Jump to content

Two modules running at the same time


Tango777
 Share

Recommended Posts

I view the Supercarrier as another running module where my F-18 might be operating on. At the current time, once my F-18 loads along with its surroundings, then my fps are very good after I have waited 15 to 30 seconds. 30 seconds if a mission generates many air and ground based unites (aircraft, tanks, AAA, etc). My concern is if I get the Supercarrier, how much additional memory will the Supercarrier demand while the F-18 is on its deck?

 

I tried the F-14 during the trial period and that module took almost 3 to 4 times as long to load vs. the F-18. And out of all of my modules the F-18 takes the longest to load and eliminate stuttering vs. my other modules.


Edited by Tango777

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel Core i7-6700 at 3.40 GHz, 12 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your 12 GB RAM is a problem and is actually lower than minimum system requirements. I'm assuming they're mismatched sticks of RAM too? With such a low amount, Windows is using your swap file which is causing performance problems (stuttering)

 

Your CPU/GPU are fine but I'd advise you to upgrade to at least 16 GB of RAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to what Ebs said, if loading times are long, you might want to consider an SSD (if you don't have one already)

System specs:

 

i7-8700K @stock speed - GTX 1080TI @ stock speed - AsRock Extreme4 Z370 - 32GB DDR4 @3GHz- 500GB SSD - 2TB nvme

HP Reverb G1 v2 - Saitek Pro pedals - TM Warthog HOTAS - TM F/A-18 Grip - TM Cougar HOTAS (NN-Dan mod) & (throttle standalone mod) - VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Plus with ALPHA-L grip - Pointctrl & aux banks <-- must have for VR users!! - Andre's SimShaker Jetpad - Fully adjustable DIY playseat - VA+VAICOM

 

~ No war today... the enemy just called in sick ~ GUMMBAH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to struggle with a similar issue. If you have good frames after a while, then the GPU is doing it's job just fine. It's the hard drive that's the bottleneck here. Get an SSD, and your loading times will be significantly shorter

But yeah, I'd also look for an upgrade with the GPU. 12GB Ram should be enough as long as you don't try to mess with large amounts of units.

Modules:

F-14, F-15C, F-16C, F/A-18C, M-2000C, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B N/A, MiG-29, Su-33, MiG-21 Bis, F-5E, P-51D, Ka-50, Mi-8, Sa 342, UH-1H, Combined Arms

 

Maps and others:

Persian Gulf, Syria, Normandy, WWII Assets, NS 430 + Mi-8 NS 430

Link to comment
Share on other sites

differently you need large page file... I have 16 GB and I got few DCS crashes due to low memory, so I have setup page file as well.

 

Yes, SSD/NVMe is a killer... it is good idea to buy one, since prices suppose get higher this year.

 

If it is a option, upgrade RAM as well, but when you do consider 32 GB, or skip RAM nad invest just in NVMe ;)

Take a look my mods :joystick: dcs_icons_32.png

CPU: i7 7700 | GPU: GeForce GTX 1080 8GB DDR5 | Motherboard: ASUSTeK PRIME B250M-A | RAM: 2x16GB DDR4-2400 | Output: Kingston HyperX Cloud II | Edifier C2XD 2.1 | Controlls: Saitek X-56 Rhino | Saitek Flight Rudder Pedals | Saitek Multi/Radio/Switch Panels | Thrustmaster MFD Cougar | Logitech G13 | OpenTrack with LaserClip | VoiceAttack with VAICOM Pro plugin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your 12 GB RAM is a problem and is actually lower than minimum system requirements. I'm assuming they're mismatched sticks of RAM too? With such a low amount, Windows is using your swap file which is causing performance problems (stuttering)

 

Your CPU/GPU are fine but I'd advise you to upgrade to at least 16 GB of RAM.

 

Yep. HP sold this computer with a 4gb stick and an 8gb stick. They claim that 16gb of RAM is the most that the computer can handle.

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel Core i7-6700 at 3.40 GHz, 12 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS requirements listed below

 

Minimum system requirements (LOW graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 7/8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Intel Core i3 at 2.8 GHz or AMD FX; RAM: 8 GB (16 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 60 GB; Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 / AMD R9 280X or better; requires internet activation.

 

Recommended system requirements (HIGH graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+ at 3+ GHz or AMD FX / Ryzen; RAM: 16 GB (32 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 120 GB on Solid State Drive (SSD); Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 / AMD Radeon RX VEGA 56 with 8GB VRAM or better; Joystick; requires internet activation.

 

Recommended VR systems requirements (VR graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+ at 3+ GHz or AMD FX / Ryzen; RAM: 16 GB (32 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 120 GB on Solid State Drive (SSD); Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 / AMD Radeon RX VEGA 64 or better; Joystick; requires internet activation.

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok but as to the OP original question (as I understand it anyway).

The super Carrier seems to be the first time that DCS will require 2 separate modules to run in tandem. (Is this correct). If so, has the developers seen any added system resources “tax” based on this. As I’m fairly sure they are testing.

This matters, at least in my opinion because based on Bignewys published systems recommendations, using minimal systems results in minimal performance.

To be more specific. My system below seems well above requirements yet performance is “fair to midland” in VR. If I purchase (which I have) the SC module, will I have to crank settings even further down to maintain FPS?

Simple question I believe but maybe not...

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The super Carrier seems to be the first time that DCS will require 2 separate modules to run in tandem. (Is this correct).

Depends on what qualifies as a “module”. Technically, even terrains are modules, but counting that as a separate requirement is a bit silly because it's just as required as an aircraft if you want want to do anything at all.

 

Other than that, there are the integrated NS430 modules, which technically require three to run in tandem: the integration module, the NS430 module, and the Mi-8 or L-39.

 

Ultimately, though, you just arrive right back of the question of what the specific combination you're interested will require. The wrong plane on the wrong terrain in the wrong circumstances will already blow way past what a minimum-spec computer can handle, whereas the right plane in the right environment will have plenty of unused overhead to fit the carrier into the mix as well.

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok but as to the OP original question (as I understand it anyway).

The super Carrier seems to be the first time that DCS will require 2 separate modules to run in tandem. (Is this correct). If so, has the developers seen any added system resources “tax” based on this. As I’m fairly sure they are testing.

This matters, at least in my opinion because based on Bignewys published systems recommendations, using minimal systems results in minimal performance.

To be more specific. My system below seems well above requirements yet performance is “fair to midland” in VR. If I purchase (which I have) the SC module, will I have to crank settings even further down to maintain FPS?

Simple question I believe but maybe not...

 

You got it right. That was and is what I am asking.

 

Whenever I fly in any terrain fps are great. But while flying in any terrain, the terrain is fairly static unless you are flying low over busy airports or combat zones. The Supercarrier will have many things happening at one time while you are in an F-18 or F-14 that already demands a significant amount of RAM (F-14 way more than F-18) and speed of accessing files from your HD: deck personnel moving around, specific motioning and signaling of the personnel with new radio communications based on where you are (F-18 or F-14 startup, taxi, takeoff, landing, after landing, other aircraft traffic being marshaled by deck personnel), moving elevators to the hangar, etc.

 

Also the Supercarrier will be more complex when compared to the Stennis, any airport, or terrain that we have now. All we have to do is watch the DCS youtube video of the Supercarrier.

 

After I watch that video, the Supercarrier in my view is a module and much unlike a terrain.

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel Core i7-6700 at 3.40 GHz, 12 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a real concern here...

 

From what I am seeing right now, the biggest drop in FPS is from being near other aircraft, especially the Hornet...a 20-30 FPS drop when just a few are present and within your view. This is what really needs to be fixed.

 

A more detailed carrier and deck will only make this worse.

i5 7600K @4.8GHz | 1080 Ti | 32GB 3200MHz | SSD | DCS SETTINGS | "COCKPIT"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a real concern here...

 

From what I am seeing right now, the biggest drop in FPS is from being near other aircraft, especially the Hornet...a 20-30 FPS drop when just a few are present and within your view. This is what really needs to be fixed.

 

A more detailed carrier and deck will only make this worse.

 

No concern here, I do not notice what you describe. If my sim runs smoothly its not an issue for me on my spartan system.

 

I have no reason to be watching FPS as I am too busy enjoying my flights and MP missions with multiple Hornets on deck and on the flight line.

 

We don’t know SC impact if any until we have it. I expect the sim to run as good as it does for me now.

Too early for people to be declaring “we” have a problem. That may not be true for all.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4133860&postcount=4

 

 

“No the sky is not falling, that was just an acorn bouncing of your noggin.”


Edited by MegOhm_SD

 

Cooler Master HAF XB EVO , ASUS P8Z77-V, i7-3770K @ 4.6GHz, Noctua AC, 32GB Corsair Vengeance Pro, EVGA 1080TI 11GB, 2 Samsung 840 Pro 540GB SSDs Raid 0, 1TB HDD, EVGA SuperNOVA 1300W PS, G930 Wireless SS Headset, TrackIR5/Wireless Proclip, TM Warthog, Saitek Pro Combat Pedals, 75" Samsung 4K QLED, HP Reverb G2, Win 10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view the Supercarrier as another running module where my F-18 might be operating on. At the current time, once my F-18 loads along with its surroundings, then my fps are very good after I have waited 15 to 30 seconds. 30 seconds if a mission generates many air and ground based unites (aircraft, tanks, AAA, etc). My concern is if I get the Supercarrier, how much additional memory will the Supercarrier demand while the F-18 is on its deck?

 

I tried the F-14 during the trial period and that module took almost 3 to 4 times as long to load vs. the F-18. And out of all of my modules the F-18 takes the longest to load and eliminate stuttering vs. my other modules.

 

 

Tango 777, that you buddy?

"There are only two types of aircraft, Fighters and Targets." Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a real concern here...

 

From what I am seeing right now, the biggest drop in FPS is from being near other aircraft, especially the Hornet...a 20-30 FPS drop when just a few are present and within your view. This is what really needs to be fixed.

 

A more detailed carrier and deck will only make this worse.

 

That is my point exactly, and I noticed that your computer specs are more powerful than mine.

 

Whenever you are close to non-static objects (aircraft, sizable ground conflict areas, etc.) fps take a hit or there is intermittent stuttering the closer you get to it, and again my concern can be put in terms of comparing my computer specs to your specs. Terrains are static and therefore terrains cause no hit on fps in my situation.

 

The Supercarrier will not be static, it will be the 180 degrees opposite of static. We have the F-18 and F-14 that are modules which already demand more RAM and computing power than any module before them, the F-14 for certain.

 

These modules which will operate on a non-static module (Supercarrier). Flip side of a coin: As long as an airport in any terrain has few aircraft operating in or out of it, than the airport and its terrain surrounding the airport if one wants to call a terrain a module, fps will be nice and fluid without any stuttering. If you put either of these modules onto the Supercarrier, it will be very different with regard to what computing power will have to be in order to have good fps without stuttering.

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel Core i7-6700 at 3.40 GHz, 12 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see some discussion about the carrier as if it's a whole new module. Is it really to be understood as a module or just an available unit with more features available?

 

It seems like if we want more damage modeling, more naval units, etc, then this level of representation is going to be the norm, or at least close to it, right?

Owned: Ryzen 3900x, MSI AMD 470x mobo, 32gb 3200MHz ram, Gtx 1660 Ti, 970 Evo Plus 500GB, MsFFB2, TIR5, TMWH+18c Stick, MFG Crosswinds, Buttkicker/SSA, WinWing F-18C . Next is VR for simpit

Art Of The Kill:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though my entire system is running on a HDD, can I uninstall DCS from it and re-install DCS on a new SSD?

 

If it's standalone you can just move it directly and update your shortcuts, if it's steam it's slightly more complex but there's a system for doing that, too. If performance improves after a period of time, it's loading that's holding you up, which means you need an SSD. More memory wouldn't hurt, but you definitely need an SSD.

 

Otherwise your system is fine. A 960 etc is more than capable of running DCS, albeit on lower settings. Obviously you'd benefit from any/all upgrades, though.


Edited by zhukov032186
Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Its a complex Unit with lots of things happening, so I believe there will be an impact on minimum specs machines.

 

And by the way 16Gm, its below minimun now a days...well at least if MP is considered.

 

I am at the absolute minimun with an I-7 3.5gz, 20gb RAM, and a GTX 965M, 1tb m-2 ssd and have come to terms with the fact that i need a New Rig to fly DCS...

 

 

OT

 

No concern here, I do not notice what you describe. If my sim runs smoothly its not an issue for me on my spartan system.

 

You call THAT spartan... get out of the Tupperware mate...


Edited by Baco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Its a complex Unit with lots of things happening, so I believe there will be an impact on minimum specs machines.

 

And by the way 16Gm, its below minimun now a days...well at least if MP is considered.

 

I am at the absolute minimun with an I-7 3.5gz, 20gb RAM, and a GTX 965M, 1tb m-2 ssd and have come to terms with the fact that i need a New Rig to fly DCS...

 

If this is the case considering that you have an SSD and 20gb of RAM which shadows my machine, then I think that Eagle Dynamics might need to think about re-considering the specs laid out in the spec paragraph, and especially the Minimum Specifications paragraph, considering the newer modules.

 

I say this based on the trial that I took advantage of when the F-14 was available for a 3 day trial. The load times and in cockpit dog fighting over nothing but an ocean had some stuttering and when switching views briefly from outside cockpit back to inside cockpit, at times it took several seconds in the game practically pausing because it had to re-draw parts of the cockpit that I was just in. I was re-booting the computer every 3 to 4 flights.

 

On my machine, I cannot imagine the F-14 module on the deck of a Supercarrier module.

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel Core i7-6700 at 3.40 GHz, 12 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tango, you never revealed what settings and resolution you play with. Minimum specs are just that - minimum to run and play. It's not like console game where you have 60fps guarantee.

All the "high" options and bigger than 1080p resolutions are not for your system. Lower your expectations as it's not any other game. DCS will eat any PC hardware you put against.

🖥️ i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 32GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B   🚢 Supercarrier    🌍 NTTR, PG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

draconus, my video settings are not all set to being maxed out if that is your question. I do not have the output DCS option at 1080p.

 

I have tested DCS video setting where the drop boxes allow settings of high, and those settings work very well on my computer, the F-18 works just as good as soon as everything loads, and the same goes for the Viggen, M-2000, Harrier, A-10C, F-86, Spitfire, P-51, a busy Stennis after all airplanes load within 45 seconds, and all terrains including WW-II assets pack. However I didn't have time to play around with all of the different video settings during the trial period of the F-14.

 

The F-14 has been the only module where my system slowed to stuttering, and low fps while flying at 35,000 over nothing but ocean with only 3 aircraft beyond visual range. It froze for a second in me selecting Jester's menu for the first time but after that the Jester menu popped up instantly. As far as I understand things: In that situation the only information that is being called from the HD is what you are looking at in simulation play, the situation I setup was simple (ocean texture from 35,000 feet, horizon and its shading, the blue sky, and the sun with its reflections on the plane and in cockpit shadowing). In these same conditions, the F-18 works without a hiccup as soon as everything loads, and even at that I added aircraft at visual range and lower altitude with clouds so that more texture files have to be called, meaning draw-called, and the F-18 gave me no problems with fps, stuttering, re-drawing of textures, etc.

 

I do remember that when I first bought the Viggen, it had similar fps, stuttering, and cockpit re-drawing problems. That is no longer the case with the Viggen.

 

The main point is the Supercarrier and another module operating on it regarding system requirements. Two modules running at the same time, meaning a module interfacing with another fairly complex module, is new to DCS. Are the minimum system requirements that are given for the Supercarrier there for the Supercarrier alone, or are those requirements given with the user in mind while operating the F-18 or F-14 in tandem the Supercarrier?

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel Core i7-6700 at 3.40 GHz, 12 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've mentioned the F-14 as your example of "two module" problems, yet the F-14 is the exception and not the rule when it comes to FPS. It is a PC power hungry module, using large textures to look like it does, which is fantastic.

 

Are you having the same problems with the F/A-18 you run on the High settings you mention without a hiccup when there's another module around you? Say a F-5 or the new F-16? How is it on the current Stennis with other F/A-18 modules nearby?

"These are NOT 1 to 1 replicas of the real aircraft, there are countless compromises made on each of them" - Senior ED Member

 

Modules - Damn near all of them

System - i7-8700K, 32Gig DDR4 RAM, GTX-1080Ti, 3 32" monitors at 5760 x 1080, default settings of High (minor tweaks)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've mentioned the F-14 as your example of "two module" problems, yet the F-14 is the exception and not the rule when it comes to FPS. It is a PC power hungry module, using large textures to look like it does, which is fantastic.

 

Are you having the same problems with the F/A-18 you run on the High settings you mention without a hiccup when there's another module around you? Say a F-5 or the new F-16? How is it on the current Stennis with other F/A-18 modules nearby?

 

As soon as everything loads when using the F-18 on high settings when other modules are around the fps are great. But the F-5s and F-16s you reference load instantly because their exterior model looks like a sim from the early 1990s. No different than what B-52s or F-117s look like in current DCS missions.

 

Once everything loads on the current Stennis, the F-18 runs just fine as other F-18s that are not part of the mission are for some reason dark and have a very rough look just like the B-52s or B-1s. The F-18s that are active in a mission do have the same external details as mine and when they are in play my fps takes a bit of a hit but for no more than 45 seconds, by that time they are in my GPU's memory.

 

Please read what I said about Heatblur's Viggen. What I will add is that the Viggen was not fun to fly for a long time until they released a big update on it last year. I do remember reading a "zillion" of complaints about it. Immediately after that update though, the fps improved from 0 to 10, no more stuttering, and no more cockpit re-draws. I was told over a year ago, after I purchased it, that the Viggen was a module that demanded a ton of computing power. But now I fly it often on the same computer I had at that time, the same computer that I have now.

 

I am running the latest version of DCS.


Edited by Tango777

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel Core i7-6700 at 3.40 GHz, 12 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current Stennis is a "module", technically, as you interact with it through radio communications. As is every other F/A-18 or flyable plane in a mission as well, such as wingmen. Sounds like your Viggen and probably even DCS went through some optimizations along the way, too, allowing you to fly it on the same computer.

 

And, I'm sure ED's happy to hear their brand new F-16 looks an early 1990's model. :D

 

It might be best for you to wait and see the first reports after it's released, if Supercarrier brings people's PC's to it's digital crawling point before buying it. I don't think ED's going to change their recommended or minimum PC specs just yet. :)

"These are NOT 1 to 1 replicas of the real aircraft, there are countless compromises made on each of them" - Senior ED Member

 

Modules - Damn near all of them

System - i7-8700K, 32Gig DDR4 RAM, GTX-1080Ti, 3 32" monitors at 5760 x 1080, default settings of High (minor tweaks)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tango, it is not wise to complaint about fps, having low spec PC, while setting graphics to High, on modules you don't own or are not yet available :)

 

ED already made a statements about SC performance hit:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4190065&postcount=6

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4133860&postcount=4

 

Turns out SC is really not that much more than current Stennis computing wise.

 

In missions you can use both old and new models for aircraft like F-14, F-16 or F-18. They are named differently so designers have a choice. For the static ones on your mission older models were probably used.

🖥️ i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 32GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B   🚢 Supercarrier    🌍 NTTR, PG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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