Jump to content

Impact of B-17 Carpet Bombing on FPS


lennycutler
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have created some test missions.....with 16, 32, 48, 64 bombers in a max of 4 boxes....each box containing 16 planes, with 12 bombs each.

 

I found that currently my FPS drop from over 60 - to around 14FPS when all bombers release their bombs using a max of 64 bombers (768 bombs) .....and I achieve FPS of 22 -32 when only 32 bombers are employed. The view when the FPS drops is looking down at the target, in my case an airfield from well above the bombers.

 

This seems to be obviously dependent on the total number of bombs being dropped....and I wonder if this is something that can be optimized in the future?

 

For now, with my hardware, the sweet spot will be a max of 32 bombers in carpet bombing formation....Two boxes of 16 bombers each.

Velocity MicroI7-4790 Windows 7 Home Premium 16Gigs RAM EVGA NVIDIA GTX 1070 500GB SSD TM Hotas Warthog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But look at those pretty shadows and lighting. Record it with Shadowplay and it gets smooth, too.

It seems like cinematics is an important aspect for many in the community here.

 

I've been wondering the same thing as you. Let's look forward to seeing some optimization for first-person gameplay. What a wonderful change that would be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that mostly physics calculations of falling bombs through air ?

 

Which would mean GPUs can't do anything about it. Only a newer API could possibly alleviate some CPU resources that are wasted due to draw call spoonfeeding.

1st.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus ROG Strix X-570E - CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 - RAM: 64 GB - SSD: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB NVMe

2nd.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus P9X79 - CPU: Intel i7 3820 - RAM: 32GB - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 8GB - SSD Samsung 870 EVO 250GB (DCS), Input: Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2.

Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post the missions please.

General 3D modeling thread and reference sites

UK liveries for planes, ships and MODS.

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance.

"Me, the 13th Duke of Wybourne, here on the ED forums at 3 'o' clock in the morning, with my reputation. Are they mad.."

Updates to my stuff are now going here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

It is still the case, and jsut as bad. Even 12 B-17s carpet bombing causes huge FPS drop. As soon as the bombs start falling, then upon impact it gets worse. Then my FPS drops to a single digit when I look at the craters and smoke. I'm surprised this hasn't been addressed for so long, it heavily impacts playability with B-17s around.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Reflected said:

It is still the case, and jsut as bad. Even 12 B-17s carpet bombing causes huge FPS drop. As soon as the bombs start falling, then upon impact it gets worse. Then my FPS drops to a single digit when I look at the craters and smoke. I'm surprised this hasn't been addressed for so long, it heavily impacts playability with B-17s around.


Just out of curiosity, have you tried using the A20 Havoc to carpet bomb?
I get really good results when using 'stock assets'..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2021 at 7:31 PM, Reflected said:

It is still the case, and jsut as bad. Even 12 B-17s carpet bombing causes huge FPS drop. As soon as the bombs start falling, then upon impact it gets worse. Then my FPS drops to a single digit when I look at the craters and smoke. I'm surprised this hasn't been addressed for so long, it heavily impacts playability with B-17s around.

Why Reflected (Greg) of all people is complaining about this is a mystery to me. When he writers a mission in his campaigns he thinks it is "realistic" to put in HUGE numbers of aircraft. Even though he has an "unrealistic" more limited option, his missions are computer stranglers.

 

Look, a combat pilot, just a like a soldier on a battlefield, only sees what is immediately in his vicinity, a slice of the overall action. Anything beyond that is just eye candy and gets ignored as soon as there is contact.

 

Limit your missions to the "slice" that involves your aircraft, your flight and forget he rest. No one will miss it.

 

 

Exceptional engineering...and a large hammer to make it fit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my missions the bombers only drop when the player escorts them closely. If they’re out of sight they’re not only not dropping but they’re usually deactivated. Just like you said. My missions hardly have an active unit beyond that ‘slice’, I put a lot of effort into optimizing them. 
 

also, I made a compromise to have only a fraction of the bombers actually drop which helps with performance. The rest just overflies the target. 
 

not sure why I’m the one being reprimanded here, even though it’s not hundreds of bombers that I want to use, only 70, or, if the player chooses so: 24. But even with 10 dropping you get the fps hit.  I could not look into the mirror if I sold campaigns where you escort 3 bombers just so that there is no performance impact because of a bug that should already have been addressed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Greg, it isn't just the bombs dropping. Its the number of objects. It's a huge FPS hit on my quite high end machine. I get what you're tying to do and it's admirable (don't take my comments personally!) but it makes your excellent missions into a slide show. It's not you, it's the computer limitations. S!

Exceptional engineering...and a large hammer to make it fit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, HotTom said:

Greg, it isn't just the bombs dropping. Its the number of objects. It's a huge FPS hit on my quite high end machine. I get what you're tying to do and it's admirable (don't take my comments personally!) but it makes your excellent missions into a slide show. It's not you, it's the computer limitations. S!


In my experience its one or two certain assets, much like new modules, alot of them havent yet been optimised.
When me and a friend fly using the Asset Pack, (him on an RTX 2070 and me on a 2080ti) we have a bad time when using certain assets..
Swapping the asset pack for non A/Pack stuff seems to give a much better performance for both of us..

In most experiences, you can add quite a considerable amount of non asset pack assets, and you barely see a dip in performance.
Then after you pick out the assets causing the issue, youre left with the effects..
But the minute you start adding certain assets and effects, you see a visible and considerable hit.
When we deleted the asset pack as a whole in a short campaign we made, we found we could add a huge amount more assets- Flak, Havocs, Enemy fighters and the cost to performance was much lower. Then after highlighting the issues, youre left with managing effects, which again- need much more and better optimisation.

Alot more time needs spending on the Warbirds game.

A few updates ago we got it down to one or two assets that werent optimised. With the last few updates, we've seen really poor performance with assets across the whole of warbirds.
Im scratching at walls waiting for improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...