Gryzor Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 (edited) I noticed in latest 2.5.6.50979 open beta a parameter which hurts fps near 10% or so: concretely, in file terrainoptions41.lua. In that file, there is a line which saids: multiAppendBufferSize = 524288; If you put: multiAppendBufferSize = 400000; you will notice a 10% increase in FPS (at least, it seems to me an increase). In fact, I look old beta&stable versions and the parameter by default were 400000. It seems that new parameter of 524288 cause some fps issues. Devs seriously, look more in detail about optimization, this is a mess for users every time editing files. Edited June 19, 2020 by Gryzor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOViper Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 Hi Gryzor, did you test it with all maps? Would be interesting if they all still work then. Anyway, good find, and I will try out. I just would not be that unfriendly to the devs, this setting might have reasons you currently don't know, dont you? But in the current situation I understand that most people are getting mad about ED, one sometimes comes to the conclusion it seems there is nobody testing anything :noexpression: Its getting better, slowly. Visit https://www.viggen.training ...Viggen... what more can you ask for? my computer: AMD Ryzen 5600G | NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti OC 11GB | 32 GB 3200 MHz DDR4 DUAL | SSD 980 256 GB SYS + SSD 2TB DCS | TM Warthog Stick + Throttle + TPR | Rift CV1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirrah Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 I noticed in latest 2.5.6.50979 open beta a parameter which hurts fps near 10% or so: concretely, in file terrainoptions41.lua. In that file, there is a line which saids: multiAppendBufferSize = 524288; If you put: multiAppendBufferSize = 400000; you will notice a 10% increase in FPS (at least, it seems to me an increase). In fact, I look old beta&stable versions and the parameter by default were 400000. It seems that new parameter of 524288 cause some fps issues. Devs seriously, look more in detail about optimization, this is a mess for users every time editing files. Wow! How on earth did you manage to find this? :thumbup: I'll try it out tomorrow when I get the chance In the meanwhile, can anyone confirm that this is working? 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 More sharing options...
Gryzor Posted June 19, 2020 Author Share Posted June 19, 2020 Hi Gryzor, did you test it with all maps? Would be interesting if they all still work then. Anyway, good find, and I will try out. I just would not be that unfriendly to the devs, this setting might have reasons you currently don't know, dont you? But in the current situation I understand that most people are getting mad about ED, one sometimes comes to the conclusion it seems there is nobody testing anything :noexpression: Its getting better, slowly. I tested in Dubai when taking off with many building around: With 400.000 I have fps in VR 45 stable (motion smoothing enabled). With 524288, It fluctuates between 45 and 30 fps. In other terrain, caucasus, it appears less stutters when TV cameras or IR sensors are enabled (by pointing them at the horizont, seems a bit smoothier). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryzor Posted June 19, 2020 Author Share Posted June 19, 2020 Wow! How on earth did you manage to find this? :thumbup: I'll try it out tomorrow when I get the chance In the meanwhile, can anyone confirm that this is working? By comparing with some older config files which I made some backups, and I suspected that some sort of config files could hurt fps or performance (like terrainoptions41.lue). I noticed the older parameter of 400.000 was changed from the latest versions, just when ground radar were introduced due F-18 improvements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmirkingGerbil Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 Sticky so I can find this! Pointy end hurt! Fire burn!! JTF-191 25th Draggins - Hawg Main. Black Shark 2, A10C, A10CII, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Mig-15, Mig-19, Mig-21, P-51, F-15, Su-27, Su-33, Mig-29, FW-190 Dora, Anton, BF 109, Mossie, Normandy, Caucasus, NTTR, Persian Gulf, Channel, Syria, Marianas, WWII Assets, CA. (WWII backer picked aircraft ME-262, P-47D). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustang Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 I've had the multiAppendBufferSize = 400000; included in terrainoptions41.lua of the PG mod pack for a long time. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=211165 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petsild Posted June 20, 2020 Share Posted June 20, 2020 Mod terrainoptions41.lua is not intended for the Caucasus? MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4, Kingston 3600 MHz 64 Gb, i5 12600K, Gigabyte RTX 4090, Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus,VKB NXT Premium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryzor Posted June 20, 2020 Author Share Posted June 20, 2020 Mod terrainoptions41.lua is not intended for the Caucasus? terrainoptions41.lua settings are apply to ALL terrains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petsild Posted June 20, 2020 Share Posted June 20, 2020 Thank you for the clarification. MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4, Kingston 3600 MHz 64 Gb, i5 12600K, Gigabyte RTX 4090, Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus,VKB NXT Premium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted June 20, 2020 Share Posted June 20, 2020 . . With 400.000 I have fps in VR 45 stable (motion smoothing enabled). . With 524288, It fluctuates between 45 and 30 fps. . . Would seem like a 33% boost, not 10% :smartass: Subbed to this thread for future reference/testing. Sim Rig || Pics 2010 | PC 2019 || 8600K @ 4.8GHz | RTX2080ti OC | 32GB RAM @3000 | 500GB SSD | Win10 64bit | PC 2010 || 2600K @ 3.4GHz | Zotac GTX680 | 8GB RAM | Win7 64bit Ultimate SP1 | Cockpit || Joystick: T.16000M | Pedals: Logitech G25 | Throttle & Collective: Logitech Attack3 Modded | Button Box: G25 Shifter | Cockpit || HP Reverb VR | Custom Frame & Seat | 3x Bass Shaker | 2:1 Game Sound | 2x Rear Head Rest Speakers Comms/Music | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAW_Impalor Posted June 20, 2020 Share Posted June 20, 2020 (edited) I tried it but did not notice any improvement. I think I am memory-speed bound (down-clocking it reduces FPS linearly). Shaders Mod, on contrary, has no effect. I decided to wait for next-gen DDR5 CPU to upgrade all at once. I am usually 45 FPS in the air with F18, but 20 on SC and in the missions with 3 wingmen/many AI. My preload radius is 70000, visibility Medium. Anything lower and I can't see ground targets. Could somebody argue if upgrading my DDR3 memory size to 32Gb will work as an interim solution to improve FPS in busy missions? I'd need to replace it all, would hate if it does not make a difference... Edited June 20, 2020 by impalor 12900KF@5.4, 32GB DDR4@4000cl14g1, 4090, M.2, W10 Pro, Warthog HOTAS, ButtKicker, Reverb G2/OpenXR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustang Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 Be aware that lowering this number will cause momentary objects to disappear/reappear out of view, this might be why the FPS increase is there since objects are being culled - if you want to really see this in action drop that number lower to around 100000 or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Kazansky Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) Be aware that lowering this number will cause momentary objects to disappear/reappear out of view, this might be why the FPS increase is there since objects are being culled - if you want to really see this in action drop that number lower to around 100000 or less. Thanks for sharing. Edited June 21, 2020 by Tom Kazansky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worrazen Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 It is probably rendering something less to get more FPS, IMO. I don't think it's for free. Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustang Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 It is probably rendering something less to get more FPS, IMO. I don't think it's for free. Correct, as I mentioned above the lower the setting the more aggressive the object culling is resulting in greater FPS - ED probably increased this recently as there may have been times where the pop-in would have occured so increasing this solves it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greco.bernardi Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 524288/1024 = 512 1 Mbyte = 1024 kbits Its Probably about memory size of some texture layer tile... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petsild Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 Decreasing the value decreases visibility, but give the framerate performance, have anyone tried to compare other values. What role in it plays the preload radius? MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4, Kingston 3600 MHz 64 Gb, i5 12600K, Gigabyte RTX 4090, Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus,VKB NXT Premium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustang Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) 524288/1024 = 512 1 Mbyte = 1024 kbits Its Probably about memory size of some texture layer tile... No, it's a buffersize for Geometry Instancer - the number of objects rendered within your FOV, the lower the number the more objects get culled, the greater the number the more objects are allowed to be drawn - this is actually very useful for pushing up the distancFactor parameter in the graphics.lua, with a very high number I can use a setting of 3.0 or more with zero objects in scene disappearing and reappearing, pretty awesome :) Edited June 21, 2020 by Mustang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryzor Posted June 21, 2020 Author Share Posted June 21, 2020 I dont notice any difference with objects disappearing or quality between 524288 and 400000. In fact, with 524288 in VR you notice how some objects are not rendered in one eye (6 month bug since 2.5.6). However fps are a bit higher with 400000, which is specially important in VR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo72 Posted June 22, 2020 Share Posted June 22, 2020 I tried it but did not notice any improvement. I think I am memory-speed bound (down-clocking it reduces FPS linearly). Im in the same boat with DDR4-3200. FPS scales 100% linearly with ram speed, something very few synthetic benchmarks even do. All these people buying the fastest CPUs out there and overclocking them thinking every MHz counts, I wonder if the more important reason they are getting performance boost is that they are also overclocking their memory controllers and cache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team BIGNEWY Posted June 22, 2020 ED Team Share Posted June 22, 2020 Hi all Had a look on my rig, not seeing much of a difference. do you have a track replay you are using to test, if so please attach it. Also let us know your system spec including RAM speed thank you Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petsild Posted June 22, 2020 Share Posted June 22, 2020 Hi, I made a few synthetic benchmark test -time 02:54 min. Only then the increase of the parameter proposed by the ED makes more sense. Changing the value will achieve a higher framerate, unfortunately at the expense of those of the minimum, which are for fluency more important. After adjustment removed FXO/metashaders2. - Setting preset High - SSLR = Off - Mirror = Off - Resolution = 2560 x 1440 MultiAppendBufferSize = 524288 22-06-2020, 11:37:29 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 13421 frames rendered in 172.350 s Average framerate : 77.8 FPS Minimum framerate : 51.2 FPS Maximum framerate : 105.1 FPS 1% low framerate : 51.3 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 37.0 FPS MultiAppendBufferSize = 400000 22-06-2020, 11:47:13 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 13898 frames rendered in 173.067 s Average framerate : 80.3 FPS +3,21 % Minimum framerate : 53.9 FPS +5,27 % Maximum framerate : 114.5 FPS +8,94 % 1% low framerate : 40.5 FPS -26,67 % 0.1% low framerate : 30.0 FPS -23,33 %Benchmark256new2.trk MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4, Kingston 3600 MHz 64 Gb, i5 12600K, Gigabyte RTX 4090, Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus,VKB NXT Premium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boedha68 Posted June 22, 2020 Share Posted June 22, 2020 (edited) Hi, I made a few synthetic benchmark test -time 02:54 min. Only then the increase of the parameter proposed by the ED makes more sense. Changing the value will achieve a higher framerate, unfortunately at the expense of those of the minimum, which are for fluency more important. After adjustment removed FXO/metashaders2. - Setting preset High - SSLR = Off - Mirror = Off - Resolution = 2560 x 1440 MultiAppendBufferSize = 524288 22-06-2020, 11:37:29 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 13421 frames rendered in 172.350 s Average framerate : 77.8 FPS Minimum framerate : 51.2 FPS Maximum framerate : 105.1 FPS 1% low framerate : 51.3 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 37.0 FPS MultiAppendBufferSize = 400000 22-06-2020, 11:47:13 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 13898 frames rendered in 173.067 s Average framerate : 80.3 FPS +3,21 % Minimum framerate : 53.9 FPS +5,27 % Maximum framerate : 114.5 FPS +8,94 % 1% low framerate : 40.5 FPS -26,67 % 0.1% low framerate : 30.0 FPS -23,33 % It's a change... :D I'll test it tonight on my VR rig. :D Probarbly boost some FPS. We'll see.... CONTINUE: Tested. No significant changes. I set it back, thanks for the idea. Edited June 22, 2020 by boedha68 New system:I9-9900KS, Kingston 128 GB DDR4 3200Mhz, MSI RTX 4090, Corsair H150 Pro RGB, 2xSamsung 970 EVO 2Tb, 2xsamsung 970 EVO 1 TB, Scandisk m2 500 MB, 2 x Crucial 1 Tb, T16000M HOTAS, HP Reverb Professional 2, Corsair 750 Watt. Old system:I7-4770K(OC 4.5Ghz), Kingston 24 GB DDR3 1600 Mhz,MSI RTX 2080(OC 2070 Mhz), 2 * 500 GB SSD, 3,5 TB HDD, 55' Samsung 3d tv, Trackir 5, Logitech HD Cam, T16000M HOTAS. All DCS modules, maps and campaigns:pilotfly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo72 Posted June 22, 2020 Share Posted June 22, 2020 (edited) Interesting. Kinda makes sense whatever is being buffered could reduce stuttering if you buffer more of it. But how repeatable is that benchmark? if you run it a second time, what kind of variation are you seeing? Ive found playing back tracks can give me very significant variations between runs, even changing nothing. Edited June 22, 2020 by Vertigo72 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts