I know its early to judge but I hoped for better performance. but seems like standard scenario, more performance allows for more eye-candy, so we are not moving forward in this regard I guess.
1 Like
Well I am no alpha male but I’ve found it surprisingly good but possibly worse. “Possibly” because until this test the only PC testing I’ve done has been in VR and VR for me was dreadful. Compared to my XBOX, it is not as smooth but only slightly so. But that’s a bad comparison because we know that Asobo does a bit of magic to make the weaker console appear smooth. But I’ve never seen the world presented so perfectly. I did a photo mission to Mesa Verde which gave “extra credit” for also walking in ON FOOT and getting a shot from across the chasm. So I had to find a place to land the Carbon Cub close enough to walk. It was a simple thing that made the game so rich.
6 Likes
Oh nice, I missed that, was preoccupied with the career mode and silly stuff in free flight like this one here:
3 Likes
2 Likes
I am sad to see that 
not going to upgrade to 4090 to see 90fps.
I guess the last civi sim with good performance is AFS4.
in my eyes, literally, it isnt perfect presentation if it runs 30fps 
what fps you get (msfs20) on xbox?
1 Like
No idea. I am not even sure it is possible to display. “Smooth” to me may be another’s “slideshow”. This seems to be a very subjective hobby.
2 Likes
I have never seen it as extreme as with flightsims. Flying around in FSX or earlier sims with ~20 fps or less felt absolutely fine for me, while a buddy of mine described it as “unbearable, nausea-inducing, stuttery mess”.
We usually somewhat agreed about performance problems or lack thereof in other games, but not in that case. No clue why.
In flight sims (unless they are combat, and sometimes even then) 30fps sounds pretty OK to me most of the time.
Sure, 60 is nice to have, but far from necessary to enjoy a sim.
4 Likes
Back 15 to 20 years ago, used to fly MSFS at 15fps. It was airliners, in 2D cockpit views. Almost nothing moved on the screen, so it worked OK for me.
But even today, lower framerates don’t break my play. I can race Forza Motorsport, cockpit view, at 30fps and feels fine to me.
Something I did not expect to matter to me, was resolution. 4k, blah blah… But I’ve been playing games that run between 1400p and 4k native (variable resolution, often), and wow. Going back to like 1080p just feels terrible.
The higher resolution is so much better (for me, visually) that I’ve often chosen the higher 4k target resolution instead of higher framerates.
Very subjective… subject.
4 Likes
Back when I started with DCS I was happy to get 25-30fps but at least for me things have changed. In 2D it’s a non-issue as I can max out DCS and still get around 90fps in the worst case (1440p ultra wide oled monitor with gsync) but I don’t play in 2D anymore and only use it for mission editing and the occasional video recording. Having a few dips in heavy scenarios is okay but flying at less than 45fps in VR for extended periods is anything but fun and even 45fps is on the low side of what I find acceptable. DCS 2.9 has been terrible for performance though and I am also a bit of a graphics wh*re even in VR so 45fps is my limit. Still, I hope ED can fix performance and bring it back to 2.8 levels. I was getting 90fps locked on the Project Overlord server while intercepting pretty decently sized B-17 formations (up to 40 bombers iirc) in contrails with 30 other players and 30-40 players escorting the bombers (this was during a special event)…
3 Likes
I have pretty much given up on both DCS and VR at this point, but yeah, DCS is a sim in which I needed a few more fps, too. And of course VR+lag=🤢 so you absolutely need good performance there.
Two things I’ve done have helped noticeably with DCS. 1) OpenXR Toolkit’s “Turbo” mode. I know, the toolkit is no longer maintained. So who knows how much longer this feature will be available. Hopefully, game companies will take the developer’s advice and incorporate the features of the toolkit into their settings. 2) Oculus allows for a frame size reduction (called “tangent multiplier”). I tried several values but .8/.8 (80% vertical and horizontal) is the sweet spot. Oddly, the borders look awful with menus and other unimportant screens. But once in action I just don’t notice. It’s almost like free headspace for the GPU with no perceived (to me) visual cost.
3 Likes
Same.
I can live 25-ish FPS, even in VR, at 1-G flight, even in a fighter. But in VR when everything is moving around (my head [camera]; horizon, objects, etc, etc) - think yanking & banking, down low - I really want to see North of 70 or it ‘bugs’ me.
Honestly haven’t had much ‘stick’ time in DCS since the last update. The numbers all improved in 2D though by about 20+%. Just haven’t donned the VR helmet since (just editing/testing missions).
2 Likes
3 Likes
Some really cool stuff in that presentation.
I just pulled the trigger on the Premium Deluxe version. Here’s hoping that my StarLink internet connection it up to the task!
1 Like
Just throwing this in…
3 Likes
You live in an Elon state. Your bandwidth will be fine!
1 Like
I’m starting to think I am giving money to the wrong person though… 
4 Likes