DCS, Good Platform For the Future FS?

[pered]

Come on guys, we need something new!

 

You're right. But if you've already got a tested engine that works brilliantely, why bother spending more years on just creating and bug testing a new one?

[GorT]

Ok let all start from scrach with a new engine. Spend 3-4 years getting the core of the sim ready for beta; spend another 2 years or so in beta; reading on forums how bugged the sim is; then maybe another 2 years to allow for 3rd party developers to get their aircraft right to the standard that we expect. Now we are good to go!! Oh by then the engine will be most likely out of date! :-D :-P hehe.

 

No thank you I dont think I can cope :-P Enjoy whats coming in DCS I think its the best modular sim platform there is.

[monotwix]

Crimea used to be an area with roads and towns, one could say part of the globe.

Yay or nay?

[Echo38]

Really? What other game that renders out to 100km runs so much better on aging hardware?

Sorry--I was talking about things like polygon counts and texture resolutions. Yes, DCS has a much better draw distance (and while still looking good at those distances!) of any program I've ever seen, but, up close, even when there isn't much being rendered (for example, while the camera is pointed down enough that the horizon isn't being shown), it simultaneously looks worse (in technical terms) than the average shooter and runs more poorly than the same. In brief: DCS looks less pretty than, say, Left 4 Dead, but still has a much lower frame rate.

 

Which is more than understandable and forgivable, because it's a flight sim, rather than a simple shooter (and, as you mentioned, thus has a vastly higher standard in areas such as draw distance, which eats frames), and because DCS is all kinds of cool. But that doesn't alter my original objection: with so many people with decent computers having poor frame rates (largely as a result of the single-core problem), to call DCS "very FPS-friendly" is highly inaccurate.

 

You're right. But if you've already got a tested engine that works brilliantely, why bother spending more years on just creating and bug testing a new one?

Because the current one only utilizes a fraction of current hardware, having poor performance as a result. I think that Eagle Dynamics's sim is the future of flight simulation (nothing else comes close), but their sim engine rather needs a rewrite, to make it fully compatible with modern (and future) P.C. hardware. It isn't a dire need at present, as it runs mostly-decently (if in a mediocre fashion) on an average gaming rig, but if this problem of using a ten-year-old engine, which doesn't really utilize modern hardware, is still around five years from now ...

 

Since I'm being metaphorically dragged over the coals (okay, slight exaggeration!) over my earlier comment, with several people possibly implying that I'm a DCS-hater, I'd like to point out that I am completely in love with DCS and give it an overall score of 9.7 out of 10. That means I feel they're doing things approximately 97% right and 3% wrong--in U.S. school grades, that's an A+ : )

Edited September 16, 2012 by Echo38

[sobek]

Sorry--I was talking about things like polygon counts and texture resolutions.

 

So, what do you think that the landscape is made up of in DCS? :);)

 

Sure it looks worse up close, if the engine were to drastically increase landscape detail so to keep the poly count about constant, you would get horrible load stuttering when panning the view around.

 

But do not make the mistake that the engine in DCS is not able to handle a lot of polygons, because it has to all the time.

[Echo38]

Yeah, I was rather amazed the other day at how lifelike the mountains look if you climb up to a very high altitude, and how far you could see.

 

But that doesn't change the single-core problem and frames-per-second. ; )

[sobek]

But that doesn't change the single-core problem and frames-per-second. ; )

 

I don't disagree that things could be better, but i run what would be considered a high midrange system and can max out almost everything, so i cannot really follow when you talk of a "problem" per se. IMHO the sim still performs satisfactorily on current hardware.

[jazjar]

sobek what are your specs?

[Vecko]

Nice initiative...But DCS engine FPS friendly?! No way... I can imagine framerate with PMDG 737 NGX in DCS world...For example ,with my X2 Athlon @3.2 GHz and 8800GT i have 20-30 FPS in PMDG 737 with REX2.0. On the other hand in the DCS world with no way near simulated Su-25T i have 25-30...

[aaron886]

The DCS:A-10C is just about as complicated as the PMDG 737. I get better performance with the A-10C than I do with PMDG's stuff.

[SUBS17]

Nice initiative...But DCS engine FPS friendly?! No way... I can imagine framerate with PMDG 737 NGX in DCS world...For example ,with my X2 Athlon @3.2 GHz and 8800GT i have 20-30 FPS in PMDG 737 with REX2.0. On the other hand in the DCS world with no way near simulated Su-25T i have 25-30...

 

Hes probably running an i7 like me so we have good frame rates on high graphics settings.:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

So, what do you think that the landscape is made up of in DCS? :);)

 

Sure it looks worse up close

 

Are you kidding up close there are blades of grass it is quite impressive reminds me of Arma2.:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

Get real... that engine is a dinosaur. That's like saying Falcon 4 is a "good platform for future flight simulation." Also, FSX@War is just silly. It's barely more than a collection of models, it's not like some kind of comprehensive combat engine.

 

FSX@war is more than just a collection of 3d models it has its own ATO and will eventually have a dynamic campaign. When Tacpacs SDK is released we may well see a combination of Air/Land and Sea battles as vehicles, helicopters and ships will be carrying weapons that will work in MP.

 

 

 

Lol it even has ground units engaging each other.:thumbup:

[Echo38]

so i cannot really follow when you talk of a "problem" per se.

 

For one example, when a P-51 shoots fifty-calibers at me when I'm at low altitude (e.g. trying to crash-land), and also when an A-10 drops certain bombs, my frame rate goes down to roughly 1 FPS. That's a problem--the aircraft is uncontrollable whenever this happens, and often crashes into the ground as a result (when I would not have if I had not been at my usual 13 FPS). I'm at medium graphical settings. See my forum profile for my system specs.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Echo38

[aaron886]

For one example, when a P-51 shoots fifty-calibers at me when I'm at low altitude (e.g. trying to crash-land), and also when an A-10 drops certain bombs, my frame rate goes down to roughly 1 FPS. That's a problem--the aircraft is uncontrollable whenever this happens, and often crashes into the ground as a result (when I would not have if I had not been at my usual 13 FPS). I'm at medium graphical settings. See my forum profile for my system specs.

 

13 FPS average? You're kidding right? You need 30 to have a decent experience. Turn the settings ALL the way down or get a better computer. Simple as that, really.

[Echo38]

I have 30 at most altitudes, but if I get down low over a cluttered airfield or something, it drops to ~13. If someone drops one of those megaclusterbomb thingies, < 1 FPS. I've already got the graphics down well below what I'd like (grass off, water medium, low render distance, no civ traffic, etc.). What's more is, I've noticed very little frame rate improvement with graphic setting adjustments. I don't feel like making it look like Red Baron just to get another 5 FPS. Oddly, my CPU and RAM don't seem to be the bottleneck (going by Windows Task Manager, anyway) so I don't know why lowering graphics settings has so little effect.

 

To be honest, though, I haven't experimented as much as I should, because it takes many times longer than it should for each test. The way the current interface makes me load the main menu, change the option, reload the mission, etc. is horrible. It's bad enough that I can't change an option in-game and check there, but loading the menu each time as well as the mission makes what should be a simple 5-minute series of tests turn into a nearly hour-long ordeal. So, I'm largely waiting for the next World update (I hear they're planning on streamlining the menu loading) to do any serious fiddling with my graphics settings.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Echo38

[metalnwood]

FYI, I have mine limited to 30 through the config file.

 

i5 @ 4.5 with a 7970. Five monitors with resolution around 4100x2200. Once screen is also running helios.

 

I never see it drop below 30 at altitude and at most perhaps it gets to around 20. From memory everything is high but I might not have hdr on. I also have everything exported that can be, i.e. cdu, mfd's, rwr etc.

 

I am pretty much taxing it as good as it can be done. I think there is something fishy with your rig TBH.

[Echo38]

I think there is something fishy with your rig TBH.

 

I wouldn't be surprised, and I'd love to know what. My specs are in my sig, and I've attached a screenshot of my sim settings.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Echo38

[element1108]

Echo turning water down to low make much of a diff for you?

[Echo38]

My frame rate is the best when I am over water, and lowering the water setting results in no noticeable improvement. Frame rate is worst when the P-51 fires its guns at low altitude (it's the bullet impacts on the ground which are the problem, not the tracers or smoke) and when an A-10 drops certain cluster bombs. Other than that, frame rate is worst when at low altitude and with large numbers of ground objects present, and best at high altitude or over water.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Echo38

[Mnemonic]

Yeah, I was rather amazed the other day at how lifelike the mountains look if you climb up to a very high altitude, and how far you could see.

But when you go closer, mesh of mountains looks so terrible, just gigantic pyramids, no details, or even any tesselation whatsoever. As much as I love DCS, mountains in reality looks completely different :)

 

There are few really great addons for FSX with brilliant mountain meshes.

And by the way Aerofly FS with fully detailed Switzerland looks fantastic comparing to Caucasian mountains in DCS.

 

AFM is great in DCS no doubt, but as a platform does DCS simulate atmosphere properly? I mean thermics, calculation of movement of air masses in the mountains, updrafts, downdrafts, waves, rotors, turbulence, and other things with which real general aviation pilots who fly in mountains deal every day.

 

I hope it will come, there are modules even for FSX which do the job very well.

 

P.S. Silly to say but I would be happy to try sailplane in DCS world, at that point all of the above should be incorporated into atmospheric engine :D

[GGTharos]

First suspect is your processor, second is your mobo, and it's second only because you haven't listed it. The type of RAM may also play a role and, in your case, sticking 2GB more in may actually make a huge difference. It's really hard to tell just from forum talk, and there exist several things for you to try ... all of which unfortunately cost money.

 

My frame rate is the best when I am over water, and lowering the water setting results in no noticeable improvement. Frame rate is worst when the P-51 fires its guns at low altitude (it's the bullet impacts on the ground which are the problem, not the tracers or smoke) and when an A-10 drops certain cluster bombs. Other than that, frame rate is worst when at low altitude and with large numbers of ground objects present, and best at high altitude or over water.

[EtherealN]

Regarding the bullet impacts etcetera, I'd also place some suspicion on the graphics card - or more specifically, the vRAM on it. Sometimes they skimp on it to get prices down, and effects like that can tax the memory subsystem on the graphics board heavily. (Classic "mistake" is when the board vendors jam twice as much vRAM as is designed, giving a cooler vRAM amount but at a potential sacrifice in latencies and throughput.)

[aaron886]

From my experience with ED sims and previously having old hardware...

 

Bullet impacts/"effects" = Graphics card problem. Per EtherealN's post, latency matters.

Problems with scenery objects or terrain = CPU problem.

Problems with occasional or rhythmic "hitching" = RAM problem or even HDD problem.

[Echo38]

First suspect is your processor, second is your mobo, and it's second only because you haven't listed it. The type of RAM may also play a role and, in your case, sticking 2GB more in may actually make a huge difference.

Hmm, how do I tell what mainboard I have without tearing my case apart? I looked in Device Manager and stuff, but didn't see anything that looked like a mainboard.