1.2.1 bomb explosion, FPS problem

[Rusty_M]

Does that even help with things like MLRS volleys and CBU87s?

[Jaketon]

Problem in 2 pics

 

Before:

 

Afther:

 

No solution for me less the particle number.

[Witchking]

Makes me wonder how other games such as the IL-2 series and wings of fury or whatever can all render so much smoke and explosions without fps issues. Something seriously different about the tech behind these effects in DCS.

[Rusty_M]

Yup. For me, neither changing the suggested values in boom1.lua nor setting the core affinity for two cores seem to affect my FPS in any manner.

 

I have now restored my settings to default (no point changing them if it doesn't fix anything eh?)

[Kuky]

These explosions really kill FPS on my end also and I get single digits, fire full salvo of UB-32's and I'm at 3-4FPS... something is really dodgy with how explosions are changed in 1.2.1

[YoYo]

@Jaketon,

nice screenies ; - )))) .

[upupandaway]

I hope EDGE or some engine update going along with it is going to adress these issues in some way...

I don´t have such drastic drops in FPS, but to either have decent (not "hollywood") smoke with such drawbacks or virtually no smoke at all to preserve FPS is not really "acceptable" in 2012. Also, the latter is not realistic at all.

Edited October 25, 2012 by upupandaway

[Aries]

Is the same ED guy doing smoke and explosion effects from LOMAC till today (DCS World)? Maybe that's our only problem...

:D:D:D

[Invisibull]

That's a fair point Kuky, but i think perhaps the better way to approach things is that new graphics features should be made selectable by user instead of foisted upon those without the necessary processing power.

[upupandaway]

They should be optimized, not cut back, but your proposal sounds very reasonable. Many other games on the PC have such detailed options.

[MadDog-IC]

For me the CBU-87 explosions (and probably others) put my FPS down to single digits.

 

I prefer smooth gameplay over Hollywood explosions.

 

 

FinnJ

 

+1 to that

[tute]

+ 10 to that. Definitely i have everything on low, still unplayable for me.

Instead on focusing on Hollywood stuff, i think ED should give the options to the player on which settings to choose from. I just got a mail from ED one day

saying that the game would be merged to DCS World, bla, bla, but i wasn't told it was going to be this ****ing slide show when i paid for it:cry:

I play BS1 most of the time, because is smooth. Probably in a couple of years i will upgrade my pc, but then again, games at that time will demand

i80 60 core, 200 gb ram, cuadruple video cards, and ****ing 3D trackir 15 Ultra Pro. Curse of the flight simmer, i guess...

Edited November 2, 2012 by tute

[Jaketon]

Problem in 2 pics

 

Before:

 

Afther:

 

No solution for me less the particle number.

 

In 1.2.2 problem persist... (thk support team)

[dr20]

Yep, massive problem for me as well in. Shooting rockets in Black Shark DCS World 1.2.2 creates a slide show. Just shooting off a pair of rockets causes a massive frame rate hit as soon as they hit the ground. BTW: BS2 1.1.1.1 has no problem.

 

I'm running an Overclocked Core i7 920 with an ATI 5850. People posting in this thread should post their machine specs. It might help narrow down the hardware configurations that are susceptible to this issue.

[Rusty_M]

I have an i7 950 overclocked to 4 GHz and with hyperthreading off. I have a GTX570. I get the slide show. Supposedly between 3 and 8 FPS when dropping CBU 87's.

[ENO]

I'm running a 980x at 4.23 (ht off) and a stock gtx 680... And I get the gbu 87 PowerPoint presentation as well. <8fps

[MagnumHB]

I have an i5 2500k @ 4.2 and a 6950, and I have the same issue. In my opinion, this is one of the most critical stability issues remaining in the game at present for the majority of users.

[Jaketon]

It seems that the developers do not pay attention to this issue. Each patch comes out I hope your solution, but take more and more planes and not fix the obvious.

[Rusty_M]

Completely different issues being looked at on a completely different agenda, probably by different individuals. It's certainly been acknowledged by one of the testers at the very least. I think things will improve in this regard. I just can't see it being left permanently in a state where several weapons are, in effect, unusable.

[ENO]

Especially when the event is what causes the drop system wide- not the graphics themselves. I don't need to be looking at 87s going off for them to collapse my fps.

[[Knight]]

I know this is an older post but the problem is still there and need to put my two sense in: think of it like this, each explosion has particles that fly outward from it right? Now your cpu see the same thing but it sees it in binaries.So.... U see boom! Cpu sees 1100001001001001100 and mutiply that by the amount of booms u see and the cpu has to register each code at the same time as the sound wav. is played wich also make binary codes so think about it... its a lot of 11000010010001001110's.:D

 

Its upto the devs on how they code everything. If only there was a way to make binaries work more efficient with a shorter code rather than a longer. A very bad example: Rather than 001100110110001 it would be 1100010. but on those lines.

Edited November 24, 2012 by [Knight]

[Wolfie]

I don't know. Depends on how they did it. 200+ bomblets with around 300 fragments each = ~60,000 to 70,000 frags having to be traced. That could definitely make even a high end card gasp for breath. But I doubt they did that. Probably just an area of effect per bomblet, so only 200+ calculations.

Who knows, maybe whoever programmed it was playing around with fragment tracing and accidentally left it in. :cry:

[Rusty_M]

Fragments aren't modeled currently (unless as wolfie suggests, it was a test system that accidentally made it into production before it was ready). I don't think the issue is only the number of explosions, as it was fine until it used the new explosion graphic/animation.

 

It's hard to figure out if it's related to the new visual effects, or to the act of the bomblets exploding. The framerate drops just the same whether the explosion is on or off-screen. This would suggest to me that the sim is struggling to calculate the explosions themselves. However, the fact that this issue only came about with the new visual effect would suggest that as the culprit.

 

In any case, it's a real shame, as it basically forbids the use of a couple of weapons.

 

Edit: It's so hard to be sure. I work in IT support, so I'm used to trying to figure out where a problem lies, but i'm also only in support, so I'm a bit clueless as to how things work from a programming perspective.

[whitehot]

The thing is, why the heck are a few "nice" looking explosions so hard on a modern pc in 2012? Is it still beacuse we are using a tweaked dx9 engine from 2001?

 

that is exactly the problem. they are gonna say u need cpu power, that the bottleneck is the cpu because the sim is complex and blah blah blah. well unless youre running it on a pentium at 166 mhz the cpu dont matter. not even the whole single/multicore affair would help, we have separate threads for the sound and the rest, and that is more than enough. the problem,and very few seem to grasp it,lies in the obsolescence of the directx 9 version which devs stubbornly refuse to let die out. they were more than enough back then in the first 2000s, now its a joke. yet ppl (me included) keeps spending big bucks on cpus and gpus,always thinking like "now with this cat i will handle dcs and stuff at max detail and all". besides, the whole console thing cant allow pc users to get too superior games. my guess is that we pc users will start to get dx11, multi core and gpus really exploited as soon as the next-gen consoles get released and begin to steam. just my two cents.

[chardly38]

Has any one tryed taking the explosions folder from 1.2.0 and copy it to 1.2.2.

Things got good for me in 1.2.0 with ccc update. Now like others say , while not looking at the explosions makes big frame rate hits.

It would be nice for ED to reply to this problem.