ED has raised the DCS system requirements on the steam store page (GTX 1070 is now listed as a minimum for low settings).

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

13 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

Windows 10 handles memory better as I understand it. 

 

 

 

Some of you in the thread are treating this like the sky is falling, its not. 

 

DCS wont magically stop working because you dont have a GTX 1070 or higher, your hardware if it supports DX11 will still work. 

 

thanks

It absolutely does handle memory better from what I can tell in my upgrade from 7 to 10. I saw a noticeable jump in performance in both FPS and how smooth it runs.

 

Also, that's pretty effectively strawmanning a lot of the concerns being made. The concern really is seeing a huge drop in performance with 2.7. A huge drop that isn't being addressed with optimization efforts. Of course requirements will continue to climb as to be expected, but you can't blame people who have sank hundreds if not thousands into this game to be a bit concerned.

 

We have assurances from community managers, sure. That's good, but it's still raised some questions about DCS.

 

40 minutes ago, Expert said:

or maybe they are in a strange relationship with nvidia who wants to sell the remaining 1070

 

If those 1070s are taking up warehouse space, I'll selflessly take a pair to alleviate that strain! 

Edited February 22, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Shadow KT]

Heh, as someone who has hardware relatively close to the listed minimums, yet playing on almost maxed out settings, at 1080... I find this a little bit funny.

Got a 3570K @4.5 Ghz with a 1070 and 16GBs of RAM. A newer CPU, would definitely help out .

Edited February 23, 2021 by Shadow KT

[3WA]

I think it's mostly the people with older CPU / GPU that are freaking out.  But we all knew this day would come.  My setup is 7 years old.  Saw I was getting 100 fps at all low settings / 1080p the other day.  Some old Intel CPU and a GTX-770.  Yeah, I want to turn up the graphics, and I need to upgrade, but prices are insane right now.  But hey, I'm still getting 100 fps at all low.  COMPLETELY playable, and I know within a year or two, prices will come back down to normal levels.  Just got to be patient.

 

There is No reason for ED to slow down their progress.  Carry on guys!

[LucShep]

On 2/21/2021 at 6:58 AM, 3WA said:

Yeah, I have an old GTX-770.  Already hitting about 60 fps on low graphics.  If I drop to 45 or so,  no HUGE deal.

 

I prefer DCS to keep on moving forward.  Graphics cards will eventually come down in price.

 

Besides, you don't HAVE to upgrade.  Just wait until you can buy a new machine that can handle it.

 

No offense and with all due respect, but I think it's you having very low standards for what is acceptable in a game/sim.

A GTX770 2GB is severely limited, too short both in performance and video-memory for DCS 2.5 (already was for DCS 1.5), and I can say this from experience as I too had a GTX770 2GB years ago during that transition. So it's a bit strange seeing you mentioning in previous posts that it's still "fine" in DCS 2.5 (it can't be). 

 

I have a fairly potent system for 1080P/75Hz (and OC'ed, both CPU and GPU) - actually quite a bit overkill for that screen resolution/refresh - it's optimized everywhere, from system settings to ingame settings, and even I see limitations flying over forests or over towns at very low altitudes, and/or with a large number of high-poly models + high-res textures on same given area.

At times can see GPU at 98% and VRAM usage frequently at 7+ GB even on Caucasus, and worse - from memory, testing the F-14B on Free-Trials, VRAM usage at over 8 GB(!). 

I never, ever, seen anything like this with any other game/sim, and there's been quite a few demanding ones in my drives.

DCS moving forward? ...absolutely! But that should also include some pretty hefty optimizations.

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by LucShep

[Mars Exulte]

5 hours ago, LucShep said:

But that should also include some pretty hefty optimizations.

 

  In general, of course more optimisation is better, and I'm sure they are working on that sort of thing or the game wouldn't function at all. I think one of the problems is people throw that around like it's a magic word that brings FPS and divine blessing when it's not the simple and boils down to screaming ''fix yer gam'' from 90% of the people who use it. In particular I think a lot of this already common tendency is amplified x10 for DCS because for many people it seems as ''one continuous product'', ergo it ''shouldn't change so much''.

 

  If they repackaged it as a whole new game with new reqs every 3-5 years like most devs, people would be far less likely to complain so stringently. Instead, because everything carries over people let the ''we have completely rebuilt some core components of the engine and now it has higher reqs'' completely fly pass them because ''it's the SAME game, CLEARLY they must be lazy and/or incompetent''.

 

  Take the supercarrier and the considerable e-rage. Yes, it had/has a modeling flaw on the rotating antennae, yes, that needs to be adjusted if it hasn't been yet (I'm outta the loop on this one). At the same time, we went from a mid poly ship with very limited functionality and only a few parking spaces to full deck crew, full atc, greatly increased fidelity model, and several dozen aircraft natively supported on deck with full support for the on the fly deck movements. ''WHER MY FPS ED U SO DUM Y U BREK MY GAM?!!!!'' I have rarely seen so much griping about something that was 100% forseeable and expected @@

 

  The best optimised, best written game in the world also has a cut off point where people's hardware either is no longer sufficient or completely incompatible. The more effort they put into allowing extra options the more flexible they can be, it's true. But also 99% of these games, including other flight simulators, are not operating with the same inherent overhead that DCS does in the first place (complex systems and flight modeling, specifically) that automatically loads it down regardless of how much optimisation it receives. ''Optimisation'' is only going to help *to a point*, just like the ''MOAR COARS'' fallacy, it's only going to help *to a point*. When Vulkan arrives, and multicore support arrives, and if ED does the bestest greatest job of optimising ever, it will NEVER be a ''low end'' friendly game, by its nature. Yet, I'm sure when that day comes a majority of people will blame them for being lazy/incompetent when their aging PC won't run the latest and greatest and most demanding technology @@

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, Mars Exulte said:

 

  In general, of course more optimisation is better, and I'm sure they are working on that sort of thing or the game wouldn't function at all. I think one of the problems is people throw that around like it's a magic word that brings FPS and divine blessing when it's not the simple and boils down to screaming ''fix yer gam'' from 90% of the people who use it. In particular I think a lot of this already common tendency is amplified x10 for DCS because for many people it seems as ''one continuous product'', ergo it ''shouldn't change so much''.

 

  If they repackaged it as a whole new game with new reqs every 3-5 years like most devs, people would be far less likely to complain so stringently. Instead, because everything carries over people let the ''we have completely rebuilt some core components of the engine and now it has higher reqs'' completely fly pass them because ''it's the SAME game, CLEARLY they must be lazy and/or incompetent''.

 

  Take the supercarrier and the considerable e-rage. Yes, it had/has a modeling flaw on the rotating antennae, yes, that needs to be adjusted if it hasn't been yet (I'm outta the loop on this one). At the same time, we went from a mid poly ship with very limited functionality and only a few parking spaces to full deck crew, full atc, greatly increased fidelity model, and several dozen aircraft natively supported on deck with full support for the on the fly deck movements. ''WHER MY FPS ED U SO DUM Y U BREK MY GAM?!!!!'' I have rarely seen so much griping about something that was 100% forseeable and expected @@

 

  The best optimised, best written game in the world also has a cut off point where people's hardware either is no longer sufficient or completely incompatible. The more effort they put into allowing extra options the more flexible they can be, it's true. But also 99% of these games, including other flight simulators, are not operating with the same inherent overhead that DCS does in the first place (complex systems and flight modeling, specifically) that automatically loads it down regardless of how much optimisation it receives. ''Optimisation'' is only going to help *to a point*, just like the ''MOAR COARS'' fallacy, it's only going to help *to a point*. When Vulkan arrives, and multicore support arrives, and if ED does the bestest greatest job of optimising ever, it will NEVER be a ''low end'' friendly game, by its nature. Yet, I'm sure when that day comes a majority of people will blame them for being lazy/incompetent when their aging PC won't run the latest and greatest and most demanding technology @@

 

I think you suffer from same problem as the devs -  pay more attention to these forums and see people pointing out and exemplifying out what ED (and 3rd parties) should have already investigate and try implement/test/fix themselves:

 

 

 

 

...it's all right there. Combining such tweaks and suggestions on optimizations would go a very long away, all could be done already without interfering with any scripts, systems, avionics, physics, missions or campaigns, or whatever gameplay related subject, it has exactly ZERO relation to those. I'd also guess that it doesn't interfere with any other content development either.

It's all graphical, and it doesn't even relate to the Vulkan discussions or multicore-support going around for over 5 years! 

 

Think of optimizations as necessary for one simple reason - if you want to progress with more content, and more complex at that, you'd better first prepare resources ("clean the house") to allow them to come with least performance problems. A much better plan than going for the latter without doing the former.

That's what people have been complaining about, for ages.

Otherwise, it's like planning a twin-turbo upgrade on a normal aspirated racecar that doesn't have enough brakes to start with.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by LucShep

[Mars Exulte]

I'm aware of the shaders mod. I have used it myself before discarding it because I didn't like the ''tweaks'' and it helped only a little. Although I did really like the NVG tweaks. And yes, I've seen the suggestions about the 32-bit normal maps. It would be more efficient in some cases, like the trees, but imo it's an even smaller gain than the VR mod, and even then, most applies only to tree heavy maps, ie Caucasus, the oldest and least efficient map in the game effectively being cobbled together from spare parts.

 

  I didn't say optimisations couldn't be done. Quite the opposite. However, neither of those are wunderwaffen fixes, particularly the second, and the first has a ''cost'' as well. So, no it's not that clear cut as ''oh look how a few forumites found some small improvements''. I realise optimisation is ''many small incremental improvements'' and those do indeed count, but it is not the ''slam dunk evidence'' you seem to purport it as.

 

  They're not grossly incompetent or oblivious, nor are they deliberately driving up reqs to ''gatekeep'' as one particular nublet called it, nor is the community coming up with miraculous fixes that the devs are lazily overlooking, though they do have the free time to dig through files and nitpick @@

 

  To be fair, a lot of stuff DOES get overlooked and put on the backburner these days... probably related to the focus on overhauling the render engine to try to ''optimise'' this stuff for you guys, as you say. A much more significant addition than quibbling over bitmaps, imo.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Mars Exulte

[LucShep]

Oh the 32-bit depth is just one part, and a pretty significant one (as Taz1004 already proven), but how about the 8K and 4K res textures on subjective things that you never have in close view, or in normals and specular tex (which could be half or even a forth of the size), or DXT5 format being used for textures with no-transparencies (should be at DXT1, half the size!), hmmm?

It's been like that for years, and keeps going on.

 

I'm seeing none graphical in-game difference worth noting myself with textures optimizations that I did for my own usage (smaller resolutions and corrected formats - probably very butchered, as I'm no pro) on one folder only ("...\Bazar\World"). That alone is already saving over 1GB of VRAM when flying over a busy battlefield.

And I haven't even touch yet the modules, their exteriors and cockpits (mods and coremods folders), nor maps (terrains folder), effects or the temp textures folders (I just don't have the time or energy for it) - but I'm guessing yet another 1GB+ of VRAM savings for the least, easily.

It can make a LOT of difference, and how I personally think should have been for public release - high res ultra detailed normals, speculars and etc, along with other oversized textures for more subjective things (missiles, vehicles, boats, big etc) should be an optional (DLC or similar), of course IMHO.

Who knows, this whole debacle on higher hardware requirements for GPU could have been different then.
 

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by LucShep

[Taz1004]

1 hour ago, Mars Exulte said:

And yes, I've seen the suggestions about the 32-bit normal maps. It would be more efficient in some cases, like the trees.... even then, most applies only to tree heavy maps, ie Caucasus

 

It's quite the opposite as trees are instanced.  Meaning textures are loaded just once per type of tree.  It yields much larger improvement from cockpit and vehicle optimizations.  Did you know that destroyed burning vehicles have separate set of high res textures?

 

1GB of VRAM just from the cockpit.  And most have 8GB of VRAM so that's 12%.  I don't see how that's small.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Taz1004

[Mars Exulte]

2 hours ago, LucShep said:

this whole debacle

 

  The one currently based on kneejerk reactionism pending anything to actually be ''outraged'' about? That debacle? In the community they don't like to make announcements ahead of time, because get butthurt because the thing they don't have and haven't paid for hasn't come soon enough so clearly broken promises and bad faith?

 

  You guys have valid reasoning on some of these points, I have not disputed that, I do not know why it was or wasn't done a particular way. My dispute is that for 99% of PCs made in the last 8 years running 2d none of this is much of an issue to start with, barring EXTREMELY low end, 4k+ on underrated hardware, and VR (that new fangled tech that doesn't even work properly on the hardware side yet, much less gameside).

[3WA]

12 hours ago, LucShep said:

No offense and with all due respect, but I think it's you having very low standards for what is acceptable in a game/sim.

Yeah, but it takes money to run these sims.  So you're going to find that a lot of us that play aren't that worried about graphics, especially right now with the World going crazy and everything doubling and tripling in price.  When you're poor, you learn to live with the lower graphics and get used to them.  I'm much more interested in frames - per - second / systems / realism / bug fixes right now.  Graphics are very nice, but they're icing.

I can see your point about the textures ( though I only have limited knowledge of that stuff ).  Can't it be crunched down by you guys though and then just put back in?  Interested to see what results you get.

 

My biggest problem with this sim right now is that there is no Realistic Electro-Optical system.  The Shark, which is my main goto module, is completely built around this system, and it's basically "playing with Barbie dolls level".   It's complete garbage, and really just a place holder.  It's the same with the Maverick system, which the A-10C is basically built around.  I'll probably open a thread up to concentrate on that alone, later.

Edited February 24, 2021 by 3WA

[Taz1004]

3 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

My dispute is that for 99% of PCs made in the last 8 years running 2d none of this is much of an issue to start with, barring EXTREMELY low end, 4k+ on underrated hardware, and VR

 

There are people reporting stutters with high frame rates in 2D.  And many reporting memory leak in MP where it crashes longer you play.

All software have memory leak.  Even Windows needs to be rebooted once a while.  But huge difference between 1GB memory leak and 200MB memory leak.

SSD is also a "requirement" in DCS because it has to swap tons of large files.  But huge difference between streaming 1GB versus streaming 200MB.

 

The issue doesn't only apply to VR and extremely low end.  I'm not so sure about that 99%

Edited February 24, 2021 by Taz1004

[3WA]

If your stuttering, check where your pagefile is.  Should be on your fastest SSD.

 

My game was stuttering the other day, and I found out Windows, in it's Ultimate Wisdom, had moved the paging file to one of my large storage drives.

Edited February 25, 2021 by 3WA

[Taz1004]

9 minutes ago, 3WA said:

If your stuttering, check where your pagefile is.  Should be on your fastest SSD.

 

My game was stuttering the other day, and I found out Windows, in it's Ultimate Wisdom, had moved the paging file to one of my large storage drives.

 

 

I have no stutter since I optimized all textures.  I don't even use VR shader mod anymore.  I don't have to.  And my system is 4790K with 1080.  Not even Ti.  Running consistent 45fps with no stutter in VR.

I was talking about many others reporting stutter in bug section.  Point being the issues are not just limited to VR and low end systems.  And stutters being reported are not all related to pagefile.

Edited February 25, 2021 by Taz1004

[NineLine]

I think this has been answered and now just turning into something else, thanks. all.