Poor performance with any setting. And request to developers.

[VAOZoky]

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.

 

I understand that I cant compare DCS with BF3 or Crysis graphics wise, but its comperable with FC2. While DCS sertanly looks betten then FC2 im afraid that so much increase in requirements is not justified. Im not trying to argue with anyone here, im just stateing how DCS performs on my computer.

[Pikey]

Honestly guys, if you are so interested in graphics go and play those games, it's not like we all don't play different games, A-10 won't get jealous!

 

If you want i will start a post up in the BF3 forum entitled, "Why isn't my F-15 internal 3D cockpit fully clickable and have military grade fidelity systems, real flight models and physics?"

 

Let's see where that community goes with that one.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Pikey

[jtmedina]

My take 1920x1080, windowed

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

[ATTACH]66982[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]66983[/ATTACH]

 

FC2

[ATTACH]66980[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]66981[/ATTACH]

 

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

 

So, you are showing us the target hardware we need to run DCS flawlessly.

 

One thing I have noticed. That bloom effect I haven't been able to activate it in my DCS World installation. Changed HDR but nothing happened and there is no bloom option.

 

One thing ED should do is show on the recommended hardware requirements that to be able to run DCS we need at least an i5 2500k and I wouldn't be here complaining.

 

See...

 

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.

 

It doesn't say you need more than 3 GHz. When it's so important.

[Pikey]

OK they got back to me. Apparently players are too stupid is the reason quoted, although i don't believe it for a moment. I was told to play IL-2! Dayum.

[EtherealN]

I understand that I cant compare DCS with BF3 or Crysis graphics wise, but its comperable with FC2. While DCS sertanly looks betten then FC2 im afraid that so much increase in requirements is not justified. Im not trying to argue with anyone here, im just stateing how DCS performs on my computer.

 

That's the point you are not understanding: a lot of things have changed since FC2. Features were added, many of them requiring major overhauls. For example, even within A-10C, between 1.1.0.7 and 1.1.0.8 the cockpit system was replaced. This was required for self-shadowing. This requires new underlying technology. This has effects.

 

If it was the exact same program running both things you'd have a point. But fact is it's not. There are major differences between them. They're not "FPS" differences where it's all in the graphics, but they are there. And without them you'd have no progress.

 

So no, it is not comparable with FC2. There is a reason why FC2 is not online-compatible with A-10C. ;)

[macedk]

looking at an upgrade soon as my system is gettin abit old...but i'm not complaining. I run low 20'es. I'm not at full settings but not at a level where i loose anything valuable. Fsx was unplayable from the start on most systems and that was a bummer...especially when the FM was (in my view) not good and horsepower went to things not important.

 

To be honest...If ED could sell a million copies they would. ED has (like other companies) stated "you need x to do this sim".End of discussion ( again in my view).

 

Didn't we have the same thread on 32bit vs 64bit ?

[sobek]

It doesn't say you need more than 3 GHz. When it's so important.

 

It does say you need an e8400, which runs exactly at 3GHz. :huh:

[159th_Viper]

It doesn't say you need more than 3 GHz. When it's so important.

 

You do not need 3. I run on 2.8 quite happily.

 

Honestly, Gentlemen: Here we have 11 pages of round and round the merrygoround debating an issue entirely without merit. The software is in a Beta state and as such any argument is irrelevant.

 

How about the discussion gets postponed till release? At least then allegations will have substance, although the merit would still be debatable if one has regard to some of the hardware on which the debate is based.

Edited June 7, 2012 by 159th_Viper

[macedk]

You do not need 3. I run on 2.8 quite happily.

 

Honestly, Gentlemen: Here we have 11 pages of round and round the merrygoround debating an issue entirely without merit. The software is in a Beta state and as such any argument is irrelevant.

 

How about the discussion gets postponed till release? At least then allegations will have substance, although the merit would still be debatable if one has regard to some of the hardware on which the debate is based.

Sounds good to me :)

[Smokin Hole]

The OP is still making a valid point. Two identical views with two dramatically frame-rates. The draw distances and other user demanded processes that are happening in the background are valid explanations. But those things aren't apparent to the end-user. Also, let's say he spends a thousand bucks on hardware and then Nevada comes out and brings the frames back to 20 all over again. It's a vicious cycle that makes the middle class fan almost dread each update.

[Pikey]

The original point has been lost though, coated in a lot of baseless ramblings and comparisons to first person shooters, traveled through hardware settings, graphics cards, CPU clock speeds, advertised specs, patch changes and FPS results. Every time a point was replied to, another was brought up and the point never pursued.

 

But yes it's a Beta and a Beta of a free framework game which should then be indicative of any performance of subsequent plugins, so there shouldnt be any issue because "Try before you buy" is now as close as it gets. Trouble with the stock plane? Then you may have to consider your hardware/config.

[DDSSTT]

You can also look at it this way, I am a Non-Commissioned Officer in the US Army, I tell Soldiers who are having trouble adjusting to the physical demand the Army requires of its service members... "There are things you WANT to do and there are things you CAN do. Not everyone is fit for service no matter how hard you train." The meaning of this is "life is not perfect" and "it's harder on some then others" or "Games are not Perfect" and "Games run different on different PC's" .

 

It translates to the PC gaming world like this, some people can afford to always maintain the top of the line computer specs and like myself can only afford just enough to run the game on medium settings. I want to run it on Ultra High settings but my pocket just is not deep enough to pay for it.

 

It is not fair for people to ask "Hey DCS, I cannot run your game on my PC as it is, please fix your game so I can run it... and oh I don't want to miss out on the graphics so make it work for me". What I have to say for those people and myself, is, that sucks, and it's too bad but that is life.

 

Some games like Crysis and BF3 are "Sprinters" and it's all about close up graphics and others like this "BETA" DCS: World are "Marathon Runners" and all about internal stamina and processing. If you want to be a "Marathon Runner" you need to train or save and upgrade your PC.

[PeterP]

I admit that this will lead to nothing...

 

Example :

Someone is posting a fraps screen-shot

...

 

five posts later he/she is posting what in-game setting he used in this screen...

 

than again 2 posts later he/she is posting the GPU options...

 

 

Than he/she tells what king of mission this was...

"Hello ?!"

 

who really think that someone else can follow this and still be objective ?!

I'm Out!

[jtmedina]

You can also look at it this way, I am a Non-Commissioned Officer in the US Army, I tell Soldiers who are having trouble adjusting to the physical demand the Army requires of its service members... "There are things you WANT to do and there are things you CAN do. Not everyone is fit for service no matter how hard you train." The meaning of this is "life is not perfect" and "it's harder on some then others" or "Games are not Perfect" and "Games run different on different PC's" .

 

It translates to the PC gaming world like this, some people can afford to always maintain the top of the line computer specs and like myself can only afford just enough to run the game on medium settings. I want to run it on Ultra High settings but my pocket just is not deep enough to pay for it.

 

It is not fair for people to ask "Hey DCS, I cannot run your game on my PC as it is, please fix your game so I can run it... and oh I don't want to miss out on the graphics so make it work for me". What I have to say for those people and myself, is, that sucks, and it's too bad but that is life.

 

Some games like Crysis and BF3 are "Sprinters" and it's all about close up graphics and others like this "BETA" DCS: World are "Marathon Runners" and all about internal stamina and processing. If you want to be a "Marathon Runner" you need to train or save and upgrade your PC.

 

 

Hmmm disagree.

It's all about the people who designed the engine and when they did it.

 

See games like Flight, World of Planes, they are not as complex in terms of flight procedures as DCS is but AI( not in flight) and flight model in those two sims is as good as in DCS and still these two games take advantage of multicore cpu and other things that make the hardware requirements less demanding keeping a great performance and incredible graphics. If the same amount of detail was in DCS the "computer would simply stop".

 

Another example is Cliffs of Dover. It requires a powerful rig get the best of it, but despite it I am able to play Cliff of Dover at med settings with average frame rate of 40 in most of the cases.

 

Tried to fly near any town with just a few building in DCS and the computer struggles. So the problem here is how the ED guys designed the engine in the first place.

 

 

Everything is about code and how the engine is designed.

[Sierra99]

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 :(

 

I'm inclined to believe that anything over about 60fps is a waste of computing... Your eyes can't see it anyway.... Oh and when I decided to play A-10C... I upgraded my computer. I didn't bitch because what I had wouldn't play it.

 

Actual Mileage may Vary

[GGTharos]

The engine is designed for fast moving jets with BVR capability.

 

You cannot even /begin/ to compare it with CLOD or WoT.

[EtherealN]

Tried to fly near any town with just a few building in DCS and the computer struggles. So the problem here is how the ED guys designed the engine in the first place.

 

 

;)

 

I could dissect your post and demonstrate my lack of agreement on a point-by-point basis, but I don't have the time for it. :)

 

Simple facts are:

1) You do NOT need top-line hardware to play DCS well, this includes World.

2) RoF and World of Planes do NOT have as "good" a flight model. (Remember, it's not about what "feels right" to you who has never flown that aircraft in reality - it's all about being able to replicate reality in a detailed fasion, and RoF does a nice job as far as I can see, but there's no way for us to know since in most cases there's no flying samples of the simulated aircraft left!)

[cichlidfan]

[VAOZoky]

Is it enough or should i clock it more?

 

 

 

As for gfx HD4850 is able to do:

1000000000000 floating point operation per second

run outerra with much over 60fps

and unless DCS can utilise GPGPU it should be more than enough to handle textures and render poligons or lack of them in DCS:

 

Only thing that come to my mind is OPTIMIZATION!

[msalama]

Blah-de-****ing-blah.

 

I used to complain how this sim is soooooooo poorly optimized when I ran it on a Dell Optiplex GX620 - y'know, a 2004ish DUAL-CORE machine and everything, and still getting shitty performance, and that with a brand-new NVidia GTS450 too. See, I even parted with some CASH and bought me a CHEAP new card and still got stutters'n all that jazz...

 

All before I finally decided to bite the bullet and build me a new rig. Running an i7-2600K@4.4GHz / 16GB RAM / 160GB SSD / NVidia GTX580 now, and whaddaya feekin' know - NO stutters, no fuss, no mess, no nothing at all with everything maxed out! So maybe ye whiners should do what I did and head out to the mother-raping hardware store next?

 

PS. Sorry for the rant, but pinheads thinking they can run this bugger on a 486 kinda get on my nerves.

[jtmedina]

 

;)

 

I could dissect your post and demonstrate my lack of agreement on a point-by-point basis, but I don't have the time for it. :)

 

 

So?. I was referring to the level of detail you can see in relatively new games like Flight or world of Planes compared to DCS. The level of detail of towns/cities in DCS is very low compared to other recent sims. So please don't tell me, it's because of how accurate the flight model in DCS is.

 

 

Simple facts are:

1) You do NOT need top-line hardware to play DCS well, this includes World.

2) RoF and World of Planes do NOT have as "good" a flight model. (Remember, it's not about what "feels right" to you who has never flown that aircraft in reality - it's all about being able to replicate reality in a detailed fasion, and RoF does a nice job as far as I can see, but there's no way for us to know since in most cases there's no flying samples of the simulated aircraft left!)

 

If a top line hardware is not needed. Why can't I run DCS properly with a Quad Core @2.50, 4GB, ATI 5770 1GB???.

 

 

DCS flight model is at the same level as CLOD or any recent sim. Flight model is not what's affecting that low performance.

 

The only Fact here is that DCS has to improve for the average gamer, Obviously you work for them so there is no way you will agree with me.

 

You can stick on your arguments but eventually sales are the most important factor and most of the people don't have a high end computer. I have no idea how much ED sells but I can't believe it can be so much because clearly this sim can't be played on an average computer, unless someone could possibly enjoy playing it at 20 frames.

 

Selling for just a few is not very wise.

[jtmedina]

Blah-de-****ing-blah.

 

I used to complain how this sim is soooooooo poorly optimized when I ran it on a Dell Optiplex GX620 - y'know, a 2004ish DUAL-CORE machine and everything, and still getting shitty performance, and that with a brand-new NVidia GTS450 too. See, I even parted with some CASH and bought me a CHEAP new card and still got stutters'n all that jazz...

 

All before I finally decided to bite the bullet and build me a new rig. Running an i7-2600K@4.4GHz / 16GB RAM / 160GB SSD / NVidia GTX580 now, and whaddaya feekin' know - NO stutters, no fuss, no mess, no nothing at all with everything maxed out! So maybe ye whiners should do what I did and head out to the mother-raping hardware store next?

 

PS. Sorry for the rant, but pinheads thinking they can run this bugger on a 486 kinda get on my nerves.

 

Congratulations for your new hardware. :thumbup:

 

That's proof DCS can't properly be played on an average computer.

[cichlidfan]

If a top line hardware is not needed. Why can't I run DCS properly with a Quad Core @2.50, 4GB, ATI 5770 1GB???.

 

Consider the range between what you have and current 'top of the line' for just a moment.

 

My i7-2600k is over a year old and is certainly not 'top of the line' but it is leaps and bounds ahead of a Quad @ 2.5, as is an i5-2500k or many others.

 

EDIT: You sincerely need to reassess your definition of average.

 

That's proof DCS can't properly be played on an average computer.

[EtherealN]

So?. I was referring to the level of detail you can see in relatively new games like Flight or world of Planes compared to DCS. The level of detail of towns/cities in DCS is very low compared to other recent sims. So please don't tell me, it's because of how accurate the flight model in DCS is.

 

What I was saying is that I don't see this slowdown you are talking about. And my hardware is not something hot - that shot was taken on a non-overclocked system, in windowed mode, with Aero on, with HD video playing on a second screen, with 5 billion secondary applications running - at it still worked.

 

Point being: your description is not something I can recognize from the reality I see.

 

If a top line hardware is not needed. Why can't I run DCS properly with a Quad Core @2.50, 4GB, ATI 5770 1GB???.

 

Tonnes of possible reasons. For one, what exact processor was thast? C2Q? Then it's actually not a quad core, it's two dual-cores inside a single package with a bridge in between, and ends up below System Recommendation.

 

You can still run it fine though, I've tested on an e8500 with a 512mb 9800GTX+. Doesn't let me max things out, but lower those settings and it's all fine.

 

The only Fact here is that DCS has to improve for the average gamer, Obviously you work for them so there is no way you will agree with me.

 

Actually, I do NOT work for them. I have never received a single dollar from ED or TFC. ;)

 

You can stick on your arguments but eventually sales are the most important factor and most of the people don't have a high end computer. I have no idea how much ED sells but I can't believe it can be so much because clearly this sim can't be played on an average computer, unless someone could possibly enjoy playing it at 20 frames.

 

The thing you're missing is that "4 years old hardware" is not "average". It's "4 years old." My machine here cost 1 000 dollars 18 months ago. There was WAY better things out there even then, and there's things that outright slaughter this rig I have on the market now.

 

This is the console generation affecting you - most PC games are developed not for the PC, but rather for consoles that are pushing 7-8 years. That is why even old PC's can run them. But these simulators are made for PC's, and they seek to push the envelope of what can be done on PC's.

 

Selling for just a few is not very wise.

 

ED isn't selling for "just a few", not beyond what is already caused by being in simulators insteads of arcade shooters, which already places ED as selling for "the few". :P

[EtherealN]

http://techreport.com/articles.x/22972/2

 

That's the cheapest thing anyone should ever consider purchasing today. It absolutely slaughters your current system, jtmedina. What I mean by that is, just like cichlidfan indicated, your idea of "average" isn't something I'd agree with.

 

However, I would suggest you peruse that article as linked. You do not have to spend much to go way above and beyond what your current system can do. That's the thing with computers - capacity tends to double every 18 months or so. Extrapolate this over 4 years and you'll understand that your system is "underpowered" to the point where it isn't even possible to purchase anymore. That is our point.

 

PC gamers have had several years where they haven't had to care about upgrades in general specifcally because console-oriented games have not pushed the envelope of what is possible. (But if you want some fun, compare Skyrim sysreqs on PC with what still runs it nice on an Xbox - if you want to discuss "optimization"... ;) )

 

Now all of that said, I still think you can get things to run well on your current machine, but this will involve lowering a lot of settings and, for that matter, possible optimizations that might remain since DCS World is as we all know, in beta. :)

Edited June 8, 2012 by EtherealN