race for computer power

[Bounti30]

question for ED
thanks to dcs I can have fun with machines that I will never approach in my life.
But since version 2.7 we need more and more powerful computers and today with 2.9 I no longer take pleasure as the difficulties accumulate.
It is not possible to spend thousands of euros to follow this development.
How ED sees the future of DCS

[razo+r]

The future of DCS is that requirements will continuously rise while customers are continuously trying to upgrade their systems to meet the requirements.

[Bounti30]

I don't know if this is the right path.
I think this will be the way to lose a lot of players along the way
me anyway

[Hiob]

See the problem with stements like this one is - it only holds true when you think about maximum settings.

What exactly do you expect from ED (or any other game developer for that matter). To stall developement and freeze the game on a 2010 level to keep hardware demands at bay? 

Personally I expect ED to raise the bar in visual fidelity (and any other metric, but this on is the most hardware demanding) every year. When my hardware can't keep up, I have to skip the newest eye candy or reduce settings otherwise. But I can still play it just fine. But I would never expect them to stall developement until I can keep up with my hardware. That would be foolish.

Edit:

For the longest time I couldn't play new games like the Witcher 3 for example on release, because I wanted to play them on high(ish) settings. So I only started playing it a couple years after release when I was ready. Same for other demanding titles. But it was a me-problem. It never came to my mind to expect them to downgrade their game to meet my needs (and btw. there had been an option right from the start - I simply could have played it on a lower res with medium settings. I just didn't want to. MY choice).  

Edited November 24, 2023 by Hiob

[Bounti30]

If you think you need a 5000 euro config to take advantage of DCS then sorry. When I read on the forums that people with I9 13900k + RTX 4090 cannot get DCS to run correctly, then me, poor owner of an I9 9900k + RTX 3090, I give up.
I will wait for better days

[Hiob]

15 minutes ago, Bounti30 said:

If you think you need a 5000 euro config to take advantage of DCS then sorry. When I read on the forums that people with I9 13900k + RTX 4090 cannot get DCS to run correctly, then me, poor owner of an I9 9900k + RTX 3090, I give up.
I will wait for better days

sorry, but that is BS. You don't need a 4090 to happily play DCS, nor a 13900K.

There are people that aren't happy when they "only" achieve 90 fps with maximum visual fidelity - but they're a kind of their own.

You can perfectly play DCS on a 8700K and a 1080ti. Or a 13600 with a 4070.... or whatever. You just need to dial down the settings. As in ANY OTHER game.

[MAXsenna]

If you think you need a 5000 euro config to take advantage of DCS then sorry. When I read on the forums that people with I9 13900k + RTX 4090 cannot get DCS to run correctly, then me, poor owner of an I9 9900k + RTX 3090, I give up.I will wait for better days

Nah, nah! That is a false statement. It's true that 2.9 broke my GTX Titan, while that card was 10+ years old. Scored a second hand 2080Ti and I have 30+ FPS on any map with all settings maxed in 2D.
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Bounti30]

I'm far from having all the parameters at max
but I am forced to note that the performance is decreasing from version to version and it is true that you have to systematically lower the settings to be able to benefit from a playable simulation.
But lately with 2.9 I don't know what to do. For now I'm staying in 2.8
maybe for a long time

[Bounti30]

I would like to point out that I am using a Quest 2 and I recognize that there are a multitude of factors that can influence performance.
But I don't think I'm wrong in saying that performance deteriorates over versions.
It's frustrating because for me DCS is the holy grail of combat simulation.

[Hiob]

15 minutes ago, Bounti30 said:

I'm far from having all the parameters at max
but I am forced to note that the performance is decreasing from version to version and it is true that you have to systematically lower the settings to be able to benefit from a playable simulation.
But lately with 2.9 I don't know what to do. For now I'm staying in 2.8
maybe for a long time

Nobody denied that there are some issues in 2.9 that still need to be ironed out. It's beta after all. They introduced lots of new tech and some may still need tweaking.

1 minute ago, Bounti30 said:

I would like to point out that I am using a Quest 2 and I recognize that there are a multitude of factors that can influence performance.
But I don't think I'm wrong in saying that performance deteriorates over versions.
It's frustrating because for me DCS is the holy grail of combat simulation.

Just make sure, you compare apples to apples when you talk about performance degradation.

[Bounti30]

I compare what I can compare, that is to say with my own equipment
I moved from an i5 to an I9 from a 3070 to a 3090
time advances and it is more and more complicated to keep up with the equipment while keeping the same settings
If I'm wrong I'm sorry

[LuseKofte]

It is a point. But one can not stay at the same point forever. 
Those wanting crystal vr goggles need 40 series gpu. I got 3080 and hope I can stay a couple of years with that together with my g2 goggles. I cannot expect more. 
It is unfair in the other end too. Many are ready for more. It is a balance and ED knows it

[Beirut]

I have a medium level rig and have very enjoyable flights. When I had a lesser-than medium level rig, I had very enjoyable flights. 

 

Basically, I have very enjoyable flights.

 

You work with what you've got in order to have enjoyable flights. Happiness is the art of the possible. 

[sirrah]

On 11/24/2023 at 12:58 PM, Bounti30 said:

.... then me, poor owner of an I9 9900k + RTX 3090, I give up.
I will wait for better days

I assume this is meant as sarcasm..

Because if you feel "poor" while owning an i9-9900k and rtx3090, you don't know what "poor" is..

 

Anyways, to put this thread in perspective for potential new DCS players:

I still enjoy DCS in VR every session on my ~5 year old low end pc. All just a matter of managing your expectations. There really is no need to update your pc each year, as long as you accept you can't run everything on medium or high settings.

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by sirrah
Typo

[Bounti30]

you think what you want, but it's a fact.
I had better performance with my old hardware in 2.5 than today in 2.9
what I simply want to say is that I can get by with little to enjoy flying under DCS. (all my settings on medium because for me, speed counts above all)
But the way things are going this will no longer be possible. To finish the initial question was addressed to ED, I wanted to know if the direction taken was to improve the core of the software itself or to make it grow infinitely in the hope that future hardware would follow suit.
Nor see any aggression in my question.

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, Bounti30 said:

you think what you want, but it's a fact.

 

FactS: Lesser PC means more compromises. Better PC means less compromises. Great flying can be had either way by managing settings and expectations.

 

DCS is DCS. You are you. Your rig is your rig. When all three meet in reasonable balance, great flying ensues.

 

Be the balance, Grasshopper. 

[Hiob]

4 hours ago, Bounti30 said:

you think what you want, but it's a fact.
I had better performance with my old hardware in 2.5 than today in 2.9

To be honest. I doubt that. In 2.5 you didn‘t have half of what we have today…. no Marianas, no Apache, no clouds etc.

When you fly in a 2.5 Module on a 2.5 Map without clouds. Let‘s say in an F-5 or an F-86 in Caucasus, I‘ll bet you get the same or better performance. Just don’t forget to turn off all the pretty eye-candy that didn’t exist back then.

Edit: Also, memories are rose tainted. Did you make a reproducible benchmark back then?

Edited November 25, 2023 by Hiob

[Dragon1-1]

VR is rather inefficient in DCS right now. Once ED finally moves to Vulkan, it'll be better, because DX11 is really stupid about how it does VR, it effectively renders the entire scene twice. Vulkan will likely not double performance, but you can expect a large boost.

Also, I have a 3090 and a Ryzen 5800X3D, and DCS is perfectly enjoyable on a Reverb G2 (much higher resolution than a Quest 2). DLSS set to quality basically takes care of performance issues, it does have bugs, but I hope they'll be ironed out.

Yes, system requirements will continue to go up, that's a given. With Vulkan, they might come down once, then climb again. However, I do expect my 3090 to last a long time, because the biggest driver of performance issues is resolution. VR does reasonably well with circa 4K resolution, so while the upward climb will continue, if you don't move past 4K, it should be manageable.

3 hours ago, Bounti30 said:

you think what you want, but it's a fact.
I had better performance with my old hardware in 2.5 than today in 2.9

What have you changed with regards to settings? Well, I have an RTX 3090, only a slightly better CPU (it's a weird one, I admit, but 5800X3D is great for VR), and I have zero problems with single player performance. DLSS on quality (still experimenting with that), medium view distance, most other settings on high/ultra. The old engine has problems, but it's perfectly possible for it to run well.

Also, what's with the antiquated font? Just use default one, it's easier on the eyes. Basic forum etiquette.

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, Hiob said:

To be honest. I doubt that. In 2.5 you didn‘t have half of what we have today…. no Marianas, no Apache, no clouds etc.

 

Clouds 

 

Greatest DCS improvement ever!

 

1 hour ago, Hiob said:

When you fly in a 2.5 Module on a 2.5 Map without clouds. Let‘s say in an F-5 or an F-86 in Caucasus, I‘ll bet you get the same or better performance. Just don’t forget to turn of all the pretty Eye-candy that didn’t exist back then.

Edit: Also, memories are rose tainted. Did you make a reproducible benchmark back then?

 

 

Good post.

[Bounti30]

I come back to my post after having lamented the forum for several days.
actually I don't think that the hardware is at fault but the software itself.
Many posts concerning mutlitrheading or the DCS graphics engine. Many users having problems despite having high-performance computers.
So here is my question. Wouldn't it be wise for ED to stop escalating DCS functionality and instead address the root causes of dysfunction?
Because personally I'm not interested in having photorealistic clouds or a hyper-detailed driver if the games run at 3 frames per second

[LuseKofte]

Is this thing about expectation of what you get from your buck. 
I flew 1 year ago happily about with a i7 87xx with 1080 ti and a Rift S

Now I have same pc with a 3080 and a G2 flying happily about. 
 I am not sure I get better performance. But I tweaked my settings by flying ah 64 in Mariana’s. And by doing that I have little to no stutter. 
 

[Hiob]

2 hours ago, Bounti30 said:

I come back to my post after having lamented the forum for several days.
actually I don't think that the hardware is at fault but the software itself.
Many posts concerning mutlitrheading or the DCS graphics engine. Many users having problems despite having high-performance computers.
So here is my question. Wouldn't it be wise for ED to stop escalating DCS functionality and instead address the root causes of dysfunction?
Because personally I'm not interested in having photorealistic clouds or a hyper-detailed driver if the games run at 3 frames per second

Nothing but anecdotes. I have a rather high-endish PC, and after some initial hickups that I could iron out on my own it runs perfectly now.

Sure, everytime you introduce something new, you run the risk of breaking something (for someone). But stopping to develope and push boundaries can't be the answer to that.

[Bounti30]

the point is to add functionality without upgrading the core of DCS. One day you won't be able to take the step anymore.
Many are waiting for software improvements (Vulkan API etc....) but can ED do it?
There is very little communication on the subject

[TheFreshPrince]

I feel it the other way around. I'm playing at mostly max settings now in 2K with a 2080 and a Ryzen 5 5500, which give me good performance. Before MT and 2.9 it was a struggle, but with 2.9 it's very easy to max out the settings and still get 40-80 FPS. I feel like this is the maximum I can get for reasonable money. The caveat is that DCS in 2K doesn't look that good, despite DLSS/DLAA. If you want good graphics in DCS, you need to go VR and also only play the newest modules and maps. And to go VR with good performance means to invest a lot of $$$$ in hardware. And even then you have to live with bugs and unrealistic looking things. The better resolution will give you some better looks at least.

But the money is not only a DCS problem to be fair. High-end Hardware still is so ridiculously expensive, that you need to be somewhat wealthy to play any new game with full settings. And while it was cheaper a decade ago, the problem was pretty much the same when you couldn't afford the high-end stuff. Because of the overall moderate graphic quality in DCS (even with VR and high-end stuff), I don't see the value in spending $1000 on new hardware. But other people see this as a hobby and happily spend the money. My main hobby is flyfishing, which costs a sh*t ton of money already. It just depends on your priorities. And if you really can't afford any better hardware, be appreciative of what you can get for your $. It's not about to have the best of the best.

[Hiob]

30 minutes ago, TheFreshPrince said:

 If you want good graphics in DCS, you need to go VR and also only play the newest modules and maps.

I beg to differ. How exactly does VR improve graphics? (Apart from the 3D-depth obviously). Colors, details, effects all that is equal to a high-res 2D-screen at best (for the expense of fps).

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.