tree system does not work.

This is not really a bug, and perhaps it is a WIP. But trees, as they are implemented , especially in Georgia, do not work intutively. If the trees growing out of the ground artifact , with Deffered Shading, cannot be gotten rid, the trees need not be drawn at all. Its so distracting, it wrecks the flying experience. Especially low to the ground in a fast jet. If the only way to not have the artifact, is to have trees at 100% and visibility to high and above, with significant FPS cost, then it is not really a system worth having. Better go back to 1.5.8 noncolliding but fast tree draw.

Aside from Deffered Shading being really heavy on GPU, the trees in Georgia is the most visually distracting issue. Now we cannot turn them off. THe lowest allowable tree visibility is 30%. Because invisible trees are still collide-able, fast paced flying NOE is difficult. Basically avoid all dark patches on ground texture, becouse that where an invisible, undrawn tree is at.

Not using Deferred Shading in Georgia, makes for a somewhat weird unattractive experience. Prior to 2.5, trees in Georgia were darker then ground, which makes for a correct expected experience. Without DS , in 2.5, trees are very bright. Neon green. Even at night. The scene looks wrong and distracting. So we are required to use Deffered Shading in Georgia. NTTR still gets away without DS, except at night, when every texture is very bright. So Defered Shading is in practice a required setting for DCS 2.5. But man, does it suck away FPS!

1.5.8 noncolliding but fast tree draw

I'm 100% sure these are not mutually exclusive unless told otherwise by someone in the know.

If you move AA higher (someone said this has a big impact on the new speed tree drawing), view distance to far and tree view slider to the right (mine is like 80%) then you will not see the trees getting generated with deferred shading on. Also turning the gamma in VR down stops the glowing trees for me. I think the new trees are great, it looks much better than 1.5 for me.

Caucasus right now has A LOT of trees. If it was up to me, I would reduce somewhat this amount and increase their overall view range.

Why? Because this is a matter of realism, tactics AND eye candy. Currently, even with 100% trees visibility, you can see far away ground enemies that should be hidden by trees, giving you unfair advantage. Only when you get closer that the trees appear and cover them.

From the graphical point of view, having lots of trees around you look good, but, on the other hand, seeing them pop in and out of existence in front of you look real bad, and one thing compensates the other in the end. And you do see them poping in and out even at 100% trees visibility.

All I'm trying to say is that we have more trees than we need right now. It would still look awesome with a few less tress but improved view range, as a matter of fact it would look even better! Plus the added view range would really improve realism and tactics...

Here's another point of view..

As the owner of a reasonably high-end PC, I don't think I should have to compromise my flying experience because someone with older hardware doesn't like seeing trees pop in. The new map is beautiful and runs more smoothly for me than 1.5 ever did, with all the options pushed to near maximum settings.

The future implementation of the Vulkan API should improve performance for users across all hardware spectrums. Let's not light the torches and demand change until we see what ED has in store.

Here's another point of view..

 

As the owner of a reasonably high-end PC, I don't think I should have to compromise my flying experience because someone with older hardware doesn't like seeing trees pop in. The new map is beautiful and runs more smoothly for me than 1.5 ever did, with all the options pushed to near maximum settings.

 

The future implementation of the Vulkan API should improve performance for users across all hardware spectrums. Let's not light the torches and demand change until we see what ED has in store.

And this is where the difficulty lies for the DCS devs. Like you, I have e a reasonable PC that manages most things at high settings, even in VR.

However, my beef is that I like to fly at night and deferred shading sucks at night, and degrades my cockpit textures.

Others only use multiplayer and can't get on because of the new update and other issues.

Still more enjoy air to air combat and hate the view distance.

Yet more do air to ground and hate the poor TGP performance.

Who is DCS going to sort out first?

Your particular analogy is plain wrong. Irrespective of what PC you own, if you own a terrain and a jet the same as Joe Bloggs does, you reckon you should have priority because you have better hardware?

That might work in a Disneyland roller coaster queue because you paid extra for a fast pass ticket, but it sure as hell does not work in the car park, you get space you paid for whether you own a Ferrari or a Fiat.

As the owner of a reasonably high-end PC, I don't think I should have to compromise my flying experience because someone with older hardware doesn't like seeing trees pop in.

My point was that you have trees pop in even on max settings. It's not a matter of high- versus low- end pc.

My suggestion doesn't have to do with performance at all, I just suggested a trade between total amount of trees in the map and total tree visibility range, keeping the same performance. IMO it would be beneficial from all aspects, realism, eye candy, etc.

;Irrespective of what PC you own, if you own a terrain and a jet the same as Joe Bloggs does, you reckon you should have priority because you have better hardware?

It's not a question of his/yours/my priority. The sim is and will always be run across a spectrum of hardware that changes over time. The older/less powerful/slower it is the more you will compromise to make it run smoothly. As time passes the specs rise.

This has always been the case. The PC I first played DCS World on can no longer run it, and I wouldn't expect or want it to.

More like impossible. But it will be three weeks for new station to arrive. I am also considering swapping GPU in my legacy system, an HP Z240 wkstation. However the issue is space and power. Space I think I have, as K4000 is itself almost double height card. However the PCI-X is at v 2.0 not 3.0 , and power supply is may be 400 watt, 450 if I am lucky. It has I7-3770K with 32GB ram , which is max. It runs my 3D apps really well. Maya, Realflow, Houdini, Arnold, Redshift (GPU). When DCS was put on it in 2013, it got above 48fps with A-10C, UH-1H, KA-50, and FC3. In 2014 I added Mig-21bis, and added F-5E in 2017. Once we hit 1.5.2 FPS started to drop. Sometime it would surge on a build, then drop down. My 1920X1200 panel died, and was replaced with 2560X1440 Q series gaming and graphics panel, that dropped FPS to about 36-32 in 1.5.8. With 2.0 FPS went down again, and 2.5 is barely , barely playable.

I don't think upgrading CPU is going to change much. On Benchmark I7-3770K does about 9350 - 10,500 score with single thread score, vital for DCS and gaming, of 2100 something. A Xeon W-2125 3.6-4.3 GHZ has single thread score of 2570. And overall benchmark of 13700 something. Fastest commonly available Intel CPU with highest single thread score. I9-7900X hs massive 22,300 score becouse of its 10 cores, but lower 2010 single thread CPU score. I regret that I have never seen my DCS use more then single thread. When I cook a sim using Houdini, or Realflow, with OpenCL or not, as soon as I hit SIM, the CPU threads in task manager spike and stay spiked on full. I have never seen DCS even break 1/2 of any single thread usage. But DCS does use 100% of GPU, and I can see that in Task Manager on Win10Pro (latest update 10.0.16299.309). So DCS 2.5 is GPU centric. Performance gains from CPU are not marginal , but they are not order of magnitude higher either. Expect maybe 25-33% faster, probably less, between my current CPU I7-3770K and I9-7900X, slightly less gain with I7-7700. DCS is all about the GPU and that GPU needs to be good. No doubt about it. Obviously I can't just stick 1080Ti or Radeon Vega, TitanXP into my legacy box. It can't power it. So which board would do? I don't think a 1070Ti would work either. 1070 power specs are nearly same as 1080 and both are PCI-X 3.0. Sticking a PCI-X 3.0 into 2.0 socket, might function, assuming adequate power, but board will step down in performance. I think. It has to.

That is why I posted in a different thread. What exactly is Deffered Shading? How do we benchmark it? What common 3D benchmark/score that we can see on a given board that gives an indicator of Deferred Shading performance?

I don't use MSAA or Nvidia's FXAA. It sucks away FPS and on 2560X1440 is not really needed. Hell, anti-aliasing is expensive in normal non RT renders. Motion blur! Fogetaboutit!

It is beautiful, I believe that the 1.5.8 client was kept alive (unsupported) just for folks who would not like to or can't support the new render engine. I agree with the poster that suggested that the game not be catered to older generation hardware. I do realize that new hardware costs, but that shouldn't affect the forwarding of progress with this product.

Press on ED!

I want to agree with you. But we don't all have the machine we think we need. Unless I spring for two home systems, a hell NO for me. The system I need needs to run DCS great and my career apps, lest I find myself unneeded by the world. My system needs to run DCS at near its max settings at above 48fps, and it needs to run Maya, Realflow, Houdini, Arnold Render, Redshift, NUKE, Mudbox, and host of other utills. While 1080Ti does do that , and more or less great. Non Quadro boards have issues with Maya's Veiwport 2.0 technology, and unstable OpenCL GPU simulation. Common conspiracy theory is that Nvidia intentionally cripples GTX boards so as not to cannibalize Quadro sales. But game people, developers at Krytek (FarCry Engine) , tell me that Quadro and RadeonPro hobble some game specific shading performance features to achieve wkstation board reliability and lifetime. Makes one want to rip one's hair out. DCS is not the only flight sim I run. Other is Prepare3D from LockheedMartin. That application is more of a prepatory, not entertainment.

I want to agree with you. But we don't all have the machine we think we need. Unless I spring for two home systems, a hell NO for me. The system I need needs to run DCS great and my career apps, lest I find myself unneeded by the world. My system needs to run DCS at near its max settings at above 48fps, and it needs to run Maya, Realflow, Houdini, Arnold Render, Redshift, NUKE, Mudbox, and host of other utills. While 1080Ti does do that , and more or less great. Non Quadro boards have issues with Maya's Veiwport 2.0 technology, and unstable OpenCL GPU simulation. Common conspiracy theory is that Nvidia intentionally cripples GTX boards so as not to cannibalize Quadro sales. But game people, developers at Krytek (FarCry Engine) , tell me that Quadro and RadeonPro hobble some game specific shading performance features to achieve wkstation board reliability and lifetime. Makes one want to rip one's hair out. DCS is not the only flight sim I run. Other is Prepare3D from Lockheed-Martin. That application is more of a prepatory, not entertainment.

A RYZEN board especially a 7. would / should do fine with Work Apps. latest edition of Maya instruction SSE4.2 set is supported as well the rest should work as well especially paired with a 1070ti or higher GPU. or WS specific like this. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1297999-REG/amd_100_505940_radeon_pro_wx_5100.html?ap=y&c3api=1876%2C%7Bcreative%7D%2C%7Bkeyword%7D&gclid=CjwKCAjwnLjVBRAdEiwAKSGPI1NegR-60jWJ9odRtje1Gqrh9c-Lunltza2E450tv3R4U4H3heYTGRoCRkYQAvD_BwE

but a 2gb video card really doesnt cut it anymore. on a budget 4-8gb but you really need more fore future proofing and this is where its in 3.0 PCI territory so unfortunately 2.0 wont cut it anymore so a hardware upgrade is the only solution.

I don't think the trees are worked out and final.

As (or similar) you stated their lighting and color are a bit off.

Kinda self illuminating and in some scenarios cartoonish.

With the possibilities these speed trees come with I'm pretty sure ED is going to revisit them once the bigger issues are solved.

And even if not...then someone will make a mod (granted the IC check may pose an obstacle).

So again it comes down catering to your extremely specialized needs and budget. This should not be a concern for developers, nor should the graphics card politics. I feel for you, but your very specific problem shouldn't become mine.

As far as the parking lot comment...my statement wasn't an analogy. It was very straightforward: you cannot expect a 5 year old video card to perform at the same level as current generation technology. The PC world has always moved quickly. I don't want compromises in the total possible object count in a new graphic engine to satisfy people who are unable or unwilling to keep up. That's why detail settings exist.

If your rig gets to a place where you feel the level of detail is unacceptable at the settings you need to run to feel the performance is acceptable, you simply have to bite the bullet and upgrade or walk away. You can't expect the world to wait until it's convenient for you.

Let's cap all of that with remembering this is an in-development beta version of a software. The team are aware of lighting and memory issues and have stated multiple times they are working to resolve them. There are plans to implement measures to improve performance across the board.

because a PC is not capable of processing graphics.

Exactly. The guy complains how DCS doesn't run properly on his below-specs rig, but instead of purchasing some modern hardware, keeps on whining here how it's all wrong. When in reality the biggest thing wrong is his computer :doh:

Exactly. The guy complains how DCS doesn't run properly on his below-specs rig, but instead of purchasing some modern hardware, keeps on whining here how it's all wrong. When in reality the biggest thing wrong is his computer :doh:

+1 this , i wanna play with 486/66mhz , so please lets get back to flanker 1 graphics ..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh come on! It is not unreasonable to expect a decent machine to have decent FPS in DCS 2.5. I need to wait until the my new rig arrives. That one is XEON W-2125, 64gb ram, Quadro P4000. It will run 2560X1440 panel and one 1920X1080 panel. Both are Q series gaming and graphics panels. I know my current is dated, that is why new one is incoming. Just for heck of it, I set settings as follows;

Textures: High

Terrain Textures: High

Civ. Traffic: Med

Visibility Range: High

Heat Blur: low

Shadows: Med

Resolution: 2560X1440

Aspect: 1.778

Monitors: 1

Res. of Cockpit Displays: 512

MSAA: 2X

DOF: OFF

Lens Effect: Flare+ Dirt

HDR: Off

Deffered Shading: ON

Anisotropic filter: 2X

Terrain Shadows: Default

Cockpit GI: OFF

Clutter/Grass: 500

Trees Visibility: 100%

Preload Radius: 100000

Smoke density: 1

Gamma: 1.4

Disable Aero : ON

Vsync: off

Full Screen : ON

Scale GUI: OFF

Observed FPS with current rig. I-3770K, 32gb ram, Quadro K4000. 5-7 fps in Georgia, 7-9 in NTTR.

To get 48-60 FPS with the new rig, the performance of DCS 2.5 would have to be 10X (1000%) better overall. I have no such expectation of a Dell 5820T wkstation with XEON W-2125 4.3GHZ, 64GB DDR4 2666mhz ram, Quadro P4000 8gb. I expect 2X maybe 3X perfomance increase, and that is excellent. I do not expect more then 20-24 FPS with DCS 2.5 at the settings above . That is low performance with a way above average system. The single biggest FPS drag in those config is trees with Deffered Shade.

Bottom line for me is that DCS is little more than a toy. I use my PC for other things that are far more important than playing pilot.

My system is 5 years old and admittedly outdated for DCS. However, it works great for the work that it needs to perform for me.

Right now DCS works OK for me. I do not have a lot of expectations of it and am flying it much less these days as it seems to be developing more problems than benefits. This issue has little to do with my hardware.

When the time comes that DCS no longer runs to my personal satisfaction due to more demanding technology, I will simply take it off of my system and not complain.

PC hardware is just getting unreasonable price wise. When I started flight sims it was completely different. I am not about to fork over the money that they are asking for hardware these days. Again....it's a toy for me.

The main reason that I haven't purchased any new modules is that I see this scenario playing out in the near future. If DCS would rather go in the direction of specialized, high end only flight simulation, more power to em. I got an Xbox that's just as amusing and doesn't require $1000 to upgrade.

It's really just that simple to me.

Then its just your choice.

And again, quatro is not gaming card. Thats just fact.

So no cpu update help.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why? Because this is a matter of realism, tactics AND eye candy. Currently, even with 100% trees visibility, you can see far away ground enemies that should be hidden by trees, giving you unfair advantage. Only when you get closer that the trees appear and cover them.

The vehicles should be made transparent or hide at given distances and motion/stationary flags for visuals (Mk1 eyeballs) or start to reveal them with optical enhancements.

It is not that the OP is completely wrong. DCS has enormous requirements, always required (in LOMAC days) hardware which was few years ahead of the typical house one.

The solution is not to drag others down, but just make your copy of the game smoother.

Remove some shaders, remove trees (files).

When my PC was too old for old LOMAC I had to cut settings beyond minimal, so I removed unneeded shaders (helped A LOT), toyed with textures and in the end I achieved much more than it was possible. For the price of look of course.

You can do the same in meantime waiting or saving money for the hardware which has just been manufactured and is being transported to the shop because this is the hardware which would give you good experience with DCS.

Then its just your choice.

 

And again, quatro is not gaming card. Thats just fact.

 

So no cpu update help.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly.......Nothing personal, just a choice.