[REPORTED] Performance Issues

[average_pilot]

I see the thread is derailing again.

 

The SuperCarrier module is performing quite well in all kind of hardware. [need citation :p]

 

BUT, for some of us (apparently a quite small minority) there is a very evident degradation in performance when any of the supercarriers are in view, which is an indication that something abnormal is happening. Again, only to some people, weak or powerful hardware, it doesn't matter.

 

You can see there are just a few of us posting here of the thousands of users that may have purchased the module. And hoggit would had been burned down to ashes at this point if it were a common problem. That's why I said it's only happening to a tiny fraction of users.

 

It may be some combination of hardware, configuration options, windows tweaks, versions... etc, etc... who knows. I was hopeful at the beginning, because I saw a couple of people the first day explaining they had very bad performance in the supercarrier but it got fixed swiftly, one just restarting, the other deleting the shaders cache. That plus the low incidence made me thing that whatever it was may fix itself eventually. But at this point I'm giving up any hope the problem will be found, except maybe by pure chance.

 

Well, at least the module wasn't expensive :/

 

EDIT: I thought attaching a DCS.log may be useful, just in case.

 

EDIT2: I did some more testing. I uninstalled the SC module. Apparently, to my eyes at least, the 3D models are still the same, but the performance is a lot better and no longer a problem. So yes, my computer is still capable of rendering the level of detail of the new carriers (BTW, I've noticed the crew inside the carrier are a lot more detailed now. Maybe because there is no crew on the deck the crew inside the island revert to higher poly-count models.)

 

So, wether there is a problem with the deck crew (animation, shaders... I don't know) or those crew 3D models are so insanely detailed that, after all, it is true that my PC can't simply handle them.

 

If the latest is true, an option (or some config tweak or mod for the matter) to use less detailed crew models would be nice.

dcs.log.txt

Edited June 5, 2020 by average_pilot
Attaching log file

[statrekmike]

Alternative B, turn down the visual settings.

Just saying...

 

This misses the point of the issue. When I make a mission full of particularly demanding modules on a particularly demanding map (like the Persian Gulf), I certainly notice a drop in performance on my rig but it is one that makes sense based on what I have going on. I can understand how a bunch of Tomcats sitting on the tarmac on Al Dhafra can cause a noticeable performance impact. Even then, the performance impact is proportional and isn't severe at all.

 

Keep in mind, I run DCS on a i7 6700k, 32 gigs of RAM, and a GTX 1070. I usually run DCS quite smoothly at a mix of mostly high and medium settings. I can't max out DCS comfortably but I can get it looking as good as I would expect for a computer like mine.

 

Now. If I were to leave my settings as they usually are and place a single Supercarrier far out to the western edge of the Persian Gulf map (where high-detail terrain is too far away to render). I would see a 50% performance drop with only myself on the deck. I am not even talking about a lot of AI assets or static objects. Just me in a plane on a empty deck in the middle of the ocean. If I look at the superstructure of the carrier, my FPS drops more than 50%. This seems a bit much. It is still playable but if I want those frames back, I have to turn off shadows and to be bluntly honest, that isn't a real solution at all. That makes the game look awful to say the least.

 

As another user said above. If this were someone that happens across a wider variety of conditions in DCS, it would probably be a sign that the minimum requirements have crept up and people need to catch up but we are not. We are talking about ONE thing that cuts performance in half and even recent 20 series cards are seeing a pretty significant (even if not unplayable) impact. There is something wrong here. Telling people to turn off major graphic elements or even raising the system requirements is a band-aid over a bullet wound. It is clear that there is a significant optimization pass required for the Supercarrier and that might mean ED will have to tweak some things to keep DCS in something even remotely close to reasonable and proportional system requirements.

[Minsky]

Quick summary/update of this topic so far:

 

 

It appears that two primary contributors to this issue are the animated crew and the shadows from the Supercarrier's model.

 

- Most, if not all, affected users are reporting massive performance gain after changing their in-game shadows to "Flat Only" or "Off".

 

- Removing just a few of the animated crew members can improve the performance significantly. Proof.

 

- As reported by a reddit user, the Supercarrier without the animated crew (the way it appears to those who don't own the module) has no performance issues at all.

 

- Likewise, loading the Supercarrier into the ModelViewer (with full shadows and animations, but without the animated crew) shows excellent performance and very low GPU usage. Proof.

[chevyrules727]

I dropped my resolution from 1440 to 1080 and still getting about 27 FPS....

 

 

 

Where doing the same on the Channel Map with the P-47 went from 33 FPS to 55 FPS doing the same thing.

[Minsky]

Tested with 2.5.6.50726 Open Beta (released today).

 

And now the performance is even worse (20 > 18 fps)!

[Northstar98]

Hmm, I wonder if we can get an option to disable the animated crew at least as an interim solution so that the people who are suffering major performance hits aren't so heavily affected. I know that for me, on deck is pretty bad with minimal static objects.

[Minsky]

Tested with today's hotfix (2.5.6.50793) - still not fixed.

[OG84]

yeah i think it's not about hardware, it's about code.

i just disconnected my vr gear to see what kind of performance i get with my "good" system specs in 2d.

 

55fps with the supercarrier cold start mission (vsync off)

2080ti, 3900x, 32gb

 

LOW preset settings, except shadow on low

1080p!

 

So i would expect a little more from those specs tbh.

[Proteuswave]

yeah i think it's not about hardware, it's about code.

i just disconnected my vr gear to see what kind of performance i get with my "good" system specs in 2d.

 

55fps with the supercarrier cold start mission (vsync off)

2080ti, 3900x, 32gb

 

LOW preset settings, except shadow on low

1080p!

 

So i would expect a little more from those specs tbh.

 

Exactly with those specs I expect you to be running high settings with way more FPS.

[Minsky]

Moved the camera away from the Supercarrier (just for the lower LODs to kick in) and then zoomed in to see what's happening.

 

No shadows & simplified crew - 45 fps:

 

 

Moved the camera slightly closer, and along with the shadows & detailed crew came the huge drop to 28 fps:

Edited June 11, 2020 by Minsky

[Minsky]

As you can see, the difference in polygons is insignificant (7,6 mil vs 8 mil).

It's very unlikely that 400.000 polygons can cause a 38% performance hit.

So maybe it is indeed the shadows from the animated crew?

 

From my previous tests I can conclude this:

 

shadows without crew = great performance

crew without shadows = great performance

partial crew with shadows = tolerable performance

full crew with shadows = terrible performance

[petsild]

Hi,

I was interested in the difference framerate when set High against Low presets.

I used the basic mission of the cold start as a benchmark, which takes 1:45s long.

Data are from the internal Bench test MSI Afterburner.

Can you please try, there are significant frame drops in time 1 min, thank you.

 

Extra setting:

Resolution = 2560 x 1440

SSLR = Off

Mirror = Off

 

Setting preset High.

11-06-2020, 20:26:28 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 6379 frames rendered in 104.849 s

Average framerate : 60.8 FPS

Minimum framerate : 13.4 FPS

Maximum framerate : 84.4 FPS

1% low framerate : 14.1 FPS

0.1% low framerate : 12.9 FPS

 

Setting preset Low.

11-06-2020, 20:44:51 DCS.exe benchmark completed, 10613 frames rendered in 101.432 s

Average framerate : 104.6 FPS

Minimum framerate : 21.5 FPS

Maximum framerate : 164.5 FPS

1% low framerate : 23.0 FPS

0.1% low framerate : 20.1 FPS

SupercarrierBench.trk

[Proteuswave]

I wonder if this is the cause of our frame rate issues on the SC? Double shadows been posted about on another part of the forum.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=277805

[speed-of-heat]

i noticed that you get way more perf with .,.. duh ... simpler models if you replace the f-18 block 20's with F_A-18c's you get a corresponding frame rate boost

 

the double and triple shadows thing is fascinating as well though

[bad_turbulence]

i noticed that you get way more perf with .,.. duh ... simpler models if you replace the f-18 block 20's with F_A-18c's you get a corresponding frame rate boost

 

the double and triple shadows thing is fascinating as well though

interesting. how do you switch between "Lot 20" and regular F/A 18c model. Mine always comes up and shows "Lot 20"

[speed-of-heat]

You have to select F_a-18c , .. it only works for ai or statics

[Minsky]

2.5.6.50979 (released today) - still not fixed.

 

It's been almost a month, but we still haven't heard a single word from the devs.

 

Considering that the next patch is a whole month away, I really hope that their "investigation" will finally bear fruit.

[Cornelius]

2.5.6.50979 (released today) - still not fixed.

 

It's been almost a month, but we still haven't heard a single word from the devs.

 

Considering that the next patch is a whole month away, I really hope that their "investigation" will finally bear fruit.

 

+1

[Wizard_03]

I have a small performance increase after today's patch :)

[wilbur81]

I have a small performance increase after today's patch :)

 

Ditto, at least in daylight play. Haven't tested night yet.

[petsild]

In the last beta is a better framerate, it only applies to the default shadow and the view of the island. Still in the course of service on the board occurs framerate drops mission cold start.

[marcoscosta]

More than 30 days after launch:

 

Hornet Cold Start Mission on Stennis: 108fps

Hornet Cold Start Mission on SuperLag: 38fps

 

Seriously ED?

[Minsky]

*sigh*

 

2.5.6.52196 (released today) - no performance improvements.

 

It's been two months and seven patches without a single meaningful word from the devs.

[Rmnsvn]

*sigh*

 

2.5.6.52196 (released today) - no performance improvements.

 

It's been two months and seven patches without a single meaningful word from the devs.

 

Well they had one word on it (investigating) but that's getting ridiculous.

[bad_turbulence]

Well they had one word on it (investigating) but that's getting ridiculous.

wow, hopefully there is breaking news soon. But i should be careful how I use that term "breaking". Let's try, "Hopefully there is performance news soon"!!!