Another FPS big hit

[Esac_mirmidon]

Testing DCSW i had noticed that cockpit lights have a great impact in FPS.

 

Simply turning on the inside cockpit lights makes me loss about 15 FPS.

 

I always sustain around 50-60 FPS, my actual rig has power enough ( 2500K OC to 4.5 ), if i see to the cockpit sides the FPS are normal 55-60, but the front view with lights on makes a drop to 35-40.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Testing the FPS drop in SU-25T this is my conclusion.

 

With Ka-50 and A-10C, Sochi runway, looking forward, 60 FPS both.

 

Inside Su-25T, same settings 41 FPS. Cockpit Lights On 31 FPS.

 

30 FPS less while using Su-25T.

 

Could somebody tell me why?

[BaD CrC]

Already true for BS2 and A10 before DCSW.

[PeterP]

Please,please, please :) - tell us a little more about your system and the settings you are using (especially graphic -wise.)

"2500K OC to 4.5 " really doesn't cut it.

 

 

A whole DxDiag.txt would be also very helpful beside the GPU/DCS settings.

 

Here is a wild guess:

You are using something like TSsAA and MSAAx8 (or even x16)- you are already low on V-ram/recurrences and the extra workload of the light simply kills your system.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Well if my rig wasn´t enough i will had problems in all DCSW, not only with Su-25T.

 

But here are my complete specs.

 

2500K OC to 4.5

8 Gigas RAM 1600.

Nvidia 560

MSI Motherboard P67A-C45

 

In game settings

 

Textures HIGH, Scenes HIGH, Civil Traffic LOW, Water LOW, Vis. Range HIGH, Heat Blur ON, Shadows HIGH, 1680x1050, Resolution 512, MSAA 8x, Aniso 8x, HDR NORMAL, Cockpit Shadows ON, No TSSAA, No Bush, 6000 Trees, 150000 Preload radious.

 

i had tried with no HDR and no MSAA, and the result is the same in cockpit on the Su25T, 20 FPS less than Ka-50 or A-10C. With cockpit lights ON 30 FPS less.

 

I would like to know if somebody has the same problem with FPS inside Su-25T.

DxDiag.txt

[ALDEGA]

Already true for BS2 and A10 before DCSW.

Yep. Dynamic lights have always had a significant impact on the frame rate.

 

http://www.forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=1334747&postcount=122

[Esac_mirmidon]

Could somebody test the in cockpit drop inside Su-25T?

 

Knowing if this is only a issue on my rig or more people has the same FPS drop could help me a lot.

 

Thanks.

[mmtaraval]

Night missions in the A-10 are a slideshow, but the P-51 is fine at night.

[Devrim]

At night, NVG drops the FPS remarkably for Ka-50...

[mmtaraval]

I get noticeable stuttering in the su-25, it happens every 5-10 seconds. The a-10 and the mustang run pretty smooth when compared to the su-25.

[statrekmike]

This is looking more and more like a engine issue and not a issue with systems that folks use, I really hope it is a simple fix that ED can implement that will allow this to work as well as the previous versions (DCS A-10C and BS2).

 

Frankly, I think they should dial back some of the things that are causing issues (the particle effects seem to hurt even high end systems and that is not really good at all.)

 

I just hope ED has something to say about this beyond the usual "get a better video card" or other such nonsense.

[Gonzo01]

It feels like I have been beta testing this product for many years now. I came to DCS for their dedication to developing hardcore realistic jet simulations. I know that this demands a great deal of processing and graphics power, but no matter what hardware I have upgraded to, I have always had FPS and stability problems. I have always supported EDs direction. Lately, I have grown confused about what direction they are moving. I feel like they have taken one step forward and two steps back. I still don't know if ED is working on another hardcore jet sim. DCS World has preformance problems and bugs similar to early versions of A-10, not to mention the multiplayer problems. I feel like ED is moving away from hardcore jet simulations to bring us DCS World. During this transition, I feel like ED should provides us with better communication regarding patch development and direction. Over the years they have demanded from us hard work indentify bugs, complex reporting of these bugs and infinite patiences. ED, all we are asking of you is no more than you have asked of us.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Gonzo01

[AtaliaA1]

It feels like I have been beta testing this product for many years now. I came to DCS for their dedication to developing hardcore realistic jet simulations. I know that this demands a great deal of processing and graphics power, but no matter what hardware I have upgraded to, I have always had FPS and stability problems. I have always supported EDs direction. Lately, I have grown confused about what direction they are moving. I feel like they have taken one step forward and two steps back. I still don't know if ED is working on another hardcore jet sim. DCS World has all the preformance problems of the early versions of A-10. I feel like ED is moving away from hardcore jet simulations to bring us DCS World. This framework will let third party developers develop aircraft mods to sell as addons. I only hope this brings us the same hardcore realistic sim that ED initially set out to develop.

 

 

I understand you completely, I have thought about this myself.

 

On the one hand you have what appears to be a step forward in the evolution of DCS. (World) From a "Business" perspective allowing others to develope for your product will allow a higher level of income, in turn allowing you to focus on your "Business Model" that has now evolved into a greater ability to develope and inhance your product. (A-10,SU among others).

 

In the beggining A-10 had issues with the OSs of the day. Today take a look at the "Bugs" section and you will see fewer issues with the Operating system, way less tech. issues now with 1.1.1 and .2, it seems to some this jump is a bit soon, in reality it isn't, based on the Tech. issues alone.

 

Focusing on the development of better and more diverse tarrains and graphics inhancements is were DCS is going I believe. All have expressed a desire to add more than the Navada Terrain to the sim.

 

All in all this is a good "Business" decision and the right direction for this product. IMHO Of course.

 

Spain is developing a model based on their wants for DCS. so is Italy. And the Mig21. is close to complete.

Edited August 24, 2012 by AtaliaA1

[diveplane]

Testing DCSW i had noticed that cockpit lights have a great impact in FPS.

 

Simply turning on the inside cockpit lights makes me loss about 15 FPS.

 

I always sustain around 50-60 FPS, my actual rig has power enough ( 2500K OC to 4.5 ), if i see to the cockpit sides the FPS are normal 55-60, but the front view with lights on makes a drop to 35-40.

 

only alternative for now is disable lights in options. however this is external lights for now, not cockpit lighting , but it may help.

 

when u have traffic on runways youll notice the big frame drops with lights on.

[jctrnacty]

I think we all should realize that sim genre is the most demanding piece of software. always was and always will.

 

Most often i hear on these forums "my crysis and BF3 runs smooth but DCS cant". yes it cannot because there is so much computation all the physics, weapons, systems, afm, wafm and this is because we all want it as hardcore as it can be. and that all requires top end systems.

 

Look at FSX and falcon, falcon was able to run smoothly 10 years after release date when systems were powerfull enough , fsx is still not able to run smoothly even on the latest highend computers.

 

right now its necessary to wait for dx11 which could offload some computations from cpu and ulticore support and maybe for next versions until ED makes some optimizations to DCS world.

[Bodo]

It's a shame that it still doesn't utilise modern CPUs very efficiently.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Bodo

[statrekmike]

I think we all should realize that sim genre is the most demanding piece of software. always was and always will.

 

Most often i hear on these forums "my crysis and BF3 runs smooth but DCS cant". yes it cannot because there is so much computation all the physics, weapons, systems, afm, wafm and this is because we all want it as hardcore as it can be. and that all requires top end systems.

 

Look at FSX and falcon, falcon was able to run smoothly 10 years after release date when systems were powerfull enough , fsx is still not able to run smoothly even on the latest highend computers.

 

right now its necessary to wait for dx11 which could offload some computations from cpu and ulticore support and maybe for next versions until ED makes some optimizations to DCS world.

 

 

There is a difference between "my crysis and BF3 runs smooth but DCS can't" and DCS ran well in one version but after a patch it barely works, a big difference.

[ChandlerUSMC]

Most often i hear on these forums "my crysis and BF3 runs smooth but DCS cant". yes it cannot because there is so much computation all the physics, weapons, systems, afm, wafm and this is because we all want it as hardcore as it can be. and that all requires top end systems.

 

:) Except, the actual systems on the actual aircraft doing the actual calculations rely on 286, 386, 486 and sometimes lesser CPUs. (that was fun to write).

 

The Space Shuttle uses 5 APA-101S computers (5 for redundancy) at about 1.2 MIPs with a couple of megs of Ferrite Core memory (defense against radiation). The entire control for the shuttle is <1 MB of program. The updated, state of the art (heh) glass cockpit shuttle got an upgrade to a... wait for it… Intel 386.

 

The DFCS and FCS of an F-16 CPU runs at about .5 to 1 MIP comparable to a Motorola 68000 processor.

 

Today’s processors like the ones sitting on your desk push 55,000 to 175,000 MIPs never mind the gigaflops for the required math.

 

Math just isn’t the issue in modeling these systems on modern CPUs. Which means we’re left with world physics such as gravity, wind, pressure, motion... flight model.. but that is just more of the same math calculations-- something that processors since the incarnation of the math coprocessor (now integrated into any modern cpu) have dealt with like a sledgehammer on an anthill. Then there’s the graphics.

 

The developer of X-Plane (as well as one of the leads of Aces) put it best and to paraphrase, it mostly comes down to the graphics engine. Graphics, graphics, and graphics. Until sim engines are developed to make better use of today's multicore systems, we’ll have to deal with throwing clock cycles and heat at it (read, gigahertz)—that and moving towards modern graphics APIs such as DirectX11 and OpenGL 4.3. Quite frankly it’ll be much easier to implement support of newer graphics APIs rather than to make revolutionary strides in polycore. Incidentally, this is what Lockheed Martin and Laminar Research are doing with their sims while they make iterative improvements on multicore support. Multicore is doable (Playstation 3), it’s just that it’s damn hard.

 

BF3 runs as well as it does because DICE has a very good dev team that spent a lot of time, intellectual capital, and fiscal expense in developing their Frostbite engine. They know their way around DirectX and the popular gfx architectures that run them. You can read some of their dev blogs that mention the obstacles they had to overcome as they developed what they have now.

 

I’ll close with this question. How fast do you think Falcon, FSX, and DCS products would run if it didn't have to render the outside world-- just its panels, flight models, and systems?

Edited September 6, 2012 by ChandlerUSMC

[diveplane]

It's a shame that it still doesn't utilise modern CPUs very efficiently.

 

they are working on it, the integration.

 

dcs does use multi core right now as the sound engine runs on one cpu core.

 

i think the new terrain engine will have a dedicated core.

fingers crossed.