Jump to content

NoName73

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About NoName73

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello, the regular upgrade strategy gives more options. You can reevalute where you´re at and how things have evolved. Unfortunately, there might a lower bound on how much you have to spend to get to certain level. I personally don´t like to migrate my complete software packages to a new system. Therefore I invest more and stick with that for longer. A graphics card upgrade along the way gives you a bit more life for your other components and you could carry it over to a newer CPU. I guess, the used market is no real option?! 800$ new -> sell for 200$ and get a new one? :juggle:
  2. Hello, I found this quite helpful. How to get the best Anti-aliasing graphic settings in DCS DCS NVIDIA GRAPHICS PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION SETTINGS GUIDE V.2 for DCS 2.5 Thanks to the creators. I then optimized my in-game setting to get reasonable CPU-frametimes; given the custom-presets I have a "beauty-setting" and a "performance-setting" --- i7-4771, 1070Ti, 32 GB-DDR3 (Win7, 451.67-driver)
  3. Just one more out of curiosity... ... turns out that things are different when keeping DCS running compared to a fresh start. :music_whistling: So, all values were taken with an inital start of DCS, loading and starting the mission, and after 5 minutes of flying around. Clean aircraft, straight from the mission editor. "Warm start" with just changing the aircraft gave up to 10 percentage points higher values for VRAM-usage. Not sure what to make of that or if it would be relevant for in-game performance. That would require a more knowledgable person than me to figure out. Textures = h
  4. @LucShep A bit off-topic... Casmo had a great point about Nevada vs. Persian Gulf. No carrier operations with the Nevada map, but more terrain to fly over.
  5. Let's see what the trade-off would be for an alternative texture-setting. Open Beta 2.5.6.53756 Textures = high, Terrain Textures = low [TABLE]Map // VRAM (rel.) // RAM [GB] Nevada .. 60% .. 12,0 Caucasus .. 65% .. 11,5 Persian Gulf .. 70% .. 14,5 Normandy.. 65% .. 11,5 Channel .. 95% .. 17,5 Syria .. 85%.. 15,5[/TABLE] Textures = high, Terrain Textures = high ... just for reference (my original setting) [TABLE]]Map // VRAM (rel.) // RAM [GB] Nevada .. 75% .. 11,5 Caucasus .. 80% .. 11,5 Persian Gulf .. 85% .. 14,0[/TABLE] FPS were not noticeably diffe
  6. Glad that the comparison was helpful. :) Personally, I always liked the Persian Gulf a bit better. But Nevada surely has it's nice places, too - Hoover dam never gets old. Regarding my results, you could always try to dail back some settings. Terrain textures on low had a significant effect on VRAM-usage if remember correctly. --- Maybe some additional information that might be of interest (rounded values). [TABLE]Map // disk space Caucasus .. 16 GB Nevada .. 34 GB Normandy .. 15,5 GB Persian Gulf .. 33 GB Syria .. 47 GB The Channel .. 18 GB[/TA
  7. Had the chance to download the new Syria map right after release. Here is a first update on memory consumption. Settings and driver unchanged. [TABLE]Map // VRAM (rel.) // RAM [GB] Syria // 95% // 17,5[/TABLE] FPS as reported above; avg 40s, down to 20, 60 at high altitudes I took a quick look around the HOMS-area in an F-16, RAM shot up to over 20 GB after a short while. The map-folder is about 47 GB in size. --- Great map, the level of detail and variation is really stunning. :thumbup:
  8. Some additional questions to consider - no need to answer publicly. Can you monitor VRAM-usage to narrow the problem down? Would you carry over the card to a new system? How long will it realistically take until you can switch to a new system? How much of a financial stretch would a new graphics be? Is DCS the only application that requires more performance? How long will you stay with DCS? Started with a GTX760-2 GB back in mid-2014 myself, revisited DCS in 2018 and decided to upgrade to a 1070TI-8 GB after quite some time of getting to know the simulation. A bit too much
  9. I assume it depends on how much you're "over" 100%. After a while on the Channel map I too see 99%. If DCS would request 120% (rel.) the amout of shifting the memory around should increase, resulting in some form of freeze or stutter. I just wanted to share the informance since I am not aware to have seen this kind of data in comparison before. Up to now, most things where fine for me and I shied away from upgrading to 32 GB. With the Channel map it was mostly about VRAM-usage. But, I guess there is nowhere else to go with the base system. I might as well take the last step in terms of an h
  10. Thank you for the suggestion - will give it a try. FPS are not my main concern at the moment. I do not have the time to fly DCS that often and am still in the learning phase. The Channel map is done by ED, not Ugra Media. My VRAM had simply been maxed out. That had caused freezes while looking around in the cockpit and had not been present before. After checking the different monitors, I realized that RAM also peaked at 16 GB. With 32 GB already installed and 11 GB of VRAM on some cards I guess one wouldn't directly notice the higher memory consumption since the other maps don't tak
  11. Hello, while exploring the Channel map I came across some performance issues I haven't experienced before. In short, memory consumption is higher than with the other maps taking my systems to it's limits in that regard. Following is some data I wrote down during my evaluation process - obviously not scientific and specific to my system. Maybe it's of interest to someone. Could be relevant for the upcoming Syria map given the level of detail shown in the preview videos. Open Beta 2.5.6.52437 (latest) [TABLE]Map // VRAM (rel.) // RAM [GB] Nevada // 45% // 10,5 Caucasus // 58% // 1
×
×
  • Create New...