SkateZilla

the last few Windows 10 updates, MS has Snuck in "Everything is Better with Windows 11" full screen pop up ads.

in the current public build, it's global. the next public build, it's per slot, as the function was rewritten.

Funny, I'm on Windows 10 now, and DCS Runs fine, and as A tester I was never told it's not supported, so I don't know where you are getting your information from. You likely mis-read something, because Windows 10 is very much supported and still in use, ED would also not drop support for an OS that has 68% Marketshare. The only topic of Windows 10 and unsupported is discussion of Microsoft is pushing Windows 10 to LongTermSupport status, which ends in 2025. Also, Prior to upgrading due to a power surge, I ran a FX-8350 w/ DCS as well. So the information you're posting is more of "You Opinion" than "Facts". You're an interesting user who registered a week ago, has come here to argue, trying to say you saw conversations that don't exist and attempt to dis-credit others. A. I Develop Software. B. I Build Gaming Rigs. C. I Do 3D Art Composition. D. I test not only DCS, but products for half a dozen other companies. I have Credibility, and I'm removing myself from this conversation, as I have more important things to do than continue this repartee.

MP uses more memory because those missions are designed that way, have you seen how much work and detail goes into these online missions? Downloading the same mission, replacing all the Client slots w/ AI Aircraft and running it locally would use the same amount of memory. At this point, it's arguing for arguments sake.

It's from their website, I talk to the developers daily, so ...

Minimum system requirements (LOW graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 10; DirectX11; CPU: Intel Core i3 at 2.8 GHz or AMD FX; RAM: 16 GB; Free hard disk space: 200 GB; Discrete video card NVIDIA/AMD 6GB; requires internet activation. I ran DCS on a 7970 Lightning w/ 3GB of VRAM on LOW w/ 16 GB of System Ram w/ no issues.

Clearly you don't understand how texture loading, mip-maps, dynamic resolutions and spooling work. File size on your harddisk, is not what ends up being loaded into ram or vram. if that were the case, a single F-14 or F-4E would max out everyone's VRAM with just that external model alone, let alone scenery or other objects in the mission. As for previous comments that it was a big discussion that ended with "An SSD is pretty much required", no such debate or conclusion was ever made. As for Page Files wearing down an SSD Faster, clearly you dont know how PageFiles and RAM work. If you have 16GB of Ram, Items are loaded in and out of the ram from the SSD regardless of pagefile size. Increasing the Pagefile size allows the system to easily find those files to return them to the memory quicker, vs having to index and search for each file every time it's called, HDDs don't have really high random access numbers, SSDs are 100% random access, no moving platters or read heads, no delay in finding and getting the files. Page Files don't cause lifespan issues with SSDs, that's also been proven by every tech site, as a urban myth. Even then, the only recommendation regarding pagefiles not being put on SSDs is because they have limited space (less w/ overhead and TRIM). Reading doesn't really cause wear on the SSD, SSDs are limited by IO/Writes, which pretty mech every tech channel has covered, that no normal gamer / user would ever reach the IOPS Limit before their drive would fail or be replaced.

Texture resolution has no direct correlation with consumers income. If they have lower end hardware (CPU / RAM / GPU) those 4K texture files have Mipmapped lower resolution textures built into them to be used. So again, Texture sizes aren't a problem forcing users to spend hundreds of dollars on buying entirely new systems/huge upgrades. Again, TEXTURES are not the reason for the Userbase differential. WoT/WT is a arcade game, w/ simplied everything. DCS is a Study sim. Two entirely different genre's. it's like comparing Doom to Arma III. Also, How are you able to try and tell someone what or what they don't do? (based off their YT Page). You've side tracked this thread enough.

I seriously doubt dynamic client texture resolutions is the basis of which WoT and WT have millions of users and Why DCS doesn't. I think it has more to do with WoT/Wt being entry level arcade trash, with more microtransactions than a ubi-soft game. I ran DCS Fine on 16GB, as long as you know what you have, and how to use it, the sim runs. Users with 8 GB of Ram and 4GB GTX1050s don't need to be attempting to run 4K or Maxxed settings, let alone VR, or extremely large MP Missions. I think I'll remove myself from this conversation, and leave ya'll to try and use extremely dis-illusioned examples like that to try and get a company to invest development time into something that has no bearing on their customer base either way. Been here a week, an already telling users they are dumb, when I've been here for 2 decades, develop my own software and 3d art. That's funny. As for playing DCS For decades and just now registering, convenient.

In MP, missing livery shows up as the default livery, no missing texture. Point being, most of the liveries are contained in a single archive file, separating all of them, giving them all IDs, creating a secondary livery manager system, even if it manages them for MP, instead of users downloading them once during update, the servers will get hit with requests to download liveries significantly more. Like I said, it's easy to sit as a consumer and be like "Building a livery manager would be easy" and not understand there's development costs, as well as long term bandwidth costs, etc etc etc to be considered. Not to even mention, there are other core aspects of the sim that are a priority over re-configuring the livery infrastructure. In the future maybe, separate them all give them IDs, etc etc, it would also maybe save on updates, if the livery itself isnt updated, then those files wont need to be re-downloaded, vs if 1 livery gets updated or added, and they are all contained in the same archive, the entire livery texture archive is re-downloaded for a few MB of files. Not saying the system wouldn't benefit from it if done properly, just saying, right now, it's not something that's a priority, with all the other things coming / in progress (MT Optimizations, DC / RTS Core being integrated, Vulkan being integrated), rebuilding the module and livery infrastructure would be another extensive project, for not only the ED Distribution, but can you imagine how long it would take to have 1000+ Liveries to Steam's shop w/ ID's and the clutter? As for HQ/LQ Textures, I think it's being over estimated how much space you would actually recover. cutting resolution from 4K to 2K would take a 20Mb dds down to 8 Mb depending on the compression method and colorspace. so it would be an extensive effort to re-organize the corefile just to cut livery footprint from 50GB to 30GB.

Why do I feel like it's getting overly technical, and now grasping as straws, over 4-15GB of space, in 2024. I have single movies that take up more space. A. Module selection has nothing to do "preferences", and more to do with available information, it's well known Red For (Migs, Sukoi, etc) are mainly Russian and they have EXTREMELY strict laws regarding information on military equipment. So you cannot blame ED for that. They are working on a Mig-29A, which by one of your later points, would get destroyed by F-16s/F-18s/F-15s, so you likely wouldn't even touch that, for the same reason you wouldn't touch a F-4E, a Modern RedFor aircraft is never going to happen in the current state of western laws on military information, ever, and not just for ED, for everyone. B. When you installed DCS, and Agreed to Terms, and when you click "Update" instead of "Later" You are consenting to drive space being used by said update. C. Texture Resolution has nothing to do with monitor resolution, the higher the resolution of the textures to higher the pixel per inch detail on the aircraft's model. the higher PPI allows more finer details etc etc. You dont need a 4K monitor to see the difference between 2K and 4K textures. E. Aircraft are added to the core, for use as AI, and Multi-Player. If there was an argument for anything, it would be to enable removal of "CoreMods" of aircraft you have no intention of using. That way you can remove the textures footprint as well as the 1GB or so footprint from EDMs, UI Elements, etc. and the updater will not force you to re-download at the next update.

There is no trend to replace your PC every 2-3 years, the ONLY time this would apply, is if someone is intentionally buying 2nd hand, clearance, low spec PCs every 3 years just to keep up with Avg Minimum spec. I rocked a FX8350 (OC'd to oblivion), and 3 R7970 Lightnings, for over a decade, as each 7970 Died due to aged silicon, I eventually replaced my Mainboard, CPU, Ram, and rode out the last R7970 until it started to show IC Failures, then purchased the 6800XT, only because of availability and price, being in the middle of the GPU Price Spike era. So I literally ran DCS on a 15 yr old GPU at this time last year, with minimal issues, and even in VR. There is a trend, that most power users upgrade to the latest GPUs and such, no one is forcing anyone to upgrade to continue to play DCS. The Sim evolves, that's the nature of Software as a Service infrastructure, more graphics and things get added as technology develops. Again, the only argument in there is space, which is easily solved, and if solved w/ a 2+TB drive, would be solved for years. As more aircraft and theaters are added, it's up to the user to determine which theaters they want installed. I have EVERYTHING installed, and it's under 700GB, so 2TB should be enough overhead for several years. If budget is so tight that $150-200 for a drive to last 4+ years isn't feasible, there's always traditional HDDs which range $50 to 100 for 2-4TB. No one is saying SSDs or NVME's are required to run DCS, I run DCS from a WD BLK 7200 Drive fine. This is the era of larger textures, larder LODs, and growing footprints. This is everywhere, even on consoles, games are shipping at 20 GB ISO Disks, and then downloading an additional 40-50 GB to install and expand into 120+ GB per title. Developing the Core infrastructure for picking and choosing aircraft liveries to remove, will only cause further Multiplayer segregation, as now server owners will have custom livery sets that each player will have to download and or delete to pass IC, etc etc. That amount of work to save roughly 4-12 GB in the long run isnt worth it. If your storage situation is to the point where 10-20 GB is the determining factor on whether or not you can download updates and continue to play DCS, then it's clearly a matter of it being time to upgrade.

correct. you don't need dcs.exe in the argument's box, just the command aarguments. using -w "FolderName" will disable launching w/ App Presets, but it will allow you to launch w/ different \Saved Games\ Folder Sources. as for dcs_variant.txt, it's only present on non stable versions, unless manually made by end user.

To echo that, NVMe Drives, even PCIe 3.0 NVMe, are sufficient for gaming, You'll see a marginal difference in loading and none in FPS / Latency between PCIe 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 Drives, Those $500, blistering fast 7,500-15,000mb/second read speed 1TB SSDs that YT and Social media are shoving into your shopping carts, are sustained reads w/ 1 large file, you wont see that we multiple smaller files typical with game texture spooling and loading, you'll likely see ~3,500 - 4,500mb/second read speeds, maybe less. *though it would be a significant step up from Precache HDDs of 90~mb/sec and SATA Limited SSDs at 500mb/sec You can get a 4TB NVMe 2.0 or SATA SSD for $~200 USD. I have DCS on a 2TB Sandisk Extreme eSSD w/ EVERYTHING and it's only ~40% used (~650GB). I still run a copy of DCS on a WD Black Gaming 8TB Drive w/ max read spead of 115 or so MB/Second on the sweet spot of the platters. and there's no FPS / Latency issues, and a bootup / loading time difference of maybe 10-25 seconds. 11 pages of requesting a core infrastructure change, citing "we don't have thousands of dollars to spend on SSDs" is not a valid argument. Even when I ran a 640GB WD Raptor, I Symlinked my _downloads folder to a different drive.

The Answer is still the same as it was earlier this month, App is developed and worked on daily. The App should be auto detecting whatever the dcs_variant.txt or branch in the autoupdate.cfg file is. if you want to launch and use a different path, then you can use the Custom Write folder or the -w "<foldername> in the arguments line.

so how does spreading rumors or indulging in them get you the truth?, it doesn't, what it does is cause drama and delay both sides coming to an agreement. You can pull your hair out for weeks, it's not gonna get you the answers you seek.,

I wouldn't speculate on motive's or circumstances guys. It does no good, other than to spread rumors, as people like to snip and clip forum posts and discord messages for use in facilitating rumors for views.

Prolly should chill with assumptions about other users living arrangements, and the use of specific adjectives. We don't need any drama to derail the thread and get it locked.

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/94816-guide-info-dcs-updater-usage-version-numbers-module-ids/?do=findComment&comment=2621546

If I told you how many contract disputes I see weekly with my employer (*not ED / flight sim related), you'd lose your mind. Contractual issues are part of doing business with 3rd parties, there's no such thing as a Business w/ 3rd Parties that does not have contractual disputes for one reason or another. RB publicizing their dispute, was their decision, the terms, at least to the public, are speculation. The motive behind going public is also speculation, so there's no need to comment on the motive or timing, or why. It's Public now, and the outcome hasn't changed because it's public, if anything the only thing being public has done, is stir the pot, and make it harder for both sides to come to an agreement.. To quote Xena. "Two war lords cannot make a peace treaty if their troops are fighting and killing each other in the camp outside of their tent."

Considering how public the issue has become, at this point Disclaimer is pretty much a slap in the face, and not needed. Pretty much anyone that's involved enough in DCS to hit buy on any DCS Module, knows the rumors, ramblings and future assumptions already. It's beating a dead horse at this point constantly asking for a disclaimer, most of those asking for said disclaimer have already purchased the module, so what does a disclaimer do for you? absolutely nothing. There are better ways to spend your time other than eating/selling the fruit of the poisonous tree, speculating, and spreading rumors.

From experience, corporate contract disputes often go months before even going to legal mediation, and often months after.. It's disappointing when people assume it's a simple "OK cool, handshake, signed check, resume work." between 2 people.

Only the prototypes and LRIP1 Units would be accurate, as things changed after LRIP1.

I'd have to confirm, I was told it was a type of ray tracing / active reflection rendering, a cube map does make more sense given the excessive amount of post processing shaders running already. Even then, if it's not actual ray tracing, you'd likely not see anything definitive until Vulkan.

Secondary Lighting On, Global Cockpit Illumination On?