Hit + 40GB of RAM with Irak

[Lange_666]

For the first time I've seen DCS using +40GB of RAM (out of 64) and at the same time my 12GB of VRAM were completely filled (saw this last one before already). Settings: 75% max (mostly high, some medium, settings with a slider: to 75-80%).
 

[Melv428]

in South Atlantic my VRAM is 23GB out of 24GB and 50GB+ RAM in usage 

it´s just big data we handle here. Don´t think it will be much more less with that game engine. 

[Beirut]

Glad I upped my RAM to 64GB. My 12GB VRAM still handles things well enough. But the 1TB+ install size... oy vey!

 

What a beast of a sim.

[MadKreator]

Ch-47 on some heavy multiplayer I’ve hit 15.3/16 on VRAM and 53/64 gigs of normal RAM (total system usage)Mostly maxed settings, some medium like shadows and with FPS capped at 60( personal preference). DCS will usually take all that it wants but boy is it hungry sometimes! Iraq pushed me just over the 1TB mark  on storage as well.

Edited December 13, 2024 by MadKreator

[bfr]

Surely this is a good thing that it maximises use of resources that are available? Provided of course it still works OK with more typical memory specs too (which it does, I still run with 32GB RAM and its run fine for me so far).

[Bigskill]

Same here on Shawdoreaper server Iraq reach out 75-80% ram usage (I have 64).

Vga ram is normally full, have to be.

I believe this map still need to be optimized a bit, but it is a fantastic map.

[Harley]

I've been using the same machine for almost 7 years now. 2x8GB Vega 64s, AMD 2700X, 32GB RAM. It's been a while since I've even had to check the requirements for anything, but lately, DCS has been really consuming the hardware specs. That said, it does mean that we're seeing better visuals, but I had no idea how quickly I'd fallen behind the curve. I just ordered 64GB RAM to replace mine with, simply because I can't do a system upgrade with the cost of GPUs now starting at $1K, which is absolutely crazy. These maps lately are getting so good. Now with 64GB RAM, I'll only be at the minimums, and who knows for how long.

[Sunbather]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb Harley:

I've been using the same machine for almost 7 years now. 2x8GB Vega 64s, AMD 2700X, 32GB RAM. It's been a while since I've even had to check the requirements for anything, but lately, DCS has been really consuming the hardware specs. That said, it does mean that we're seeing better visuals, but I had no idea how quickly I'd fallen behind the curve. I just ordered 64GB RAM to replace mine with, simply because I can't do a system upgrade with the cost of GPUs now starting at $1K, which is absolutely crazy. These maps lately are getting so good. Now with 64GB RAM, I'll only be at the minimums, and who knows for how long.

Yes, Nvidia GPUs get pricier and pricier. Still, a 5070 or even 5060 is a viable option (if you are still on 1080p and don't need lots of Vram) because DLSS and maybe one day even Frame Generation will go a long way to make your GPU somewhat future proof.

Depending on what mainboard you got, you could also hunt down a used 5800X3D. The 3D cache works wonders in games like this.

I also recommend Memory Cleaner, a neat little tool. Works well with DCS for me.

[Harley]

On 1/18/2025 at 8:48 AM, Sunbather said:

Yes, Nvidia GPUs get pricier and pricier. Still, a 5070 or even 5060 is a viable option (if you are still on 1080p and don't need lots of Vram) because DLSS and maybe one day even Frame Generation will go a long way to make your GPU somewhat future proof.

Depending on what mainboard you got, you could also hunt down a used 5800X3D. The 3D cache works wonders in games like this.

I also recommend Memory Cleaner, a neat little tool. Works well with DCS for me.

I was looking at the 5800X3D, but the only one I found in my timeline was $350, and that's more than I want to spend on an unplanned basis. I'll eventually upgrade to the x870 chipset, ddr5, and the 9800X3D, but not just to make the Iraq map work. I'm goingnto wait to do that for when AMD and NVidia both get their issues sorted out. Neither of them seem to offer anything worth the price tag at this point.

I'm upgrading to the 5700X, and 64GB of the same GSkill RAM I'm using now. That ought to nudge me into this decade (man, it really has been a while) with enough leverage to keep things going until a new system build happens. I guess I did pretty good for my last build if I got 7 years out of it without issues, even despite the generational leaps that hardware has made. DCS is really the only program I use regularly, and of course the winwing software, but this is almost a dedicated pc, and it runs the simpit. It's only got the one job to do, really. 7 years is about the longest I've gone without building a new system. Not bad, me!

[Sunbather]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb Harley:

I'm upgrading to the 5700X, and 64GB of the same GSkill RAM I'm using now. That ought to nudge me into this decade (man, it really has been a while) with enough leverage to keep things going until a new system build happens. I guess I did pretty good for my last build if I got 7 years out of it without issues, even despite the generational leaps that hardware has made. DCS is really the only program I use regularly, and of course the winwing software, but this is almost a dedicated pc, and it runs the simpit. It's only got the one job to do, really. 7 years is about the longest I've gone without building a new system. Not bad, me!

Do note that there is a 5700X3D! Maybe not in all countries though.

I also wanna congratuate you for staying strong and not letting all those fancy hardware PR campaigns trick you into buying something you don't really need. Keeping a system for 7 years is quite an accomplishment!

Edited January 23 by Sunbather

[Harley]

6 hours ago, Sunbather said:

Do note that there is a 5700X3D! Maybe not in all countries though.

I also wanna congratuate you for staying strong and not letting all those fancy hardware PR campaigns trick you into buying something you don't really need. Keeping a system for 7 years is quite an accomplishment!

Over the years, I've noticed how the next zip chip that someone develops becomes the new bare minimum, and they're innovating so fast, you can't install the newest thing before it's obsolete, dang it!

Thank you for that. I've resisted long enough, and the time has come for at least some minor upgrades. Mission:success, BTW. This machine is now running with a 5700X and 64GB RAM at 3200. Seems to be OK for now.

So, it seems that this particular map wants to consume all the resources. 64GB of RAM was what was needed, only because it's the only next logical step from 32GB. With task manager open, flying an F18 through Baghdad will use some 34GB RAM and perhaps more depending on your settings, but the kicker is the VRAM. 8GB is not enough anymore. I don't know what it's doing, but maybe the cached textures are either high res, or there's just a big pile of them to keep from repeating similar ones. Depending on the area within this map, I'm running against the VRAM limit, right at almost 8GB. This map must want much more VRAM. Apparently, the GPU that the developers are using are top of the line, and they likely don't see the problems that we stragglers (myself) are likely to see. I can tell you that I'm not adjusting scenery settings. No sir. I'm gonna have to splurge on a another new component, now.

[Lange_666]

I have 12GB VRAM and that isn't enough either (and not only on the Iraq map).
I can't say I notice that it's filled up entirely but I like to have some headroom.
Because 12GB isn't enough anymore, I'm not that impressed with the 16GB max and the 256 bit bandwidth that the new nVidia 50 series below the 5090 have to offer.
The gap between 5090 and the lower cards is just huge.

[Czar66]

8 hours ago, Lange_666 said:

I have 12GB VRAM and that isn't enough either (and not only on the Iraq map).
I can't say I notice that it's filled up entirely but I like to have some headroom.

Even with 24Gb of VRAM you would see similar allocation.

Edit: It is often hard to tell how much VRAM is actually being demanded for some reason. It is a lot indeed and it is a good investment on cards with high amount of VRAM.

I wish DCS had a better memory budget management, given the upcoming 5060 will have less than 12Gb and a card that most newcomers will probably own.

 

Edited January 24 by Czar66
Missed having to properly complete the comment.

[Harley]

On 1/24/2025 at 2:01 PM, Czar66 said:

Even with 24Gb of VRAM you would see similar allocation.

Edit: It is often hard to tell how much VRAM is actually being demanded for some reason. It is a lot indeed and it is a good investment on cards with high amount of VRAM.

I wish DCS had a better memory budget management, given the upcoming 5060 will have less than 12Gb and a card that most newcomers will probably own.

 

Agreed. I prefer AMD, because something about watching Rocky 4 when I was young, and the underdog, and because they're the only competition for the just plain brazen Nvidia Corp, with the audacity to charge $2500 for their top of the line new card. Surely that should make some folks cringe, considering how often all the manufacturers want us to upgrade. Yikes. But, there are other offerings, and the used market is becoming a more enticing option.

On the performance:use ratio, it would be nice to see how much VRAM is actually needed. I think I'm missing some part of the transaction, but it seems that games (and simulators) are all about just loading up any size GPU you can throw at it, filling up all the available space with textures to minimize the load times, best I understand it. That said, that if you run out of space, to result in a CTD is a new thing for me. Maybe we are seeing some other issues with optimization, like perhaps it is supposed to dump unused textures at some point, or something. But as it is now, it's my guess that any amount of VRAM will be used as much as possible.

The offerings as of now are not all that impressive, either. Especially for the value per dollar ratio. Holy moly. These folks need to know that they're dealing with regular people. Not all of us have bitcoin just laying around for GPU allowance. I think the market has peaked, and that we should see prices throttle back at least a little bit. No way a card that someone will keep for a year and a half or less should be a mortgage payment.

[Harley]

On 1/24/2025 at 2:01 PM, Czar66 said:

Even with 24Gb of VRAM you would see similar allocation.

Edit: It is often hard to tell how much VRAM is actually being demanded for some reason. It is a lot indeed and it is a good investment on cards with high amount of VRAM.

I wish DCS had a better memory budget management, given the upcoming 5060 will have less than 12Gb and a card that most newcomers will probably own.

 

Additionally, I'm going to put this out there: I just picked up a used Radeon VII. I've been using 2 Vega 64s for years, and they really do fine, even on just the one that DCS will use. It's a dedicated rig for only DCS, so I anticipate using this GPU will really help with that 16GB capacity. These cards had issues at launch, and were abused by the mining craze of that time, but if one can be found at a decent price point, consider it. DCS isn't likely to use many of the interesting or intense graphics features that other AAA titles use, best I understand it. Maybe one day, but not as of now. It seems the direction things have turned as of now, to take full advantage of the scenery at least, the feature most likely to be the most important for the foreseeable future seems to be VRAM capacity, and associated bus width for keeping things smooth. The Radeon VIIs are 16GB cards with HBM2, at a ludicrous 4096 memory bus width. The DCS engine, as it is now, seems to play fine on the Vega 64s I've been using, I just need more VRAM. Doubling it for the $200 price tag I just got it for will likely see good use for another few years, I think. Definitely not future proof, but if capacity is such a big issue, don't rule these cards out. On the current Vega 64, I have many sliders in a great spot for good scenery at 1080P, although I know that lots of folks are doing the 4k thing, but I think it could still crank out pretty good frames at that resolution. Folks could enjoy this sim on less capable hardware, and I just basically bet $200 on solving my CTD issue by throwing more of the same memory I'm already using at it. I'll share my results when it's installed.

With the one, and with pretty decent scenery settings, I'm still at the 60 FPS limit in all phases of flight, so I expect it to only do better. Full stack if upgrades for cheaper than one new GPU.

[Tomcatter87]

It sure would be great if the Iraq Map got some optimisation. The VRAM overload crashes my computer as soon as I fly over urban areas like Kirkuk, Baghdad or Fallujah. On the Sinai map, for example, there's also lots of objects, but it's running really smooth, even right over Cairo. 

[Harley]

So, I've installed that new-to-me Radeon VII card. For a while there, it was a smooth 60 FPS, and it seems like part of the reason that there are stutters in the game at all is because of a lack of available VRAM. It was smooth as buttered pancakes for maybe 15 minutes. Then, en route to Baghdad, it crashed while only using 5.500+GB or so of available 15.600+GB VRAM. I read the crash log, and after what looks like a somewhat comon loading sequence, I see this message, and it repeats for pages and pages. A stack of these repeats for a while, then a stack with a different number in the parenthesis, but has the same 'DX device removed reason" code.

Can anyone make any sense of this? Crash report sent through DCS error reporting, and perhaps it is a map optimization issue. I copied/pasted from a somewhat arbitrary place, a little before the error stack piles on like the amount of parmesan we want on our spaghetti. It just keeps aflowin. In parenthesis, there is that 4 digit number, and there are others. One is a (2888), there is a (13624). Whatever associations there may be for this, the answer is in there somewhere. It's likely something simple, and is a matter of an update, but I don't know, and that's why I posted that here.

2025-01-29 22:21:42.172 WARNING BACKENDCOMMON (3348): Need to reprocess [DDS] image '/textures/F18C_1_DIFF_STAY_nm.dds'. Reason: Conversion requires - expanded pixel size, setting alpha to known value. Source is an 8:8:8 (24bpp) format
2025-01-29 22:21:45.315 WARNING LOG (11148): 1 duplicate message(s) skipped.
2025-01-29 22:21:45.315 INFO    VISUALIZER (Main): Preload() finished
2025-01-29 22:21:45.399 INFO    Dispatcher (Main): precache units resources in slots
2025-01-29 22:21:45.611 INFO    EDCORE (Main): Created game pool: h:2 n:5 l:2
2025-01-29 22:21:45.611 INFO    Dispatcher (Main): loadMission Done: Control passed to the player
2025-01-29 22:21:50.836 INFO    WWT (Main): FA-18C_hornet
2025-01-29 22:25:47.723 WARNING WORLD (Main): ModelTimeQuantizer: SAME MODEL TIME
2025-01-29 22:28:18.625 WARNING WORLD (Main): ModelTimeQuantizer: ANTIFREEZE ENABLED
2025-01-29 22:28:20.662 WARNING LOG (11148): 1 duplicate message(s) skipped.
2025-01-29 22:28:20.662 ERROR   DX11BACKEND (5876): DX device removed. Reason: 0x887A0006
2025-01-29 22:28:20.664 ERROR   DX11BACKEND (5876): Can't map structured buffer.
2025-01-29 22:28:20.664 ERROR   DX11BACKEND (5876): Failed assert `0`
2025-01-29 22:28:20.667 ERROR   DX11BACKEND (5876): DX device removed. Reason: 0x887A0006
2025-01-29 22:28:20.668 WARNING WORLD (Main): ModelTimeQuantizer: ANTIFREEZE ENABLED
2025-01-29 22:28:20.680 ERROR   DX11BACKEND (5876): Can't map structured buffer.
2025-01-29 22:28:20.680 ERROR   DX11BACKEND (5876): Failed assert `0`

[Harley]

Perhaps with these maps being developed exclusively (a presumption) on NVidia cards, I wonder if there is a driver conflict between AMD users, like me, and Nvidia card users. Ray tracing? Other exclusive driver issues? Because I also have an error reporting log for AMD, as if the driver knows that it also stopped responding. However, if others are having CTD issues on Nvidia equipped machines, then that argument is null. Just a thought.

[Lange_666]