wait for an significant hardware upgrade before trying them, but what about Normandy and the Persian Gulf?

How do they roughly compare to Caucassus and Nevada?

No need for scientific analysis, your subjective opinion shall be enough.

 

Thanks!

[Phaëthon]

I have tested all the maps and at least in my configuration the heaviest maps are indeed the Channel and Syria - they're the most recent maps and I feel there's a lot of investment in terms of the sheer amount of assets, textures & detail, etc. I haven't compared fps between them, or any kind of scientific approach to it, but from a purely subjective observation I would say they run some 20% slower, and are the only maps where I constantly get under 60fps. However, my latest entry in this forum might interest you:

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/digital-combat-simulator/dcs-world-2-5/7148299-dcs-big-fps-increase-vsync-off-ingame-vsync-fast-in-nvidia-ctrl-panel

[Boosterdog]

I play on a 6000K CPU and GTX 1080 with 32 GB RAM at 1080P so Im bargain basement. Higher end users will likely have better experiences.

 

The Short

 

I would say Syria and the Channel are made for high end rigs and, even if they can be optimised and tech like Vulkan happens, will remain so. All but the Channel are flyable for me with flat terrain shadows but, as I hate flat terrain shadows, I dont. The Channel drops below 60 fps even with flat shadows and a mission devoid of assets/action at low level whilst Normandy is at least playable. PG has been the best overall map for me as a mud pusher.

 

The Long

 

I guess it depends on what you can live with graphically. Personally, as I like shadows, Im already hog tied so regardless of whether one map is 5 or 50% slower than another, I cant afford the compromises and still have an enjoyable experience.

 

To this end I find the PG map and its limited trees is the best all round map for me as I can use the default terrain shadows. It has a better overall "look" than the Nevada map too IMO at my settings and isnt compromised by a Las Vegas that looks like Skegness on a wet Wednesday in November. Whilst mud pushing in the caucuses is problematic due to a) the stupidly low lod distances for some trees (go figure) forcing me to use extreme view distance settings and b) the gawdawful clunkiness of DCS's shadow tech in general, it is a decent overall experience in PG once you learn it ignore the limited grass and ground clutter bubble pop up and the usual lack of any form of airport lighting on the aircraft models. My only other gripe with the map are the concrete grey scenic airliners which, for the most part, cant be removed from the airports without removing the terminal entire. Whoever thought that they would a good idea needs moving out of the sun but whether this bothers you depends on what your bag is..

 

Syria looks fantastic at first but I quickly learned to be irked by the low draw distances especially of the cities and forests. There is a mod that increases at least the building's draw distance but my rig got the crap kicked out of it when I used it. Personally I cant live with a map who's bridges don't appear until I am virtually on top of them in order to attain 60 fps and who's trees turn into a green flat carpet at at any setting from even a low-medium altitude.

 

Channel - bought virtually day one and uninstalled virtually day two. It looks pretty good (very good in places), but, thanks to its trees, shadow heavy undulating terrain (in the English portion at least) and detail, it runs abysmally at present on my old rig with any level of graphical refinement (as I expected it to). Not performance related but, as a brit whos invested pretty much all his life into the history of WW2 what I cant be as laid back about is that it also has too many errors right now to make it worth even trying to find a low, balanced setting. That it has more models for municipal benches than it has for bridges, zero Oasthouses in Kent, an abundance of odd looking tech plants in virtually every farm and seemingly sits in the same clear blue equatorial sea as the PG map irks me considerably.

 

Normandy - currently sits somewhere between the Caucs and the Channel (probably more towards the Caucs end). A lot better performance wise than at launch (it would be hard for it not to be) and useable for me with flat terrain shadows. But its a map that really looks great and probably needs the default shadows on IMO.

[Madone]

@Boosterdog you made a very good point on Nevada and PG and I second this, I didn't play much of Normandy or Channel. Syria is my now favorite map but indeed the draw distance sucks and my dated computer (still running an i5/gtx970 lol) has trouble keeping up over cities like Beirut. To me, PG is the best compromise right now. Caucasus is odd, I guess the trees kill my system.

[Havremonster]

 

My RTX3070 also struggles with the default terrain shadows in the low level forest of Causus map, in 1080p!

 

It is the game. Not the hardware. I had no problem and no lag running on high in 1440p some updates ago, but after the two or three last updates it has a lot of laggs in The Channel map. Feels like going back from 32 to 16 gb ram again.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

The Caucasus map isn't very well optimised it seems, and it was built on top of the old version of the map instead of starting from scratch. On my system (i7 6700k 32GB RAM 2070Super - I fly in VR using an Oculus CV1 still with PD 1.3) low level flying in the Caucasus is a slide show because of the performance impact of trees;

NTTR is buttery smooth if not too many units are placed (but heavy units count mess up performance no matter where you fly);

The Strait of Hormuz map used to be performance heavy shortly after it launched but it's very good now;

Normandy used to be a nightmare until recently: with few units I really like flying there. Heavier missions are still bad;

Channel and Syria run fine as long as I put Terrain Textures on LOW. But that makes the graphics look awful so I'd prefer not to do that. I expect the bad performance in VR has a lot to do with VRAM limitations (the 2070S only has 8GB which is constantly capped) - as that explains the performance jump when lowering Textures from HIGH to LOW. I'm planning to buy a new system early next year since I have a Reverb G2 on pre-order and my current setup isn't the best for running that on its native resolution...

[Fang333333]

I AM A DAY ONE SYRIA OWNER AND I CANNOT FLY THE SYRIA MAP BECUASE FPS IS UNUSABLE!

 

All other maps work well, channel is a little fps bumpy but the Syria map has been straight broken for me. No comparison to any other maps. I have vowed not to order anymore maps from the developer personally.