Great map, but definitely resource hungry

[Buzzer1977]

On 4/21/2025 at 8:18 PM, YoYo said:

This performance is not ideal, at least in VR.

While outside Berlin I have a constant 72 frames, so it's ok here for me (max for my refresh), over Berlin 100m above the ground I get 62-70 fps (RTX4090). I immediately remembered the times when Syria came out and people flew with slides over Aleppo. Generally, outside the capital it's ok and here it actually looks and works well, but Berlin I don't know why it's so accurate at the cost of worse FPS. Unless some optimization comes here. It would be good if Berlin was optimized because, at least for VR users, it is not pleasant to fly here.

You could offload computations to more threads on other cores using a DCS multiplayer server on your local machine and to limit max FPS slightly above the physical frame rate of your googles, so the DCS client has more time in main thread. This usually gives a high performance boost. It also helps in VR with NV GPUs to massively reduce resolution and use DLSS to scale up.

[Qcumber]

7 hours ago, Buzzer1977 said:

You could offload computations to more threads on other cores using a DCS multiplayer server on your local machine

How much difference does that make on performance and how easy is it to set up? I presume the server needs to be on separate drive? 

[Mr_sukebe]

13 minutes ago, Qcumber said:

How much difference does that make on performance and how easy is it to set up? I presume the server needs to be on separate drive? 

 

I tried it over the weekend.  Didn't really seem to help much, though that was with a heavy CPU version of the map with a LOT of SAMs on it.

To use the server:

• Install it.  Dead easy.  Most of the files are copied from the main game install.  Needs several hundred GBs of space though
• The install includes it's own .exe to run
• Once running, it's controlled using a web-browser interface.  The URL is provided within the install folders
• By default, the install won't include all of the theatres.  There's a command line to add them.  It's pretty easy
• The install will need to have copies of any mods/liveries and similar that a map is using.  The simple way is to use symbolics, such that the server looks at the folder for the main game
• In use, I've not seen it use more than 16GB of RAM (more typically around 8GB), but that does mean that you'll really need at least 64GB.  It conducts no rendering, so won't use any GPU resources

This used to be a great way to offload CPU usage, when the game was single thread.  Now, I'm far less sure.

The main game is now multi-core, whilst the server is I believe single core.

[Buzzer1977]

6 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

 

I tried it over the weekend.  Didn't really seem to help much, though that was with a heavy CPU version of the map with a LOT of SAMs on it.

To use the server:

• Install it.  Dead easy.  Most of the files are copied from the main game install.  Needs several hundred GBs of space though
• The install includes it's own .exe to run
• Once running, it's controlled using a web-browser interface.  The URL is provided within the install folders
• By default, the install won't include all of the theatres.  There's a command line to add them.  It's pretty easy
• The install will need to have copies of any mods/liveries and similar that a map is using.  The simple way is to use symbolics, such that the server looks at the folder for the main game
• In use, I've not seen it use more than 16GB of RAM (more typically around 8GB), but that does mean that you'll really need at least 64GB.  It conducts no rendering, so won't use any GPU resources

This used to be a great way to offload CPU usage, when the game was single thread.  Now, I'm far less sure.

The main game is now multi-core, whilst the server is I believe single core.

Heavy load scenario DCS standard alone
Only two DCS threads + OS are used. (~20% usage of 16 cores ~ 3 cores)
- render thread
- main thread
- OS  
Memory usage 59GB,  FPS dump into the 30s., Graphics card can't get enough data from the CPU.


Same Heavy load scenario DCS multiplayer server + DCS client.
Multiple threads are used (~30% usage of 16 cores ~ 5 cores). 
Memory usage 81GB,  FPS stable around 72 FPS. Graphics card get's feed enough data from the CPU.

null

 

Btw. you can see the almost twice higher frame rate to the Quest3 on the ethernet "SEND" graph as well. ~70 vs ~30

Edited April 25 by Buzzer1977
framerate.

[Mr_sukebe]

That’s an interesting pair of graphs.  Doesn’t look like mine.

Im guessing that the first is showing ASW in operation (hence 36fps), as neither the CPU or GPU are peaking. 
 

I’m currently getting 72fps most of the time, which results in higher usage of both the GPU and CPU.

 

[Qcumber]

Is there any benefit of running a server on another PC even for single player? 

[Buzzer1977]

1 hour ago, Qcumber said:

Is there any benefit of running a server on another PC even for single player? 

Only if you're short on RAM, cores and memory bandwith. Otherwise the physical network will cause higher latency then running the server via loopback 127.0.0.1. 
I've added my heavy load scenario mission if you want to give it a try to compare single player VS dedicated server. My 2 reference aircraft are F-4E BLUE-PONTIAC-1 to fly in close formation with 4 QF-4 drones to shoot down and F-16 BLUE-JEDI-1 over Berlin. In Multiplayer VR i get solid ~70 FPS with some exceptions over Berlin when it sometimes drops to ~60.
In single player i only get ~30 on BLUE-PONTIAC-1 over the sea and i won't talk about the FPS over Berlin in this heavy load scenario You'll have to experience/suffer from it on your own.
Singleplayer 30 FPS ...

Multiplayer 70 FPS ...

DePerformanceKiller-I.miz

[Mr_sukebe]

5 hours ago, Qcumber said:

Is there any benefit of running a server on another PC even for single player? 

 

I don't know.

I've just run up a server, with nothing else running, and no one logged in.  There's not a huge amount going on automatically, maybe 6 planes flying, but there's a whole bunch of radars running.  That was using 2-3% CPU and interestingly, 19GB of RAM.  I couldn't tell if it was single or multi-threaded with the other background "noise" of what my CPU was doing.

Last year, it was single threaded and I'd previously never seen the dedicated server use more than around 8GB of RAM.  That's clearly changed, with a LOT more RAM in use.

I'll have a fiddle tomorrow to see if I can pin down if it's single or multithreaded.  It's use of RAM does mean that running it on the same PC as the game, is looking like maybe a bad idea, unless you have 96GB of RAM.  So hosting on another PC might well be a good move.  If it's multithreaded, maybe I could run it on a spare PC that I have downstairs.  Last year, the saving in CPU did help performance.

[Qcumber]

6 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

 

I don't know.

I've just run up a server, with nothing else running, and no one logged in.  There's not a huge amount going on automatically, maybe 6 planes flying, but there's a whole bunch of radars running.  That was using 2-3% CPU and interestingly, 19GB of RAM.  I couldn't tell if it was single or multi-threaded with the other background "noise" of what my CPU was doing.

Last year, it was single threaded and I'd previously never seen the dedicated server use more than around 8GB of RAM.  That's clearly changed, with a LOT more RAM in use.

I'll have a fiddle tomorrow to see if I can pin down if it's single or multithreaded.  It's use of RAM does mean that running it on the same PC as the game, is looking like maybe a bad idea, unless you have 96GB of RAM.  So hosting on another PC might well be a good move.  If it's multithreaded, maybe I could run it on a spare PC that I have downstairs.  Last year, the saving in CPU did help performance.

I have enough spare parts to build another PC except for a CPU. I was thinking of getting a ryzen 5600x or similar. I would be interested to see if this approach would work. Particularly for missions with lots of objects. This is the only situation which really taxes my PC. 

[Mr_sukebe]

It’s pretty easy to install on the same PC.  If the server uses different CPU cores to the game, and you have enough RAM, should be an easy win.

[Mr_sukebe]

Just had three more thoughts:

- Vulkan does typically reduce CPU loading, though clearly we have no control over that

- I seem to remember Mbucchia suggesting that the use of Quad views will reduce GPU loading, but will add a little to CPU load.  If you have GPU resource spare, disabling quad views might actually help

- if you look at task manager when DCS is running, CPU load appears to be primarily spread over 4 cores.  Makes me wonder if ED has deliberately done that to ensure that almost all players benefit, without the extra dev effort to have it auto scale to however many cores a player actually has.  It would be a sensible approach.

If that is the case, do we expect Windows to be smart enough to run the other Apps on cores no used by DCS?  Is there a case for using Process Lasso to tell windows to run all Apps but DCS on say 4 cores, and DCS on the other 4 cores?

[Qcumber]

22 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

- I seem to remember Mbucchia suggesting that the use of Quad views will reduce GPU loading, but will add a little to CPU load.  If you have GPU resource spare, disabling quad views might actually help

I have tested this and in some cases this is true. If you use a wide foveated region (0.4x0.4) at about 3400 pixels equivalent then disabling QVFR is slightly better. However, using a narrow foveated region (0.25x0.25) QVFR performance is much better. I also like to increase the foveated resolution very high as it eliminates ghosting with DLSS. I will try to post my test results soon. 

[grim_reaper68]

I noticed something today. Sometimes, when the map is loaded, the RAM used is up to 24-25Gb, and sometimes I got it down to 1.5-4Gb. while running at low RAM usage, I got FPS drops, that  I never have while the RAM is at the upper load. 

[Gunfreak]

The map is so RAM hungry. That I could not run a dedicated server and play the mission on the same computer.

If i run a dedicated server. And join it on my PC all 64 gigs of ram would be used. And DCS would crash when i selected a side in the MP server.

When playing on singleplayer if i tired to save the mission. The game would crash. I bought more ram. And with 128gig ram I can save the mission state and end the mission without cashing (though the game is unstable and do crash randomly) and when I do hit Save game. The game freezes for like 2 minutes before it saves(vs instant crash with 64 gig ram) 

This is a bit mission. Dozens upon dozens of aircraft. SAMs, hundreds of tanks and vehicles shooting at each other.

[freehand]

On 4/26/2025 at 7:06 AM, Qcumber said:

I have enough spare parts to build another PC except for a CPU. I was thinking of getting a ryzen 5600x or similar. I would be interested to see if this approach would work. Particularly for missions with lots of objects. This is the only situation which really taxes my PC. 

I have a little hundred pound dell pc used as a server it can handle many units with no ill effect not used it for a while as in the middle of upgrading best upgrade you have for vr.

[PLUTON]

YOYO said
Outside of Berlin, I have a constant 72 frames per second, so that's fine for me (maximum for my refresh rate). Above Berlin, at 100 meters above the ground, I get 62-70 fps (RTX4090). I immediately remembered the time when the Syrians were out and people were flying over Aleppo with slides. Generally, outside of the capital, it's fine, and here it looks and works well, but in Berlin, I don't understand why it's so sharp at the cost of lower fps. Unless there's some optimization. It would be nice if Berlin were optimized, because, at least for VR users, flying here isn't enjoyable.

Personally, I say the entire map should be optimized because it feels like I'm back at the beginning of the SYRIA map, where I had to sacrifice quality to be able to fly without a slideshow.
I hope they optimize it quickly because it's a magnificent map.