should 2.5 looks like that??

[imacken]

Well, the others betas are different from this one: in the other ones you already have a release version, and you are trying to fix bugs or implement new features. This, instead, is a TESTING phase beta, where you still don't have a final version, and you are going to encounter every sort of bug that still needs to be fixed by the dev team, and I think that the most important thing here is to help them to find new bugs

Not sure I agree. This is probably an evolution of 2.2 Open Alpha. Anyway,, ED say that the release version will be following in 1-2 weeks! In my opinion, that is not going to happen. Too many issues to resolve in that space of time.

[dedde01]

Not sure I agree. This is probably an evolution of 2.2 Open Alpha. Anyway,, ED say that the release version will be following in 1-2 weeks! In my opinion, that is not going to happen. Too many issues to resolve in that space of time.

 

Well I see what you mean but the map is completely new, and it is also a little bit different I think from the open alpha.

About the release time, it depends on how much they focus on it: now that they have only one version to fix:lol: it's gonna be easier... I trust them:D

THEY CAN DO IT!!:pilotfly:

[imacken]

Well I see what you mean but the map is completely new, and it is also a little bit different I think from the open alpha.

About the release time, it depends on how much they focus on it: now that they have only one version to fix:lol: it's gonna be easier... I trust them:D

THEY CAN DO IT!!:pilotfly:

It’s not the map that’s the issue. All the same problems are there in the Normandy and NTTR maps.

There are issues with the new map as well though. Mainly, the horrible trees when Deferred Shading is switched off.

Edited February 3, 2018 by imacken

[Oban]

Yes Sir I do understand that. "Beta" allright, but we have seen other "Beta" releases that by the time they releases it was better than this. This is not a bad release, not att all! But the bugs, issues, problems with textures, preformance, AA etc, is a true drawback from other "Beta" releases.

 

Many of the problems you're alluding to are down to the individuals personal set ups, and graphics card settings etc, as not everyone is suffering from the same issues, and anyone who thought that this release, would be as polished as a diamond had way too high expectations for an initial release IMHO.

 

Name one flight sim/game as complex as DCS, that hasn't had its fair share of issues on release? with all the issues you've brought up.

 

Interestingly, you don't actually list the issues you're having..

 

Some users are just straight up lucky, and everything performance, and graphics wise does as it should, without having to use the likes of reshade, or their GPU settings..

 

Can't speak on behalf of others, but for me personally, I'm getting better FPS than 2.2/1.58, no graphics issues apart from the odd slow load time, which lasts a few seconds.

I'm not using a beast of a machine either, i5 4460, 16GB RAM and nvidea GTX 970, have pretty much everything set to High by default, and MSAA and AA turned to Max, there's an odd stutter, but other than that, feels and looks good from my own perspective.. however, like all software, not everyone gets the same experience.

 

Some of the DCS fly boys have clamoured for this release for months, and now that it's here, the issues are being thrown back in their faces because again, some of them are sadly not seeing what others are seeing, for some reason or another.

 

Things can only get better, you can rest assured ED will be following up on these issues, and don't forget, it's a brand new build, as in the Terrain.

 

I love it, down low, flying in between the valleys, has a much better feel than any of the previous ED releases..

 

Happy Flying :D

[Dav IRL]

...Its strange and odd that ED released this "unfinished" update without having it another go at the workbench. They had promised us (wich was too bad, I think) to release it before en of Januari. And this is the result, a non finished "update". Not just only one but so many steps back compared to 1.5.8 in so many aspects. I could easily have waited another month or two for this, and for a finished an "cleaned up" update.

ED and their team has over the years given us state of the art flightsim and realism. Top notch!

But this is not even close what we are used to...

Regards

Per

 

It is clear with DS off the engine needs work however I am glad to have the update now so any more changes can be done incrementally as opposed to having two versions on the one system.

[imacken]

Many of the problems you're alluding to are down to the individuals personal set ups, and graphics card settings etc, as not everyone is suffering from the same issues, and anyone who thought that this release, would be as polished as a diamond had way too high expectations for an initial release IMHO.

 

Name one flight sim/game as complex as DCS, that hasn't had its fair share of issues on release? with all the issues you've brought up.

 

Interestingly, you don't actually list the issues you're having..

 

Some users are just straight up lucky, and everything performance, and graphics wise does as it should, without having to use the likes of reshade, or their GPU settings..

 

Can't speak on behalf of others, but for me personally, I'm getting better FPS than 2.2/1.58, no graphics issues apart from the odd slow load time, which lasts a few seconds.

I'm not using a beast of a machine either, i5 4460, 16GB RAM and nvidea GTX 970, have pretty much everything set to High by default, and MSAA and AA turned to Max, there's an odd stutter, but other than that, feels and looks good from my own perspective.. however, like all software, not everyone gets the same experience.

 

Some of the DCS fly boys have clamoured for this release for months, and now that it's here, the issues are being thrown back in their faces because again, some of them are sadly not seeing what others are seeing, for some reason or another.

 

Things can only get better, you can rest assured ED will be following up on these issues, and don't forget, it's a brand new build, as in the Terrain.

 

I love it, down low, flying in between the valleys, has a much better feel than any of the previous ED releases..

 

Happy Flying :D

Nobody is saying that issues with beta software were unexpected. However, this beta should almost be regarded as a 'release candidate' as ED have stated that the release version will come in a week or two depending on how the beta was received.

The poster doesn't have to list the issues every time. They are being well documented now after a few days of the beta release.

You seem to focus on fps performance, but that is one area that everyone seems happy about!

The focus of attention is on the colour palette, too dark/too light cockpits, issues with DS on and off, etc. These things are pretty basic, and it is surprising that some of them made it this far.

Other issues - e.g. corrupted kneepads, corrupted MFD maps - are expected.

Try taking off in a P51 in the Instant Action Take Off missions at Batumi. Do you like the detail and lighting of the cockpit? What about the black, no detailed sea?

As I said earlier, this is not a new Caucusus map problem. Normandy is worse for the reported issues, and NTTR looks totally unreal with DS switched off.

Everything looks perfect with DS switched off - except for trees!

Work to be done, and I'm sure ED will get there, but as for a release version within a week or so, I doubt it. But... I hope I'm wrong!

EDIT: My mistake, the P51 Take Off Instant Action mission I mentioned above shows the fogged sea, try the A-10C Training Take Off Mission at Batumi with DS on for the (almost) black sea issue.

Edited February 3, 2018 by imacken

[Oban]

 

Couldn't find any A10 training mission from Batumi, but that's the F5E one, the cockpit lighting/colours look normal/natural/as should be to me ?

Not seeing the sea as black with no detail either..

 

As you an see from my settings, I'm pushing the boundaries in terms of shading, and AA, but it's working for me with DS on..

[Hoffster]

That is how the instruments are for me to on every AA setting, almost unreadable, very jagged.

[imacken]

Couldn't find any A10 training mission from Batumi, but that's the F5E one, the cockpit lighting/colours look normal/natural/as should be to me ?

Not seeing the sea as black with no detail either..

 

As you an see from my settings, I'm pushing the boundaries in terms of shading, and AA, but it's working for me with DS on..

The Batumi Training Mission is 'Take Off and Basic Handling' for the A-10.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you. The sea in your bottom image just does not look natural. Have you ever seen sea that dark, especially near the shore?

I've posted a couple more comparisons. One is the A-10 taking off at Batumi in the Training Mission with DS on top, and the second is the F5 Instant Action taking off at Batumi with the DS version on the bottom.

I have put my settings to more or less match the ones you posted.

Look at the sea. Which is more 'natural'?

[Oban]

I don't seem to have that mission, the A10 one..

 

How can you disagree, when I posted exactly what I'm seeing, you have stated that the sea was black and devoid of any feature, and yet the same one you post with DS off looks not much different? I fail to see what point you're trying to make here, other than that DS doesn't seem to be working for you, and several others..you're comparing apples to Oranges with the look of the sea, unless you have a gradient shoreline and more opacity, then of course the sea is going to look the same at the shoreline.

 

What's clear from your pictures, is that DS needs to be on in your case, when I take off DS, everything has more of a washed out look to it, and the saturation is poor, and reminiscent of 1.5XX hence why people are using reshade, without DS..

 

Isn't this merely a case of making the video settings work for you ?

 

I have no technical answer mate, it could also come down to the manufacture of the GPU card, DS off is bland, and piss poor for me, DS on, is a whole lot better, doesn't this come down to personal preferences as well??

[imacken]

Are you serious? You think the bottom image in my A-10 comparison has a more realistic sea than the top one? Wow! The DS version is nothing but a homogeneous dark blob! It's to do with the time of day. Take the same mission and change the time in ME, and the sea looks perfect.

DS IS working for me. It looks amazing 90% of the time. However, there are clearly issues with lighting, colour palette, and cockpit light levels for different times of the day, i.e. sun positions, that need tweaking as the beta process continues.

I'm not looking for a technical answer. Just trying to point out some issues that need addressing during the beta phase.

[Oban]

Are you serious? You think the bottom image in my A-10 comparison has a more realistic sea than the top one? Wow! The DS version is nothing but a homogeneous dark blob! It's to do with the time of day. Take the same mission and change the time in ME, and the sea looks perfect.

DS IS working for me. It looks amazing 90% of the time. However, there are clearly issues with lighting, colour palette, and cockpit light levels for different times of the day, i.e. sun positions, that need tweaking as the beta process continues.

I'm not looking for a technical answer. Just trying to point out some issues that need addressing during the beta phase.

 

Where did I say anything in your screens was more realistic? I said theres not much difference in the sea textures, when you have DS off compared to mine being on.. :thumbup:

 

I've posted pics of my DS on, and they're not the same as yours, on or off and yet you're disputing something I'm not seeing with DS on or off with the same mission? Apples and Oranges, I just did the free fly over Nevada with the F5E, with DS on/off, the difference leaps out at you, for me, again DS seems to be doing its job, everything is crisper, and Richer, if that makes sense?

 

As I said from the start, DS off for me is flat washed out, poor textures, DS on, a million times better..

 

If we're going to be nit picky about the sea, unless it's flat calm, they can lose the land reflections that ARE present with DS on :smilewink: as it's not realistic either !

 

And what I meant was in my previous post DS needs to be off, not on, for the sea textures.. just a simple typo .

[imacken]

It's not apples and oranges at all. We are talking about how DCS renders the same scene under different circumstances.

If you honestly believe that the sea in my top F-5 image looks more natural than the bottom one, then I am going to pick up the phone and call an optician!

Re NTTR, I couldn't agree more, it looks superb with DS and washed out without it. That is largely because there is no sea in NTTR!

As I said, for 90% of Caucusus and Normandy, 2.5 looks superb with DS on, but - at the risk of repeating myself - there is still work to do with regard to water and cockpits and how they appear under certain lighting (time of day) conditions.

[dedde01]

This is with DS on... there is only one problem here: the lights...

Outside it's too bright while inside the cockpit you can barely see the instruments.

This is with gamma 1.6

[Oban]

It's not apples and oranges at all. We are talking about how DCS renders the same scene under different circumstances.

 

with different PC specs, and hardware.. what I'm noticing, regardless of the aircraft, with DS On, there's never been a difference with how the sea looks on my system, but there deffo seems to be an issue with yours.. even with 3rd party addons, it's not making any difference to performance for me, I'm simply not seeing what you're seeing, unless I switch off DS, then it goes flat, and the sea loses vibrance.. but I just don't get the flat dark sea look.

 

I'm not wanting to mess about with any settings right now, as I'm pretty happy with the results I'm seeing, and getting, there's always graphical issues with updates, due to the varying hardware the end user is using, and also the age and lifespan of things such as monitors etc.

 

No matter, I'm sure the guys at ED will have it all sorted over a period of time, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't and if they hadn't of released, when they said they would, there would still be an uproar, I can bide my time, right now my main joystik piled in and stopped working, so trying to enjoy the terrains using a game controller, that's seriously over sensitive!! :D

[ebabil]

This is with DS on... there is only one problem here: the lights...

Outside it's too bright while inside the cockpit you can barely see the instruments.

This is with gamma 1.6

[ATTACH]177694[/ATTACH]

 

so true

[bulding]

what exactly is it for scale gui in graphic option ??:music_whistling:

[libory]

Not sure but... I see the new 2.5 map very bad....

 

I have never seen fluorescent green trees or grass can damage your eyes because is too green, everything looks like a golf course...

 

YES, trees are many and many trees but what about the rest of the map.

 

Areas with fields are boring and made out ... a plotter or CNC or laser cut?

 

Transitions from grass to any other type of terrain are very bad...

 

The ground of the cities are very bad too.. from high altitude it looks very bad.

 

And yes... 99% of the time I am inside of the cockpit so for me the environment is very important.

 

IL2 BOS looks 10 times much better in my opinion than 2.5...

 

Sorry but very disappointed..

[Balzarog]

Are you serious? You think the bottom image in my A-10 comparison has a more realistic sea than the top one? Wow! The DS version is nothing but a homogeneous dark blob! It's to do with the time of day. Take the same mission and change the time in ME, and the sea looks perfect.

DS IS working for me. It looks amazing 90% of the time. However, there are clearly issues with lighting, colour palette, and cockpit light levels for different times of the day, i.e. sun positions, that need tweaking as the beta process continues.

I'm not looking for a technical answer. Just trying to point out some issues that need addressing during the beta phase.

 

Could you please expand on what a "realistic" sea should look like? I have lived on the northeast coast of Massachusetts for 68 years, literally within walking distance of Atlantic Ocean. I have sailed on it, fished in it, swam in it, and flown over it, and at no time has it ever looked the same. The time of day, time of year, cloud cover, or lack thereof, wind speed, wind direction, barometric pressure, temperature, whether the tide is ebbing or rising, etc, etc, etc, all contribute to how the sea looks. The instant missions or training missions that you used have settings that were made years ago for 1.x.x. Who's to say that they look the same for your set up and settings as for someone else? Don't forget that your monitor and display settings or VR equipment also affect what you see. I've been flying the Huey out of Azeville in Normandy in a mission that I created to practice flying the Huey. I've been using that mission now to specifically test my settings. Normandy, with all my settings on high, delivers about 45-52 FPS (30FPS with VSYNC) on my system, and it is absolutely gorgeous except for one area of untextured terrain if you fly a heading of 299 out of Azeville. I know it's from 2.5, because it isn't the same in 2.2. Since I know it's an issue with 2.5, I've made a bug report. Have you reported your bugs or have you just complained on the forum? As a beta tester, it is YOUR OBLIGATION to REPORT issues, not just complain about how much 2.5 open beta sucks. If you don't like it, just uninstall 2.5 open beta and wait until the release version comes out.

[Balzarog]

Not sure but... I see the new 2.5 map very bad....

 

I have never seen fluorescent green trees or grass can damage your eyes because is too green, everything looks like a golf course...

 

YES, trees are many and many trees but what about the rest of the map.

 

Areas with fields are boring and made out ... a plotter or CNC or laser cut?

 

Transitions from grass to any other type of terrain are very bad...

 

The ground of the cities are very bad too.. from high altitude it looks very bad.

 

And yes... 99% of the time I am inside of the cockpit so for me the environment is very important.

 

IL2 BOS looks 10 times much better in my opinion than 2.5...

 

Sorry but very disappointed..

 

What are your system specs and your settings? It sounds to me that your issues are caused by you, not DCS. I fly in IL-2 BOS also, and yes, the graphics are very nice without a lot of settings. Perhaps IL-2 BOS is able to devote more resources to the graphics because the aircraft and flight models are much simpler. IL-2 BOS practically flys the airplane for you, unlike DCS.

 

Have you submitted a bug report yet with your logs? Don't just complain, help to fix the bugs.

[imacken]

Could you please expand on what a "realistic" sea should look like?

I live by the coast too, and I am very familiar with what real sea looks like, and I can assure you that it NEVER looks like a big black blob. Maybe things are different in Massachusetts.

If you don't like it, just uninstall 2.5 open beta and wait until the release version comes out.

I really don't know why I am responding to this, but, oh well....

I can only presume you haven't actually read this thread, otherwise you wouldn't be making such an inappropriate comment.

As an aside, I am an Apple developer, and I have been involved in beta testing many projects over many years now. I am well aware of my responsibilities, which is why I have raised some concerns in the appropriate place, i.e. here.

As another aside, you will see that I have resolved why my seas were not looking 'realistic'.

[imacken]

with different PC specs, and hardware.. what I'm noticing, regardless of the aircraft, with DS On, there's never been a difference with how the sea looks on my system, but there deffo seems to be an issue with yours.. even with 3rd party addons, it's not making any difference to performance for me, I'm simply not seeing what you're seeing, unless I switch off DS, then it goes flat, and the sea loses vibrance.. but I just don't get the flat dark sea look.

 

I'm not wanting to mess about with any settings right now, as I'm pretty happy with the results I'm seeing, and getting, there's always graphical issues with updates, due to the varying hardware the end user is using, and also the age and lifespan of things such as monitors etc.

 

No matter, I'm sure the guys at ED will have it all sorted over a period of time, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't and if they hadn't of released, when they said they would, there would still be an uproar, I can bide my time, right now my main joystik piled in and stopped working, so trying to enjoy the terrains using a game controller, that's seriously over sensitive!! :D

Good news, I've resolved the sea issue I was having! It was down to having Water set to low. I changed it to high, and you can see the results in the attachment. both images are with DS on. Top one has low Water, and bottom one has High. What a difference!

Doesn't seem to have very much effect of fps either, so it's a win-win situation!

[dax]

What are your system specs and your settings? It sounds to me that your issues are caused by you, not DCS. I fly in IL-2 BOS also, and yes, the graphics are very nice without a lot of settings. Perhaps IL-2 BOS is able to devote more resources to the graphics because the aircraft and flight models are much simpler. IL-2 BOS practically flys the airplane for you, unlike DCS.

 

Have you submitted a bug report yet with your logs? Don't just complain, help to fix the bugs.

Excellent ! :)

As usual, shortly after a beta release, people start complaining everywhere about bugs and regressions.

The purpose of a beta release is to allow beta testers to test and come with bug reports based on tangible and reproducible observations...

[Balzarog]

what exactly is it for scale gui in graphic option ??:music_whistling:

 

I'm sure someone will help to set me straight if I'm wrong :smilewink:, but I believe it scales the size of your GUI and text based on your monitor or display resolution. For example, when I got a 4K monitor, I reset my resolution in my DCS GUI from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. My GUI and text were small and difficult to read, especially the comm "F#" commands. After I enabled Scale GUI, it all was larger and much easier to read. I just disabled it to test it's effect on FPS in Normady, and the GUI text is smaller again. I haven't had a chance yet to check the comm menus.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Balzarog

[Balzarog]

Good news, I've resolved the sea issue I was having! It was down to having Water set to low. I changed it to high, and you can see the results in the attachment. both images are with DS on. Top one has low Water, and bottom one has High. What a difference!

Doesn't seem to have very much effect of fps either, so it's a win-win situation!

 

Glad to hear that! I've been using Water set to high for a while, and didn't realize that it could have so much effect on how the water surface looks.