[REPORTED] Performance Issues

From my point of view it is not as "tremendously" slow as you put it. I repeat, 30/35 FPS is what you would get in other simulators flying a PMDG 737.

How is this even comparable with other simulators and PMDG?

With my old GTX960 I had:

* 40-60 fps with PMDG 738.

* 20-40 fps with the new NGXu, but not because of its complexity, but solely because PMDG implemented dynamic lights (well-known resource hog)

* 40-60 fps with the most complex DCS modules on the most complex DCS maps

What does this tell us?

Exactly nothing.

It's like comparing apples and jet fuel.

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

First, people were telling me that I should upgrade.

Now they're telling me that 30/35 fps is "enough".

How is this even comparable with other simulators and PMDG?

 

With my old GTX960 I had:

 

* 40-60 fps with PMDG 738.

* 20-40 fps with the new NGXu, but not because of its complexity, but solely because PMDG implemented dynamic lights (well-known resource hog)

* 40-60 fps with the most complex DCS modules on the most complex DCS maps

 

What does this tell us?

Exactly nothing.

It's like comparing apples and jet fuel.

 

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

First, people were telling me that I should upgrade.

Now they're telling me that 30/35 fps is "enough".

I highly doubt that you had 40/60 FPS at London Heathrow. As in DCS, your performance in other simulators will depend on the quality of the textures of the area you are in. You are the one who compares the performance of the Supercarrier with the general performance in areas of the simulator with less graphic quality.

I'm not saying 30/35 FPS is enough. I say that they are reasonable considering the quality of the textures and the graphic load in equipment like ours, in my case a GTX 1060.

How is this even comparable with other simulators and PMDG?

With my old GTX960 I had:

* 40-60 fps with PMDG 738.

* 20-40 fps with the new NGXu, but not because of its complexity, but solely because PMDG implemented dynamic lights (well-known resource hog)

* 40-60 fps with the most complex DCS modules on the most complex DCS maps

What does this tell us?

Exactly nothing.

It's like comparing apples and jet fuel.

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

First, people were telling me that I should upgrade.

Now they're telling me that 30/35 fps is "enough".

It seems for (only) some guys around here it's easier to say "shut up", instead of supporting you. You invested much work for no honor, did you?

I think it would be a good idea to collect all your knowledge, and forward it as PDF to a person at ED which you think is able to understand what you are talking about (I would ask Nineline).

I personally have little to no experiences with the support @ED, and I can't say if this is a strategy at all, but I personally can follow what you have collected/written, so a programmer at ED would have best chances to really get your point I fully support.

I share the same opinion with "statrekmike". Why always buy the hotest and newest things, that waste our planet? Optimization must take precedence over wasting of resources.

@ED/Nineline:

Maybe it would be an idea of having the texture quality in two or three settings.

In the Hawk (yeah, I know ...) we had an option in the SPECIAL TAB of DCS for changing the resolution of cockpits.

Why not having an option "complexity LOW/MED/HIGH" for the SC?

It seems for (only) some guys around here it's easier to say "shut up", instead of supporting you. You invested much work for no honor, did you?

I think it would be a good idea to collect all your knowledge, and forward it as PDF to a person at ED which you think is able to understand what you are talking about (I would ask Nineline).

 

I personally have little to no experiences with the support @ED, and I can't say if this is a strategy at all, but I personally can follow what you have collected/written, so a programmer at ED would have best chances to really get your point I fully support.

I share the same opinion with "statrekmike". Why always buy the hotest and newest things, that waste our planet? Optimization must take precedence over wasting of resources.

 

@ED/Nineline:

Maybe it would be an idea of having the texture quality in two or three settings.

 

In the Hawk (yeah, I know ...) we had an option in the SPECIAL TAB of DCS for changing the resolution of cockpits.

Why not having an option "complexity LOW/MED/HIGH" for the SC?

You already have the low / medium / high complexity option in the general settings.

When you configure your graphical panel, you must think that you are now at sea, but then you may be flying between trees and buildings, therefore you must reduce the general settings.

I haven't even seen Matt Wagner set vegetation and visual range to maximum in ULTRA mode.

I still wonder who would want a Supercarrier to turn into a Stennis by reducing the quality of the textures and eliminating the deck crew.

I highly doubt that you had 40/60 FPS at London Heathrow. As in DCS, your performance in other simulators will depend on the quality of the textures of the area you are in. You are the one who compares the performance of the Supercarrier with the general performance in areas of the simulator with less graphic quality.

 

 

I'm not saying 30/35 FPS is enough. I say that they are reasonable considering the quality of the textures and the graphic load in equipment like ours, in my case a GTX 1060.

Dude it's not reasonable when folks with 2080 go from 200+ to 50 FPS just turning on the shadows. Bother to browse the thread before getting into discussion. Performance hit is expectable. 3-4 times performance hit caused by shadows and only shadows is unacceptable. If u r good with 30 - fine, glad for you. I'm not satisfied when I have 50 over Dubai at low level and 25 on the deck in the middle of the sea. I get 40-50 in UUEE in NGXu btw which is quite complex place.

Minsky did a great job researching the problem and at least his first post is worth reading. It explanes why he's unhappy with performance the simplest way possible.

Dude it's not reasonable when folks with 2080 go from 200+ to 50 FPS just turning on the shadows. Bother to browse the thread before getting into discussion. Performance hit is expectable. 3-4 times performance hit caused by shadows and only shadows is unacceptable. If u r good with 30 - fine, glad for you. I'm not satisfied when I have 50 over Dubai at low level and 25 on the deck in the middle of the sea. I get 40-50 in UUEE in NGXu btw which is quite complex place.

Minsky did a great job researching the problem and at least his first post is worth reading. It explanes why he's unhappy with performance the simplest way possible.

If it is reasonable. When you have 100 + FPS in the rest of the map, you're flying over low-quality textures, it's that simple.

Here is a screenshot of a tree and a house in DCS. Now you understand why the 2080 has 100 + FPS on the whole stage and 50 FPS on the Supercarrier?

[ATTACH]244284[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]244285[/ATTACH]

I still wonder who would want a Supercarrier to turn into a Stennis by reducing the quality of the textures and eliminating the deck crew.

Did I say to eliminate the crew?

Also, I have no isses with HIGH settings, no matter which map and which mission I currently fly, thanks to help of BigNewy and Nineline, and many other guys around in the forum that are able to give useful information.

But I have issues with the SC. Therefore, can you please read my post again and write an answer with useful information, which makes me think you got what we are talking about here? Please. Thank you. Nothing personal ... just a little. :smartass:

If Nineline and Minsky would read my post above, I would be happy.

Besides, I fear that the complexity of the model - according to what I understand reading the very first posts of this thread and believing what Minsky is saying - seems not the biggest issue.

One of my issues (this is what I can say for sure) is a SHADOW setting higher than OFF. It is EATING frames like hell, even in FLAT (!). What I am asking ED for - as many others do but others not - ED to dig into an optimization of SC.

I highly doubt that you had 40/60 FPS at London Heathrow. As in DCS, your performance in other simulators will depend on the quality of the textures of the area you are in. You are the one who compares the performance of the Supercarrier with the general performance in areas of the simulator with less graphic quality.

Believe it or not, but yes, I had about 40 fps at EGLL with the old 738. It's quite achievable with a well-tuned sim.

The quality of textures doesn't mean anything in the "other sim". It's autogen and scenery objects that matters. And not because they're complex and detailed, but because they are so poorly optimized - much like their dynamic lights.

You just keep giving us irrelevant examples instead of reading the first post. Stop trying to derail this thread, please.

I think it would be a good idea to collect all your knowledge, and forward it as PDF to a person at ED which you think is able to understand what you are talking about (I would ask Nineline).

Waiting for Nineline is probably not the best strategy. I'll sit till the next patch (19.08 IIRC) and then, providing it bring no improvements, will ask the Russian devs directly.

Believe it or not, but yes, I had about 40 fps at EGLL with the old 738. It's quite achievable with a well-tuned sim.

 

The quality of textures doesn't mean anything in the "other sim". It's autogen and scenery objects that matters. And not because they're complex and detailed, but because they are so poorly optimized - much like their dynamic lights.

 

You just keep giving us irrelevant examples instead of reading the first post. Stop trying to derail this thread, please.

No one can beat irrelevant examples, friend. You started the thread comparing the Supercarrier to the Stennis, until your feet stopped.

No one can beat irrelevant examples, friend. You started the thread comparing the Supercarrier to the Stennis, until your feet stopped.

Quite the contrary. Stennis comparison was the first obvious step. And then my feet went much further - it's all in the first post :D

Did I say to eliminate the crew?

 

Also, I have no isses with HIGH settings, no matter which map and which mission I currently fly, thanks to help of BigNewy and Nineline, and many other guys around in the forum that are able to give useful information.

But I have issues with the SC. Therefore, can you please read my post again and write an answer with useful information, which makes me think you got what we are talking about here? Please. Thank you. Nothing personal ... just a little. :smartass:

 

If Nineline and Minsky would read my post above, I would be happy.

Besides, I fear that the complexity of the model - according to what I understand reading the very first posts of this thread and believing what Minsky is saying - seems not the biggest issue.

One of my issues (this is what I can say for sure) is a SHADOW setting higher than OFF. It is EATING frames like hell, even in FLAT (!). What I am asking ED for - as many others do but others not - ED to dig into an optimization of SC.

I have already given you useful information, you decide whether to use it or discard it. You can't claim to have the same performance in low resolution areas as you do in ultra-detailed settings. The sooner you understand it, the better for everyone.

Quite the contrary. Stennis comparison was the first obvious step. And then my feet went much further - it's all in the first post :D

If you understood the obvious, no one should have told you that it is obvious that the Stennis gives you better performance.

Waiting for Nineline is probably not the best strategy. I'll sit till the next patch (19.08 IIRC) and then, providing it bring no improvements, will ask the Russian devs directly.

:doh::doh::doh:

:doh::doh::doh:

Just read the first post lol :lol:

You're just raising questions the others have raised. Right, I'll do that for ya. Minsky has manually reduced all the textures to low res and it gave no improvement. He removed all the crew and it did increase FPS to Stennis level. He did put the crew back and switched off the shadows - FPS was equally good to the rest of the map. Why can't you just accept there COULD be smth wrong like Mig 21 radar bug or Hornet SA bug?

Just read the first post lol :lol:

You're just raising questions the others have raised. Right, I'll do that for ya. Minsky has manually reduced all the textures to low res and it gave no improvement. He removed all the crew and it did increase FPS to Stennis level. He did put the crew back and switched off the shadows - FPS was equally good to the rest of the map. Why can't you just accept there COULD be smth wrong like Mig 21 radar bug or Hornet SA bug?

The Hornet SA bug was a bug in an NVIDIA driver version that was fixed by reverting to a previous version.

The Hornet SA bug was a bug in an NVIDIA driver version that was fixed by reverting to a previous version.

Does it matter?

It was a bug.

It was identified, confirmed and resolved.

I don't care if SuperCarrier's woes are caused by a bad driver or a solar flare. I want them to be confirmed and resolved, or officially dismissed.

Does it matter?

 

It was a bug.

 

It was identified, confirmed and resolved.

 

I don't care if SuperCarrier's woes are caused by a bad driver or a solar flare. I want them to be confirmed and resolved, or officially dismissed.

Of course it matters, especially if you are trying to hold ED responsible for problems caused by NVIDIA, Windows or other platforms.

Waiting for Nineline is probably not the best strategy. I'll sit till the next patch (19.08 IIRC) and then, providing it bring no improvements, will ask the Russian devs directly.

If you need help in testing scenarios (maybe other system configuration than your's) give me a call, I will support as best as I can.

Of course it matters, especially if you are trying to hold ED responsible for problems caused by NVIDIA, Windows or other platforms.

I don't know who's responsible for this. And frankly I don't care. I'm a user, not a detective (although I spent a lot my own time trying to pinpoint this issue and make ED's life easier).

ED sold me this module.

I meet their requirements.

This module doesn't perform as advertised.

Not my other games or Windows apps, but this particular DCS module.

So of course I'm asking the seller for help.

I don't know who's responsible for this. And frankly I don't care. I'm a user, not a detective (although I spent a lot my own time trying to pinpoint this issue and make ED's life easier).

 

ED sold me this module.

I meet their requirements.

This module doesn't perform as advertised.

Not my other games or Windows apps, but this particular DCS module.

So of course I'm asking the seller for help.

The problem affects everyone. You're not alone! :thumbup:

I wouldn't say it affects everyone.

I don't want to get into the unpleasantness surrounding this thread, but please see attached images. I am not seeing the issue on the SC using TrackIR. As can be seen, I am running at 4K resolution, shadows on High and I am maxed out at my frame-limited 58fps on the deck of the SC in the Hornet Cold Start mission.

Being on the SC has no effect on my fps at all using TrackIR. Now VR, that's a different matter entirely. In VR, with shadows on, I see 30fps, with shadows off, I see the solid, motion reprojected, 45fps on the SC like everywhere else.

I wouldn't say it affects everyone.

I don't want to get into the unpleasantness surrounding this thread, but please see attached images. I am not seeing the issue on the SC using TrackIR. As can be seen, I am running at 4K resolution, shadows on High and I am maxed out at my frame-limited 58fps on the deck of the SC in the Hornet Cold Start mission.

Being on the SC has no effect on my fps at all using TrackIR. Now VR, that's a different matter entirely. In VR, with shadows on, I see 30fps, with shadows off, I see the solid, motion reprojected, 45fps on the SC like everywhere else.

We have a similar setup and options. In my case, with TIR in 4K, the SC is fine during the day (locked 60), but if I look at the island in the evening or night, when the lights are on, my FPS will drop to 52-55. If it's raining and it's night, the combined effect of the lit island and the rain drops on the canopy will lower the FPS even more, to around 45-50.

The one main difference between our options is that I have maxed out my visibility, so probably that accounts for a few fps, but it shouldn't make a big difference on the boat.

I wouldn't say it affects everyone.

I don't want to get into the unpleasantness surrounding this thread, but please see attached images. I am not seeing the issue on the SC using TrackIR. As can be seen, I am running at 4K resolution, shadows on High and I am maxed out at my frame-limited 58fps on the deck of the SC in the Hornet Cold Start mission.

Being on the SC has no effect on my fps at all using TrackIR. Now VR, that's a different matter entirely. In VR, with shadows on, I see 30fps, with shadows off, I see the solid, motion reprojected, 45fps on the SC like everywhere else.

with 5.0GHz CPU, I don't doubt you are getting those numbers. 5 is going to be the de-facto standard with DCS and gaming in general in 2 years.

I kindly ask anybody responsible for programming shadows at ED to look into details, since the performance of shadows is really awful on the SC, which is very sad.

I know it consists of many objects, edges and planes, I know! I hope and I believe that there is something you can do on this issue, which makes many people sad about.

Anyway, please look into the pictures, they show different shadow settings with a single SC on the map with 1 single F-18 standing COLD (battery OFF) on the SC.

Please tell us what can be done do to increase performance other than not using shadows or buying a new GFX card.

1. pic: Shadows OFF (180 fps limited by graphics.lua)

2. pic: Shadows FLAT ONLY (152 fps)

3. pic: Shadows LOW (75 fps)

4. pic: Shadows HIGH (74 fps)

System settings: Rest of the system is looking like this:

["graphics"] = {
	["DOF"] = 0,
	["LensEffects"] = 2,
	["MSAA"] = 0,
	["SSAA"] = 0,
	["SSAO"] = 0,
	["SSLR"] = 0,
	["anisotropy"] = 3,
	["aspect"] = 1.7777777777778,
	["chimneySmokeDensity"] = 0,
	["civTraffic"] = "low",
	["clouds"] = 1,
	["clutterMaxDistance"] = 750,
	["cockpitGI"] = 0,
	["effects"] = 3,
	["flatTerrainShadows"] = 2,
	["forestDistanceFactor"] = 0.5,
	["fullScreen"] = false,
	["heatBlr"] = 0,
	["height"] = 1080,
	["lights"] = 2,
	["messagesFontScale"] = 1,
	["motionBlur"] = 0,
	["multiMonitorSetup"] = "1camera",
	["outputGamma"] = 2.2,
	["preloadRadius"] = 150000,
	["rainDroplets"] = false,
	["scaleGui"] = 1,
	["shadowTree"] = false,
	["shadows"] = 4,
	["sync"] = false,
	["terrainTextures"] = "min",
	["textures"] = 0,
	["treesVisibility"] = 5000,
	["useDeferredShading"] = 0,
	["visibRange"] = "Low",
	["water"] = 0,
	["width"] = 1920,

Shadows.lua (for the default-map setting):

default = {

	{	--flat only
		1,
		{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7000},	
		{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7000}	
	},
	{	--low
		1024,										-- size of shadowmap
		{0.02, 20.0, 70.0, 250.0, 1000.0, 7000},	-- split distances outside
		{0.02, 2.0,  20.0, 130.0, 1000.0, 7000}		-- split distances in cockpit
	},
	{	--medium
		2048,
		{0.02, 20.0, 70.0, 250.0, 1000.0, 7000},		
		{0.02, 2.0,  20.0, 130.0, 1000.0, 7000}
	},
	{	--high
		4096,
		{0.02, 25.0, 100.0, 400.0, 1500.0, 7000},	
		{0.02, 2.5,  25.0,  250.0, 1500.0, 7000}
	},
	{	--ultra
		8192,
		{0.02, 25.0, 100.0, 500.0, 2000.0, 7000},	
		{0.02, 2.5,  25.0,  300.0, 2000.0, 7000}
	},

I used this mission file:

SCTesting2.miz