Poor performance with any setting. And request to developers.

[jtmedina]

I just downloaded DCS World hoping to get better performance than on FC and DCS A-10. Unfortunately it seems nothing has changed.

 

I tried changing graphics settings from low to high, keeping textures always high and strangely I get similar performance no matter the settings. As in previous versions flying over any town or city is mission impossible getting less than 20 fps when I leave towns no more than 30. I know that DCS series are hardcore simulation but with my rig I was expecting at least 40 fps in medium settings.

 

I have latest drivers and I know my system is not the problem. That's for sure.

 

Having said that, I don't think I'll buy the next coming addon or any other DCS addon.

I really love the DCS series but I think overall performance is horrible and doesn't allow me to have a good simulation experience. I haven't been able to completely enjoy any of the DCS sims because having any kind of gameplay is almost impossible and after learning the flight systems of the A-10 I just quit playing it because of that.

 

I guess we pay for a software and that's all, if it doesn't work just shut my mouth up or upgrade computer.

 

For people like me having to upgrade my PC is just a luxury. If I just could enjoy the sims I love without having to ruin my precarious economy I'll appreciate it.

 

 

My Computer Specs:

 

- Quad Core 2 @2.50

- 4 GB RAM

- ATI 5770 1 GB

[sobek]

I know that DCS series are hardcore simulation but with my rig I was expecting at least 40 fps in medium settings.

 

- Quad Core 2 @2.50

 

The problem is that your CPU clock is rather slow. You might want to look into overclocking it, but even then, you will not get *good* performance out of it.

[Boomer]

Your CPU is slow, as is mine, and the graphic card isn't the very best one either. Do not expect to get > 30fps anywhere after all that's 4-5 years old hardware, but then again 30fps is playable IMO.

 

DCS begs for high frequency CPU. :(

[Skymad]

I have Phenom 2 X4 955 and HD6950, and I suffer from lags in DCS:World... FPS are much worse than normal 1.1.1.1 version. I am playing on mostly medium settings, Catalyst 12.4. AA and AF "application controlled". Any tips? "The push" missions are unplayable at some moments like CBU explosion or being at airport...

[Terminal Meltdown]

 

I guess we pay for a software and that's all, if it doesn't work just shut my mouth up or upgrade computer.

 

My Computer Specs:

 

- Quad Core 2 @2.50

- 4 GB RAM

- ATI 5770 1 GB

 

If you want to play with new software, you're gonna need new hardware.

Overclock the crap out of the quad core. The ATI 5770 is complete fail, try upgrading that first. Ram is cheap now a days, so there is no reason not to upgrade that to 8gig.

 

If it's that bad for you, and you don't want to upgrade the hardware, try playing some older flight titles. Comanche 4 by Novalogic is an awesome helo game - your machine will rock it with no problem. I use to play that game a lot back in the day.

[Mustang]

The ATI 5770 is complete fail, try upgrading that first.

 

Actually that was the last card i was using in my system and it performed just fine in DCS, its the CPU running at a low speed and the 4gb of system RAM thats holding him back.

[jtmedina]

DCS engine is as old as my hardware. They are running it using "brute force". I don't think the CPU and GPU requirements are according to the eye candy of DCS.

 

I guess until I have enough money to upgrade, I am out.

 

To be honest, since the first time I bought Lockon, I have never fully enjoyed any DCS or previous versions, It's a complete struggle every time I buy a new version and give it a new chance to find bad performance most of the time, flying over any town brings the computer to its knees.

 

When I have enough money to upgrade my hardware, performance will be horrible again. There is no way I can keep up.

 

Just be clear I love DCS but it's simply I can't continue buying it when most of the time I end up uninstalling it because I can't properly run the sim and the extra money on hardware doesn't really pay off for the eye candy.

[jtmedina]

Actually that was the last card i was using in my system and it performed just fine in DCS, its the CPU running at a low speed and the 4gb of system RAM thats holding him back.

 

RAM is just fine. I checked and DCS doesn't take more than 1.5-1.7 of ram even less.

 

CPU is the bottle neck, but the problem in part is in the DCS engine itself. There is no way I can get so low fps even at low settings when the whole map looks like a desert.

 

Sorry if I give you bad news.

[Mustang]

Out of interest, what kind of settings do you use in your CCC? are you forcing any anti aliasing or anisotropic filtering settings above application preference?

[jtmedina]

Out of interest, what kind of settings do you use in your CCC? are you forcing any anti aliasing or anisotropic filtering settings above application preference?

 

I have set it to application preference.

 

I am aware that forcing antialiasing or anisotropic can in some cases decrease performance. That was one of the things I checked.

[Pikey]

I've got the same except a Phenom 2, 3.1 clock dual core. Sim runs well on that setup at full settings (win7 64bit) if you don;t have Civ traffic on.

I found ATI Catalyst garbage for this application and used the default ATI driver from Windows update. (thats not to say its different with other things)

I have some problems with my Trackir3 CPU wise. The CPU burns at 80% ish.

I can completely kill it with a CBU though. For about -30 FPS if you drop all your CBU's it will bring it to a halt, I mean stationary for 30 secs.

Lose the catalyst, lose the trackir, try a clean build with minimal background CPU apps and have a shot.

[jtmedina]

I've got the same except a Phenom 2, 3.1 clock dual core. Sim runs well on that setup at full settings (win7 64bit) if you don;t have Civ traffic on.

I found ATI Catalyst garbage for this application and used the default ATI driver from Windows update. (thats not to say its different with other things)

I have some problems with my Trackir3 CPU wise. The CPU burns at 80% ish.

I can completely kill it with a CBU though. For about -30 FPS if you drop all your CBU's it will bring it to a halt, I mean stationary for 30 secs.

Lose the catalyst, lose the trackir, try a clean build with minimal background CPU apps and have a shot.

 

Believe me I have already tried all of that. It's not the drivers or background apps or services because I have even shut down almost any thing including desktop themes.

When the game is running I have +1 GB free and the game itself occupies 1.5GB on ram, so that's not the problem.

 

Trackir is using the 3 core and with my Quad Core 2 TrackIR only uses less than 25% of it.

 

 

Besides, the problem here is that the DCS engine is not optimized. There is no way there can barely be a difference in performance with settings in low to med, high settings are possible if you are the one happy playing it at 20 frames on runway.

 

Also, If you are saying you drop a CBU and it can bring your computer to a halt then, there is no way the DCS engine is optimized.

 

I think I'll have to wait until I have some money to upgrade my PC.

 

I guess developers think we all have money to spend in upgrades. Lucky they must be.

Edited June 5, 2012 by jtmedina

[Pikey]

Actually I had a four flight of F-15e's drop all their CBU's at once. Must have been over 1000 bomblets to follow :)

Your trackir uses up to 25% CPU on core 3? Wasn't sure if that was what you meant.

Don't think multicore is idea for gaming, better for windows multitasking. It's a bit difficult to pull out anything to help you with from your descriptions so far by the way. I don't have your problems with a similar setup, but DCS certainly isn't like say a certain commercial simulator from a top technology company we probably all know. Now that is dire on performance. Good luck!

[Pikey]

Oh dear, I should have checked your history before I posted. Seems you have been having performance problems for more than two years on that hardware. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=991537&postcount=410

 

Performance problems in Lock On you say? Will try the demo and then buy it you say?

 

Considering the history of issues here and the help and advice previously you've been given, I'm wondering why you are posting?

 

PS Thats a rhetorical question.

[VAOZoky]

I have i5 2500k @4.2Ghz HD4850 1gb and 8gb RAM and i have terible performance. At high quality i get ~18-20fps. At low i got ~45-50 over town and that is not acceptable. Dont even ask me what fps i get when i drop some bombs:mad:. Now if someone want to say that 4850 is bad card, well i get 35-40fps in Crysis with mix of high-very high settings. BF3 same thing. Shogun 2:total war DX9 benchmark high settings with ultra unit size 49.2 average fps with 2xAA and 4xAF. Another power-hog ARMA2 runs suprisingly well with 37 average fps at high settings (AA low AF normal) in dayz mod. My steam name is z0ky so u can check that im not makeing this up. I think that ED should stop with new features and fix (optimize) existing ones!

Now that i think of it, i dont now single game/sim that runs bad on my computer. And here is the list of my resourse-heavy games/sims:

 

Supreme Commander + Forged Alliance

Shogun2:Total War

Civilization 5

ArmA 2 + OA

Crysis + Warhead + Crysis 2

Skyrim

Battlefield 3 + Back to Karkand

FSX + REX + GEX + UTX max settings ~25fps over large city at night

Silent Hunter 5

...

 

Every one of those supports quadcore and that's the HUGE problem with DCS. It supports only 1.1 core (0.1 goes to sound engine). I've seen screenshots of nevada with fps counter and it does'nt look optimistic to me (76-114 on empty map with F2 view). I get similar fps in DCS with F2 view on map with AI (50-80fps).

 

PS. my screen is 19' wide 1440x900

Edited June 6, 2012 by VAO*Zoky

[VAOZoky]

One more thing. In FC2 i get great fps. At last opfor i got over 120fps average with fps somethimes going over 200+ at max settings.

Facelift of DCS does'nt justify that much loss of fps for me :(

[DDSSTT]

Oh dear, I should have checked your history before I posted. Seems you have been having performance problems for more than two years on that hardware. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=991537&postcount=410

 

Performance problems in Lock On you say? Will try the demo and then buy it you say?

 

Considering the history of issues here and the help and advice previously you've been given, I'm wondering why you are posting?

 

PS Thats a rhetorical question.

 

That's funny... Forums really need a "like" button for other peoples posts and not just on the topic itself because I would Like the Hell-Outta this one! :lol:

[cichlidfan]

 

I guess developers think we all have money to spend in upgrades. Lucky they must be.

 

Do yourself a favor. Spend the money on the PC first, then buy games and see if they run. Doing it the other way around (buying FC and A-10 even though BS1 and LockOn were having issues) is wasting money that you could have been putting into your machine.

[jmod]

Don't get me wrong, but you're talking about TFCSE (a 15-year old game engine, the heart of DCS World), so don't expect too much performance!

 

This is where Outerra has something to say:

- Realistic looking terrain with high detail

- Fully asynchronous multi-threaded design able to utilize all available CPU cores

- Terrain and fractal algorithms running completely on the GPU (releasing CPU for aircraft system)

[VAOZoky]

Don't get me wrong, but you're talking about TFCSE (a 15-year old game engine, the heart of DCS World), so don't expect too much performance!

 

This is where Outerra has something to say:

- Realistic looking terrain with high detail

- Fully asynchronous multi-threaded design able to utilize all available CPU cores

- Terrain and fractal algorithms running completely on the GPU (releasing CPU for aircraft system)

 

Until someone make atleast FC quality sim with it, Outerra will be useless to me and i will keep bitching about DCS performance because I care :wub:

[jtmedina]

Oh dear, I should have checked your history before I posted. Seems you have been having performance problems for more than two years on that hardware. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=991537&postcount=410

 

Performance problems in Lock On you say? Will try the demo and then buy it you say?

 

Considering the history of issues here and the help and advice previously you've been given, I'm wondering why you are posting?

 

PS Thats a rhetorical question.

 

You are very dishonest.

[jtmedina]

Actually I had a four flight of F-15e's drop all their CBU's at once. Must have been over 1000 bomblets to follow :)

Your trackir uses up to 25% CPU on core 3? Wasn't sure if that was what you meant.

Don't think multicore is idea for gaming, better for windows multitasking. It's a bit difficult to pull out anything to help you with from your descriptions so far by the way. I don't have your problems with a similar setup, but DCS certainly isn't like say a certain commercial simulator from a top technology company we probably all know. Now that is dire on performance. Good luck!

 

 

For what's worth wasting my time and energy with you.

 

I have bought Lock on, Flaming Cliffs, Black Shark and DCS A-10C. During that time I have had different PCs and I have always had performance problems and never really been able to enjoy the game maxed out.

I think I am not asking anything hard to understand considering that graphics are not that good for the hardware requirements and I am able to run most of the games very decently.

 

By the way. These comments you just made were really, really nasty and rude.

Edited June 6, 2012 by jtmedina

[jtmedina]

I have i5 2500k @4.2Ghz HD4850 1gb and 8gb RAM and i have terible performance. At high quality i get ~18-20fps. At low i got ~45-50 over town and that is not acceptable. Dont even ask me what fps i get when i drop some bombs:mad:. Now if someone want to say that 4850 is bad card, well i get 35-40fps in Crysis with mix of high-very high settings. BF3 same thing. Shogun 2:total war DX9 benchmark high settings with ultra unit size 49.2 average fps with 2xAA and 4xAF. Another power-hog ARMA2 runs suprisingly well with 37 average fps at high settings (AA low AF normal) in dayz mod. My steam name is z0ky so u can check that im not makeing this up. I think that ED should stop with new features and fix (optimize) existing ones!

Now that i think of it, i dont now single game/sim that runs bad on my computer. And here is the list of my resourse-heavy games/sims:

 

Supreme Commander + Forged Alliance

Shogun2:Total War

Civilization 5

ArmA 2 + OA

Crysis + Warhead + Crysis 2

Skyrim

Battlefield 3 + Back to Karkand

FSX + REX + GEX + UTX max settings ~25fps over large city at night

Silent Hunter 5

...

 

Every one of those supports quadcore and that's the HUGE problem with DCS. It supports only 1.1 core (0.1 goes to sound engine). I've seen screenshots of nevada with fps counter and it does'nt look optimistic to me (76-114 on empty map with F2 view). I get similar fps in DCS with F2 view on map with AI (50-80fps).

 

PS. my screen is 19' wide 1440x900

 

 

The problem with these forums is. We buy the product but we are not allowed to complained.

 

It seems no matter what hardware you have, unless you get a 4Ghz CPU there is no way to get decent performance.

[Pikey]

I tried to find your complaints about performance, Voky, but the only reference to performance I could see i'm partially quoting from last October.

 

i have 30+ fps always even on ground :)

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1314087&postcount=13

 

Outerra - it's all about the world generation (for whatever you will use it for... apparently they mention "exploring" - i lolled)

 

Crysis - its all about the shooting and the graphics

 

SHV - its all about the sea

 

DCS: A10 - its all about the plane

 

Let's turn it on its head...why can't Crysis and Arma have the complexity of systems as in DCS?

 

Another rhetorical question.

[jtmedina]

I tried to find your complaints about performance, Voky, but the only reference to performance I could see i'm partially quoting from last October.

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1314087&postcount=13

 

Outerra - it's all about the world generation (for whatever you will use it for... apparently they mention "exploring" - i lolled)

 

Crysis - its all about the shooting and the graphics

 

SHV - its all about the sea

 

DCS: A10 - its all about the plane

 

Let's turn it on its head...why can't Crysis and Arma have the complexity of systems as in DCS?

 

Another rhetorical question.

 

You have no clue what you are talking about.