Please, remove unnecessary liveries from DCS builds. Put them in separate packs

[SharpeXB]

22 minutes ago, RazerVon said:

An argument FOR low-resolution necessary liveries, not an argument for the 14GB of F-14 liveries, nearly all of which are just minor changes.
If you want me to see your cool Grim Reapers skin then I'll have to download that.

If you're using a standard low-vis skin then I'd have the low-res version by default.

Not sure I follow what you mean. I don’t think the game can have duplicate high and low res versions of the same liveries installed so one person sees their own high res version but another player sees the same thing low res. I don’t think that can work. It would also mean having two versions of the skins installed. Players would want even the default liveries to be high res. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by SharpeXB

[RazerVon]

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Not sure I follow what you mean. I don’t think the game can have duplicate high and low res versions of the same liveries installed so one person sees their own high res version but another player sees the same thing low res. I don’t think that can work. It would also mean having two versions of the skins installed. Players would want even the default liveries to be high res. 

 

It works in every other game that has livery systems.
War Thunder added this ability 2 - 3 years ago when they separated 720p, 1080p, and 1440/4k clients.
Whichever client you download you download textures of liveries for that version.
The lowest version is 17GB, and the highest is 106GB final install.

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, RazerVon said:

It works in every other game that has livery systems.
War Thunder added this ability 2 - 3 years ago when they separated 720p, 1080p, and 1440/4k clients.
Whichever client you download you download textures of liveries for that version.
The lowest version is 17GB, and the highest is 106GB final install.

So if you have a high res screen you also need a bigger hard drive and vice versa. But it seems like an ok solution. 
How does WT handle user created liveries? Or do all the liveries need to be handled by the official installer? I guess those would all be high res by default. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

So if you have a high res screen you also need a bigger hard drive and vice versa.

Not really, no.

If you have a desire to only ever look at aircraft up-close and in complete detail, you need a bigger hard drive. But that's no different from any other optional liveries you might want to add for purely aesthetical reasons.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

How does WT handle user created liveries?

Doesn't really matter, now does it? Optional liveries are optional and DCS already handles those just fine.

Coincidentally, it could handle the base liveries the same way of those were made optional, making the whole argument against this largely pointless.

[MAXsenna]

We do have a low-res and a high-res version of Normandy. So I'd say the game already handles it.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[okopanja]

4 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

We do have a low-res and a high-res version of Normandy. So I'd say the game already handles it.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

Do you download them separately or together?

[MAXsenna]

Do you download them separately or together?

You don't have a choice. If you have purchased the original or are trialing it, some parts will be LOW-RES. And if you have upgraded or purchase it now you see the high-res. Works like this in MP too, which l believe is the main reason for this. My point being, the mechanics are there, we can't yet "use it" currently by choice as end users. An official livery manager would tie nicely into this "tech".

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Irisz]

I don't understand why a developer can't implement the OP's request! Do the developers of DCS World simply not understand that DCS World will have fewer players this way? They are simply burying their heads in the sand. If you don't have enough storage space, they just tell you to buy another SSD.

Do they not understand that this is the best solution that the OP is asking for? There is already another topic for this, which shows that with 8-bit textures, the memory requirements of DCS World could be reduced, making it playable for even more people. I didn't install the latest patch either,  I didn't buy F4, yet I have to waste 12 GB of my SSD because some artist has a passion for painting.

This has been requested on the forum for years. Writing a simple script code should be done, but unfortunately, it is not a priority because it does not bring money to ED. This request should be a higher priority because it would improve the confidence of the player base towards ED. There is no need to build a nuclear reactor with a huge SSD area! I could write a stronger criticism, but I gently note that not everyone comes to DCS World for the oversized textures and photorealistic graphics. People come to fly, and not everyone is able to spend thousands of dollars on computer parts. Due to the negligence of the developers, others constantly have to upgrade their SSD because the 3rd party developers like to paint. By default, there should be one skin for an airplane, and those who want more can download the high-resolution skins in the module manager. This also benefits ED by reducing the load on their servers. The loading time of the game is reduced, and you can enter the servers sooner because you don't have to load 20 GB into the memory. Currently, DCS World's memory requirements are so high because it uses huge textures!

There are games that are successful precisely because they don't need a nuclear power plant to run. They work well even on weaker computers with little storage space, which is why many more people play them! Developers should keep this in mind!

Edited May 26, 2024 by Irisz

[ebabil]

I feel you man. I have hundreds of liveries which I don’t use 

[Rudel_chw]

16 hours ago, Irisz said:

... not everyone is able to spend thousands of dollars on computer parts.

 

I understand the need, I truly do, as in order to install the last update I had to uninstall FOUR maps (Sinai, Normandy 2.0, Syria and Persian Gulf) from my DCS:

 

 

.... however, two points:

 

1) A larger SSD does not cost "thousands" of dollars, I just was looking to expand my PC and a 2 TB SSD costs 90-100 US$ on my country.

 

2) Saving a few GB of livery space would have not helped me one bit on the last DCS update, as I needed over 140 GB of hard drive space ... so, spending development time to optimize what is essentially a relatively small part of the DCS footprint would help almost no one.

 

So, updating the PC is unavoidable if you want to keep adding maps and aircraft to your DCS install, the only way to not enlarge it is to simply stop purchasing ever more modules and maps.

[Exorcet]

8 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

2) Saving a few GB of livery space would have not helped me one bit on the last DCS update, as I needed over 140 GB of hard drive space ... so, spending development time to optimize what is essentially a relatively small part of the DCS footprint would help almost no one.

I can't agree with that. You're only looking at one specific use case. 5GB can be helpful. Making room for a large update is not the only case where livery removal is beneficial. When I go through disc management on my PC, it's not just one large file deletion that ends up giving back my space in most cases. It's the clearing of many smaller files from various sources. More control over DCS's footprint will likely benefit a large number of users.

[SkateZilla]

1 hour ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

I understand the need, I truly do, as in order to install the last update I had to uninstall FOUR maps (Sinai, Normandy 2.0, Syria and Persian Gulf) from my DCS:

 

 

.... however, two points:

 

1) A larger SSD does not cost "thousands" of dollars, I just was looking to expand my PC and a 2 TB SSD costs 90-100 US$ on my country.

 

2) Saving a few GB of livery space would have not helped me one bit on the last DCS update, as I needed over 140 GB of hard drive space ... so, spending development time to optimize what is essentially a relatively small part of the DCS footprint would help almost no one.

 

So, updating the PC is unavoidable if you want to keep adding maps and aircraft to your DCS install, the only way to not enlarge it is to simply stop purchasing ever more modules and maps.

To echo that,
NVMe Drives, even PCIe 3.0 NVMe, are sufficient for gaming, 
You'll see a marginal difference in loading and none in FPS / Latency between PCIe 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 Drives,

Those $500, blistering fast 7,500-15,000mb/second read speed 1TB SSDs that YT and Social media are shoving into your shopping carts, are sustained reads w/ 1 large file, you wont see that we multiple smaller files typical with game texture spooling and loading, you'll likely see ~3,500 - 4,500mb/second read speeds, maybe less.
*though it would be a significant step up from Precache HDDs of 90~mb/sec and SATA Limited SSDs at 500mb/sec

You can get a 4TB NVMe 2.0 or SATA SSD for $~200 USD.

I have DCS on a 2TB Sandisk Extreme eSSD w/ EVERYTHING and it's only ~40% used (~650GB).

I still run a copy of DCS on a WD Black Gaming 8TB Drive w/ max read spead of 115 or so MB/Second on the sweet spot of the platters. and there's no FPS / Latency issues, and a bootup / loading time difference of maybe 10-25 seconds.

11 pages of requesting a core infrastructure change, citing "we don't have thousands of dollars to spend on SSDs" is not a valid argument.

Even when I ran a 640GB WD Raptor, I Symlinked my _downloads folder to a different drive.

Edited May 27, 2024 by SkateZilla

[Beirut]

2 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

I have DCS on a 2TB Sandisk Extreme eSSD w/ EVERYTHING and it's only ~40% used (~650GB).

 

I'm at 700GB on a dedicated 1TB NVME. I'll get a Samsung 2TB NVME later this summer. I like their cloning software.  

 

2 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

11 pages of requesting a core infrastructure change, citing "we don't have thousands of dollars to spend on SSDs" is not a valid argument.

 

I agree that a livery manager might be nice to have, but for sure it's wayyyy down on the "things to do" list. I'd much rather have a model for a Black Lab to go in second seat of the Mosquito. Dog goggles and scarf optional.

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, SkateZilla said:

To echo that,
NVMe Drives, even PCIe 3.0 NVMe, are sufficient for gaming, 
You'll see a marginal difference in loading and none in FPS / Latency between PCIe 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 Drives,

Those $500, blistering fast 7,500-15,000mb/second read speed 1TB SSDs that YT and Social media are shoving into your shopping carts, are sustained reads w/ 1 large file, you wont see that we multiple smaller files typical with game texture spooling and loading, you'll likely see ~3,500 - 4,500mb/second read speeds, maybe less.
*though it would be a significant step up from Precache HDDs of 90~mb/sec and SATA Limited SSDs at 500mb/sec

You can get a 4TB NVMe 2.0 or SATA SSD for $~200 USD.

I have DCS on a 2TB Sandisk Extreme eSSD w/ EVERYTHING and it's only ~40% used (~650GB).

I still run a copy of DCS on a WD Black Gaming 8TB Drive w/ max read spead of 115 or so MB/Second on the sweet spot of the platters. and there's no FPS / Latency issues, and a bootup / loading time difference of maybe 10-25 seconds.

11 pages of requesting a core infrastructure change, citing "we don't have thousands of dollars to spend on SSDs" is not a valid argument.

Even when I ran a 640GB WD Raptor, I Symlinked my _downloads folder to a different drive.

 

While I appriciete the work you have done I must say I do not agree with this reasoning.

The trend of developers including all livereries that there were and those that did not has way more impact than just space.

We see a trend where you will be expected at some point to replace your PC every 2 to 3 years which can be expensive and not sustainable for majority. We are not talking here just disk space: cpu/gpu/ram also play significant role here.

I have already seen very devoted people drop off the scene. Ultimatly its a difference between being a niche and mainstream game. Therefore its actually very important for ED to keep the base footprint of this game lower, so the user base can expand. I can not see anyone in sales want to shrink the userbase of the products. In most cases you will never see these the liveries in the first place, unless you cycle them through F2.

In addition even if you can afford to "race" and replace your PC every year, the more money you spend on PC, the less money you will spend on modules, maps and other content.

Therefore I do believe the DEVs need to think hard about optimizations. E.g. have at least basic pack with few high res liveries and rest low res. If someone wants it let him download the full pack. This is just one way to do it. Other possibility is to implementing LRU livery cache.

[Rudel_chw]

12 minutes ago, okopanja said:

The trend of developers including all livereries that there were and those that did not has way more impact than just space.

 

yet the rest of your post keeps arguing only about liveries, so it does look like just a space impact.

 

12 minutes ago, okopanja said:

We see a trend where you will be expected at some point to replace your PC every 2 to 3 years

 

this is a bit if an exaggeration, increasing disk space is not the same as replacing the whole pc. You cant expect to add more modules and at the same time ask for the space occupied to remain the same, nor cant you expect to replace your fhd monitor for a 4k unit, or add vr googles and keep the same old gpu.

 

12 minutes ago, okopanja said:

 even if you can afford to "race" and replace your PC every year …

 

come on, I dont replace my pc every year, yet I can play dcs just fine, sure you are not exaggerating?

 

12 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Therefore I do believe the DEVs need to think hard about optimizations. 

They are doing the optimizations that really matters: multithreading, support for more efficient shading techniques, moving to Vulkan (hopefully soon), etc.

 

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, Rudel_chw said:

You cant expect to add more modules and at the same time ask for the space occupied to remain the same, nor cant you expect to replace your fhd monitor for a 4k unit, or add vr googles and keep the same old gpu.

If liveries are the majority of an aircraft folder, a manager would allow exactly that, at least compared to now.

[Irisz]

In my case, I'd rather uninstall DCS World because ED doesn't care about the preferences of REDfor fans. Even if I don't buy a module, they constantly reduce the storage space on my SSD!

I would like to point out that there are users who are not fans of NATO modules.

I recently saw the F4 skins in the news and the different paint schemes that will be available for it. I was just annoyed that my SSD storage is being taken up again because a new flyable plane is coming to DCS World!

I really want to emphasize that my problem is not with the appearance of new products, but with how they affect my storage space without my consent!

Why is it so difficult to create separate directories for installed and non-installed versions of DCS World? Can someone explain to me why my SSD is affected by a module I didn't purchase? Why can't a low-resolution 100-200 MB skin be used for the F4 Phantom AI and leave those who didn't buy the module alone?

There are games that offer HD and SD versions, but the SD versions do not contain 4K resolution textures! I also use the SD version for this game because it's more suitable for me. I don't have a 4K monitor, so why should I need 4K textures?

Yesterday, I read that another game offers its users four types of installable versions! How wonderful is it that they cater to their community like that?

What does DCS World have? I could use an insulting epithet here, but currently, it seems that only those who buy all the modules are valued!

So if I didn't buy the product, don't take up 12 GB of my space. I don't even play in a 3rd generation fighter environment. The F4 Phantom is humiliated by the Su-27 10 times out of 10 in BVR air combat! I never look for such aerial targets under any circumstances. The F-16CM is the best and heaviest training aircraft for Su-27 and J-11A air combat practice! The other game that I still like is successful because it can be played on a toaster and is played by millions, which attracts more people to the game because of this, it is surrounded by the same passion as DCS World. I have been a Flanker addict since 2009! DCS World is the best simulator! The J-11A is currently a fantasy and I'm just waiting for them to fix it because in reality it can do much more!

This game has also become entertainment for whales, and they want to force everyone to spend their money on ED and their computer. I buy parts for my computer when it breaks, not when DCS World releases new modules to ED make money.

If there is a Module Manager, why is there no Skin Manager?

I will reiterate: Those who do not buy the product should not receive these high-resolution skins!

What would make me happiest is if, when I install DCS World, all AI skins are in low resolution! If you don't like the look of DCS World, let the Skin Manager give you the option to choose! It would fit perfectly in the Module Manager. You can install many things for DCS World, so why can't you have a Skin Pack option? DCS World LOW Skin Pack - DCS World SD Skin Pack - DCS World HD Skin Pack! LOW Pack = Low texture pack, SD Pack = Medium Pack, HD Pack = 4K or 8K texture pack!

Basically, I would choose the Low Skin Pack because I come here to fly, not to look at airplanes. DCS World is a simulator, not a Airshow simulator where I go out to the static line and inspect the rivets on the plane!

I respectfully note that I do not want to offend anyone!
Everyone should have the right option to install what they want on their computer!

If possible, make a 16K Skin Pack for those who buy 8 Terabyte SSDs and want to utilize the RTX 4090.

I don't even dare to think about the RTX 5090, because this also allows a more powerful and better PC to run DCS World! By the way, I had to buy 64GB of RAM for the PC just because of DCS World...

Edited May 27, 2024 by Irisz

[okopanja]

3 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

yet the rest of your post keeps arguing only about liveries, so it does look like just a space impact.

Well this topic is about liveries and while there are other optimizations to be discussed (or even acknowledge/welcome) I would prefer to stick to the topic. The rest of this reply is more or less off topic.

3 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

come on, I dont replace my pc every year, yet I can play dcs just fine, sure you are not exaggerating?

We both play at same resolution. Your spec GPU better than mine (RTX 2070 Super), with me having advantage in CPU (i7 10750h) and RAM (64GB). With no optimizations that occurred last year I am pretty sure we would be both in the market for a new PC. We are talking here about ~3 years old gaming PCs and we both feel that these machines do not cut it completely through already now. Surely you can observe this yourself. So already now it's desirable to do the full upgrade. Also note that liveries not only take your disk space but also VRAM. 8GB is not much today.

3 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

They are doing the optimizations that really matters: multithreading, support for more efficient shading techniques, moving to Vulkan (hopefully soon), etc.

You will notice that immediate effect of multi-threading, was that major servers switched to new frameworks for more "fidelity", which was in my opinion a colossal failure, since these optimizations were not implemented on server side. Interestingly enough some of them managed to drop client performance from acceptable 60-70 FPS to below 20. We had examples of popular servers becoming very quickly abandoned by players.

 

[SkateZilla]

11 hours ago, okopanja said:

While I appriciete the work you have done I must say I do not agree with this reasoning.

The trend of developers including all livereries that there were and those that did not has way more impact than just space.

We see a trend where you will be expected at some point to replace your PC every 2 to 3 years which can be expensive and not sustainable for majority. We are not talking here just disk space: cpu/gpu/ram also play significant role here.

I have already seen very devoted people drop off the scene. Ultimatly its a difference between being a niche and mainstream game. Therefore its actually very important for ED to keep the base footprint of this game lower, so the user base can expand. I can not see anyone in sales want to shrink the userbase of the products. In most cases you will never see these the liveries in the first place, unless you cycle them through F2.

In addition even if you can afford to "race" and replace your PC every year, the more money you spend on PC, the less money you will spend on modules, maps and other content.

Therefore I do believe the DEVs need to think hard about optimizations. E.g. have at least basic pack with few high res liveries and rest low res. If someone wants it let him download the full pack. This is just one way to do it. Other possibility is to implementing LRU livery cache.

There is no trend to replace your PC every 2-3 years, the ONLY time this would apply, is if someone is intentionally buying 2nd hand, clearance, low spec PCs every 3 years just to keep up with Avg Minimum spec.

I rocked a FX8350 (OC'd to oblivion), and 3 R7970 Lightnings, for over a decade, as each 7970 Died due to aged silicon, I eventually replaced my Mainboard, CPU, Ram, and rode out the last R7970 until it started to show IC Failures, then purchased the 6800XT, only because of availability and price, being in the middle of the GPU Price Spike era. So I literally ran DCS on a 15 yr old GPU at this time last year, with minimal issues, and even in VR.

There is a trend, that most power users upgrade to the latest GPUs and such, no one is forcing anyone to upgrade to continue to play DCS.
The Sim evolves, that's the nature of Software as a Service infrastructure, more graphics and things get added as technology develops.

Again, the only argument in there is space, which is easily solved, and if solved w/ a 2+TB drive, would be solved for years.

As more aircraft and theaters are added, it's up to the user to determine which theaters they want installed.

I have EVERYTHING installed, and it's under 700GB, so 2TB should be enough overhead for several years.

If budget is so tight that $150-200 for a drive to last 4+ years isn't feasible, there's always traditional HDDs which range $50 to 100 for 2-4TB.

No one is saying SSDs or NVME's are required to run DCS, I run DCS from a WD BLK 7200 Drive fine.

This is the era of larger textures, larder LODs, and growing footprints. This is everywhere, even on consoles, games are shipping at 20 GB ISO Disks, and then downloading an additional 40-50 GB to install and expand into 120+ GB per title.

Developing the Core infrastructure for picking and choosing aircraft liveries to remove, will only cause further Multiplayer segregation, as now server owners will have custom livery sets that each player will have to download and or delete to pass IC, etc etc.

That amount of work to save roughly 4-12 GB in the long run isnt worth it.

If your storage situation is to the point where 10-20 GB is the determining factor on whether or not you can download updates and continue to play DCS, then it's clearly a matter of it being time to upgrade.



 

Edited May 27, 2024 by SkateZilla

[SkateZilla]

9 hours ago, Irisz said:

In my case, I'd rather uninstall DCS World because ED doesn't care about the preferences of REDfor fans. Even if I don't buy a module, they constantly reduce the storage space on my SSD!

I would like to point out that there are users who are not fans of NATO modules.

I recently saw the F4 skins in the news and the different paint schemes that will be available for it. I was just annoyed that my SSD storage is being taken up again because a new flyable plane is coming to DCS World!

I really want to emphasize that my problem is not with the appearance of new products, but with how they affect my storage space without my consent!

Why is it so difficult to create separate directories for installed and non-installed versions of DCS World? Can someone explain to me why my SSD is affected by a module I didn't purchase? Why can't a low-resolution 100-200 MB skin be used for the F4 Phantom AI and leave those who didn't buy the module alone?

There are games that offer HD and SD versions, but the SD versions do not contain 4K resolution textures! I also use the SD version for this game because it's more suitable for me. I don't have a 4K monitor, so why should I need 4K textures?

Yesterday, I read that another game offers its users four types of installable versions! How wonderful is it that they cater to their community like that?

What does DCS World have? I could use an insulting epithet here, but currently, it seems that only those who buy all the modules are valued!

So if I didn't buy the product, don't take up 12 GB of my space. I don't even play in a 3rd generation fighter environment. The F4 Phantom is humiliated by the Su-27 10 times out of 10 in BVR air combat! I never look for such aerial targets under any circumstances. The F-16CM is the best and heaviest training aircraft for Su-27 and J-11A air combat practice! The other game that I still like is successful because it can be played on a toaster and is played by millions, which attracts more people to the game because of this, it is surrounded by the same passion as DCS World. I have been a Flanker addict since 2009! DCS World is the best simulator! The J-11A is currently a fantasy and I'm just waiting for them to fix it because in reality it can do much more!

This game has also become entertainment for whales, and they want to force everyone to spend their money on ED and their computer. I buy parts for my computer when it breaks, not when DCS World releases new modules to ED make money.

If there is a Module Manager, why is there no Skin Manager?

I will reiterate: Those who do not buy the product should not receive these high-resolution skins!

What would make me happiest is if, when I install DCS World, all AI skins are in low resolution! If you don't like the look of DCS World, let the Skin Manager give you the option to choose! It would fit perfectly in the Module Manager. You can install many things for DCS World, so why can't you have a Skin Pack option? DCS World LOW Skin Pack - DCS World SD Skin Pack - DCS World HD Skin Pack! LOW Pack = Low texture pack, SD Pack = Medium Pack, HD Pack = 4K or 8K texture pack!

Basically, I would choose the Low Skin Pack because I come here to fly, not to look at airplanes. DCS World is a simulator, not a Airshow simulator where I go out to the static line and inspect the rivets on the plane!

I respectfully note that I do not want to offend anyone!
Everyone should have the right option to install what they want on their computer!

If possible, make a 16K Skin Pack for those who buy 8 Terabyte SSDs and want to utilize the RTX 4090.

I don't even dare to think about the RTX 5090, because this also allows a more powerful and better PC to run DCS World! By the way, I had to buy 64GB of RAM for the PC just because of DCS World...

 

Why do I feel like it's getting overly technical, and now grasping as straws, over 4-15GB of space, in 2024. I have single movies that take up more space.

A. Module selection has nothing to do "preferences", and more to do with available information, it's well known Red For (Migs, Sukoi, etc) are mainly Russian and they have EXTREMELY strict laws regarding information on military equipment. So you cannot blame ED for that. They are working on a Mig-29A, which by one of your later points, would get destroyed by F-16s/F-18s/F-15s, so you likely wouldn't even touch that, for the same reason you wouldn't touch a F-4E, a Modern RedFor aircraft is never going to happen in the current state of western laws on military information, ever, and not just for ED, for everyone.

B. When you installed DCS, and Agreed to Terms, and when you click "Update" instead of "Later" You are consenting to drive space being used by said update.

C. Texture Resolution has nothing to do with monitor resolution, the higher the resolution of the textures to higher the pixel per inch detail on the aircraft's model. the higher PPI allows more finer details etc etc. You dont need a 4K monitor to see the difference between 2K and 4K textures.

E. Aircraft are added to the core, for use as AI, and Multi-Player. If there was an argument for anything, it would be to enable removal of "CoreMods" of aircraft you have no intention of using. That way you can remove the textures footprint as well as the 1GB or so footprint from EDMs, UI Elements, etc. and the updater will not force you to re-download at the next update.

 

Edited May 27, 2024 by SkateZilla

[Beirut]

30 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

I have EVERYTHING installed, and it's under 700GB, so 2TB should be enough overhead for several years.

 

Agreed. I've been using a 1TB NVME for a few years and have lots of planes, and all the maps of course, and I'm sure I can install Afghanistan and the Chinook and still keep between 10% and 20% free on the drive.

 

We're at the point with DCS where storage space is as required as much as a good GPU. There's no getting around it. A couple more maps and many will hit around a 1TB install size. When a game, even an incomplete version of it, is hundreds and hundreds of GBs, there is no getting around the storage issue. And as you said, options are reasonably priced, will last for years, and are in line with the expenditures the game already requires. 

 

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, SkateZilla said:

Again, the only argument in there is space, which is easily solved, and if solved w/ a 2+TB drive, would be solved for years.

As more aircraft and theaters are added, it's up to the user to determine which theaters they want installed.

I have EVERYTHING installed, and it's under 700GB, so 2TB should be enough overhead for several years.

You're assuming that DCS is the only program using space. It may not be. And just as a counter example my DCS space is over 800 GB since I've found it comfortable to have two installations when enough space remains. I've also tried to install DCS on a secondary computer like a laptop for a variety of reasons, though I had to give this up due to space.

 

Yes the user needs to manage space to meet their requirements. That should be extended to liveries for a variety of reasons.

1 hour ago, SkateZilla said:

No one is saying SSDs or NVME's are required to run DCS, I run DCS from a WD BLK 7200 Drive fine.

It is a common sentiment to avoid HDD for DCS. It's advice repeated all the time. It seems that you've found that it doesn't hold completely true, but many users will probably be steered toward SSD.

1 hour ago, SkateZilla said:

That amount of work to save roughly 4-12 GB in the long run isnt worth it.

If your storage situation is to the point where 10-20 GB is the determining factor on whether or not you can download updates and continue to play DCS, then it's clearly a matter of it being time to upgrade.



 

 

The F-14 livery folder exceeds your estimate alone at 13 GB. It is of course the outlier but I think you're underestimating the cost of liveries which can potentially reach into the 20-50 GB range or beyond. 10-20 GB can easily matter when you combine that space with potential space savings from other files. This should be obvious. Some users are going to have other things on their drives besides DCS. Removing 10 GB of liveries, 10 GB of X-Plane global map, and another 10 GB from a few other programs each can easily net you 50 or more GB. More options only makes things easier for the user and prevents the removal of potentially more important files like entire maps.

 

Using @Rudel_chw's own example above, if we had the option to remove liveries, that could have been done in place of removing 1 or more maps. PG is 30 GB. The F-14 alone consumes half of that space in liveries. Apache comes in at 5. Mirage F1 at 3.5. My own drive contains 50GB of liveries and I am behind on updates and so missing some aircraft and perhaps some recent liveries.

Not to mention that a manager allows more liveries to be added since it takes away space concerns.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, SkateZilla said:

Developing the Core infrastructure for picking and choosing aircraft liveries to remove, will only cause further Multiplayer segregation, as now server owners will have custom livery sets that each player will have to download and or delete to pass IC, etc etc.

I forgot to address this. MP segregation can be solved as well. If a manager could replace hi res liveries with low res or generic ones, then it becomes possible allow people with different livery folders to coexist. It's also not like the mismatch isn't handled in DCS as is. It just shows a missing livery texture.

Edited May 27, 2024 by Exorcet

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, SkateZilla said:

Why do I feel like it's getting overly technical, and now grasping as straws, over 4-15GB of space, in 2024. I have single movies that take up more space.

A. Module selection has nothing to do "preferences", and more to do with available information, it's well known Red For (Migs, Sukoi, etc) are mainly Russian and they have EXTREMELY strict laws regarding information on military equipment. So you cannot blame ED for that. They are working on a Mig-29A, which by one of your later points, would get destroyed by F-16s/F-18s/F-15s, so you likely wouldn't even touch that, for the same reason you wouldn't touch a F-4E, a Modern RedFor aircraft is never going to happen in the current state of western laws on military information, ever, and not just for ED, for everyone.

B. When you installed DCS, and Agreed to Terms, and when you click "Update" instead of "Later" You are consenting to drive space being used by said update.

C. Texture Resolution has nothing to do with monitor resolution, the higher the resolution of the textures to higher the pixel per inch detail on the aircraft's model. the higher PPI allows more finer details etc etc. You dont need a 4K monitor to see the difference between 2K and 4K textures.

E. Aircraft are added to the core, for use as AI, and Multi-Player. If there was an argument for anything, it would be to enable removal of "CoreMods" of aircraft you have no intention of using. That way you can remove the textures footprint as well as the 1GB or so footprint from EDMs, UI Elements, etc. and the updater will not force you to re-download at the next update.

 

 

Well this is a matter of preference. I do not mind you having full pack of liveries. My preference is not to store the liveries which I can not see properly 99,99% of the time.

Edited May 27, 2024 by okopanja

[SkateZilla]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

You're assuming that DCS is the only program using space. It may not be. And just as a counter example my DCS space is over 800 GB since I've found it comfortable to have two installations when enough space remains. I've also tried to install DCS on a secondary computer like a laptop for a variety of reasons, though I had to give this up due to space.

 

Yes the user needs to manage space to meet their requirements. That should be extended to liveries for a variety of reasons.

It is a common sentiment to avoid HDD for DCS. It's advice repeated all the time. It seems that you've found that it doesn't hold completely true, but many users will probably be steered toward SSD.

The F-14 livery folder exceeds your estimate alone at 13 GB. It is of course the outlier but I think you're underestimating the cost of liveries which can potentially reach into the 20-50 GB range or beyond. 10-20 GB can easily matter when you combine that space with potential space savings from other files. This should be obvious. Some users are going to have other things on their drives besides DCS. Removing 10 GB of liveries, 10 GB of X-Plane global map, and another 10 GB from a few other programs each can easily net you 50 or more GB. More options only makes things easier for the user and prevents the removal of potentially more important files like entire maps.

 

Using @Rudel_chw's own example above, if we had the option to remove liveries, that could have been done in place of removing 1 or more maps. PG is 30 GB. The F-14 alone consumes half of that space in liveries. Apache comes in at 5. Mirage F1 at 3.5. My own drive contains 50GB of liveries and I am behind on updates and so missing some aircraft and perhaps some recent liveries.

Not to mention that a manager allows more liveries to be added since it takes away space concerns.

 

 

 

I forgot to address this. MP segregation can be solved as well. If a manager could replace hi res liveries with low res or generic ones, then it becomes possible allow people with different livery folders to coexist. It's also not like the mismatch isn't handled in DCS as is. It just shows a missing livery texture.

 

In MP, missing livery shows up as the default livery, no missing texture.

Point being, most of the liveries are contained in a single archive file, separating all of them, giving them all IDs, creating a secondary livery manager system, even if it manages them for MP, instead of users downloading them once during update, the servers will get hit with requests to download liveries significantly more.

Like I said, it's easy to sit as a consumer and be like "Building a livery manager would be easy" and not understand there's development costs, as well as long term bandwidth costs, etc etc etc to be considered.

Not to even mention, there are other core aspects of the sim that are a priority over re-configuring the livery infrastructure.

In the future maybe, separate them all give them IDs, etc etc, it would also maybe save on updates, if the livery itself isnt updated, then those files wont need to be re-downloaded, vs if 1 livery gets updated or added, and they are all contained in the same archive, the entire livery texture archive is re-downloaded for a few MB of files.

Not saying the system wouldn't benefit from it if done properly, just saying, right now, it's not something that's a priority, with all the other things coming / in progress (MT Optimizations, DC / RTS Core being integrated, Vulkan being integrated), rebuilding the module and livery infrastructure would be another extensive project, for not only the ED Distribution, but can you imagine how long it would take to have 1000+ Liveries to Steam's shop w/ ID's and the clutter?

As for HQ/LQ Textures, I think it's being over estimated how much space you would actually recover. cutting resolution from 4K to 2K would take a 20Mb dds down to 8 Mb depending on the compression method and colorspace. so it would be an extensive effort to re-organize the corefile just to cut livery footprint from 50GB to 30GB.

 

[okopanja]

The less people have configuration, the less content will be sold.