Is it worth it ?

I have been a long time fan of he DCS series all the way back from the Flanker series too.

Like many others I see alot of stutter in DCS 2.5.

I know my system is modest with too litle amount of RAM (8GB).

Problem for me, reading this forum, is that though I should increase my amount of RAM, feedback from other users also shows that this won´t fix stautter and bad performance.

The recommended amount of RAM right now is 32GB, but even those with that much RAM report stuttering.

So my conclusion is that stuttering and bad performance is not related to bad PC systems, but rather a badly optimised simulator, eating up too many resources for no apperent reason (not visible at least).

There are tons of well meant sugestions to get the sim running smooth, but most are just placebo effects.

I wish the developers would be more active to explain and guide people how and why it stutters and also put more effort into enhancing this aspect, since it´s a real immersion killer.

Looking at the many feedbacks from people with quite high PC systems, I find being told to buy a better graphicscard, more RAM etc is more a workaround, than a fix.

Is the high memory consumption due to too big texture resolutions being used ?

Would an option to use lower res textures help ? (Some sims offer the option to select max texture resolution).

Though a recent feature to unload unused textures has been added - is this as optimised as possible - or could more be done ?

For my own part, I wont go out spending more money on new hardware, if I´m not sure that this will help, cause none of my other games, being it FPS, Racing sims, Flightsims has so big hardware requiremnts that DCS.

Back at DCS 1.5 we where kind of told that performance would become much better with DCS 2.x, due to better use of multicore CPU's and DX11, but my experience is quite contradicting.

I have spend quite a large amount of money on DCS, only to see the enjoyment drop considerably, cause most effoert is spend on adding more modules, and little on enhancing the overall game.

Damage modelling, Ai has been asked for avery long time now and little has been done.

Modules in early acces seems to run forever ans some of them seems to have partially disbanded, cause new money cows are more interesting to develope, that finishing what has been started and paid for.

Sorry to sound disheartened, but sometimes such questions has to be asked.

F14 is going to change everthing. :-D

Are you running all this on a traditional HDD?

You didn't list an SSD in your system specs, that alone makes a huge difference especially with only 8gb of system RAM, an SSD pagefile is way quicker than a clunky HDD one.

Dare I say I run a modest setup by DCS standards, but do not suffer stutter. I only really play off line, but it now runs ok with reasonable settings for both monitor and VR. If there's anything I can share system wise to find out why it's ok here Im happy to do so.

PS pre deferred shading was much better image quality than it is now, so all in all not worth the extra overhead the sim currently demands. I have other Sims with much better performance and quality in VR than DCS.

I'd put DCS on the back burner since 2.5 because I've a modest system and absolutely cannot stand aliasing. However I've decided enough was enough recently and dived back to see if I could get MSAA at at least 2x playable.

Sure enough I found that the shadow setting is what is killing FPS when used with MSAA. So I'm fine with no shadows and can run at a semi reasonable 30-40fps (I still remember running Flanker 2 @12fps and marvelling at that.)

I've 16gb of RAM - the Black Sea is perfect with that amount. However the Persian Gulf is unplayable for me, constant mem swapping to disk.

All that said the Biggest Single upgrade you can make for DCS is an SSD.

Nate

Are you running all this on a traditional HDD? you don't list an SSD in your system specs, that alone makes a huge difference.

Hmm my previous Black Shark 2 install was in HDD... In my eyes the engine and optimization has come forward in big strides in the last 6 years or so (during which I was away). My system spec is pretty much a high performing mid-end with 16 GB RAM etc. I know many spend tons on hardware to get the most out of DCS.

I would guess a lot depends on what missions / settings people are running. Mine is all set to high but I doubt my missions are the most demanding yet... unit count is low but I've seen 14 vs 20 air battles with no stutters etc.

Are you running all this on a traditional HDD?

 

You didn't list an SSD in your system specs, that alone makes a huge difference especially with only 8gb of system RAM, an SSD pagefile is way quicker than a clunky HDD one.

I run DCS from a HDD - and again...

No other game I have installed needs a SSD, and having to use one only indicates that something isn´t right with the optimisation of DCS.

NTTR, Caucasus with most aircraft runs mostly fine, but the Normandy and Persian gulf maps stutters alot. The AV-8B also seems to be quite resource hungry. This is with very simple missions in single player. I have yet to succesfully load a multiplayer session.

I also wonder about the Persian Gulf map, cause NTTR, which it looks very similar to, runs much better.

my opinion, without more ram and lowering ones expectations on Visuals, you will not have a smooth DCS experience. Especialy if you go Online on public servers.

DCS does suffer from stutters even from high end PC. They come and go based spawn times or just random. Like flying same mission and you get heavy stuttering until you eject and spawn and all is gone. Then you eject and spawn and they are back.

In VR it is annoying as displays are out of sync, like 100ms or so. All runs smoothly but every head movement cause stutter, as well with trackir.

Is it worth it? Yes... There ain't similar simulator available. But you need to spend time and effort to get around stutter.

I have been a long time fan of he DCS series all the way back from the Flanker series too.

 

 

Is it worth it ?

Like you (check join date), I have been around a long while.

Regrettably, I have now decided that, for me, the answer is NO, and have removed DCSW from my hard disk for the foreseeable future.

The severe performance reduction (50% for me) experienced with MSAA / deferred shading is the main reason for this. Before this was done I had a VR experience I was very happy with, and that has now gone. That it was done without warning or explanation just added insult to injury.

I'm pretty sure I could get a reasonable experience on 2D, but I've tasted (90 fps) VR now, and can never go back...

For the past few months, I've tried and tried to get results I'm happy with, (Kegetys's mod helped), but in the end, it's just all become way way too much hassle and too little enjoyment.

I've installed a popular WW2 sim, and am enjoying that. Gutted though, as modern is much more my thing.

I run DCS from a HDD - and again...

No other game I have installed needs a SSD, and having to use one only indicates that something isn´t right with the optimisation of DCS.

 

 

NTTR, Caucasus with most aircraft runs mostly fine, but the Normandy and Persian gulf maps stutters alot. The AV-8B also seems to be quite resource hungry. This is with very simple missions in single player. I have yet to succesfully load a multiplayer session.

 

 

I also wonder about the Persian Gulf map, cause NTTR, which it looks very similar to, runs much better.

I would probably suggest that there are few games out there as demanding as DCS considering what kind of detail level it’s pushing. Saying “well no other game requires an SSD therefore it’s broken” is rather short sighted when you consider pretty much ALL flight sims see a big improvement when running from SSD, FSX, X-plane, IL2 etc etc all benefit from running from a SSD. Comparing a highly detailed flight sim like DCS to a FPS or a racing sim where the furthest away thing you’re going to see is a few hundred feet is like comparing apples to oranges. Now, would I like to see DCS more optimised, sure! But when DCS runs better for me than X-plane does as similar detail levels I can’t agree with you that the core engine is junk. It’s just doing a lot of work.

I would probably suggest that there are few games out there as demanding as DCS considering what kind of detail level it’s pushing. Saying “well no other game requires an SSD therefore it’s broken” is rather short sighted when you consider pretty much ALL flight sims see a big improvement when running from SSD, FSX, X-plane, IL2 etc etc all benefit from running from a SSD. Comparing a highly detailed flight sim like DCS to a FPS or a racing sim where the furthest away thing you’re going to see is a few hundred feet is like comparing apples to oranges. Now, would I like to see DCS more optimised, sure! But when DCS runs better for me than X-plane does as similar detail levels I can’t agree with you that the core engine is junk. It’s just doing a lot of work.

:thumbup:

Still keeping my 1.5 installation in the event i can no longer keep up with hardware requirements....

I would probably suggest that there are few games out there as demanding as DCS considering what kind of detail level it’s pushing. Saying “well no other game requires an SSD therefore it’s broken” is rather short sighted when you consider pretty much ALL flight sims see a big improvement when running from SSD, FSX, X-plane, IL2 etc etc all benefit from running from a SSD. Comparing a highly detailed flight sim like DCS to a FPS or a racing sim where the furthest away thing you’re going to see is a few hundred feet is like comparing apples to oranges. Now, would I like to see DCS more optimised, sure! But when DCS runs better for me than X-plane does as similar detail levels I can’t agree with you that the core engine is junk. It’s just doing a lot of work.

You might be right regrading comparing FPS and racing sims with DCS, but do note that I also have the other flightsims You noted, and they run silky smooth with better graphical quality than DCS - and this running from a HDD.

Comparing DCS with the other combat flightsim, damage modelling, AI flight modelling and also graphics are better. Offcourse those two cannot fully be compared, since systems modelling and cockpit mechanics are different, but still - 8GB RAM and a GTX960, for all the mentioned flightsims, is sufficient.

Last not least, we where told that DCS2.x would give better performance than 1.5, due to DX11 and better optimised code, this is not exactly what many of us has seen - quite the opposite.

You might be right regrading comparing FPS and racing sims with DCS, but do note that I also have the other flightsims You noted, and they run silky smooth with better graphical quality than DCS - and this running from a HDD.

 

Comparing DCS with the other combat flightsim, damage modelling, AI flight modelling and also graphics are better. Offcourse those two cannot fully be compared, since systems modelling and cockpit mechanics are different, but still - 8GB RAM and a GTX960, for all the mentioned flightsims, is sufficient.

 

Last not least, we where told that DCS2.x would give better performance than 1.5, due to DX11 and better optimised code, this is not exactly what many of us has seen - quite the opposite.

I won't argue with much of what you've said , but i would like to point out that SSD's are dirt cheap right now , offer MUCH faster booting , and for DCS performance , much better pagefiling .

I won't argue with much of what you've said , but i would like to point out that SSD's are dirt cheap right now , offer MUCH faster booting , and for DCS performance , much better pagefiling .

You are definitly right, but it is a workaround more than a fix.