Performance Poll
 

Hi guys,

I just thought it would be nice to know where everyone is in terms of performance at present.

It would be nice if you could give you death track fps average as well.

Personally I am firmly in option two, 50-60 over land with occasional sharp drop. But London is a no fly zone for me atm.

FYI I am running with everything on the highest setting bar building detail which is on low and ssoa off.

Missing answer:

Runs well over sea and even large cities.

Sorry can't edit the poll :(

Massively improved from when I bought the game.

Playing at 1900x1080 resolution. Grass, roads, forest etc. all on. Building detail set to low.

At present I can fly at rooftop level over London and Caen at mostly medium settings without too much bother...about 18-30 fps over London, but it seems pretty smooth. No stutters. Even 6 v 6 dogfights at low level over the suburbs of London is fine, with the odd very slight stutter here and there. Nothing serious though.
Over general terrain and water the game is smooth as silk.
At about 3000+ meters, I start to get frame tearing, which is a good sign.
In general, I can chuck up about 24 planes and have a nice dogfight at low altitude.

My issue is that my cpu can't handle large flights of bombers being intercepted (20+) without significant pauses and stutters. When bombs hit their targets things go downhill fast.
I'm hoping to upgrade my cpu sometime this year.

Overall, I'd say the performance is fine.

Option 2 here.

The day i willingly choose to fly over london will be an historic occasion.

You missed an option,

'Not running well at all on any setting or landscape since the last bleedin patch'

Could you post your spec and the in game settings.

i have to agree!the game ran much smoother before the patch for me.now i have to tune down my settings much more to get equal performance than before the patch,...so i chose the third option.

And also:

'Running well everywhere except for those FRIGGING BLUE STRIPES!' :)

Tbh your graphics card is probably causing some of your issues unless that's a mistake and have a 5750 not a 5570?

I'd imagine most every one is running NT5 (Vista and later) by now, if only for the 64 bit support.

In that vein, it'd be interesting to see if there's any correlation between Windows own gaming performance index and what we're seeing here.

For info, my gaming box has a six year old mother board and CPU, the rest has been updated from time to time, the latest additions being my (apparently very slow) SATA disks; and I'm happy enough with raw performance (design, on the other hand, don't even go there!):

6.1 Determined by lowest subscore

Component Details Subscore Base score
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz 7.1

Memory (RAM) 6.00 GB 7.1
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 7.6
Gaming graphics 4095 MB Total available graphics memory 7.6
Primary hard disk 117GB Free (250GB Total) 6.1

Edit: Seeing as it's a Windows game, perhaps in future we can drop minimum req. hardware and start using the Windows index instead, for example: "You'll need to pull at least 5.9 to run this..."

should have been about 10 diferent questions to that poll, 3 is not enough

This is way too simplistic. Game runs smooth when you are all alone in the sky but with major grahic anomolies in land and sea. Also, when things heat up and the sky gets crowded, sound drops out, FPS slow dramtically and all the other stuff that has been covered. Amazing how this alpha mess was released. Whoever made that call should get out of the business.

In one of the many other performance threads someone threw Quad SLI at the thing and the results are surprising. It shows the game needs quite a bit more optimization to go not to mention adding missing content.

So relax and enjoy your other sims as I do. DCS A10 has really come into it's own and we are about to get UP3.0 RC2.

...no you read correctly, its a 5570.and i know that my graphics card is a weak one,..all im saying is, that before the patch i had better performance with higher video settings.and much less stutters.

Running well everywhere with everything maxed out, including SSAO, @1920X1200; some short stutters here and there not disturbing at all though, recorded at 6-8 fps by the built-in frame counter.

Cheers,
Insuber

PS: damn flickering shadows present though ... and popping out objects even at short distance.

I picked the last option, it does run over land but the freezes are back with the latest patch. Infact the freezes came back ever since they changed how game loads the land, ie loading larger amounts less often i think it was.

Went for the last option "Tuning well over sea. Land still causing problems." as any res lower than native gives a horrid quality.

I've tried and tweaked everything I can come up with but nothing seems to affect the frames to any extent except the ingame video settings where Land Shading and Shadows cost the most.

My native res is 2560 x 1440 and that'll give me Black Death result of 4/29/62 (min/avg/max).
If I turn down res to 1920 x 1080 I get 1/43/97 (min/avg/max).
Stutters alot.

My vid settings are on the minimal acceptable level. I hope that optimized patch, better catalyst drivers, upping RAM and perhaps a RadeonPro/ATI Tools profile will give me enough fps to turn some settings up cause I want the game to look good.

When you say minimal acceptable level, what does that mean? Low quality?
You said your game stutters a lot...does that include at 1920x1080 resolution?

I find it really puzzling. Your frame are actually very good in the Black Death track, but if it's at low quality then it's not so good, especially since you have a fine system.
What are your frames per second in the Black Death track if you put all settings on 'high' at 1920x1080?
I ask because for reference I get an average of 26 frames per second on those settings*, and yours should be a fair bit higher than that.

*That's not my in-game settings; I just use those settings for reference.

1920x1080 everything highest setting except for trees. Run 45 to 50 over water, 35-45 over land, 20-25 low over cities. The last Navida upgrade did wonders. Got me 10 more fps to where I am at now.

Just having to much fun flying that other sim right now with the new campaign patch. Solid 60fps in the air on that one.

Resolution: 2560 x 1440 (native)
Full Screen: On

Model Detail: High
Buildings Detail: Very Low
Land Detail: High
Forest: Very Low
Visual Effects: Medium
Texture quality: Original
Anti-Aliasing: Off
Anti-Epilepsy Filter: Off
SSAO: Off
VSYNC: Off
Damage decals: Low
Buildings Amount: Unlimited
Land Shading: Medium
Grass: Off
Shadows: On
Roads: On

Black Death Result with above settings: 4 / 29 / 62 (min / avg / max)

-----------------------

Resolution: 1920 x 1080
Full Screen: On

Model Detail: High
Buildings Detail: High
Land Detail: High
Forest: High
Visual Effects: High
Texture quality: Original
Anti-Aliasing: 2X
Anti-Epilepsy Filter: Off
SSAO: Off
VSYNC: Off
Damage decals: High
Buildings Amount: Unlimited
Land Shading: High
Grass: On
Shadows: On
Roads: On

Black Death Result with above settings: 1 / 28 / 72 (min / avg / max)



- Native res of 2560 makes the game so crisp and AA is almost not needed but 2X would make perfect.
So in my case the dream would be to get an average of over 30 in BD with the settings for 1920 above running in native.

- Haven't tried low settings all over but while tweaking I've never managed to get rid of the stutter.

- Tried Kegetys mod with low shadows and it gave me a couple of more frames but the shadows looked awful. Not worth it imo.

- Funny thing is many report that latest Catalyst drivers give them more frames but for me the difference between 8.812.0.0 (2011-01-04) that came with Boot Camp drivers and 8.860.0.0 (2011-05-12) is...not a single frame. :-(
Don't know if this has anything to do with the fact that with Boot Camp I can't remove old drivers completely.

- I wanted my new comp to be able to run CoD on Ultra settings as graphic quality is important to me and I always had to run IL-2 and PF in medium.
However, my wife wouldn't allow me to put a another computer (PC) next to our previous old iMac...so the compromise was the best iMac available (hurt the wallet I tell you. Thank God for creditcards).

Same as David.

Running at 1920x1080

Black Death Results

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
4130, 214891, 7, 50, 19.219

in-game AA off, card AA and anisotropic filter set to application controlled (so no AA at all then!)

Vertical refresh always off

All other card settings set to 'high performance'

SSAO off, V-Synch off, epilepsy off

All detail settings set to 'High', grass on, shadows on.

I must've watched the Black Death about 50 times doing all this benchmarking. A curious result is that putting CCC to standard 'Quality' 3d settings only dropped the average fps by 3

Overclocking the card to 950/1425mhz from 850/1200 mhz made no difference at all.