I need FPS

[xXNightEagleXx]

Guys i'm writing to you because i tried everything to improve performance but the gain was too little. I saw many threads about and tried a lot of solutions but still small gain. My biggest issue was about huge fps drop, i'd to be clear and explain that i only flew training and first 30 nm of the first campaign (i couldn't stand that massive frame drop).

 

My specs is

 

i5 2500k

8gb ram

7950 3gb

7500 rpm hd

tiple screen (each 1920x1080)

trackir

asus p8p67 m pro

650 W

 

By now i'm taking in consideration some hardware tweaks. Obviously i'm not planning to do a complete revolution but rather an update but it must be something that really gives more stability. From what i read with DCS A10C and others games (rfactor 2, iracing, falcon bms 4.32), nvidia seem to provide less fps drop specially about rfactor 2.

 

I was considering another 7950 for a crossfire but this ATI series seem to be too unstable, although they are doing whatever they can to restore stability. So i was a bit worried about spend a lot of money on another 7950 for almost none improvements.

 

In case some of you suggest to switch from ATI to nvidia, is it simple to switch from eyefinity to the nvidia surround?

Edited May 20, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx

[schkorpio]

Looking at your specs, I'm not sure if you have enough horsepower in your graphics card to be pushing three monitors at 1920x1080. It's a mid range gaming card.

Typically every extra monitor you add halves your frame rate, so with three screens you'll be getting approx 1/3 of the your single monitor frame rate.

 

Also your CPU is about 4 years old if I'm not mistaken - but should probably be enough as when it was new was a quite powerful PC.

 

The best you could do to see what is holding you back the most is to do a few tests such as:

 

Do a flight and save/record a track - replay it and take notes of the framerate, so that you have something numbers to compare - there is a button to enable FPS (shift escape or something like that, sorry cant remember!)

 

test1:

Change your game to use only one monitor, and lower the resolution to something really basic like 1024x786. And replay the same track.

If this dramatically improves your frame rate then you know that your video card is what is holding you back.

 

test2:

Then try 3 monitors all at 1024x786 on your same track, and then try the same thing with your full resolution 1920x1080.

If there isn't much difference between the two resolutions, then it means that your CPU is the component that is holding you back.

 

 

AMD/ATI or NVIDIA doesn't matter too much - but for triple monitor gaming you'll want a one of their top end cards, either a HD7970, 7990 or GTX 680/690/Titan.

 

The 7990 is bascially two 7970's the same board, as is the GTX 690 is two 680's on the same board - so its kinda of like built in SLI/CrossFire. But not all games make use of two videocards, whether seperate or on the same board, so its not always a good idea to get them. Hopefully someone that has a SLI or Crossfire setup will chime in.

 

Both eyefinity to nvidia are more or less as easy as each other to get going - plug in all of your cables and go into the control panel to set up your mointors.

 

EDIT: also with a 650Watt PSU if you consider getting a much more powerful videocard or even a 2nd one, you might need a better powersupply - 850watt or better depending on your videocard(s) of choice.

Edited May 20, 2013 by schkorpio

[Damien]

You take a huge hit in frames by using 3 monitors at that resolution. With trackIR, there really is no need for 3 screens. Give 1 a go and see your frames jump up.

 

-Damien

[TZeer]

Your CPU should be fine. If you haven't done already, you can always overclock it if you know how to.

 

But yeah, do what schkorpio said.

 

Let us know how it goes.

[xXNightEagleXx]

Looking at your specs, I'm not sure if you have enough horsepower in your graphics card to be pushing three monitors at 1920x1080. It's a mid range gaming card.

Typically every extra monitor you add halves your frame rate, so with three screens you'll be getting approx 1/3 of the your single monitor frame rate.

 

Also your CPU is about 4 years old if I'm not mistaken - but should probably be enough as when it was new was a quite powerful PC.

 

The best you could do to see what is holding you back the most is to do a few tests such as:

 

Do a flight and save/record a track - replay it and take notes of the framerate, so that you have something numbers to compare - there is a button to enable FPS (shift escape or something like that, sorry cant remember!)

 

test1:

Change your game to use only one monitor, and lower the resolution to something really basic like 1024x786. And replay the same track.

If this dramatically improves your frame rate then you know that your video card is what is holding you back.

 

test2:

Then try 3 monitors all at 1024x786 on your same track, and then try the same thing with your full resolution 1920x1080.

If there isn't much difference between the two resolutions, then it means that your CPU is the component that is holding you back.

 

 

AMD/ATI or NVIDIA doesn't matter too much - but for triple monitor gaming you'll want a one of their top end cards, either a HD7970, 7990 or GTX 680/690/Titan.

 

The 7990 is bascially two 7970's the same board, as is the GTX 690 is two 680's on the same board - so its kinda of like built in SLI/CrossFire. But not all games make use of two videocards, whether seperate or on the same board, so its not always a good idea to get them. Hopefully someone that has a SLI or Crossfire setup will chime in.

 

Both eyefinity to nvidia are more or less as easy as each other to get going - plug in all of your cables and go into the control panel to set up your mointors.

 

EDIT: also with a 650Watt PSU if you consider getting a much more powerful videocard or even a 2nd one, you might need a better powersupply - 850watt or better depending on your videocard(s) of choice.

 

Yesterday before your post i tried to play the first A10C campaign mission in single monitor 1920x1080 without trackir and initially in the runway the frame was slight better, but once i was between steerpoint 3 and 4 the frame dropped a lot until become unplayable.

[xXNightEagleXx]

You take a huge hit in frames by using 3 monitors at that resolution. With trackIR, there really is no need for 3 screens. Give 1 a go and see your frames jump up.

 

-Damien

 

Thanks but no thanks. It is so unnatural, since i play with falcon 4 i need a view of 170 degree and it's so unnatural to move that much with a single monitor.

[Nobody96]

Are you by any chance using a FFB-Stick? There are some known performance issues with the current FFB implementation.

 

so long

Mathias

[xXNightEagleXx]

Are you by any chance using a FFB-Stick? There are some known performance issues with the current FFB implementation.

 

so long

Mathias

 

No! I'm using the thrustmaster warthog, trackir, saitek rudder pro and thrustmaster mfd

[ICDO]

HD 7950 is not a mid range card as it can be overclocked to beyond HD7970 and GTX680 speeds. I am using one and at 1100/1700 overclock DCS runs like crap, even at 1024x768.

 

Huey cold start procedures training mission. All settings max apart from bushes set to 500 and mirrors off. No vsync or FPS caps.

 

2560x1600 = 30 FPS

1024x768 = 33 FPS

1024x768 with graphics set to low = 36 FPS

 

So even reducing resolution by over 75% and low graphics settings gives only a 20% FPS boost. It the game engine, not the hardware. It was the same scenario on my GTX680, lower settings yielded little or no performance increase.

[Mike Busutil]

Stop trying to fix a broken leg with a band aid... Get a new computer with the right horsepower and be done.

[xXNightEagleXx]

Stop trying to fix a broken leg with a band aid... Get a new computer with the right horsepower and be done.

 

That's exactly what would do a common person (no offence). As a programmer who has a good background i know that it might not be enough.

In fact i opened this thread not because i don't know how i can update my computer, but because a new CPU or a new GPU might not be enough due to not optimized software. From this thread i'm trying to find someone with an experience close to mine who did something that really improved the performance.

I'm 30 years old and i saw ppl wasting money on new components to find out that the old setup gave more than the new one even with 2 years of GAP with a precise game. Unfortunately this happen often.

Edited May 20, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx

[xXNightEagleXx]

HD 7950 is not a mid range card as it can be overclocked to beyond HD7970 and GTX680 speeds. I am using one and at 1100/1700 overclock DCS runs like crap, even at 1024x768.

 

Huey cold start procedures training mission. All settings max apart from bushes set to 500 and mirrors off. No vsync or FPS caps.

 

2560x1600 = 30 FPS

1024x768 = 33 FPS

1024x768 with graphics set to low = 36 FPS

 

So even reducing resolution by over 75% and low graphics settings gives only a 20% FPS boost. It the game engine, not the hardware. It was the same scenario on my GTX680, lower settings yielded little or no performance increase.

 

The same for me and i really believe that the gap between the 7950 OC and the 7970 is not that big. So i just don't want to waste money on unnecessary hardware update to barely gain a couple of average frame.

 

IMO the game is poorly optimized, so i really believe that a new 600 $ GPU would not be enough.

[BIGNEWY]

Your system is fine as it is,

 

DCS does need optimising and has done for a while, but I personally don't think it will happen.

 

ED want to get EDGE out so why would they spend time optimising an old engine, and I understand this.

 

I think we will have to wait for EDGE to see a real improvement, also NVIDIA cards seem to perform better with DCS currently, hopefully that will change when EDGE is released.

[xXNightEagleXx]

Your system is fine as it is,

 

DCS does need optimising and has done for a while, but I personally don't think it will happen.

 

ED want to get EDGE out so why would they spend time optimising an old engine, and I understand this.

 

I think we will have to wait for EDGE to see a real improvement, also NVIDIA cards seem to perform better with DCS currently, hopefully that will change when EDGE is released.

 

Thanks man! This is a good news. I can wait for the new engine, let's just hope that it provides clearly a better performance.

[BIGNEWY]

One small note, you may gain some fps by using a SSD :)

[schkorpio]

The same for me and i really believe that the gap between the 7950 OC and the 7970 is not that big. So i just don't want to waste money on unnecessary hardware update to barely gain a couple of average frame.

 

IMO the game is poorly optimized, so i really believe that a new 600 $ GPU would not be enough.

 

Well just FYI, i'm having no trouble with frame rates - getting around 60-100+ FPS most of the time. Occasionally dropping down to 40-50.

 

Mind you I have:

the civilian traffic turned off

pre-load distance to 20,000m

trees to 6,000

shrubs and clutter 250m

no tree shadows

 

I'd love to have it all cranked up to max, so i guess hopefully one day it'll all get optimised :)

 

I'm running a GTX670 and Core i5 3570K all default clock speeds.

[TZeer]

The same for me and i really believe that the gap between the 7950 OC and the 7970 is not that big. So i just don't want to waste money on unnecessary hardware update to barely gain a couple of average frame.

 

IMO the game is poorly optimized, so i really believe that a new 600 $ GPU would not be enough.

 

It's not your GPU that is the problem here.

 

Both of you look like having CPU issues.

 

Quick test you can do.

 

Open mission editor and place a plane far up north where there are no buildings, trees etc. Start it and check your FPS and object count.

 

Then move your plane to an area you know you have bad performance. Check FPS and object count and report back your findings.

 

Cheers

[xXNightEagleXx]

It's not your GPU that is the problem here.

 

Both of you look like having CPU issues.

 

Quick test you can do.

 

Open mission editor and place a plane far up north where there are no buildings, trees etc. Start it and check your FPS and object count.

 

Then move your plane to an area you know you have bad performance. Check FPS and object count and report back your findings.

 

Cheers

 

Thx. You have anticipated me by a few seconds. I was about to write that probably the problem is between low optimization and low CPU performance. I came up to this conclusion after testing single monitor with both low and high resolution. Obviously lower resolution gave me more fps but once above targets who are firing my fps drop almost about the same even though for a shorter time, it just result in a better perception because of the higher fps due to the low resolution. Surely a better gpu would provide a better fps but I would be hit by the same unacceptable drop.

 

I forgot to add that there's no big difference between single or triple screen

Edited May 21, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx

[TZeer]

What is your CPU clocked at?

 

And what is the object count when you get these performance drops?

 

To bring up object count hit ctrl+alt+pause/break 2 times. This will show FPS counter, but with a little extra info like objects, triangles etc.

[sobek]

Stop trying to fix a broken leg with a band aid... Get a new computer with the right horsepower and be done.

 

His hardware is more than satisfactory, in fact, the ivy bridge CPUs don't offer a significant increase in performance, especially not compared to the steep increase in price.

[xXNightEagleXx]

His hardware is more than satisfactory, in fact, the ivy bridge CPUs don't offer a significant increase in performance, especially not compared to the steep increase in price.

 

Already done something like that, i was flying with 3 monitors (each 1920x1080) with a tanker in front of me, the fps was very stable and surely over 30.

 

Since the beginning I forgot to tell that the drop is much bigger in cockpit view.

Edited May 21, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx

[xXNightEagleXx]

I guess i'll just give up, sad but i don't want to invest money on a game with a poor engine.

I read a lot about this game inside this forum and it is pretty obvious that this game has a very bad engine. It is pretty bugged in term of optimization and every patch is like a roulette, it might be better or worst.

In my experience as programmer and gamer i saw engines in action much heavier with a clear better result.

Unfortunately when the engine sucks upgrading a pc might really be unnecessary, specially if the generation gap between old and new setup is low. As i said i saw people investing a lot on a new pc to find out that an specific poorly optimized game runs better on the old setup than the new one.

I'm opened to whatever upgrade that might help but must be something really effective. In this case i will just put apart this game and wait for a better engine or when the generation gap increase.

 

Thanks all for the support.

[chardly38]

If you like this sim try the stand alone versions 1.1.1.1. A10 and BS only.

I get my best FPS with then running 3 monitors. Any thing after 1.2.0 in world

has gotten worse for me. I lost 20 FSP aii around with new updates.

[xXNightEagleXx]

If you like this sim try the stand alone versions 1.1.1.1. A10 and BS only.

I get my best FPS with then running 3 monitors. Any thing after 1.2.0 in world

has gotten worse for me. I lost 20 FSP aii around with new updates.

 

Thanks for your tip. I'll definitely try that. By now i'm not interested on MP because i'm still learning to the A10 Avionics.

Before i proceed could you suggest me how i can block DCS from updating my game?

[Newspeedy]

the only thing i don't understand is, when looking at my cpu its at about 45% usage, ram 30%, Gpu 55%, hdisk is almost using nothing and i only get 13 to 23 fps if i am lucky?

and after every patch i have to put al the modified backup files back in or i get only 8 fps.