investigating Large performance drop in VR after updating to 2.8

[muzica9]

Official or not, it is clear now that is hard to recover after they add graphical stuff to engine. Only hope to gain something back is to get multithreading. Maybe next year in december, if we are lucky.

[C3PO]

This might be controversial, but I'd be willing to pay £20 specifically towards the cost of accelerating the implementation of multi-threading / Vulkan, if that allowed more resources to be allocated to the project over and above what we have now - if indeed that would help accelerate the project. Why not? We pay good money for modules. So why not specific features?

[Marklar]

52 minutes ago, muzica9 said:

Official or not, it is clear now that is hard to recover after they add graphical stuff to engine. Only hope to gain something back is to get multithreading. Maybe next year in december, if we are lucky.

Yes, he just confirmed what I already knew. If ED knew how to improve graphics without tanking performance they would have done it already. People are expecting miracles here. Our only hope is multithreading and Vulcan but even this will be a short term solution. They will keep adding new stuff to this archaic engine and performance will keep going down with every major update.

I recently made a performance comparison between FSX and MSFS. Guess which one runs and looks 100x better on modern PC? 

https://imgur.com/a/VcUeaEE

[lagner]

Guys. I noticed a feature of DCS. If the application is running in windowed mode, then I have 185 frames. But as soon as the window moves even a millimeter across the desktop, the frame counter drops to 150. After a while, it may return to 185, or may not return.
I keep experimenting. Perhaps this is only on my PC this behavior.

UPD: 

in version 2.8.1, full-screen mode gives a performance boost compared to windowed mode. Window - 185 frames, full screen 199.

in version 2.7, windowed mode gave more performance than full screen mode. The difference was 215 versus 182.

graphics and track settings are identical.

Edited December 20, 2022 by lagner

[Hive]

45 minutes ago, C3PO said:

This might be controversial, but I'd be willing to pay £20 specifically towards the cost of accelerating the implementation of multi-threading / Vulkan, if that allowed more resources to be allocated to the project over and above what we have now - if indeed that would help accelerate the project. Why not? We pay good money for modules. So why not specific features?

Exactly what I think, too. I want to support ED, but no by buying modules. Put a PayPal-Button on the homepage, receive money and do whatever you think is best, ED. It doesn't even have to be for specific features. That is risky and creates even more expectations.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Hive

[YoYo]

7 hours ago, WipeUout said:

What a disappointing comment from NineLine!  Hope this is not the official ED stand on the issue.

Sorry. It isnt true, I didnt saw ANY post of VR users where someone wrote about better performance, LOL . This is to deny the obvious issue and paint the grass green.

My many years of experience in game/sim market very often show that someone who says that he has something better than the rest usually does not know how to test the fuction (never was a beta tester or didnt use any testing tools or made sure that the problem did not arise) or does not tell the truth. Simple.

Edited December 20, 2022 by YoYo

[Gripen 4-1]

I just tested and have to agree that there is a massive performance impact in VR especially the CPU frametimes suffer:

F18 caucasus ready on the ramp:

2.7.18: CPU 12-14ms

2.8.1 CPU 14-18 ms

and this on my machine  5900x / 4090. Just switched back to stable. It was smooth and also looks good. The whole mess began with 2.8 and dynamic weather.

Where does the up to 4 ms CPU frametime hit come.

I don't think, that just some have a performance loss in VR, I think that only some check their frametimes and only this folks are crying out loud now. The others who don't measure the frametimes are quiet

There is a massive loss of FPS on same settings, and this does not make me happy ED!

Insert an optional button for dynamic weather or do something to bring back some FPS. There is a promise to bring a VR performance increase since 4 years, but it never hit the ground. This is very frustrating! I mean a 4090 and a 5900X should be fine to play 45 FPS under all circumstances. You read right, i don't even demand 90 FPS, I am fine with smooth 45 under all circumstances. But not even this is possible.

Example: Sedlos Eastern Friendship

under 2.7: smooth

under 2.8.1: stuttering in the ground attack in the first mission

 

Do you recognize something? Smooth under 2.7 - not smooth under 2.8.1. Something is messed up in 2.8.1!!!!!

[freehand]

Interesting Nineline what is your performance like in vr ?

 

[YoYo]

1 hour ago, Gripen 4-1 said:

I just tested and have to agree that there is a massive performance impact in VR especially the CPU frametimes suffer:

F18 caucasus ready on the ramp:

2.7.18: CPU 12-14ms

2.8.1 CPU 14-18 ms

and this on my machine  5900x / 4090. Just switched back to stable. It was smooth and also looks good. The whole mess began with 2.8 and dynamic weather.

Where does the up to 4 ms CPU frametime hit come.

I don't think, that just some have a performance loss in VR, I think that only some check their frametimes and only this folks are crying out loud now. The others who don't measure the frametimes are quiet

There is a massive loss of FPS on same settings, and this does not make me happy ED!

Insert an optional button for dynamic weather or do something to bring back some FPS. There is a promise to bring a VR performance increase since 4 years, but it never hit the ground. This is very frustrating! I mean a 4090 and a 5900X should be fine to play 45 FPS under all circumstances. You read right, i don't even demand 90 FPS, I am fine with smooth 45 under all circumstances. But not even this is possible.

Example: Sedlos Eastern Friendship

under 2.7: smooth

under 2.8.1: stuttering in the ground attack in the first mission

 

Do you recognize something? Smooth under 2.7 - not smooth under 2.8.1. Something is messed up in 2.8.1!!!!!

4ms its a big destruction for VR. Thx for comment. I 100% agree and you have 4090, wow! Im thinking about this GPU too but the problem here it isnt GPU but changes in the engine.

[Gripen 4-1]

The 4090 is perfect - I would buy it again.

The problem are the CPU frametimes since the jump to 2.8

[Gripen 4-1]

I think people are not ranting about "eyecandy" they are ranting about the priority ED has for some developements or in which order ED rolls them out.

I mean the logical order would be:

1) increase performance of the core /modify the engine

2) then "eyecandy" like the clouds

3) and in the end such features like dynamic weather

Edited December 21, 2022 by Gripen 4-1

[ags]

45 minutes ago, Gripen 4-1 said:

The 4090 is perfect - I would buy it again.

The problem are the CPU frametimes since the jump to 2.8

Same observation, significantly bigger jump 3090->4090 than 2080Ti->3090

[WipeUout]

I've flown over Alepo many times, and it was difficult.  Now I can take a look and appreciate the amazing level of details that went into those Syrian cities.  I have to come back to the mission, this is not MSFS, people are shooting at me!  Quick look at my GPU FT, it's still bellow 13ms, awesome.  I see now my objective, troops at the airport.  So nice now that I can see what they are from further away, thanks for my 144% super-sampling (pd=1.2).  This is glorious, I am flying without distraction of dropped frames or the horrible ghosting caused by reprojection.  My rig can sustain easily 72 FPS to match my HMD's 72hz refresh rate.  It's VR heaven!!

-Flying in stable 2.7.18 with a 4080.

[slughead]

1 hour ago, WipeUout said:

I've flown over Alepo many times, and it was difficult.  Now I can take a look and appreciate the amazing level of details that went into those Syrian cities.  I have to come back to the mission, this is not MSFS, people are shooting at me!  Quick look at my GPU FT, it's still bellow 13ms, awesome.  I see now my objective, troops at the airport.  So nice now that I can see what they are from further away, thanks for my 144% super-sampling (pd=1.2).  This is glorious, I am flying without distraction of dropped frames or the horrible ghosting caused by reprojection.  My rig can sustain easily 72 FPS to match my HMD's 72hz refresh rate.  It's VR heaven!!

-Flying in stable 2.7.18 with a 4080.

You succumbed 

[Sr.]

10 hours ago, Gripen 4-1 said:

I think people are not ranting about "eyecandy" they are ranting about the priority ED has for some developements or in which order ED rolls them out.

I mean the logical order would be:

1) increase performance of the core /modify the engine

2) then "eyecandy" like the clouds

3) and in the end such features like dynamic weather

 

Exactly. Why keep adding eye candy, modules and maps to an engine you are supposedly migrating from?

[WipeUout]

10 hours ago, slughead said:

You succumbed 

Yeah, frustrating to spend another thousand bucks and not being able to enjoy it.  Going back to stable 2.7.18 brought me joy. 

[Gripen 4-1]

4 hours ago, WipeUout said:

Yeah, frustrating to spend another thousand bucks and not being able to enjoy it.  Going back to stable 2.7.18 brought me joy. 

But this is only a temporary solution! The will roll out 2.8.1 to the stable version and then we have a problem!

I simply do not understand their order of developments anymore!

Dynamic weather, new lightening......great, but do we really need it if performance suffers like with 2.8.1

 

I don't need it, if it is a massive performance tradeoff!

The main problem is the core and until this is fixed, the problem persists.

I am tired of throwing every new CPU and GPU at DCS to keep it smooth.

The aliasing problem of the new clouds persists since they introduced it. If you look far away on the horizon they look ugly even @ high settings. Not fixed since when? Over 1 and a half year?

Performance is degrading since 2.5 and still no sign of the promised 50% VR performance improvement.

 

It's all about the order of developements and honesty towards the community.

As I said: Since 2019 they are promissing VR performance improvements - I have not seen any until now. The opposite is the case; with every major update I loose FPS on the same settings.

I mean if ED would tell us, that they need money to fix the engine problems, I am sure there are enough people in the community willing to donate some money rather than buying an new GPU/ CPU every generation.

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by Gripen 4-1

[lagner]

in version 2.5 clouds in VR look great. Version 2.7 killed them and performance.
You can't get a performance boost in VR by relying on beauty on the monitor. VR and monitor are different universes with their own laws. The solution to the problem is two parallel branches for VR and a monitor. But the developers don't want that.

[Marklar]

40 minutes ago, lagner said:

in version 2.5 clouds in VR look great

Did they? Clouds were rotating with your head movements and looked terrible. 

[speed-of-heat]

8 minutes ago, Marklar said:

Did they? Clouds were rotating with your head movements and looked terrible. 

yep this they were terrible in a different way then, now they are either aliased to hell or (standard) or come with a massive performance hit but are gorgeous  (ultra)

[darkman222]

The volumetric clouds in 2.5 looked great too. And in 2.7 they look the same but now they move and create up to 2ms CPU frame time. Which is not acceptable for just having static to moving clouds, if they cause the major problem. Dunno, new lighting is in Persian Gulf only but I dont use that map, so I am just talking about how the performance dropped in Caucasus, which has only  moving clouds added in 2.7.

Edited December 22, 2022 by darkman222

[Marklar]

4 hours ago, darkman222 said:

new lighting is in Persian Gulf only

Correct but they made changes to graphics engine to allow new lighting and this has affected everyone, no matter what map you use. I guess.

[Baldrick33]

On 12/21/2022 at 3:48 PM, Gripen 4-1 said:

I don't think, that just some have a performance loss in VR, I think that only some check their frametimes and only this folks are crying out loud now. The others who don't measure the frametimes are quiet

If I check frame times I do see an increase (therefore, a performance decrease)

That said most of what I do is pretty lightweight such that I am GPU limited to 45 fps as I use reprojection. So frankly I don't notice any increase in CPU frame time and in terms of usage I see no difference and am probably not alone. So I can understand why some might feedback no apparent performance loss.

Of course the increase in frame time is key and like you say is almost definitely happening across the user base.

[Convexrook]

VR and DCS devs lol:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/mfJhMfOPWdE

[GunSlingerOZ]

On 12/20/2022 at 7:52 PM, WipeUout said:

What a disappointing comment from NineLine!  Hope this is not the official ED stand on the issue.

 

Given his role at ED is PR/community management, I assume this is legit. It would appear that the VR audience for DCS is way smaller than 2D, otherwise these changes would never have gone ahead.