Note from Wags regarding VR in 2.1

[Goblin]

ED have not broken any promises

 

You're absolutely correct, BIGNEWY.

However, I suppose many users don't know the meaning of alpha and beta.

I, and I believe you as well, "grew up" with games entering Alpha testing when you first heard of them. Then they entered Beta testing. Some of us even managed to get in on a Beta test group. It was considered an honor, and you got your name in the credits. There was a special magic of hearing your very anticipated game had 'gone Gold' and was sent to the duplicators, because back then we needed our games on discs. :)

And then you anxiously waited at the game store. An actual brick and mortar, physical store. With people in it! You bought the game off the shelf, and brought it home. The fact that the game installed on the first attempt was considered above standard. There would of course be bugs. Sometimes the most glaring bugs were corrected in a patch. The patch was distributed via game magazines that had CD pockets, or you actually knew a guy you could contact on your dial-up line and copy from. Then the game was abandoned. The developers moved on to the next title.

Being stuck with a game that was what it was. There were still problems with it. You even needed to adjust your OS startup files to free enough RAM. You either lived with it, or you moved on as well.

Many younger users haven't been through this process. They have no idea what I just wrote.

 

It's up to old farts, like me, to tell them that they are much better off today! It definitely wasn't better in the old days.

 

DCS is a Simulator of such a scale that is has no rival. Microsoft Flightsim is perhaps the best comparison. But even that title pales in comparison when you look at the fidelity of flightmodels, graphics and systems.

 

Development of something as huge as DCS takes time. In fact, it can't stop.

Instead of pushing something out the door, take your money and leave, ED is sticking with it. They continue to push the boundaries of flightsim development.

Yeah, there are bugs. Several. Some showstoppers even. I like finding them so I can report to the developer, so they can fix them. I always revel in the next update. What have they done this time?

 

Not everybody is like me. Some users just want to start their PC like it's some sort of console and just play a game, or sim. These users should not download the alphas and betas. They're much better off sticking with the stable releases and waiting for the test versions to become stable releases.

Maybe this should be communicated in a better way? Nobody reads the EULA. Maybe a start-up video telling the user that he or she are now about to download unfinished software, and what they might expect..? Like those annoying youtube commercials.

 

Ah... Who am I kidding? Nobody read this far anyway. ;)

Edited June 11, 2017 by Goblin

[BIGNEWY]

:) I read it

 

and I agree things are much better this way, development is very dynamic now and constant, ED are always working hard to bring us the best they can. Those of us who have been around a long time will know it will be worth the wait.

 

The alpha and beta titles can confuse some people, which is why ED prefer to use early access now, I think it helps us all understand a little better.

 

p.s Credits are in the editor, and even all beta testers get a shout out from ED :)

[Hawkeye60]

You're absolutely correct, BIGNEWY.

However, I suppose many users don't know the meaning of alpha and beta.

I, and I believe you as well, "grew up" with games entering Alpha testing when you first heard of them. Then they entered Beta testing. Some of us even managed to get in on a Beta test group. It was considered an honor, and you got your name in the credits. There was a special magic of hearing your very anticipated game had 'gone Gold' and was sent to the duplicators, because back then we needed our games on discs.

And then you anxiously waited at the game store. An actual brick and mortar, physical store. With people in it! You bought the game off the shelf, and brought it home. The fact that the game installed on the first attempt was considered above standard. There would of course be bugs. Sometimes the most glaring bugs were corrected in a patch. The patch was distributed via game magazines that had CD pockets, or you actually knew a guy you could contact on your dial-up line and copy from. Then the game was abandoned. The developers moved on to the next title.

Being stuck with a game that was what it was. There were still problems with it. You even needed to adjust your OS startup files to free enough RAM. You either lived with it, or you moved on as well.

Many younger users haven't been through this process. They have no idea what I just wrote.

 

It's up to old farts, like me, to tell them that they are much better off today! It definitely wasn't better in the old days.

 

DCS is a Simulator of such a scale that is has no rival. Microsoft Flightsim is perhaps the best comparison. But even that title pales in comparison when you look at the fidelity of flightmodels, graphics and systems.

 

Development of something as huge as DCS takes time. In fact, it can't stop.

Instead of pushing something out the door, take you money and leave, ED is sticking with it. They continue to push the boundaries of flightsim development.

Yeah, there are bugs. Several. Some showstoppers even. I like finding them so I can report to the developer, so they can fix them. I always revel in the next update. What have they done this time?

 

Not everybody is like me. Some users just want to start their PC like it's some sort of console and just play a game, or sim. These users should not download the alphas and betas. They're much better off sticking with the stable releases and waiting for the test versions to become stable releases.

Maybe this should be communicated in a better way? Nobody reads the EULA. Maybe a start-up video telling the user that he or she are now about to download unfinished software, and what they might expect..? Like those annoying youtube commercials.

 

Ah... Who am I kidding? Nobody read this far anyway.

This should be required reading before being allowed to download any Alpha or Beta release!

 

Perhaps not these exact words but a similar idea.

 

No, I take that back, This exact post!

 

It conveys the experience all us "OLD TIMERS" have shared.

 

My favorite?

Manipulating the config.sys and autoexec.bat files trying to squeeze enough upper memory out so I could run Falcon 3! On a 486 DX4! (I could not afford a Pentium!)

I remember memory managers were big items back then!

 

Well said!

 

Brought back memories! Not always good ones either! LOL

 

Hawkeye

[nrgized]

This should be required reading before being allowed to download any Alpha or Beta release!

 

Perhaps not these exact words but a similar idea.

 

No, I take that back, This exact post!

 

It conveys the experience all us "OLD TIMERS" have shared.

 

My favorite?

Manipulating the config.sys and autoexec.bat files trying to squeeze enough upper memory out so I could run Falcon 3! On a 486 DX4! (I could not afford a Pentium!)

I remember memory managers were big items back then!

 

Well said!

 

Brought back memories! Not always good ones either! LOL

 

Hawkeye

 

 

 

Required reading? I think history should be.

 

Especially the part about how game companies switched from internal alphas closed betas to letting the public do it for them. And later learning that the average joe is such a sucker he will even pay full price for the privilege of being the guinea pig.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Goblin]

:) I read it

 

You deserve a medal! ;)

 

The alpha and beta titles can confuse some people, which is why ED prefer to use early access now, I think it helps us all understand a little better.

 

Perhaps... But reading the forums tell me that some just read the words 'early access' and think it's a done deal. Finished! Ready to play. You just bought it a bit earlier than the rest. :)

[Goblin]

(I could not afford a Pentium!)

 

When the Pentium arrived, I actually thought I'd never afford one :)

 

Well said!

 

Thanks!

[hansangb]

This is exactly why I didn't buy Normandy. Burned me once with NTTR, never again.

ED simply cannot be trusted with any promises or expectations.

 

They'll need to win me back by delivering at least 2 products on schedule (alpha doesn't count!) and in decent quality (performance included). Until then, I'll stay away and save myself the frustration.

 

 

I'm taking it you mean Vive and DCS? You do realize that until very recently, Vive has been sucking in performance compared to Rift because of the late adoption of ATW/ASW technology. NTTR has been very smooth in VR for some time now. 2.1 broke some stuff for folks with deferred shading but I haven't had any issues there either.

 

But as you said, why pay for aggravation if you're not a tinkering. Wait for GA release and save yourself the heartburn.

[Goblin]

Especially the part about how game companies switched from internal alphas closed betas to letting the public do it for them. And later learning that the average joe is such a sucker he will even pay full price for the privilege of being the guinea pig.

 

The hen or the egg..?

 

The fact that testing was internal and closed, came out of necessity. Group communication was cumbersome. Updates came per regular snail mail. Discs in an envelope. Feedback via email, or newsgroups.

There were also a lot of users wanting in on the testing. We practically begged developers to get to test. And yes, if paying for it was an option, many would have.

 

Let me tell you something about Average Joe. He will buy smokes, even if he knows smoking is hazardous, and will kill him. It actually says so on the package, black on white. He still smokes. You can tell Joe that this software is unfinished and buggy. But he will only see the cool youtube videos and the screenshots, and then post about how he gets lousy performance and even accuse everybody else of lying, who says they don't.

Is the developer to blame for all this? Not if they tell Joe that the software is undergoing testing and will have faults and problems.

[Astronut]

It seems pretty simple to me. If software is released as early access/Beta or Alpha, then the choice is entirely yours as to whether you jump in now or wait for however long it takes for the developer to finish it. Nobody is forced to buy an early access title. Frankly, this is one of the most exciting times to be involved in this hobby. We have amazing sims (and DCS is pretty amazing when you think it), VR, a slew of new modules on the near horizon, did i mention VR ?

 

I had my first flight sim on the Sinclair ZX Spectrum back in 1984 (Psion's Flight Simulation). When I think how far we have come since those days it blows my mind. And yet we complain incessantly. LOL. We have never had it so good.

[hansangb]

The hen or the egg..?

--snippage--

He will buy smokes, even if he knows smoking is hazardous, and will kill him.

 

LOL. It may be the first time alpha/beta code was discussed with cigarettes. But spot on.

 

 

It seems pretty simple to me. If software is released as early access/Beta or Alpha, then the choice is entirely yours as to whether you jump in now or wait for however long it takes for the developer to finish it. Nobody is forced to buy an early access title. Frankly, this is one of the most exciting times to be involved in this hobby. We have amazing sims (and DCS is pretty amazing when you think it), VR, a slew of new modules on the near horizon, did i mention VR ?

 

I had my first flight sim on the Sinclair ZX Spectrum back in 1984 (Psion's Flight Simulation). When I think how far we have come since those days it blows my mind. And yet we complain incessantly. LOL. We have never had it so good.

 

 

I know, right? I mean with VR it's like I'm sitting in the A10/Huey/Spitfire/Mustang. I mean come on!!! :joystick::joystick:

[Goblin]

It seems pretty simple to me. If software is released as early access/Beta or Alpha, then the choice is entirely yours as to whether you jump in now or wait for however long it takes for the developer to finish it. Nobody is forced to buy an early access title.

 

Simple for you and me, yes. But think of all the new guys who grew up on consoles. They don't have our background. I don't think they understand the development process of a game.

 

I had my first flight sim on the Sinclair ZX Spectrum back in 1984 (Psion's Flight Simulation). When I think how far we have come since those days it blows my mind. And yet we complain incessantly. LOL. We have never had it so good.

 

I started in the mid -80ies as well, on a C=64 and SubLogic Flight simulator.

And I agree. These are the best days. Although I enjoyed the old days as well, because we always had the best flightsims ever produced back then as well. :)

[NeilWillis]

I simply don't buy the alpha argument anymore. I've paid more than $200 in this game - I feel that 'entitles' me to expect a playable game.

 

Here is the core of your frustration. You honestly think in the great scheme of things $200 counts for anything at all?

 

Frankly, not buying reality is just a recipe for a lifetime of frustration. Chill out a little, relax, take a breath, and your blood pressure will come down.

 

Whether you like it or like it not, Alpha releases are exactly what they say on the tin. Un-optimized, rough at the edges, and unfinished. No one asked you to participate, you chose to, and this is what you get.

 

As a little perspective for you, I went out for a meal with my wife last night. The bill was over $200 and today, I shall evacuate the last traces of that meal. I felt I got great value for money!

[VampireNZ]

As a little perspective for you, I went out for a meal with my wife last night. The bill was over $200 and today, I shall evacuate the last traces of that meal. I felt I got great value for money!

 

A very colourful analogy - thank you so much for sharing...

 

Now please, if we could get back to Astronut, Goblin and hansangb high-fiving each other with hearty back slaps all around, that would just be super.. :music_whistling:

[awjudge]

This.

 

 

Whether you like it or like it not, Alpha releases are exactly what they say on the tin. Un-optimized, rough at the edges, and unfinished. No one asked you to participate, you chose to, and this is what you get.

[Hawkeye60]

I started in the mid -80ies as well, on a C=64 and SubLogic Flight simulator.

Mine was a Apple IIc and IIE, same game program and date!

 

Wire graphic aircraft, solid line horizon, green ground, blue sky!

 

And I was in HEAVEN! :megalol:

 

Ahh.... The good old days..............:music_whistling:

[Hawkeye60]

I still have the IIE and it still works!

 

A IIGS maxed out as well fully working. With a Focus hard drive!

I will set it up and show you guys what 90's tech looks like today, working!

 

 

edit,

 

Sorry, No VR! :D

[nachomaga]

Yes, totally offtopic, but fun :) My first sim was Tomahawk for Spectrum, 3D wire graphics too. Its funny that sometimes in VR with the low res we have now, I have the same feeling of 80s 90s graphics... well, sort of, hehe

[Goblin]

Wire graphic aircraft, solid line horizon, green ground, blue sky!

 

And digital on/off joysticks! It was like flying with the trim hat! I still remember my first successful landing...

 

Oh, I don't know why VampireNZ left you out, but here's a high five and a hearty backslap for ya! :megalol:

[Verde]

Whether you like it or like it not, Alpha releases are exactly what they say on the tin. Un-optimized, rough at the edges, and unfinished. No one asked you to participate, you chose to, and this is what you get.

 

So basicly

1.5.6 is beta so not ready... Not designed for VR

2.1. alfa even further away...

2.5 maybe will come in the late 2017 or even later...

then it will be gamma, beta, alfa etc for 3 more years....

What you wanna say that it is ok to develop such things as keeping performance cap below VR specified! (only top end gear on low settings can keep 90pfs all round in battle scenario)

So devs should warn the buyer that he will not get noprmal VR performance for the 5years minimum.

PRoblem is DCS has always performed poor. In every iteration 1.2, 1.5 and 2.0 it was never a super fluent, what warries me the most, nowhere near it is a priority. Performance of the game itself is nearly the main factor itself. What i want to see is some movement in performance optimizations, even on yearly basis. But year after year nothing becomes stutterless. Just some problems that makes things worse, than back to what was before! Ok 1.5 did make some improvement, but thats not perfect for sure. What i want to see is performance on the priority list with proven FPS etc. Mind you tripple screen owners arent getting the best performance as well. Remember it is 2017 you cannot develop things as long as yesterday!

Edited June 12, 2017 by Verde

[hansangb]

Again, I know some folks are having issues. I'm not denying that folks are having issues. But lucky for me, I'm not. I can maintain 90 in 1.5 beta, and 45FPS (w/ ASW) in 2.1 Normandy/NTTR. I'd like 90FPS, but I can live with 45FPS for now.

 

I'm using VR preset and cranked the MSAA to x2, if memory serves. I'm replacing my MB at the moment (went bad on me) so I can't test further for another two weeks (RMA plus business trip).

 

hsb

[Verde]

As far as i know there is no system that does 90FPS in normal battle scenario not some free flight with one plane. Take some su-25T stoack campaign first mission and you will see much worse results. I have done many procesors AMD and nvidia cards etc Even my 5.1ghz 7700 is not giving you stable 90 fps in every scenario.

[Verde]

If you have to overclock your pc (thats already outside all normal performance gains or hardware warranty things), take best performing CPU with highest clocks and still get non 90 fps in low settings scenario. You call that unoptimized!!! Rifts 2 projections in HD is quite low, call it what you want non of the existing DCS versions is able multi monitor setups or VR in decent FPS in non LOW setting config. Playing single monitor DCS is like playing sims with keyboard only. I have done it all tripple screens rift, multiple pc specs etc. So just don`t tell me that game runs great without real evidence or video.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Verde

[Cake]

Does ED have to somehow balance the effort on developing the base simulation vs developing new modules? Seems like right now they are focused on a new modules.

 

I know the revenue streams are tied more to selling modules, but it seems like there is in fact much room to improve the DCS world base with DX12, more threads, etc.

 

We see game titles already in full release updated to higher DX versions with some regularity. I have personally noticed performance increases as a result.

 

I wonder where we would be with this if the base was open source.

[Goblin]

So...who else is making a combat flightsimulator with this kind of realism and magnitude..?

[Verde]

Thats not answer! Thats question! Nobody does but it does not mean you can ignore performance! Give us options tu turn down settings, or optimise the game. There should be vision in making it a better performer. Strangly devs asked for finding issues with 2.1 so they can look for the most obvious problems. All forum is filled with performance problems, but on devs priority list i dont see performance issues as some sort of priority!