DCS World evolution and performance

[mmaruda]

Before I write anything, I would just like to say, that it is not my intention to rant and complain for the sake of it. I will try to keep this calm and balanced, though I am in a torch-and-pitchfork crusade kind of mood.

 

DCS World seems to constantly evolving, new stuff, new modules on the way, cool things in general. On the performance side however it is appalling. I am fully aware of the engine's history and problems to make it run smooth. I have upgraded my PC a few months ago, specifically with DCS in mind and was happy for a long time with high detail and good framerates. It cost me about a year of saving, but I felt it paid off, when I was finally able to enjoy the wonders of DCS.

 

It seemed that it was only going to get better. ED is constantly optimising the engine right? Ummm, doesn't seem that way to me.

 

For the past year or so, all that was done in terms of performance was to make it worse. Around 1.0.0.8 the recommended system specs on the DCS page were enough to play comfortably. Around the release of BS2 FPS went significantly down, especially if someone was running on a Phenom II. People mentioned this and... nothing happened.

 

Right now DCS is the most demanding piece of software I can imagine, it beats Crysis, Battlefield 3, Arma 2... anything runs better. I recall some statements have been made that the engine will be optimised. Ok fine, I am aware it's hard work and not easy, let's be patient yada yada yada.

 

So after several months of waiting we get a new DCS: World patch and there is the complete opposite of improvement. We got new explosion effects and new water (yes, the same water that is rendered everywhere and that eats system resources all the time), that successfully kill FPS.

 

What I fail to understand is how come ED chose to engage people into doing new effect instead of focusing on what was a lot more important - optimisation. Another thing that puzzles me is how 1.2.1 was even released in the first place. Surely it had to be tested and surely the testers experienced the FPS drops that make the sim unplayable whenever some combat occurs (launch a few missiles, add a few smoking wrecks and you have a slide show).

 

Seriously people, if you want to do it this way, go with beta patches for the customer base. Or at least stop adding stuff that degrades performance of the engine. The logical way to do it is optimizing first, adding features later, not the other way around.

 

Currently I'm scared to think what will happen when the new missile AFM is in and EDGE finally arrives. We are not going to get 8Gh CPUs anytime soon, especially that the market is focused on mobile devices, multi-core and power saving. And as for GPU's... this is more demanding than this.

[Joyride]

Surely it had to be tested and surely the testers experienced the FPS drops that make the sim unplayable whenever some combat occurs (launch a few missiles, add a few smoking wrecks and you have a slide show).

 

I can't speak for ED's priority of work tasks related to the sim, which is the point of your post, but realize that a lot of people (including testers like me) are experiencing equal or better performance now than previous versions. It's highly system/GPU dependent - and I agree that it it's important to try to optimize for all systems, which they are always working on. Like any game/sim, DCS will continue to evolve graphically as will PC specs. 1.0.0.8 was a long time ago now - I wouldn't expect the required system specs to freeze for very long - no game/sim does that (except Falcon :))

 

Watching CBU and MLRS impacts are indeed a brief hit on the FPS, hopefully those things can be improved, but it's been smooth as butter with the recent updates for me otherwise. Just my 2 cents. I am sure I'd be frustrated if I was experiencing significant decreased performance and hopefully it'll get better for everyone.

[Demongornot]

It beat also Metro 2033 i have one of the most powerful computer rig available and i play Metro 2033 without lag but i lag with DCS World and i don't turn everything to max unlike Metro 2033...

 

I can only support you for what you write where but sorry for you bro i have already try and no one want to hear it...

 

I have finally forget my own post about performance and graphic engine, i have say a lot of possibility of optimization and i have even propose a new graphic engine to ED team based on holography who can show real photorealistic in real time for low performance cause of low polygon number and with huge view range...Result : they don't care about...

 

I will keep my optimization and my graphic engine idea and for the future make myself some stuff cause is useless to loose idea for people who don't care about...

 

Thrust me, all hope is gone for wait graphic like BF3 or Arma 2, i have already show some graphic engine who already work well and who show 100 time better graphic than DCS World and people keep told me that better graphic its impossible, funny ?

 

We have new 3D model more than what we need and who are finally too many detailed from one side and old 3D model from LOMAC at the other side and no optimization was planed cause they try to optimize general performance without make real optimization like : if we flight above huge cloud we don't need to calculate in real time the ground, or optimize for the max aircraft speed the graphic engine (actually with camera who don't move or who cross the map in less than 10 seconds i don't have any FPS difference, proof of total missing of any optimization) and the ground color will never be realistic.

 

The only thing you will to with this message its to enter in a circle of several week of fight for people who will never listen you and still think that better its impossible.

 

For your own time and health don't try to talk about graphic engine quality and performance in any simulator like FSX, X Plane, DCS and other :D

Edited October 10, 2012 by Demongornot

[MadTommy]

You simply can't compare DCS to a FPS game... they are like chalk & cheese. End of story.

 

(DCS is obviously the cheese) :D

[sylkhan]

You simply can't compare DCS to a FPS game... they are like chalk & cheese. End of story.

 

(DCS is obviously the cheese) :D

 

Is it possible to compare ROF and Dcs :)

[msalama]

FPS drops that make the sim unplayable whenever some combat occurs

Don't see any unplayability myself.

 

For me, the only time there's a framerate drop is when a large amount of rockets land nearby, and even that doesn't usually result in the game stuttering too much. This has been achieved with the newest (I think) NVidia driver set to adaptive vertical sync, i.e. forcing a steady 60Hz refresh rate on everything 3D and letting the tear control handle FPS dipping below. And this is what I run the whole show on:

 

* i7-2600k @ 4.6GHz (yes, it handles even this high a clock flawlessly)

* 16GB RAM

* NVidia GTX580

* Corsair SSD

* Win7 64-bit

* A 800W PSU (cannot remember the brand just now)

 

So while it is indeed true that DCS could do with an optimization session or 4, I still wouldn't go so far as to generalize how busy scenes make it a slideshow for all, because they do not ;)

[MadTommy]

Is it possible to compare ROF and Dcs :)

 

In terms of fun, most certainly.

 

In terms of CPU calculations I have no idea. ROF certainly does not have much to do in terms of avionics ;)

 

edit: also ROF has no ground forces.. only very simple old kites.

Edited October 10, 2012 by MadTommy

[jctrnacty]

To mmaruda:

 

I think that with further optimizations we will get better FPS. Everyone here should realize one thing, the Simulation genre is the most demanding piece of software. always was and always will, no one can imagine all the calculations, physics, weather, AFM, WAFM, that you need to apply every second.

 

I remeber those F4 and EF2000 times where there wasnt computer to run it at acceptable fps.

 

Maybe multicore support will help sometimes in future. Now, only way to run this sim smooth is to buy the latest greatest PC that is available at the moment on the market.

[Lange_666]

@ Joyride: May i ask what version of graphic driver you use currently?

[VincentLaw]

I have a 2.4 GHz dual core processor. I have not tried it in a while, but when I played the ROF it was the absolute minimum processor that could run it. my CPU was at 100% the entire time, even with only one airplane flying the game struggled. This was at minimum graphics of course.

 

DCS runs much more smoothly on my computer than ROF and definitely uses less CPU. This is impressive considering the additional aircraft systems that are modeled, since they are much more complicated aircraft. logically, the Ka-50 is slightly less hardware intensive than the A-10C, and lags less on my computer.

 

Also, for everyone saying BF3 runs better than DCS, my computer will not run BF3 because it is below the minimum requirements, but it will run DCS, so that is simply wrong. DCS also runs much better on my computer than Arma 2. I mean to run that game I have to play at unflyable view distances, where basically everything is a fog and you can't see the runway until you are over it.

Edited October 10, 2012 by VincentLaw

[lokitexas]

Is it possible to compare ROF and Dcs :)

 

No ground units, smaller maps (much smaller), less air traffic (again by far), unpopulated airfields, simple avionics, etc.

 

So not really. RoF looks pretty, but is rather simple when it comes to a "war". It does fine in smaller type dogfights.

[SyntaxError]

Awesome post OP. You going to get die hard veterans with super computers disagreeing with you, but what can we do. We can't all afford $2000 machines. The game is in desperate need of optimization and if that is impossible to deliver then a new engine to get with the times.

[VincentLaw]

Awesome post OP. You going to get die hard veterans with super computers disagreeing with you, but what can we do. We can't all afford a $2000 machines. The game is in desperate need of optimization and if that is impossible to deliver then a new engine to get with the times.

 

And me disagreeing with my really outdated laptop that can still run DCS better than these other latest AAA games with all their flashy graphics that are supposedly "more optimized than DCS" (look at my previous post)

 

Right now DCS has a very good balance between level of detail and performance for a flight simulator, but of course it doesn't match a first person shooter at ground level infantry graphics. This is part of why there is no player infantry implementation yet. Wags stated in an interview that they would need to improve the level of detail at ground level if they were going to make player infantry.

 

Q: Will DCS World eventually include a first-person shooter to compliment DCS: Combined Arms?

Matt: It is something we have discussed internally, but there are other items we would first need to address before moving forward. The most important being a higher level of detail at eye-level.

http://simhq.com/_air13/air_479a.html

Edited October 10, 2012 by VincentLaw

[GGTharos]

Before I write anything, I would just like to say, that it is not my intention to rant and complain for the sake of it. I will try to keep this calm and balanced, though I am in a torch-and-pitchfork crusade kind of mood.

 

Ok, but just so you know, you're bringing a torch-and-pitchfork to a GAU-8 fight... :D

 

It seemed that it was only going to get better. ED is constantly optimising the engine right? Ummm, doesn't seem that way to me.

 

You are wrong about this, but I understand the nature of your complaint, which is valid.

 

Right now DCS is the most demanding piece of software I can imagine, it beats Crysis, Battlefield 3, Arma 2... anything runs better. I recall some statements have been made that the engine will be optimised. Ok fine, I am aware it's hard work and not easy, let's be patient yada yada yada.

 

As you may have noticed, optimizations are being made. 'The engine will be optimized' is not a very accurate statement. The engine itself might not need a lot of optimization, but some effects may (which is probably what you are experiencing).

 

So after several months of waiting we get a new DCS: World patch and there is the complete opposite of improvement. We got new explosion effects and new water (yes, the same water that is rendered everywhere and that eats system resources all the time), that successfully kill FPS.

 

Water is not rendered under other surfaces, until you look under them. This is 3D engine rendering basics, and I imagine this happens at the driver level even, not in the game engine. I could be wrong about that though.

 

What I fail to understand is how come ED chose to engage people into doing new effect instead of focusing on what was a lot more important - optimisation.

 

This is also a misconception. The effects themselves may need to be optimized, but that might not have too much to do with the engine; and it requires a different sort of coding knowledge, too.

 

Seriously people, if you want to do it this way, go with beta patches for the customer base. Or at least stop adding stuff that degrades performance of the engine. The logical way to do it is optimizing first, adding features later, not the other way around.

 

1.2.1 was released when it was because of the auto-updater, which was a major feature, and also because of the MP login crash, which was an urgent issue.

 

Some testers specifically do very comprehensive FPS testing, but this alone, along with fixing FPS problems can be very time consuming. Sometimes you can't wait to fix it for a release - but, perhaps there are better ways of handling such things. But at this point you're venturing away from beta testing and into release QA, which is itself a big subject. Please realize that the ED team is actually pretty small, and they're working as fast and hard as they can to add a lot of things, not just graphical effects.

 

Currently I'm scared to think what will happen when the new missile AFM is in and EDGE finally arrives. We are not going to get 8Gh CPUs anytime soon, especially that the market is focused on mobile devices, multi-core and power saving. And as for GPU's... this is more demanding than this.

 

Buy your blade enclosure from HP with 16 cores and 36GB of RAM per blade, you'll be set! ;)

 

Joking aside ...

 

The missile AFM doesn't impact FPS enough for you to ever notice. EDGE, who knows, but it will be a more modern engine and should allow better, more beautiful effects without a big FPS impact compared to implementing the same on the current engine.

 

So, I think we testers understand your frustration, and so do the developers; everyone is always working to try and make things better, not worse. But alltogether we're not many people, the project is very, very complex on top of this and sometimes things happen - even big bad things, like that MP login crash.

 

The updater is one part of the solution - now ED can deploy fixes faster, without being obliged to create a big release package, which would otherwise hold up patches. It also allows us testers to test them faster, but like I said before - the project is big and complex, and many things can go wrong. No one likes it when that happens.

[doveman]

I've seen some improvements from the recent updates, notably when I'm on the ground at the start of Cold Start in Mozdok and rotate the view with Num4/Num6, it used to stick/freeze momentarily a lot, which it no longer does. Looking at the helos on the left used to bring my FPS down from about 42 to 23fps and now it goes to about 27-28, which is still not great but a welcome improvement nonetheless.

 

However, I still have a problem with it stuttering/freezing every now and then, which seems to happen at the most inopportune times when I need to be in complete control and so I can't really fly it at the moment. I'll have to experiment with Radeon Pro and see if there's any tweaks I can make that will prevent this. I don't think it's a data streaming issue though as I tested from RAMdisk and HDD and it was the same with both.

[BIGNEWY]

I have a medium / low end system and DCS is running the best it has ever done for me, when the explosions get optimised it will be outstanding !

[aaron886]

I think it's fair to say that there are many aspects of World/ED's simulations that are extremely inefficient, but again you have to consider how different a flight simulator is from every other type of computer game. The number of calculations and type of rendering is exponentially higher and more complex than that required for a first person shooter. First person shooters are all smoke and mirrors, a flight simulator must be an environment in which every angle and plausible situation can be presented dynamically.

 

That said, there is something extremely wrong with the effects rendered by World. There has been problems with effects in ED's simulations for many years now, and it has to have something to do with methodology, especially if we have a consistent problem from a relatively simple computational operation over multiple releases of software. Effects and scenery object rendering are clearly seriously out of whack. Even a small amount of scenery objects absolutely obliterates framerates that are otherwise acceptable, most likely due to an inefficient rendering algorithm or look-up process. Detail must be presented, but it must be done efficiently. I hope ED realizes this as a shortcoming of current software as part of an analysis of strengths and weaknesses. I hope EDGE combats this problem.

 

 

You going to get die hard veterans with super computers disagreeing with you, but what can we do. We can't all afford $2000 machines.

Sadly true.

 

 

Water is not rendered under other surfaces, until you look under them. This is 3D engine rendering basics, and I imagine this happens at the driver level even, not in the game engine. I could be wrong about that though.

Most other sims/games in my experience never render water under terrain, for what it's worth. However, I don't think that's really a major factor here.

 

 

The updater is one part of the solution - now ED can deploy fixes faster, without being obliged to create a big release package, which would otherwise hold up patches.

Agreed.

[mmaruda]

Ok, my specs are as follows:

 

i5 2500K@ 4,4Gh

8 gigs of RAM @ 1600Mhz

GeForce 680 2Gb RAM

 

All this is running on an Asusm Maximus Formula mobo with a Corsair 850W PSU, nice and tidy Win7x64 etc... I built this rig based on opinions of people who reported good performance in DCS on similar machines.

 

I get that fixing performance is a hard thing, but why add features that can decrease performance, like the new explosions? Who needs such Hollywood eye-candy in a simulator at all? They basically should be just an option for people able to run them. My main point is, what are the "better, more beautiful effects" good for, if they kill the gameplay?

 

Considering that the sim uses 1,5 core out of 4 that most people have, and that it's mostly CPU bound, I'd say both the engine and the effects need optimising, or whatever you call it...

 

Look, the game just needs to run better. It's a simulation, it's about flipping switches in the cockpit, reading the manual and living the dream that one day we'll be able to steal an A-10 and get away with it. Then you tell normal people about your hobby and everyone looks at you in a strange manner.

 

We don't need eye-candy, especially if it ruins performance. Most of the people would probably wet their pants if they got a new region to fly around even if it did look like crap, not to mention having a dynamic campaign along with it.

[c0ff]

I'll repeat. The marketing budget of BF3 is $50M. Development budget even if smaller, is not far from it.

DCS is created with tremendously smaller resources. It's a niche market.

 

The requirements for (and the required complexity of) a graphic engine in flight sim are much-much higher than for an FPS.

At the same time the potential market is much much smaller.

 

FPS games uses only a handful of existing and polished engines. Flight sims don't have this option.

 

Best-in-class MSFS was far from being a cash cow.

[MadTommy]

Ok, my specs are as follows:

 

i5 2500K@ 4,4Gh

8 gigs of RAM @ 1600Mhz

GeForce 680 2Gb RAM

 

All this is running on an Asusm Maximus Formula mobo with a Corsair 850W PSU, nice and tidy Win7x64 etc... I built this rig based on opinions of people who reported good performance in DCS on similar machines.

 

I get that fixing performance is a hard thing, but why add features that can decrease performance, like the new explosions? Who needs such Hollywood eye-candy in a simulator at all? They basically should be just an option for people able to run them. My main point is, what are the "better, more beautiful effects" good for, if they kill the gameplay?

 

Considering that the sim uses 1,5 core out of 4 that most people have, and that it's mostly CPU bound, I'd say both the engine and the effects need optimising, or whatever you call it...

 

Look, the game just needs to run better. It's a simulation, it's about flipping switches in the cockpit, reading the manual and living the dream that one day we'll be able to steal an A-10 and get away with it. Then you tell normal people about your hobby and everyone looks at you in a strange manner.

 

We don't need eye-candy, especially if it ruins performance. Most of the people would probably wet their pants if they got a new region to fly around even if it did look like crap, not to mention having a dynamic campaign along with it.

 

What fps are you getting in game?

 

Because if you are not getting decent fps with that hardware you must being something wrong.

 

P.S leave the 'we' out of this.. and use 'I' instead. Because I do want eye candy.

[SyntaxError]

I'll repeat. The marketing budget of BF3 is $50M. Development budget even if smaller, is not far from it.

DCS is created with tremendously smaller resources. It's a niche market.

 

The requirements for (and the required complexity of) a graphic engine in flight sim are much-much higher than for an FPS.

At the same time the potential market is much much smaller.

 

FPS games uses only a handful of existing and polished engines. Flight sims don't have this option.

 

Best-in-class MSFS was far from being a cash cow.

Will the ED team ever come to the point of been able to make a new gen engine in the next 3 years at least or is that not an option due to limited funds?

[MadTommy]

Will the ED team ever come to the point of been able to make a new gen engine in the next 3 years at least or is that not an option due to limited funds?

 

What is a 'new gen engine'?

[c0ff]

Will the ED team ever come to the point of been able to make a new gen engine in the next 3 years at least or is that not an option due to limited funds?

 

I can't comment on the subject.

But AFAIK, we are doing better than ROF ;)

[mmaruda]

I use the Battle mission for BS2 as a benchmark. Before I always had above 30FPS with max settings (single display 1920x1080). Right now when things start blowing up FPS take a dive to around 13-15. It's not the scenes, AI, textures etc, it's the explosion bitmaps or whatever they are. I did compare it with Black Shark 2 (1.1.1.1) and everything is fine there.

[GGTharos]

Because visual fidelity is part of a realistic simulation. No one wants to ruin gameplay - read my post above.

 

As for terrain and DC, this isn't something that people who make the effects can do, so it's not logically even part of your argument (If your argument was that such features sell, that's different, but it has nothing to do with a choice of what to add to the sim next).

 

I get that fixing performance is a hard thing, but why add features that can decrease performance, like the new explosions? Who needs such Hollywood eye-candy in a simulator at all? They basically should be just an option for people able to run them. My main point is, what are the "better, more beautiful effects" good for, if they kill the gameplay?

 

....

 

We don't need eye-candy, especially if it ruins performance. Most of the people would probably wet their pants if they got a new region to fly around even if it did look like crap, not to mention having a dynamic campaign along with it.