Graphics and Controls video by Wags

This is a very informative and helpful video by Wags. Thank you

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3795979&postcount=126

However, one thing that was not mentioned by Wags is what kind of FPS he was seeing with those settings and PC specs.

With my PC as seen in my sig, I cannot achieve constant 60 FPS + without lowering some settings, mainly AA and shadows and of course I cannot use mirrors without a 20 for so drop in FPS. I am just curious to see FPS Wags is getting.

Yes, if you have 2080ti. And here the question arises. Something new with Vulcan API? ;).

Minimum 60 fps with even over-populated missons.

Thank you for the response.

For 1440p, it looks like an i9 and 2080 Ti are what is needed to maintain 60 FPS at max settings.

I was hoping to get better performance (max settings and 60FPS min) from my 7600k and 1080 Ti combo I purchased last year...I didn't think the new tech would offer that much of a performance boost but it looks like it definitely does.

I have similar specs to him....but a 1080ti...5.1 with an i9900k is really easy...i have it that way and the temps are good (360 aio liquid cooler)...usually i am in the 90/100 fps...but on the ground i can get also to 40/50...on air also in intensive missions i also don’t get lower frames then 60

i9 9900k overclocked to 5.1, dear god.

What's the big deal :D

In the hornet free flight mission, with wags settings I am around 90-120fps depending where I look.

Buddy spike Caucasus... 75 on the airbase.. up to 90 when airborne

I am playing on a 3840x1080 monitor, plus another 1920x1080 for the mfds and shit

Without a doubt they are impressive systems, that come with equally big price tag's Id bet that the vast majority of players can only dream about having super high end systems

On my mid range system I'm pulling 60-65 on all maps, with all graphic setting high

Operating System

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1

Intel Core i5 3570K @ 3.40GHz

16.0GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 802MHz (11-11-11-28)

ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. P8Z77-V LX2 (LGA1155)

SAMSUNG (1920x1080@60Hz)

4095MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti (Gigabyte)

465GB Seagate ST500DM002-1BD142 (SATA (SSD))

I'd like to see how your lower spec testers you mentioned configure their setting, which I believe will be more beneficial for a lot of users

Correct, in i7 8700k, 1080Ti I also never dip below 60 fps.

Interesting...I wonder why I am not seeing the same. It has to be something on my end but I just don't know what.

I have Windows 10 and NVIDIA CP set at max performance.

The only strange behavior that I have seen on my end is that my GPU and CPU usage do not go to 100% when I think they need to. With FPS unlocked, I imagine usage would be 100% all the time to get max FPS but I am only seeing max usage when FPS reaches 144. At all other times when FPS is around 100 or even if it drops below 60, my GPU and CPU usage stays the same, around 70% or so. When I lock my FPS at 60, my CPU and GPU usage is in the 50's% but will not increase to 100% if FPS drops below 60.

Interesting...I wonder why I am not seeing the same. It has to be something on my end but I just don't know what.

 

I have Windows 10 and NVIDIA CP set at max performance.

 

The only strange behavior that I have seen on my end is that my GPU and CPU usage do not go to 100% when I think they need to. With FPS unlocked, I imagine usage would be 100% all the time to get max FPS but I am only seeing max usage when FPS reaches 144. At all other times when FPS is around 100 or even if it drops below 60, my GPU and CPU usage stays the same, around 70% or so. When I lock my FPS at 60, my CPU and GPU usage is in the 50's% but will not increase to 100% if FPS drops below 60.

I was reading Soundslikeust's 2018 benchmarks today and I think he made a good point, that CPU useage isn't really the thing, it all boils down to render time. I imagine that depends on what you're rendering and how you're rendering it. GPU wise, back when I was mining, it depended on the algorithm. What kind of memory was on the card, what the timings were. Architecture of the card. Nothing was ever 100% efficient, every card had its weakness. I'm assuming that might be true for CPU's and motherboards and system RAM as well.

Most of what you say kinda makes sense, I figure if your CPU is gagging on something, it's possible neither one is gonna be working all that efficiently. Yet under some circumstances it's screaming along. So it can do the math. Could it be a RAM thing? Maybe?

I was reading Soundslikeust's 2018 benchmarks today and I think he made a good point, that CPU useage isn't really the thing, it all boils down to render time. I imagine that depends on what you're rendering and how you're rendering it. GPU wise, back when I was mining, it depended on the algorithm. What kind of memory was on the card, what the timings were. Architecture of the card. Nothing was ever 100% efficient, every card had its weakness. I'm assuming that might be true for CPU's and motherboards and system RAM as well.

 

Most of what you say kinda makes sense, I figure if your CPU is gagging on something, it's possible neither one is gonna be working all that efficiently. Yet under some circumstances it's screaming along. So it can do the math. Could it be a RAM thing? Maybe?

I have 32GB 3200MHz RAM and the 1080 Ti has 11GB of video RAM, so I don't think RAM is an issue. If my CPU was "gagging" on something or bottlenecking, I thought CPU usage would be 100% while GPU was much lower. I am not seeing that. For me, CPU and GPU are closely matched.

If Wags never sees FPS drop below 60 at max settings with a 8700K and 1080 Ti, why am I seeing FPS drop below 60 in certain situations on lower settings with a 7600K @4.6GHz and a 1080 Ti?

I have 32GB 3200MHz RAM and the 1080 Ti has 11GB of video RAM, so I don't think RAM is an issue. If my CPU was "gagging" on something or bottlenecking, I thought CPU usage would be 100% while GPU was much lower. I am not seeing that. For me, CPU and GPU are closely matched.

 

If Wags never sees FPS drop below 60 at max settings with a 8700K and 1080 Ti, why am I seeing FPS drop below 60 in certain situations on lower settings with a 7600K @4.6GHz and a 1080 Ti?

Watch your CPU usage in those FPS drops. Because you have lowered your settings you can bottleneck the CPU because of it in certain situations.

What is your resolution set at?

I have an 8700K and 1080ti with 32 Gb memory and I don't see dips below 60 fps as well, so kinda like Wags. CPU is always on 4,7 Ghz and not throttled on 2K monitor.

Watch your CPU usage in those FPS drops. Because you have lowered your settings you can bottleneck the CPU because of it in certain situations.

 

What is your resolution set at?

 

I have an 8700K and 1080ti with 32 Gb memory and I don't see dips below 60 fps as well, so kinda like Wags. CPU is always on 4,7 Ghz and not throttled on 2K monitor.

Resolution is 2560x1440p.

My lowered settings are visibility range set to ultra, civ traffic to low, shadows to low, MSAA 2x and mirrors off.

My CPU remains at 4.6GHz with usage in the low 70's% during FPS drops. GPU usage 50's-60's%.

@Wags. I too also have an RTX 2018 TI [EVGA XC ULTRA] paired with an I9-9900K! I was just curious what's your page file settings? Do you have window's manage that or do you have a specific amount set?

Damn i am so much holding myself up for upgrading my rig, Wags graphics always makes me jealous :)

Little update on my end...

So I did a little digging today and looked at my BIOS. I have an ASUS motherboard and there is a setting called EZ System Tuning. Mine was set to custom for some reason and I changed it to optimal. I also installed an updated NVIDIA driver from two days ago but this time, I chose custom instead of express and then selected the clean install option.

I wish I had done one change at a time but between these two things, I am now seeing appropriate GPU usage and improved FPS performance. I can now maintain a minimum of 60 FPS. I don't know if what I did will help anyone's performance but you might want to give it a try.

I am relatively new to DCS.

DCS is currently the only flight sim I use.

I believe it is the best flight sim out there for me.

In the past 12 months I have logged about 900 flight hours in DCS, most in the Hornet.

I have spent an enormous amount of time trying to get the VR settings to improve for DCS....no luck.

Performance in large part, depends on how the software was written to begin with. On another of my flight sims, using the same hardware, I get well over 244 FPS, smooth as butter, on a monitor. I7 1080Ti 16GIG. Had 32gig but downgraded, DCS doesn't need that much.

My programmers tell me, and I believe it, that you will never get the high performance specs you are looking for unless the DCS engine is redone to make that happen with multi thread capabilities.

I have a third flight sim, that no matter how much fancy hardware you throw at it, at no where near max settings, it will bring that hardware to their knees. It is just the way the programmers wrote the game.

Now for DCS, don't whine. I use VR and on my best day it is 45FPS. Looking straight up into a blank sky I can get 90 FPS so I know it is not my hardware or settings; but no matter what the tweak, can never get above 45FPS and in some cases it is much lower.

That is REALLY BAD, especially at the VR lenses suck to begin with.

Until DCS is re-written with multi thread capability, and realistically I don't see that happening, ever, my programmers tell me that it will always be what it is, and I have no intention of throwing $10K worth of hardware at a free program to get 5FPS increase.

This is my mileage, yours may vary.

^

hopefully Vulkan will fix this

I am relatively new to DCS.

DCS is currently the only flight sim I use.

I believe it is the best flight sim out there for me.

 

In the past 12 months I have logged about 900 flight hours in DCS, most in the Hornet.

 

I have spent an enormous amount of time trying to get the VR settings to improve for DCS....no luck.

 

Performance in large part, depends on how the software was written to begin with. On another of my flight sims, using the same hardware, I get well over 244 FPS, smooth as butter, on a monitor. I7 1080Ti 16GIG. Had 32gig but downgraded, DCS doesn't need that much.

 

My programmers tell me, and I believe it, that you will never get the high performance specs you are looking for unless the DCS engine is redone to make that happen with multi thread capabilities.

 

I have a third flight sim, that no matter how much fancy hardware you throw at it, at no where near max settings, it will bring that hardware to their knees. It is just the way the programmers wrote the game.

 

Now for DCS, don't whine. I use VR and on my best day it is 45FPS. Looking straight up into a blank sky I can get 90 FPS so I know it is not my hardware or settings; but no matter what the tweak, can never get above 45FPS and in some cases it is much lower.

 

That is REALLY BAD, especially at the VR lenses suck to begin with.

 

Until DCS is re-written with multi thread capability, and realistically I don't see that happening, ever, my programmers tell me that it will always be what it is, and I have no intention of throwing $10K worth of hardware at a free program to get 5FPS increase.

 

This is my mileage, yours may vary.

+1 :thumbup:

Can't say it with better words.

.. my programmers tell me that it will always be what it is, and I have no intention of throwing $10K worth of hardware at a free program to get 5FPS increase.

I gave my 2cts the other day on a DCS Facebook fan page.

It does make 'sense' to go for the highest specs, when you're doing, have to do, your upgrade 'cycle' anyway.

My one but last build was rather satisfying and I kept it for many years but at a certain point when your motherboard's soundcard fails and the sleep function stops working, it's just time to send these to the bin.

That's when you do your research of the up-to-date performance/price stats.

You then buy the fastest stuff around you can afford because you have to get new stuff.

2 more cts.

I don't believe anyone who says they "never dip below 60 fps". There's certain situations in DCS that just cause the GPU utilization to get maxed and fps to drop.

I don't recommend anyone with a 1080 TI or below to be running at Extreme view distance. With Wag's settings, all you have to do is fly low over a heavily forested area on the Caucasus map or over a city in PG and watch your fps drop into 50's or below. And that's on an empty map with no other AI units present. Other things like lots of static AI units or heavy clouds also hit hard.

On my fairly decent rig I have to run view distance High, civ traffic off and drop MSAA to 2x to make sure I don't get drops below 60 fps in most situations. I wouldn't care that much but TrackIR becomes a stuttery mess below 60 fps.

What we need is a standard set of tracks to benchmark with so we can get some real world results and see what kind of fps people are really getting. Maybe I should start a thread for that :thumbup:

Would be nice to see a video demonstrating the settings for the average build. That video was all about the settings on two relatively powerful and EXPENSIVE rigs. Helpful to some but not realistic for most.

I don't believe anyone who says they "never dip below 60 fps". There's certain situations in DCS that just cause the GPU utilization to get maxed and fps to drop.

 

...

 

What we need is a standard set of tracks to benchmark with so we can get some real world results and see what kind of fps people are really getting. Maybe I should start a thread for that :thumbup:

I will vouch for that. My rig is identical to wags, actually a little higher on the SSD and iirc RAM, and I got pretty lucky on the lottery and can run my 9900 at 5.1 and gpu at 2130 in DCS. I usually stay at 5/2100 to run cooler but the point is that I definitely drop below 60 in certain situations. Don't get me wrong, performance is generally good, but in multiplayer I have to drop to 2x msaa, and at 4x in the f18/PG certain areas will slow things down.

Happy to run some tracks/benchmarks or whatever if it helps the cause. I have an Odyssey+ on the way fro the sale the other day so should be able to run some comparisons, steam vs. oculus, etc if that helps. BoX has something similar, its a standard trackfile basically where users can collect data on various settings, how they effect performance and quality. I'm not quite sure how to put something like that together, but happy to participate.

Without a doubt they are impressive systems, that come with equally big price tag's Id bet that the vast majority of players can only dream about having super high end systems

On my mid range system I'm pulling 60-65 on all maps, with all graphic setting high

Operating System

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1

Intel Core i5 3570K @ 3.40GHz

16.0GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 802MHz (11-11-11-28)

ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. P8Z77-V LX2 (LGA1155)

SAMSUNG (1920x1080@60Hz)

4095MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti (Gigabyte)

465GB Seagate ST500DM002-1BD142 (SATA (SSD))

I'd like to see how your lower spec testers you mentioned configure their setting, which I believe will be more beneficial for a lot of users

Exactly that. And even this system is not bad... The 1070 is not a cheap card.

I think the steam hardware survey showed a 1060 as average gpu....

I would really appreciate if ED would showcase some settings with these kind of low end systems... Because DCS is really not a shiny example of performance.

Not to sound too negative, DCS is awesome! But on my system, recent AAA games run at almost double FPS and still look far better. Given, the planes look absolutely beautiful, but trees and gound are especially ugly, but eat most of the performance.

I will vouch for that. My rig is identical to wags, actually a little higher on the SSD and iirc RAM, and I got pretty lucky on the lottery and can run my 9900 at 5.1 and gpu at 2130 in DCS. I usually stay at 5/2100 to run cooler but the point is that I definitely drop below 60 in certain situations. Don't get me wrong, performance is generally good, but in multiplayer I have to drop to 2x msaa, and at 4x in the f18/PG certain areas will slow things down.

 

Happy to run some tracks/benchmarks or whatever if it helps the cause. I have an Odyssey+ on the way fro the sale the other day so should be able to run some comparisons, steam vs. oculus, etc if that helps. BoX has something similar, its a standard trackfile basically where users can collect data on various settings, how they effect performance and quality. I'm not quite sure how to put something like that together, but happy to participate.

On my rig I'm running MSAA at 2x and view distance at ultra. I can maintain 60 fps in pretty much any situation. Upping MSAA to 4x and/or view distance at extreme just kills it though. Sure I can run 60+ fps just flying around at high altitude. As soon I get low over heavy forest or city fps start tanking.

You guys make me jealous with your 2080 TI's. I'd love to upgrade to latest and greatest but just can't bring myself to pay those prices for ray tracing that I don't care about at all. Right now I'm going to try to squeeze some more perf out of my 8700K and 1080TI. Planning to delid my 8700K next week and go for 5.0+ overclock.