Jump to content

32 GB Upgrade - Memory consumption with different maps


Recommended Posts

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% // 11,5

Normandy // 70% // 12

Persian Gulf // 65% // 14,5

The Channel // 95% // 16,5[/TABLE]

 

FPS in the mid 40s, down to 20 at 100ft in densely populated areas, 60 at high altitudes

 

System

Win 7, i7-4771, 32 GB 1600 CL9, 1070TI-8GB (Asus OC-Profile @1746 MHz). Windows Samsung 860 Evo, DCS 840 Evo, pagefile set to auto, one 1920*1200 monitor

 

base system from mid-2014 (16 GB, GTX760-2GB), upgrade to 1070TI in late 2018, added 16 GB of same spec now

 

Scenario

Mission scenario is a casual flight set in the morning hours with some clouds, single A-10C (clean), mirrors off

 

Values for VRAM-usage were taken using ASUS GPU Tweak, RAM from task-manager, FPS averaged manually from DCS-display. RAM consumption increased during the "mission" by up to 1.5 GB.

 

Additional observations

I started my comparison using NVIDIA's driver 451.48 initially, then moved to 451.67 and checked again. The newer driver seemes to perform a little better in terms of VRAM but not significantly. So far, I haven't had any issues with 451.67. Load times for the first startup did not feel different than with 16GB, re-load is much quicker.

 

Since Textures on high is no longer possible for me on the Channel map I reevaluated my setting, and with some inspiration from Wags' settings I settled for those seen below. First, I thought the "full screen"-option made FPS more stable but was not able to reproduce the results going back and forth. Vsync off may give a better impression of speed down low but might effect aesthetics. FPS sometimes peaked at much higher values with this setting.

 

DCS Settings

Textures .. Medium

Terrain Textures .. High

Civ. Traffic .. Medium

Water .. High

Visib. Range .. Extreme

Heat Blur .. Off

Shadows .. High

Resolution .. 1920*1200

Aspect Ratio 16:10

Monitors .. 1 Screen

Res. of Cockpit Displays .. 1024

MSAA .. 2x

Depth of Field .. Off

Lens Effect .. Dirt + Flare

Motion Blur .. Off

SSAA .. Off

SSLR .. Off

 

Clutter/Grass .. 1000

Tree Visibility .. 60%

Preload Radius .. 150000

Chimney Smoke Density .. 5

Gamma .. 2.0

 

Anisotropic Filtering .. 8x

Terrain Object Shadows .. Default

Cockpit Global Illumination .. On

Messages font scale .. 1

Scale GUI .. 1

Rain Droplets .. On

Vsync .. On

Full Screen .. Off

 

Fly safe,

 

Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I had similar findings.

 

This is the price we pay to have gorgeous maps with lots of objects in them. I expect the Syria map to be similar to The Channel map. The videos that Wags posted showed Syria to be as complex as The Channel.

 

It's great - would love to have Ugra revisit Normandy and make it as complex/detailed as The Channel. I expect there will be optimisations to the Channel but I wouldn't expect a huge difference. All that eye candy consumes memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing NoName73 (oh and welcome to the forum!)

 

The 96% usage on Ugra's Channel map, is quite disturbing (I don't own that map, so haven't tried myself).

 

Even more concerning is the fact that both Ugra and ED are frighteningly quite about VR performance of the upcoming Syria map. Despite numerous questions about it: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=278183

System specs:

 

i7-8700K @stock speed - GTX 1080TI @ stock speed - AsRock Extreme4 Z370 - 32GB DDR4 @3GHz- 500GB SSD - 2TB nvme - 650W PSU

HP Reverb G1 v2 - Saitek Pro pedals - TM Warthog HOTAS - TM F/A-18 Grip - TM Cougar HOTAS (NN-Dan mod) & (throttle standalone mod) - VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Plus with ALPHA-L grip - Pointctrl & aux banks <-- must have for VR users!! - Andre's SimShaker Jetpad - Fully adjustable DIY playseat - VA+VAICOM

 

~ That nuke might not have been the best of ideas, Sir... the enemy is furious ~ GUMMBAH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 take that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe optimization is in progress, which should help.

 

 

I have more or less the same results as you except for, 1.5 SSAA, Vsync fast, PF 32 gb, and over a hundred vehicles in a battle.

 

 

Great map, but I tend to keep away from large towns and stay in the South of the map.

 

 

..

I7 2600K @ 3.8, CoolerMaster 212X, EVGA GTX 1070 8gb. RAM 16gb Corsair, 1kw PSU. 2 x WD SSD. 1 x Samsung M2 NVMe. 3 x HDD. Saitek X-52. Saitek Pro Flight pedals. CH Flight Sim yoke. TrackIR 5. Win 10 Pro. IIyama 1080p. MSAA x 2, SSAA x 1.5. Settings High. Harrier/Spitfire/Beaufighter/The Channel, fanboy..





..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I'm running a 2070 Super (8 GB, factory OC) and on the Channel map my VRAM is pretty much pinned to 100%. But, the system seems to handle it. It was smooth in spite of this but the latest build (OB parity with stable) seemed to introduce some microstutters here and there. Being low and slow over Dover was in the 40-45 FPS range IIRC.

 

I did a big upgrade to my system at the end of June (3770k OC, 32GB -> 10700k, 64 GB fast, low CL memory) and that helped a lot (no longer CPU bound) but I'll be upgrading my video card in the fall to match the rest of the system since I'm totally GPU bound now. Whatever card I get will have lots of VRAM. I'm hoping the new AMD and NVIDIA cards will have 12, 16 or more VRAM available.

 

Lately I've taken to running at 4K with all anti-aliasing turned off and this seems to help a lot to keep the low frame rates higher than low rates at 1440p with lots of AA turned on. It also helps a lot with that other DCS complaint - spotting other AC and ground targets. Generally I see 10-12 FPS difference between these two modes with the 4k floor being around 60 FPS +/- 5 most of the time (except when low over Dover for example). Anecdotal things are anecdotal. I haven't bothered data capturing lately - just been enjoying the sim. I need to hook up Telegraph on my Windows box so it can pump the data to Prometheus so I can automate the data capture. Probably will be a pita under Windows.


Edited by reece146
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 hardware upgrade. A new build is about 18 month or so away. Transitioning to Win 10 on the existing hardware comes first.

 

-

 

Yes, I am looking forward to those optimzations. On the other hand, the upcoming features will demand their share of the ressources as well. Let's see what Vulkan will be able to do for us. I plan to wait with a new build until things have settled down in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be my imagination, but going from 16GB to 32 I noticed significant improvements and zero crashes or freezes (finger crossed) on multiplayer during heavy missions. It’s about time to get some real performance optimizations, the last patches seems to have made things worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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% // 11,5

Normandy // 70% // 12

Persian Gulf // 65% // 14,5

The Channel // 95% // 16,5[/TABLE]FPS in the mid 40s, down to 20 at 100ft in densely populated areas, 60 at high altitudes

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

@NoName73

 

Many thanks for the "benchmarking".

 

I'm interested in purchasing a "desert" map, for a different flavour with modern and not-modern aircraft modules that I own. I only have Caucausus.

 

I was aiming initially for the Syria map, but your results pretty much confirm my suspicions, that it is very heavy on resources, and that Nevada seems far better for performance than Persian Gulf (and also latest Syria map).

I think it's pretty much decided for me then. :thumbup: TY


Edited by LucShep

CGTC Caucasus retexture mod  |  A-10A cockpit retexture mod  |  Shadows reduced impact mod  |  DCS 2.5.6  (the best version for performance, VR or 2D)

DCS terrain modules_July23_27pc_ns.pngDCS aircraft modules_July23_27pc_ns.png  aka Luke Marqs; call sign "Ducko" =

Spoiler

Win10 Pro x64 | Intel i7 12700K (@5.1/5.0p + 3.9e) | 64GB DDR4 @3466 CL16 (Crucial Ballistix) | RTX 3090 24GB EVGA FTW3 Ultra | 2TB NVMe (MP600 Pro XT) + 500GB SSD (WD Blue) + 3TB HDD (Toshiba P300) + 1TB HDD (WD Blue) | Corsair RMX 850W | Asus Z690 TUF+ D4 | TR PA120SE | Fractal Meshify C | M-Audio USB + Sennheiser HD-599SE | 7x USB 3.0 Hub | 50'' 4K Philips 7608/12 UHD TV (+Head Tracking) | HP Reverb G1 Pro (VR) | TM Warthog + Logitech X56 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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[/TABLE]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 different. Maybe two or three frames more.

 

Setting values to Textures = high, Terrain Textures = low might actually be a better compromise. Terrain Textures = high did look a bit better from what I can tell, but might not be enough to sacrifice cockpit detail.

 

I have experimented with flat shadows. That didn't do much for me. What made a difference was going with Visible Range = medium. FPS were in the 50+-range and more stable. But I just don't like the resulting pop up-effect down low.


Edited by NoName73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LucShep

 

A bit off-topic... Cosmo had a great point about Nevada vs. Persian Gulf. No carrier operations with the Nevada map, but more terrain to fly over.

 

 

 

Thanks mate, appreciated :thumbup:

 

I reverted my DCS installation to 2.5.6.49798 stable (05-28-2020) just today, as it was the last stable release where I found cockpit lights for modules I have were the least borked (very important to me).

For the least, I know that with Nevada not just the performance is a little better, it will work along all the older content for previous 2.5.6 versions, which I will be using until things get "OK" again with next builds. :)


Edited by LucShep

CGTC Caucasus retexture mod  |  A-10A cockpit retexture mod  |  Shadows reduced impact mod  |  DCS 2.5.6  (the best version for performance, VR or 2D)

DCS terrain modules_July23_27pc_ns.pngDCS aircraft modules_July23_27pc_ns.png  aka Luke Marqs; call sign "Ducko" =

Spoiler

Win10 Pro x64 | Intel i7 12700K (@5.1/5.0p + 3.9e) | 64GB DDR4 @3466 CL16 (Crucial Ballistix) | RTX 3090 24GB EVGA FTW3 Ultra | 2TB NVMe (MP600 Pro XT) + 500GB SSD (WD Blue) + 3TB HDD (Toshiba P300) + 1TB HDD (WD Blue) | Corsair RMX 850W | Asus Z690 TUF+ D4 | TR PA120SE | Fractal Meshify C | M-Audio USB + Sennheiser HD-599SE | 7x USB 3.0 Hub | 50'' 4K Philips 7608/12 UHD TV (+Head Tracking) | HP Reverb G1 Pro (VR) | TM Warthog + Logitech X56 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 = high, Terrain Textures = high

 

 

Nevada

[TABLE]Plane // VRAM (rel.) // RAM [GB]

F/A-18C .. 63% .. (11,5)

F-16C .. 77% .. (11,5)

F-14 .. 82% .. (11,5)

F-86F .. 53% .. (11,5)

[/TABLE]

 

Caucasus

[TABLE]Plane // VRAM (rel.) // RAM [GB]

F/A-18C .. 68% .. (11,0)

F-16C .. 83% .. (11,0)

F-14 .. 90% .. (11,0)

P-47D .. 70% .. (11,0)

[/TABLE]

 

Persian Gulf

[TABLE]Plane // VRAM (rel.) // RAM [GB]

F/A-18C .. 73% .. (13,5)

F-14 .. 94% .. (13,5)

[/TABLE]

 

 

---

Nevada in the morning hours with some dramatic shadows is still a really nice map.


Edited by NoName73
Layout keeps changing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...