Jump to content

DCS World Patch Notes Discussion Thread


BIGNEWY

Recommended Posts

This is very narrow minded Yoda1875. You assume that we can't find out, that it's hidden and that for some reason it's a coca-cola secret. No one wants or is asking for the compiled C code, we want to know the areas that have been changed so we can be more effective in our testing back to ED. Being focused to faster find and report issues in YOUR product.

 

It's not a secret what they give us, it's the product itself. We get it, we use it and we find the issues plain as day. It's not unreasonable to simply say that "we refactored statics in the global mission environment to report to the namespaces of airbases better". It doesnt say what the code is, we don't need either the exact code they changed or the compiled code, just the areas they meddled with so we can check them, so that Open Beta is actually tested properly. Because it sure as hell isn't tested properly before it arrives, and the proof of that is in history. Any Lua changes are open code anyway. What ED currently do, is throw us a black box mystery every week and let fall over, then we troubleshoot why, duplicate our seperate efforts, report it multiple times it back, bury the forum and real issues in noise and mess, plunge moderators into frenzies, which costs us ALL time that could be avoided by having a reasonable data led approach. Remember we give them problems, they demand data like tracks and steps to reproduce? Well THEY give us problems too and we get none of the same courtesy back:

 

Nick Grey, 1 month ago:

Symbiotic does not mean equal, fair, intelligent or optimised. We have a completely one sided approach where ED do not discuss the majority of changes with us, yet we are completely open and detailed about what we find, in the SAME FORUMS. But the burden is on individuals working on their own without any clue as to what is coming.

 

I'm asking we be efficient about this process, not for more QA. There is nothing wrong with being efficient and not wasting people's time.

 

Might I remind everyone:

 

  • ED are not just asking for our help, they need our help in testing
  • They have one of the most complex sims/applications out there with a large codebase
  • They currently provide one of the shortest and abbreviated change lists of any game developer in the public eye
  • They opted for the open development model to all our benefit
  • They frequently never mention new complete features, fixes or known issues, despite mentioning 'some' (got see the unofficial post for hidden features)
  • We don't need a list that says "Cow in, textured, Cow texture broke, Cow now removed" more something like Refactoring X feature, added placeholder paratrooper event, added kill events, changed event ID's, changed airbase ID's.
  • Their customer base is actually a few pegs up the evolutionary tree, folks capable of recalling multiple complex processes, talking whilst listening to two conversations and operating a simulation jet with reasonable accuracy simulataneously
  • There are bundles of developers writing code, creating content, textures, models for their game

 

Nothing I asked for was unreasonable, impossible, never been done before, or breaches a covenant. Everything I asked for benefits everyone, even if the average next Starfighter pilot couldnt care a less what even a static is or why airbase ID's are relevant, this is the start of where things get fixed and the speed with which it is done so that servers and missions and future missions and modules and content is better, faster.

 

 

Agreed Pikey

 

 

 

Few more people need to realise how handicapped currently the scripting community actually are. There certainly isnt anything like the kind of communication there should be, to be honest, needs to be. For effecient feedback/testing of under the hood issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
not a trace of "playerID fixed" in changelog???

 

It is fixed

 

thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet again, the eternal question...

Why do users on Stable have to wait months and months and months for simple fixes like

 

 

 

 

Is it absolutely necessary to get the updated Night Lighting/Super Carrier module etc working before that huge chunk of your user base gets some simple DLC fixes?

 

 

Not really a fair question. "Patience" is the watchword of Stable, and this period of "months and months and months" between updates is pretty unprecedented. Previously it was stable update about every 3 weeks average.

 

And if for no other reason than proper version control, yes it is necessary. I do electronic maintenance on industrial machinery, and we have one supplier who tends to play fast&loose with version control when doing updates...well, that was until a near catastrophic failure, and we locked them out (one of their patches was made to an earlier version of the software -they were working with multiple versions in-house - which wiped out vital information from a previous patch made for a later version of the software)

 

It may suck having to wait, but that's what we have to do. Heck, it seems the Jeff may be out of early access before us early adopters on stable get to see it, but it is what it is.

 

It may suck for some of us not having hotfixes the way you mentioned, but from a big picture perspective it's better to have 2 versions out in the field rather than a whole chaotic mishmash of versions by allowing all 3rd parties to release updates to stable whenever they pleased


Edited by ngreenaway

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] DCS: The most expensive free game you'll ever play

 

 

 

Modules: All of them

System:

 

I9-9900k, ROG Maximus , 32gb ram, RTX2070 Founder's Edition, t16000,hotas, pedals & cougar MFD, HP Reverb 1.2, HTC VIVE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same performance as previous 2.5.6 iterations. Caucasus its unplayable, it sames something related with high CPU usage and terrain loading (huge stutter when use TV sensors maverick or TGP, looking to the horizon).

 

Not encouraging. Won't be able to fly until tonight. Going to clean out my metashaders and fxo folders before I try it.

F-14B, A-10C,F-18C Lot 20, F-16C, UH-1H, SA342, Spitfire LF Mk IX, F-15C, Mig-29, Supercarrier, Nevada, Persian Gulf

 

i9 9900k 5.0GHz, 32GB RAM, 1080Ti, Rift S, Warthog HOTAS, MFG Crosswind pedals, Dual Monitors 4K & 1080

 

Every Day, Someone Uses Cute Krispy Snacks

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are working with HB on the issue, but could not fix it for this patch.

 

Thanks

Just reverse mechanic of cat 3 patches back

303 & Friends discord

 

Hangar :

 

JF-17 Thunder, F-16C Viper, I-16, Christen Eagle II, F-14 Tomcat, Supercarrier, WWII Assets Pack, F/A-18C Hornet, AJS-37 Viggen, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, F-5E Tiger II, M-2000C, MiG-15bis, Bf 109 K-4 Kurfürst, Fw 190 D-9 Dora, F-86F Sabre, Flaming Cliffs 3, P-51D Mustang, A-10C Warthog,SA342 Gazelle, UH-1H Huey, Mi-8MTV2 Magnificent Eight, Black Shark II, Persian Gulf Map, Normandy 1944 Map,

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the DCS patchnotes actually said what they changed in DCS, then the folks that don't understand would see why it's so slow to get to stable and why we get pushed into "OB as live".

There is so much under the hood maintenance and change in DCS core that just never comes to light. We see just a fraction of the effects, feel such a fraction of the bugs and are prvy to such a small amount of the total drama that goes on. It takes some experience and a leap of faith to imagine the scale of it all, so it does bug me, that people moan about delays to the supercarrier or whatever module whilst being oblivious to it all.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may suck for some of us not having hotfixes the way you mentioned, but from a big picture perspective it's better to have 2 versions out in the field rather than a whole chaotic mishmash of versions

 

 

I don't disagree...but why can't ED release these fixes onto stable - there'd be only 2 versions...and changes to .miz/.cmp files wouldn't in anyway introduce bugs/changes to the game itself.

 

If you've got 2 versions: Stable & Open Beta there's no golden rule that Stable has to equal the previous Open beta is there? Its quite possible for ED to release a newer version of Stable with a subset of the Open Beta ffixes without any negative impact on version control

Airbag_signatur.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
I don't disagree...but why can't ED release these fixes onto stable - there'd be only 2 versions...and changes to .miz/.cmp files wouldn't in anyway introduce bugs/changes to the game itself.

 

If you've got 2 versions: Stable & Open Beta there's no golden rule that Stable has to equal the previous Open beta is there? Its quite possible for ED to release a newer version of Stable with a subset of the Open Beta ffixes without any negative impact on version control

 

I am sorry our update system does not work that way.

 

We update and test in public open beta, once we are happy we will update stable.

With 2.5.6 we have had some issues and it is best not to push them to the stable build.

 

thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is fixed

 

thanks

 

no it isnt fixed, ive just played in Apenwolfs cold war server and the scoreboard was crazy, i shot down 2 planes and got killed twice and it didnt apeared like that nor the points were registered. Havent tried other server yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry our update system does not work that way.

 

We update and test in public open beta, once we are happy we will update stable.

With 2.5.6 we have had some issues and it is best not to push them to the stable build.

 

 

Well obviously - but the question as to why 3rd party changes to .miz/.cmp files, new documentation etc couldn't be bundled into a new Stable Release Version, whilst you're working on the issues to the 2.5.6 Core remains...

Your release schedule doesn't currently work like that...why can't it work like that in the future?

Historically your release schedule to stable has lagged only a short way behind changes to open beta...if that process can be changed to reflect current difficulties ...why can't the other?

Airbag_signatur.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree...but why can't ED release these fixes onto stable - there'd be only 2 versions...and changes to .miz/.cmp files wouldn't in anyway introduce bugs/changes to the game itself.

 

Because they are 2 different versions, the fixes are available for 2.5.6 might not work with 2.5.5 stable.

 

They are released to the open beta first as it's designed purpose is for large scale public testing, the point of stable is to well, be stable and not have untested (by the public at large) roaming around.

 

Once open beta gets to a state where stuff is working more-or-less how it should, then stable gets an update.

 

Key-phrase: More or less, stable isn't bug free or feature complete, but the features that have been tested and passed on open beta make it over promptly.

 

I'm guessing the reason why we can't go around mixing and matching versions with the same fix is that they might not work on 2.5.5, given that they're designed for 2.5.6 - which is somewhat, a different kettle of fish compared to the current stable build. That's why they're put out into the open beta, so said fixes can be tested and verified by the public at large - at least that's its intended purpose.

 

Regardless, 2.5.6 has caused some unprecedented issues and until they get resolved I'm not expecting a stable update. I'd much rather all resources, where applicable, go to sorting 2.5.6 out before touching stable. Once 2.5.6 is better behaved, then I'll expect a big stable update.

 

For a disclaimer, I exclusively play stable, so I know the patience required, but that's all there is to it, patience.

 

My hardware isn't really suited to testing beyond small things (I mean, I don't even have a throttle or a rudder), and I seem to get better performance on stable than open beta.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they are 2 different versions, the fixes are available for 2.5.6 might not work with 2.5.5 stable.

 

 

Really?

 

 

EG: New User Manual wouldn't work in 2.5.5? EG: Removed unused units and replaced them with static models wouldn't work in 2.5.5? EG: English and German Documentation added wouldn't work in 2.5.5? Etc etc

 

 

 

There is no reason they and many others couldn't be added into stable other than inertia....

Airbag_signatur.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compression.

 

Something that is completely unknown for files hosted on a http download.

 

Patch notes looking good though. Sitting in a 3rd world country waiting for the download icon_redface.gif

 

Hope the performance gets better again fsgrin.png

 

Is it absolutely necessary to get the updated Night Lighting/Super Carrier module etc working before that huge chunk of your user base gets some simple DLC fixes?

 

I wish you Stable drivers could just get the latest 255 version meanwhile... icon_idea.gif

 

Of course you could always switch to that one manually... but not everyone does that.

 

Sadly, the patch has made no difference to the poor VR performance introduced by 2.5.6 that is being experienced by a lof of - not all - people.

 

Doesn't sound too optimistic, but I'll see myself rainbowdashwink.png

 

Nick Grey, 1 month ago:

We run approx 4.7 Mio lines of code which is only ten times less than Windows OS and with a DCS core programming staff of only 23 guys, we are hundreds of times fewer proportionally than the Windows team at Microsoft.

 

He forgot the most important thing when comparing DCS to a certain constant early access product by MS that shall not be named (1.15)™. "We have a thousand times less bugs than them!" That latest iteration is literally the worst POS (S for Software :P) I've ever seen in my life, except for Discord maybe. ED are doing a MASSIVE job here. But I agree they should communicate better especially in regards to what the community makes out of DCS since this is literally what it takes to make DCSMP what it is. Even though just an extremely small pertrillionage of the customer base even remotely understands what can all be done with the scripting engine, their work is something the whole MP community relies on. Changing the API silently is not what a gentleman does.

dcsdashie-hb-ed.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
no it isnt fixed, ive just played in Apenwolfs cold war server and the scoreboard was crazy, i shot down 2 planes and got killed twice and it didnt apeared like that nor the points were registered. Havent tried other server yet.

 

Make sure the server is updated to the latest version.

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Really?

 

 

EG: New User Manual wouldn't work in 2.5.5? EG: Removed unused units and replaced them with static models wouldn't work in 2.5.5? EG: English and German Documentation added wouldn't work in 2.5.5? Etc etc

 

 

 

There is no reason they and many others couldn't be added into stable other than inertia....

 

Again Our update system does not work like that.

 

our builds have version numbers, not individual file updates, they are done in whole as large updates.

 

managing individual file updates for each build would not work for us, the amount of code and data is to massive.

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My performance improved considerably with this patch. Hardly any stutters now.

Desktop PC:

Intel i7 14700K, MSI Z790 MAG Tomahawk MOBO, 64Gb RAM , GPU Nvidia RTX 3080ti

Windows 11, VPC joystick, Crosswind rudder peddles, HP Reverb G2, VPC Collective, DOF Reality H2, Gametrix seat, WinWing panels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well obviously - but the question as to why 3rd party changes to .miz/.cmp files, new documentation etc couldn't be bundled into a new Stable Release Version, whilst you're working on the issues to the 2.5.6 Core remains...

Your release schedule doesn't currently work like that...why can't it work like that in the future?

Historically your release schedule to stable has lagged only a short way behind changes to open beta...if that process can be changed to reflect current difficulties ...why can't the other?

The issue as I see it is that you now have an additional branch of development to manage. Stable plus some changes and stable and more changes. Both need regression testing and inevitably slows down the development process. I can see it is frustrating waiting for new things that should work fine in stable but by its very nature adds risk to the stability of the stable version which when said in those terms is simply not viable.

 

In the scheme of things this isn't like a mobile banking app upgrade going horribly wrong with no previous version to use instead.

AMD 5800X3D · MSI 4080 · Asus ROG Strix B550 Gaming  · HP Reverb Pro · 1Tb M.2 NVMe, 32Gb Corsair Vengence 3600MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · VIRPIL T-50CM3 Base, Alpha Prime R. VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Base. JetSeat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

missing in patch-notes, afaik, but I really like the new AIM-9M icon in rearm-window! :)

DCS Wishlist: 2K11 Krug SA-4 Ganef SAM, VR-TrackIR icons next to player names in score-chart

PvP: 100+ manual player-kills with Stingers on a well known dynamic campaign server - 100+ VTOL FARP landings & 125+ hours AV-8B, F-14 crew, royal dutch airforce F-16C - PvP campaigns since 2013

DCS server-admins: please adhere to a common sense gaming industry policy as most server admins throughout the industry do. (After all there's enough hostility on the internet already which really doesn't help anyone. Thanks.)

Dell Visor VR headset, Ryzen 5 5600 (6C/12T), RTX 2060 - basic DCS-community rule-of-thumb: Don't believe bad things that a PvP pilot claims about another PvP pilot without having analyzed the existing evidence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?

 

EG: New User Manual wouldn't work in 2.5.5? EG: Removed unused units and replaced them with static models wouldn't work in 2.5.5? EG: English and German Documentation added wouldn't work in 2.5.5? Etc etc

 

There is no reason they and many others couldn't be added into stable other than inertia....

 

Sure we can move goalposts and cherry pick to the mother of all basic updates, one that doesn't involve base game at all :doh:

 

But as you mentioned, is documentation really the users of stable really missing? Will all the people complaining about no stable update for 3 months really shut their yaps if they got given a new user manual?

 

Probably not but last time I checked it seemed to be mostly the JF-17 among other things - that probably won't be compatible, as they've been upgraded (AFAIK) to work of 2.5.6 new graphics.

 

Like it or not stable and OB are 2 different development branches and represent 2 different things obeying 2 slightly different rules. A fix for one might not work with the other - I also love how you completely ignored the fact that all these fixes are on the OB for testing purposes and once they get fully tested and ED is satisfied they can make a stable build, then stable gets updated


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...