already known see faq Marianas island FPs

[Steel Jaw]

I agree with NineLIne in that we cant be held back by those with antiquated hardware.  Sorry.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Mower

[Steel Jaw]

I too enjoy ATS I have  1000 hours in it, great mindless entertainment.  But the same argument about old hardware rages on the steam forums too.

[Dangerzone]

15 minutes ago, SERGIOABRAZ said:

This map, despite being free, should not have been released. You can't fly over it.
I believe the time has come to hang up the flight equipment.

 

May I suggest another less drastic approach first?

 

I fly Stable Release almost exclusively. Many of the complaints I see are from people running Open Beta expecting more stable results - which many fixes and tweaks are applied before it's released to stable. I tend to find that I miss a number of frustrating issues raised at open beta by the time it comes to stable release, and are grateful accordingly. 

 

In this instance, I see that NineLine says that they are still working on optimization with this - and I'm hoping that we're going to see that optimization come through before it's released to stable - to the point where the pain will be a fraction of what people are seeing now (for those within specs).

 

I'm not saying Stable Release doesn't have it's issues either... but respectfully - if you're expecting to have a map 'ready for release' while choosing to to be at the forefront of open beta testers implementing it hours after it's first beta release - I think it's a bit much to expect. 

 

Sure - if this is released to stable release as it is without the optimisations - then I would understand your consideration to "hanging up the flight equipment" as it was - but prior to hanging up that equipment it may be worth trying to be a stable release flyer instead. It's helped lower my blood pressure so to speak. Just a thought. 

Edited July 1, 2021 by Dangerzone

[PeneCruz]

I have roughly the same specs as you @NineLine, except I have an I9-9900KF at 5GHZ I run VR though.

I get a locked 45 FPS in all other Maps (except Syria can drop into the high 30's over Damascus).
I'm getting about 30 FPS in this map over the main island regardless of where I set the Object density and tree density slider. I'm starting to think it's more an issue with the coastline and rock outcrops, any feedback on that?

Cheers, Love the map though really excited about where it ends up as it gets optimised.

Edited July 1, 2021 by PeneCruz
crap spelling

[dorianR666]

40 minutes ago, Mower said:

I agree with NineLIne in that we cant be held back by those with antiquated hardware. 

There needs to be some balance with that.

Even people with powerful and expensive high-end gaming rigs report insufficient performance here on the forum and on reddit. With Syria it was already an issue for large portion of the userbase and now we have a map with roughly half the performance of Syria.

 

If only, say, 15% of your playerbase can comfortably use it, then thats a problem. Lets hope its merely a software bug or incomplete optimization.

Edited July 1, 2021 by dorianR666

[NineLine]

23 minutes ago, dorianR666 said:

There needs to be some balance with that.

Even people with powerful and expensive high-end gaming rigs report insufficient performance here on the forum and on reddit. With Syria it was already an issue for large portion of the userbase and now we have a map with roughly half the performance of Syria.

 

If only, say, 15% of your playerbase can comfortably use it, then thats a problem. Lets hope its merely a software bug or incomplete optimization.

 

I am sorry dorian, but out of spec is out of spec, the specs will not go backwards, if you computer is out of spec, you need to consider what you will do going forward, I am seen quite a few people playing it just fine, we have internal testers with all sorts of machines, we are not finalized on map performance, and optimization will continue, but even if this map gets to a playable state for your specs, you need to consider how much longer that will be viable.

 

Your numbers are really not based on any sort of reality, I have not seen numbers "roughly half" of Syria, nor have I seen anything to suggest only 15% of our playerbase can use it comfortably, so please don't come here and throw out such things, I understand the frustration of your machine being behind the curve, but that doesnt mean you have to rain on everyone's parade.

50 minutes ago, PeneCruz said:

I have roughly the same specs as you @NineLine, except I have an I9-9900KF at 5GHZ I run VR though.

I get a locked 45 FPS in all other Maps (except Syria can drop into the high 30's over Damascus).
I'm getting about 30 FPS in this map over the main island regardless of where I set the Object density and tree density slider. I'm starting to think it's more an issue with the coastline and rock outcrops, any feedback on that?

Cheers, Love the map though really excited about where it ends up as it gets optimised.

 

It very well could be the coastline, I am leaning more towards optimization of the textures, but I don't know, the team is looking at it all, I am sure it will improve, and if your machine is with in our set specs, you should be able to enjoy it.

 

How long has Caucasus been around? We want this map to last that long as well, it means at the start it might be a beast, but we want it to look and feel good for a very long time, so it needs to be a little more future proof, and trying to facilitate older out of spec machines, Caucasus will fit that bill.

[Zyll]

> What resolution do you run in? Are you running 3440x1440 in game? I am not sure if thats not a big hit for a 1070ti.  Also what are your visib settings?

 

I run my 1070ti w/ Ryzen 3600 at 3440x1440 and I get 45FPS over land in Marianas, which to me is not terrible, its certainly playable.  Would I like to see it run closer to 60FPS similar to Syria?  Certainly, but the map is playable for now.  Optimizations should help.

 

[PeneCruz]

5 minutes ago, NineLine said:

 

It very well could be the coastline, I am leaning more towards optimization of the textures, but I don't know, the team is looking at it all, I am sure it will improve, and if your machine is with in our set specs, you should be able to enjoy it.

 

I just spent half an hour zapping around the main island, the biggest FPS drop is on the coastline, over the center of the island I can get 45 FPS even over the munitions bunkers, drop down low over the water near the coast ~30 FPS look seaward 45 FPS.. Anyway I'm sure you guys will work it out.

[dorianR666]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Your numbers are really not based on any sort of reality

Consider that for example only 12% of steam's userbase has more memory than 16GB, which already wasnt really enough for missions in more performant Syria. And thats gamers.

 

  

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

I have not seen numbers "roughly half" of Syria

That comment was based on reports in this thread and on reddit. In this forum thread alone, I count 9 people (including myself) reporting approximately half the performance of Syria or PG.

 

Really the issue is that the LOD/render-range sliders do almost nothing on this map, for some reason. If you look at pierrewind's post here, notice that in the second screenshot almost nothing is being rendered, pretty much only ground mesh - yet FPS remains almost the same as when everything is rendered at high quality (16 FPS vs 14 FPS). I understand that many and detailed objects require powerful HW but if you render almost nothing and frame time is still the same (poor), something is wrong. What is the time being spent on in that second screenshot?

 

 

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

but that doesnt mean you have to rain on everyone's parade.

Oh I'm happy for those for whom it run well, dont misunderstand me. Its a very nice map.

Maybe after this global GPU shortage is over, I may be able to join them

 

Edit: added second&third paragraph

Edited July 1, 2021 by dorianR666

[AleCisla]

8 hours ago, pierrewind said:

Hum... Perfomance is trash for me, no matter what. 

Syria 45fps+
Nevada 70fps
Caucasus 60fps+
Persian gulf 50fps+

Marianas 20fps- (in "standard" and low)

I am running a RX580 8gb, indeed very close to the recomended GTX1070. But as you can see marianas is unplayable even with an OK config !

I get anywhere between 50% to 30% of the performance of other maps... 

To me loosing that much performance to similar maps is more akeen to a bug than it is to a lack of optimisation ! 

"Despite being an island map, you can expect similar performance to the Syria map; this is due to the very dense object population of the islands that includes trees, buildings, rocky coastlines, and other objects. At the time of release, optimizations is still ongoing, and we expect performance to improve in later updates. That said, please review the system spec requirements."   Syria is A Lot better! 

 

Same for me,

Caucasus 60fps+
Persian Gulf 50fps+
Normandy 50-55fps+

Marianas 20-35fps+ ...it only goes above 35 if I'm quite high in the sky or well away from the islands.

On the other hand, it was launched today! ... I'm sure they'll improve the performance. One thing I noticed is that, although my framerate was low, my frame time wasn't. It feels like a "stable low FPS" and it's really weird, don't know if that was the case for you too? It gets noticeable when I move my head around to look, then I can see the "choppiness" happening, but if I just look straight forward, I can't actually notice that much.

Edited July 1, 2021 by AleCisla

[dorianR666]

27 minutes ago, AleCisla said:

Caucasus 60fps+
Persian Gulf 50fps+
Normandy 50-55fps+

Marianas 20-35fps+

 

58 minutes ago, dorianR666 said:

I count 9 people

Mark it 10.

 

27 minutes ago, AleCisla said:

It gets noticeable when I move my head around to look, then I can see the "choppiness" happening, but if I just look straight forward, I can't actually notice that much.

I believe thats just the nature of low FPS in a game with fast jets. If you look forward and your view is static, only small portion of your screen's content moves and it moves relatively slowly. If you look perpendicular to your flight direction, the content will move faster across your screen from side to side, making low FPS more noticable.

Edited July 1, 2021 by dorianR666

[Avalanche110]

Just tried the Marianas for the first time.

Took the Hind for a tour of Guam.

Stunning map, really looking forward to future optimizations.

 

Pimax 5k+

11900k

64Gb of Ram

3090

 

Could not maintain 30Fps in VR.

Dropped the visible range to medium and clouds to standard. Could not maintain 45Fps.

Vram around 11Gb

GPU utilization around 70-80%

GPU frame time at 22ms

CPU frame time at 8ms

 

Same settings on Syria gets 60+ FPS in VR.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Avalanche110

[peeter]

Hello,

 

I also have bad performances here...

My computer :

2080ti, 32Go RAM, I9 10800K

 

Nineline, will you suggest me to upgrade my set ...

[Slice313]

The map is gorgeous. They already stated that optimization is still undergoing so why don’t we calm down and report bugs to help further improve the terrain?

 

I also get bad performance over specific spots (+40~ FPS) but even that isn’t a deal breaker with Gsync/Freesync.

 

I also have faith with the Vulcan API, which should help alleviate the CPU load of the objects count on dense populated maps like this. 

[flyingcyrus]

7 hours ago, Raven434th said:

your not answering the question...What is Vulcan supposed to do??

Here is a very interesting video by Austin Meyer (developer of X-Plane), explaining how Vulkan works compared to OpenGL.
OK I know DCS uses DirectX and not OpenGL, but it gives a good picture of how things are handled by the graphic engine and the API (Application Programming Interface, OpenGL, Direct3D, Vulkan…)

 

By the way, does anyone know which version of DirectX is DCS running ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SCPanda]

9 hours ago, NineLine said:

Our Specs will not be lowered, they will continue to grow. Vulcan isnt a silver bullet to cure all issues.

Why not lower your spec so more people can enjoy and you can make more money? Or slow down your pace of upgrading the graphics so more people can actually follow. Why does ED have to make DCS the most graphic demanding game? I mean, DCS is a flight sim, not a realistic graphic sim...

 

Not every one can afford 3090s and i9s. DCS is already an expensive game to play even without VR, players have to buy head tracking and HOTAS to get a decent experience. Now you want everyone to upgrade their PC to the most high end rig. 

 

Honestly, 2.5 was great, the game ran on good FPS and no one really complained about the graphics. 

Edited July 1, 2021 by SCPanda

[Tolovay]

9 hours ago, NineLine said:

We have specs, in your case, your graphics card is below specs. On older maps, sure you can get away with it, but on this map, currently its hurting you. You can check as optimizations happen, but I wont lie to you and say that card is perfect for DCS. I am only talking you here, there may be others that have different issues.

 

And what is the perfect graphic card for DCS? Nobody is a fool to buy a top card in these times.  C'mon, who needs BBQ, rotating climatization devices, detailed bycicles and other shit, that is not visible from the aircraft. There are many more things to be done before eye candy.

41 minutes ago, flyingcyrus said:

Here is a very interesting video by Austin Meyer (developer of X-Plane), explaining how Vulkan works compared to OpenGL.
OK I know DCS uses DirectX and not OpenGL, but it gives a good picture of how things are handled by the graphic engine and the API (Application Programming Interface, OpenGL, Direct3D, Vulkan…)

 

By the way, does anyone know which version of DirectX is DCS running ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if vulkan will be deployed in DCS, ED will wind up graphics and we'll be at the same shit as today - low FPS. Sadly is DCS is the only worth combat sim on market.

[SCPanda]

15 minutes ago, Tolovay said:

And what is the perfect graphic card for DCS? Nobody is a fool to buy a top card in these times.  C'mon, who needs BBQ, rotating climatization devices, detailed bycicles and other shit, that is not visible from the aircraft. There are many more things to be done before eye candy.

Even if vulkan will be deployed in DCS, ED will wind up graphics and we'll be at the same shit as today - low FPS. Sadly is DCS is the only worth combat sim on market.

Can't agree more. 

[Knock-Knock]

11 hours ago, NineLine said:

Yes, 8G of VRAM can struggle. And the maps you compared to don't use the tech that the Channel and Marianas use, more objects, more density, etc. But as we said, some optimizations are still coming.

You are aware that only about 6% of all Steam users run cards with more than 8Gb right? And that number is probably not that different outside Steam.
And this is not a Vram problem, its something else. Even when the fps is decent in 2D it runs bad (choppy, micro stutters, heavy stutters, anything but smooth). To me that indicates a overload of materials and probably huge textures. But thats just guessing. What I do know is that it runs bad compared to any other map in the game, even at the lowest possible settings (just to test in 2D).
But if you are saying this is what we have to expect going forward, then ouf.

Edit: Sorted some word rubbish.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Knock-Knock

[peeter]

Indeed.

 

Now we have an outstanding looking Simulator with light, cloud and stuff. No need of more eyecandy stuff. Or small thing like smoke effect and the great job you did on WW2.

 

The next step would be to work on ground unit and impact on performances.

 

When we put 100+ units on the ground, the FPS start to struggle.

With the upcomming Dynamic campain, we need more optimisation on this side !

 

But I think ED allready have plans for that...

 

Anyway, keep up the good work !

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Kewl. Guam runways are curved according to terrain.  Nice touch.

 

But, I only get 75-97 FPS over Guam in Gazelle. Usually in Gazelle in other theaters I get 120-140 in v 2.7. Down from 130-150 in 2.5.6.

 

I suppose I expected higher FPS over Marianas, due to being mostly water. But people say that water in 2.7.X is what dragging down FPS.

[Gripen 4-1]

FPS for me are poor too. Drops to 28-30 FPS in VR

So my GPU (2080ti) is not the newest and best but still no lame duck!

Edited July 1, 2021 by Gripen 4-1

[ouky1991]

I have roughly the same performance as on the Channel when it was released, so if it's gonna get the same kind of optimisation update, I'm fine with that. Untill then, flat shodows is the way.

[Hiob]

While I don't want to declare the opinions and critics in this thread void, I find it important to speak up...

in that not all experience the new Map as such a mess.

 

I do experience performance hits, but the lowest I got (while flying over Anderson AFB in a Huey) was between 50 and 55 FPS. That is with pretty high settings (high/high/ultra, clouds ultra, msaa 2x) in pancake.

Considering, that was just a few hours after release and it will most likely climb back over 60 FPS in the forseeable future I can't complain. ... not to forget, the result is beautiful.

 

(Specs: 5900X, RTX 3080, 64GB Ram)

 

I mean, needing latest high-end gaming tech to get 60+ FPS was the norm for the most part of the last 20 years - what do you expect?

[Mr_sukebe]

Just a point.

Providing feedback that frame rates are not great, yes, very appropriate.

Complaining about it when it's in the BETA branch is basically showing that you don't understand what OB is for.