Dear Heatblur: You need to get your F-14's liveries folder under control.

[XCNuse]

I just noticed the F-14's liveries folder is nearing 12GB.

And this isn't something I have by owning the module; this is something... EVERYONE has... INCLUDING! dediservers....

This is uncalled for. It's so large, it alone consumes more storage space than every other module's liveries folder combined, and that includes the Apache; which in and of itself is also ... WAY oversized.

 

You wonder why the F14 is causing people's games to crash randomly? It should be no surprise that something like near half gigabyte folders are having to be decompressed on the fly and loaded into people's GPUs that are already lacking VRAM.

 

Please... get your files under control, this is insane! No wonder the plane takes forever to load into and has caused crashes all these years!

[IronMike]

Our apologies, but we really do not. Currently there is a bug in the repo which triplicates the Top Gun livery for some reason, which we need to clean out, but the rest is as intended.

It is also not true, I just checked: all other liveries combined are 33.5 GB (rounded) vs 12GB in the Tomcat. Disc space is incredibly cheap nowadays, and having a module within 15Gb is nothing unusual, in fact between 10 and 15 GB is normal industry standard in flight sims (DCS is actually really on the lower end of the spectrum, but not the norm).

We cannot throttle development or lower quality or offer less choice for "GPUs that are lacking VRAM". If you really think that liveries are causing crashes, then you can always delete them from the coremods folder except one for the A and B, albeit you will have to do it after each update.

[lunaticfringe]

The 27 liveries for the F-14B are 3.71 GB. 

The 14 liveries for the Mirage F1EQ are 3.4 GB.

Then check out the single livery size for the F-16 of the 36th FS out of Osan; 220 MB- right in line for relative size with the larger F-14 liveries. 

Now pull them up in DCS.  And then look at the cookie cutter F-16 liveries in comparison; the lack of detail, the roughs, the whole 9 yards.

There's a reason liveries go up as detail goes up.  And it's clearly observable that the F-14's liveries aren't just some of the most detailed, but that they're optimized right in line with all of the other schemes that try to work at their level.  

Life goes on.  

[Exorcet]

I think a better solution is asking ED for a livery manager. The idea has been floating around for a while now and there are posts about it in the wishlist section. Add to them and let's see if we can ED to add this since it would help everyone.

[XCNuse]

8 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:

Then check out the single livery size for the F-16 of the 36th FS out of Osan; 220 MB- right in line for relative size with the larger F-14 liveries. 

Ignoring all of the liveries for the F14 that alone are nearing 400MB....

The median file size for the F16 alone is sub 100MB; whereas on the F14 it's well over 200MB.

 

No other jet in DCS consumes my VRAM instantly with oversized skins like the F14 does.

 

The fact that even IronMike here is saying that storage "isn't that big of a deal anymore," shows exactly the problem; and the fact that I now have to prioritize other purchases.

Which means that I will be prioritizing a purchase on not their product instead.

[Tenebrae Aeternae]

Great liveries/textures with amazing detail, keep up the good work guys!  

[lunaticfringe]

2 minutes ago, XCNuse said:

Ignoring all of the liveries for the F14 that alone are nearing 400MB....

...while you ignore the Apache liveries nearing 500 MB...

5 minutes ago, XCNuse said:

The median file size for the F16 alone is sub 100MB; whereas on the F14 it's well over 200MB.

And that number is now going up as they've raised their own production standard to include the roughmets, helmets, and substantially higher levels of detail.   The F-16s new liveries going forward will now all scale in disk/VRAM at a level in accordance to the physical size of the Viper to the Tomcat because they'll all be at high resolution with the added texture mapping functions. 

All of the aircraft are moving into 2+k or higher texturing.  I look forward to seeing your complaints regarding VRAM usage in every subforum where they are added. 

[XCNuse]

Meanwhile; let me remind you lunatic still a very large portion of this complaint.

Why does my [read: ALL] Dedicated server have to have 12GB of paint scheme textures for the F14....

 

I realize part of this issue is ED for not having a solution; but the reality is, 12GB of actually very important space is being wasted on a single jet.

How can you possibly defend that?

[lunaticfringe]

11 minutes ago, XCNuse said:

How can you possibly defend that?

Because ED submits all of the liveries added to a base module to core. Third parties have been openly willing to discuss packing additional liveries or using a download management scheme in the past, and it's been a non-starter because of how the lead developer has chosen to structure the sim.  So your argument towards those outside of said control is to either: 

a. reduce the value they want to offer their customers for the purchase of the module, or
b. reduce the quality of what they're offering to meet your personal disk limitations versus ED's core-addition requirement

Gib less or ship ish- that's really what your argument comes down to, when the crux of the matter is the sim's core dependency requirement. 

Third parties should be permitted (and encouraged) to provide as much content as they want without a reduction in quality to meet the varied needs of their users; and users should be free to add or remove content that is non-essential to the base function of using a module- or simply having it on their system as part of running the title.  The point is that neither side in this equation has control, and it's all set based on the way DCS is built.  That's where the direction of this should be put, not telling Heatblur (or Aeyes or anybody else) to reduce the amount of content and its quality that they send along.  
 

[IronMike]

4 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Yeah, I second this. There are also some "subpar" liveries on the A and ones that are goofy and are wasting space (like the christmas and chromecat ones) that I manually have to delete each update so I dont see them in the game. Originally the F14B liveries were stellar but the quality and consistency has declined the moment 3rd party liveries were officially included.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Not only are we extremely grateful and lucky to have such talented skin makers give their free time to us, but we also think their skins are a) very accurate and b) very well done and beautiful. We stand 100% behind them, without even the slightest whiff of doubt. There is really no need to be so derogative, even if you don't like them, for whatever reason. That's just your opinion, and while you are absolutely entitled to that, it is only one opinion among many and can also be said in a much nicer way. Those folks who make these skins for us really don't deserve that.

[IronMike]

1 minute ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Sure, this is very subjective and by no means a knock on any of the creators - just that there needs to be some sort of uniformity. Also, the chromecat and christmas liveries are everything but historical.

Thanks. As for the chromecat and christmas livery - they sure are not, but not everything needs to be. They hold special meaning for us.

[Nealius]

12 hours ago, XCNuse said:

The fact that even IronMike here is saying that storage "isn't that big of a deal anymore," shows exactly the problem; and the fact that I now have to prioritize other purchases

I concur with this very valid statement that no one else seems to be acknowledging. 

[IronMike]

25 minutes ago, Nealius said:

I concur with this very valid statement that no one else seems to be acknowledging. 

Because it is not a very valid statement. 15GB is nothing for a module/ addon / DLC by today's industry standards. And it is also not true that because we have 12GB of liveries it equals of instantly filling up 12GB of your VRAM, or hampers your performance. It may result in slightly longer loading times, but that is it. It does not work that way. Once DCS gets mip based texture streaming this will be even less of an issue, or basically no issue at all anymore.

1GB of diskspace = roughly 10 cents for the fastest disk you can get these days. That is precisely a whopping 1.2 USD worth of diskspace for our liveries...

Let us move on please. We won't change it. We however would not oppose a DCS-wide livery manager. But that wish should be addressed to ED, not us.

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by IronMike

[SmeagleGoneWild]

5 hours ago, IronMike said:

Thanks. As for the chromecat and christmas livery - they sure are not, but not everything needs to be. They hold special meaning for us.

Lmao when I bought the tomcat a few months back, the first livery I took out was the Christmas one. Nothing like jingling around with Rudolph. Gave me a good laugh and I can appreciate it. 

[IronMike]

9 minutes ago, SmeagleGoneWild said:

Lmao when I bought the tomcat a few months back, the first livery I took out was the Christmas one. Nothing like jingling around with Rudolph. Gave me a good laugh and I can appreciate it. 

Hehe, I am looking forward to December. It's the only livery I use around Christmas time.

[Mach3DS]

I just want to know if you think my VF-31 1991 falls into the category of "sub-par"?  If so,.what are the reasons, so as to take some self reflection on my own work.  Seeing as I'm one of those called out generically.  

Edited October 30, 2022 by Mach3DS

[WinterH]

Fully agree that HB livery runaway needs a check. Space isn't cheap for everyone, if anything, it is at a premium for some of us, and I don't fancy having to shuffle files with every big update to make enough space just so I can update DCS.

If all the other liveries combined makes 33 gigs and Tomcat alone makes 12, that is literally INSANE. Don't get me wrong, they are really nice to look at. But I'd be pretty happy if we don't get any more added, well aside from A FEW for upcoming additional variants I guess. I'd also be happy if F-4E won't take up that much drive space for liveries, and I say this as a phantom phanatic for whom F-4E is the thing I anticipate in DCS the most, by far.

Liveries should be "download as you like" kinda thing, which I sometimes do for my favorite modules.

[Tenebrae Aeternae]

2 hours ago, WinterH said:

Space isn't cheap for everyone, if anything, it is at a premium for some of us, and I don't fancy having to shuffle files with every big update to make enough space just so I can update DCS.

Here´s the deal. What´s the point of insisting that people who have more storage and better rigs shouldn´t have nice skins? Because people who aren´t as lucky have to go through couple extra steps to nurse their systems? All i can hear is this: "We can´t enjoy it, so no one should!".

If i may be so blunt.. if you have a crappy pc, you should be very familiar with having to go through some extra hoops here and there. I´ve been there, and it never even occurred in my mind that i should take away something from others when i could sort it for me, myself.

If it becomes "download as you like" thing, then it would quite literally give the same extra hassle for everyone.. and i bet the "can barely run this thing" rigs are a minority.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Tenebrae Aeternae

[WinterH]

1 minute ago, Tenebrae Aeternae said:

What´s the point of insisting that people who have more storage and better rigs shouldn´t have nice skins? Because people who aren´t as lucky have to go through couple extra steps to nurse their systems? All i can hear is this: "We can´t enjoy it, so no one should!".

Here's the deal: that's a complete strawman. Extra liveries not being forced down the throat of everyone does not equal those who want can't enjoy them either: make them optional downloads, and no one loses a thing, and people get choice.

[Tenebrae Aeternae]

8 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Here's the deal: that's a complete strawman. Extra liveries not being forced down the throat of everyone does not equal those who want can't enjoy them either: make them optional downloads, and no one loses a thing, and people get choice.

It´s not a strawman. You are asking to give extra hassle a small minority has to deal with, for everyone. The reason being = You don´t want to have any extra hassle. What? You at least suggested a solution, even if it wasn´t a good one (imo). 

Edited October 30, 2022 by Tenebrae Aeternae

[Rudel_chw]

If 12 GB of liveries is such a problem, then what will you do the next time DCS enlarges a Map? or if you purchase one of the aircrafts on your wishlist? … hard drive space is the cheapest item on a DCS-capable PC, so just bite the bullet and buy a new drive … think of all the gorgeous liveries you will be able to enjoy 

Edited October 30, 2022 by Rudel_chw

[IronMike]

5 hours ago, WinterH said:

 Space isn't cheap for everyone

Space is cheap for everyone in exactly the same way. And sure there are economies in this world, where it might not be subjectively, or age groups, where affordability may play a role, but that is a minority in today's gaming world. Most games are between 80 and 150 GB nowadays, easily. MSFS high end modules range between 10 and 20 GB easily. Airport Sceneries can be up to 15GB easily. Etc. etc.

It is 2022, guys, where large game installs are the norm. And if 15GB is an issue for anyone in this day and age, then economizing with their disk space is on them, not on us. That may sound harsh, or as if I had no sympathy with them, but it's not a question of sympathy. I do sympathize. We've all been in a pinch and grew our rigs to certain capabilities over time. I remember very well running a GTX560 in the early days of DCS, and I had to lower my settings to make it work, but it didn't come to my mind to write to ED to lower their quality to accommodate my rig. I instead saved up and eventually bought a better GPU. I remember having huge space issues a few years ago, when I started working as a developer, and I had to install, uninstall and reinstall games as I wanted to play them (besides DCS), and even in DCS installing and uninstalling modules and maps that I played or not played, because there was only so much space left. And ultimately upgrading with more disks. Updates btw are not an arguement, because you will only have to download the skins once, and in an update it would only re-download a skin if it got changed or fixed, which happens rarely, and if it happens it is maybe a few hundred MB at best.

Did you guys know that there is a community of players who still play Flaming Cliffs 2? They cannot afford new PCs, which is super unfair imo, they live in countries where the monthly salary is so small that affording anything modern is almost impossible. And I really feel for them, and I know some, I flew with them back in the day, and I miss them. But should DCS now be reverted to FC2 levels to accommodate them, too? Would you, who complain here, agree with DCS looking like FC2 suddenly again, so they can be in the fold again? I guess you would not care about such thing at all, and the pitchforks would be raised high. But in essence, that is what you are demanding, because once you go down that road, trust me, the rabbit hole gets very deep, very fast. It's wanting to eat the cake and keep the cake at the same time. Players want more quality, more content, more functionality and at the same time smaller games? It does not work like that. It cannot. And never has, and never will. And fwiw, none of them are writing to ED to revert DCS to FC2 levels, because they know it is an unrealistic demand.

We go forward in time. Games become more demanding, better, more beautiful, with more on offer and thus also bigger. Gaming rigs are catching up. That is how it always was and always will be. But to demand from games to lower their quality or offer less, because some are lagging behind, is standing against progress itself. Is it always fair? No. Would I wish that it was fair and everyone could afford the latest high end rig? Of course. But at the same time we need to keep progressing, and not standing still or even moving backwards because some are in a position now, that is by no fault of ours, and requires economizing on their part to accommodate the hobby they chose. Games will continue to get bigger in the future and more demanding. And we already put a lot of effort in optimization to be able to include rigs as far back as possible. A lot of time, that could be better allocated elsewhere in an ideal world, goes precisely into optimization because we do care about folks with older rigs. But somewhere we also have to draw a line. And that is being well within industry standards, as we are.

I am sorry that some of you struggle with space, and I am sorry if it disappoints you, but please understand that we will not change our modules because of it. Thank you.

The solution, as mentioned, would be a livery manager, which we would support no questions asked, but it is not on us to provide said solution, as much as we'd like. We btw even tried and considered it to do one for our modules only, but unfortunately we could not integrate it in a way that it would work with DCS.

Edited October 30, 2022 by IronMike

[Despayre]

Current price of a 2TB internal SSD Drive: $100.00(ish) (USA prices, likely slightly higher elsewhere, ie, $120 here in Canada).

Current price of the average DCS module: $75.00(ish).

 

So, for the cost of less than 2 modules (which each take months to learn well, so spread that $100-120 cost over months since most ppl don't fly more than 1 plane primarily at a time), I can have world class drive performance, and room for every single map and plane (and skin [and all the core game files for regular AND open beta too]!) in DCS, and still have a drive that's more than 50% empty for future expansion.

 

So, without singling out the Tomcat, there are a lot of skins around.

Do I need them all? No.

Do I have them all, including the mass of them in the downloadable user files? No (but lots!).

Do I have the drive space to put them all in if I want to? Without question, and without additional cost. 

 

One drive purchase will easily outlive this PC and can be transferred to the next. There's no question about the value proposition here about this purchase.

 

So from here, this seems like a non-issue based the cost/math and on several other points... 

First, DCS isn't, and never has been "a game", it's "a sim", and there are differences, two of which are detail and realism. Don't like that, try Star Citizen (according to them, 80GB + 10-20gb additional for pagefiles) or maybe something with less variety like Microsoft Flight Simulator X (according to them, 150GB required for 18 planes, btw DCS has 43 planes). 

No matter how you slice it, PC gaming isn't free. You only have to look in the forums to see the constant feature requests that make devs feel like they need to add more... all the time.

Things I've seen, this week alone:

"Thanks for adding the new missile types, can we add 2 more pylons so I can have one hard point for each of those missiles?"

"Are we going to see a new version of the M2000?" (constantly)

"Thanks for the Jester upgrades, can we get an entire scripting language for him quickly mocked up too?"

 

etc, etc... point being, DCS is constantly advancing, and with many more planes coming online, it's only going to grow in size, assuming you want to try all the new planes. If you don't, then perhaps uninstalling the planes you don't use might be a free solution for you, with very little downside. If you ever decide you want that plane, you can have it back in a minute with a couple of clicks. I don't see a problem with that.

 

Let's also keep in mind, that outside of livery and hard drive constraints, you're also dealing with some of the most expensive type of peripherals around... the latest Winwing HOTAS is over $1000.00 once delivered (to Canada). So, it's hard to look at an issue that is literally complaining over pennies, as a valid and legitimate complaint for the vast majority of users who are capable of having the required equipment to enjoy this sim.

 

Now, having said all that, a livery manager would be very welcome news, cuz there's no denying, there's a lot of skins on my hard drive that I have never, and likely will never, use, and they're just unneeded, While that does seem like a waste, even if it's with drive space that would likely remain empty (either way, there's zero cost involved, since the drive space already exists for me), so ya, all those liveries might be a problem... but it's a problem without any real need for a remedy (good graphics have ALWAYS demanded a lot from PC's, going back to the late 80's, when the concept of "high end graphics" was very very different from today's), and therefore (as it should be) it's likely very far down the list of DCS complaints and priorities.... 

 

Ok, now that we're done with that, can we go back to arguing about if we can get the EFT's off of the new F-15EX or not? 

 

[Fulcrumkiller31]

I cant believe people are complaining about this, keep up the good work HB!

[=DROOPY=]

Right?! I knew nothing of DCS until Thanksgiving of 2018. My co-workers and I had to work the Thanksgiving holiday, and one of them brought his entire set-up to work. 40in TV, rig, VR, the whole package. Coming from playing 'Aero Elite' on PS2... I was in absolute awe. From that time, I have slowly acquired a rig that can manage DCS, with a Nvidia GTX 970 GPU. I have not been able to upgrade because, if you recall, during the whole COVID event, prices of anything CPU related skyrocketed...even the prices of 1080ti's went completely stupid. I'll get there eventually... but at the moment, I'm just happy to be here and can play something that is a bit more realistic than 'Aero Elite'.

Edited October 30, 2022 by =DROOPY=