race for computer power

[TheFreshPrince]

Am 5.12.2023 um 17:16 schrieb Hiob:

And how exactly did you come to the conclusion that DCS is of "overall moderate graphic quality"? Show me a better looking flight simulator! And no - MSFS2020 is NOT overall better looking. In some regards  - yes. In others - much worse.

The Aircraft graphics are a wide spectrum, with some of the older modules showing their age - I'll give you that. But other than that DCS looks phenomenal.

Yes and no. Right now, if compared to other flight sims, DCS probably is the best looking one. Although this might change next year. Compared to modern games, DCS lacks lots of stuff, let's be honest. DCS in the looks of an Unreal 5 engine would be truly mind blowing. The reason that's not possible, is likely that a sim is so much more demanding, so you have to compromise on graphics. And DCS actually does look good in many cases. Most of the time when you are flying around with some altitude, often even at low altitude (love Mariannas or Persian Gulf). But then there are a lot of details that don't look good yet. Caucasus map is one example. I know it's old, but the ground textures and objects really don't look good. There's no way you tell me the mountain texture is realistic, even with Bartheks mod. In general, I'm also not a fan of the lighting, shadows and reflections in DCS. Then again, the clouds, rain, snow, water and the newest maps and modules look great. So sometimes it looks awesome, but sometimes it looks like a 10 year old game (Hornet outside, cough). And there are many visual bugs right now, which add to that. That's why on average for me, personally and very subjectively, the visual experience is moderate. You can fly circles in a bubble of certain settings and in certain areas to always have a good experience, but I like to fly around everywhere and do all kind of stuff. And I think it would only slightly be better with a 4K monitor or VR, which I'm not willing to spend money on. 

PS: I acknowledge and am grateful for the constant improvement of DCS with every update though. In 5 years this sim will likely look way more realistic, where games are right now. 

Am 5.12.2023 um 17:40 schrieb Eugel:

No. DLSS doesn´t make games look better, it´s the exact opposite ! It decreases picture quality to gain performance.
And again no. DCS looks better on a 2k screen than it does on a 4K VR Headset. Because in VR, you are looking at the screens from like 5 cm distance and looking through a magnifying glass. You will see pixels ! And most likely you will have to reduce quality settings to be able to run in VR in the first place.
So no, it definitely does not look better in VR

DLAA did solve issues for me with anti aliasing on clouds, water and objects, so it does look better than 2x MSAA for me plus better performance. Might be an indirect effect, but still better than in 2.8. Similar effect with DLSS, although I prefer no upscaling and DLAA. I mentioned the performance part already. About VR that might be true. When I look at videos from VR people, it does look better than my picture though and since I have no options left to improve on, it must be the VR or at least the better resolution, right? But I didn't think about the difference in what you see in front of your eye and what image the recorder gets, I agree with that.

vor 19 Stunden schrieb Beirut:

I don't think there is any truth in that at all.

If you have your settings right, you can have great looking flights in older modules on any of the maps. Play with the lighting and the weather and, for example, you can have great eye candy on the Caucasus map with the F-5. 

It's my personal opinion, so I'm not gonna argue about that. What one sees as asthetic or not, is simply subjective. The Caucasus map actually might be the worst example, see my answer above to Hiob. But if you fly in the Mirage over Syria at altitude or do a low pass through Dubai or along the coast of Mariannas, of course it looks much better. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by TheFreshPrince

[Beirut]

4 minutes ago, TheFreshPrince said:

t's my personal opinion, so I'm not gonna argue about that. What one sees as asthetic or not, is simply subjective. The Caucasus map actually might be the worst example, see my answer above to Hiob. But if you fly in the Mirage over Syria at altitude or do a low pass through Dubai or along the coast of Mariannas, of course it looks much better. 

 

 

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

But I am confident, given my history of potato-to-good PCs that flights that are enjoyable and pleasing to the eye can be had in all maps and with all modules. The notion that only high-end PCs with the latest modules and maps can give you a good looking flight is simply not the case. The sim is far more accessible than that.

[Beirut]

I mentioned the F-5 on the Caucuses map and here it it. This is what 15-seconds of effort in the Mission Editor gave me. That's not a bad looking flight, it's perfectly enjoyable. On the other hand, I can stick the Tomcat over the Sinai and with the wrong time of day and lighting and geography chosen, it can look a chunk more more dull than this. 

 

It really is what you make of it. And you have to also be willing to enjoy your flight and not just dismiss it... because.

[TheFreshPrince]

I agree, the accessibility is good, even better with the improvements. Just to be clear, I'm not negating the fun you can have with DCS at any settings, even the absolute minimum. It's the main reason why I'm flying here. I started with an onboard graphics card, which barely gave me 20fps in the air, just so I could learn the basics. The overall fun DCS provides is very good. I'm just being honest about the ambiguous visual experience I have, because it's part of this topic. 

[BitMaster]

Beirut's attitude is the most important part, it's not only hardware and software and bugs and frustration,

 

It's about forgetting it all and FLY

 

 

[SharpeXB]

DCS is not the most demanding game to run, by far. Last year on my aging machine it was about the only game I could still run and on very high settings as well. 

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, TheFreshPrince said:

 I'm just being honest about the ambiguous visual experience I have, because it's part of this topic. 

 

Granted it's subjective, but there are enough points that can be agreed on to say that even with a medium-level rig and an older map and module, the visual experience can be downright delicious. It can almost always be said that: the plane looks nice, the cockpit is crisp and has good lighting, the clouds are mighty sweet to be sure, and the terrain looks great with the shadows and lighting set properly. Those are the rule, not the exception.

 

Pro or con, extremes are not warranted. Someone saying they are having great flights over the new Normandy map on dual-core i3 with 8GB of ram and a 1030 card might be a tad optimistic. On the other hand, anyone citing their 7800X3D with 128GB RAM and a 4090 as being the minimum required to have any kind of decent flight is also not being realistic. There is plenty of room in the middle for good performance and great looking flights. I know, because I am in the middle.

[Dangerzone]

1 hour ago, TheFreshPrince said:

I agree, the accessibility is good, even better with the improvements. Just to be clear, I'm not negating the fun you can have with DCS at any settings, even the absolute minimum. It's the main reason why I'm flying here. I started with an onboard graphics card, which barely gave me 20fps in the air, just so I could learn the basics. The overall fun DCS provides is very good. I'm just being honest about the ambiguous visual experience I have, because it's part of this topic. 

You raise a resounding point with me. When I first started with DCS a friend suggested it to me. I hesitated at the cost of the FA18 (there were no trials back then), but decided that I could afford one aircraft, and would do some flying with him. It was on a very modest rig, in 2D and I wasn't going to spend a cent more on it. 

Had I have been told how much money I would have sunk into DCS (and supporting peripherals) back then, I probably would have walked away in disbelief. 

At the risk of projecting my experience, I would still say that ED knows that attracting new players is key, and a number of these are not going to spend money on big hardware (even if they can afford it) until they get to have a taste and get hooked on their modest hardware first. And I see that they are working towards that. OpenXR on top even more. MT, DLSS, Vulkan.

I dare say they have also only started on the benefits of MT. MT has been introduced, and there's probably going to be more things taking advantage of it as the future goes on. 

While I could understand some of the OP's points - I don't get the issues he's having with his current setup. Something tells me that his system is not optimized and there's numerous tweaks (outside of DCS) that could be done, or that his expectations are too high compared to the average VR user. 

[LuseKofte]

To me, most if not all complaints about performance in FB , come from people with highest specs pc. 
Now, I am not judging or trying to be a smart ass. But obviously there must be some people with a 4090 gpu that is pleased with their performance. 
Maybe they should start a topic about settings and comparing each others settings. 
In general I suspect that people with 20 gen and lower gpu is just happy to be able to play the game, that is where their expectations are

[Hiob]

1 minute ago, LuseKofte said:

 But obviously there must be some people with a 4090 gpu that is pleased with their performance. 
 

I am!  As I was previously with my 3080 and before that with my 1080ti. But obviously I dialed up the gfx settings along the way.

And guess what. When my fps get to low in certain conditions. I don't complain, but lower some of the demanding gfx settings. 

[Beirut]

23 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

 But obviously there must be some people with a 4090 gpu that is pleased with their performance. 
 

 

I just put in a 4070 a few months back and I'm delighted with the performance. I consider myself fortunate to have a card this good and I have great flights.

 

If some downtrodden soul is not pleased with their 4090, then send it to me and I'll write them an IOU for a 5090ti. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, LuseKofte said:

But obviously there must be some people with a 4090 gpu that is pleased with their performance. 
Maybe they should start a topic about settings and comparing each others settings. 

I am

No secret settings to share. Just set everything to max and game on. The game runs at 100 fps in 4K

[Hiob]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

No secret settings to share. Just set everything to max and game on. The game runs at 100 fps in 4K

That's a broad generalization. I can easily put up scenarios that bring even a 4090 down to <60 with maximum settings.
It can run anywhere from 60 to 180 depending on the setting. But again. If I am unhappy with those numbers, I just dial it down a bit.

[SharpeXB]

21 minutes ago, Hiob said:

That's a broad generalization. I can easily put up scenarios that bring even a 4090 down to <60 with maximum settings.
It can run anywhere from 60 to 180 depending on the setting. But again. If I am unhappy with those numbers, I just dial it down a bit.

Any realistic scenario in this game, DLC campaigns or MP etc. is designed to be run by everyone. Sure you could fabricate some crusher mission in the mission editor but that’s not realistic. Any low fps situations (by “low” I mean like 70-80 fps) are probably due to the CPU and not the 4090. I think the Apache Cairo free flight had me at 60 fps in ST. Haven’t tested it in MT. I don’t do much testing in the game because I don’t need to really. 

[Hiob]

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Any realistic scenario in this game, DLC campaigns or MP etc. is designed to be run by everyone. Sure you could fabricate some crusher mission in the mission editor but that’s not realistic. Any low fps situations (by “low” I mean like 70-80 fps) are probably due to the CPU and not the 4090. I think the Apache Cairo free flight had me at 60 fps in ST. Haven’t tested it in MT. I don’t do much testing in the game because I don’t need to really. 

That's exactly what I had in mind, fly over Cairo at sunset. Mirrors on, Video feed on - and see the fps drop. You don't need a "fabricated crusher mission for that". I'm with you, that on average the 4090 will deliver around 100 fps with full settings, but certainly not all the time.

[SharpeXB]

16 hours ago, Hiob said:

That's exactly what I had in mind, fly over Cairo at sunset. Mirrors on, Video feed on - and see the fps drop. You don't need a "fabricated crusher mission for that". I'm with you, that on average the 4090 will deliver around 100 fps with full settings, but certainly not all the time.

Yeah but it “drops” to 80 fps which is still just fine. I don’t see a need to fiddle with settings. 

Edited December 8, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Hiob]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah but it “drops” to 60 fps which is still just fine. I don’t see a need to fiddle with settings. 

Nobody suggested that.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Hiob said:

Nobody suggested that.

I was responding to the above

“Maybe they should start a topic about settings and comparing each others settings”

 

This whole topic is quite ridiculous. Sorry but it’s extremely naive and ignorant to suggest that a game would sell better if it ceased its development. That would indeed accomplish the opposite. And DCS is far from the most difficult PC game to run. 

Edited December 7, 2023 by SharpeXB

[LuseKofte]

16 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I was responding to the above

“Maybe they should start a topic about settings and comparing each others settings”

 

This whole topic is quite ridiculous. Sorry but it’s extremely naive and ignorant to suggest that a game would sell better if it ceased its development. That would indeed accomplish the opposite. And DCS is far from the most difficult PC game to run. 

 

I agree. I responder only because I could not understand what author is on about 

I got a i7 with 3080 and 32 Gb ram. I obviously can buy myself better performance. But currently can’t see the need for it. So how can it be stated that the game is unplayable?

[Beirut]

36 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I agree. I responder only because I could not understand what author is on about 

I got a i7 with 3080 and 32 Gb ram. I obviously can buy myself better performance. But currently can’t see the need for it. So how can it be stated that the game is unplayable?

 

I feel the same with my 3700X/4070/64GB Ram. A 4080 and/or new MB with a 7800X3D are not easy for me to buy, but it's also that I don't really need them. If my flight is smooth and looks good, is there any reason to spend all that money for extra FPS?

 

There is definitely a point where we need to take a breath and enjoy the moment. 

[Slippa]

On 12/6/2023 at 2:38 PM, BIGNEWY said:

If a particular scenario creates problems on your machine posting a track replay is the only way we are able to recreate the problem. It is essential when reporting issues here. 

thanks

I know, I’d been reading about tracks not being reliable or broken before reading this thread. Maybe that’s why it tickled me, no harm meant.

I won’t start posting what fps I get with my set up but believe me, it’s a lot lower than I’d hoped for. Generally, I can still enjoy DCS enough to keep every other sim or game almost unused. Given the choice of running other software that technically may run better, I’ll choose to get in the air here and I’ll love it. I’m proof that we don’t necessarily have to have a tip top rig with all the bells and whistles to have a great experience. - Not withstanding my dodgy bombing and impatient landings but I won’t mention too much about all that. 

20 hours ago, Beirut said:

There is definitely a point where we need to take a breath and enjoy the moment. 

Bang on.

[BIGNEWY]

31 minutes ago, Slippa said:

I know, I’d been reading about tracks not being reliable or broken before reading this thread. Maybe that’s why it tickled me, no harm meant.

no problem, we recently had a track replay improvement that helps. Point is we need to reproduce the issue or recreate, and the only way to do it is with a track replay

[Nightdare]

The good news will be, that at a certain point, one can get no better fidelity than "lifelike"

 

Once visuals are equal to real life, there is no performance gain to chase

 

Whether we'll see that moment come to pass during our lifetime? .....Maybe (Not with my lifestyle though  )

Just think back 30 years ago to the state of computer technology:

 

 

 

 

 

Now imagine 30 years into the future

[Hiob]

11 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

Now imagine 30 years into the future

I don't think it will take another 30 (or even 20) years for computer graphics to become (practically) indistinguishable from RL.

For better or worse.

[TheFreshPrince]

There already is a game in development, that has real life like graphics, called "Unrecord". When the footage was first released, nobody believed it was from a game. The developers had to prove that it's actually just a game. It's not gonna be available in VR, but my guess is that within 5-10 years maximum we'll have a lot of VR stuff with real life graphics, which is gonna be quite scary.