[REPORTED] Performance Issues

I regret buying this module because of this performance problems. Now I don't want to use high fps stennis because SC is sitting there. Yesterday I saw 16-30 fps. As soon as I took off, fps reached 50-60

I regret buying this module because of this performance problems. Now I don't want to use high fps stennis because SC is sitting there. Yesterday I saw 16-30 fps. As soon as I took off, fps reached 50-60

Ouch. Man, what do we do with this 16-30 is kind, i get lower than that at times.

16 fps is a slide show, how come you get lower than that? those low fps issues hurt my feelings as if my pc is in severe pain :D

I get 70 fps in multiplayer. But my graphics card is a GTX 2070 and 32 GB of RAM

Hi all,

just to share my experience.

I have better frame rate than ever in the SC in VR. I use a lot of mods, a full crowded deck, scripts, etc, so, i can´t blame (and i don´t because it´s not the point why we are here sharing experiences and helping each other) ED for any frame loss i may have, because with vanilla version it´s smooth. I got 30 FPS in VR, less stutter and a better experience. When far from the carrier i get 45 FPS when before that was not the case. There is optimization to be done, the frame loss when looking at the island is less noticeable (vanilla version) but it´s there. Overall i think it´s headed in a good way for now. All of this is subjective because every rig its different, different settings, and so on.

My overall specs:

-4790k 5.5GHZ

-32GB Ram DDR 3 1800mhz

-SSD´s x3

-Zotac GTX1080ti AMP Extreme Core Edition 11gb DDR5x

&

- Valve Index

Config:

-Valve Index SteamVR: 120hz refresh rate

-Valve Index SteamVR Supersampling: 1.0

DCS general options:

-VR pixel density: 1.5

-MSAA 2x

-SSAA 0

-Shadows to Flat only

-16x anisotropic filtering

-Visibility High

-Textures HIGH

-VSync off/Fast (in Nvidia options)

EDIT: forgot to mention, usually my frame drops happens as soon i start the batterie in the Hornet, nothing much but that´s why i said there´s room for improvement.

Now i´m quite happy with Viper, Hornet and Supercarrier performance in VR.

Best regards,

F.

-4790k 5.5GHZ

:eek:

:eek:

I´m sorry, that is wrong. I mean 4.5ghz, don´t know where i got the 5.5ghz... maybe too much workload. Again, my apologies.

F.

I´m sorry, that is wrong. I mean 4.5ghz, don´t know where i got the 5.5ghz... maybe too much workload. Again, my apologies.

 

F.

4.5 is still super fast, but 5.5 is a rocket-ship......maybe one day.......

4.5 is still super fast, but 5.5 is a rocket-ship......maybe one day.......

Nowadays it´s a old i7 4790k but it´s fast. 4.5ghz but it can go 4.7ghz, some people oc it manually. I don´t want to and just leave out the box/default OC.

I got a performance boost with the last patch as well, it seems. I fly VR with all DCS settings extremely low, PD 1.2.

Prior to update, 30fps on the SC deck with 6 AI moving around, 45fps capped up in the air.

Post update, 40~45fps variable on SC deck with 6 AI moving around, 55-60fps variable up in the air.

Steam also went through two updates, though I'm unsure if there were any updates to SteamVR.

Unfortunately, though, I'm still getting 17 FPS at night whenever I look at the Island in the CASE III mission, though daylight is a tiny bit improved (maybe?). Not sure why night is worse than day?

Unfortunately, though, I'm still getting 17 FPS at night whenever I look at the Island in the CASE III mission, though daylight is a tiny bit improved (maybe?). Not sure why night is worse than day?

Yup, at night my VR performance is not great (20 fps and stutter).

Yup, at night my VR performance is not great (20 fps and stutter).

What VR glasses?

What VR glasses?

Valve Index.

What settings, what hardware...

It's funny how some people see a small performance increase, while for me it's the opposite. Started with 20 fps on release, I'm now having 15-16 after the latest patch/hotfix.

Minsky, I've told you this before in this same thread, the performance loss your experiencing isn't an optimization issue with DCS. If your hardware is still the same from the start of this post then your GTX 960 4GB is a 5 year old mid-range GPU. It doesn't have the CUDA cores or clock speeds to handle the newer textures that DCS has released. This is a "YOU" problem. Plain and simple you need a new GPU and you i5 CPU isn't the top performer either and is going to be holding you back too. So it's funny people with modern new good PC hardware are getting increases cause that is just how it works. It's optimization is done with modern hardware not old Nvidia Maxwell Architecture GPUs. Please stop pointing the finger at ED when this is clearly an issue of you needing a new GPU. OK

It doesn't have the CUDA cores or clock speeds to handle the newer textures that DCS has released. This is a "YOU" problem. Plain and simple you need a new GPU and you i5 CPU isn't the top performer either and is going to be holding you back too. So it's funny people with modern new good PC hardware are getting increases cause that is just how it works. It's optimization is done with modern hardware not old Nvidia Maxwell Architecture GPUs. Please stop pointing the finger at ED when this is clearly an issue of you needing a new GPU. OK

I'll stop pointing finger at ED once they provide a clear statement/explanation, and/or revise the SC's system requirements.

4. This issue has nothing to do with the Supercarrier's textures. Proof.

 

6. There are people with much better hardware than mine, also affected by this issue.

 

7. If your performance with the Supercarrier is smooth, it doesn't mean you are not affected: drops from 70-80 fps to 50-40 aren't always noticeable without using a FPS monitor.

Hey Minsky I'm not gonna get into a debate with this over you. But seriously your complaining about performance and you don't even meet the "recommended" specs for DCS or the supercarrier. Your just over minimum specs when it comes to the GPU...so time face the facts and reality there mate. The game is being optimized on more modern hardware and Architecture. So this is still a "You" problem. Get a newer and better GPU if you want a better experience plain and simple. I don't know why that is so hard to understand. Heck I just built my son his first Gaming PC and its has a GTX 1650 Super. It's only cost $230 CAD and it would preform leaps and bounds over a GTX 960 4GB. You have an issue with ED but your experience has to be taken with a grain of salt due to the lower hardware you are using as it still doesn't even meet the recommended specs of the game. I'm using a RTX 2080 Super. Yes its an expensive high end card and when supercarrier came out I never once seen a FPS drop compared to before when running at 1440P rez. So take what you will from this and really think about your own position before that finger of your starts pointing again. And just a little cheat sheet for ya. Nineline even commented here stating that "Your GPU is going to struggle". It's below spec for anything above "low settings". They might not take your issues seriously in a technical support point of view because of once again your lower end hardware doesn't even meet recommended specs

I said this multiple times, but can repeat once again. I know my GPU is outdated. But so far I've been able to run *every* other DCS module on medium-to-high settings with very good performance.

Once ED confirm that there are no issues with the SC, and this kind of performance can be expected from their forthcoming modules, we can close this topic and move on.

Until then I see no point in replacing what works really well - only because of a possible bug in a single Early Access module.

Hey Minsky I'm not gonna get into a debate with this over you. But seriously your complaining about performance and you don't even meet the "recommended" specs for DCS or the supercarrier. Your just over minimum specs when it comes to the GPU...so time face the facts and reality there mate. The game is being optimized on more modern hardware and Architecture. So this is still a "You" problem. Get a newer and better GPU if you want a better experience plain and simple. I don't know why that is so hard to understand. Heck I just built my son his first Gaming PC and its has a GTX 1650 Super. It's only cost $230 CAD and it would preform leaps and bounds over a GTX 960 4GB. You have an issue with ED but your experience has to be taken with a grain of salt due to the lower hardware you are using as it still doesn't even meet the recommended specs of the game. I'm using a RTX 2080 Super. Yes its an expensive high end card and when supercarrier came out I never once seen a FPS drop compared to before when running at 1440P rez. So take what you will from this and really think about your own position before that finger of your starts pointing again. And just a little cheat sheet for ya. Nineline even commented here stating that "Your GPU is going to struggle". It's below spec for anything above "low settings". They might not take your issues seriously in a technical support point of view because of once again your lower end hardware doesn't even meet recommended specs

It is true that Minsky's GPU is quite outdated (and this will be even more of a issue when even mainstream games go beyond his card's capabilities when the new consoles come up (and minimum requirements go up across the board). That being said, Minsky's rig isn't exactly the whole issue here.

So I have a few people in my group with VERY high-end systems (including ones with 2080 Super's in them). All of them have encountered a pretty severe framerate drop when using the Supercarrier specifically. This isn't to say that their performance is rendered unplayable. They just encountered major framerate drops when compared to everything else in the sim.

The problem isn't if it is playable or not. The problem is that the Supercarrier goes above and beyond DCS World's base-level system requirements to such a degree that either there is something wrong in terms of optimization that really should be dealt with (perhaps shadows need to be tuned for the Superstructure area, I don't know) or the system requirements for DCS need to go up quite a bit to keep up.

I don't have a bad computer (and easily meet the "high" requirement for the Supercarrier) but I still see a significant performance loss that doesn't really make a lot of sense. There is something going on that shouldn't be so flippantly dismissed as "you need a better computer" or something to that effect. Again. It isn't about if it is playable or not. It is about the total performance hit across even high-end systems that exceed the recommended requirements.

I'm not dismissing there could be an issue with DCS but its the fact that someone going on and on about how they are not getting good performance and its getting worse as the game get further developed while using such outdated hardware...I'm going to call it like I see it. Minsky seems(if im wrong let me know) that there is no issue with his under powered GPU and its all DCS and I disagree. I believe his first issue is the GPU and the second issue might be DCS if others are experiencing it to some degree. To me it seems simple. You can't complain about lack of performance with a game when you don't even meet their "current" recommend specs for performance. Min Spec means the game will run, Doesn't mean it gonna run good, it means it will launch and run. Recommend means it will run to some degree of high performance(varies on how good your hardware is). So maybe in your cause and other with older GPUs the issues is 2 sided. You do have an old GPU that is an under performer. 2nd if there is an optimization issue then maybe its still the GPU. Nvidia Maxwell GPUs are old now. Maybe it can't be optimized like newer hardware is. So once again you have to use logic and look at where you stand and all the avenues before you start that finger pointing. Asking ED to optimize your GPU Architecture is kinda unfair as its once again a GPU below the recommended specs. I do get your issue and I feel for ya but I think your just being one sided here mate.

I'm not dismissing there could be an issue with DCS but its the fact that someone going on and on about how they are not getting good performance and its getting worse as the game get further developed while using such outdated hardware...I'm going to call it like I see it. Minsky seems(if im wrong let me know) that there is no issue with his under powered GPU and its all DCS and I disagree. I believe his first issue is the GPU and the second issue might be DCS if others are experiencing it to some degree. To me it seems simple. You can't complain about lack of performance with a game when you don't even meet their "current" recommend specs for performance. Min Spec means the game will run, Doesn't mean it gonna run good, it means it will launch and run. Recommend means it will run to some degree of high performance(varies on how good your hardware is). So maybe in your cause and other with older GPUs the issues is 2 sided. You do have an old GPU that is an under performer. 2nd if there is an optimization issue then maybe its still the GPU. Nvidia Maxwell GPUs are old now. Maybe it can't be optimized like newer hardware is. So once again you have to use logic and look at where you stand and all the avenues before you start that finger pointing. Asking ED to optimize your GPU Architecture is kinda unfair as its once again a GPU below the recommended specs. I do get your issue and I feel for ya but I think your just being one sided here mate.

This...

I'm not dismissing there could be an issue with DCS but its the fact that someone going on and on about how they are not getting good performance and its getting worse as the game get further developed while using such outdated hardware...I'm going to call it like I see it. Minsky seems(if im wrong let me know) that there is no issue with his under powered GPU and its all DCS and I disagree. I believe his first issue is the GPU and the second issue might be DCS if others are experiencing it to some degree. To me it seems simple. You can't complain about lack of performance with a game when you don't even meet their "current" recommend specs for performance. Min Spec means the game will run, Doesn't mean it gonna run good, it means it will launch and run. Recommend means it will run to some degree of high performance(varies on how good your hardware is). So maybe in your cause and other with older GPUs the issues is 2 sided. You do have an old GPU that is an under performer. 2nd if there is an optimization issue then maybe its still the GPU. Nvidia Maxwell GPUs are old now. Maybe it can't be optimized like newer hardware is. So once again you have to use logic and look at where you stand and all the avenues before you start that finger pointing. Asking ED to optimize your GPU Architecture is kinda unfair as its once again a GPU below the recommended specs. I do get your issue and I feel for ya but I think your just being one sided here mate.

To be bluntly honest, I think that worrying about Minsky's hardware specifically misses the larger point. I agree that his hardware is past the upgrade point but that isn't really the crux of this thread.

Let's use my system as a example. I run a i7 6700K, 32 gigs of RAM, have DCS installed on a m.2 SSD, and use a GTX 1070 as my GPU. I am running in 1080p so I have been able to run DCS at quite high settings without any significant issues. When I create a scenario where I spawn on a Supercarrier with a empty deck (aside from the default deck crew) and no other objects but my own aircraft, I experience almost a 50% loss in overall FPS. I go from a pretty steady 60 FPS to 30 FPS. This is especially the case when I look at the carrier's superstructure specifically.

When I asked some of the guys in my group that have much, much better systems, they also encounter a significant loss in FPS when using the Supercarrier. It doesn't render the experience unplayable but it is a huge loss in performance that seems to be deeply connected to shadows. This tells me that there is a issue with how shadows are rendered and makes it a optimization problem that ED really should explore and try to solve or mitigate.

To be blunt. Arguing about people with low-end systems will not help ED understand our issue and will only make it harder to actually get them to look at it seriously.