First impressions of the Release Version

Try this Sky- http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1114111&postcount=2

First impressions of the release version:

...NICE

WCMDs ftw!

All the CBUs are oh so sweeet :thumbup:

First Impressions:

The design team did a great job improving the graphics frame rate during play!

My computer is not really the best to handle this game, I was getting 20 to 5 FPS with Beta 4...pretty much unplayable.

With the final release, I am getting 20 to 30 FPS...which means I can at least enjoy playing it and learning all the controls and in-flight technical simulations. I probably will not be able to fly online or really complex missions, but the simulation is half the fun.

For any design team members interested, my machine info:

Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.101209-1647)

Language: English (Regional Setting: English)

System Manufacturer: Dell Inc.

System Model: Precision M4400

BIOS: Phoenix ROM BIOS PLUS Version 1.10 A14

Processor: Intel® Core2 Duo CPU T9550 @ 2.66GHz (2 CPUs)

Memory: 3572MB RAM

Page File: 656MB used, 4796MB available

Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS

DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)

DX Setup Parameters: Not found

DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.5512 32bit Unicode

Display Devices

---------------

Card name: NVIDIA Quadro FX 770M

Manufacturer: NVIDIA

Chip type: Quadro FX 770M

DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC

Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_065C&SUBSYS_02501028&REV_A1

Display Memory: 512.0 MB

Current Mode: 1680 x 1050 (32 bit) (60Hz)

Monitor: Default Monitor

Monitor Max Res:

Driver Name: nv4_disp.dll

Driver Version: 6.14.0011.7626 (English)

DDI Version: 9 (or higher)

Driver Attributes: Final Retail

Driver Date/Size: 8/27/2008 19:06:52, 6273920 bytes

Not impressed and a bit disappointed

Not really impressed of this final release, looks more like a beta 5 than a final release, a lot of users me included even with high end PC's have huge performance problems, missions not working properly, problem configuring input devices etc.. and still there is no an decent updated official manual. I hoped that paying in advance for the beta will had help developers make a better game even if it will have required more time I will have preferred to wait for a proper release not for another beta released as a "Final". I'm afraid that I did a mistake and I should have waited instead o buying this eternal "beta".

Sorry about this rant and if I sound too harsh, but that's what I feel at this moment, I waited 4 month after paying $60 for this game and now I want to play this game, but still its not ready. I respect the work of the developers and I'm sure they put a lot of time, blood and tears in this developing this simulator but maybe they should have waited a little more and do more testing before declare this version as "final".

PS:

And what is wrong with this forum log that is timing out and log you off after 10 minutes so you have to continually log in?

First Impressions:

 

The design team did a great job improving the graphics frame rate during play!

 

My computer is not really the best to handle this game, I was getting 20 to 5 FPS with Beta 4...pretty much unplayable.

 

With the final release, I am getting 20 to 30 FPS...which means I can at least enjoy playing it and learning all the controls and in-flight technical simulations. I probably will not be able to fly online or really complex missions, but the simulation is half the fun.

 

For any design team members interested, my machine info:

 

Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.101209-1647)

Language: English (Regional Setting: English)

System Manufacturer: Dell Inc.

System Model: Precision M4400

BIOS: Phoenix ROM BIOS PLUS Version 1.10 A14

Processor: Intel® Core2 Duo CPU T9550 @ 2.66GHz (2 CPUs)

Memory: 3572MB RAM

Page File: 656MB used, 4796MB available

Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS

DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)

DX Setup Parameters: Not found

DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.5512 32bit Unicode

 

Display Devices

---------------

Card name: NVIDIA Quadro FX 770M

Manufacturer: NVIDIA

Chip type: Quadro FX 770M

DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC

Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_065C&SUBSYS_02501028&REV_A1

Display Memory: 512.0 MB

Current Mode: 1680 x 1050 (32 bit) (60Hz)

Monitor: Default Monitor

Monitor Max Res:

Driver Name: nv4_disp.dll

Driver Version: 6.14.0011.7626 (English)

DDI Version: 9 (or higher)

Driver Attributes: Final Retail

Driver Date/Size: 8/27/2008 19:06:52, 6273920 bytes

I noticed it is definitely better in many regards but in campaigns it is still pretty choppy. I tried lowering my rez to 1400x900 and some other settings it didnt help much. Too many objects methinks.

For single missions it is fantastic! Nice and smooth.

dario_u, I respect your opinion and my intention isn't to flame your post, but I must say that it sounds like you have localized systems issues. I would spend some time on these boards looking at solutions specific to your needs. Since the dawn of flightsims it has been necessary to tweak your computer to swallow huge chunks of computation and ask for more. Any good sim pushes the limit of what a system is capable of, and this is the best of them.

This is a very stable and rich release, but know that we can expect future corrections, additions, and enhancements.. like any great software from any great dev team.

DCS:A10 is running beautifully for me and the people that I know. It's stable, engaging, and complete in it's complexity. I wish you luck in your efforts. The amount of effort you put into optimizing your system and software will determine the amount of return.

Pros:

Great frame rate

CBUs

GBU-12s

Radio may have started working in multiplayer

A few others..

Cons:

No MP SPI sharing

Other MP datalink errors

AI still has a hard time taxing to runways

CTD in the first 30 minutes of my first MP flight

Ground units need more than 1 waypoint before they will move

No custom loadouts without lua edits

A few others...

Conclusion:

It looks like beta 4 was better for multiplayer

Release 1 is better for single player.

Are dual installs possible?

At first i was excited because it was not beta anymore but after an hour or two i can't help the feeling that they rushed it out way to soon. I'm not impressed. Lot's of stuff might be solved but quite a bit of problems have been (re-)intoduced too so it's not a full win-win situation.

Beta 4 was a better release then this one.

This is a very stable and rich release, but know that we can expect future corrections, additions, and enhancements.. like any great software from any great dev team. DCS:A10 is running beautifully for me and the people that I know. It's stable, engaging, and complete in it's complexity.

@StrongHarm: spend a bit more time and try out some extra stuff and i recon you will change your opinion quickly. It has issues (re-)introduced which were absent in beta 4.

@Speed - Yes I believe they are, they install into two separate folders inside the Eagle Dynamics folder, so I don't see why not unless something goes goofy in registry or something but I know nothing about that kinda stuff. I am thinking about doing a dual install myself simply to be able to fly MP nice again....

Are dual installs possible?

I have both B4 and final installed and both are working.

I did read that others got crashes in loading the final when they didnt delete the warthog map in windows users folder so I guess it could create issues.

Havent touched B4 anymore though other then checking if it worked. :D

@StrongArm

I wasn't expecting to run this game at 50fps solid with my specs, but the previous beta 4 game performance was way better than the final release and not only in my opinion, a lot of other users are complaining on this forum about this. You are correct, I don't have a rocket PC like yours, but I can fairly play every single game released recently. Just for your information (I know that this is not not a new game but he was a game know as a huge resource hogger) I can play LockOn FC2 at max graphic setting smoothly. What I'm saying is that the game at this point in my opinion still have big optimization problems. If this simulator to run need at last 8GB of memory a x64 bit OS and a GTX570 it should have be advertised and its clearly not. My computer is much more above the minimum system requirements but even with my specs the game is unplayable.

@StrongArm

I wasn't expecting to run this game at 50fps solid, but the previous beta 4 game performance was way better than the final release and not only in my opinion, a lot of other users are complaining on this forum about this. You are correct, I don't have a rocket PC like yours, but I can fairly play every single game released recently. Just for your information (I know that this is not not a new game but he was a game know as a huge resource hogger) I can play LockOn FC2 at max graphic setting. What I'm saying is that the game at this point in my opinion still have big optimization problems. If this simulator to run need at last 8GB of memory a x64 bit OS and a GTX570 it should have be advertised and its clearly not. My computer is much more above the minimum system requirements but even with my specs the game is unplayable.

How much is "a lot"? It's probably not more than those who have a considerable better performance with the final than with beta 4.

AMD 1090T

GTX 260

4Gb of RAM DDr3

win 7 64bits

working fine with high FPS

Pros:

Great frame rate

CBUs

GBU-12s

Radio may have started working in multiplayer

A few others..

 

Cons:

No MP SPI sharing

Other MP datalink errors

AI still has a hard time taxing to runways

CTD in the first 30 minutes of my first MP flight

Ground units need more than 1 waypoint before they will move

No custom loadouts without lua edits

A few others...

 

Conclusion:

It looks like beta 4 was better for multiplayer

Release 1 is better for single player.

Are dual installs possible?

+1 same conclusion.

@Mugenjin

Look, you can say whatever you want but you can't denying that there are a noticeable and increasing number of users complaining about performance also with high end PC and for a small community like ours "a lot" I know is not much. But since you pointed this out in the forum under "Game Performance" the second top thread is guess what? "Stutters(Release)" with 1,567 views and growing, but if I correctly understand this is not relevant enough for you, but since this forum had become the main source of communication with the devs and to reporting issues, I will like to read an answer from the developers regarding this, not from the usual fanboy "You are a noob, buy a decent PC and stop QQing" kind of answer, no offence meaning.

My system is almost 5yrs old.. with just an updated vid card. My performance is gained by putting time into the fitness of my system to do what I need it to do. Why am I so happy with release? Could I be lying and receiving kickbacks from ED? :) not likely... so maybe there's something to be considered here?

If you believe that beta4 ran better than release I would suggest that you have bigger system problems than just how DCS runs. I wish you luck.

@StrongArm

I wasn't expecting to run this game at 50fps solid with my specs, but the previous beta 4 game performance was way better than the final release and not only in my opinion, a lot of other users are complaining on this forum about this. You are correct, I don't have a rocket PC like yours, but I can fairly play every single game released recently. Just for your information (I know that this is not not a new game but he was a game know as a huge resource hogger) I can play LockOn FC2 at max graphic setting smoothly. What I'm saying is that the game at this point in my opinion still have big optimization problems. If this simulator to run need at last 8GB of memory a x64 bit OS and a GTX570 it should have be advertised and its clearly not. My computer is much more above the minimum system requirements but even with my specs the game is unplayable.

@StrongArm

At least for me beta 4 was, there was off course performance issue but it was clear that beta 4 wasn't yet been optimized and it was like "if beta 4 is running not bad the final release will run even better". Now to open the option menu it takes me from 1 to 2 minutes.... that problem wasn't occurring in beta 4 just to make an example, yes it happens to me and not to you, but I will like to know why and I don't think that is related to poor computer specs or lack of skill in optimizing a PC, I'm not new to technology, I'm work in and I am an IT Slave ever since I can remember lol.

@StrongArm

At least for me beta 4 was, there was off course performance issue but it was clear that beta 4 wasn't yet been optimized and it was like "if beta 4 is running not bad the final release will run even better". Now to open the option menu it takes me from 1 to 2 minutes.... that problem wasn't occurring in beta 4 just to make an example, yes it happens to me and not to you, but I will like to know why and I don't think that is related to poor computer specs or lack of skill in optimizing a PC, I'm not new to technology, I'm an IT Slave ever since I can remember lol.

what are your specs then?

I too am in IT (30 years) and my game box shreds the final. Smooth as glass and much faster than B4

EVGA-SLI-X58 main board (3 way sli board)

Intel i7 920 OCed to 3.8

Water cooled proc with Corsair H50

12 gigs Corsair DDR3 1600 fast timing ram (triple channel setup)

2x EVGA GTX 460 EE 1 GBs in SLI

1X EVGA GTX 285 running dedicated Physx

Corsair 850 Power supply

Also testing on a Intel Sandy Bridge setup with first gen board on the 2600-k OCed at 4.0

also with 12 gigs of DDR3 1600

with a single EVGA GTX 580

and it's ice smooth as well.

both on W7 Ultimate 64

It for sure sounds like your machine may be the culprit behind the performance you are getting.

there are plenty of HD youtube vids out there showing flawless performance now.

And also remember.. flight sims are VERY intensive on computing compared to regular games.

alot more math going on.

Gotta hard on for the first burst from the gu-8, Noticed a dip in FPS while running on everything high from final to beta 4. Other then that bloody amazing. the cluster bombs are a real treat to use

@CVSiN

Sure man you have a nice rig, my...not that much, E6500, GTS250, 2GB Mem, XPSP3. But as I told before It's more than enough to ran almost anything I throw to him, so far. I'm guessing that with those spec you can run smoothly even the whole Los Alamos National Laboratory computing division (while playing the Hog maxed out)...

EDITED: Grammar and stuff...

It has issues (re-)introduced which were absent in beta 4.

Way to be specific. :ermm:

My first impressions are that a lot more work needs to be done for this to be a final release. Too many things are not right yet. Missions don't work properly, data linking is non existant, laser seems to be porked, apart from manual lasing that is. I'll list more as I go along but I've only flown it twice and that's what I've found so far.

@CVSiN

Sure man you have nice rig, my...not that much, E6500, GTS250, 2GB Mem, XPSP3. But as I told before It's more than enough to ran almost anything I throw to him, so far. I'm guessing that with that spec you can run smoothly even the whole Los Alamos National Laboratory....

haha not quite.. but my bosses machine maybe ;)

Ok.. like I said you cannot compare a flight sim to other products especially one that is as demanding as this one.

you have arguably the best Flight model ever put on a desktop computer here..

that alone is eating up some math cycles on the CPU.

You only have 2 gigs of ram as well which is very low by today's standards even for a Corporate office" machine as well as the video card needs a serious upgrade as well.

your chip is also several gens old as well and is only a dual core and is not even running at the 3ghz mark.

this is hurting you very badly as well.

even if you were to upgrade video you would be CPU capped for sure.

Launch Date

Q1'08Processor Number

E6500# of Cores

2# of Threads

2Clock Speed

2.93 GHzL2 Cache

2 MBBus/Core Ratio

11FSB Speed

1066 MHzInstruction Set

64-bit

basically as a gamer and especially a simmer you are in dire need of an upgrade.

Right now with Intel releasing the Sandy Bridge at a terrific performance level and a 300 dollar chip that shreds even the current gen Intel i7 1000 dollar extreme chip is the perfect time to save for that upgrade.

My machine isn't all that.. even my CPU is now 2 years old and is already showing its age. the 2600-K I'm testing in the other box destroys my 920 in all performance tests and benchmarks.

I generally upgrade 1x a generation including video and CPUs to stay current with the latest technology.

now I don't expect anyone but us "uber geeks" (gamers and tech dorks) to do that but your rig is really showing it's age and most of the current beta's of games that are coming out this year would not run well if at all on that machine.

But since you pointed this out in the forum under "Game Performance" the second top thread is guess what? "Stutters(Release)" with 1,567 views and growing, but if I correctly understand this is not relevant enough for you.

You may want to try selecting an entry that is relevant to the point you are trying to make.

Stutters as mentioned in the thread you refer to generally speaking have specific causes:

1 - Slow HDD. You can run the BlueGene if you like, you'll still have that issue if your HDD just refuses to spin those platters.

2 - Erroneously set up HDD/SSD controllers.

3 - Porked sound drivers.

4 - Porked DirectSound runtime install.

5 - Codec conflicts with DirectSound/Drivers.

See, the entire rest of the machine may be made of gold paint and the dogs bollocks, but if you introduce issues like the above you'll still have the stutters. Sort those issues out and you'll be free of stutters even on otherwise ancient hardware.

So like StrongHarm said: well maintained machine = good performance.