FPS is half of what I get in the blackshark

FPS is half of what I get in the black shark ,making it pretty much unplayable.30-35 in the shark pit 15-10 in the gazelle. This is without the camera on. Turn the camera on and it can drop to 6!!! This should not be happening IMO and needs to have some optimizing. Not too impressed with this recent purchase.If I could return it and get my money back...I would.

I don't know if the 1.57 has anything to do with it, as I just got the helo 2 days ago.

Are the DEV's aware of this performance drop and are they going to address it?

That's bull...if I can fly all other aircraft that I own comfortably (I own all of them except for 3 aircraft and a terrain) with the settings I have...then there is an issue with the gazelle , not my computer.And what it this issue you speak of?

The Gazelle has a relatively high system requirement.

If you disable mirrors in Options\Gameplay\Mirrors you can get some performance back.

Many of the Campaign missions have high Civilian traffic enforced which can make things worse but can but can be fixed by opening the mission in the ME and changing the setting.

Later campaign missions can also be problematic for systems with weak CPU's? as the number of units/aircraft increase. I don't have performance issues on my own smaller missions(<40 units).

AFAIK the Gazelle performance is as intended but there is always the possibility of further optimisation by the dev team.

The situation was 4 enemy armor btr's out of sight about 30km away and 2 helo's,the gazelle and the shark on the map,that shouldn't be any sort of stress on any system considering that taking off from the runway in a black shark is 35-40 fps and the same runway is 10-15 in a gazelle in the same mission.Not to mention it dropping to 6 when the camera came on. Plain and simple is that the shark can be flown without issue where as the gazelle in most cases is not playable in comparison. That shouldn't be.

Most of the later modules are much more of fps hogs compared to oldest ones like Ka-50, A-10C or P-51D.

Gazelle is one of the most fps hungry ones among all. I supposed as times passes, new modules will become more and more demanding. The sim itself also seem to perform worse for me with each patch, even though when I got this computer about a year ago I could run it great in almost max settings. I just hope eventual 2.5 merging will make it better, and hopefully not even worse.

One of your issues might be the 8gb ram, if possible consider upgrading to 16.

Well its kinda silly to go out and spend 100$ for ram and another 200-300 for a graphics card for the sake of 1 aircraft. Thats just crazy. But if what your saying is the way of things to come in the future...then maybe Eagle Dynamics should be holding the 3rd parties to a better standard ,...one that is closer to their flagship products.The ones that work well...

Well its kinda silly to go out and spend 100$ for ram and another 200-300 for a graphics card for the sake of 1 aircraft. Thats just crazy. But if what your saying is the way of things to come in the future...then maybe Eagle Dynamics should be holding the 3rd parties to a better standard ,...one that is closer to their flagship products.The ones that work well...

No simply not. Why should they keep developers to a low standard? A lot of the current pits look much better than the Shark pit. As time goes on the effects and clouds will also be updated and I think nobody is so green to believe it will improve fps. As DCS developes the Hardware also developes and there is defenitely no reason to complain about fps with a video card below minimum specs no matter if some other modules are running. Some other companies wouldn't even reply to such posts but at least you could try to stay polite...

I know how to tweak the system , been doing it for as long as I've owned DCS.I could knock a lot of settings down but I shouldn't have too. A Better question I think would be why is the gazelle such a FPS hog as compared to the 16 other aircraft I own??

My FPS on the gazelle is the same as any recent aircraft.

Edit: Just did a test mission with 2 aircraft at the same airport, M2000C -> 47FPS, SA-342M -> 50FPS.

I just went in and did some tests...open ocean, same horizon. Gazelle vs mirage (both new modules in comparison to older DCS) gazelle is 62FPS,mirage is 86...that's a 20 plus frame difference. So the old vs new module argument doesn't hold water.

The comparison test is new vs new(mirage vs gazelle) the argument posted above was saying it was a difference between old vs new(older dcs ie blackshark vs new ie gazelle).Is what my point is.

Minimum system requirements: OS 64-bit Windows 7/8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i3; RAM: 8 GB; Free hard disk space: 30 GB; Discrete video card: 2 GB RAM (AMD, NVIDIA); requires internet activation.

 

Recommended system requirements: OS 64-bit Windows 7/8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+; RAM: 16GB; Hard disk space: 30 GB; Video: NVIDIA GeForce GTX780 / ATI R9 290 DirectX11 or better; Joystick; requires internet activation.

You Are Barely at Minimum Requirements in Some Areas, and Well below Minimum Requirements in Others.

FPS Can be Affected by VRAM Loading and Spooling, if a Aircraft's Cockpit Texture Set uses more memory, then it leaves less memory for the external objects and map to be loaded, and forces DirectX to Constantly Spool those textures from the HDD when needed.

Not to mention the Geometry count and Systems Scripting.

Your GPU is Well Below Minimum Spec.

Also, KA-50 Cockpit Model is 121K Triangles, SA342 is 188K+ Triangles,

Turning on the TV adds a Second Viewport that needs to be Rendered, and your Attempting to do so w/ a Weak GPU that only has half the minimum spec memory.

I realize that, but the point is all modules should be equal, and I see they are not comparing old to newer ones...BUT the newer ones still have a standard and should be equal to EACH OTHER.As it stands, we risk buying a product that doesn't work well all the while holding our workable/usable purchases as a benchmark. Like I said, 15 workable/usable aircraft vs 1 not so much. The gazelle has an issue compared to other modules. Like a 20% performance issue. If the performance was equal to the other 15 aircraft we wouldn't be having this conversation. If my computer specs were so below your standards...then why do I not have the issues with my 15 other aircraft??..actually its more then 15 Aircraft as flaming cliffs has mulitiple AC.

I realize that, but the point is all modules should be equal, and I see they are not comparing old to newer ones...BUT the newer ones still have a standard and should be equal to EACH OTHER.As it stands, we risk buying a product that doesn't work well all the while holding our workable/usable purchases as a benchmark. Like I said, 15 workable/usable aircraft vs 1 not so much. The gazelle has an issue compared to other modules. Like a 20% performance issue. If the performance was equal to the other 15 aircraft we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You don't get it. There is no issue if your hardware is up to date or at least decent. For me there are less than 4fps difference between M2000 and Gazelle. Telling the developers their pits should use the same no of triangles is like telling GM, Ford and Pontiac to use identical interiors in all of their cars....

The point remains. You are well below minimum specs. Otherwise you would not have to post here. Simply no bug...

dude...a previous poster verified that the gazelle is a fps hog...I concur...As its about a 20% difference in my case as compared to other products. Its not just me.

And as Helljumper tested for you one page ago it was 47 vs 50 fps on his system. There is no miracle behind it. All that was said by winter was that it is the most demanding on his computer. It can mean anything from 1fps less to 100. Btw he also didn't posted his specs.

EDIT: Here from my system. Empty map, Batumi parking hot.

The current iteration of the Gazelle hasn't been updated in a while now, and hasn't been updated to support PBR textures yet either. So there should be some more improvements coming down the line from the devs... (fingers crossed).

I think I'd put my hopes into improving a system that barely runs DCS rather than hoping devs optimize their models so they run on machines that have SEVEN year old graphics cards...

TJ

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some guys just need to read the minimum required specs for what you're purchasing. You can't just go to the hardware store and have a piece of wood cut and assume it's going to fit where you want it to. The minimum Specs thing has been on the back of all software products for at least 10 years now so companies would stop getting ripped off by the guy that did not want to do the research about it. As harsh as that sounds, I don't feel sorry one bit.

In other ways DCS is a software that is ever evolving so thing that worked last year may not run as smooth this year because "EVOLUTION" and that in the computer world is happening very fast.

The reason you're having such a big gap between the two modules in performance is due to the fact your gfx card is so old so the gap will be bigger on outdated cards rather than a smaller gap on a newer card.

Sorry again for being so blunt but, I would invest in a newer GFX card and maybe another 8 gb of ram. I have 2 gtx 970 and 16gb of ram for sale if your motherboard can run it depending on where you live.