Slow game high FPS

[Voidhunger]

Why are my FPS always 59-60 (60 target FPS) even if I turn off dynamic resolution factor on extreme graphic settings with extreme clouds and MSAA and the game is slow (bad CPU).

Why is not dropping down with many planes and ground units around? 

From my testing if I max out graphic settings settings (shadows, distant buildings etc)  I will run out of video memory and I have stutters, but until then I have always max fps.

There is absolutely no difference in lowering graphic details to reduce CPU usage. Why is that?

 

[THERION]

Hi,

 

I don't know what you are doing with your system. If you see my system specs in my signature and compare it with your system,

then yours is slightly better. Now, I don't have problems with the game. I've go a steady 59-60 FPS (monitor is 60hz) and rarely

notice any stutter except on the Bodenplatte map when flying over Cologne or other big cities.

Also in MP - especially CB, TAW and Finish - were there is quite some action around, I do not notice serious stutters, maybe
once in a while some slight microstutter, but generally I have a smooth experience.

 

Of course, I do not run all settings to the max in the graphics settings. This would be silly for my system. If you encounter those

issues, then try the following (and don't whine about it, game still looks great!):

 

1. Clouds - set them to high. Extrem mode is far to taxing.

2. Shadows - also a known performance killer for low-mid range systems - medium is you choice.

3. Distant buildings - don't do that. Why? It's also a performance killer.

4. Landscape details - I bet you have it set to 4x? Don't. Normal is good enough.

 

These are my suggestions, take it or leave it. And I don't know how you configured your NVidia control panel. This could also be

a big problem.

 

The reason why you had less problems before the update is, they moved to a new rendering technique - Deferred Shading. This

allows to "unload" your CPU's workload and giving your graphic card more to work as before. Maybe this is the reason, why you

have these issues now.

 

Cheerio

Edited May 28, 2020 by -=-THERION

[Voidhunger]

2 hours ago, -=-THERION said:

Hi,

 

I don't know what you are doing with your system. If you see my system specs in my signature and compare it with your system,

then yours is slightly better. Now, I don't have problems with the game. I've go a steady 59-60 FPS (monitor is 60hz) and rarely

notice any stutter except on the Bodenplatte map when flying over Cologne or other big cities.

Also in MP - especially CB, TAW and Finish - were there is quite some action around, I do not notice serious stutters, maybe
once in a while some slight microstutter, but generally I have a smooth experience.

 

Of course, I do not run all settings to the max in the graphics settings. This would be silly for my system. If you encounter those

issues, then try the following (and don't whine about it, game still looks great!):

 

1. Clouds - set them to high. Extrem mode is far to taxing.

2. Shadows - also a known performance killer for low-mid range systems - medium is you choice.

3. Distant buildings - don't do that. Why? It's also a performance killer.

4. Landscape details - I bet you have it set to 4x? Don't. Normal is good enough.

 

These are my suggestions, take it or leave it. And I don't know how you configured your NVidia control panel. This could also be

a big problem.

 

The reason why you had less problems before the update is, they moved to a new rendering technique - Deferred Shading. This

allows to "unload" your CPU's workload and giving your graphic card more to work as before. Maybe this is the reason, why you

have these issues now.

 

Cheerio

 

Hi Therion and thanks for the response.

 

First of all I have same problems now with deffered shading like I had  in previous version of the game.

I thought that with the deffered shading there will be less stress to cpu, but unfortunately it isnt.

 

Game is smooth (constant 60 fps) almost on max settings (on max settings I have stutters, probably due to a low GPU RAM capacity).

 

...until in career mode Im in the action zone with many planes and ground units around (scattered density) - I have still 60 FPS but game is extremely slow like if you in game use slower time.

Now even if I reduce details to low/balanced, low clouds, low shadows,no distant buildings, low landscape details etc, FXAA, the game is still very slow in that action zone (sometimes in other location too like own airfield with some ground units around, but that is  not always the case, because in take off everything is smooth and sometimes in landing game is slow).

 

And I dont agree, on lower settings game looks really bad. shimmering landscape with edged rivers and roads, shimmering planes on the clouds, FXAA also looks very bad,

but it doesnt matter because even in low graphic settings  in action zone in the career mode game is extremely slow.

The game runs exactly same on low or high settings. 60FPS- slow game in action zone.

I dont have problems with FPS or stutters but with slow game in the career even on lowest settings. BOM,BOS,BOK,BOBP, TC (scripted career)

 

When I return clocks for CPU to default settings i54670k 3.4Ghz  its so much worse that I literally can go away in action zone to prepare coffe and return to take evasive action.

So its CPU problem.

 

In nvidia settings I tried everything.

 

I will appreciate any help, but lowering settings in graphic menu doesnt help, default cpu clock doesnt help, nvidia settings doesnt help.

 

PS. I dont see you system specs.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by Voidhunger

[dburne]

Yes IL-2 even with deferred rendering is still heavily reliant on CPU horsepower, same as it's competitor has been and they have been on deferred rendering for a while.

[THERION]

5 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

 

Hi Therion and thanks for the response.

 

First of all I have same problems now with deffered shading like I had  in previous version of the game.

I thought that with the deffered shading there will be less stress to cpu, but unfortunately it isnt.

 

Game is smooth (constant 60 fps) almost on max settings (on max settings I have stutters, probably due to a low GPU RAM capacity).

 

...until in career mode Im in the action zone with many planes and ground units around (scattered density) - I have still 60 FPS but game is extremely slow like if you in game use slower time.

Now even if I reduce details to low/balanced, low clouds, low shadows,no distant buildings, low landscape details etc, FXAA, the game is still very slow in that action zone (sometimes in other location too like own airfield with some ground units around, but that is  not always the case, because in take off everything is smooth and sometimes in landing game is slow).

 

And I dont agree, on lower settings game looks really bad. shimmering landscape with edged rivers and roads, shimmering planes on the clouds, FXAA also looks very bad,

but it doesnt matter because even in low graphic settings  in action zone in the career mode game is extremely slow.

The game runs exactly same on low or high settings. 60FPS- slow game in action zone.

 

When I return clocks for CPU to default settings i54670k 3.4Ghz  its so much worse that I literally can go away in action zone to prepare coffe and return to take evasive action.

So its CPU problem.

 

In nvidia settings I tried everything.

 

I will appreciate any help, but lowering settings in graphic menu doesnt help, default cpu clock doesnt help, nvidia settings doesnt help.

 

PS. I dont see you system specs.

 

 

 

 

 

My system specs are visible in my signature - it looks like this:

 

"Un pour tous - tous pour un"

 

Win10, I7-4770, 16GB Ram, GTX-970 4GB, Saitek X55 Rhino, Saitek Rudder, Saitek Throttle quadrant and Saitek Cessna Trim Wheel, TrackIR 5

 

 

Now, I never told you to set your game's graphic preset to low. Look, here I show you my settings I have in game:

 

 

My CPU runs at 3.8 Ghz, my RAM is slower than yours. My GPU is slightly OC, but really only slightly (don't want to fry something).

And when I monitor my GPU I barely hit the 100% of load. With these settings it is always between 60-70% approx.

 

Now, for the career mode, I use a second installation of my game, because I use some mods and I run the same settings like above

but instead of 2xMSAA, I use there 4xFXAA - and as you do, I have scattered density selected.

 

In the NVIDIA control panel I have created a profile for IL2 Great Battles and it looks like this:

 

 

 

Just have a look at the bolt entries in the settings - these were changed by myself, the rest is default.

 

Hope I could clarify this and how it's been meant. Thanks.

 

Cheerio

 

 

 

[Voidhunger]

2 minutes ago, -=-THERION said:

 

My system specs are visible in my signature - it looks like this:

 

"Un pour tous - tous pour un"

 

Win10, I7-4770, 16GB Ram, GTX-970 4GB, Saitek X55 Rhino, Saitek Rudder, Saitek Throttle quadrant and Saitek Cessna Trim Wheel, TrackIR 5

 

 

Now, I never told you to set your game's graphic preset to low. Look, here I show you my settings I have in game:

 

 

My CPU runs at 3.8 Ghz, my RAM is slower than yours. My GPU is slightly OC, but really only slightly (don't want to fry something).

And when I monitor my GPU I barely hit the 100% of load. With these settings it is always between 60-70% approx.

 

Now, for the career mode, I use a second installation of my game, because I use some mods and I run the same settings like above

but instead of 2xMSAA, I use there 4xFXAA - and as you do, I have scattered density selected.

 

In the NVIDIA control panel I have created a profile for IL2 Great Battles and it looks like this:

 

 

 

Just have a look at the bolt entries in the settings - these were changed by myself, the rest is default.

 

Hope I could clarify this and how it's been meant. Thanks.

 

Cheerio

 

 

 

Nope I dont see your signature in the forum but you have i7 4770! its a BIG difference. So no i dont have slightly better PC, you have much better CPU. ?

[RedKestrel]

3 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

 

There is absolutely no difference in lowering graphic details to reduce CPU usage. Why is that?

 

Because most, if not all, of the graphics options are things taken care of by your graphics card, and even more so now with the rendering change. The 'time slowing' thing is your processor not handling all the flight modeling, AI decision making, and AI logic, pathfinding, targeting, etc. ballistics, that the game is throwing at it. So it slows down the 'game' time to be slower than real time to give it time to process all the things it needs to do. The GPU is still generating 60 frames per real world second and supplying them to your monitor. 

 Your CPU is not that much different than my i5-7500 when you compare the ratings for it, especially with single thread performance. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i5-4670K-vs-Intel-i5-7500/1921vs2910.
 

I haven't played on Career mode for a while but when I did, with a lower end graphics card and less memory, I didn't run into those issues.

Do you have a resource monitoring software you can use? I have used MSI afterburner to track my CPU, GPU, memory and temperature usages in real time while playing the game. It will give you more information than just FPS. 

You may also want to look into some kind of benchmark for your CPU, to see if you are getting the performance you need. If there is a problem with your processor and it is not working at the level equivalent processors are, a test like that could show you.

 

[Voidhunger]

10 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Because most, if not all, of the graphics options are things taken care of by your graphics card, and even more so now with the rendering change. The 'time slowing' thing is your processor not handling all the flight modeling, AI decision making, and AI logic, pathfinding, targeting, etc. ballistics, that the game is throwing at it. So it slows down the 'game' time to be slower than real time to give it time to process all the things it needs to do. The GPU is still generating 60 frames per real world second and supplying them to your monitor. 

 Your CPU is not that much different than my i5-7500 when you compare the ratings for it, especially with single thread performance. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i5-4670K-vs-Intel-i5-7500/1921vs2910.
 

I haven't played on Career mode for a while but when I did, with a lower end graphics card and less memory, I didn't run into those issues.

Do you have a resource monitoring software you can use? I have used MSI afterburner to track my CPU, GPU, memory and temperature usages in real time while playing the game. It will give you more information than just FPS. 

You may also want to look into some kind of benchmark for your CPU, to see if you are getting the performance you need. If there is a problem with your processor and it is not working at the level equivalent processors are, a test like that could show you.

 

From the user benchmark:

Overall this PC is performing above expectations (61st percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 39 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.

With an outstanding single core score, this CPU is the cat's whiskers: It demolishes everyday tasks such as web browsing, office apps and audio/video playback. Additionally this processor can handle light workstation, and even some light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 88.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very good.

63.9% is a good 3D score. This GPU can handle the majority of recent games at high resolutions and ultra detail levels.

 

When I run MSI afterburner before it was always cca 60-70% CPU and low GPU usage, like now.

 

 

[RedKestrel]

6 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

From the user benchmark:

Overall this PC is performing above expectations (61st percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 39 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components.

With an outstanding single core score, this CPU is the cat's whiskers: It demolishes everyday tasks such as web browsing, office apps and audio/video playback. Additionally this processor can handle light workstation, and even some light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 88.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is very good.

63.9% is a good 3D score. This GPU can handle the majority of recent games at high resolutions and ultra detail levels.

 

When I run MSI afterburner before it was always cca 60-70% CPU and low GPU usage, like now.

 

 

Hmm. Well, if the CPU is dealing with the benchmarking well enough to get a report like that, I'm stumped. The issues you are having definitely point to not enough processing power, but other people with similar CPUs are not seeing the same issue.


When you got the CPU percentages, did you also see the speed the CPU was getting? 

 

 

[Voidhunger]

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

Hmm. Well, if the CPU is dealing with the benchmarking well enough to get a report like that, I'm stumped. The issues you are having definitely point to not enough processing power, but other people with similar CPUs are not seeing the same issue.


When you got the CPU percentages, did you also see the speed the CPU was getting? 

 

 

No you can only see stock CPU numbers, not the tested ones.

 

[VR-DriftaholiC]

biggest cpu draws in this game seem to be the presets "low" "balanced" etc, the grass distance, draw distance and distant buildings. All these affect objects being drawn.

 

The things that hit video memory will be shadows, textures like landscape detail, cloud quality

Edited May 29, 2020 by VR-DriftaholiC

[AtomicP]

On 5/28/2020 at 5:11 PM, Voidhunger said:

Why are my FPS always 59-60 (60 target FPS) even if I turn off dynamic resolution factor on extreme graphic settings with extreme clouds and MSAA and the game is slow (bad CPU).

Why is not dropping down with many planes and ground units around? 

From my testing if I max out graphic settings settings (shadows, distant buildings etc)  I will run out of video memory and I have stutters, but until then I have always max fps.

There is absolutely no difference in lowering graphic details to reduce CPU usage. Why is that?

 

I have the same issue with an AMD FX-8350. Most often on scripted scenarios where there are a lot of ground units and multiple flights. 

 

I ran a test with a low resolution of 800x600 to take the load off the GPU (I have a GTX 1060 6 GB) and the slow down still happened so I'm convinced it's lack of CPU power. Nothing in the game settings will affect this, only the complexity of the mission you fly in. I'd guess that multiplayer will be different since the server handles more of the simulation. 

[Voidhunger]

2 hours ago, AtomicP said:

Nothing in the game settings will affect this, only the complexity of the mission you fly in

 

exactly, I cant see a difference between low and extreme graphic settings in my gameplay.

[AtomicP]

OK, so I recently upgraded to a Ryzen 5 1600AF, with 16 GB DDR4 RAM and the performance is much better. Much lower CPU load too, at around 30-40% better than the FX-8350. I replayed a track from the Achtung Spitfire campaign (mission 5) where I was getting slow down with the older processor and DDR3 RAM and there's no sign of any issues. Main limitation now is the GPU but I can tweak the graphics settings to fix that. 

 

So in short performance is better but not sure whether this purely the result of a better CPU or also faster RAM. Probably a combination of both.

Edited May 30, 2020 by AtomicP
Extra line

[B_Tank88]

On 5/30/2020 at 6:46 PM, AtomicP said:

OK, so I recently upgraded to a Ryzen 5 1600AF, with 16 GB DDR4 RAM and the performance is much better. Much lower CPU load too, at around 30-40% better than the FX-8350. I replayed a track from the Achtung Spitfire campaign (mission 5) where I was getting slow down with the older processor and DDR3 RAM and there's no sign of any issues. Main limitation now is the GPU but I can tweak the graphics settings to fix that. 

 

So in short performance is better but not sure whether this purely the result of a better CPU or also faster RAM. Probably a combination of both.

 

For what it's worth, I have the exact same CPU Fx 8350 and I have exact same issues as you

 

Probably something to do with not utilising the cores properly.

[AtomicP]

An additional update. 

 

I replaced the Ryzen 5 1600 AF with a Ryzen 5 5600X and get much better performance in every aspect of use (e.g. encoding x265 video was a non-starter on the FX-8350, now it flies). I haven't encountered slowdown in the sim yet but I know there will be some situations where this might happen. I can also run the RAM at 3000 MHz in this configuration, which also helps. 

 

As far as I understand it, this CPU is similar to Intel's offerings with single core performance, which is the main issue with the time dilation effect I had earlier. No way around getting a better CPU unfortunately unless you only fly simple missions with few assets.

[UFA_Bagel]

I've recently noticed this effect. Can it be caused by some update? Let's say dense front activity became more dense or so?

Edited July 28, 2021 by ACG_Elegz

[J2_Steve]

Quote

Why are my FPS always 59-60 (60 target FPS) even if I turn off dynamic resolution factor on extreme graphic settings with extreme clouds and MSAA and the game is slow (bad CPU).

Why is not dropping down with many planes and ground units around? 

 

You've got v-sync enabled and it's locked to your monitor refresh rate. With V-Sync on your FPS wont go above the refresh rate of your monitor. Which is why no matter what you do it max's out at 60. V-sync will stop tearing when panning views and is a good thing IMO

 

If you are keeping a constant 60FPS even in busy scenarios you are doing well.

I have always used my minimum fps as the bench for me to update Graphics and graphics card hardware. Not the high numbers

 

Nvidia have a few options for V-Sync. I use V-sync -  fast setting

 

 

 

 

 

[Eisenfaustus]

I use a gaming laptop with an intel i7 7700HQ processor and I have the exact same problem.

 

A large dogfight, a medium bomber formation or a target rich ground attack mission and slow motion kicks in.

 

I'm thinking of upgrading...

 

Right now I'm thinking of either a notebook with an i7-11800H or a Ryzen 7 5800H.

 

I'm certainly no expert - so here is my question:

 

would any of these two solve the problem or should I strive for another solution?

[AtomicP]

It will help to a degree but as far as I know there are no CPUs out there that completely solve the problem. As the game stands there will always be situations where the sim slows down because the CPU cannot keep up. 

 

So a faster CPU will buy you increased complexity of missions but only to an extent. Unfortunately it's not clear what that means in number of planes or ground assets. Hopefully someone can chime in with some more info here. Mission designers are probably your best bet as they have to trade complexity with performance when making missions.

[Norz]

On 5/28/2020 at 6:11 PM, Voidhunger said:

There is absolutely no difference in lowering graphic details to reduce CPU usage. Why is that?

 

You should try a monitor with 144Hz. Your specs are totally OK to provide 144Hz in FHD and more or less than 100Hz in 2440x1440

 

My laptop amd 5600h Geforce 3060 is fast enough to provide 120..140 fps in balanced mode (1920x1080).

 

P.S: The monitor should be compatible with AMD FreeSync or NVIDIA G Sync compatible. It will provide a perfect game experience. For example my notebook for some reason does not have this option (My external monitor is Free Sync compatible and it works perfect on my desktop PC with IL2) and the same FPS on my notebook and on my PC have not the same quality for my eyes. Maybe it is subjective but it is like that. 

Edited August 1, 2021 by Norz

[Gambit21]

On 8/1/2021 at 2:38 AM, AtomicP said:

It will help to a degree but as far as I know there are no CPUs out there that completely solve the problem. As the game stands there will always be situations where the sim slows down because the CPU cannot keep up. 

 

So a faster CPU will buy you increased complexity of missions but only to an extent. Unfortunately it's not clear what that means in number of planes or ground assets. Hopefully someone can chime in with some more info here. Mission designers are probably your best bet as they have to trade complexity with performance when making missions.

 

The IL2 game engine does not utilize CPU resources in the manner that you would expect/hope unfortunately. 

Time dilation can creep in for various reasons, and it’s insidious. Your mission will be fine, then add one too many trains, or 1 too many attack logic sequences and TD creeps in. Bam...just like that. 

 

I’ve seen it happen with just 4 aircraft on the map carrying out ground attacks on different areas of the map. It can be crippling and frustrating to the creative process.

 

I’ve typed a few posts now on time dilation and time acceleration, as they are both the exact same problem. 

 

My new CPU made a noticeable difference. 5800x...however that’s a monster of a CPU for a modest gain in holding off TD.

 

Try to run a full mission at 4x or even 2x and you might only get 1.35X - this is also time dilation. So too much going on and this problem just creeps downward finally into your 1X realm where now you’re not even getting 1X time anymore.

 

Try time accel in DCS and your CPU fans will rev up because the game engine is using those resources ( with butter smooth performance mind you)...this “rev up” doesn’t happen with IL2 and time accell - that’s telling me something.

 

I have a hunch that the problem will not be sorted with this iteration of the game engine - however I’m confident that they will sort it eventually. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Gambit21

[UFA_Bagel]

MSFS has been recently optimised with exactly more parallel CPU work, as I know. Wonder if we could see it such an update  for IL-2 one day.

Edited August 3, 2021 by ACG_Elegz

[AtomicP]

13 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

The IL2 game engine does not utilize CPU resources in the manner that you would expect/hope unfortunately. 

Time dilation can creep in for various reasons, and it’s insidious. Your mission will be fine, then add one too many trains, or 1 too many attack logic sequences and TD creeps in. Bam...just like that. 

 

I’ve seen it happen with just 4 aircraft on the map carrying out ground attacks on different areas of the map. It can be crippling and frustrating to the creative process.

 

I’ve typed a few posts now on time dilation and time acceleration, as they are both the exact same problem. 

 

My new CPU made a noticeable difference. 5800x...however that’s a monster of a CPU for a modest gain in holding off TD.

 

Try to run a full mission at 4x or even 2x and you might only get 1.35X - this is also time dilation. So too much going on and this problem just creeps downward finally into your 1X realm where now you’re not even getting 1X time anymore.

 

Try time accel in DCS and your CPU fans will rev up because the game engine is using those resources ( with butter smooth performance mind you)...this “rev up” doesn’t happen with IL2 and time accell - that’s telling me something.

 

I have a hunch that the problem will not be sorted with this iteration of the game engine - however I’m confident that they will sort it eventually. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've been flying a few missions made with PWCG and experienced the yo-yo effect of time dilation. Things slow down then sort of unwind and time briefly speeds up. DCS demands a good CPU but the loading does seem more linear and obvious. 

 

It does put a downer on things. I could live with the problem if it only happened in super complex missions but as you say, there's no rhyme or reason why it happens. Decidedly non-linear.

9 hours ago, ACG_Elegz said:

MSFS has been recently optimised with exactly more parallel CPU work, as I know. Wonder if we could see it such an update  for IL-2 one day.

I expect this is purely down to resources. I don't think the BoX team can manage such frequent revisions to the base code unless it's in a new paid release. As Gambit implies, I suspect it'll be solved in a new engine, but this will likely be in a new product. Hopefully I'm wrong...

While I remember, @Gambit21, do you know if this is an issue with multiplayer servers? I'm assuming the server runs the mission logic and the client renders that, but these servers run a lot of assets and I don't recall seeing any problems with time dilation. I don't have time for MP at the moment so please excuse my ignorance if this has come up. Just wondered if it might be a way to narrow down what the cause is.

 

Cheers

[Gambit21]

5 hours ago, AtomicP said:

 

While I remember, @Gambit21, do you know if this is an issue with multiplayer servers? I'm assuming the server runs the mission logic and the client renders that, but these servers run a lot of assets and I don't recall seeing any problems with time dilation. I don't have time for MP at the moment so please excuse my ignorance if this has come up. Just wondered if it might be a way to narrow down what the cause is.

 

Cheers

 

MP missions will be lighter on AI, or no AI, so that’s likely why you’re not seeing it so much.

To be fair though if it’s say 5 Sec per minute, you might not realize it’s happening.

[AtomicP]

9 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

MP missions will be lighter on AI, or no AI, so that’s likely why you’re not seeing it so much.

To be fair though if it’s say 5 Sec per minute, you might not realize it’s happening.

 

Got it, cheers. Do you have any idea what in the AI might be causing the issue? It apparently doesn't seem to be purely numbers of AI routines running but certain ones. 

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, AtomicP said:

 

Got it, cheers. Do you have any idea what in the AI might be causing the issue? It apparently doesn't seem to be purely numbers of AI routines running but certain ones. 

 

Some kind of under the hood inefficiency/poor utilization of available resources. That much can be ascertained from external observation, but beyond that I can’t say.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Gambit21

[UFA_Bagel]

It uses one or two cores out of my 6 cores/12 threads. That's why, I guess. It's been 8 years since the first release. Wish we could celebrate 10-years anniversary with the engine upgrade. It could enable more planes in the mission, more advanced AI and 4-engine planes. Otherwise it's better chances to see DCS WWII evolved, IMHO.

Edited August 4, 2021 by ACG_Elegz

[Gambit21]

13 hours ago, ACG_Elegz said:

It uses one or two cores out of my 6 cores/12 threads. That's why, I guess. It's been 8 years since the first release. Wish we could celebrate 10-years anniversary with the engine upgrade. It could enable more planes in the mission, more advanced AI and 4-engine planes. Otherwise it's better chances to see DCS WWII evolved, IMHO.

 

No, that’s not why, or not the entire reason. Read above.

[UFA_Bagel]

On 8/3/2021 at 5:05 PM, Gambit21 said:

 

Some kind of under the hood inefficiency/poor utilization of available resources. That much can be ascertained from external observation, but beyond that I can’t say.

 

 

 

 

 

On 8/4/2021 at 3:44 PM, Gambit21 said:

 

No, that’s not why, or not the entire reason. Read above.

 

Do not see how it's much different from what I said about multi-core processor resource utilisation. OK, the single-core performance optimisation is always welcome, if it's what you mean, but I guess it's even more difficult and less likely can bring even 2x improvement unless it's some inferior code right now.

Edited August 5, 2021 by ACG_Elegz