when will the engine performance be improved in teh future?

So its not new that DCS World isnt the best performer ever due to the older engine it is using. Around 2 years ago I think I've made a post asking whether performance will be better in the future and many said that DCS 1.5/2.0 are going to fix it. It got better but i still think there is headroom. Instead of constantly pushing new modules, can we expect an engine in the next few years that will be able to handle more than two CPU threads and more powerful GPU support? Theoretically I have the hardware to run the game maxed out with 60 fps but the highest cpu usage i get is 40% and my gpu 30-60% avg and sometimes the fps are really low. So as I've mentioned previously is there going to be an engine update/improvment/replacement in the next few years that will address those issues or not?

I am also considering to get a VR headset in the future and i can only drive it properly if the game will support higher end hardware properly, as far as i know you should drive the headset with 120 fps preferably.

thank you for the answers in advance!

EliteKatze

I can't imagine how hard it is to build a simulator of this scale.

As for your answer? No. (IMHO)

Bottom line is the next update will bring some new features and some new bugs. Some bugs will get fixed, some won't. If the sim was ported to the latest and greatest coding, there would just be different bugs.

This is my twenty-third year of doing this and I have learned how things are. I still manage to enjoy DCS.

quit wishin', go fishin'

:)

I can't imagine how hard it is to build a simulator of this scale.

 

As for your answer? No. (IMHO)

 

Bottom line is the next update will bring some new features and some new bugs. Some bugs will get fixed, some won't. If the sim was ported to the latest and greatest coding, there would just be different bugs.

 

This is my twenty-third year of doing this and I have learned how things are. I still manage to enjoy DCS.

 

quit wishin', go fishin'

 

:)

its just a bit sad when everything else working so good, but gettings 10fps on some occasions when doing A-G with bf 109 or so really sucks sadly

I think, and its only my guess, that we will not see any major CPU thread behavior changes until version 3.0.

2.5 will only bring a better GPU utilization in Caucasus, but at the same time increase the fidelity of the map so in the long run players may not even see difference in fps.

Although the reveal of F-18C said something about new way of simulation, we have yet to see what that really means.

I recently "fixed" the performance in 1.5.6 for a friend of mine, in 2 minutes by adjusting the settings, nothing else. Before, 17-20fps with textures to low...

Adjusted all to high except water (medium), Heatblur (low). Adjusted MSAA to 4x. Instruments to 512. Set Lens effects to off (DoF was off), and HDR on. Reduced preload radius to half the slider.

Bushes and Trees were already around 300m and 8000m.

Anisotropic Filtering 4x rather than 16x. VSync off.

After the tweaks he had 90-120fps...

He has an older i7 2600@3.8 GHz stock. 16GB RAM and a GTX 970 running a 1080p FullHD resolution. So I actually would call the performance massively improved over the old DCS 1.2 where the same rig (with 8GB at the time) had stutters, fps drops to 7fps and a general slaggy feel.

Another possible issue for god knows why: the DCS window isn't always in Full Screen mode, as Windows sometimes doesn't get the "Full Screen" request from DCS or maybe the TaskManager decides to know better what you need.

To switch the active task from full screen to borderless window and vice versa press ALT+ENTER.

If your fps increase dramatically, then it is the Window mode issue and you need to press ALT+ENTER after the Simulation started.

I recently "fixed" the performance in 1.5.6 for a friend of mine, in 2 minutes by adjusting the settings, nothing else. Before, 17-20fps with textures to low...

Adjusted all to high except water (medium), Heatblur (low). Adjusted MSAA to 4x. Instruments to 512. Set Lens effects to off (DoF was off), and HDR on. Reduced preload radius to half the slider.

Bushes and Trees were already around 300m and 8000m.

Anisotropic Filtering 4x rather than 16x. VSync off.

After the tweaks he had 90-120fps...

 

He has an older i7 2600@3.8 GHz stock. 16GB RAM and a GTX 970 running a 1080p FullHD resolution. So I actually would call the performance massively improved over the old DCS 1.2 where the same rig (with 8GB at the time) had stutters, fps drops to 7fps and a general slaggy feel.

 

Another possible issue for god knows why: the DCS window isn't always in Full Screen mode, as Windows sometimes doesn't get the "Full Screen" request from DCS or maybe the TaskManager decides to know better what you need.

 

To switch the active task from full screen to borderless window and vice versa press ALT+ENTER.

If your fps increase dramatically, then it is the Window mode issue and you need to press ALT+ENTER after the Simulation started.

switching from a gtx 970 to my current gtx 1080 ti barrely made a difference in DCS, when flying high i always get good FPS, but on ground attack its really slow sometimes no matter what settings i use

switching from a gtx 970 to my current gtx 1080 ti barrely made a difference in DCS, when flying high i always get good FPS, but on ground attack its really slow sometimes no matter what settings i use

You could post them so we can have a look and see if there is something wrong with them.

I have a (very) worst graphic card than you and I rarely have any problem with FPS so there must be an issue with your settings...

I recently "fixed" the performance in 1.5.6 for a friend of mine, in 2 minutes by adjusting the settings, nothing else. Before, 17-20fps with textures to low...

Adjusted all to high except water (medium), Heatblur (low). Adjusted MSAA to 4x. Instruments to 512. Set Lens effects to off (DoF was off), and HDR on. Reduced preload radius to half the slider.

Bushes and Trees were already around 300m and 8000m.

Anisotropic Filtering 4x rather than 16x. VSync off.

After the tweaks he had 90-120fps...

 

Very strange. I have the same card, on a similar system, and I had locked 60 FPS in 1.5.X with all options maxed out (except ground shadows, which were set to flat). I only had FPS drops to the 40s or so, on very crowded airports.

For 2.1.1 I have had to drop some settings to get 60 FPS (I use adaptive VSYNC), primarily the in-cockpit shadow setting (Set to flat now) and MSAA which is set to OFF.

switching from a gtx 970 to my current gtx 1080 ti barrely made a difference in DCS, when flying high i always get good FPS, but on ground attack its really slow sometimes no matter what settings i use

With a GTX 1080ti I suspect another component to be the bottleneck.

I myself just replaced my GTX970 (died on me a month ago) against a GTX1080 and the only issue I have is RAM/preload radius.

Rest of my PC is a i7 2600K@4,2 GHz, 16GB RAM and an SSD. Running Windows7.

This will change in the next days, though, new PC inbound.

Could you post your system specs including RAM, Windows version and what periphery you are using (Monitor setup, Joysticks etc.).

Very strange. I have the same card, on a similar system, and I had locked 60 FPS in 1.5.X with all options maxed out (except ground shadows, which were set to flat). I only had FPS drops to the 40s or so, on very crowded airports.

 

For 2.1.1 I have had to drop some settings to get 60 FPS (I use adaptive VSYNC), primarily the in-cockpit shadow setting (Set to flat now) and MSAA which is set to OFF.

V-Sync, adaptive Sync, G-Sync etc. forces the refresh rate always to sync with the monitor, to prevent tearing and frame stutter. So with a 60Hz monitor you always get 60 fps.

I have a G-sync monitor and while with G-Sync and V-Sync off I get 120+ fps when V-sync or G-sync is active it is locked to the monitor refresh rate of 60Hz.

This is no problem or "worse" performance. On the contrary. Through the lock to 60Hz you have a consistent framerate with no hiccups between 54 fps and 120+ fps and an extremely smooth and responsive screen.

When the refreshrate is not synced, though, the more consistent(!) FPS the GPU can produce the better. Basically you hope that every time the monitor refreshes there is a new framebuffer ready and prerendered as shortly as possible before the monitor builds the image... :D

Very strange. I have the same card, on a similar system, and I had locked 60 FPS in 1.5.X with all options maxed out (except ground shadows, which were set to flat). I only had FPS drops to the 40s or so, on very crowded airports.

 

For 2.1.1 I have had to drop some settings to get 60 FPS (I use adaptive VSYNC), primarily the in-cockpit shadow setting (Set to flat now) and MSAA which is set to OFF.

runs mostly great but close to the ground with vehicels that i shot down with bf 109 it gets low gpu usage and thus low fps

With a GTX 1080ti I suspect another component to be the bottleneck.

 

I myself just replaced my GTX970 (died on me a month ago) against a GTX1080 and the only issue I have is RAM/preload radius.

Rest of my PC is a i7 2600K@4,2 GHz, 16GB RAM and an SSD. Running Windows7.

 

This will change in the next days, though, new PC inbound.

 

Could you post your system specs including RAM, Windows version and what periphery you are using (Monitor setup, Joysticks etc.).

hardware is pretty good for me, the problem simply is that the game wont even use the available performance

i5 4690k oc'd 4,7Ghz @1,3V

4x4GB DDR3 Kingston CL9 1600mhz

Gigabyte Z97X-Gaming3

Aorus gtx 1080 ti

Crucial m550 250gb

WD Blue 1TB

Instead of constantly pushing new modules, can we expect an engine in the next few years that will be able to handle more than two CPU threads and more powerful GPU support? Theoretically I have the hardware to run the game maxed out with 60 fps but the highest cpu usage i get is 40% and my gpu 30-60% avg and sometimes the fps are really low.

The DX11 Engine Supports High End GPU's Fine, Ask Anyone w/ a GTX1080+

Parallel Processing isnt planned anytime soon, if at all. (ie 4-6+ Threads).

Another Thing to Note.

Max Settings on 1.5/2.0.x are NOT the Same as Max Settings on 2.1.x

W/ 2.1 The New Deferred Lighting and PBR Systems were introduced, and several under the hood things have Changed for view distances and texture sizes etc.

For Example, I'd Say "HIGH" on 2.0/1.5 = "MEDIUM" on 2.1

There's also a MSAA Issue which causes FPS to Drop on 2.1 by 50%

hardware is pretty good for me, the problem simply is that the game wont even use the available performance

 

 

i5 4690k oc'd 4,7Ghz @1,3V

4x4GB DDR3 Kingston CL9 1600mhz

Gigabyte Z97X-Gaming3

Aorus gtx 1080 ti

Crucial m550 250gb

WD Blue 1TB

Yep, the HW should definitely be ok, though with the object density in Normandy we get closer to 32GB being a good idea.

The Simulation, cannot "use" the additional cores, as the world, planes, Objects and bullets all need to be synchronized for maneuvering and collision checks. I don't want to go into details again. Basically more cores can't help to make things faster, as long as the task cannot be separated into multiple asynchrounous tasks.

DCS uses two cores. One for the Simulation, one for the sound, as the sound does not require millisecond accurate synchronisation to the visuals.

If you want to pull a crate over the ground with a rope attached, putting 4 man to pull the rope helps to move it faster (more power).

if you want to disassemble a motorblock and have 4 man unscrew the assembly and one of them has a difficult access to the screw requiring longer to unscrew it, the others simply need to wait for him.

In DCS it is crucial, that a bullet that is flying a ballistic curve is checked every cycle against collision with all other objects it could collide with plus the ground mesh... so what would you calculate on another core that won't require all other cores computing planes, vehicles etc. to wait/synchronize and get the bullets position and verify no collision with their object happens?

Yep, the HW should definitely be ok, though with the object density in Normandy we get closer to 32GB being a good idea.

 

The Simulation, cannot "use" the additional cores, as the world, planes, Objects and bullets all need to be synchronized for maneuvering and collision checks. I don't want to go into details again. Basically more cores can't help to make things faster, as long as the task cannot be separated into multiple asynchrounous tasks.

 

DCS uses two cores. One for the Simulation, one for the sound, as the sound does not require millisecond accurate synchronisation to the visuals.

 

If you want to pull a crate over the ground with a rope attached, putting 4 man to pull the rope helps to move it faster (more power).

if you want to disassemble a motorblock and have 4 man unscrew the assembly and one of them has a difficult access to the screw requiring longer to unscrew it, the others simply need to wait for him.

 

In DCS it is crucial, that a bullet that is flying a ballistic curve is checked every cycle against collision with all other objects it could collide with plus the ground mesh... so what would you calculate on another core that won't require all other cores computing planes, vehicles etc. to wait/synchronize and get the bullets position and verify no collision with their object happens?

every other game nowadays supports at the very least 4 cpu threads, many of them are much more complex, so i dont see how they cannot put some time into the engine development

Another Thing to Note.

 

Max Settings on 1.5/2.0.x are NOT the Same as Max Settings on 2.1.x

 

W/ 2.1 The New Deferred Lighting and PBR Systems were introduced, and several under the hood things have Changed for view distances and texture sizes etc.

 

For Example, I'd Say "HIGH" on 2.0/1.5 = "MEDIUM" on 2.1

 

There's also a MSAA Issue which causes FPS to Drop on 2.1 by 50%

Important point Skate, thanks! I was talking only about DCS World 1.5.6 release.

The 2.1 is openalpha and in heavy development, so bad performance is currently to be expected. They most likely will tweak a lot(!) before all the new shaders effects and eye candy is optimized and ballanced with object counts and what not. :smartass:

every other game nowadays supports at the very least 4 cpu threads, many of them are much more complex, so i dont see how they cannot put some time into the engine development

Every other NEW game w/ NEW Engines support at least 4 threads..>

I dont see Older but Active Games being Updated to Support more Threads.

every other game nowadays supports at the very least 4 cpu threads, many of them are much more complex, so i dont see how they cannot put some time into the engine development

I am sure they do. Maybe noteworthy, that they just released EDGE a new engine that can utilize more GPU loads and free up the CPU.

To the best of my estimates (there is no precise info about the development time available to me) the development of that engine took roundabout one and a half decades... Let's be optimistic, say 10 years.

As ED develops their own engine that is optimized for its purpose, they need to do it all in parallel to DCS World and the other part of their business.

So even if(!) they started on creating a complete new codebase from scratch (what I doubt), it would be a couple of years away, to see even an alpha.

As it was announced more than once, that multi-CPU support is not on the roadmap for DDS as ED does not see much performance gain with it, unlike the GPU support, which brought a tremendous performance increase! :cheer3nc:

EDIT: and every other game nowadays uses fictious worlds whenever they do "openspace" to be able to optimize performance and block views or rightaway limit your playground etc. all the dirty tricks for optimizing console performance, and hide it behind nice visuals and FX...

Every other NEW game w/ NEW Engines support at least 4 threads..>

 

I dont see Older but Active Games being Updated to Support more Threads.

all these old games dont get constant additions. Thats like selling e.g. on Battlefield and adding DLCs for the next 10 years and not updating

all these old games dont get constant additions. Thats like selling e.g. on Battlefield and adding DLCs for the next 10 years and not updating

Well, ED actually IS "updating" ... or what was that what the autoupdater downloaded a few days ago?

all these old games dont get constant additions. Thats like selling e.g. on Battlefield and adding DLCs for the next 10 years and not updating

Like FSX you mean? ;)

Like FSX you mean? ;)

yeah... the new engine have raindrops on the windshield... what do you think? it's a next gen sim :megalol:

Once 2.5 is here along with the DEDICATED server things hopefully change.

Any more eye candy now will harm the performance so better if ED leaves this be until more processing power is available.

Fluid Game Play over Eye Candy in my world

my 2 cents

Things like dynamic weather, ressource management and stuff similar to this may not need to be squeezed into 1 core in my understanding but I do see the point with bullets.

Radar for instance, would that need to be in perfect sync to FM ? I guess not.

As CPU's seem to be stuck somewhere at 4-5GHz now and the only things "new" are more cores at the same speed, it is clear that down that long road, as you add stuff, you eventually have to come up with some kind of splitting things up to more cores.

How difficult that is..I have no idea..I am a gamer and sys admin, no developer.

These voices wont calm down by just saying no, they will get louder and louder over the years while CPUs get 10, 20, 30 cores at most likely said speed. Unless a game changer CPU comes out, like the SSD was a true HDD killer. I am open to ANY solution to this, as long as it allows more scripts, weather, proper ground Radar, Missile FM etc. to be used.

Aynthing that helps and time will tell.

Things like dynamic weather, ressource management and stuff similar to this may not need to be squeezed into 1 core in my understanding but I do see the point with bullets.

 

Radar for instance, would that need to be in perfect sync to FM ? I guess not.

 

As CPU's seem to be stuck somewhere at 4-5GHz now and the only things "new" are more cores at the same speed, it is clear that down that long road, as you add stuff, you eventually have to come up with some kind of splitting things up to more cores.

 

How difficult that is..I have no idea..I am a gamer and sys admin, no developer.

 

These voices wont calm down by just saying no, they will get louder and louder over the years while CPUs get 10, 20, 30 cores at most likely said speed. Unless a game changer CPU comes out, like the SSD was a true HDD killer. I am open to ANY solution to this, as long as it allows more scripts, weather, proper ground Radar, Missile FM etc. to be used.

 

Aynthing that helps and time will tell.

Actually didn't say just no. I am sure somewhere in the background there is work going on in that direction, it would at least make sense.

What I meant is: it doesn't make sense to yell at the devs now! If they already work on this they will actually tell us as there is something to tell. If they don't it takes at least a decade or more to completely develop a new DCS from scratch.

So you won't speed up things either way. :dunno: