Anyone seeing a big FPS drop?

[56RAF_Roblex]

I normally fly with the framerate capped at 60fps so a lot of the time it can do more than 60 but after the patch my usual fps in the air has dropped to about 45.

I admit that my machine is barely up to spec with a 1050ti and 16Gb Ram but I did not expect it to go from easily averaging 60 down to barely getting 45 flying over the sea,

[Guest deleted@134347]

nope, nothing of the sort was observed. But i do have a pretty beefy 2080ti on my hands..

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

I haven't noticed any performance difference at all. Spent a couple of hours on Combat Box as well and no issues except the usual odd stutter when large numbers of aircraft are in the same sphere.

 

In single player no issues observed so far.

[kendo]

No problems noted here in single player .Pretty smooth.

[Danziger]

Still getting good fps here.

[Lusekofte]

In the patch section one had tested it and only a difference of 2 fps was messured   So no difference. 
However people reporting having to adjust V synk after the patch

[Zeev]

I had a little FPS shutter today for a while but this was after ALT tabbing and returning to game. Nothing too significant.
I do notice some color changing, the game is more "darker", is it connected somehow to the lighting changes in the latest patch?

Edited April 9, 2020 by Zeev

[RedKestrel]

5 minutes ago, Zeev said:

I had a little FPS shutter today for a while but this was after ALT tabbing and returning to game. Nothing too significant.
I do notice some color changing, the game is more "darker", is it connected somehow to the lighting changes in the latest patch?

The lighting changes weren't part of this patch so it should not be different. I haven't been able to play the patch yet though.

[Lusekofte]

They said to backup everything. This patch likely would mess with the settings. 
Mods also affect performance and everyone should turn mods off before reporting problems. 

 

[Danziger]

I haven't had a drop in fps but I have noticed a time compression and stretching issue that seems to be more apparent than usual. When loading up eight bombers to shoot down, time slows down when I fly near them and then speeds up faster than normal after I pass out of sight.

[TWC_Ace]

2 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

I normally fly with the framerate capped at 60fps so a lot of the time it can do more than 60 but after the patch my usual fps in the air has dropped to about 45.

I admit that my machine is barely up to spec with a 1050ti and 16Gb Ram but I did not expect it to go from easily averaging 60 down to barely getting 45 flying over the sea,

Its all right here. But few patches ago I had the problems with stutters. It seams updates are randomly causing performance issues to some ppl. BTW you have more than enough power to run IL2. If you dont use VR (your using edtracker pro like me AFAIK) you dont need latest hardware. Im running IL2 on i5 7500 (3.9 Ghz), ssd, 16 GB RAM and 1660 6GB and I can push 2k resolution without SSAO and some minor tunning in the video settings, no probs. FPS varies from 83 to 125 and I locked it to 60 for now until I get my new 75 Hz IPS 2k 32" monitor.

Edited April 9, 2020 by =VARP=Tvrdi

[blitze]

In VR, the patch has only been better with regards to FPS.  This probably with a combination of VR driver updates and SteamVR has helped as well.

 

If using Nvidia, go to control panel and reset all settings to default under 3D settings.  I find I get best consistent performance just leaving that all in default settings.

[RIPSkyKingTasmanaut]

Yes. I have an RX 5700xt, and cap my frames at 100fps. I noticed today dips to around 80 or so. Still smooth, but quite significant. General I experience dips of around 5, occasionally 10 when lots of stuff is popped into the render distance, before the patch

[56RAF_Roblex]

I will give it a few days for everyone to update and then see if it has improved.  

[SJ_Butcher]

2070super here same performance than before, 141fps

Edited April 10, 2020 by SJ_Butcher

[Lusekofte]

I am probably too lazy I should probably done it earliee but I just set the settings from high to ultra and still got the same fps

Edited April 9, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Jason_Williams]

3 hours ago, SJ_Butcher said:

2070suowr here same performance than before, 14fps

 

You have a 2070 and you get 14fps? Sorry, but if that' the case it's not us.

 

Jason

[[TDH]Meankitty731]

I play in VR exclusively and haven't noticed anything

[Apanos9]

Same as above here! 

[Gretsch_Man]

2 hours ago, [TDH]Meankitty731 said:

I play in VR exclusively and haven't noticed anything

Yep, same here.

[SJ_Butcher]

3 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

You have a 2070 and you get 14fps? Sorry, but if that' the case it's not us.

 

Jason

 

Sorry I missed one number lol 141

[heartc]

On 4/9/2020 at 2:28 PM, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

I admit that my machine is barely up to spec with a 1050ti and 16Gb Ram

 

I don't even know how to respond to that. Here is what they say about their own game:

 

Minimum system requirements

• OS: 64-bit Windows® 7 (SP1) / Windows® 8 / Windows® 10
• CPU: Intel® Core™ i5/i7 2.8 ГГц
• GPU: GeForce GTX 660/Radeon HD 7770 with 2GB VRAM or better
• DirectX: Version 11
• RAM: 4 Gb+
• Sound Card: DirectX®-compatible
• Storage space: 23 Gb+
• Internet connection: 256Kb/s for single-player career, 1Mb/s and faster for multi-player
• DirectX® compatible flight stick is recommended

 

You realize that with such talk (both: Look, I have a new Star Trek computer!!) and (Oh, my system is barely up to specs when it is ~4x the specs of the stated minimum requirements) you people are giving incentive to the devs to stop optimizing their game, yes? We have seen it with the Team of DCS, who are now working with horrible Spaghetti code that has ridiculous performance requirements. And while this sim here is still well optimized (haven't run the game with the new update yet though), there was a marked increase in system demand with Battle of Bodenplatte. I can understand the reasons for that, but I can not understand that they were not open about it - like, not updating the minimum system requirements for it. It may run on min specs, which then would be fine, but my system is above min specs, yet performance is notably worse than with the other titles in the series. The fact that they do not even suggest recommended system specs, doesn't help. I would like to be able to gauge before I buy whether and how well the game is going to run on my system.

 

So, anyway, I would appreciate it if you stayed at least factual before you go on deriding your own system so that other people who are above minimum specs will not suddenly lose the ability to play the game they put hundreds of dollars in because some future update retroactively and factually increases minimum specs, which, btw., would also be very much a legal issue regardless of what wishfull thinking is written in the EULA, when it comes to retroactively worsening an already purchased product. And it could easily be avoided by doing away with forced updates (and providing continued access to the original / previous versions for re-installs).

Edited April 11, 2020 by heartc

[216th_Jordan]

19 minutes ago, heartc said:

Not updating the minimum system requirements for it. It may run on min specs, which then would be fine, but my system is above min specs, yet performance is notably worse than with the other titles in the series. The fact that they do not even suggest recommended system specs, doesn't help.

 

You are asking for something that is hardly quantifiyable and, to be clear, the game initially performed WAY worse on the DXD9 render than on the DXD11 today, while the minimum requirements were mostly the same. 

[kendo]

heartc, I understand exactly where you are coming from, and pretty much I agree with you, but you're maybe being a little unfair to the OP too.

 

It is very common I have noticed for people to have an overly negative view of where their system sits in the overall performance scale. I constantly read people saying that their two or three year old processors are really out of date and they need to get an upgrade, or they only have 16GB RAM. As someone still running an i5-2500k from 2011 and 8GB RAM, it does make me think a little.

 

But so much depends on the screen resolution you are using. In il-2 at 1080p I've been able to get away with it. I've noticed in DCS though it's a very different story. And I'm planning to finally do a full system upgrade later this year, with an eye to being VR capable at some point down the road. 

Edited April 11, 2020 by kendo

[heartc]

53 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

You are asking for something that is hardly quantifiyable and, to be clear, the game initially performed WAY worse on the DXD9 render than on the DXD11 today, while the minimum requirements were mostly the same. 

 

Weird then how we were able to do that through all of computer gaming history before. I guess it must be part of the Brave New World, where we suddenly run into imaginary issues and impossibilities, such as giving a professional assessment with regards to recommended specs, and it's also weird how these imaginary issues tend to always nicely line up with business considerations, such as getting as much buyers as possible, because hey, if the game runs bad it's their problem.

 

And for me, at least BoBP certainly runs worse than any of this game's previous titles, in whatever previous iteration, and I saw certainly no performance increase with the other titles. I'm not saying the game runs bad, but I'd like it if we could stay in reality.

Edited April 11, 2020 by heartc

[56RAF_Roblex]

1 hour ago, heartc said:

 

I don't even know how to respond to that. Here is what they say about their own game:

 

Minimum system requirements

• OS: 64-bit Windows® 7 (SP1) / Windows® 8 / Windows® 10
• CPU: Intel® Core™ i5/i7 2.8 ГГц
• GPU: GeForce GTX 660/Radeon HD 7770 with 2GB VRAM or better
• DirectX: Version 11
• RAM: 4 Gb+
• Sound Card: DirectX®-compatible
• Storage space: 23 Gb+
• Internet connection: 256Kb/s for single-player career, 1Mb/s and faster for multi-player
• DirectX® compatible flight stick is recommended

 

 

 

If only those minimum specs were true ?   Windows 10 needs 3-4Gb on its own and when I run the game the total usage is around 10-12Gb of RAM. When I asked in an earlier post how much space the game was taking up the consensus seemed to be 35Gb as long as you have not been downloading skins or campaigns.    As for the card,  don't make the mistake of thinking the 1050 must only be a little below the 1060.  That is like assuming a Porsche 924 is a little below a Porsche 911.  In tests most people place the 1050 and 660 about equal with some preferring one or some preferring the other (example http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-660-vs-GeForce-GTX-1050)

[THERION]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

it's always interesting to read this forum and see, what other people think about IL2-GB, their perception of how well the game runs etc. - we have tons of

matters to discuss and to argue with - of course always civilized and respectful. And that is great.

 

Now, talking about FPS is very difficult for this game, as nobody's running the very same system (CPU, GPU, Monitor / VR etc.) AND even if some have the

same system, they will definitely have not the same perception on how "well" it should run / perform.

 

Talking about performance after the new update has been applied, again the question pops up about FPS and if the game now performs better or worse.

Some people complain about 5-10 FPS drops, which to my eyes is ridiculous, as it can't be really noticeable, except of course if you constantly display

those green figures on the top right corner of your screen known as frame rate counter. If somebody has a FPS drop cutting the frame rate to the half,

then OK, something might be wrong and needs to be checked.

 

But very often people complain about small frame drops like f.ex. from 120 to 100/110 or even from 60 to 55/57. These drops can only be noticed, when

frame rate counter is ON. These green figures are like some little demons! You see them and you start to worry about it, but if you don't seem them you

simply don't care.

 

The frame rate counter is a good thing, when you are tweaking your game's settings and you want to monitor the performance results of your adjustments.

But once you feel comfortable and your game runs smooth, there is no reason why you should display your FPS constantly - just leave it and enjoy your

damn game! It's all about psychology.

Of course, some will argue to have GPUs able to display 144 FPS constantly in other games, but not with IL2-GB. So what!?! As long as you don't go down

to 25 FPS, everything is still OK. It's like having a car, or in my case, a motorbike able to reach the top speed of 220 kmh, but always complaining about

not being able to drive at top speed constantly.

 

And please, don't mix stutter/microstutter problems with FPS, because these are completely different things.

 

As you can see in my signature, I don't have a new rig - it's actually 5 years old! But I can still run "my" IL2-GB with a decent 60 FPS on ULTRA. General

performance is good for me, I have some microstutters over big cities of the new BOBP map and some more pronounced stutters on the Prokhorovka

map, but only over the tank battle area (red square on the map) which is OK for me as the map itself was designed especially for tank battles.

 

I wish you all the very best and happy Easter to all of you.

 

Cheerio

 

 

[zdog0331]

3 hours ago, heartc said:

 

I don't even know how to respond to that. Here is what they say about their own game:

 

Minimum system requirements

• OS: 64-bit Windows® 7 (SP1) / Windows® 8 / Windows® 10
• CPU: Intel® Core™ i5/i7 2.8 ГГц
• GPU: GeForce GTX 660/Radeon HD 7770 with 2GB VRAM or better
• DirectX: Version 11
• RAM: 4 Gb+
• Sound Card: DirectX®-compatible
• Storage space: 23 Gb+
• Internet connection: 256Kb/s for single-player career, 1Mb/s and faster for multi-player
• DirectX® compatible flight stick is recommended

 

You realize that with such talk (both: Look, I have a new Star Trek computer!!) and (Oh, my system is barely up to specs when it is ~4x the specs of the stated minimum requirements) you people are giving incentive to the devs to stop optimizing their game, yes? We have seen it with the Team of DCS, who are now working with horrible Spaghetti code that has ridiculous performance requirements. And while this sim here is still well optimized (haven't run the game with the new update yet though), there was a marked increase in system demand with Battle of Bodenplatte. I can understand the reasons for that, but I can not understand that they were not open about it - like, not updating the minimum system requirements for it. It may run on min specs, which then would be fine, but my system is above min specs, yet performance is notably worse than with the other titles in the series. The fact that they do not even suggest recommended system specs, doesn't help. I would like to be able to gauge before I buy whether and how well the game is going to run on my system.

 

So, anyway, I would appreciate it if you stayed at least factual before you go on deriding your own system so that other people who are above minimum specs will not suddenly lose the ability to play the game they put hundreds of dollars in because some future update retroactively and factually increases minimum specs, which, btw., would also be very much a legal issue regardless of what wishfull thinking is written in the EULA, when it comes to retroactively worsening an already purchased product. And it could easily be avoided by doing away with forced updates (and providing continued access to the original / previous versions for re-installs).

This game has been optimized a lot though.  It has been optimized in the last 2 months.  And since launch it has been optimized over a long period of time.  2 months ago i was getting about 80fps in VR and now i am getting 105 fps in vr.  And its not just me 

 

the thread above is a thread that has been tracking performance for VR for a very long time and there is a spreadsheet there that shows the data for the performance and there are several sheets there to show performance through various patches with the most recent tests being the default selected sheet.  Your post is simply misinformed and we have the data to show actual tracking over several years of performance and it has improved with several patches.  Not every patch, but many of the big ones have improved performance in a big way.

 

The game at launch in 2014 was barely able to get above 30 fps at 1080p in multiplayer with the top of the line hardware of the time and now we are getting over 100 fps in vr.  That is a hudge difference and thats over the entire history.  As i have shown even in the last 2 months performance has gone up significantly.

this is.

 

BTW i do have an old pc with a 7770 and 8gb of ram with an old phantom quadcore cpu (cant remeber which one) and the game still runs.  It doesn't run great, but it does run.  Will say that that ram number is probibly incorrect due to how opperating systems greater than windows 7 have gotten very ram hungry and you can barely run your desktop at 4gb of ram these days  Other than that 4gb number i think the minimum spec are correct still.  Though I tested with BOS i haven't tested on the Bodenplatte map.  But i can achieve around 25 fps on low at a 480 resolution with that rig.  Which is what i expect for minimum settings.  Not all that fun to play like that but its still barely passable.

 

I would say your point about encouraging the further optimization of the game is a good thing to push as DCS is horrible at the moment as far as optimization goes.  I have played that series for years and have experienced the performance of that game drop with nearly every update and things breaking like not being able to see anything at night which broke night ops which i am not entirely sure if it is fixed or not since i haven't played for around 3 months, but last time i played that was still broken despite it being broken for well over a year.  I would really like these developers to keep on doing stuff like what happened with the most recent patch where they dedicated it to bug fixing mostly which is what i want even more than new content.

 

Still disagree with some of your statement.  But i do agree with most of your stuff.  I hear people complaining about optimization a lot, but many havent been tracking this like some of us have.  And obviously more data is better.  So even if you have a low spec rig please share your data with the crew as most people doing testing are at the high end of things and the low end can be just as usefull.

Edited April 11, 2020 by zdog0331
one last thought

[heartc]

1 hour ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

If only those minimum specs were true ?   Windows 10 needs 3-4Gb on its own and when I run the game the total usage is around 10-12Gb of RAM. When I asked in an earlier post how much space the game was taking up the consensus seemed to be 35Gb as long as you have not been downloading skins or campaigns.    As for the card,  don't make the mistake of thinking the 1050 must only be a little below the 1060.  That is like assuming a Porsche 924 is a little below a Porsche 911.  In tests most people place the 1050 and 660 about equal with some preferring one or some preferring the other (example http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-660-vs-GeForce-GTX-1050)

 

Well, I believe they *are* in fact still true. Because I'm not much above these specs and all the titles previous to BoBP run perfectly fine. Note that I do of course not expect to run everything maxed out if I'm at or only somewhat above minimum specs. I run the game at medium-high settings. The problem with BoBP for me was that I had no way or indication to expect or gauge how it's going to run, if there is not either an adjustment of minimum specs - which would probably have been reasonable for BoBP (albeit I can imagine that it would still run on those min specs, so technically, they would still be correct then) - or in lieu of any statement on recommended specs, how would you be able to make a judgement before you buy? With BoBP, I do get in fact occasional crashes when switching between planes in outside view, and the planes where the view changes to are far away from the current camera position. I imagine that is because the sudden new landscape data that has to be fed into the system quickly might just be too much for it, at least at the settings I'm running it at. These crashes however never happen with the previous titles.

 

But I agree with what has been brought up here as well: That people get worked up about "losing" 5 FPS or something, which I think is rather down to people not understanding their computers, because such changes are well within range of "random" variation and can be down to a multitude of factors that may have nothing to do with the game itself. That's not what I'm talking about though. BoBP definitely puts a higher demand on the system, and I think it would only be fair to give some kind of advance notice on that so people know before they buy.

 

P.S. Just wanted to add that I'm in fact still on Win7, because I don't change a running system and generally don't like malware. So if the min specs are not true for Windows 10 because it's bloatware that itself uses 3-4 Gb already, then that is pretty bad for anyone who is on Win10 and relies on those min specs...

Edited April 11, 2020 by heartc

[HappyHaddock]

It goes without saying that so much to do with acceptable minimum specs comes down to personal expectations of minimum acceptable performance.

 

Plenty of folk have state of the art modern PC's yet claim that the game doesn't run satisfactorily because it won't handle 4k VR at 144FPs with all settings maxed out.

 

Myself I set my expectations based upon my own PC which was  built in 2012 (i5 3570k), although I was recently gifted a mid range second hand GPU dating to about 2016. It can't run a 4k display at fast frame rates, but given it's age I don't ask it to.

 

on my 60Hz 1080 HD screen I can crank everything up to maximum and it looks great. It  typically runs at +100FPS and rarely drops down to the 60FPS that is the maximum my monitor can handle. If I turn off the FPS counter I certainly never perceive any slowing of the image on screen... In short I need the game to be more demanding to exploit the full potential of my antiquated PC.

 

HH

[SCG_Neun]

My frame rate actually went up after this update.

[DD_Arthur]

2 minutes ago, SCG_Neun said:

My frame rate actually went up after this update.

 

Yeah, same here.  No problems with VR at all with this update.

[ImaginativeTruth]

Dual 1080ti in SLI Bridge, and I noticed no FPS drop (Locked at 100 FPS), but do now see 'ghosting' when looking around quickly externally with mouse.

 

I expect an uninstall and full clean reinstall will sort it.

[56RAF_Roblex]

Thank you to the people that answered my question. That was all I wanted. It was not a complaint,  I just wanted to know if getting a lower framerate was common or if I was an exception.    45fps is usable.  I spent years playing CLoD avidly at 20fps before I got a new machine ?

[RedeyeStorm]

@56RAF_Roblex,

 

I had some issues with my FPS after the patch. I had also just bought the Index so was not sure where the issue was. I really had to scale things down graphic wise in order to play. Eventually I reinstalled the game and SteamVR, latest Nvidia drivers and I am back at where I was before the patch. 
 

 

[zdog0331]

19 minutes ago, [Pb]RedeyeStorm said:

@56RAF_Roblex,

 

I had some issues with my FPS after the patch. I had also just bought the Index so was not sure where the issue was. I really had to scale things down graphic wise in order to play. Eventually I reinstalled the game and SteamVR, latest Nvidia drivers and I am back at where I was before the patch. 
 

 

Interesting.  It may be a driver optimization issue then that people are experiencing.  I got an increase in FPS on the index, though I'm on amd  not nvidia so if thats what is different then it may have something to do specificly with an old nvidia driver version

Edited April 11, 2020 by zdog0331

[BornToBattle]

Negative and I’m still running my 1080ti.

[56RAF_Roblex]

19 hours ago, [Pb]RedeyeStorm said:

I really had to scale things down graphic wise in order to play. Eventually I reinstalled the game and SteamVR, latest Nvidia drivers and I am back at where I was before the patch. 

 

Interesting because I don't use VR but since the patch, every time I launch the game it starts SteamVR and I have to close it.  It was not doing that before. I don't even have Steam running.  I wonder if that is related to my slowdown?  Maybe there is a setting inside the game that I need to unset.

 

EDIT:  Yes I found that the update had turned on 'HMD VR On'   

Edited April 12, 2020 by 56RAF_Roblex

[RedeyeStorm]

it is always the simple things that kill a ton of time trying to find them!

[[DBS]TH0R]

1080Ti here, lots of occasional stutters after this patch. Tried changing drivers but it didn't help. Most often they occur just before AI starts firing, sometimes one millisecond after I press the trigger.