Poor performance with any setting. And request to developers.

[VAOZoky]

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?

 

 

right click anywhere on desktop and open ccc/info page/ software

[159th_Viper]

right click anywhere on desktop and open ccc/info page/ software

 

Ta :)

 

AMD Catalyst 11.9

[Wolf Rider]

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

 

 

you're quite correct... DCS:World is in Beta - optimisations/ bugs/ etc are being addressed, as with any Beta

[VAOZoky]

you're quite correct... DCS:World is in Beta - optimisations/ bugs/ etc are being addressed, as with any Beta

 

I hope you're right

[Buzpilot]

'- Quad Core 2 @2.50'

I asume older MB that supports Core 2, also still supports DDR2, could it be that DDR2 400 or less is used here, that could be a real bottleneck too.

[sobek]

Well, as a man of science, i would expect you to not draw assumptions without being aware of all parameters. There are more things that have changed since FC2 than "meets the eye". Those are, amongst other things, graphic parameters that are not accessible from the GUI. That is why your approach is too simplistic and your conclusion is not perfectly valid.

 

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

 

Would you go up to a manufacturer of tractors and complain because his products can't keep up with the pace of a lamborghini? I suppose not, because it is obvious to you that both items were made for completely different purposes. Now why do you absolutely refuse to accept this principle in something like gaming engines?

Edited June 7, 2012 by sobek

[winz]

My take 1920x1080, windowed

DCS - All max, except water on medium, 4xAA,

 

FC2

 

i5 2500k

GTX560ti

8GB Ram

 

FC2 is locked at 60fps max.

I just can't help to notice how dull the FC2 scenery is compared to DCS:W

[VAOZoky]

Well, as a man of science, i would expect you to not draw assumptions without being aware of all parameters. There are more things that have changed since FC2 than "meets the eye". Those are, amongst other things, graphic parameters that are not accessible from the GUI. That is why your approach is too simplistic and your conclusion is not perfectly valid.

 

As u can see FC max setting look much better then DCS:W lowest possible and still has better fps. The "there is more then meets the eye" thing is the problem because there is obviously some performance leek.

[Wolf Rider]

I hope you're right

 

You've also got to come to the party with the hardware though and comparing one game engine with another game engine, is very much a chalk 'n' cheese approach.

[sobek]

As u can see FC max setting look much better then DCS:W lowest possible and still has better fps. The "there is more then meets the eye" thing is the problem because there is obviously some performance leek.

 

Ok, then how about you don't take a shot that really aids in driving home your point? :)

 

Maybe something where the different draw distances of FC and DCS become obvious.

[louisv]

As u can see FC max setting look much better then DCS:W lowest possible and still has better fps. The "there is more then meets the eye" thing is the problem because there is obviously some performance leek.

 

Comparing apples and oranges will not get you anywhere.

 

Your CPU is current, your GPU is 3 generations late. How simple is that ?

 

Lou

[VAOZoky]

Ok, then how about you don't take a shot that really aids in driving home your point? :)

 

Maybe something where the different draw distances of FC and DCS become obvious.

 

Funny thing u mention draw distances because me and my squadmates noticed how drawdistances in DCS look somewhat poor textured and blury compared to FC ones

[VAOZoky]

Comparing apples and oranges will not get you anywhere.

 

Your CPU is current, your GPU is 3 generations late. How simple is that ?

 

Lou

 

I dont think that its good to have that high requirement for DCS own sake.

If u can play DCS only with top notch hardware then not many people will enjoy it and that is bad for anyone.

Edited June 7, 2012 by VAO*Zoky

[EtherealN]

You do not need "top notch" hardware.

 

I spent ~1000 dollars 18 months ago on this computer. I play DCS at max (except water). This is in windowed mode, with two screens, and HD Video playing on the other screen. And without my overclock. (If you don't believe me, I'll dig up the thread on this forum. ;) )

 

Your graphics card is 4 years old. What has happened in the intervening time is that the community asked ED to please spend more effort on graphics. So ED did this. It does not come for free, things have to happen with the engine. New games do not work as well on old hardware as old games do.

 

Now, if you will just accept this, perhaps we can look at ways of finding exactly which settings affect your system the most and thus help you get it to where you want it?

[EtherealN]

Found them, for reference:

 

 

Now, YES, DCS could be more efficient in graphics. This takes time to do. The problem is that some people want new graphical features, other people want efficiency with old features, some people don't care and just want simulation fidelity. ED has to satisfy all of these people.

 

You can get it to work fine with that hardware, but no, 4 years old video hardware will not give you the best possible experience when people have been asking for new features.

[VAOZoky]

You do not need "top notch" hardware.

 

I spent ~1000 dollars 18 months ago on this computer. I play DCS at max (except water). This is in windowed mode, with two screens, and HD Video playing on the other screen. And without my overclock. (If you don't believe me, I'll dig up the thread on this forum. ;) )

 

Your graphics card is 4 years old. What has happened in the intervening time is that the community asked ED to please spend more effort on graphics. So ED did this. It does not come for free, things have to happen with the engine. New games do not work as well on old hardware as old games do.

 

Now, if you will just accept this, perhaps we can look at ways of finding exactly which settings affect your system the most and thus help you get it to where you want it?

 

If u can halp me in any way to find what is so gpu demanding i will be happy panda:)

And ones again i play BF3 on daily basis with high-very high settings 2xAA and 8xAF with this "old and obsolite" 4850 so i simply cannot accept argument that its not powerful to run DCS with some normal fps. As soon as i finish downloading patch for BF3 (2+gb relised yesterday) i will make some screenshot with my settings so u can see what this card can actualy do. Untill now i didnt need to upgrade (but i plan to) because i dont use 3 monitors, i dont go nazi with AA and AF and i have only 19' screen with tiny 1440x900. And exept DCS im yet to encounter game that i cant run on high with my computer. S!

[Wolf Rider]

you can't compare one game/sim to another though... it simply isn't done, or fair.

 

But in the meantime, if you could post up your complete system specs/ operating system (in your sig would be the best place), we'll get started on trying to sort your system out.

[winz]

As u can see FC max setting look much better then DCS:W lowest possible and still has better fps. The "there is more then meets the eye" thing is the problem because there is obviously some performance leek.

If you really have a phd in computer science, you should know that there is more to an engine then graphics...especialy a simulation one, and especialy when CPU becames the bottleneck - lowering graphics doesn't have as such big effect as when GPU is the bottlenech. Also, you have no ideas about what more the DCS engine is doing compared to FC2 I.e. the handling of scenery is different, then in FC2. The graphical engine is improved, and even if it looks worse on low settings then FC2 on maxed settings (what a surprise), doesn't mean it doesn't use aditional rendering features that cost some FPS. The water was improved...etc..etc

 

Also, if you really have a phd, you should know that your comparasion is very shallow and lacking serious research.

 

And funny you mention textures in your other post, because on my screenshots the DCS ones are much more sharper, even in distance.

 

BTW, talking about BF, do the same 'research' on BF. Fire up BF2, crank it up to max, take screenshot and note FPS, then load BF3, use the lowest possible settings, and compare screenshot and performance... I'm very eager to see the results :)

[Pikey]

I saw a double page of "Pony" and thought that's the signal to stop!

:lol:

[EtherealN]

And ones again i play BF3 on daily basis with high-very high settings 2xAA and 8xAF with this "old and obsolite" 4850

 

You realize BF3 is made for a platform with a CPU made in 2005, a GPU that is a derivative of an ATi x1800, and a total of 512 MB RAM for the entire system?

 

;)

 

Why can't my Ferrari dig coal in a mine? It's not made for it. Do not compare FPS with a Simulator. It's like comparing minesweeper with 7zip.

[cichlidfan]

Seriously. How nice it would be if DCS could run on hardware equivalent to my Xbox 360.;) I could afford to have a separate machine for each sim.

[Pikey]

Pony and trap. As in, that's a lot of pony. Or maybe you like Pony. I'm kindda partial myself.

[VAOZoky]

If you really have a phd in computer science, you should know that there is more to an engine then graphics...especialy a simulation one, and especialy when CPU becames the bottleneck - lowering graphics doesn't have as such big effect as when GPU is the bottlenech.

So now you are saying that my cpu is bottleneck. So should i jump to future and grab one i90 32500k @42GHz so i can play DCS?

 

Also, you have no ideas about what more the DCS engine is doing compared to FC2 I.e. the handling of scenery is different, then in FC2. The graphical engine is improved, and even if it looks worse on low settings then FC2 on maxed settings (what a surprise), doesn't mean it doesn't use aditional rendering features that cost some FPS. The water was improved...etc..etc

 

Turn off HDR and they look same to me. About water: I already told that turning water to low dont produce same fps gain as it uset to in FC because they improved water quality. One thing i bet u didnt know is that FC/DCS engine render water even under ground. That is one of the biggest reason for fps loss between FC and DCS.

 

Also, if you really have a phd, you should know that your comparasion is very shallow and lacking serious research.

 

When you make better comparison you will have right to bitch about mine.

 

And funny you mention textures in your other post, because on my screenshots the DCS ones are much more sharper, even in distance.

 

Again, turn HDR off and they look the same

 

BTW, talking about BF, do the same 'research' on BF. Fire up BF2, crank it up to max, take screenshot and note FPS, then load BF3, use the lowest possible settings, and compare screenshot and performance... I'm very eager to see the results :)

 

First thing: They are not even remotly same engine. BF2 use Refractor Engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractor_Engine and BF3 Frostbite Engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frostbite_(game_engine).

Second: DCS engine is modified FC engine so i can compare them.

Third: BF3 looks much better on low then BF2 on high.

I couldn't find any BF2 screenshots but im preaty sure it doesn't look this good

[EtherealN]

Zoky, as others have already mentioned: you are suffering from the problem of thinking that graphics is what taxes a computer.

 

This is where you are misunderstanding the technology. Please consider the point that 10 years ago, doing what DCS does on your computer required a multi-million-dollar supercomputer.

 

How about you take a look at BF3 draw distance and DCS draw distance? From where I am stainding, unfortunately, you just look like you don't understand what you are talking about. Doom is not MSFS.

[EtherealN]

I saw a double page of "Pony" and thought that's the signal to stop!

:lol:

 

Bronies of the world unite. HIGH HOOF!

 

:P