How many are actually having issues running?

[Mjm8710]

I’ve been playing DCS for years, but it seems like I’ve hit a brick wall performance wise and am unable to run 2.7 (sticking to 2.5 right now)...I want to buy a new computer with better performance so that I can run 2.7 along with the new maps, but I’m wondering if I should wait to upgrade for awhile. To me it doesn’t make sense to upgrade if this is a widespread issue since it seems like most are getting low FPS even on some of the more powerful computers (or at least that is what I am gathering-maybe I’m wrong!) 

 

Basically my question is, is this simply an issue with computers being able to run it because of low specs or does the issue lie with the new update itself being the problem? 
 

Thanks! 

[speed-of-heat]

I think you are, wrong,  though it all depends on your perspective… of what is “good”…  but I get good performance in most scenarios even in vr… of course I have to work for it, but in 2d… absolutely no problems or issues at all..

 

[LucShep]

2 hours ago, Mjm8710 said:

I’ve been playing DCS for years, but it seems like I’ve hit a brick wall performance wise and am unable to run 2.7 (sticking to 2.5 right now)...I want to buy a new computer with better performance so that I can run 2.7 along with the new maps, but I’m wondering if I should wait to upgrade for awhile. To me it doesn’t make sense to upgrade if this is a widespread issue since it seems like most are getting low FPS even on some of the more powerful computers (or at least that is what I am gathering-maybe I’m wrong!) 

 

Basically my question is, is this simply an issue with computers being able to run it because of low specs or does the issue lie with the new update itself being the problem? 
 

Thanks! 

 

If you go all the way back to LOMAC, then go through different releases after it (FC2, BS1, A10C standalone), then to earlier DCS World versions, you'll notice there was always this pattern of performance issues, though it improved immensely with DCS 1.5x versions (early 2016).

 

Since DCS 2.5x, so for the last three years or so, the problem of poor performance still exhists, and sometimes is quite harsh.

The big difference here is, it became much, much more GPU and RAM bounded, whereas before (with DCS 1.5 and earlier versions) it was mostly CPU bounded. 

 

I have both 2.56 (last stable) and 2.7 (last O.B.) installed, but I keep prefering 2.56 for performance reasons.

Got to admit that after experiencing DCS 2.7, with the new clouds and other improvements, it's kind of a bummer using previous versions. But the stuttering and FPS hit is a bit too much for me.

 

Now with DCS 2.7x, I have ~20% increase on GPU usage compared to previous DCS 2.56 (using exact same settings) which, to me, seems a tad severe.

GPU usage percentage is most of the time on the high 90s% (when not at 100%!), even in same places where before with 2.56 I'd see low 70s%. 
FWIW, my GPU usage with 2.56 was already pretty high (average of 87%), targeting 60fps v-sync locked at 4K (on 2D screen, not VR) using ingame mixed settings for performance optimization, and my system is not slow (well above the listed requirements). 

 

To sum, all of this is anything but new (every new version gets even more demanding), and certainly not something that only happens since DCS 2.7.

 

It's a wonderfull sim-game title and there's nothing quite like it out there, and that's why we excuse these performance issues and still put up with these annoyances.

But we now got bigger problems upgrading (GPUs especially), and the urge for optimizations is bigger than it ever was before. 

 

I think everyone at E.D. is well aware of it, and I want to believe that they're working hard on it (Vulkan engine, where art thou?).

But then, meanwhile, if looking back to DCS' history, it does not tranquilize things.

 

 

2 hours ago, speed-of-heat said:

I think you are, wrong,  though it all depends on your perspective… of what is “good”…  but I get good performance in most scenarios even in vr… of course I have to work for it, but in 2d… absolutely no problems or issues at all..

 

 

Come on now, that's kinda easy to say with an RTX3090 and 24GB of VRAM.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by LucShep

[speed-of-heat]

i had good performance in 2d with a 1080ti, to be fair i had good performance in 2d with a 1070ti

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, speed-of-heat said:

i had good performance in 2d with a 1080ti, to be fair i had good performance in 2d with a 1070ti

 

I'm not going to dispute what you feel, but I think that perception (like you said "of what is “good”...) kind of surprises me when the discussion gets into that subject.

Like, a "normal" standard seems to vary a lot between users, when it's already kind of set in stone for most PC games, whatever the genre.

 

Sometimes I get myself the impression that a lot of people here don't use anything other than DCS, so their perception can be quite distorted (or biased), not knowing how other demanding games (even competitors in the genre) can perform so much better that it's almost mind-boggling, when re-running DCS after them.
 

I don't use VR, instead I've always used a 2D screen, and any framerate hits pulling performance under 60FPS (especially with head-tracking) can be quite jarring in my experience, doesn't matter what sim/game title it is. Honestly, I haven't met anyone that doesn't share same impression.

To aggravate things, and oddly enough, even reducing screen resolution in DCS 2.7 helps very little with GPU utilization for better performance (just realized a few days ago).

Performance down low, especially over towns and forests, and/or if in rain, and/or if with lots of smoke (and/or firing weapons, or zooming) is not ideal, GPU can hit 95%~100% regardless.

 

Then the general perception of what is "normal" performance for a game and its respective requirements.

For the current day of PC gaming, the perceived "normal" performance is 60+FPS performance at 1080P resolution, medium settings, in whatever section of the game.

That's what the recommended system requirements on games, today, are commonly based for.

 

If you look at listed requirements for DCS 2.7, especially when it comes to the GPU, it doesn't really correspond to the truth (a bit optimistic). A bit unrealistic for VR as well.

This is from ED's DCS 2.7 download page:

Recommended system requirements (HIGH graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+ at 3+ GHz or AMD FX / Ryzen; RAM: 16 GB (32 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 120 GB on Solid State Drive (SSD) + extra space for paid content ; Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 / AMD Radeon RX VEGA 56 with 8GB VRAM or better; Joystick; requires internet activation.

 

Recommended VR systems requirements (VR graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+ at 3+ GHz or AMD FX / Ryzen; RAM: 16 GB (32 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 350 GB on Solid State Drive (SSD); Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 / AMD Radeon RX VEGA 64 or better; Joystick; requires internet activation.

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by LucShep

[Rudel_chw]

2 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Sometimes I get myself the impression that a lot of people here don't use anything other than DCS, so their perception can be quite distorted (or biased), not knowing how other demanding games (even competitors in the genre) perform so much better that it's almost mind-boggling, when re-running DCS after them.

 

I'm on that group: I only mostly use DCS ... so, performance on other Sims don't really matter to me, I only care for what I actually use. 

[5ephir0th]

I don’t have problems with low performance but ocasional stutter that broke my inmersión on VR.

 

it doesn’t care if i have high end card (3080ti), fast NVME drive (3600mb/s write and read, more than enough RAM (32GB)…

 

I set my graphics options to have some margin, i lock my fps to 40, without lock I get more than 60, and a flight even on Caucasus gets random GPU spike and stutter, in a free flight mission.

 

I use custom shaders, follow all optimizations guides… Nothing, im exhausted…

 

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by 5ephir0th

[Flappie]

4 hours ago, 5ephir0th said:

it doesn’t care if i have high end card (3080ti), fast NVME drive (3600mb/s write and read, more than enough RAM (32GB)…

 

I set my graphics options to have some margin, i lock my fps to 40, without lock I get more than 60, and a flight even on Caucasus gets random GPU spike and stutter, in a free flight mission.

 

Do you have an HDD left in your PC?

Did you add your DCS path as an exception to your antivirus software?

Do you have enough free space on all your drives? (~ 40 GB per drive)

Do you use Windows slide show backgrounds? (you shouldn't)

...

I'm ready to help. Create a new thread, attach your dxdiag log, and "@" me.

[speed-of-heat]

With 2.7, I found I had to go back and clear out my old settings and apply them again… seemed to work ok still not as good in absolute terms as 2.5.6 but very acceptable performance.

[BIGNEWY]

When having performance issues please post your dcs log and dxdiag it will give us some idea of your machine.

 

thanks

[JIMJAM]

People including me buy the latest greatest overpriced hardware and then crank the settings. Looks better but back to "thick" feeling air, the nausea inducing frame rate swings usually while around heavy ai.

So you go buy even more hardware, tweak settings until your eyes are blood shot and..... CRANK the setting up a notch.

Repeat.