Poor performance with any setting. And request to developers.

[Pikey]

*I have phd in matematics and comuter science

 

You are my hero. I'm studying for comuter science right now because i'm already late for work and need to get going but this post keeps dragging back!

:doh:

[jtmedina]

I quoted you and you call me dishonest? Are you for real? You've been told at least three times over two years that your clock speed is going to give you performance problems but you've done nothing about it and still moan.

 

 

 

Taken from the DCS website...

 

Recommended system requirements: Operating system 64-bit: Windows Vista and 7; Processor: CPU: Core 2 Duo E8400, AMD Phenom X3 8750 or better; Memory: 4GB; Hard disk space: 7 GB; Video: Shader 3.0 or better; 896MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX260 DirectX 9.0c or better; Sound: DirectX 9.0c - compatible; DirectX: 9.0C; requires internet activation.

 

 

What I have:

- Quad Core 2 @2.50

- 4GB RAM

- ATI 5770 1GB

 

RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

Meaning that anyone who meets these recommended system requirements should be able to run the game properly which IS NOT the case.

 

They are lucky because we users are unprotected. They post these hardware requirements when they are not true at all. The only thing I am gonna do for now on is not to buy it and people who have mid range computers should do the same thing.

 

And about you, Do you actually feel some pleasure sneaking on my profile to check out how many times I have complained?. WOW I am not in my best moment but definitely your life must be really boring to waste your time doing that.

[BIGNEWY]

I have a mid range system, also using a HD 6770 ( equivalent to the 5770 )

 

I have seen increased performance with DCS World, hopefully it will stay that way or get better :)

 

Remember this is a beta so tweaks are bound to be made.

[winz]

E8400 is running at 3GHz.

Your quad is running only at 2.5Ghz, while beeing basicaly the same core. And if it happens to be the Q8300 version you'll also have less L2 Cache.

And as dcs is single-thread mostly, it cannot take benefits of the additional cores you have

[Kuky]

ah you people moaning about how bad DCS performs... if you can't run this sim in low scenery and no buildings/flat terrain etc and you still get shitty framerate I have only 1 thing to say to you:

 

Upgrade your freekin' PC!

 

Why? Because I am running this sim just fine and I don't have the absolute best in CPU power and I never run in low settings etc... really get on with it and just get decent hardware if you want to play on decent settings... and there's no way around it... and remember 1 thing... with high fidelity flight model, avionics etc.. all the things you don't SEE in a SIMULATOR take lot of CPU power... so just stop moaning, if you don't have the money to upgrade that's not ED fault because everyone wants this and that, realistic stis and that and how do you ever ask are you gonna get this if ED don't put all these for calculation on the CPU?

 

Just stop moaning and get on with it as sure there could be improvement (multithreading) this sim far from not being playable on high settings as some of you claim.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Kuky

[159th_Viper]

ah you people moaning about how bad DCS performs... if you can't run this sim in low scenery and no buildings/flat terrain etc and you still get shitty framerate.....

 

This argument as been around since before the beard on Moses. Kuky you gotta remember too - as far back as LockOn it has always been a given that this engine pushes the boundaries and that the CPU is the most important - hell, I remember the discussions and how we were all in absolute awe about overclocking to 3GHz and then dual-core came and so on and so on.......

 

I suppose we'll still be having these same discussions ten years from now, with me moaning that I can only overclock my PC to 69GHz at 20FPS without a liquid-nitrogen coolant system :megalol:

[PeterP]

:)

 

What Kuky wants to say is this:

 

FPS=$$$

 

Another good read about this matter:

Chasing Pixels - My PC Journey

Edited June 7, 2012 by PeterP

[Smokin Hole]

I think the OP is taking a little heat for inarticulately posing a valid question. Why does the same game engine struggle as CPU power increases season after season? I ponder it too. And because I have no understanding of software developement I make the mistake of always assuming the bottleneck to be sourced to "something in the code". There are a lot of head scratching moments for me in this game. I've learned that I can do nothing about it. Among many other limitations, I've learned to avoid servers that place static objects at airfields. So long as I play within the capabilities of my PC, I'm happy.

[DDSSTT]

... I suppose we'll still be having these same discussions ten years from now...

 

And jtmedina will still be running the same PC wondering why he cannot load the game.

 

I was getting less then 10fps and changed the preload range from 100,000m to 35,000m and lowered the Tree draw range to 5,000m and then I saw 15fps

 

Also, have you tried lowering your resolution? I was running 1080p 1920x1080 on my 42" LCD HDTV getting only 15ish FPS and lowered my resolution to 1080p 1366x768 and my FPS went up to 30 all while still running the settings at med-high.

[PeterP]

@Smokin Hole

 

The answer is very simple:

 

"We" ask almost every day for new features - and ED try to add them...

 

Here is the newest example, just have a look:

Poll:DCS: FPS

 

Fine! ... but:

 

let me quote Winz , - he hit the nail right on the head:

Yes, they should develop a new engine from scratch.

It should have the on-foot freedom of Arma III,

the in-flight terrain fidelity of outerra,

the scenery complexity of the FSX custom sceneries,

it should keep the DCS level fidelity of fly and system modeling,

should have the penetration and armor engine of steelbeast pro,

adaptable AI,

the boom effect of crytek3,

dynamic campaign,

full working ATC,

should perform well on 4years old CPUs,

and use all the modern hocus-pocus APIs available today,

and shouldn't take 10years and ED going bankrupt to develop

 

And maybe I should just replied 'not this kind of thread again' but naah.

 

When you go through his listing you will soon realize that everything can't work together.

 

Here is a hint what will not work at all :

 

...should perform well on 4years old CPUs,

 

[VAOZoky]

As i promised here are screenshots from my experiment (no AI, Gelendzik)

 

FC2maxout (with ricardoHDpit):

 

 

DCS:World mix of low-med-high that i normaly use:

 

 

DCS:World all low and turned off everything i can:

 

 

Now u see what im talking about when i say that DCS in super unoptimized

[71st_Mastiff]

*BETA* yes they know it is not fully optimized yet still a beta.. :thumbup:

 

also depends on resolution size too.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Mastiff

[159th_Viper]

DCS:World mix of low-med-high that i normally use:

 

38FPS on a 2.8GHz i7 930 @ 1920x1200.

 

[VAOZoky]

@Viper: what gfxcard do u have and what version of DCS:World u use?

 

my specs:

 

i5 2500K @4.2

HD4850 1gb

8gb RAM

 

screen res: 1440x900

[VAOZoky]

*BETA* yes they know it is not fully optimized yet still a beta.. :thumbup:

 

also depends on resolution size too.

 

DCS:A10C 1.1.1.1 is out of beta but still have bad performance

[159th_Viper]

@Viper: what gfxcard do u have and what version of DCS:World u use?

 

my specs:

 

i5 2500K @4.2

HD4850 1gb

8gb RAM

 

screen res: 1440x900

 

Your card is old - I am running a 5870. You will see an improvement with an upgrade to the GPU. Version is one ahead of yours but no real FPS issues between the two - pretty constant. I'm willing to bet that it's your GPU :)

[Kuky]

Same scene (in Gelenzik) and I have 1920x1200 pixels (even in windowed mode) and 8xAA 16xAF and High Settings (mirrors off and water on High) and RICARDO's Su-25T pit tetures, and I get 50fps in that same scenario... so really, it's not that bad at all... so as I was saying... you want decent framerate you need to run decent hardware... no way around it.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Kuky

[Boomer]

Viper, could you please share which driver version are you using for your 5870, and if you got a significant performance hit after 1.0.0.9 (warthog)?

 

This might very well be a driver issue or something, as I've seen a lot of reports claiming a BIG performance hit that came with 1.0.1.0 (dynamics cockpit shadows, tree shadows introduced in this patch IIRC?), and I experienced the same. I had around 38fps in 1.0.0.9 with my 5850.

[VAOZoky]

I know that HD4850 in not top-of-the-line anymore BUT if its good for Crysis, BF3, Arma2 etc. why cant it run DCS with some normal fps when DCS does not realy look that good to start with. Above titles have huge requirements but atleast they justify it with good looks.

[Kuky]

VAO@Zoky, do you have mirrors on in that screenshot above?

 

I used to have HD5870 till HD7970 came out and It was still holding on fairly well, considering you have pretty decent CPU it has to be your video card... it's still 1 gen older than HD5870 and it's lower performance than HD4870 (which I also used 1-2 years back)

[VAOZoky]

VAO@Zoky, do you have mirrors on in that screenshot?

 

In FC yes and in DCS no

I used to have them on until 1.0.1.0 and after that my fps got huge hit so i had to turn them off

[Kuky]

Yes, I stopped using mirrors on also in DCS as even for my system it's too much FPS hit, so you're not alone, this might improve with final release as we are still in beta version(s)

[159th_Viper]

Viper, could you please share which driver version are you using for your 5870, and if you got a significant performance hit after 1.0.0.9 (warthog)?

 

Honestly I have no idea - updated a good while ago. Where do you see the driver version? As to performance hit, honestly cannot remember. It has always been playable for me so I'm not too bothered with the exact FPS number, as long as I can play I'm happy.

 

Edit: Is this it?

 

Edited June 7, 2012 by 159th_Viper

[sobek]

I recently went from a 4850 to a 7870 and the performance increase was pretty spectacular. Also running a 2500k. The 4850 is simply too old to cope with the added shadow and HDR effects that were introduced with the A-10.

[VAOZoky]

I recently went from a 4850 to a 7870 and the performance increase was pretty spectacular. Also running a 2500k. The 4850 is simply too old to cope with the added shadow and HDR effects that were introduced with the A-10.

 

Somehow its not too old for Crysis with HDR, shadows, AA, AF and all other goodies. This just proves my hypothesis that DCS in not well optimized