DCS World Patch Notes Discussion Thread

[Tom Kazansky]

I'm a bit confused because most(/almost all) of todays stable version's changelog was already introduced on the last stable version and changelog (DCS 2.7.2.8165.2 - 25.06.2021), including Hind. Not a big thing. will take the OB logs to distinguish between "old" and new stuff.

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by Tom Kazansky

[phant]

Yes, I think they got confused with the changelog.

 

 

Bye

Phant

[Slice313]

No new open beta today? 

[Sr.]

2 hours ago, Tom Kazansky said:

I'm a bit confused because most(/almost all) of todays stable version's changelog was already introduced on the last stable version and changelog (DCS 2.7.2.8165.2 - 25.06.2021), including Hind. Not a big thing. will take the OB logs to distinguish between "old" and new stuff.

 

 

hmmm

Just tried to update mine... says it's current.

[skywalker22]

  

 

Any changes?

PS: 1st is beta, 2nd is stable (from today).

Edited July 14, 2021 by skywalker22

[Tom Kazansky]

The day stable version is updated is the day when OB and stable have the same features. They are "the same" until next OB update. My confusion has nothing to do with OB but with the last two stable changelogs which are almost identical. E.g. 2x introduction of the Hind and many more.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Tom Kazansky

[imacken]

I’m sorry to be negative, but again, I have to ask, why has this OB gone to stable? I mean, Marianas is totally unusable in VR. 

[Mr_sukebe]

12 minutes ago, imacken said:

I’m sorry to be negative, but again, I have to ask, why has this OB gone to stable? I mean, Marianas is totally unusable in VR. 

 

?

 

I'm a little confused about that, as I was able to fly on it.  Sure, it could be better optimised, but that's not "unusable".

[Dangerzone]

8 hours ago, Tom Kazansky said:

I'm a bit confused because most(/almost all) of todays stable version's changelog was already introduced on the last stable version and changelog (DCS 2.7.2.8165.2 - 25.06.2021), including Hind. Not a big thing. will take the OB logs to distinguish between "old" and new stuff.

 

 

 

Yup agreed.

 

I think they've messed up with the changelog on the website.

 

What I have noticed that may be of help:

 

Previous stable release was build 8165.2 on the 23/06/2021

 

Since then, a single Open Beta was released on 30/06/2021 (build 8494)

 

Now - we have a Stable Release released today 14/07/2021 (also build 8494).

 

So it seems only one release was done in Open Beta, and then that was given 2 weeks of testing and then released to stable. 

 

The patch notes for the Open Beta Build seem to be far more informative:

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.7.3.8494/

 

ie - instead of saying "Hind Introduced" and that's it for the changes to the Hind - the Hind has it's own section with about 30 or so individual notes.

 

I think referencing that single page will tell you what the stable release page should be saying.

 

Hope this Helps.

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by Dangerzone

[Sr.]

1 hour ago, imacken said:

I’m sorry to be negative, but again, I have to ask, why has this OB gone to stable? I mean, Marianas is totally unusable in VR. 

It's ok... from 20k feet 

[wilbur81]

1 hour ago, imacken said:

I’m sorry to be negative, but again, I have to ask, why has this OB gone to stable? I mean, Marianas is totally unusable in VR. 

Agreed.

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, imacken said:

.. why has this OB gone to stable? I mean, Marianas is totally unusable in VR. 

 

Maybe because the VR users are a small portion of the DCS users community? ... the larger part I'm sure will appreciate the new map, even in its current early access state.

[Sr.]

42 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

Maybe because the VR users are a small portion of the DCS users community? ... the larger part I'm sure will appreciate the new map, even in its current early access state.

I would bet we're more than half. Not exactly a "small portion."

[Rudel_chw]

7 minutes ago, Sr. said:

I would bet we're more than half. Not exactly a "small portion."

at least on the steam survey, only 31% of users had a vr set:

 

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

 

in absence of other data, I believe this would be representative of DCS.

[Shibbyland]

I can't afford VR, let alone the system required to run it. It must be pretty good although I really hope as the years go on and VR userbase grows, those of us who still need 2D don't get forgotten.

[Sr.]

1 hour ago, Rudel_chw said:

at least on the steam survey, only 31% of users had a vr set:

 

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

 

in absence of other data, I believe this would be representative of DCS.

Does the Steam Survey only account for DCS players? If not, then we're comparing apples to school buses considering the sheer number of other games on Steam compared to their VR titles.

 

A recent Hoggit/Reddit survey, while much fewer respondents, puts it at +/- 50%

 

[Rudel_chw]

28 minutes ago, Sr. said:

Does the Steam Survey only account for DCS players? If not, then we're comparing apples to school buses considering the sheer number of other games on Steam compared to their VR titles.

 

A recent Hoggit/Reddit survey, while much fewer respondents, puts it at +/- 50%

 

your math needs work, 431 out of 1200 is about 35%

[speed-of-heat]

Yes both reports say the same thing about a 1/3.

 

that said, that’s a significant proportion of the player base.

 

however, the Marianas is in early access,  which seems to mean, providing it meets the goals of the phase of EA it’s in it will move from beta to stable.

 

as they have already said that the map needs performance optimisation, I guess that’s not a factor that they consider , at this stage of ea.

 

I don’t think 2d players “should be left behind”, the point is rather they are leaving a significant chunk of their players behind (1/3) in the vr users who cannot  use the map at present. 

 

if that’s not a goal at present they should say so clearly, in the patch notes, With something like “at present the Marianas map is in  early access, the map is not optimised for VR in this phase, so whilst you can enjoy some aspects of it, don’t expect a good playable experience, which we will expect later in ea”… then we can all stop trying to optimise for it… and do something on a different map.
 

My concern is the performance on the channel, on the same settings as the earlier maps is subpar, even now it is out of ea… so yes I can change my settings, to lower them to a point the map is playable, but that seems… wrong… at the very least it’s a usability issue, as now I’m having to use different settings in different play sessions some in steam and some in game, and actually getting different play experiences as a result… I rarely use the map, if that’s true for me, it’s likely true of about 1/3 of us … 

 

[ShaunX]

4 hours ago, Sr. said:

Does the Steam Survey only account for DCS players? If not, then we're comparing apples to school buses considering the sheer number of other games on Steam compared to their VR titles.

 

A recent Hoggit/Reddit survey, while much fewer respondents, puts it at +/- 50%

 

 

We should really consider those poor 22 folk who don't have either..can't imagine it's too much fun on a teletype

[Nealius]

Even if "only" 1/3 of users are on VR, VR is the future of flight sims and gaming as a whole. No reason we should even be worried over how many people use VR versus how many don't. It's a pointless survey.

[zildac]

16 minutes ago, Nealius said:

Even if "only" 1/3 of users are on VR, VR is the future of flight sims and gaming as a whole. No reason we should even be worried over how many people use VR versus how many don't. It's a pointless survey.

Agreed. I never took the survey nor use steam. I suspect there are many other VR users in the same boat.

[Shibbyland]

As a 2D user I'm not faring much better with the Marianas map performance. Down to 20FPS when low level over terrain when I'm typically at around 100 on Caucasus, even Syria performs much better and to date I found that to be the most demanding on my system.

 

Not really playable for me at this time. Looks good tho, hopefully performance improves.

[Dangerzone]

As I understand it - the release isn't Just about the Mariana's.  Various patches and fixes for various modules - so maybe the stable release was more in reference to getting these out to the userbase, and not necessarily releasing Marianas? 

[Tom Kazansky]

Good thing for stable users that don't want to have Marianas as an EA map in that early state: they are not forced to download it.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Tom Kazansky

[draconus]

7 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

at least on the steam survey, only 31% of users had a vr set:

 

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

 

in absence of other data, I believe this would be representative of DCS.

No no no, you got it wrong.
Click on VR Headsets at the bottom of the page to expand and read:
Steam users with VR Headsets - 1.86%
Only from those who own VR - 31% has Quest 2.

I don't believe DCS comes anywhere close to 30%. Forum users or reddit posters is not representative group.

 

2 hours ago, ShaunX said:

We should really consider those poor 22 folk who don't have either..can't imagine it's too much fun on a teletype

Ever heard of projectors?

 

34 minutes ago, Dangerzone said:

As I understand it - the release isn't Just about the Mariana's.  Various patches and fixes for various modules - so maybe the stable release was more in reference to getting these out to the userbase, and not necessarily releasing Marianas? 

ED release the stable when they're fine with current beta state - no gamebreaking crashes, mostly functional - and then move on. Simple as that.

 

At this point DCS has massive differences in performance of the modules/maps. Older, lower fidelity modules (like FC3, Caucasus) vs newer hi-poly hi-res (like F-14, Channel) modules. Devs should either consider changing minimum and recommended system requirements, different for every one othem or start setting performance bar which is not supposed to be crossed. Both are wrong: one for UX the other for development but something needs to be done because it will only get worse. I wouldn't want to hinder development but it can't go faster than available hardware that's able to run it.

 

Having said that Marianas is free, it's early access, perform worse but looks great - definitely not "unusable". Some optimisations will come but I wouldn't expect much. If it stays that bad users will continue to wish for free large open water map.