FPS on Supercarrier

With DCS currently only using two cores a higher core performance will always be beneficial

Ok that’s what I thought. Thanks.

As there have been people on here with the highest possible hardware available running VR and reporting performance, its become quite apparent that there is no hardware that'll run DCS on MAX settings in VR without a reduced frame rate. The software just doesn't allow for it, and any money thrown at it would likely be a waste (if looking for immediate results) before we know how Vulkan will help performance.

you have to remember the carrier is generally far from land, so far from objects that are sucking up CPU and GPU.

In some very crowded situations a bit of stutter is inevitable in VR. I try to avoid that situations. I have an i7 6700k at 4.5 GHz, a 2070 gaming z, 32 GB of RAM at 3200 MHz and a normal sata ssd. My monitor is a 24 inches full-hd, with my specifications I could play with dcs with highest settings and being also 144 hz + gsync I think it would be very fluid, but for me watching the action through a 24 inches window placed on the desk is not flying. Flying is being in the cockpit and having all the instruments available at a glance, and this is possible only and exclusively in VR.

Yes probably, but I had already thrown large amounts of cash at the machine and the wife was getting suspicious. :)

You just identified my biggest bottleneck. :smilewink:

Just curious, what platform do you use when you fly?

Yes probably, but I had already thrown large amounts of cash at the machine and the wife was getting suspicious. :)

You havent tried "its for work"

You guys get paid right?

Performance will be different for every system and depends on settings, hardware, system load from background tasks... It's impossible to say how well anything will run on your specific system.

I'll believe Wags and Newy on the performance, the biggest performance hits in DCS aren't graphical, there Mission related due to the threading currently in the game, something which has been acknowledged more then once by even NG and others.

If the codes optimised well enough the impact should be little. On the 'Hardware' talk i honestly am trying to not groan and bang head on the desk, but here's something that more then one person has pointed out about DCS which seems to be being ignored with the 'need a 2080ti or a titan rtx etc'.. DCS wouldn't leverage them fully anyway, even in VR with most settings turned up high DCS hits a threading CPU block before the CPU or the Graphics processor hits 100% on a 2070.. that's pushing 1440p + to 2 eyes and maintaining 30 - 45 fps on average in a MP mission (50 - 60+ on a non mp mission with less stuff). You can look at the graphs, commonly you'll top out at 95 - 97% which means the boost clock on most Nvidia cards never gets fully kicked into high, this is even more evident if you drop from VR and shift into single player on either 1080 of 1440p, GPU useage on a 2070 will drop to 50 - 70% even though your not getting maxed out frames but if you go and pull a thread report for the CPU you notice that DCS is hammering typically one core that hard it's bottlenecked.

Again issues that the Dev's are aware of and working on based on what we've been told, but not something which can just magically go away. Until we see things moved to a better multithreaded engine performance will always bottleneck at the CPU unless you have like a 1060 or something and even at 1060 will drive DCS decently at 1080 and you can reach about 30fps in vr on it (trust me i've done it) so long as you sacrifice quality for frames.

what's all that got to do with super carrier performance? Well so long as there not adding a massive chunk of extra code into the regions that currently bog down threads, in theory the impact as newy, matt, nine etc have reported would be next to nothing, until you start adding things like Aircraft etc into the mission which as again matt and others have reported are an impact because there in part were threads are bogging down currently.

But until it's out and in peoples hands honestly none of us can say.. ED can't possibly check it against every config we all run.

you have to remember the carrier is generally far from land, so far from objects that are sucking up CPU and GPU.

Performance wise, online I have never actually experienced this, rather the opposite. I mean it makes some logical sense that it should be the case, but its not.

What robgraham said. There's a fair bit of subjectivity going back in this thread about what is acceptable. Missions and multiplayer is where most of the loss occurs, and many of the reasons are Core DCS issues like bugs that crop up from time to time (DataLink drops your FPS into the canyons on the Viper in MP)

Tuning is a painful long process between what is acceptable and what is not, and often the end result will be delightful in the quickstart missions, reasonable in most of the user content/campaigns and tank in heavy PvE servers with lots of units.

I just upgraded from 1070 to a 2080s and I was kindda sad it wasn't everything I had hoped for from that price. What it can do in DCS is strongly glass ceilinged by DCS World limitaitons. However, I did find I could stream much better, had smoother experience and could touch up some settings here and there. Humbly I'd say that the 1070 and 1080 are a bit borderline for VR use now on heavy servers, but perfectly good for light missions, and the content people want really decides what they can get away with from their rig, not the hardware, which will generally work on the light and basic content as is written on the minimum specs page. Generally for VR mid range you work between 22 and 45 FPS and try to hit the 45FPS in game for smooth VR. 22 is the subjective red line. The same hardware can hit 90FPS inisde VR for basic missions at higher altitudude. That is a massive massive difference of performance in the same game with the same hardware and is essentially what data I am using to support the statement that there is a lot of nonsense being spouted out there about what frames should be gotten.

It's also supporting of my echo on what I said about the carrier eye candy. It wont be tanning FPS like people think it will, your main loss of FPS is unit count in the mission, especially radars and ground moving targets are a nope.

What robgraham said. There's a fair bit of subjectivity going back in this thread about what is acceptable. Missions and multiplayer is where most of the loss occurs, and many of the reasons are Core DCS issues like bugs that crop up from time to time (DataLink drops your FPS into the canyons on the Viper in MP)

Tuning is a painful long process between what is acceptable and what is not, and often the end result will be delightful in the quickstart missions, reasonable in most of the user content/campaigns and tank in heavy PvE servers with lots of units.

I just upgraded from 1070 to a 2080s and I was kindda sad it wasn't everything I had hoped for from that price. What it can do in DCS is strongly glass ceilinged by DCS World limitaitons. However, I did find I could stream much better, had smoother experience and could touch up some settings here and there. Humbly I'd say that the 1070 and 1080 are a bit borderline for VR use now on heavy servers, but perfectly good for light missions, and the content people want really decides what they can get away with from their rig, not the hardware, which will generally work on the light and basic content as is written on the minimum specs page. Generally for VR mid range you work between 22 and 45 FPS and try to hit the 45FPS in game for smooth VR. 22 is the subjective red line. The same hardware can hit 90FPS inisde VR for basic missions at higher altitudude. That is a massive massive difference of performance in the same game with the same hardware and is essentially what data I am using to support the statement that there is a lot of nonsense being spouted out there about what frames should be gotten.

It's also supporting of my echo on what I said about the carrier eye candy. It wont be tanning FPS like people think it will, your main loss of FPS is unit count in the mission, especially radars and ground moving targets are a nope.

Contemplating a similar gpu upgrade myself , i would be very interested to hear what graphics improvements you WERE able to make .

2080TI is meant for VR, and driving 1440P.

True,, because it definitely can't drive 4K. 4K monitors were meant for the future of nVidia cards :megalol:

I tested every setting on my machine 6600k OC @4,5GHZ 64GB RAM 1070

I used the F-18 supercarrier cold start mission just sitting on deck.

Conclusion is there is only 2 setting that really effect my performance in this scenario.

Shadows and AA.

Shadows are a HUGE hit on the deck.

Every setting on max - SSLR OFF and - SSAA OFF , Shadow falta = 65 fps shadow low = 43 fps

Shadow falt and MSAA and SSAA OFF I get 83 fps !!!

My with my goto settings Shadow low MSAA x2 SSAA 1,5 I have 42 fps on deck, 60 fps + everywhere else.

Every other setting only give +/- 1-2 fps

True. The Shadow Option alone from Flat-Only to Low/Med/High difference is about 30-40% load on my GPU (RTX2070Super). So if you have no buffer (maxed out GPU load), your FPS will drop in that margin of 30-40%.

Pretty hefty and needs adressing for sue.

Hi. I was a little hesitant to get the Supercarrier module as my PC isn't the most powerful machine - but I considered the new Kuznetsov worth £28 as I really like flying the SU-33 and thought worst case I'd use the Supercarrier when/if I upgrade my PC.

I've balanced my settings so that my FPS usually stays above 40. I wasn't shocked to see the frame rate drop to mid-high teens when running the Supercarrier Launch qualification mission in the FA-18C menu - so unplayable for me, but what I half expected. I did a few experiments - and nothing seemed to make any difference to the frame rate, even getting rid of every object bar the carrier and my aircraft resulted in similar FPS which I thought a bit odd considering how many planes/ships etc there are in the mission.

I then experimented with the shadows option. It had been set to low, but when setting it to off my frame rate never drops below the high 40s. So I'm pleasantly surprised as the fully occupied deck looks superb!! The game doesn't look as good without shadows but with a 1050ti I'm on cloud nine.

A big thank you to the developers for making an amazing game even better. I'm fairly sure some optimisation will be made to address the shadows issue in time.....as it only seems to be an issue for me with the Supercarrier. Really looking forward to updates on this module as they become available.

Thanks,

Mike

PS: System is i7(2600), 16GB ram, Gigabyte 1050ti (best I could get at the time given I require low profile card).

I keep crashing with the recent update when approaching a carrier , starting on it is fine , but after long flight and coming back often crash in vr , i9 9900k /2080 ti , kinda frustrating when you flew for 1 hour then it crash on landing