How do I get the best performance

[johnco61]

I hope someone can help me get the best from this game!! I seem to be getting low frame rate / performance with my setup even with medium to low settings. Having read lots of comments on this site I think I should be getting better but being new to this I don’t understand most of it. Can someone point me in the right direction so I can get the best performance possible?

Things I’m having problems with

How do you see your frame rate?

Looked at altering Black Shark LUA file as suggested in one article but can’t open it.

What is DCS Max

I read you can only use the duel processor if using Vista but I have also read that DCS Max can do this

Any info would be appreciated Ta

Spec

P4 3Gig D Processor

NVIDA 9800GT Graphics

4Gig RAM

[mrbinkels]

Your cpu is not going to cut it. I had the same cpu as you do and DCS ran like crap. I did a complete upgrade for this game and am happy with how it "runs".

 

That being said I think I had to run it at the lowest possible settings (with the P4 cpu) and it still would not average 30fps. Good luck.

[Feuerfalke]

I hope someone can help me get the best from this game!! I seem to be getting low frame rate / performance with my setup even with medium to low settings. Having read lots of comments on this site I think I should be getting better but being new to this I don’t understand most of it. Can someone point me in the right direction so I can get the best performance possible?

 

Things I’m having problems with

 

How do you see your frame rate?

Looked at altering Black Shark LUA file as suggested in one article but can’t open it.

What is DCS Max

I read you can only use the duel processor if using Vista but I have also read that DCS Max can do this

 

Any info would be appreciated Ta

 

Spec

P4 3Gig D Processor

NVIDA 9800GT Graphics

4Gig RAM

 

 

Welcome to your new addiction. :D

 

Okay, I'll try to answer your questions one by one:

How do you open .lua-files? With the wordpad or notepad. Rightclick the .lua-file and chose "open with" and pick wordpad from the list.

I recommend to do this as a last resort, though. As you said, you're new to this, so you can do more harm than you can imagine.

 

DCSMax was a nice tool. Before the patch DCS-BS was set to run on one Core only. You could set it manually to spread over more cores, though, but that was a PITA to do it every time you started BlackShark. So DCSMax was made to help you out. After Patch 101 you no longer need that tool, because BlackShark automatically uses all available cores.

 

Does DCSMax help with XP? No. The problem is not DCSMax or BlackShark, but the fact that XP was made when nobody thought about having CPUs with multiple cores and 99% of the clients using XP also had no multiple CPUs. While XP was later upgraded to benefit a bit better from multiple CPUs/Cores, these patches are still workarounds and don't boost performance. Vista/Win7 is built for these processors can utilize these multiple CPUs/Cores a lot better, especially for games, it seems.

 

If you have a processor with 2 or more cores, Vista/Win7 is worth a second thought.

 

You can see ingame FPS when pushing RightControl and ScrollLock? (the key between "Print" and "Break")

 

Game performance depends a lot on CPU and memory, but overall performance also depends on what resolution you are playing at, what image-quality options you have enabled (FSAA/AF) and at least to a certain degree, which drivers you use. In your case, the CPU is probably the weakest link in the chain, though.

 

Hope this answers at least some of your questions.

[Waldo_II]

With most people, issues with performance and framerate are caused by graphical limitations. Their computers, specifically their CPU, can handle the complex calculations going on, which isn't often too difficult, but their graphics cards and amount of RAM are the limiting factors. They cannot render images fast enough to keep up with the computations going on offscreen. This causes low framerates. This is easily solved by lowering graphical demands, such as using lower-quality texture settings, less detailed 3D models, less complex shading algorithms, and lowering the rendering distance (view distance).

 

 

 

Your computer has the opposite going on. Your computer can handle the graphical component fairly well. Instead of the graphical area being the chokepoint, your CPU is limiting you. Your CPU cannot perform the calculations fast enough to keep up with real time. It is simply too slow, too old. This is a much worse situation than a graphical chokepoint for two reasons: You cannot reduce computational requirements like you can graphical ones. The computations are the center of the game. Eliminate some calculations, and the game can be drastically different, unlike graphics, where you can change settings and still have the same game. Number two, it is much more difficult to upgrade a CPU than a graphics card, especially in a pre-built computer. Dell often bolts the heatsink/fan system down to the motherboard, making CPU changes impossible. If you wish to upgrade your CPU, there is a chance it will be more difficult than if you custom-built your computer yourself. Plus, CPUs tend to run more expensive than graphics cards, and warranties aren't up to par either. That isn't to say it is impossible, it certainly can be done in most cases. It just isn't like swapping one component out for another, like RAM or graphics cards. There is a procedure to doing it (fail to adjust your heatsink/fan properly or forget thermal paste, and your 60-nanometer wide transistors will turn into the worst tasting mashed potatoes in history).

 

 

Solutions to improve fluidity of gameplay are these: turn off full-realism mode, and turn down some graphical options. Many parts of graphics processing require the CPU to be involved. Turning down shadows, view distance, and any sort of light-bloom or HDR effects will undoubtedly bring performance up. Also, try turning on simple avionics; this option uses simplified calculations instead of the full simulation ones that take up more CPU time.

 

Another very, very large method of performance enhancement is turning off background processes. Not only should you turn off stuff like iTunes and internet browsers and MSN/AIM/Skype clients, but also the unused system processes that run unnoticed. All of these take up CPU power, and turning them off will free up space for DCS.exe. I recommend Game Booster. Simply run this before starting up DCS, and it will turn off a lot of system processes for you. When you are done, you can turn them all back on again.

[johnco61]

Thanks a lot lads for all your help, it seems to be normal form buy a new game need a new computer!!!!

 

I seem to run FSX ok and lock-on fly’s along brilliantly, I can get the sim to run ok if I set the graphics and so on to minimum but that doesn’t cut it with me!! I like eye candy. I admit the processor is out of date but don’t think its a P4,

 

system info calls them

Processor x86 Family 15 Model 4 Stepping 4 GenuineIntel ~2999 Mhz

Processor x86 Family 15 Model 4 Stepping 4 GenuineIntel ~2999 Mhz

 

I’ve lost touch with processors so could you recommend one that will give me a worthwhile boost for my money, there seems to be lots to choose from nowadays not as simple as P4 2.5 Gig or P4 3Gig, also why all the different socket types? I would also get a board to suite wouldn’t bother trying to replace the processor on its own. Also what advantages are there of strapping two graphics cards together? Is it worth the new card and board with two PCIe Slots?

 

Once again thanks for the help

[Warbird_242]

I'd say your PC will run DCS fine! I have almost the same specs as you, possibly slightly worse, and I can run DCS on the Georgia campaign on medium/high settings. With DCS, even at the lowest settings the scenery blows FSX away.

[EtherealN]

To recommend a processor upgrade we'd need to know which motherboard you have, since you need to know what you can support with your hardware. I would recommend the CPU-Z software: http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php

 

Through that you'll get a screen like this:

 

That and the motherboard tab will give all the information needed, in detail.

 

The reason why there's so many sockets right now is that Intel is in the middle of a major generation transition. The different sockets allow different types of interfaces between the processor and the rest of the hardware - the i7's chipsets for example don't have an FSB on the motherboards, since that's handled on the CPU under a different name - memory control and so on is integrated.

 

A search on "Processor x86 Family 15 Model 4 Stepping 4 GenuineIntel" did indicate that it appears to indeed be a P4.

 

The reason why it manages FSX and Lock On well but not DCS is that those two products are a lot less computation-intensive. They use tables for deriving aerodynamic behaviour (basically, someone already ran a simulation trying to cover most of the flight envelope, and when you play it just says "so I'm at 200kts IAS at X air pressure, 5 degree alpha and 1.3g load factor... so table says I should do this"). Though I do think the new Su25 flight model in Flaming Cliffs goes to more detail than that. DCS however breaks down the components of the aircraft and runs realtime simulation of the airflows, momentums and so on. There's also much more detail in the simulation of radio, hydraulics, electronics, the lasers, ballistics and so on.

 

Using two graphics cards at the same time (or three in the case of Tri-SLI) generally causes you to get more performance. However, it usually requires that the game engine either is written for this or the driver can spread the load anyway. There are however occassions where it can actually decrease performance - especially in the TriSLI configurations (saw a test on Far Cry 2 where adding a third card decreased performance from the regular SLI due to the memory lanes pretty much getting choked).

 

I do not know how well SLI and Crossfire work with DCS though. I have a Tri-SLI motherboard but use only the one graphics card.

 

With luck, you should not be forced to replace the entire machine, but rather just the processor, but more information on the system would be needed to be able to try to give good advice there.

 

----

 

Warbird, mind sharing your system spec for comparison? I suspect the performance difference between XP and Vista can have a big impact in that range of processors (looks like Pentium D 925 or 930 actually, when I checked some tables and not P4. Processor naming is a jungle. :P ), with Vista/W7's superior multicore handling giving a nice boost.

Edited October 2, 2009 by EtherealN

[mrbinkels]

I'd say your PC will run DCS fine! I have almost the same specs as you, possibly slightly worse, and I can run DCS on the Georgia campaign on medium/high settings. With DCS, even at the lowest settings the scenery blows FSX away.

 

 

SPECS please

[Cowflab]

I downloaded game booster (GB) upon Waldo II's suggestion, and after some experimentation (and some GB research before installing) ive got some results. Nothing spectacular but may help lower spec users.

 

My normal cpu and mem load according to Task Manager (this is without track-ir or fraps running, and obviously without DCS)

2% cpu - 192mb

 

With GB on and enabled

2% cpu - 181mb (keep in mind enabling GB increases the mem usage before enabling, but enabling it reduces total mem usage overall)

 

Enabling Track-Ir 4 (using track-ir 5 software)

2%- 4% cpu - 245mb (GB disabled)

2%-4% cpu - 235mb (with GB enabled)

 

I didnt do any tests with DCS, because i just got off of work and ive had a few beers....but using game booster reduced my memory usage by 10mb. Ill do some tests with DCS in the near future and see what happens. I like the program though, its much easier than shutting down services manually.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Cowflab

[Lava]

Best -practical- tip for me (aside from stuff like upgrade) was setting Shadows to 0 in the options.lua file.

 

["shadows"] = 0,

 

Really did wonders to keep my FPS above 30 and towards 60.

[Cowflab]

To add to Lavas suggestion, and taken from 159th Viper in a similar post!

 

Navigate to your Eagle Dynamics\Ka-50\BlackShark\data\scripts folder and open the options.lua with Notepad++ and find the following entries in red:

 

["heatBlr"] = 1,

["scenes"] = "high",

["water"] = 1,

["fullScreen"] = true,

["visibRange"] = "High",

 

["effects"] = 3,

["lights"] = 2,

["haze"] = 0,

["terrPrld"] = "40",

 

Edit and Save to the following:

 

["heatBlr"] = 1,

["scenes"] = "high",

["water"] = 0,

["fullScreen"] = true,

["visibRange"] = "High",

 

["effects"] = 2,

["lights"] = 1,

["haze"] = 0,

["terrPrld"] = "40",

 

"Note that some of the settings in black are set higher than what i use, i.e, heat blur, visible range"

[johnco61]

Warbird 242 that sounds encouraging are you run windows XP or Vista? Have you done any tweaks etc etc

EtherealN I’ll try this software when I get back on my machine but will probably replace the motherboard as well. That way I’m not restricted on the processor I can use, I was thinking of getting a board with 2 x PCI e slots anyway but you’ve put me off that idea, if it won’t make much difference then I could replace the graphics card later for a higher spec, the card I have at the moment is the best card I could get that would fit on to my motherboard (they don’t take into consideration the fact that these new cards have to fit onto a motherboard then into a computer case when they make them). So what am I looking for? is it as simple as the more cores and highest clock speed I can afford, or is there anything else to conceder i.e. dose the socket type make a difference to performance. I have always used intel in the past don’t really know why!! Could be talked into AMD

Thanks for that in-depth reply by the way its much appreciated

John

[EtherealN]

My pleasure, John. :)

 

The AMD and Intel debate is in a high state of flux, but right now the easiest description of the state of affairs is that Intel is more powerful while AMD is cheaper. If money is an object you could check out AMD but I myself is sticking with Intel for now. I definitely know what you mean with graphics card sizes though - I myself simply bought one of the biggest computer cases around (The CoolerMaster 932 HAF fulltower) to solve the issue. :P

 

It's not quite a matter of just more cores = more performance. Usually it would be, but that is application dependant. For example, a 4-core system running at 3GHz will have more computation power than a 2-core system at 4GHz (like mine, see signature), but it's not all applications that can actually take advantage of that. To take advantage of multiple cores an application needs to be programmed for it - the technique is called multithreading where the process is split into multiple jobs, and the various cores are basically given their own tasks. An example of how it can look is the design of the Rise of Flight WW1 simulator recently released, where on a two-core system it'll assign one core to work on physics and another to work on AI and such.

 

DCS is currently not multithreaded, though, so for that application my overclocked E8500 will outperform a stock Qxxxx chip even if the latter has more total computation power on paper, simply because the application only runs in a single "thread". It's a common request for ED to make DCS multithreaded, but this is an absolutely massive job for them to do and I would not expect it at least within the next year or two.

 

So for DCS the main thing you'd use to gauge processor power is the clock rate - higher is better.

 

This is however a truth with some modification, since different processor types will do different amounts of work on each clock, but that gets really complex. You could say that an i7 running at 3GHz will outperform an E8400 at the same clock speed, but not by much. At that point the other components in the system become more important. Note that this is for DCS:BS specifically; for general use that i7 would blow the E8400 out of the water. :P

 

However, having more cores will add advantages in that the OS can place other jobs on "free" cores - like itself. :P So if you want to run many background jobs at the same times having those extra two cores of a quad system would help, but it won't affect total maximum performance.

 

When it comes to the motherboard, I would say that this is a component you should absolutely not be cheap on. It's the core of the system. If money is an object I'd say purchase a quality motherboard and save on RAM, CPU, HDD capacity and such. Those are easier to switch in the future. I would also recommend getting a motherboard that is geared towards overclocking, since that can offer very cheap performance upgrades later. I am personally very happy with the XFX 780i motherboard I use (it also has three PCIe slots), and it was pretty cheap. However, it is limited to DDR2 memory so if I built the system today I would probably have gone for a similar board but with DDR3 support. As you can see in my signature though, it has served me well and allowed me to do a lot of very nice stuff with cheap components.

 

So I'd say your course of action would be this:

Decide on a processor. If money is an object, check out AMD. Otherwise Intel. Read some comparative reviews on the net.

Find a couple candidate motherboards for your selected processor (doublechecking sockets is extremely important here, especially since Intel currently has three sockets in use), and repeat the review-reading cycle.

Then select RAM if you cannot use the RAM you already have.

 

Then consider the future. For example, if you expect to keep the system on an upgrading schedule for several years, socket 775 systems like mine (Exxxx and Qxxxx) aren't necessarily the best. I suspect it'll be phased out pretty soon, though I haven't seen a schedule with anything definite on that yet.

 

On the clock speeds of processors, there is one further thing to consider: overclocking. If you are open to the idea of overclocking you can get a lower-clock processor and run it at speeds above and beyond it's higher-price siblings (like I do, my E8500 is 3.16GHz in stock, I run it at 4GHz, the E8600 is 3.3GHz stock). This is a reasonably safe operation to do if you've done homework, and part of the point about never skimping on the motherboard is due to this. You might not be intending to overclock right away, but it can be a nice option to have for the future in case you, some day down the line, find yourself wanting more performance but don't have the money to spend.

 

---

 

Oh, and one thing I almost forgot: Vista. Use it. It has multicore support built-in from the start, which XP doesn't, which means Vista is a lot better at handling the hardware we give the OS to work with nowadays - especially since we're starting to see 6- and 8-core prototypes where this will become even more important. :P

Edited October 3, 2009 by EtherealN

[Spider76]

good program the Game Booster.

befrore mem usage 1.66GB with Black Shark

and with Game Booster 1.50GB mem load with Black Shark.

[viperBAT36]

this info is really interesting.i "see" alot of you run way...WAY better systems than me!however,i can run BlackShark wide open(everything maxed out) with winxp x64,nvidia 8400gs 512mb card,2.05gb ram,2.4ghz proc.(yep 2.4ghz)....lots of explosions slow down frame rate,but nothing else does....hmmm.i guess i'm just happy...poor,but,happy none the less!I love this sim!COMPLETELY ADDICTING!

 

the "poor mans guide to having fun!"....strange....in a strange way....strangely....?????

[mrbinkels]

this info is really interesting.i "see" alot of you run way...WAY better systems than me!however,i can run BlackShark wide open(everything maxed out) with winxp x64,nvidia 8400gs 512mb card,2.05gb ram,2.4ghz proc.(yep 2.4ghz)....lots of explosions slow down frame rate,but nothing else does....hmmm.i guess i'm just happy...poor,but,happy none the less!I love this sim!COMPLETELY ADDICTING!

 

the "poor mans guide to having fun!"....strange....in a strange way....strangely....?????

 

 

I assume you are talking about a intel core 2 duo. What resolution are you running?

[Migo]

Also 8400gs is really bad graphics card, but should be enough if you dont use high resolutions though.

I don't even know which graphics card Nvidia did rename to have this one. Could be 3 years old 6800gt or 7600gt.

 

Edit: Oh my fault. As I googled I found out 8400gs is on the level of a Geforce 4 TI 4800 or FX 5700, which would be about 8 years ago ='D

I would strictly recommend to grab a new one. Cheap and enough for DCS would be 8800gt (also called 9800gt) HD 4850 or HD3870.

 

I remember a friend some time ago "Damn got a new nice PC, look at my new Ati X1300 graphics card" and he didn't realise it was worse then the one he had before ( Ati 9800pro) just because he thought new name means better card.

 

Nearly all Nvidia cards ending with gs or gso are, excuse my language, shit.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Migo

[viperBAT36]

i'm running 1024x768 res.(i hear laughter)...again still,graphics look great for what i have!

[viperBAT36]

nvidia control panel gives me great options,and,i'm pleased.i bought this computer from Masonic Brother,and maybe its not "sexy" like the mutant rigs out there,but,for $150.00 bucks,i cannot complain!i run good fps and no hitching.....just have to learn this sim first,and any upgrades will come later.for now i'm very happy.now....if the "POWERS THAT BE"will get dsl into my area(runs like crap on dail-up...YEESH....)i'll be able to get online with my brother in Texas.alas,still wishing.....

[EtherealN]

You do know that there's a button named "edit" on your posts, and that there's a reason for that, right? :P

[viperBAT36]

uhh...Migo....if the sim runs on my rig,with my specs,why in the world would my card be...quote,un-quote be"shit"?because i don't have a higher number?because you have run this or any other game on this card?do you have any exp on this card,or because you have a card that has a higher number than mine?c'mon,dude,it runs just fine for me.i don't get into the LATEST AND GREATEST vid card....THIS CARD WILL MAKE YOU POPULAR!THIS LATEST CARD WILL MAKE YOU HOT WITH ALL THE SUPERMODELS!....please!if it works,i'm happy.i can run this with no problems.guess i gotta keep up with the Jones'....NOT.

[Spider76]

pec

P4 3Gig D Processor

to me its like running X software with H system ..

upgrade ur system / pc is the key to have playable experience.

[EtherealN]

It's pretty easy to make a judgement on a card, viperBAT.

 

8400GS:

Pixel fillrate: 1800 megapixel per second

Texture fillrate: 3600 megatexel per second

 

6600GT (released November 2004):

Pixel fillrate: 2000 megapixel per second

Texture fillrate: 4000 megatexel per second

 

Now, that's not entirely a fair comparison since the 8400 has programmable shaders and the 6600 doesn't (if memory serves), but that's an illustration.

 

So then, let's compare to a mid-line card of today, say - the GeForce 9800 GT (starting at 89 dollars on newegg):

Pixel Fillrate: 9600 megapixel per second

Texture Fillrate: 33000 megatexel per second

 

Now, those two specific stats aren't everything, but as you can see there's a dramatic difference. No reason to throw a hissy because he said something bad about your graphics card. It's awesome if it works for you, but it is not a "good" graphics card in the general sense any more than my old 6600 is "good". It was when it was new though. You don't have to take an opinion about your graphics card as an attack on you personally. ;)

Edited October 7, 2009 by EtherealN

[Spider76]

my process toward to quad:

do only do surf ie dont do 3D games (no need for quad).

 

if do you want to do ur own youtube vids ?

 

to me i choose cos for their are cheap (quad).

 

(i dont know what im doing tommorow,

ie 3D ..or gaming X game or doiing database stuff, etc)

 

thats why go max (and selcted to go quad)

 

i do not know if i have to run K game or so ...

my mind goes when asking next computer is what in

earth i will do the next 3 years..run K game or do H stuff

or both . . . usually i need both ..in the fututre ..

Edited October 7, 2009 by Spider76

[viperBAT36]

ummm....a playable experience?.....i guess my rig doesn't give me that....no...wait it does....wait,i don't have 8 trillion terra bytes of ram....i don't have a 10 jillion terra hertz processor....OMG!i don't have an nvidia ge-special forces military edition 10,000,000,000 xt stealth microwave usb satellite infused carbon ion-propelled video card!GOOD GOD! HOW WILL I SURVIVE?!!!.....c'mon people...we ALL can play this sim(unless we have a Commadore64)....UPGRADE?when someone sends me the money that some have spent just to play a sim....then i'll upgrade.for now i'll use what i have and enjoy it.try making it on $400.00/month with $2000.00/month in basic,life sustaining bills......but,enjoying a new sim,without searching for why my $8 billion dollar system won't run it?PRICELESS.