2.5 update first impressions

[FragBum]

Seems the 2.5 update is a bit of a lottery in terms of what works and what the various settings end up after the update are. Well out of the box was well really krappy performance but having endured a few DCS updates I just went through the process and re tweaked settings and it's flyable and looks better (mostly*) in VR.

 

Ironically I upgraded my graphics from 980Ti to 1080Ti so I had one night on DCS 2.2.x with 1080Ti that was nice but as with computer applications seems the DCS 2.5 update ate most of the performance gained, that's progress I guess.

 

If you want to keep you existing logbook details you need to back it up if you do the upgrade of your existing 2.2.x OpenAlpha and paste it back in to the directory.

 

Also it wasn't obvious in the prompts but if you upgrade it will also blow away any missions you might have made up in 2.2 something to be aware of before doing an upgrade. I don't even know if they would have been compatible in 2.5.

 

 

Over all it works and I can still have fun. :thumbup:

 

So begins the next lesson in patience as only DCS can teach, as we wait for optimisations. :P

 

* I say mostly as I really couldn't run deferred shading with the 980Ti but I can now unfortunately it's not a valid apples for apples comparison. :D

[=4c=Nikola]

To play latest games, you have to have latest hardware. Thats a bitter reality of gaming.

 

That's simply not true at all. I play latest games with mixed components ranging from 2012. to 2014.

 

Yes, in 2013-2014. I played at maximum settings. Today's games have same quality and performance at medium settings as 2013-2014 games at max settings. Nothing really changed for me, my experience remained same because quality of 2017. medium settings is equal to the 2013. max settings.

 

DCS is quite different. While it's true that DCS 2.5 at max settings looks impressive, DCS 2.5 at medium settings looks worse and perform worse than DCS 1.5 at medium settings.

[Zimmerdylan]

That's simply not true at all. I play latest games with mixed components ranging from 2012. to 2014.

 

Yes, in 2013-2014. I played at maximum settings. Today's games have same quality and performance at medium settings as 2013-2014 games at max settings. Nothing really changed for me, my experience remained same because quality of 2017. medium settings is equal to the 2013. max settings.

 

DCS is quite different. While it's true that DCS 2.5 at max settings looks impressive, DCS 2.5 at medium settings looks worse and perform worse than DCS 1.5 at medium settings.

 

 

Your glass my friend........will always be half full. :smilewink:

[fjacobsen]

That's simply not true at all. I play latest games with mixed components ranging from 2012. to 2014.

 

Yes, in 2013-2014. I played at maximum settings. Today's games have same quality and performance at medium settings as 2013-2014 games at max settings. Nothing really changed for me, my experience remained same because quality of 2017. medium settings is equal to the 2013. max settings.

 

DCS is quite different. While it's true that DCS 2.5 at max settings looks impressive, DCS 2.5 at medium settings looks worse and perform worse than DCS 1.5 at medium settings.

 

 

+1

 

 

My system is also rather old (see signature) and I can run most recent games with good FPS, offcourse not at full settings, but still with most at high and ultra.

[Pikey]

2.5 Caucasus is Excellent. had a good look round the map now, it's been said, but the trees change several aspects of gameplay in terms of being down low. Helicopters, even jets can move between trees due to the way ED broke them up, and the forest provides options for hiding ground units in ways that can be used to make the world feel larger. Flying low is more rewarding tactically as well as the mesh being so much more detailed makes the world seem less flat and have more nooks and crannies to go down.

 

My favourite parts are not likely shared with many others, but ground units use roads better, the road network has been fixed where broken, the pathing by ground units, although imperfect has much better sense, there are more bridges in key places, the map is better and clearer, the parking spots labelled, I've not fully tested the ATC, i'm sure it's been touched.

 

Of course the big thing with trees is Water. It has depth, tanks stop to ford or look for a bridge. Ships move through it, opening new underwater possibilities.

 

I can't believe this is for free. It's the most useful map of the current selection with it's different types of terrain, mountains, rivers and water.

 

It was a little more needy on performance in the central plain of Georgia and I had a to knowck a few settings down for VR, but that was only for VR and only when populating a mission. Scripting was largely unbroken so for me, as a long time power user of the DCSW engine, I'm very pleased. Surprised even.