(Split) A DCS performance discussion

[wess24m]

Spectacular news. I only hope they can finally improve the crappy explosion and damage effects from the first Lock On release. Please look at Battlefield 3 for inspiration. I know its wishful thinking...but imagine FC3 with Battlefield 3 engine.....OMG...that would be spectacular. Also..... for FM respects...can ED stop the wheels from sticking to the runway during landing in legacy (Flaming cliffs aircraft...i..e., Su 27, F 15 etc....) aircraft? It totally ruins the satisfaction of landing.

I'll do you one better, merge bf3 with dcs...you can already designate ground targets for aircraft in bf3 and you can use man-pads (stingers). You'd have a amazing battle raging under you and the immertion factor would be great. wishful thinking wishful thinking.

 

Moderator note: split this discussion from the Future Roadmap thread. /E

Edited November 15, 2011 by EtherealN

[GGTharos]

Ok, how about realistic wishes? BF3 graphics in DCS just isn't going to happen, at least not before processors have about 100x the current computing power. Or videocards, whichever.

[wess24m]

Ok, how about realistic wishes? BF3 graphics in DCS just isn't going to happen, at least not before processors have about 100x the current computing power. Or videocards, whichever.

Isn't that what gfx slider are for :) some of us have the hardware to run with all the goodies on with room for more, I just posted something over in the BS forum about the framerate deal, I have a monster system and bs2 and a-10 brings me "down" to 30+ fps, when i can run bf3 fsx crysis 2 simultaneously (all in max) at 60+

 

need to create this in a tag someday

 

cpu:i7 990 extreme

gfx: gtx 580 (overclocked)

ram: 16 gigs ddr3

[EtherealN]

wess24m, you don't get the point. A Shooter is not a flight simulator.

 

With respoect - comparing them like that only shows that you do not know how these things work under the hood. ;)

[wess24m]

wess24m, you don't get the point. A Shooter is not a flight simulator.

 

With respoect - comparing them like that only shows that you do not know how these things work under the hood. ;)

fsx isn't a shooter either is falcon BMS,I also run skyrim again with fully maxed out setting, I have zero issues with low frame rates with any other software besides DCS products. Your right I don't know how the under the hood stuff works but if it is having issues on my system which has almost the top of the line hardware (They make a gtx590) and it drops the frame rates that much, I'd assume it's something with the code. Unless your using a duel xeon processor machine running 3x sli gtx 590's then i'm not sure how'd you'd even judge how the game would perform with all settings on high. Xplane with all sliders maxed out also runs at between 40-60 FPS so i'm not sure how diffrent the software works

[159th_Viper]

fsx isn't a shooter either is falcon BMS....

 

FSX - Zero Combat etc etc.

 

BMS.......

 

 

Well, that speaks for itself.

[EtherealN]

fsx isn't a shooter either

 

FSX is also extremely simplistic, and doesn't have to deal with half the stuff a combat simulation has to. ;)

 

is falcon BMS

 

Which is based on 12 years old code, looks fairly awful, and has a very simplistic flight model and rudimentary (compared to DCS) modeling of what happens under the hood with avionics, hydraulics, engines etcetera. It does very well for what they have to work with, but it's not comparable.

 

 

I also run skyrim again with fully maxed out setting

 

Skyrim is extremely gentle, by comparison, on your CPU.

Don't think FPS is only a question of graphics. Don't. ;)

 

Unless your using a duel xeon processor machine running 3x sli gtx 590's then i'm not sure how'd you'd even judge how the game would perform with all settings on high.

 

Actually, I run all settings on high with a modded high.lua for even more high-ness, and Mustang's extra-detail noise textures. Runs just fine. ;)

(Oh, and my signature is currently lying - I run everything at stock right now.)

 

Anyway, this is about the future plans road map. If you need assistance checking out what is holding your system back, there is an appropriate section where you can get assistance.

[shagrat]

..., I have a monster system and bs2 and a-10 brings me "down" to 30+ fps, when i can run bf3 fsx crysis 2 simultaneously (all in max) at 60+

 

need to create this in a tag someday

 

cpu:i7 990 extreme

gfx: gtx 580 (overclocked)

ram: 16 gigs ddr3

 

Of course you can run MULTIple programs in parallel on a MULTI-core cpu! It is designed for that :megalol:

 

But for the "Monster" rig, just think about optimization! At work we fight hard with ooold software which is optimized for ooold hardware.

 

The new "monster" systems are not what it's optimized for.

 

It may be like comparing a normal car to a "monster" racing car. In theory it drives much faster, in reality you may end up at the next wall quickly :music_whistling:

 

May "old" system for example runs A-10C quite well, without lowering settings...

Edited November 15, 2011 by shagrat

[wess24m]

FSX is also extremely simplistic, and doesn't have to deal with half the stuff a combat simulation has to. ;)

 

 

 

Which is based on 12 years old code, looks fairly awful, and has a very simplistic flight model and rudimentary (compared to DCS) modeling of what happens under the hood with avionics, hydraulics, engines etcetera. It does very well for what they have to work with, but it's not comparable.

 

 

 

 

Skyrim is extremely gentle, by comparison, on your CPU.

Don't think FPS is only a question of graphics. Don't. ;)

 

 

 

Actually, I run all settings on high with a modded high.lua for even more high-ness, and Mustang's extra-detail noise textures. Runs just fine. ;)

(Oh, and my signature is currently lying - I run everything at stock right now.)

 

Anyway, this is about the future plans road map. If you need assistance checking out what is holding your system back, there is an appropriate section where you can get assistance.

I don't buy your aurgument about DCS being so intensive that it makes everything else seem simple to run, I'm thinking it's un-optimized code, If i can run 3 separate high gfx intensity programs at the same time and it's fine but somehow the DCS programs are more demanding then all 3 put together doesn't add up.

 

As for falcon bms, I wouldn't throw rocks in glass houses, the gfx aren't that much better in dcs (not like night and day) and I can run bms without crashing every 5-10 minutes. You are correct I am being off topic though.

[Eddie]

I don't buy your aurgument about DCS being so intensive that it makes everything else seem simple to run, I'm thinking it's un-optimized code, If i can run 3 separate high gfx intensity programs at the same time and it's fine but somehow the DCS programs are more demanding then all 3 put together doesn't add up.

 

As for falcon bms, I wouldn't throw rocks in glass houses, the gfx aren't that much better in dcs (not like night and day) and I can run bms without crashing every 5-10 minutes. You are correct I am being off topic though.

 

The point is the graphics are not the demanding part of DCS. The flight model is. Do a bit of research on what is actually modelled and what your CPU is having to do and you might understand.

 

Graphics is a very small part of simulations, it's the stuff you don't see that needs the resources.

[EtherealN]

If i can run 3 separate high gfx intensity programs at the same time

 

Ahem:

 

Don't think FPS is only a question of graphics. Don't. ;)

 

;)

[Avilator]

***snipped*** high gfx intensity programs at the same time and it's fine but somehow the DCS programs are more demanding then all 3 put together doesn't add up.

 

This is actually the case. The DCS series is CPU heavy, not GFX heavy, so your CPU will naturally be the bottleneck, even if you have a kick-a$$ video card. Also, the code is not multi-threaded, thus your i7 is only using 1 core to run all of the calculations that go along with a very accurate flight model, and the gfx card has to wait for the data.

 

EthrealN: sometimes I think you get paid for sniping.:D

[wess24m]

Of course you can run MULTIple programs in parallel on a MULTI-core cpu! It is designed for that :megalol:

 

But for the "Monster" rig, just think about optimization! At work we fight hard with ooold software which is optimized for ooold hardware.

 

The new "monster" systems are not what it's optimized for.

 

It may be like comparing a normal car to a "monster" racing car. In theory it drives much faster, in reality you may end up at the next wall quickly :music_whistling:

 

May "old" system for example runs A-10C quite well, without lowering settings...

My point was all these other programs are gfx intensive and they run 4x better then DCS products, both when run alone and at the same time. You can't tell me x-plane doesn't do as many calculations as dcs does.

[EtherealN]

Also, the code is not multi-threaded, thus your i7 is only using 1 core to run all of the calculations

 

2 threads, 2 cores, plus whatever Dx itself gets going.

 

EDIT:

 

You can't tell me x-plane doesn't do as many calculations as dcs does.

 

X-plane is nice, but yes, it's a lightweight in comparison.

[Avilator]

2 threads, 2 cores, plus whatever Dx itself gets going.

 

Ah, OK. I was unaware of that. :book:

[ALDEGA]

You run all three of them simultaneously with 60FPS and graphics at high? Call me a sceptic ...

 

DCS can definitely be optimized (e.g. full use of many-core CPU's would go a long way). The graphics are already quite intensive (I have a significant performance drop when I turn on flood lights, formation lights, position lights, landing&taxi lights ... I'm mostly flying in the dark :D)

 

Anyway, we're digressing from the OP. This discussion belongs in the Game Performance forum.

[Guest Fury_007]

I have no clue what it takes to write code for single, dual, or quad cores. How much more difficult is it? Does anyone even still use a single core computer? Any programmers out there?

[ALDEGA]

It's not evident, but it is needed ...

[EtherealN]

Two pictures to indicate how terribly bad performance is in DCS. ;)

 

Settings are all-high except MSAA 8x and Water Low, with Mustangs modified high.lua and terrain noise to make it even more high. At the same time, 720p video is playing on the second screen. System as signature except the overclock is not currently in use.

 

Had to resize the images to fit inside attachment size limits.

Edited November 15, 2011 by EtherealN

[metalnwood]

I don't buy your aurgument about DCS being so intensive that it makes everything else seem simple to run, I'm thinking it's un-optimized code, If i can run 3 separate high gfx intensity programs at the same time and it's fine but somehow the DCS programs are more demanding then all 3 put together doesn't add up.

 

 

I have noticed the same thing in other simulation software, specifically with supercomputers modeling various cosmic events.

 

I know personally, having played various space games from the early wing commanders to some of the later stuff that that these games look like they have galaxies the same as the ones in the supercomputers. the stunning thing is that they are real time in the game yet the supercomputer takes a long time to get the same thing.

 

You would think that nasa could hire better people and optimise their code as well. At the least I should be able to show them starwars universe on my i5 and then see what they have to say.

[shagrat]

My point was all these other programs are gfx intensive and they run 4x better then DCS products, both when run alone and at the same time. You can't tell me x-plane doesn't do as many calculations as dcs does.

 

X-plane does "only" calculate foils, fuselage and windstreams IIRC.

 

No Engines, no generators with electric circuits, no IFFCC, no DSMS, no CMS, no GCAS, no TGP, no MAV seekers, no TAD, no extensive avionics, no damage model, no ground fighting AI, no CBU spread no Blasts no... ok, ok, I give it a break, but it is sooo obvious where all the performance is needed :doh:

 

I agree a utilization of more than two cores would be great I guess, but as already discussed in another thread, no SW apart from scientific research etc. will soon utilize 4 cores or more, esp. not games focused on 4 year old arcade consoles like PS3 and xbox 360...

[ALDEGA]

Note: Both PS3 and XBOX360 are multicore systems ;)

[macedk]

I don't buy your aurgument about DCS being so intensive that it makes everything else seem simple to run, I'm thinking it's un-optimized code, If i can run 3 separate high gfx intensity programs at the same time and it's fine but somehow the DCS programs are more demanding then all 3 put together doesn't add up.

 

As for falcon bms, I wouldn't throw rocks in glass houses, the gfx aren't that much better in dcs (not like night and day) and I can run bms without crashing every 5-10 minutes. You are correct I am being off topic though.

 

Bold statement.....:cry:

[EtherealN]

Aldega,

Very weak though. ;)

 

But consoles also have one very major advantage: a 100% known hardware and software environment where you can code your product directly to the hardware. This has major gains both in simplifying development and making it easier to harness the power in the processor.

 

Also, you should be careful about comparing those computer architectures. People say the PS3 is an "eight-core", for example, which is technically sort of true but not in the same sense that holds for x86 processors. (It has one, two-thread, unit that sort of works like a traditional processor core, which then has 7 slaves that are sort of analogous to glorified FPU's.) The Xbox 360 has three of the PPE cores in the PS3's Cell processor but none of the slaves.

[ALDEGA]

no SW apart from scientific research etc. will soon utilize 4 cores or more, esp. not games focused on 4 year old arcade consoles like PS3 and xbox 360...

This is not correct. Even Excel 2007 (which RTM'ed 5 years ago) uses multiple cores (as many as physically available) for certain calculations.