XCNuse

I'm leaving this discussion then with the statement that the F14 being 14% of DCS' vanilla installation size is ... absolutely not trivial.

Then explain to us, why your module from Spring of 2019 is an unfit and unfair comparison to such an "older" module that was released Fall of 2019. No offense IronMike but the fact you want to toss in the Forrestall is hilarious; because as a whole, the thing consumes less storage space than 3 liveries on the F14.... If that doesn't prove a point of how oversized the F14's liveries are than I don't know what to say anymore. Saying the F14 requires 300+MB paint jobs, while the Forrestal is only 1,170MB should be self explanatory.

Let's keep being comparative here then; while you guys let DCS become the fat game that it is. Because last I checked, other flight sims I have previously had installed ALL came in under 100GB, and others weren't 20GB. Meanwhile.... the as a whole F14 consumes 19.16GB of storage on everyone's computer, including dediservers. For comparison, Razbam's Mirage2000C, which has been hailed as a major success and very very high quality as of recent..... consumes 3.55GB. null

And guess what? They will immediately be redownloaded when the software updates. And if a skin is not on a server install, and is chosen; it does not function; meaning nobody can see it change. Running a mission with Aggressors? Means they no longer can VID the jet as being an aggressor. How is that not an issue?

You have the exact same 12+GB of liveries everyone has; including server owners. The only decision that this comes down to is whether you have DCS installed or not.

So are you guys going to buy me a new SSD then since I can't just "tack on" another GB...? If we want to start counting pixels let's begin. Since everyone wants to keep talking about the Viper it'll be used as reference which.. is large file size wise, and PLENTY high resolution. F-14's phillips head screws are 11-12 pixels. F-16s phillips head screws are 8. If we're going for comparison's sake, that's immediately 30% larger than it needs to be... which directly correlates to how much larger it is file size wise. This is not about performance; this is about wasted drive space on ALL USERS' computers. Please stop trying to white knight your own product; the reason this thread exists is to make others aware of what's going on. What happens when you guys release your F-4 and we will have 40GB of skins on our drives? You're literally forcing your potential customerbase from buying your product because we'll have to buy storage space just for your product whether we purchase it or not.

They cannot be deleted no; if they are, the skins are not visible and no longer functional on the server. It's also worth noting; people that don't even own the F14 have to have 12GB of files on their computer; this is the issue. If folks genuinely want 12GB of files on their computer of JUST F14 skins, it should be their choice..... I'd prefer to not have nearly that large of a mass of just texture files sitting on my drive that I never see; and when I do see.... still don't need to be able to never see a pixel no matter how far I zoom in. The community is SCREAMING! for DCS to be optimized.... Heatblur can at least take a step forward and do something about it.

Why is Heatblur forcing people like myself who own servers to download 12GB of liveries?

The purpose of this post should prove the exact opposite that "the community," is a mixed bag, and that it isn't so particularly black and white. If people want the ultra high resolution HB is offering, it should be something that is provided from either the files portion of the main DCS website, the HB website... what have you, and they can put them in their custom skins liveries, which can overwrite the "default" files in the core. Not ALL of us want or need such extreme resolutions that HB has shipped with the F14. Skins for other aircraft and other modules are down below 1/4 the size and resolution, and yet... they're more than large enough at normal viewing distances. There's a very good post about what high resolution texturing means when in use; and it comes down to what's large enough. It foregoes discussing resolutions, and makes that the main purpose of the entire topic. It's not about what is 4K, 8K, etc. It's about not being able to pick out pixels when your view is within standard limits. Which for me, involves not going into F2 camera, and zooming in until I can't anymore and ensuring I see no pixels on the nose and underbelly.... Hopefully I don't get in trouble for sharing this link, but this is what I'm referring to: https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/93792-high-resolution-textureswhats-that-do-they-exist-continued/ My point being; like for like, the only time the F14's insanely large textures become an advantage; is when I'm zoomed in the entire way... at any normal FOV, there is no reason for the textures to be as large as they are. By cutting them down to something more standard (and no you're right, the Apache has the same issue); it should greatly decrease the number of people placing bug reports about the F-14 causing their game to crash when their GPU has to VRAM dump every time one comes into and out of picture.

AWACs seems to just dump a full list when you call for a picture now, and no longer seems to make the full radio call. Personally when there's really any more than 4 groups, it shouldn't be making any more additional group calls; but as it stands, it dumps the text on the screen and the audio seems to cut out after the first couple of letters. Can also confirm scoring does not function but I believe this is an older bug.

It was legitimately requested, by IronMike, that it be here.

This has always caused me massive massive stutters; the only semi fix for this is to basically drop your preload radius down to 0, and it MIGHT semi-prevent it. But that specifically is nothing new; that's been the case for many many years now.

yeah I will mention I did a "full repair" immediately after installing 2.8, along with deleting fxo and metashaders myself before launching. Do try those first.

I can provide track if need be but I'm not entirely sure if it will correlate properly due to it being an issue I'm only seeing in multiplayer. Attached is the mission file I used on singleplayer, and multiplayer; issues only arose on multiplayer. Test: - F-14 spawn on SuperCarrier, take off, Cat1 loop and land, no issues (short test; issue may arise if flight time is extended, didn't test) - F-14 spawn in air, on long final to same SuperCarrier, same mission, immediately after previous test: Landed; carrier deck jiggles around, even while carrier is driving in straight direction. Would request rearm (was trying to figure out this bug, but it's actually an issue with the SC). Jitters would occur, ground crew would say "Hey what are you doing?" Sometimes jet would refuel and rearm, other times it would not. - Respawn in deck F-14 from original test; ground / launch crew would begin to jitter around; sliding across the deck ~1m Assume this is relating to the update to the SC that 2.8 brought that was meant to decrease the issues while the boat turns... I'm not sure that it does [completely]. Again, I realize "track file is needed" however... it's a multiplayer issue, and a track will not replay correctly; so I'm not willing to provide one. I do not have video recording capabilities; hopefully more people will begin to see this issue pop up and can get a video recording of it happening. f14 test.miz

Like this? No issues here. Perhaps re-save the mission if you can? This was made from a fresh mission just now.

What's weird is your icons are also wrong; it's showing C's visually for all of them. No issues on my end. Names are correct, and have correct 2D images as well (fins are smaller on the C's) null

Liveries are cool and all; but the system is clearly getting out of hand. Heatblur's F-14 alone is consuming 1/3rd of this 30GB livery file blob, but they are requesting this be taken to ED and become a legitimate core feature going forward. It is unnecessary that 30GB of files are on everyone's computer, and constantly growing with the release of new modules. And even more unnecessary that dediservers, which don't even have graphical support are required to have these files installed... legitimately unnecessary. Drive space may "becoming cheap," but this is a ridiculous statement to be made directly to a customer to say "go buy this other product instead of our own." Legitimately... a ridiculous thing. 'Cheap' or not, it's still going to cost the same as an entire module for most people to replace their drive to fit ED on, and it will only become worse with the newer maps which are consuming abnormal amounts of storage as well. This isn't like RAM where you can stick another chip into a slot and everything is hunky dory; the whole thing has to be replaced.... I've made another request as well to Nineline to make it so DCS can install maps on other drives so people can at least make better use of what storage space they do have. As right now, it's legitimately wasteful, to have to keep going up in entire drive sizes; while some of us may have other SSDs sitting here with nothing on them, but aren't large enough for DCS. Returning to liveries however; I shouldn't be required to have 12GB of liveries for one jet on my drive, or 4.5GB for just the Apache. This topic can quickly transition to VRAM, but we all know how expensive graphics cards are these days, and how poorly optimized DCS is when it comes to VRAM. So I won't go down that path. All liveries should be OPTIONAL. And liveries should NOT be required on dediserver installs. There are legitimately complex and very advanced modern AAA games coming out even today that are under 30GB that have incredible open world experiences with tons of maps and fantastic textures.... Meanwhile, DCS's required external liveries is that size alone. Compressed or not; it is an unhealthy size for this game that is growing out of control storage space wise.

For the record yes; this would be the choice of the mission developer, it 100% not be a free-for all; just as in mission editing right now you can limit what planes exist, weapons, etc. This would be no different. And double check; third point works regardless if specific aircraft are set to "not available" by the airfield. But correct; that system is not designed for smaller group missions; although if we get the point where we can export "DTC" and send to others, it absolutely could be a solution.

The reality is; DCS needs an entirely new system for how aircraft spawn in in multiplayer.... full stop. We should be able to choose an aircraft, draw a flight plan, and spawn in... where we want by choice, or by automation. Why is this needed? The list of aircraft now is huge, and the maps will no longer be able to support mass multiplayer gameplay anymore. It is honestly a problem already as it stands... finding a slot on big servers? It's a HUGE pain! And then scripts like slot blocker makes it even more confusing when you aren't sure where you can spawn in, and needlessly click on aircraft for several minutes until you actually pop in.... AI? It's fine, it shouldn't need changing. Humans? it should work as follows: I am taken to the briefing map (which has existed for a very long time). I should be able to click on an airfield that is currently "active," and very clearly marked that it is friendly. I should then be able to choose from a list of aircraft that are allowed to fly on the server. I should then be able to draw out my waypoints that I want, exactly how it functions in the mission editor. I should then be able to choose my loadout, set my radio presets if I wish.... all the same stuff from the ME. Lastly, I should be able to choose exactly what parking spot I want to spawn into, or have an option to choose "nearest open spot to active runway"

I think you've missed the entire purpose of this thread and showing the fact it was entirely the RB side of things lol. Regardless; whatever changes were made and pushed, seemed to have helped as of 2.8's patch.

One of those is 80FPS, and was clarifying why they were both 80 FPS; but you can still see a difference in CPU and GPU timings; and visual differences in color etc. otherwise I'm aware it's not entirely beneficial, that's why others were shared. As said; I've noticed a very different appearance in the shadows; they're very high resolution compared to what they were, and yes; draw distance is... perhaps something like 1/4 what they used to be? roughly? Beyond that; I'm too afraid to touch my shadow setting and watch it break and get shadows on top of things lol; but as it stands; I'm certainly not getting shadows on top of objects, which to me is the real bug; not the draw distance.

Yeah working to figure it out myself; it seems to be..... inconsistent at best, unfortunately. (fortunately?) I should clarify this seems to be tied specifically to multiplayer and that new code for carrier jitteriness.... which, if anyone's trying, might see the jitters now happens to the carrier deck crew hah! They're phasing all over the place it seems. Cold start on deck... didn't have any issues; plane had no jitters. Air start, then landing on deck; upon landing I immediately noticed the jitters. This was landing on the Harry Truman SC. Sometimes I would get the "hey what are you doing" but, sometimes they seem capable of still loading the jet up, and othertimes, jitters or not, they seem to load it up just fine. But I've had a squadmate said he tried last night and was unable to be refuel/rearmed entirely. I'm going to make a huge assumption here with this; but I'm thinking the inability is going to come down to how much wind is set in the mission and thus how pitchy the deck is. I just tried it with 8kts ground speed (carrier going into wind), but that isn't really enough to make the deck pitch; but was still encountering jitters. More testing definitely will be needed, but, should be brought up; there is something weird going on here.

Has anyone tried refueling and rearming on carrier deck? Only getting "hey what are you doing!"

Seems to be so. So I guess as a going reminder to anyone and everyone; please share the important details of things like knowing FXO and Metashaders were indeed reset, what GPU you're using, what GPU Drivers you're on, etc. I hope these don't embed but if anyone's curious to see some of my comparisons; note the very drastic visual difference in the zoomed in view looking at downtown Nevada; that is the one also that has the very dramatic FPS hit. I have DCS frame limited to 80FPS for anyone curious about that; running a EVGA 3070XC3 and on 522.25; and I do not seem to have the shadow bug for the record. Which is what I hope people are able to figure out today is why some people are getting the shadow bug, and others like myself are not; because I'm very much inclined to believe it's a GPU and driver issue; ignoring that ED has a fix for now; as we won't see it for some time.

I was hesitant to update; but actually had just done adjustments to my graphics settings not two weeks ago and was able to get a baseline. I am 2D, and on an older Nvidia driver than most people like to be on (ie... not... the latest). I am seeing performance dips in some rare places (extreme external view zoom ins across maps that always really hurt FPS); however general cockpit FOV and view? After resetting FXO and Metashaders and doing a repair after updating, I am not seeing any performance hits.