Horrible frame rate with 1.0.1

[LoBiSoMeM]

Well, I don't think DCS:BS is so great "simulator" in many aspects, like damage model of ground units, AI aircraft FM, some weapons effects, etc.

 

I really like the Ka-50 FM, but we can cut the collective and make some "hard" maneuvers, exposing the "not so simulated" reality of the simulated reality. It's the life, we just can't sim all and have a decent performance.

 

In a combat sim based in real hardware, it's cool to have some realistic behavior in combat, tactics, visuals... and IL2 still great in provide the WWII air warfare feeling. We can use real tactics, and the amout of simulation in FM is enought to provide the need to use a realistic aproach in combat. We can read a book about AA combat in WWII and use it all in IL2.

 

The objective in IL2 is re-create the air combat dynamic of WWII, not re-create the perfect FM of one specific airplane of WWII. I never will call this "bordeline arcade". In full -real, with experienced human players, we need a lot of discipline, teamwork and real air combat tactics to just survive.

 

In DCS, we only have one module, with one flyable. And this flyable have a beutifull FM, perfect cockpit, real instruments. But it's not a simple flight sim, its "Digital Combat Simulator". We don't need the perfect FM, we need the "perfect" combat simulator.

 

And we just have a personal computer, not a mainframe... That's the real beauty of IL2: we can have the needed amout of realism to acomplish the immersive goal with an outstanding performance.

 

But the discussion is about the performance in BS after the patch. I can understand the problem about the "sim factor" in CPU aspects, FM, etc, not in eye candy, displays, GPU and view distance. DCS:BS uses the LockOn graphics engine, and it can't handle very well the actual needs.

 

Maybe in the next DCS modules we can have a newer and better graphic engine, DX10-11, etc.

[=SCoRPioN=]

Someone needs to make a side by side comparison of fps and quality of the same mission on price comparable ATI vs Nvidia cards.

 

All I know is that DCS is super fun to fly with vertical sync on, 16x AF, 8x AA and 30fps minimum.

When I turn on the Shkval, it does it instantaneously and seamlessly.

My fps is always 60, and never goes below 30, even on panzertards any more, it's crazy.

 

Nvidia: "The Way it's Meant to be Played!"

 

Windows 7 rocks!

[connos]

;742388']Someone needs to make a side by side comparison of fps and quality of the same mission on price comparable ATI vs Nvidia cards.

 

All I know is that DCS is super fun to fly with vertical sync on, 16x AF, 8x AA and 30fps minimum.

When I turn on the Shkval, it does it instantaneously and seamlessly.

My fps is always 60, and never goes below 30, even on panzertards any more, it's crazy.

 

Nvidia: "The Way it's Meant to be Played!"

 

Windows 7 rocks!

 

You seem to have the same system as me (also I archive the same overclock) with the exception of graphic card. I have an ATI 4870 512MB. In version 1.0 with DCS max I had great performance in windows Vista 64 bit.

After the installation of 1.0.1 my performance went down hill. I recently format my pc and installed Windows 7 64bit 7100 RC. I didn't try BS yet but I will do and post results.

[EtherealN]

To be honest, LoBiSoMeM, it is evident that we just have very different priorities. I focus on the aircraft and physics, that's what really matters to me. If all we had was an accurately modeled Ka-50 I would still fly it.

 

The air combat bit of IL-2 is very nice, just like you said, but the "arcade" thing I am talking about is specifically the "simulator" bit - that is, whether or not it is an accurate simulation of aircraft behaviour as well as aircraft systems. It is close - and when it arrived it was amazingly good. But the whole point is that compared to DCS the aircraft simulation is of such low detail that "borderline arcade" is the only sticker I feel I can put on it - today. Falcon 3.0 was an awesome study sim when it came (I still have my original box with all floppies and merchandise :D ), but today that too wouldn't be all that much more than "arcade". Everything is relative.

 

As for using real tactics and so on in IL-2: it has all the same weaknesses that DCS:BS has whenever you fly the aircraft that the game is named after (that is, CAS missions). At least with DCS I'll know that there's a better judgement on whether that ground unit that fired really should be able to get a shot, even if they do have the same poorly realistic AI. Playing online doesn't help there, since there'll be no player units on the ground. Similarly, the ground theatre in there is just catastrophically poor (that was my opinion when it was released as well).

 

So sure, the simulation is close enough that in A2A with human pilots you get to use real tactics. That's not really a massive achievement though, since after all it's human pilots. (Versus the AI they do have some passable behaviour in dogfights, but are extremely easy to trick and predict in ways humans wouldn't be.)

 

You are comparing the "combat simulation" of human vs human dogfighting with the "combat simulation" of human vs ground AI. Completely different ballparks and the moment you look at the A2G of IL-2 the whole "advantage" of IL-2 as a "combat simulator" disappears.

 

And of course, the original point was on what directly touches CPU load, and that is the physics simulation aspect. And one cannot compare DCS and IL-2 and say "but I can play IL-2 with X FPS so DCS should run better".

 

Finally, a quote:

 

we can cut the collective and make some "hard" maneuvers, exposing the "not so simulated" reality of the simulated reality. It's the life, we just can't sim all and have a decent performance.

 

First, yes, we can do some pretty radical maneuvers through dumping collective first. But you are saying this is in breach of what is real? I'd like a source on that, since while it's still somewhat reliable as a method I'd still never do any of those maneuvers with a Ka-50 in real life. Ever. There's just not good enough margins when doing them.

 

You can perform barrel rolls and other limited aerobatics with airliners too. You just don't do it, because the margins are poor (and most often there's no point).

 

So I would think that that is the reason why real Ka-50 pilots don't do that and I'd like to see something authoritative to buy that it's a breach of physics that the simulated Ka-50 can perform rolls and loops and such. (Quite a few other helicopters can do it, and I don't see a specific principle that would directly bar the Ka-50 from doing it.)

 

But yeah, I guess we are starting to derail. Perhaps a thread split or something if you want to continue the discussion?

Edited August 28, 2009 by EtherealN

[McClane]

The CH-53G can do loops, too. But it will stress the structure so hard, that it will never be allowed to fly again. A CH-53G technican told me he saw this once. After that the helicopter was grounded.

Oh, just found this:

[Kirai]

The CH-53G can do loops, too. But it will stress the structure so hard, that it will never be allowed to fly again. A CH-53G technican told me he saw this once. After that the helicopter was grounded.

Oh, just found this:

 

And one of few helicopters that does loops and rolls quite well is the English Lynx mk 7/mk 9, one of the things its famous for. Sorry for offtopic. My fps are quite good right now but I still experience CTD sometimes but not that much as before when I had my GFX overclocked.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Kirai

[connos]

So I tried BS 1.0.1 with Windows 7 64 bit. A huge increase in minimum frame rate in first mission of Oil War Campaign.

 

Previous Windows Vista 64bit 17 frames with a lot of stuttering here and there and some times down to 10 frames. With Windows 7 64bit 7100 RC I get minimum 25 Frames with absolutely no Stuttering.

 

It also fixed my audio problems inside cockpit and I can here some very nice sound effects during heavy battles now that previously couldn't. Maybe was the audio drivers of my Asus Xonar DX for Windows 7 that fixed that or the latest version of OpenAL that I installed, I don't know. I am really happy with Windows 7 64bit so far. Stalker CS, Arma 2 and BS perform better with less or no stuttering.

[=SCoRPioN=]

So I tried BS 1.0.1 with Windows 7 64 bit. A huge increase in minimum frame rate in first mission of Oil War Campaign.

 

Previous Windows Vista 64bit 17 frames with a lot of stuttering here and there and some times down to 10 frames. With Windows 7 64bit 7100 RC I get minimum 25 Frames with absolutely no Stuttering.

 

It also fixed my audio problems inside cockpit and I can here some very nice sound effects during heavy battles now that previously couldn't. Maybe was the audio drivers of my Asus Xonar DX for Windows 7 that fixed that or the latest version of OpenAL that I installed, I don't know. I am really happy with Windows 7 64bit so far. Stalker CS, Arma 2 and BS perform better with less or no stuttering.

 

Yeah, Windows 7 rocks!

[vortex360]

Disable Physixx. My frame rates slyrocket even during battle.

[=SCoRPioN=]

Disabling Physx doesnt seem to have an effect on fps, but then again, my system is fast.

Disabling the 3D stereoscopic function will definitely help however.

But I just use older driver that dont have that: 181.71 on Win7, 182.08 on XP.