1.5.2 Update

[BlackLion213]

Hi Rudel and Cobra,

 

Thank you for fixing the textures and finishing the MiG-21 liveries for the 1.5.2 update. Everything looks great and the new base color for VVS Grey is the best yet. Between the new base color and Tac numbers it really looks amazing.

 

We are all VERY excited to see what is coming, but thank you for the continued attention to the MiG. Even with NTTR out on Alpha, the MiG-21 is how I spend most of my time in DCS and I appreciate the consistent and excellent improvements. VVS grey is looking better than ever before.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the hard work and dedication. Hopefully some new Leatherneck pictures will show up soon. ;)

 

Best,

 

Nick

[grunf]

I was gonna say the same, you beat me to it. :D Nice shots BTW!

 

LNS, great work with the liveries! :thumbup:

 

[Kev2go]

Meanwhile still no hotfix for dc2.0 . there the mig21 remains broken without working switches or any sort of functionality.

 

a quick fix that was promised to take just a day or two has turned into a week.

 

many want to fly in nevada.

[Cobra847]

Thanks Nick & Grunf!

Still some improvements to be made. New pilot and sound down the line.

 

Meanwhile still no hotfix for dc2.0 . there the mig21 remains broken without working switches or any sort of functionality.

 

a quick fix that was promised to take just a day or two has turned into a week.

 

many want to fly in nevada.

 

DCS 2.0 is an Alpha. You should be prepared for nothing working at all with such a release.

 

We are working on a fix.

[Kev2go]

Thanks Nick & Grunf!

Still some improvements to be made. New pilot and sound down the line.

 

 

 

DCS 2.0 is an Alpha. You should be prepared for nothing working at all with such a release.

 

We are working on a fix.

 

apart from the mig21 & the VEO'S c101 having severe issues, all other modules were actually working fine on release of 2.0.

 

If nothing would be working at all then that wouldn't even qualify as an acceptable state for close alpha testing, let alone open Alpha. If im not mistaken 3rd party devs got access to the Closed Alpha Build so they could integrate thier modules/ update & prepare them for 2.0 engine, instead of hoping 1.5 build would work, well before its open alpha release for the public.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Kev2go

[jeffdude]

Mr Kev2go, I believe they have stated the issue, stated the problem, and have provided updates when available. I normally don't get on other users, but your post strikes me as rude at best. Perhaps you've never seen an alpha release before, but they are very commonly unplayable, the fact that we have access to any of it is pretty cool and I don't think your post will help the devs nor this community in anyway. Also the topic was for 1.5.

 

The 1.5 build for me plays great, the new skins are very cool. The FPS for this latest patch was improved slightly and made the entire experience better.

[BlackLion213]

I was gonna say the same, you beat me to it. :D Nice shots BTW!

 

Thank you! :)

 

I like yours as well, that's my second favorite scheme (well...maybe tied with the Bulgarian scheme ;)).

 

and yet all other modules apart from the mig21 the c101 were working on release of 2.0.

 

If nothing would be working at all then perhaps 2.0 wouldnt have been released even as alpha

 

Leatherneck got a hotfix out within a couple of hours with DCS1.5 - I guess the issues with DCS2 are proving harder to fix. See below.

 

We're trying to solve a bug where the sim crashes (in 2.0) when the Radar is turned on. It's proving to be a difficult fix.

 

Mr Kev2go, I believe they have stated the issue, stated the problem, and have provided updates when available. I normally don't get on other users, but your post strikes me as rude at best. Perhaps you've never seen an alpha release before, but they are very commonly unplayable, the fact that we have access to any of it is pretty cool and I don't think your post will help the devs nor this community in anyway. Also the topic was for 1.5.

 

The 1.5 build for me plays great, the new skins are very cool. The FPS for this latest patch was improved slightly and made the entire experience better.

 

Thank you, my sentiments exactly.

 

-Nick

Edited December 12, 2015 by BlackLion213

[Kev2go]

Mr Kev2go, I believe they have stated the issue, stated the problem, and have provided updates when available. I normally don't get on other users, but your post strikes me as rude at best. Perhaps you've never seen an alpha release before, but they are very commonly unplayable, the fact that we have access to any of it is pretty cool and I don't think your post will help the devs nor this community in anyway. Also the topic was for 1.5.

 

The 1.5 build for me plays great, the new skins are very cool. The FPS for this latest patch was improved slightly and made the entire experience better.

 

Its not 1.5 i have issue with. 1.5 was a smooth release, More than vegas but not much worse. and 1.5.1 and 1.52 have been great, but it's a beta not alpha.

 

Actually I have been part of open alphas. In my expereince It really depends on the developer,. I have had more positive experiences than utterly bad with alphas.

 

Arma 3 was actually surprisingly playable at open alpha back in 2013, even when I only had an older mid range system back then.

 

Just like DCS 2.0 generally is with the exception of the mig not working, and some fps drops around the vegas metropolitan area. Not to say there arent room for improvements, its just that all things considered there havent been any game breaking bugs on ED's part or most of the 3rd party developers, mostly just spit and polishing that needs to be done for things to be more stable and optimized

 

Apparently being critical is considered taboo, The "White Knights" have already come to the rescue.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Kev2go

[Harle]

Still some improvements to be made. New pilot and sound down the line.

 

Don't you think the ASP should be the 1st priority?

[BlackLion213]

Apparently being critical is considered taboo, The "White Knights" have already come to the rescue.

 

It's fine to criticize, though it's only productive if there is a specific goal. In this case, Leatherneck is undoubtably working to get the MiG-21 functioning right in DCS2.

 

It reminds me of something said to one of my colleagues during a case by the attending: "Come on, you need to move along faster...and be more careful". His response: "wait a minute, do you want be to go faster OR be more careful...because I can't do both". :)

 

My point asking for something to happen faster when someone is working as fast as they can is not going to change things. I'm sure Leatherneck wanted the MiG-21 to work perfectly in DCS2 and now they are working to fix it. Reminding them of that failing does little (or nothing) to change the situation - they just need to fix it.

 

With DCS1.5 there was a problem and they fixed it within hours. This time the fix is taking longer. I am confident that if there were a quick fix, it would be out already.

 

Do you disagree? Are they deliberately holding back on us? (if so...that would be something to criticize...;)).

 

-Nick

 

PS - this sounds more like constructive criticism/feedback.

 

Don't you think the ASP should be the 1st priority?

Edited December 12, 2015 by BlackLion213

[Andrei]

DCS 2.0 is an Alpha. You should be prepared for nothing working at all with such a release.

 

I must say though that Eagle Dynamics are setting the bar very high for the Alpha, as generally all things seem to work. Lot's of unfinished stuff, but nothing is deadly broken.

[TomCatMucDe]

apart from the mig21 & the VEO'S c101 having severe issues, all other modules were actually working fine on release of 2.0.

 

If nothing would be working at all then that wouldn't even qualify as an acceptable state for close alpha testing, let alone open Alpha. If im not mistaken 3rd party devs got access to the Closed Alpha Build so they could integrate thier modules/ update & prepare them for 2.0 engine, instead of hoping 1.5 build would work, well before its open alpha release for the public.

 

 

LNS are committed to release 2 other aircrafts and are working on them. They are not bounded to support an Alpha version of DCS. At least it shouldn't be their priority.

 

Remember, you having access to the alpha is a favor, "nice to have" let me say. So be happy with what you have and start complain when things, from LNS or ED, don't work in the release version.

[NeilWillis]

Its not 1.5 i have issue with. 1.5 was a smooth release, More than vegas but not much worse. and 1.5.1 and 1.52 have been great, but it's a beta not alpha.

 

 

Then why are you posting issues with 2.0 in a thread entitled 1.5.2 Update?

[Brisse]

I must say though that Eagle Dynamics are setting the bar very high for the Alpha, as generally all things seem to work. Lot's of unfinished stuff, but nothing is deadly broken.

 

I think they are being a bit loose with the terminology and only called it an open alpha to distinguish it from the already existing open beta. If we didn't already have an open beta, they would probably have called 2.0 an open beta at release.

[Kev2go]

LNS are committed to release 2 other aircrafts and are working on them. They are not bounded to support an Alpha version of DCS. At least it shouldn't be their priority.

 

Remember, you having access to the alpha is a favor, "nice to have" let me say. So be happy with what you have and start complain when things, from LNS or ED, don't work in the release version.

 

not really a favour as Nevada has been long overdue. It was supposed to have been release along with the a10c, all the way back in 2011. that and ed wanted to make some extra money now not later in a few months or however long before 2.0 is beta, or full stable release

Edited December 12, 2015 by Kev2go

[TomCatMucDe]

not really a favour as Nevada has been long overdue. It was supposed to have been release along with the a10c. that and ed wants to make some extra money now not later.

 

 

ED wanted to release an Alpha? Not the fault of third party developers. Nothing binds them to support an in stable software by definition.

[Kev2go]

ED wanted to release an Alpha? Not the fault of third party developers. Nothing binds them to support an in stable software by definition.

 

 

3rd party devs had access to Closed Alpha. SInce there was no heads up from them about any known possible major issues, it means they did not test run the Mig21 in Alpha build, if there were any issues. Im not even talking about having to support or fixing before the 2.0 release.

 

and they might as well suppost it since it wont bee too long before 1.5 is obsolete & Caucasus is integrated into 2.0 build.

 

anways I can wait for a fix.

 

I'm more interested in the What, Where and Why of the problem?

 

the First two are known.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Kev2go

[TomCatMucDe]

1.5.2 Update

 

3rd party devs had access to Closed aplha. SInce there was no heads up about any major issues, it means they neglected to test the Mig21 in Alpha, if there were any issues.

 

 

They have early access to the alpha but they have other projects they work on and again can't afford and not bound to support an Alpha!

Edited December 12, 2015 by TomCatMucDe

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I must say though that Eagle Dynamics are setting the bar very high for the Alpha, as generally all things seem to work. Lot's of unfinished stuff, but nothing is deadly broken.

 

Frankly, they're adhering to an old standard of what an Alpha is, sad to say. Good on them, for that.

[Cobra847]

I'm going to stop this discussion here.

Continue discussing 2.0 compatability in the appropriate 2.0 thread if you wish.

 

SInce there was no heads up from them about any known possible major issues, it means they did not test run the Mig21 in Alpha build, if there were any issues.

 

This is not true. The fact is that code can move so quickly (especially in a pre-release crunch prior to 2.0) that other parts can break without (or very little) warning.

Please understand that Software development does not work like you would imagine it to.

 

I'm more interested in the What where and Why of the problem?

 

The problem is pretty simple: There is a CTD compatability bug between the MiG-21 (radar, specifically) and 2.0 at present.

Fixes are not instantenous, especially when engine-level debugging is required. There is really no grand conspiracy at work.

 

You opted in to an alpha. ED has done a great job developing 2.0 and the branch is fairly stable, but that does notmean it is the norm.

[Kev2go]

Frankly, they're adhering to an old standard of what an Alpha is, sad to say. Good on them, for that.

 

It is good indeed. Some developers these days use Beta builds for a longer than necessary period of time as well as an excuse for when things not work * Cough War Thunder* , and only release a broken game sooner due to being greedy, and wanting cash asap.

 

I think both dcs 2.0 and 1.5 have been fairly stable especially when compared to certain Mega AAA Developers public release of a supposed "stable complete project".

 

Cough *Gta 4* *Cough Battlefield 4*

Edited December 12, 2015 by Kev2go

[LuSi_6]

still double HUD glass for MiG-21 in low settings :(

[Coxy_99]

apart from the mig21 & the VEO'S c101 having severe issues, all other modules were actually working fine on release of 2.0.

 

If nothing would be working at all then that wouldn't even qualify as an acceptable state for close alpha testing, let alone open Alpha. If im not mistaken 3rd party devs got access to the Closed Alpha Build so they could integrate thier modules/ update & prepare them for 2.0 engine, instead of hoping 1.5 build would work, well before its open alpha release for the public.

 

Its alpha and this is totally untrue check the bug thread :smilewink:

[Harle]

Since Cobra chose to ignore my question, I'd like to repeat it again.

Why no progress on ASP from one update to another?

The pipper still points sideways off the line of cannon fire (gyro+fixed beam), while it works just fine for rockets. Bombing CCIP capability still persists as ever. Radar locked aiborne targets (like il-76) are still impossible to hit with the cannon at distances 0,6-2 km.

Why does LN keep silent about ASP? Never bothered even to elaborate on the challenges they are facing implementing it so that we would understand what keeps them from getting it right.

[Cobra847]

Since Cobra chose to ignore my question, I'd like to repeat it again.

Why no progress on ASP from one update to another?

The pipper still points sideways off the line of cannon fire (gyro+fixed beam), while it works just fine for rockets. Bombing CCIP capability still persists as ever. Radar locked aiborne targets (like il-76) are still impossible to hit with the cannon at distances 0,6-2 km.

Why does LN keep silent about ASP? Never bothered even to elaborate on the challenges they are facing implementing it so that we would understand what keeps them from getting it right.

 

Why are you assuming I ignored your question? I don't have more time than taking a cursory glance at every thread.

The reason I did not mention the ASP in my response to Nick is that it is not relevant to art improvements (like Art and sound are).

 

Some ASP fixes are in the pipeline.

 

You don't see updates "from one update to the other" because that is not how software development works.