Map Performance

[TOViper]

Hi folks!
Despite all other issues I have with my lower spec rigs, I noticed that the "Scenery details factor" on this map has great impact on my fps.
Don't know if that helps anyone here, but I thought it might be an idea to share this information, since it was not discussed in this topic so far (at least I wasn't able to find this combination of words "Scenery details factor").

Hope that the maps becomes optimized very soon, because I start loving it ... and some day IRL I have to visit Rudel_chw for a coffee ...

[Flappie]

Nice testing, @Minsky. It's as if there were no LODs for these buildings.

[YoYo]

Oh nice! Looks like the work is going well!

Thank You!

Edited September 13, 2023 by YoYo

[Minsky]

24 minutes ago, YoYo said:

Oh nice! Looks like the work is going well!

Love how people (ngreenaway, not you) repost stuff without providing any context:

https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/544224332709232660/1151551825972039802

Looks very promising, indeed, but I have to try it to believe it  

[YoYo]

42 minutes ago, Minsky said:

Love how people (ngreenaway, not you) repost stuff without providing any context:

https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/544224332709232660/1151551825972039802

Looks very promising, indeed, but I have to try it to believe it  

Of course, but I'm glad that something has started to happen with the topic of performance on this map . Looking at the counter, it looks promising, but for full praisning I'll definitely wait until it comes out in a patch for testing  . Fingers crossed! Btw. I'm also curious about what has been improved from a technical point of view. This information will be useful in the future.

[ngreenaway]

16 hours ago, Minsky said:

Love how people (ngreenaway, not you) repost stuff without providing any context:

https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/544224332709232660/1151551825972039802

Looks very promising, indeed, but I have to try it to believe it  

The context is Im not on Raz discord anymore. I posted what showed up in my youtube feed.

[Minsky]

2 hours ago, ngreenaway said:

The context is Im not on Raz discord anymore. I posted what showed up in my youtube feed.

Yeah, that came out a bit harsh, apologies.

[YoYo]

Hello @Raz_Specter, do we have any chance of getting these performance changes in the next patch (2.9, beginning of October I think) to see it? Just a question :).

[Minsky]

Did a very brief test with the new patch (2.9.0.46801).

There are solid improvements around most cities, including Rio Grande and Ushuaia. Both at close distances (moderate fps gain) and far away from them (huge fps gain).

However, there are still places that massively tank the performance. Namely, Rio Gallegos that barely gives me 30 fps. An improvement from 17 fps before the patch, sure, but still barely playable. And that's over the 100% empty map.

So, while I truly appreciate the effort, I wouldn't call this problem completely solved just yet.

P.S. Enabling or disabling DLSS showed no meaningful difference. All shader caches were cleared.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Minsky

[YoYo]

1 minute ago, Minsky said:

Did a very brief test with the new patch (2.9.0.46801).

There are solid improvements around most cities, including Rio Grande and Ushuaia. Both at close distances (moderate fps gain) and far away from them (huge fps gain).

However, there are still places that massively tanks the performance. Namely, Rio Gallegos that gives me about 30 fps. An improvement from 17 fps before the patch, sure, but still barely playable. And that's over the 100% empty map.

So, while I truly appreciate the effort, I wouldn't call this problem completely solved just yet.

P.S. Enabling or disabling DLSS showed no meaningful difference. All shader caches were cleared.

Maybe not all places are improved? Good info Btw! I will download the patch Tomorrow.

[Minsky]

2 minutes ago, YoYo said:

Maybe not all places are improved? Good info Btw! I will download the patch Tomorrow.

17 > 30 fps means even Rio Gallegos was improved... just not quite enough.

I'm sure it will be a much smoother experience with your GPU.

As for me... well, I'm happy the map is useable once again. Not all-around enjoyable, but playable.

[Raz_Specter]

9 hours ago, Minsky said:

17 > 30 fps means even Rio Gallegos was improved... just not quite enough.

I'm sure it will be a much smoother experience with your GPU.

As for me... well, I'm happy the map is useable once again. Not all-around enjoyable, but playable.

I will continue to optimize the map at every update we provide,  in the next update you should see a hell of a lot of stuff that is a big impact visually all over the map

 

thanks Specter

[YoYo]

13 minutes ago, Raz_Specter said:

I will continue to optimize the map at every update we provide,  in the next update you should see a hell of a lot of stuff that is a big impact visually all over the map

 

thanks Specter

Great, Thank You! It's nice that the map is experiencing a "new life". Thx for your work, I'm really glad. I'll back with info after the weekened.

[gulredrel]

52 minutes ago, Raz_Specter said:

I will continue to optimize the map at every update we provide,  in the next update you should see a hell of a lot of stuff that is a big impact visually all over the map

thanks Specter

Thanks for continued support. Having a GTX 1660 Super, I'll hope changes are also noticeable without the option to use DLSS.

[YSIAD_RIP]

Thanks @Raz_Specter:

I do not doubt that the map will continue to improve.  Since this was Razbam's first MAP I would expect that there have been many lessons learned.  

Cheers. 

[Biggus]

The improvements are noticeable for me.  I still get some exceedingly large frame rate drops near Ushuaia (much of the map for me is over 100fps and I'm seeing under 35 on a low pass over the town), but I can see some nice changes.   Well done!

[PLUTON]

Hello Raz_Spectre
your map is still ranked in my 2 favorites and I notice that you take user information into account to improve performance in very congested places like certain cities
but one thing I no longer hear from you is: have you thought about or started to work on what many users have told you about the massive loss of FPS when going below 900 feet?
Because I still have this problem;
You must imagine what the approach and landing on an aircraft carrier is like!! at 12 FPS instead of 60 in flight!!
Thank you for thinking about it and continue your work which makes us happy

Thank you for what has already been done

[Mr_sukebe]

Just been out testing, taking off from the Falklands islands using both the Apache and F15E.

This is using 3080ti, DLAA and settings that happily give 50+ FPS on most other maps in VR with my Meta Quest Pro

Rather oddly, it seems to be height related.  i.e. with my Apache, below 900 feet and frame rate goes to pieces, i.e. 11fps or lower.  During my cold start the FPS was 6.  Above 900 feet and it was fine.  My GPU was showing as having full memory and maxed out on it's performance.

I tried playing with the grass, forest, scenery detail and forest detail.   Even nearly minimising most of those seemed to make little difference.

Unsurprisingly, that height related issue is a spot of bother on a map that I LOVE to fly down the valleys of.

===============================================

Update:

Haven't made any changes, but had another go today and it was spot on.  Flew my Hind, Apache and Huey both on the mainland and the Falklands island itself with absolutely no issues.

In short, false alarm.  I'd love to know what's changed. Makes me wonder if the process for creation of the FXO/metashaders hadn't worked yesterday during the load and today it had another go and worked fine.  

Either way, great news from my side.  Loved to be back in the map, particularly so in some of my helicopters.

Thanks again Razbam, do love the map.

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Mr_sukebe

[Raz_Specter]

On 10/24/2023 at 10:27 PM, Mr_sukebe said:

Just been out testing, taking off from the Falklands islands using both the Apache and F15E.

This is using 3080ti, DLAA and settings that happily give 50+ FPS on most other maps in VR with my Meta Quest Pro

Rather oddly, it seems to be height related.  i.e. with my Apache, below 900 feet and frame rate goes to pieces, i.e. 11fps or lower.  During my cold start the FPS was 6.  Above 900 feet and it was fine.  My GPU was showing as having full memory and maxed out on it's performance.

I tried playing with the grass, forest, scenery detail and forest detail.   Even nearly minimising most of those seemed to make little difference.

Unsurprisingly, that height related issue is a spot of bother on a map that I LOVE to fly down the valleys of.

===============================================

Update:

Haven't made any changes, but had another go today and it was spot on.  Flew my Hind, Apache and Huey both on the mainland and the Falklands island itself with absolutely no issues.

In short, false alarm.  I'd love to know what's changed. Makes me wonder if the process for creation of the FXO/metashaders hadn't worked yesterday during the load and today it had another go and worked fine.  

Either way, great news from my side.  Loved to be back in the map, particularly so in some of my helicopters.

Thanks again Razbam, do love the map.

 

 

Thats good news as I have put 100's of hours into the optimisation for the build we shipped for 2.9

thanks for the feedback and see you in the skies

On 10/22/2023 at 5:57 PM, PLUTON said:

Hello Raz_Spectre
your map is still ranked in my 2 favorites and I notice that you take user information into account to improve performance in very congested places like certain cities
but one thing I no longer hear from you is: have you thought about or started to work on what many users have told you about the massive loss of FPS when going below 900 feet?
Because I still have this problem;
You must imagine what the approach and landing on an aircraft carrier is like!! at 12 FPS instead of 60 in flight!!
Thank you for thinking about it and continue your work which makes us happy

Thank you for what has already been done

this should be solved in 2.9 as I have made significant performance improvements for the release alongside 2.9.  please let me know if you are still having issues

[Mr_sukebe]

5 minutes ago, Raz_Specter said:

Thats good news as I have put 100's of hours into the optimisation for the build we shipped for 2.9

thanks for the feedback and see you in the skies

I think the map is one of the best out there.  The sheer size of it and variety of terrain provides a LOT of opportunities. For example, I have three different naval groups on one of my scenarios, all at vaguely sensible/realistic distances.

[Biggus]

On 10/28/2023 at 10:05 PM, Raz_Specter said:

this should be solved in 2.9 as I have made significant performance improvements for the release alongside 2.9.  please let me know if you are still having issues

Regarding the 900ft frame drop:

It varies by module.  The Warthog, Hornet, Viper and Tomcat do not suffer this phenomenon for me.  The Strike Eagle, Mirage F1, Mirage 2000C and Harrier all suffer from the 900ft frame drop.

Here's how it looks in the Strike Eagle.

Even if Youtube compresses it so that the numbers are unreadable, you can see the change in the graph and can see that it is repeatable as I travel through 900ft. 

In the modules where this frame drop happens, it does not seem to matter where on the map I am.  Out at sea, close to cities, out over the wilderness, it's the same drop.  Hope this helps a bit, @Raz_Specter!

 

 

Edit:  After @Mr_sukebe's post, I went back and retested and unfortunately my results are not repeated at the second attempt.  The Viper seemed to suffer the problem this time, and the modules that suffered yesterday were smooth today.  I can say that I don't ever remember not getting very low frames with the F1EE take off mission in the instant action section.  It's now around 20-30fps (and once I'm over 900ft, I'm seeing around 60-70 depending on where I look).  This is quite large progress over a few months ago, so we're moving in the right direction.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Biggus
My test does not seem consistent enough.

[Mr_sukebe]

OK, did some more testing.

Took a long flight from the airfield at the top of the map against Ushaia in the cold started Mirage F1.  The frame rate was fine on start up and climb to altitude.  On diving back to sub 900' (above ground level, NOT sea level) and the frame rate went to pieces.  That was after a flight at altitude of approx 200 miles.

Tried replicating it, taking off hot started from Mount Pleasant.  Tried the F15E, Mirage M2000, Harrier and Mirage F1, all fine regardless of altitude, though I only flew for a short distance in each.  I also tried jumping into the F10 view to see if that made any difference, not in these flights.

Sorry, ran out of time in the end, will have another go tomorrow.

[RaisedByWolves]

On 10/20/2023 at 1:34 AM, Raz_Specter said:in the next update you should see a hell of a lot of stuff that is a big impact visually all over the map

 

thanks Specter

My body is ready

[dmatt76]

I have terrible frame drops above any map objects... It is fine when flying above the ground but even a tiny village and some builidngs and frame drops by 10-15 frames, jumping up and down... Nothing wrong with settings or hardware becasue I can fly 30 feet above Cairo and the framerate is rock solid.

[BJ55]

I'm having severe stutters even above forests when flying below 900ft AGL... the only way to keep my usage GPU below 80% with this map is use this settings:

Instead of the ones that I use for every other map:

 

Scenery details factor, forest details factor, terrain textures and shadows settings had little impact on stutters, the biggest drop in GPU usage was achieved with medium visib range and no AA.