This from DCS WORLD?

[fedelolgen]

F16 and EuroFighter Typhoon? is from DCS WORLD?

[Rudel_chw]

39 minutes ago, fedelolgen said:

is from DCS WORLD?

 

No, its from an Upcoming simulator geared towards the military market.

[fedelolgen]

By HIP GAMES

 

[Boosterdog]

I wish my DCS looked as good as HIPs.  

1080P and medium settings grows old! 

 

[wilbur81]

2 hours ago, Boosterdog said:

I wish my DCS looked as good as HIPs.  

1080P and medium settings grows old! 

 

DCS at 4K with MSAA cranked all the way up looks nearly (if not just) as good... 

[Bossco82]

That is true, 4k with MSAAx4, SSAO and SSLR looks amazing. Takes a 3080ti to achieve it though. I found my 6800xt definitely cant do it and a 3080 will get the fps jitters if your down low over Syria or near Dubai for example. 

I'm using 1440p with 4xMSAA with SSAO and that looks really good in my opinion. Again though when down low that pushes my 6800xt into 90% usage at times. 

Even if NOR was available to the public, I am only guessing but I imagine you would need to go to the Nvidia counter nearby and buy a GPU capable of running it.

[Hector45]

3 hours ago, Bossco82 said:

That is true, 4k with MSAAx4, SSAO and SSLR looks amazing. Takes a 3080ti to achieve it though. I found my 6800xt definitely cant do it and a 3080 will get the fps jitters if your down low over Syria or near Dubai for example. 

I'm using 1440p with 4xMSAA with SSAO and that looks really good in my opinion. Again though when down low that pushes my 6800xt into 90% usage at times. 

Even if NOR was available to the public, I am only guessing but I imagine you would need to go to the Nvidia counter nearby and buy a GPU capable of running it.

I'm not even using a 4k panel and I use 2x MSAA. 4x gives me to many dips in FPS. I play 99% multiplayer though so maybe single player would be different.

[Bossco82]

Yeah I have only ever flown single player, mainly DCE campaigns. I keep meaning to try multiplayer but just haven't got around to it.

However I have never measured my fps in DCS with flying at altitude. I always checked what it is down low over somewhere like Dubai etc. Then I know it will probably be fine anywhere else. I made that mistake when I thought I could run a 4k panel. Everything was fine when doing an air start mission, coming into land became a stutter zone with dips into the 40's. Its the main reason I downgraded to 1440p. 

[LucShep]

On 12/10/2021 at 4:17 PM, Bossco82 said:

Even if NOR was available to the public, I am only guessing but I imagine you would need to go to the Nvidia counter nearby and buy a GPU capable of running it.

IMO, it can not be worse than DCS 2.7. 

Not sure what version of Unreal Engine is used in NOR by MIS.

If it's Unreal Engine 4 (UE4), that is known to be unoptimized for vast terrain with huge numbers of objects renditions at extremely far distances (like needed in flight sims).
But, it has with excepcional image quality and, even if it gets to be demanding on hardware, it's fully capable of using today's harware resources, as desired.
So, it can not be worse than what we have now in DCS.

If it's Unreal Engine 5 (UE5, the newest version), and if MIS is taking advantages from its new features, such as NANITE (Virtualized Micro-Polygon Geometry, the possible end of LODs) and LUMEN (Real Time Global Illumination and Reflections, a better alternative to RayTracing), then it's state of the art tech, and likely able to maintain good framerate with trully amazing details.

I've been trying every different version of DCS and, so far as I can see, the last "good performance" version was DCS 2.5.5.41371 (Stable version, December 24 of 2019).
The more I use it, the more I wonder why didn't ED just stick with that version, leave it as is, keep on building modules for it and bug-fixing whatever needed. It'd have been better for everybody, both for us as customers and them as developers.
Then at some point, have them fully migrating to UE5 game engine ...instead of endlessly reinventing the wheel with new effects and excessive details (unnecessary, IMO), which only gets performance worse and worse (borderline unusable), and likely introduces more bugs, with every new version release.

Edited December 12, 2021 by LucShep

[SkateZilla]

DCS World Core is always in a state of evolution.

As new Aircraft are developed, new systems and functions are added to the core engine to support them.

There is a list of everything ED has Done this last year in terms of the engine rewrite/upgrading, they come in phases, and sometimes Performance may decline as new items are added and optimized, there's also the cases of new items added require more GPU and CPU Power to process. ANd Users Enable or leave the Feature enabled not realizing the performance needed (ie SSAO, SSLR, SSAA etc).

DCS is a Unique Engine, as it has to simulate not only items being rendered, but items not directly in view, via other camera's (*Seekers, Pods, etc), the View and Draw Distance of DCS is also several 100x the average draw distance of most Shooters and Arcade Style titles.

DCS will be migrating to Vulkan soon, which hopefully eliminates all the DX11 Overhead bottlenecks as the Single Thread of in order Draw Commands is removed and replaced with  a direct to GPU Multi Threaded Out of Order Capable System.

The List as of the Update was:

:

By the end of 2020, we were confident that we are at least half way there with a fully ready Render Graph and the required applied programming. At the end of Q3 2021 we accomplished:

• Graphic backend
• EDM models
• Human models
• Atmosphere
• Water and sea
• Terrain engine
• Special effects, particles system
• Night lights for terrains
• Scenes
• Cockpits
• Mirrors
• Indication
• GUI
• Post-effects
• Cascade shadows

What remains to be done includes:

• Flat shadows
• Dynamic lights
• Radars
• Propellers and similar effects
• Clouds
• VR support

Edited December 12, 2021 by SkateZilla

[LucShep]

@SkateZilla: 
I understand all that very well.
But I can not understand 10%~15% performance decrease from 2.5.5 to 2.5.6, and 15%~30% performance decrease from 2.5.6 to 2.7.8.
That means huge performance impact (~40%) in less than two years of DCS development. That's really hard to stomach for anyone investing time and money into this.
The opposite of that performance regression is the expected, if we consider the philosophy of continuous "improvements on platform" in a "state of evolution", as well as today's unfortunate situation with the GPU apocalipse on current market.

After the initial investment with the modules, if I'm compelled into buying ludicrous expensive hardware later just to keep performance up when doing maintenance of expected updates, due to the utterly unoptimized nature of every big update of DCS, then I have to say that it is a bad service from the makers of the product I got myself invested into.

I'm currently forced to use older versions (and not updating) if I want acceptable, smooth performance in all expected scenarios in DCS. That also means, then, that I can not get a new release of a module if it interests me, nor able to see latest improvements of modules I have (and paid for). Same for the small group of users with whom I fly with.

Like so many others in here, I've got considerable investment into DCS modules (and into hardware!), so to go and dedicate to the platform of a potential direct competitor - if it exhisted - would be initially a hard pill to swallow.  However, that is the expected outcome at some point - again, if such competitor exhisted.
And, if you realize, that is why this cryptic announcement of NOR by MIS has seen huge interest in communities.

At the end of the day, the lack of direct competition, or true alternative, has been (so far) the saving grace of DCS.
Yes, let's hope that Vulkan solves the majority of problems, because DCS is something special and unique but discontent with its performance is generalized.

Edited December 14, 2021 by LucShep

[Archduke]

I just came back from a longer hiatus and gave 2.7.8 a little try. Started fpsVR to see how big the performance hit might be. Oh boy, my 2070S was completely in the red, even after I set almost everything to low/off. I guess another round of rig tuning would be in order.

But as much as I do love tinkering with hardware I don‘t have the time. And brute-forcing it by buying a 3080Ti from a scalper is also out of the question – there‘s a limit to how much rip off I‘m willing to accept. For me that‘s really a big turn-off, sorry to say. Endlessly tinkering to get halfway acceptable frametimes wastes lots of precious time and I‘m not willing to fork so much money over for a 3080Ti, especially since other sims prove that this shouldn‘t be necessary.

I‘m sorry if this sounds quite negative but Vulkan – and some really tangible improvements – can‘t come fast enough. Otherwise I fear that I will loose all interest in DCS because it‘s simply too much hassle. And I‘d be very surprised if I were the only one. Hopefully it won‘t come to this, that would really be a shame! So let‘s hope for Vulkan magic soon™!

[SkateZilla]

for the time being I run a R7970 Lightning, which is 10 years old and unsupported now by AMD, and I get 30 FPS on Med, and 45-60 on low in VR.

[schmiefel]

19 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

for the time being I run a R7970 Lightning, which is 10 years old and unsupported now by AMD, and I get 30 FPS on Med, and 45-60 on low in VR.

if I look at your systems specs in the signature that's with a crossfired dual-card setup and on triple (quad?) FHD monitors or a Rift? Hardly to believe that this setup delivers a better performance for the actual open beta than my "potatoe" i7 11700k with a 5700xt on a Rift S ... you have to be godlike in tuning your PC and DCS to such a top performance...

Edited December 14, 2021 by schmiefel
typo fixed

[Archduke]

43 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

for the time being I run a R7970 Lightning, which is 10 years old and unsupported now by AMD, and I get 30 FPS on Med, and 45-60 on low in VR.

Congratulations.

But exactly that is my point. I’m an old enough hand at tuning my rig and given enough time I might get a somewhat better performance out of it. But sorry: I’m running an overclocked i7-8700k and my 2070S is also moderately overclocked. There shouldn’t be any need to spend hours and hours to get this sim working on low settings with a halfway decent framerate. And DCS shouldn’t offer wildly varying results and waste precious resources in such a blatant manner. If I want to tinker with hardware I can do that at work. Here I want to learn flying. And assertions like „I don’t have that problem“ don’t really help in the face of well known shortcomings of DCS.

So again: Sorry if I sound negative, it’s not my intention to bash DCS and the developers. I keep my fingers crossed that Vulkan will offer real improvements. But with performance as it is of now it hurts me to use DCS instead of being a joy. Sorry. I hope this too will pass.

[SkateZilla]

5 hours ago, schmiefel said:

if I look at your systems specs in the signature that's with a crossfired dual-card setup and on triple (quad?) FHD monitors or a Rift? Hardly to believe that this setup delivers a better performance for the actual open beta than my "potatoe" i7 11700k with a 5700xt on a Rift S ... you have to be godlike in tuning your PC and DCS to such a top performance...

 

2nd and 3rd R7970 Died Last year, and they of course are out of the lifetime warranty.

 

[SkateZilla]

4 hours ago, Archduke said:

Congratulations.

But exactly that is my point. I’m an old enough hand at tuning my rig and given enough time I might get a somewhat better performance out of it. But sorry: I’m running an overclocked i7-8700k and my 2070S is also moderately overclocked. There shouldn’t be any need to spend hours and hours to get this sim working on low settings with a halfway decent framerate. And DCS shouldn’t offer wildly varying results and waste precious resources in such a blatant manner. If I want to tinker with hardware I can do that at work. Here I want to learn flying. And assertions like „I don’t have that problem“ don’t really help in the face of well known shortcomings of DCS.

So again: Sorry if I sound negative, it’s not my intention to bash DCS and the developers. I keep my fingers crossed that Vulkan will offer real improvements. But with performance as it is of now it hurts me to use DCS instead of being a joy. Sorry. I hope this too will pass.

I understand your frustration, I do, as I had to tweak settings to get what I have, especially with the 3GB of Ram Handicap.

The thing everyone should understand with DCS World, is everything is simulated, so one setting while it may seem useless affects the CPU Load and in turn affects GPU instruction flow, etc.

This isn't Ace Combat, it's a tremendously in-depth simulation, and requires a lot of tuning for each hardware set to run fluidly.
One has to understand each setting, and what it does and how it affects the simulation and understand the limits of their hardware.

 

[Archduke]

On 12/14/2021 at 11:06 PM, SkateZilla said:

I understand your frustration, I do, as I had to tweak settings to get what I have, especially with the 3GB of Ram Handicap.

The thing everyone should understand with DCS World, is everything is simulated, so one setting while it may seem useless affects the CPU Load and in turn affects GPU instruction flow, etc.

This isn't Ace Combat, it's a tremendously in-depth simulation, and requires a lot of tuning for each hardware set to run fluidly.
One has to understand each setting, and what it does and how it affects the simulation and understand the limits of their hardware.

 

Hey SZ, sorry for the late reply. Did I mention I have a horrible live-work-balance?

I understand what you mean and that is the reason I'm still patiently waiting for Vulkan and general improvements.

But in my honest opinion ED is in a trap of its of making and I'm sure ED knows this too. Revenue is created solely by selling and adding new content, which means by necessity development is skewed towards new modules and focus will shift to new aircraft as soon as an early access module is deemed stable enough to sell it without too bad reviews. (Sorry, that is phrased quite bluntly and I do not mean to imply that EDs modules were bad in any way. – In most cases I think they are fantastic.)

OTOH bug fixing and working on the core are in some important ways pro bono work. DCS core doesn't generate any income by itself but relies on selling modules. Which can only be sold once. That in itself disincentivizes the sorely needed development of the graphics engine (Vulkan) and other useful improvements. It just doesn't pay for itself, I guess.

It's not a coincidence that subscription based models are more and more common for software that needs constant development. As little as I like Adobes scheme I would be happy to pay a (not too high) subscription fee for DCS Core. Maybe it could be done in a way that if you canceled your subscription you would retain access to the last version you paid for but wouldn't get new features. Combine this with extensive free to try periods to create demand just as ED already does. But that's just from the top of my head.

However, I think that's the way to go. It would have to be carefully balanced money-wise and of course there'd need to be obvious improvements to DCS Core. But all in all that should create quite some more resources for things that seem to be understaffed atm.

Sorry for this wall of text. Of course I could be completely wrong. But after following DCS development for a few years I think that unlikely.

[Bossco82]

Um.... I see your point, I really do. However if DCS was to switch to a subscription for the core after the amount of money I have paid for modules I would be quite angry. You buy something in confidence it will be updated. I think a few users on here would simply walk away.

It would be great to see the graphics engine of DCS transferred to something like Vulcan over DX11 but looking at what DCS is actually doing the job must be massive 

[Archduke]

Yes, it's a bit of a catch-22, isn't it? It would have to be excellently and for a long time communicated and the benefits would need to be extremely clear.

Of course neither am I keen to spend more money. But in all fairness we've paid for the modules we owned. Not for DCS Core. Remember the bit about paying again for the updated (or whatever) Warthog module? That was something I don't want to see again.

If there were a stable revenue source it would make reliable planning a lot simpler for ED. And as much as I normally hate paying subscription fees I would hate seeing DCS slowly becoming obsolete due to insufficent development funding even more. 

Of course, maybe ED has some deals with AF training programs that might fund this development. If that's the case, good for them and us. But seeing how long the switch to Vulkan takes, I'm not too sure about that.

[Bossco82]

The danger here is if Ed and his team were to walk away from any development because the community it serves becomes an audience that cannot be satisfied and begins to tell them what to do with there project/product. On the flip side if the community becomes so disappointed they simply stop using the game/product. DCS has needed better hardware to achieve the same graphical settings over the past 18 months. Its great seeing all the DCS movies and scenes advertised but "IF" I say "IF" it takes something like a unicorn Nvidia 3080 to run it that is a slim market to appeal to. 

If anyone remembers Thirdwire, a great combat flight sim at the time that was open to modders to pretty much do what they wanted. Then came complaints about the engine and bugs until the community told TK how to do his job and manage his own project. In 2013 the updates simply stopped and the PC version just died. That last update for that was July 2013. It was a sad ending to something that in its day was excellent. Personally this was a situation caused by a community expecting EA Games level of support and options. From a small developer offering a product to a small and niche market. I know of a few that still play this and miss it being developed further. I was one of those modders that respected TK's limitations and tried to work around it. So I respect how much work it has to take to develop DCS, a game many times more complex.

On the flip again. I sort out a gaming PC's for a few mates. One was into a hunting game by Expansive Worlds. Similar deal the core was free but you pay for the extra's. The extras kept coming but the core became more and more bugged with problems. He sank god knows into all the gear and was into that for a long while. However he simply walked away from it and stopped buying anymore. When they released a standalone pay for version in a new model he didnt bother either. I was never much into this but it came across as a developer expecting to wield the same kind of clout as someone like EA Games. While catering for a relatively niche market that could simply go elsewhere.

There is a delicate balance of mutual respect for both the developer and end user of anything like this. I respect that an undertaking like Vulkan is an epic job when you consider how many modules have to be checked and double checked. Just stand back at look at the coding and time that must go into creating DCS. Look at a map like Syria, thats an amazing amount of detail. Trying to balance the detail vs the performance cannot be anything but a headache.

At the same time I hope the developer respects that I as the end user have invested a lot into being able to enjoy the game and its modules. Financially purchasing hardware and time to learn, DCS is not a light casual game. To think I could cut the power of my PC in half and play my entire Steam folder on high settings happily. My PC is built for DCS like many others on here. If an update comes along and I am turning my settings down and down again to accommodate the changes. Eventually I will reach a point where I question if I want to invest anymore, especially with hardware prices now.

As for paying what was it an extra $10 for the A-10 update, personally that did not bother me at all. I did not have to buy it and the existing campaigns worked with both. I think introducing a subscription system after end users have already purchased sets of modules that can add up to several hundred of dollars would for want of a better way of putting it, be seen as "blackmail" by some people. Like I said that is an extreme way of putting it. Its only my opinion, like you said something like that would have to be considered before being implemented. I am only speaking for myself. That would be a move that would certainly make me stop and think how much playing DCS was worth it. 

At the end of the day I really appreciate that DCS exists, there is not much else quite like it right now. I think Ed and the team do a fantastic job and that apart from a little optimisation in some of the map areas in The Channel and Syria its not too far from being at a bit of a sweet spot. If Vulkan was to happen I think that would be great too, but I hope they take the time thats needed to do it right. Things can always be better but sometimes if its not "too" broke dont fix it.

[Archduke]

I completely agree with you! Of course it's extremely hard for ED to provide such an enormously detailed and high quality sim. And because of that I'll take what is offered and be glad. After all it could be Cyberpunk 2077. I hope ED will find a way to ensure a steady stream of revenue without alienating the user base. For me a small(!) subscription fee would be ok but I can understand very well that this is a point that would inflame tempers really quick.

It's just that the performance loss hit me really hard and I hadn't expected that after my time out. But I just gave myself an early xmas present. On monday I should be the proud owner of an RX6900XT. I hope that means goodbye, 25fps! 

[SkateZilla]

2 hours ago, Bossco82 said:

The danger here is if Ed and his team were to walk away from any development because the community it serves becomes an audience that cannot be satisfied and begins to tell them what to do with there project/product. On the flip side if the community becomes so disappointed they simply stop using the game/product. DCS has needed better hardware to achieve the same graphical settings over the past 18 months. Its great seeing all the DCS movies and scenes advertised but "IF" I say "IF" it takes something like a unicorn Nvidia 3080 to run it that is a slim market to appeal to. 

If anyone remembers Thirdwire, a great combat flight sim at the time that was open to modders to pretty much do what they wanted. Then came complaints about the engine and bugs until the community told TK how to do his job and manage his own project. In 2013 the updates simply stopped and the PC version just died. That last update for that was July 2013. It was a sad ending to something that in its day was excellent. Personally this was a situation caused by a community expecting EA Games level of support and options. From a small developer offering a product to a small and niche market. I know of a few that still play this and miss it being developed further. I was one of those modders that respected TK's limitations and tried to work around it. So I respect how much work it has to take to develop DCS, a game many times more complex.

On the flip again. I sort out a gaming PC's for a few mates. One was into a hunting game by Expansive Worlds. Similar deal the core was free but you pay for the extra's. The extras kept coming but the core became more and more bugged with problems. He sank god knows into all the gear and was into that for a long while. However he simply walked away from it and stopped buying anymore. When they released a standalone pay for version in a new model he didnt bother either. I was never much into this but it came across as a developer expecting to wield the same kind of clout as someone like EA Games. While catering for a relatively niche market that could simply go elsewhere.

There is a delicate balance of mutual respect for both the developer and end user of anything like this. I respect that an undertaking like Vulkan is an epic job when you consider how many modules have to be checked and double checked. Just stand back at look at the coding and time that must go into creating DCS. Look at a map like Syria, thats an amazing amount of detail. Trying to balance the detail vs the performance cannot be anything but a headache.

At the same time I hope the developer respects that I as the end user have invested a lot into being able to enjoy the game and its modules. Financially purchasing hardware and time to learn, DCS is not a light casual game. To think I could cut the power of my PC in half and play my entire Steam folder on high settings happily. My PC is built for DCS like many others on here. If an update comes along and I am turning my settings down and down again to accommodate the changes. Eventually I will reach a point where I question if I want to invest anymore, especially with hardware prices now.

As for paying what was it an extra $10 for the A-10 update, personally that did not bother me at all. I did not have to buy it and the existing campaigns worked with both. I think introducing a subscription system after end users have already purchased sets of modules that can add up to several hundred of dollars would for want of a better way of putting it, be seen as "blackmail" by some people. Like I said that is an extreme way of putting it. Its only my opinion, like you said something like that would have to be considered before being implemented. I am only speaking for myself. That would be a move that would certainly make me stop and think how much playing DCS was worth it. 

At the end of the day I really appreciate that DCS exists, there is not much else quite like it right now. I think Ed and the team do a fantastic job and that apart from a little optimisation in some of the map areas in The Channel and Syria its not too far from being at a bit of a sweet spot. If Vulkan was to happen I think that would be great too, but I hope they take the time thats needed to do it right. Things can always be better but sometimes if its not "too" broke dont fix it.

To be fair, there was a lot behind TK walking away from PC Development, it had nothing to do with the community.

I was extremely active in modding and testing Thirdwire Titles before the abrupt ending. (albeit, under a different name).

while DCS has performance issues, one way or another I can link it back to DirectX, over time, DCS has moved from one DirectX Iteration to the next, and with each move has expanded the graphics to include higher poly count models, larger maps, containing more objects.,

At this point, DCS Has evolved to be at the brink of DX11's Maximum Capability, the CPU Overhead on the drawcalls alone are devastating, then you add in physics calculations for every object in the game, aircraft, ground vehicle, ship and weapon.. You get a pretty nice CPU Load.

However with DX11 being a horrible attempt at DX10 Multi-Threading expansion, the thread responsible for graphics rendering instructions gets bogged down extremely quick in large scenes,

Edited December 18, 2021 by SkateZilla

[Bossco82]

Hi Skatezilla,

You know better than I do if I am wrong I'm wrong. At the time I was told TK didnt appreciate the modding community telling him how to run his own project. Not long after it all came to an end.

Back then I was pretty much unknown to the community and involved in a project because of a shared historical interest rather than coding or game making. It involved a lot of texture work and knowledge of the Terrain Editors. Like yourself it was under another name. The impression given to me at the time was that the ongoing complaints from the modding community had played a part, that it was one of the reasons that contributed to the abrupt end. I was just going of what I was told at the time. Like I said, if that impression I was given is wrong, I stand corrected mate.

I still think its a shame, if I had not got into the SF2 titles I probably would have never bothered looking into what DCS was about.

[Bossco82]

To Archduke,

When your 6900xt arrives try these for reference, works well with my 6800xt, I get a stable 60fps everywhere. I limit DCS to 60fps with the Frame rate target control in Radeon under graphics advanced settings. This is using a Freesync monitor. They also work well with Vsync enabled. Using 4k is ok too just without any MSAA enabled, that caused frame drops down to 40ish when flying low near lot of buildings, thats using native 4k resolution though.