Horrible frame rate with 1.0.1

[=SCoRPioN=]

No DCSmax.

The affinity is automatically set to all cores since the patch.

In XP, I do alt tab and manually set it to just CPU0.

 

Win7 181.71 drivers:

x86 (32-bit): http://www.nvidia.com/object/win7_x86_181.71_beta.html

x64 (64-bit): http://www.nvidia.com/object/win7_x64_181.71_beta.html

 

REMOVE the newer Nvidia drivers as well as PhysX and 3D stuff by uninstalling them from Control Panel: Programs & Features in 7.

Then Reboot. And only then install the new (older) driver.

[itstimmeh]

I just made the mistake of installing the nVidia 190.x drivers. Now it crashes every time I try to play in full-screen mode.

 

In a window the FPS is 12-15fps, this is with a AMD dualcore and a 9800GT! Changing the quality settings has no effect either.

 

Time for a rollback methinks, apparently the 180-182 versions are the most stable for the 9-series of cards. Before I made a mess of it I was getting 30-50fps with max detail.

[itstimmeh]

And with regard to the ABRIS update speed, in all fairness I'd say its more realistic, don't forget on the real aircraft the processor is a 486DX4, and that's not exactly quick.

 

Maybe there should be a switch in the config that allows you to customise the refresh rate?

[Kirai]

;738984']No DCSmax.

The affinity is automatically set to all cores since the patch.

In XP, I do alt tab and manually set it to just CPU0.

 

Win7 181.71 drivers:

x86 (32-bit): http://www.nvidia.com/object/win7_x86_181.71_beta.html

x64 (64-bit): http://www.nvidia.com/object/win7_x64_181.71_beta.html

 

REMOVE the newer Nvidia drivers as well as PhysX and 3D stuff by uninstalling them from Control Panel: Programs & Features in 7.

Then Reboot. And only then install the new (older) driver.

 

I tried to install 181.71 on my windows 7 system but it said that it was not compatible with my hardware (GTX 275) so I could not install it. I installed the new nvidia drivers 190.62 instead and for now everything is working.

[=SCoRPioN=]

I tried to install 181.71 on my windows 7 system but it said that it was not compatible with my hardware (GTX 275) so I could not install it. I installed the new nvidia drivers 190.62 instead and for now everything is working.

 

Trust me, with 190.x you will have issues, if not yet.

You're right, the newer GTX 275 is not supported by that driver.

 

Use 185.81 instead. Just search nvidia.com for it. It is a beta, but I bet it gives better fps than 190.x

[McClane]

My fps go now from 140 to 25 when I activate Skval while looking down with ATI 9.8 drivers. I could say with every new version, graphic driver or game, the performance goes worse and worse. I give up. Even with a highend pc its not possible to play this game. Maybe they should print very specifiv hardware on the box so someone can buy the pc on a per game basis.

[dragony]

I'm using 190.38 with GTX285 - no issues. So it's safe to assume that 190.* good for 2** series videocards and may have some issues for older models.

[Kirai]

The thing is that to go beyound 60 FPS is just waste of FPS. The human eye can only register a maximum of 60 FPS, thats what I heard anyways.

 

One more thing I noticed yesterday when I was playing. My FPS was between 40 and 70 FPS all the time so it was all okay but even then I noticed some sort of lagg when there where more things happening. If it does not lower my FPS then what kind of lagg is it?

Edited August 25, 2009 by Kirai

[EtherealN]

Kirai, there's lots of discussions about that around the forum, and the articles I've been linked seem to conclude that talking about FPS for the eye is quite simply not accurate. The eye and brain doesn't work with linearly updating the field of view.

[Kirai]

Kirai, there's lots of discussions about that around the forum, and the articles I've been linked seem to conclude that talking about FPS for the eye is quite simply not accurate. The eye and brain doesn't work with linearly updating the field of view.

 

Ah okay, you seem more into this then I am but speaking for myself I must say that beyound 50 fps I can't really see any difference and everything over 40 fps works smoothly for me.

[McClane]

I have in a single player mission with no action at the base with actived skval around 25 fps on an up2date pc with almost everything set to low or off. Thats not tollerable. In multiplayer its even worse. And I don't know where else I could tweak. I spend hours optimizing the system. And it's the only game I have these problems with.

[EtherealN]

Ah okay, you seem more into this then I am but speaking for myself I must say that beyound 50 fps I can't really see any difference and everything over 40 fps works smoothly for me.

 

It's about the same for me I think. I'm usually fine even lower than 40, even. And recall that a normal movie is around 24-25 FPS. It all depends on circumstance and a bunch of other factors.

 

And it's the only game I have these problems with.

 

May I also suspect that it's the only extreme-fidelity combat simulator you run on the computer? I suspect it is, since I don't know of any simulator that goes to the same level of detail. This causes much different performance bottlenecks compared to most games - who care a lot about graphics card whereas DCS doesn't really care about the GPU unless it's really old; it'll care a lot more about your CPU though.

 

There's a bunch of tweaks out there though (like setting water to low through LUA editing) that may help. That may be for an extra thread though, to see if there's comparison to other similar systems that can help.

[LoBiSoMeM]

I like to fly the Ka-50 just for the amazing FM, for my lonely fun! Don't care so much with large AI groups, view distance, etc...

 

And fly IL2 for hours online, with great graphics and a lot of action... and with huge FPS!

 

In 2015, I will fly DCS:BS 1.0 with 200 FPS too! It's the sad life we nerds have: wait some years to have the hardware to run the software in all glory!

 

And in 2020, SoW: Battle Of Britain... :)

 

By the way, my GPU can handle much larger view distances. But the LockOn graphic engine maybe isn't so optimized, I don't know... And when I set far view distance, the FPS have a huge drop... And isn't a lot of CPU processing, the graphics ins DCS:BS are really simple, etc...

 

Need some work in this area for the next modules releases...

[EtherealN]

Actually, view distance might very well be CPU-centric. The terrain isn't just pretty pictures, after all, it's actual "hard" ground which must be tracked by a lot of parts in the simulator, like the physics engine etcetera.

 

Also, changing between medium and far isn't necessarily a small thing either. I don't quite recall the exact distances used in DCS, but compare these:

 

Short: 5km view distance, that means a 10x10 km grid needs loading. 100km² kept in memory and tracked by the CPU. (Remember, the GPU only shows the textures, it doesn't track whether there's units there, what they're doing and so on.)

Medium: 7.5 km view distance, that means a 15x15 km grid needs loading. 225km² kept in memory.

Long: 10km distance. 20x20 km loaded. 400km² in memory.

 

Now, again, I don't recall which actual distances were used in dcs, but rest assured that they're bigger than those, and since we are squaring we are actually getting four times the work from just doubling the distance.

[McClane]

I also use Falcon4:AF and IL-2. No problem with these. They also have rather old engines.

I know DCS is CPU consuming. But even @3.6GHz on a Quadcore the game is slow. Viewing Distance is set to medium. Not much better on low. Water and all other effects are off already. I tried every tip I found here or elsewhere.

[Ramstein]

I can get around 15 fps, sometime lower or higher with my computer, and would think someone with better specs would get much better fps..

 

:joystick:

 

WinXP

btw, my duo2core e6300 cpu is only 1.8 ghz..

[Peyoteros]

check what will happen if you switch to one core

[Ramstein]

check what will happen if you switch to one core

 

 

nevermind,,, but you should really be getting good fps with your setup., with my lower spec computer, if I can get ok, you should get great fps

Edited August 27, 2009 by Ramstein

[EtherealN]

McClane,

Quadcore or dualcore doesn't matter. There has been extensive tests made (by Maximus_G) that show that there is zero gain between 2 and 4 cores. The one gain you have from multicore affinity is that the processor can move the process between the cores to keep it at a core that's running less other stuff.

 

Falcon4:AF and IL-2 are not in any way comparable in CPU load. Falcon4:AF does have something to say for itself, but it's not even attempting to simulate at the same level. IL-2 is borderline arcade in how it's simulations are run. They are all really basic stuff.

 

What I suspect that you should do is to get a good comparison with someone that has a similar platform, and if it doesn't match up you might have to look for other bottlenecks than the CPU. In the end, a closer comparison is the only way to really know whether your machine is underperforming for it's specification.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Actually, view distance might very well be CPU-centric. The terrain isn't just pretty pictures, after all, it's actual "hard" ground which must be tracked by a lot of parts in the simulator, like the physics engine etcetera.

 

Also, changing between medium and far isn't necessarily a small thing either. I don't quite recall the exact distances used in DCS, but compare these:

 

Short: 5km view distance, that means a 10x10 km grid needs loading. 100km² kept in memory and tracked by the CPU. (Remember, the GPU only shows the textures, it doesn't track whether there's units there, what they're doing and so on.)

Medium: 7.5 km view distance, that means a 15x15 km grid needs loading. 225km² kept in memory.

Long: 10km distance. 20x20 km loaded. 400km² in memory.

 

Now, again, I don't recall which actual distances were used in dcs, but rest assured that they're bigger than those, and since we are squaring we are actually getting four times the work from just doubling the distance.

 

Well, the collision meshes are computed whatever the view distance, or not? Maybe it can be "scenary compexity" dependent, but never "view distance dependent". I alway hear "DCS don't have processing bubbles"... So, all the units movement are processed on the fly in any view distance... With the collision meshes of the terrain and static objetcs.

 

In this scenario, the view distance setting is mostly GPU dependent, not CPU. The graphic engine is outdated. One exaple is the lousy performance in simple overcast conditions. And this drop in performance just for draw simple boxes and simple terrain mesh, I can't understand in 2009, with a 4xxx card with 512+ memory... Maybe some LOD work? I don't know, I can undestand losing performance with Shkval and ABRIS, but with some distant boxes rendered?

 

Sounds illogic to me. DCS:BS uses or not "bubbles"?

[LoBiSoMeM]

Well, IL2 certainly aren't "bordeline arcade". The solutions used in IL2 for make one sim with tons of flyable aircraft, ground units, great graphics (even for today parameters) and massive MP capability are a trade between performance and realistic sim.

 

It's unfair say that for a sim produced in 2001 and still great in 2009. "Basic stuff" can work in a sim for personal computers. Maybe is better have some "basic stuff" hidden than "complex stuff" hidden in gameplay, for performance issues.

 

IL2 still a software masterpiece! And with volumetric clouds and great overcast solution...

[Ramstein]

I suggest you try a different driver with either Catalyst 9.7 or wait til 9.9.

=======================

 

Well, the collision meshes are computed whatever the view distance, or not? Maybe it can be "scenary compexity" dependent, but never "view distance dependent". I alway hear "DCS don't have processing bubbles"... So, all the units movement are processed on the fly in any view distance... With the collision meshes of the terrain and static objetcs.......

[=SCoRPioN=]

My fps go now from 140 to 25 when I activate Skval while looking down with ATI 9.8 drivers. I could say with every new version, graphic driver or game, the performance goes worse and worse. I give up. Even with a highend pc its not possible to play this game. Maybe they should print very specifiv hardware on the box so someone can buy the pc on a per game basis.

 

GET NVIDIA!

 

Read about ATI crap here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=731499#post731499

Edited August 27, 2009 by [SCoRPioN]

[159th_Viper]

Stay with ATI!

 

Read about NVIDIA crap here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=44359

 

:P

[EtherealN]

So' date=' all the units movement are processed on the fly in any view distance... With the collision meshes of the terrain and static objetcs.[/quote']

 

Correct. But there's a difference having a loaded area of 100km², and then add 25 times 1km² for units outside. Terrain outside of that doesn't have to be loaded.

 

From what I have understood, part of the reason why many extra units spread out do cause a slowdown is precicely that the engine has to load terrain around them. But point is that the requirements there doesn't increase exponentially with the variable - but the load from view distance does.

 

As for whether it uses "bubbles", it depends entirely on your definition I suspect. From what I understand the Falcon4 derivatives have a better method, but I am unsure since I haven't seen an authentic design schematic from either.

 

Well' date=' IL2 certainly aren't "bordeline arcade".[/quote']

 

In my opinion, it is. Not to deride it in any way - I love that game and end up reinstalling it with regularity. Quite possibly there are only two or three games that I've spent more time with in my life. (Frontier: Elite II and EVE Online are the only one's I'm certain about.) But the point is that it is so far behind DCS in the detail of what is being simulated that mentioning it in a discussion about performance problems with DSC is problematic. As you said - it was originally released in 2001, and trades realism for ability to have a huge amount of flyables. Both of these causes it to play in a wholly other division when it comes to CPU load.