[REPORTED] Performance Issues

...You have published nonsense, one after the other.

*LOL*

I really hope you don't mean Minsky's carefully collected data, and his huge efforts in testing all these things, and furthermore posting all this in a manner someone can understand and follow.

You can fight this s*** all day long, and type stupid things in your keyboard, but currently this leads to nowhere and is for nothing.

Please feed this thread with useful information, or something our beloved Einstein would be excited about ... :smilewink:

*LOL*

I really hope you don't mean Minsky's carefully collected data, and his huge efforts in testing all these things, and furthermore posting all this in a manner someone can understand and follow.

You can fight this s*** all day long, and type stupid things in your keyboard, but currently this leads to nowhere and is for nothing.

 

Please feed this thread with useful information, or something our beloved Einstein would be excited about ... :smilewink:

Huge efforts to prove what? How do you improve the FPS by eliminating the deck crew and turning off the shadows? Right from the start, comparing the performance of the Supercarrier with the performance of the Stennis has shown that no one can beat your way of making a fool of yourself.

I am not here to please you. It is not my fault that this matter takes away your sleep and you do not accept that there are people who do not see the problem that does not let you sleep. All that I have contributed, opinions and examples, are completely valid, however, you are here fighting against mathematics and anyone who does not see it as you.

Opinion number 1 The Supercarrier has high-quality modeling that justifies its high graphic demand.

Opinion number 2 That watching the island reduce the FPS is not an exclusive problem of the Supercarrier, it is something that also happens in Nellis, with other planes and also in other simulators.

Opinion number 3 Custom settings offer a worse quality / performance balance than presets.

Opinion number 4 That removing deck personnel and disabling shadows improves performance, is not something that adds much to the subject, because it is obvious.

If this seems stupid to you, it is because you have entered an infinite loop from which no one will be able to get you out ... Eagle Dynamics will manage to improve performance, but we all know that miracles do not exist and that the Supercarrier cannot match the FPS of the Stennis, pure mathematics.

About your attempts to hold Eagle Dynamics responsible for the Hornet SA page problem, caused by an NVIDIA driver, we'll talk another day if you want.

Huge efforts to prove what? How do you improve the FPS by eliminating the deck crew and turning off the shadows? Right from the start, comparing the performance of the Supercarrier with the performance of the Stennis has shown that no one can beat your way of making a fool of yourself.

 

I am not here to please you. It is not my fault that this matter takes away your sleep and you do not accept that there are people who do not see the problem that does not let you sleep. All that I have contributed, opinions and examples, are completely valid, however, you are here fighting against mathematics and anyone who does not see it as you.

 

Opinion number 1 The Supercarrier has high-quality modeling that justifies its high graphic demand.

 

Opinion number 2 That watching the island reduce the FPS is not an exclusive problem of the Supercarrier, it is something that also happens in Nellis, with other planes and also in other simulators.

 

Opinion number 3 Custom settings offer a worse quality / performance balance than presets.

 

Opinion number 4 That removing deck personnel and disabling shadows improves performance, is not something that adds much to the subject, because it is obvious.

 

If this seems stupid to you, it is because you have entered an infinite loop from which no one will be able to get you out ... Eagle Dynamics will manage to improve performance, but we all know that miracles do not exist and that the Supercarrier cannot match the FPS of the Stennis, pure mathematics.

Nobody has ever, ever said that they expect the Supercarrier to perform as well as the Stennis, that is a strawman argument of your own creation.

What we want is to know why we are seeing a massive loss of performance when there isn't a obvious visual reason for it. We want ED to do some tests and figure out if there are some things that can be done to improve the situation.

Nobody has ever, ever said that they expect the Supercarrier to perform as well as the Stennis, that is a strawman argument of your own creation.

 

What we want is to know why we are seeing a massive loss of performance when there isn't a obvious visual reason for it. We want ED to do some tests and figure out if there are some things that can be done to improve the situation.

In reference to one of your previous posts.

As I have said often in this thread, I am running a system that exceeds the recommended requirements for "high settijngs" as listed for the Supercarrier module itself and I see a 50% drop in overall framerates. I go from a nearly rock solid 60 FPS for everything else in the sim to 30 FPS on a empty Supercarrier deck. It doesn't make sense. There is something going on beyond "You need a better computer" or something to that effect.

I repeat it. You get rock-solid 60 FPS on the rest of the map, in any situation, because DCS maps are made up of low-resolution textures. I have already attached an example, tree texture and buildings so that you understand that they are textures that do not consume too many resources.

Nobody has ever, ever said that they expect the Supercarrier to perform as well as the Stennis, that is a strawman argument of your own creation.

Save your breath. It's like talking to a wall. To a very thick one.

He'll just keep repeating this stuff about textures and polygons, ignoring the fact that it has nothing to do with textures or polygons.

Save your breath. It's like talking to a wall. To a very thick one.

 

He'll just keep repeating this stuff about textures and polygons, ignoring the fact that it has nothing to do with textures or polygons.

Didn't you say you were going to ignore my messages? How can you have credibility if you don't have self-control?

and it's usually far enough from the shore and irrelevant objects.

Now this is not entirely true. If you look again my F-18C screenshots here, you see that in either direction there is nothing to be seen but water (except for a little island in the front view), object count for them is the same but still there is a big difference in FPS.

And an object is an object, irrelevant or not, it always counts. I first noticed this way back when the A-10C was released at Batumi airport. Looking left, high FPS, looking right FPS took a big dip. But on the right view, the object count shot way up because there is a city on that side. However, that city is not visible and therefore should have been irrelevant, still the dip was there.

In my F-18C screenshots, the object count is the same, still the dip is there.

On a side note: gentlemen, no need to get in a word fight, there are bigger problems in the world then arguing over an FPS dip in some game. Keep it polite!

On a side note: gentlemen, no need to get in a word fight, there are bigger problems in the world then arguing over an FPS dip in some game. Keep it polite!

I will always respond proportionally to people who derail and disrespect.

In reference to one of your previous posts.

 

 

 

 

 

I repeat it. You get rock-solid 60 FPS on the rest of the map, in any situation, because DCS maps are made up of low-resolution textures. I have already attached an example, tree texture and buildings so that you understand that they are textures that do not consume too many resources.

I am fully aware that the maps, buildings, and trees are not terribly high resolution. That being said, let's dig into that a bit and see where it takes us. When I spawn on the Persian Gulf map at Dubai international, I am smack dab in the middle of one of the more demanding map areas of the entire sim. If it is just me, I get pretty much the same overall performance that I would get in any other airport. The framerate will be a touch lower but it won't be serious. To go one step further, I could also have a bunch of my buddies spawn in next to me with F-14's and even with some of the most visually demanding, performance intensive aircraft in DCS surrounding me, I would still not see a massive drop in frames. At this point, I am pushing more polygons and more higher-res textures than I would on the Supercarrier and I am still getting solid (if slightly decreased) performance. The hit I am getting is proportional to the visuals I am seeing.

When I spawn on a the empty Supercarrier deck with no land nearby and only my plane and the deck crew to keep me company, I automatically get half my frames. I could turn off Vsync and get some frames back but now I am experiencing serious stutters. If I look away from the superstructure, I get some of those frames back (but not all) and if I look back at the Superstructure, I get performance problems again.

Now, while I do think the Supercarrier looks pretty great, I am not really seeing texture resolutions or even mesh complexity that lines up with the performance hit I am seeing. Unlike the scenario I outlined above, I am not seeing where that performance is actually going. The performance hit isn't justified by what is happening in the sim.

There are some interesting things to keep in mind. As you have hopefully gathered from all the posts in this thread, shadows seem to be a pretty big part of this. Running the sim without shadows isn't really a practical or acceptable option (especially when one meets/exceeds the recommended requirements for "high") but it does give us a hint that maybe there is a issue somewhere in the Supercarrier model that causes the shadows to have a particularly high impact on performance. Perhaps this is a bug that simply needs to be looked at by ED. Again, I could be wrong but it is at least something.

As BigNewy said above, apparently ED has identified a bug with deck crew performance so maybe that is a big part of it. Perhaps this issue also extends to the crew in the superstructure as that would go a long way towards explaining why we are seeing a 50% cut in performance when looking at the Superstructure specifically.

I have mentioned it to the team this morning, we do have performance issues for deck crew reported already.

Should we just wait for the fix then, or do you guys need any additional info?

I am fully aware that the maps, buildings, and trees are not terribly high resolution. That being said, let's dig into that a bit and see where it takes us. When I spawn on the Persian Gulf map at Dubai international, I am smack dab in the middle of one of the more demanding map areas of the entire sim. If it is just me, I get pretty much the same overall performance that I would get in any other airport. The framerate will be a touch lower but it won't be serious. To go one step further, I could also have a bunch of my buddies spawn in next to me with F-14's and even with some of the most visually demanding, performance intensive aircraft in DCS surrounding me, I would still not see a massive drop in frames. At this point, I am pushing more polygons and more higher-res textures than I would on the Supercarrier and I am still getting solid (if slightly decreased) performance. The hit I am getting is proportional to the visuals I am seeing.

 

When I spawn on a the empty Supercarrier deck with no land nearby and only my plane and the deck crew to keep me company, I automatically get half my frames. I could turn off Vsync and get some frames back but now I am experiencing serious stutters. If I look away from the superstructure, I get some of those frames back (but not all) and if I look back at the Superstructure, I get performance problems again.

 

Now, while I do think the Supercarrier looks pretty great, I am not really seeing texture resolutions or even mesh complexity that lines up with the performance hit I am seeing. Unlike the scenario I outlined above, I am not seeing where that performance is actually going. The performance hit isn't justified by what is happening in the sim.

 

There are some interesting things to keep in mind. As you have hopefully gathered from all the posts in this thread, shadows seem to be a pretty big part of this. Running the sim without shadows isn't really a practical or acceptable option (especially when one meets/exceeds the recommended requirements for "high") but it does give us a hint that maybe there is a issue somewhere in the Supercarrier model that causes the shadows to have a particularly high impact on performance. Perhaps this is a bug that simply needs to be looked at by ED. Again, I could be wrong but it is at least something.

 

As BigNewy said above, apparently ED has identified a bug with deck crew performance so maybe that is a big part of it. Perhaps this issue also extends to the crew in the superstructure as that would go a long way towards explaining why we are seeing a 50% cut in performance when looking at the Superstructure specifically.

Dubai at low altitude is still well below the quality that the Supercarrier offers, there are many buildings but they are simple textures, they are not dynamic textures, but static. The Supercarrier is graphically superior to anything we have thus far and it was predictable that it would have a huge impact on performance. Shadows don't just affect the Supercarrier, they have a huge global impact, just like the Hornet's mirrors. The ED team has already reported that it is being [iNVESTIGATED] and they just reported that the problem has been reported. I can simply say that I am very satisfied with the performance, much better than expected and I can operate in this module obviously with conservative graphics settings and without filling the platform with additional static objects. If they improve it, it will be good for everyone, but I would consider it a computing miracle, honestly.

One thing I like about the Supercarrier, is that it casts high-quality default shadows, regardless of whether the general settings on the main panel are flat shadows and I honestly wouldn't want this to change.

I think you are completely mischaracterizing the issue and for the life of me, I can't figure out why you seem so aggressively committed to doing so.

One thing I like about the Supercarrier, is that it casts high-quality default shadows, regardless of whether the general settings on the main panel are flat shadows and I honestly wouldn't want this to change.

:music_whistling:

The Supercarrier is graphically superior to anything we have thus far and it was predictable that it would have a huge impact on performance.

For example, despite the high detail of the supercarrier, I don't experience any appreciable drop in performance without crew on it, but there is a significant drop when they are. That seems to point towards the idea that maybe something may be not working as it should in there.

I've just upgraded to a humble 1080 (from an even humbler 980 :D ) and now the fps stay above the acceptable threshold for me while on the deck. Without actual data about it, I can imagine most users have beefy computers in this expensive hobby of us and probably that's making it hard to determined if the performance is actually what is expected or if there is some problem in there to catch and fix.

Maybe. Maybe not. It could be shadows, but not just any shadows, but shadows from the deck crew (that also has to be decrypted by the CPU; theoretically - only once on first load, practically - we don't know).

 

As mentioned in the first post, you can partially resolve this issue by removing some of the animated people, and fully resolve it by removing the deck crew completely.

 

At the same time, placing dozens of other shadow-casting objects on the old Stennis won't bring your system to its knees. You will only see an expectable drop in frames.

 

Improper shadow casting (e.g. one object casting shadow multiple times) is a known DCS issue. Maybe the deck crew is just particularly sensitive to this bug?

I suppose that the old stennis is an object a lot more friendly for shadow casting due it low poly numbers, but of course the deck crew can be the problem also. At the end I'm not using the SC module due this problem.. same with the Channel map.. a bit dissapointed with ED regarding these issues, they need proper VR testers ASAP.

I suppose that the old stennis is an object a lot more friendly for shadow casting due it low poly numbers, but of course the deck crew can be the problem also.

This was our very first assumption. But during past months I tried almost everything, including replacing the SC with a low poly model. No performance increase at all.

The deck crew is a gray area tho. We know that removing it can solve the problem, but that's all. Hard to experiment with something encrypted from head to toes (pun intended).

I suppose that the old stennis is an object a lot more friendly for shadow casting due it low poly numbers, but of course the deck crew can be the problem also. At the end I'm not using the SC module due this problem.. same with the Channel map.. a bit dissapointed with ED regarding these issues, they need proper VR testers ASAP.

Yeah, I just quit using the SC too, when I see a mission what I really need to take off on SC, I choose another plane or goe to do something else.

I suppose that the old stennis is an object a lot more friendly for shadow casting due it low poly numbers, but of course the deck crew can be the problem also. At the end I'm not using the SC module due this problem.. same with the Channel map.. a bit dissapointed with ED regarding these issues, they need proper VR testers ASAP.

With SC, I have not really got any issues using TrackIR. I retain my frame limited 58fps at all times. VR is, of course, a different matter!

The Channel map is another story altogether. I really have given up on it until we see some fixes. Even in TrackIR, I am seeing 30fps when anywhere near a town or built-up area. Never seen anything like that in DCS before. However, not really appropriate to discuss that much more here.

I'm looking forward to future fixes in both cases.

Heyy look at this, the issue is [REPORTED] now.

That’s the sign I love to see!

With SC, I have not really got any issues using TrackIR. I retain my frame limited 58fps at all times. VR is, of course, a different matter!

 

The Channel map is another story altogether. I really have given up on it until we see some fixes. Even in TrackIR, I am seeing 30fps when anywhere near a town or built-up area. Never seen anything like that in DCS before. However, not really appropriate to discuss that much more here.

 

I'm looking forward to future fixes in both cases.

HOw can i get the product to stop incorrectly reporting that i have TrackIR? Or is the simulator trying to tell me something ? ;)

Heyy look at this, the issue is [REPORTED] now.

That’s the sign I love to see!

+1 :thumbup:

Should we just wait for the fix then, or do you guys need any additional info?

I have tested this a few times now:

The frame rate drops hardly during night, when the carrier has lights turned ON on the tower.

The hit is as strong as if I turn on shadows.

Just for the record: still not fixed in the 2.5.6.55363 (released today).

Although I'm having a negligible performance increase (from 28 to 31 fps).

For me the Supercarrier takes upwards of a minute to load the bitmaps from a grey model. This spoils immersion somewhat.

Yes I have a powerful enough computer.