Map Performance

[YoYo]

Thx @Flappie! We greatly appreciate your help (like always btw. )

Personally, I'm on a rather quite ok PC, with an RTX 4090, 13900K. So basically there shouldn't be any problems here. We've been reporting performance issues with this map since the very beginning and unfortunately a lot hasn't changed, and after the last patch it's unfortunately worse. The problem is buildings, but also larger areas covered with forest. These two matters should be improved in the first category (without adding new stuff here). Of course what you say makes sense. It's better to make one town and solve the perforance issue and then move on, moreover, I wrote about it here some time ago, we are ready for tests ;). We don't expect a miracle here and we don't expect it now, we can wait, but just let it happen. We want the map to perform no worse than others, no worse than Syria, Sinai or Normandy, and yet all these maps have many more objects and details. Here something is wrong maybe with the geometry of the objects, too many cones are used on the 3D objects or there is something else, I havent idea. If the map was created on the same SDK, then there shouldn't be such big differences in performance, especially that here we have really small cities and much less objects (btw. I don't mind that they are smaller, for me its very ok, I fly VR only). The map is nice otherwise and has cool potential, but we just can't use it 100% as we would like. Fingers crossed for solution for performance of SA map! Thank You.

[Minsky]

Just FYI: no performance improvements after today's patch.

[YSIAD_RIP]

The Razbam SA map is off to a slow early access start. I am thankful we have so many other high-quality new maps to keep us busy while Razbam eventually fixes the performance bugs. From the history of Razbam's early access Modules, I know the SA Map will be very good eventually. 

Good luck to the Razbam Terrain Team and @Raz_Specter

[PLUTON]

+1

[Raz_Specter]

On 8/16/2023 at 11:10 AM, YoYo said:

Thx @Flappie! We greatly appreciate your help (like always btw. )

Personally, I'm on a rather quite ok PC, with an RTX 4090, 13900K. So basically there shouldn't be any problems here. We've been reporting performance issues with this map since the very beginning and unfortunately a lot hasn't changed, and after the last patch it's unfortunately worse. The problem is buildings, but also larger areas covered with forest. These two matters should be improved in the first category (without adding new stuff here). Of course what you say makes sense. It's better to make one town and solve the perforance issue and then move on, moreover, I wrote about it here some time ago, we are ready for tests ;). We don't expect a miracle here and we don't expect it now, we can wait, but just let it happen. We want the map to perform no worse than others, no worse than Syria, Sinai or Normandy, and yet all these maps have many more objects and details. Here something is wrong maybe with the geometry of the objects, too many cones are used on the 3D objects or there is something else, I havent idea. If the map was created on the same SDK, then there shouldn't be such big differences in performance, especially that here we have really small cities and much less objects (btw. I don't mind that they are smaller, for me its very ok, I fly VR only). The map is nice otherwise and has cool potential, but we just can't use it 100% as we would like. Fingers crossed for solution for performance of SA map! Thank You.

So from our testing with our own systems in VR we are getting better FPS that there was before. for the buildings we have included some key details like window surrounds, window sills IMPO this make the buildings look more realistic rather than just a picture of a window stuck on the side of a building (like some other maps)  I am a helo guy and want to see as much detail as I can

What I will take a look at are the LOD values of the other lods because there maybe something that can be done there by reducing all of the models to their most basic forms

 

thanks Specter

Edited August 27, 2023 by Raz_Specter

[Minsky]

4 hours ago, Raz_Specter said:

What I will take a look at are the LOD values of the other lods because there maybe something that can be done there by reducing all of the models to their most basic forms

First of all, nice to see you finally reacting on this

ICYM my post on the previous page, I would like to reiterate that this is not just some annoying performance dip, but a rather huge FPS drop, down to unplayable values. It occurs whenever I look at any big city, even from 80.000 ft.

Edited August 28, 2023 by Minsky

[YoYo]

On 8/27/2023 at 9:34 PM, Raz_Specter said:

So from our testing .......

It's nice to have some reaction, finally .

FOREST'S FPS ISSUE

A picture is worth 1000 words, so in order to make the problems of this map credible, because that's was writen enough about the optimization problem in this thread and the VR topic (in bug section here), I decided to illustrate it. At first glance, there are forests problem, or what I have been writing about for a long time.

DCS generates (or at least shows me a maximum of 180FPS, despite the fact that I have VSYNC turned off), maybe it's some limitation of the counter, but we'll take it as the maximum value (worse if the counter is rigged and the maximum can be more , but I wanted to use only the built-in DCS counter). I only fly in VR but it shows the problem specifically in 2D because it applies to every user, and if it applies to 2D, even more so to VR.

I chose the areas randomly, it took me less than a minute, so they are not specially selected parts of the map, I just chose the larger forests on each map for comparison on the SAT map.

Settings are at the end, nothing special, high/mid mix, resolution at 2.5K. The weather was always the same on the each test..

I think it's high time to stop adding more objects here and focus on optimization only . More objects only cause more problems, making the map useless. Unfortunately, this also causes people to reach for it less, despite the fact that it has a lot of potential and looks really nice. We are not asking for a miracle here, but for the map to work no worse than other maps, simply.

Of course, we can say that 120 FPS is still a lot, but for VR it's not, because in VR it will subtract half the frames or even 2/3 and it starts to look really bad. If the trees here generate 180 FPS as in other maps (for me) then the problem is solved. I will also add that I have a 4090 and an i9 13900K, currently there is nothing better, so I feel sorry for all those who have different spec because there the difference can be even greater. Also note that there is no AI and no airplane/helicopter cockpits which are an extra load.

The video compares similar areas to other maps. You can clearly see that with exactly the same settings we have a 34% worse performance (on average 120FPS vs 180FPS, if not better, 180 is a cap). There is no explanation for such a huge difference in performance for me. 1/3 is probably everyone will admit that it's really a lot. Pls fix it.

Btw. In the next part, I will show the differences regarding the cities, SA vs the others maps.

Edited August 28, 2023 by YoYo

[YoYo]

On 8/27/2023 at 9:34 PM, Raz_Specter said:

So from our testing ...

Ok, this time it's time to show the problem with cities/towns.

The testing principle is the same, remember that the maximum I can have on the internal FPS counter is 180 frames. What is important for the SA map, I show a few larger cities (which in my opinion are small cities, it's not Buenos Aires ), and other maps - either the capital of the region or the largest available city.

A perfect example is Port Stanley, which doesn't have a lot of houses, works quite ok but ... generates as much FPS as .... London!

Current size of area (the same scale), btw. notice that 8.6 million people was in London's 1939, in 2018 was 8,9, so very similar amount:

Another example is Rio Gallegos, where I have about 85-90 frames, while over Cairo I have about 150, over Aleppo 160-170, and Dubai has even 180.

Combining this with non-optimized trees (info above) causes additional stutters and also another FPS drop, for example the port and city of Ushuaia (around 105 fps), when in Las Vegas I have a stable 180 FPS.

An interesting fact is the Hipico Flying Club, where I have 180 frames like Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia. So you can get a good result here. So why is it so bad elsewhere? I do not know.

A colleague of mine who is an MSFS add-on coder pointed out:
- perhaps a mess in the files and their structure, which causes the processor to perform a lot of unnecessary calculations,
- too detailed and unoptimized plants and buildings (too many vertices) ( @Flappie could someone from the ED team check this vs a few buildings from other maps?)
- something wrong with the ground (of course, at a higher alt level, no problems = no or simplified LOD)
Of course, this is speculation, because he didn't go into the files, he doesn't even have the map (because of the bad feedback about its performance).

Something is wrong with this map in this regard, and it is very clear. Such small towns as we have on the SA map should generate 170-180 frames in my case according me, not around 110 or even 80. In addition, without improving the vegetation, the appropriate effect will not be achieved in my opinion, so only a mix of these two things will increase the FPS on SA map. Unfortunately, the current level is unacceptable. The map is 30% worse than Syria, which is very detailed, or Normandy 2.0 (where over Paris I have 170-180 frames, and over London 150). I will add that comparable cities to those on SA maps give me 180 fps, constant, on any map. Here Im comparing a small city to a big one.

The video again shows clear differences of 30% or more in efficiency (but note that those cities are larger):

I think I have sufficiently presented the problem and numbers are not debatable. All this not to criticize its performance but Id like to help and show well that the problem exists and is a big one (who wouldn't want a 30% faster computer but no one wants 1/3 worse? ). No wonder that people flying in VR have even more trouble over forests or towns, because then there is a clear stutter (divide these results into 2 or 3).

Request for:
- converting all trees and plants to a format that generates the same FPS as on the Caucasus or Syria map (for me it's 180 FPS instead of 125 here as medium range)
- checking and improving the efficiency of buildings and other objects that are in that are located in cities (from 85-130 to 170 FPS for me for example).

What's important, I'm just asking that the map be of the same performance quality as the others, in areas comparable in terms of size of forests and cities. Please solve this and the map will be great and I'm sure many people will come back to it. Maybe it's actually a good idea to change one city plus all the vegetation around it and put it in a open beta patch for owners of SA map for testing?

Thank You!

[Minsky]

8 minutes ago, YoYo said:

- something wrong with the ground (of course, at a higher alt level, no problems = no or simplified LOD)

Hope I read this part correctly, so I must stress this once again: the problem doesn't go away with altitude.

Unlike the original issue with this map when you could only see performance drops at below 2000 feet or so, this one persists all the way up to 80.000 feet (just below the free camera's altitude limit).

[YoYo]

6 minutes ago, Minsky said:

Hope I...

+1, ok. In general, I fly here mainly on helicopters, in fact it used to be like that, above 1700 ft the problem disapered, I have to check how its now because on SA map when I fly by plane I avoid all urban areas now.

[MAXsenna]

Did you save tracks for your tests?

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[YoYo]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

Did you save tracks for your tests?
 

Hi. Not because it would have to be a dozen or so tracks, but I'll do one with a comparison with the forest as well, it's about a specific side view, so here I will show what the difference is.

[MAXsenna]

Hi. Not because it would have to be a dozen or so tracks, but I'll do one with a comparison with the forest as well, it's about a specific side view, so here I will show what the difference is.

Yeah, I understand. But would've been a nice performance comparison. I would love see a side-by-side for the trees in Caucasus with/without Taz1004's Better Trees mod.

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Flappie]

@YoYo Thank you for the videos. I know where to look. I'm starting with Port Stanley. I agree there must be some building eating all FPS, maybe several of them. I'm trying to locate the culprit(s) using this empirical method: I fly a few feet from the ground, in the streets, and I look for big FPS drops, and I try to find the weakest FPS spot.

[YoYo]

Okay, I made another video showing how it looks in VR (recorded from VR) and what kind of stutter the forest itself causes (there are no buildings here, but the effect is similar ). All the data is present, you can see that basically at this angle of view on this map there are still dropped frames and my FPS drops to 56 (max for me is 72FPS due 72Hz of the screens and please note that in a similar situation, the Caucasus map is stable at 72FPS, trust me on the rest like Sinai, Syria, Normandy etc the same, stable 72FPS over trees). VR is more sensitive to any shortcomings. You can see here a higher time in ms for the GPU, although the CPU looks quite similar, but a lot of frames are lost, the picture is not smooth and there is stutter. The reason is the same as for 2D shown above.

In addition, I attach a track from this place (Mirage F1 required).

test.trk

Edited August 30, 2023 by YoYo

[Flappie]

I'm playing with the "scenery remove objects zone" scripting action.

 

Port Stanley

Vegetation + Objects

Only objects (+50% FPS, interesting)

Only vegetation (+20% FPS)

No vegetation, no objects (+130% FPS )

I don't quite grasp the maths, here...

Anyway, those hedges seem to be the main suspect. I'll try other cities now.

 

Stanley nothing.trkStanley no buildings.trkStanley no vegetation.trk

(please note I removed grass/clutter from the start)

Edited August 30, 2023 by Flappie

[Flappie]

Punta Arenas:

This time, the vegetation is not the real problem. And guess what? There's no hedges in this city.

• Vegetation + Objects = 21 FPS
• Only objects = 23 FPS
• Only vegetation = 41 FPS (+100% FPS)
• Nothing = 51 FPS (+150% FPS)

Punta Arenas no buildings.trk Punta Arenas no vegetation.trk Punta Arenas nothing.trk

[Flappie]

Rio Gallegos:

Vegetation is no problem here. Again, no hedges.

• Vegetation + Objects = 25 FPS
• Only objects = 27 FPS (+8% FPS)
• Only vegetation = 76 FPS (+200% FPS)
• Nothing = 104 FPS (+300% FPS)

Rio Gallegos nothing.trk Rio Gallegos no buildings.trk Rio Gallegos no vegetation.trk

Edited August 30, 2023 by Flappie

[Flappie]

Port Stanley hedges are now reported.

[Minsky]

3 hours ago, Flappie said:

I'm playing with the "scenery remove objects zone" scripting action.

That's why you are a beta tester and we're not  Such an obvious thing to do to narrow down the issue, yet it hasn't even occurred to me.

Thanks for helping us! 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Minsky

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, Flappie said:

Port Stanley hedges are now reported.

Its always the hedgerows, always a problem. Filled with snipers quite often as well.

 

[YoYo]

Thanks for the tests, it's clear that in the first situation the objects load the system the most (biggest % impact), in the second - vegetation. Is it just hedges, I don't know, I also see a drop in FPS in places where there are no hedges (vs other maps), and there is only a forest, which has been shown. I wonder if deleting it in this way reduces the performance on other maps in the same percentage, or whether this percentage is the highest here. Fingers crossed for good fix. 

[Minsky]

Did some of my own testing at Rio Grande.

There are no hedges there, so the objects seems to be the primary cause of the ~70% drop in performance:

 

Also tested the same area at various altitudes.

Once I began descending from the 95,000ft camera's limit, the performance almost instantaneously dropped by 56% from 89 to 39 FPS.

I hit the lowest point at around 85,000ft: the same ~70% performance decrease.

Descending past 55,000ft, I began to naturally and gradually regain some frames, as it had less and less of the city area to display.

 

Finally, I tested it from various distances by placing the free camera at the sea level and pointing it in the direction of Rio Grande.

The performance peaked at 20 nm, and began to sharply decrease after 18 nm. The lowest point came (and stayed) at 11 nm, resulting in ~61% performance decrease.

 

 

TL;DR

- The objects at Rio Grande are responsible for ~70% drop in performance.

- Performance at Rio Grande starts to sharply decrease when lower than 93,000ft and/or closer than 20nm.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Minsky

[YoYo]

@Minsky can you check Rio Gallegos too and next Hipico Flying Club? I'm very curious about the result. 

[Minsky]

1 hour ago, YoYo said:

@Minsky can you check Rio Gallegos too and next Hipico Flying Club?

A bit later perhaps, but it seems that any town and city on this map is affected to greater or lesser extent.

I usually fly with my FPS locked at 50 to keep the GPU quiet.

And seeing 17 FPS at Rio Gallegos and 50 FPS at Hipico got me thinking that the problem is limited to large cities only.

But when I unlocked FPS for today's test, it turned out that things at Hipico are as bad as anywhere else: a 50% performance drop from ~95 to 50 FPS.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Minsky