fjacobsen

Just updated to 2.5.1. Deleted my saved game DCS folder and set up DCS. On the Caucasus, in the AV-8B, I can fly for som 3-5 before it simply freezes and I must press Ctrl+ALT+DELETE to quit DCS. Runs smooth for those 3-5 mins though. Attached Log: dcs.zip Finn Jacobsen

The terms alpha, beta and release are very fluid for ED and their associated 3rd party developers, and are more used as excuses for certain modules state, rather than the modules actual state.

Another frustrating fact is that people like me who buy on Early acces release in order to support (allthough getting a rebate ), often see that they go on sale for much lower prices even before the module is finished. Not something that feels great when You actually paid and took the risc on day one only to see peopla taking less of a risc and wait buying it on sale. I guess most normal people would feel kind of cheated.

Honestly I don´t feel that the time taken for the mentioned moduels rectifies anything. Belsim was also too slow getting things done and can not be used as an excuse. The Mig-21 and the Polychop SA-342 also has been too long underway. I know that some will say that if You can´t accept this, then You shouldn´t be part of early access', but thats also not an excuse. As said - I get the early acces modules also in order to support this franchise, knowing that Flight sims are niche' "games". But still developement time taking years rather than month should not happen, thats for me just an indication off the modules not really ready for release - also not as early acces. Strange thing is that everytime there is a great hype and alot of feedback just arounf early acces release and then also a few weeks after, but then things get silent. No more changelogs and only minor updates to keep people happy. Even the AV-8B development feedback and changelogs has become rather silent for some time now. I would still support this franchise, but only if I see sufficient progress and improvements. Also ED has promised fixes for items not really being attended - f.ex embarking code, damge modelling etc. For me the WW2 birds are very nice and throroughly modelled, but are useless in combat due to the poor damage modelling, seeing AI opponents carry on with cryptonite engines after having been pumped full og shells and projectiles.

Hmm.. With DCS rated as PEGI 16, after 3 years developement, I guess most people has become mature. I have been developer for addon aircraft too, so I know the normal developement cycle. But 3 years would mean that the aircraft module hardly could be called beta at early acces release. If it's was deemed 3 years from being finishedat early acces release - then too much was missing to be called beta. Alpha means that the addon is usable, but not finished feature wise and also contains alot og bugs and tuning. Beta means that the addon is finished and only needs tuning and bugfixing. Only small additional features might be added. This should not take 3 years.

One of the reasons is that after release of the M2000C they shifted focus on the AV-8B, which then got higher priority than finishing the M2000C. I´m not sure why they didn´t put more effort into finishing it, my guess is that the main selling time of modules is right after early acces release, cause everybody are eager to get the new toy. After that sales decline quite rapidly and only special saels and then maybe when declared "final" the few who don´t like early acces will then buy. So shortly after early acces the "economic" motivation declines and it becomes more important to get the next money cow ready for early acces. I might be wrong, so please teach me if so. Personally I find 3 years developement time, and then still not finished improper. Most of us has bought early acces modules, not only to get our hands on them, but also as an supportive action. That kind of loyalty also means that the devs should feel obligated to do their utmost to get modules finished.

As it seems -I don´t have sufficient amount of RAM for DCS 2.5. But I´m quite eager to meek my system clean. Games are never installed in C:\Programs(x86) Weekly deleiting content in various \Temp\ folders. Weekly registry cleanuo Monthly defragmentation and optimising of disk's etc.. I also keep the number of background programs at a bare minimum and keep all drivers updated. I don´t have all of last years games installed, but with proper settings I can run games and sims like P3D V4.2 with ORBX scenery, PMDG aircraft, Active sky, Pro ATC/X, Ezdok and some other programs running with very smooth performance. Same goes with IL-2 BOx, Project Cars 2, Assetto Corsa, Skyrim and First person shooters like, Arma 2 (Apex and all DLC's), Rain Bow 6 Siege, Siege, Ghost Recon Wildlands etc... etc.. most of those with 60+ FPS and no stuttering. None of these games has been degraded because I installed the other games, so I don´t buy that theory. At least DCS 2.5 shouldn´t be more affected than the rest if so. Offcourse none of those mentioned games are set on ultra all the way, but most of them in the range - Medium, High and Ultra. I´m curious, but cautious with the newly announced "Dynamic texture unload manager" - time will tell if that will make things better. Personaly I dont do much multiplaying, nor fly "heavy" missions, so I hope that things will become better and actually make my system adequet for type og flying I do in DCS. But the performance issue is just one part of my overall frustration with DCS. Whats also bad are the too long early acces periods we see with many modules. Beta or not, a early acces module should not take 2 years to complete like the M2000C, or being left unattended like the Normandy map. Also far more important things should be looked into instead of of flushing out new modules. F.ex damage modeling simply makes the WW2 warbirds useless and far from fun to fly in dogfights. Finn Jacobsen

Normal monitor 1920x1080 Medium-High settings FXAA + DS (MSAA Off) 40-60 fps (Locked at 60) FPS are fine, but I got stutters. I could put more RAM into my system, but won´t waste money as long as see those with 16GB+ also havings stutters. Also I´m not going to upgrade or buy a new system "just" for getting DCS up running when everything else I got runs smooth with no need for better hardware. I allready have put money into enough early acces modules that hardly gets required updates and fixes (M2000C, Normandy map, even the AV-8B as not been much updated lately).

Why do we then see people with 16GB+ also having stutters ?

Why do I then see 40-60 fps if my 960 doesn´t cut it ? FPS are high, but I see alot of stuttering, which isn´t caused by a underpowered GPU ? If my GPU was underpowered, then setting all settings to low should definitly give much better performance. While FPS does increase doing so, the sim still stutters, which clearly indicates that it´s not my GPU that is poor. Why should 8GB be necessary, when I have other sims as complex and better looking than DCS ? While not mentioning the other sims, those I use have longer visisbility range, more trees, more objects, better damage modelling and AI, but still runs with high FPS and smooth. "Tweaks" like having to add more Ram and run DCS from a SSD drive are not solutions, but merely workarounds for some badly optimised code. Reading this forum it sounds as if the memory issue is something new to 2.5. But the insane memory consumption has been around and reported ever since 2.0 was released, like very long loading times of the sim and mission editor. Memory not properly released and for many unusable multiplayer sessions. While my computer specs far from can be called cutting edge, it still runs all other games reasonable well, also much newer games with far better graphics and gamemechanics. I´m sure that 2.5OB will evolve and that there still will be performance optimations, but I just don´t regard it as being ready to be called "Release version."

As far as I know current 2.5 Release and 2.5 Open beat are the same filesets with the same bugs. Why the urge killing 1.5.8 when 2.5 isn´t stable and ready to take over. As much as I liked DCS, the current way looks lika de-route for me. Memory leak is one thing, but the insane memory requirements are not rectified. Othere sims withi the same genre also comes with swaying grass, collidable trees and huge maps and graphics that are on par, and even surpasig DCS (I know - personal perception), but running fluid and without stutters, even in single player and multiplayer missions with alot of units and AI. I play alot of other games. While not calling them by name, they consist of various flightsims, racing sims, first person shooters and military sandbox most on high settings with fluid graphics and high framerates. None of these has the insae high memory demands that we see now with DCS 2.5. Some of the flightsims I use are with highly realsitic aircraft, weather, ATC and alot of othe background apps running. I could understand if the cause for those high memory demands where du to outstanding graphics, AI, damage modelling and game mechanics, but that is not what we have right now with DCS 2.5. Damage modelling and AI seems like remnants from LOMAc or the Flanker series. I have been a fond supporter of ED for many years - Flanker 1.5, Flanker 2.5, Lomac, Stand alone Blackshark, A-10C and then further to DCS 1.0 and up until now. Even running 2.5 with Medium to High settings with MSAA and DS, I don´t find the performance cost is worth the graphical update compared to 1.5.8. The only plus are the collidable trees, especially when flying helicopters. I own every moduel, except the C-101, Hawk and some campaigns, but feel that developement on most of these simply are too slow and the time from early acces to release is too long. Take the M-2000C, which now has been in early acces for two years - thats simply not acceptable. For me it seems like developers loose interest shortly after eraly acces release, probably because thats where most people buy it and income therafter on those modules quickly decline. For me DCS 2.x has become a deja-vu to when FSX was released. With FSX I used more time tweaking the sim to gt it to run smooth than actually flyings, and thats what I have been doing with DCS 2.x too until now. Its simply not fun anymore. I see no point putting more money into new modules as long as the core sim isn´t better optimised. You can tweak all day long, but most tweaks are placebo and canot be regarded as fixes, but merely just workarounds for a poorly optimised core sim. For me DCS will be put on hold until I read feedback indicating that the sim has become smoother. While I do understand that it isn´t efficient to maintain two versions (1.5.8 and 2.5), I´m still sad that it seems that the only smooth running version still is 1.5.8 and that support for that has seized, including for modules not out of early acces yet. Sorry for this negative post, but it´s quite frustrating to see how performance just keeps degrading on a franchise in which I have put quite alot of money.

I simply don´t get this... When updating 2.5OB I only get the "Updater" updated, the version of 2.5 is still the same as before - so no changes or bugfixes ! When updating 1.5.8 " release version the "Updater" is updated and then I get the option to update 1.5.8 to 2.5. Well honestly 2.5 is still so bugged and bad performing that I don´t want to see my 1.5.8 version being wrecked by this update. SO BE CAREFULL!!! If You like me, don´t find 2.5 ready and stable for general use and still prefer 1.5.8 due to the much better performance and stability, then don´t click OK. I wonder why they are in such a hurry to kill 1,5,8 when 2.5OB really isn´t in a state that rectifies this switch. Only reason is, if they later today releases a new update to 2.5OB that realy solves alot of bugs, especially the memory related issues that has been hampering 2.x ever since it was available. FinnJ

Lol - and then letting both the M2000C and AV-8B live their own "slow progress" life, cause the Mig-19 is the next cash cow. I guess module sales peaks at early access release, so after that income from those are just decreasing fast with a small bump once out of beta, with that income most often eaten by the "sales" rebates.

Isn´t this not what we see each time an early acces module has been released ? A lot of hype before EA, then very communicative devs / moderartor for the first few weeks, and then afterwards plummeting information and progress, leaving the module in beta state for month or even years. Sorry to sound negative - but thats my experience...

I just hope that the memory issues that will befixed also will lessen the amount of RAM / VRAM used. Right now (And all through the variuos 2.x versions) the memory usage is extremly high for no apperent reason. Other flightsims with greater geographical coverage and graphical fidelity do not require even close to as much RAM / VRAM as DCS 2.x.

Title says..... Right after the early acces started there was activity from the devs in there, but that seems to have cheased. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=196582

Select TDC mode (I cannot remember if it should be underlined or not) and press the undesignate.

My bad - C offcourse. Well those updates has been rather minor compared to what still needs to be done. As someone else noted - it´s almost a year since we where told that the PCA code would be rewritten. Also INS updating is rudimentary at the moment. Imagine thos people who have bought the M2000C with no intend to by the AV-8B and then see how focus has been shifted from the unfinished M2000C (which they actually have paid for) to the AV-8B where much stronger progress is shown. I guess most would feel kind of being cheated. But this discussion is better to be held in the M2000C forum - so sorry for going OT.

Maybe it's me, but I also think that Airbases where more clearly outlined on the radar in 1.5.8 than in 2.5.

I have nothing against early acces , actually I have bought most DCS modules as early acces. Problem is the speed at which they are developing. Especially Razbam, having left the M2000C behind in orer to focus on the next project - AV-8B. While I do love the AV-8B, I´m far from happy seeing the M2000C being put on the waiting shelf, since I actually paid for the early acces M2000C with the expectation that they would finish it as quick as possible (I know that the devs probably are doing these projects in their sparetime). So while I like the AV-8B I still find that it would be appropriate for them to finish the M2000C first.

The Map page has been there before this update - so nothing new. I guess it simply didn´t get into this update.

Seems not to be the case, despite the announcement. At least I have not figured out how to enable it.

+1 As it is now DCS 2.5 looks better overall with Deffered shading On, but I´m sure that the sim could be tweaked to look as good without and thus not having to make us compromise AA and get more stutters as an added bonus. I knw that DCS 2.5 is still beta and that the devs will be able to sort things out over time, but the issues with deffered shading combined with MSAA is not new - it was introduced in DCS 2.2 (oe was it even 2.1) and has been around for more than ½ a year.

There where 3 versions of DCS: DCS 1.5.8 Release version (Stable) DCS 1.5.8 Beta version (Test version) CDS 2.2 Alpha version (Test version If these where installed on Your computer the following should have occured during upgrade to DCS 2.5: DCS 1.5.8 Release version - Not touched and should still be there DCS 1.5.8 Beta version - Upgraded to DCS 2.5 Alpha / Beta DCS 2.2 Alpha - Uninstalled / removed This means that the following versions should remain: DCS 1.5.8 Release (Stable) DCS 2.5 Alpha / Beta During upgrade I think an option where to not uninstall DCS 2.2 Neither DCS 1.5.8 Beta or DCS 2.2 will have any further updates and it makes little sense to keep them.

I cannot see the pictures in the spoilers.