Thoughts on game performance

[InsaniD]

After testing this game for now over a year, tweaking this and that, upgrading hardware, I have come to the conclusion that DCS Black Shark and some missions, are poorly optimized by Eagle Dynamics, and we are in DIRE need of a new patch for DCS Black Shark.

 

Just to clarify:

This isn't a call for help, because at this point, I have already done everything possible to resolve any frame rate issues with certain maps. When I mean everything possible, I mean the following:

 

-Tweaking various graphic settings (view Medium, water Normal, etc...)

-Uninstalling / re-installing the game

-Upgrading SATA drivers / chipset drivers on my PC

-Reformatting and re-installing Windows 7

-Testing ALchemy to see if I can get Direct Sound to work properly

-And finally, I upgraded my machine to a Core i7 860, with an ASUS i55 Sabertooth motherboard, with 8GB DDR3 1600Mhz, and an ATI Radeon HD 5850 1GB (with Catalyst 10.1 8.69.3 Mass Effect 2 Hotfix)

 

So, I have played this game now on two different system configurations, on my old core 2 duo e8500 with a GTX275, and now my new i7 860 with a Radeon HD 5850.

 

The game overall performs better on my new setup; however, I was disappointed when I noticed that there are still FPS issues with certain missions like Battle, or Death Valley. In Battle, at the very beginning of the mission, there are a barrage of rockets fired from the enemy that explode in succession for approximately 1 minute. During this time, the FPS in the game slows down to under 30 FPS, sometimes dropping under 20 FPS, but after the barrage of rockets, the game's FPS will gradually go back up to a playable frame rate (i.e. 40-50FPS). There are still spots in Battle that will drop the FPS considerably, but nothing as bad as the beginning. On the same note, in Death Valley, the FPS starts off really bad, around the mid 20FPS range, and it does not improve until you get airborne and start leaving the air base. My question to the developers of this game is: What does it take to run this game without any stuttering, or any huge FPS loss. It seems that this game is poorly optimized for multi-core (I understand it is an engine issue, but can't this be addressed somewhat?). I just want to play this game without having to see my FPS drop below 30 FPS under any circumstance. My system specs, even on my old PC were way above the recommended settings, and I still received some performance issues. I know that I am not the only one having these sort of problems, so please, anyone that agrees with me, please comment, and let's send a message to ED that this game needs a new patch ASAP!

 

Note:

I did not make this post to bash ED or any staff of ED, I just want to provide some constructive criticism:pilotfly:

[EtherealN]

The solution for the example with performance during missile barrages and big firefights would be to stop having realistic ballistics simulations as part of the simulator. You'll have trouble selling that concept to people... ;)

 

The reason Battle is rough on computers isn't really a question of optimization, more that the mission designer wanted to provide a really big fight and accepted the fact that it won't be all that fluid on all systems.

[SAM77]

OK I just got my system up and running and Black Shark is not using both cores.

 

I have a 50% cpu load with the 1.01c patch.

 

I can fly online so i have patched correctly.

 

Have they removed the affinity trick which was supposed to be in 1.01A..

 

 

AM I missing something???

[EtherealN]

Yes.

 

Affinity does not mean that it'll run simultaneously on both cores, it means the OS is permitted to move it between the cores (and perform some Dx10 load balancing). 1.0.1c operates exactly like 1.0.1a, the only change is in the installer.

 

For full use of both cores at the same time you need a multithreaded application, which DCS isn't. It is very unlikely to be made multithreaded anytime quick, since that would be a massive operation.

Edited February 17, 2010 by EtherealN

[SAM77]

Cool thanks and phew

[InsaniD]

The solution for the example with performance during missile barrages and big firefights would be to stop having realistic ballistics simulations as part of the simulator. You'll have trouble selling that concept to people... ;)

 

The reason Battle is rough on computers isn't really a question of optimization, more that the mission designer wanted to provide a really big fight and accepted the fact that it won't be all that fluid on all systems.

 

I guess my biggest concern with the way that the DCS series is headed, is that there are no recent patches for the game, and that ultimately with no multicore enhancement, the game will end up running the same on a core 2, as it would on a core i7 and above. I don't think it's too much to ask the developers to look into performance issues in the game engine itself, and also some of the missions. IMHO, ED should not have released a mission if it does not meet certain performance requirements. And finally, with the power that can be harnessed from today's multicore CPUs and GPUs, I'm sure that you can have the cake and eat it too (i.e. advanced ballistics).

[GGTharos]

Eventually multi-threading will be implemented, but it's a future thing ... not sure when exactly it will happen. Incidentally the problem isn't ballistics, I'm sure (Frames don't go to hell just because you have 3-4 tunguskas shooting at you) it may be the smoke/lighting/shadow effects from the rockets as well as potentially the fact that they are radar-trackable etc.

[EvilBivol-1]

I don't think it's too much to ask the developers to look into performance issues in the game engine itself, and also some of the missions.

There is nothing trivial about optimizing game engine performance. It's a fundamental challenge of design and can easily take years to overcome successfully, especially for combat flight sims. Missions with a lot of AI activity, especially when viewed by the player, are known to task the system heavily. I realize you said you had tried lowering the graphics settings, but you didn't mention many specifics, so I wonder if more options could be taken advantage of, including video card AA/AF settings or display resolutions. However, it's true that in some cases performance will dip regardless of what settings you are running.

 

Currently, there are no plans for any performance enhancements for Black Shark. Further down the line, a number of new technologies are in development, but that's a little later.

Edited February 18, 2010 by EvilBivol-1

[Nate--IRL--]

Eventually multi-threading will be implemented, but it's a future thing ... not sure when exactly it will happen. Incidentally the problem isn't ballistics, I'm sure (Frames don't go to hell just because you have 3-4 tunguskas shooting at you) it may be the smoke/lighting/shadow effects from the rockets as well as potentially the fact that they are radar-trackable etc.

 

Have you noticed that all of the tracers in game from, for example a tunguska, cast shadows on the ground? This may be a cause. But fps do go to hell with 3-4 tunguskas firing.

 

Nate

[GGTharos]

Maybe - what are your system specs?

[EtherealN]

The whole discussion of what exactly will cause FPS to "go to hell" is relatively pointless - some systems will roll over and die due to any Smerch battery letting loose, others can live with that by roll over when 3 ships engage their CIWS simultaneously (for a couple thousand bullets to track...), and other systems need a map like Battle to become uncomfortable.

 

My own system can sometimes see small dips around some events (large MLRS formations etc), but the only mission that has ever made me complain to myself was Battle - though it was still properly playable. (And my system is both old and cheap...)

 

I guess my biggest concern with the way that the DCS series is headed, is that there are no recent patches for the game

 

I know PC Gaming people have given many developers a huge amount of slack lately, forgiving any release of shoddy software as long as we get to feel important through spastic installation of patches every week, but I remember a day when there were no patches and the games just worked. (I still miss my Amigas and 8086's) That was because proper Q/A was implemented, since they knew there's be no way to fix it afterwards - a broken game would be a loss and the developer would go bust. Today it doesn't matter - if releasing in Q4 looks better on the financial statements, but the game really needs to be developed until Q1 to be finished - who cares. Release in Q4 and let the users pay to be beta testers. ;)

 

My point being: did you ever consider that DCS:BS doesn't have any "recent patches" because it has a curiously much lower need of patching than pretty much any other game out there? Hell, even tiny games like Osmos needed more patching. :P (Good game tho.)

[159th_Falcon]

May i suggest to take a look at Frazer's tweak guide that can be found HERE.