Yet another update to DCS 2.8 Open Beta, but what about the stable?

[Baldrick33]

13 minutes ago, ac5 said:

It may well be that " this current 2.8.1.34437 OB is far away to be a "stable RC" but.. what about the one before that? and the one before? 

Why don't download openbeta? Well, I fear it will make a mess with my settings.

Each iteration of Open Beta should get closer to being ready for a stable release. It would make no sense to promote the earlier versions of 2.8.x to Stable.

You can backup your Saved Games DCS folders just in case.

If you have enough disk space you can have both installed. You can also run one version trimmed down to just one aircraft and map if you wish.

[Tarambuko]

On 12/19/2022 at 8:00 PM, rob10 said:

Might I suggest when you're buying a module that you look at the requirements that ED very helpfully puts at the start of the description and even highlight in red so you notice it?  Then you won't buy something you can't use right away.

And the why it goes to open beta branch first is well described in the posts above.

I am not buying a module but an upgrade of an existing module. I use VR and it seems its performance is negatively affected in Beta, so I won't be replacing stable with Beta for the sake of one module upgrade. I hope, this makes it clear about the reason for rising the issue.

[Mars Exulte]

On 12/18/2022 at 10:05 AM, ac5 said:

Yesterday,17.12.2022 yet another update to DCS 2.8 Open Beta.

But the last update of the stable version was issued at the beginning of October..

Has ED completely forgotten us, users of the stable version?

The literal whole point of Stable is it doesn't change as often and they try not introduce problems. If you want more frequent updates, then use Beta. It's not just ''slightly delayed release''.

 

 

 

[Dangerzone]

On 12/24/2022 at 9:40 PM, Tarambuko said:

I am not buying a module but an upgrade of an existing module. I use VR and it seems its performance is negatively affected in Beta, so I won't be replacing stable with Beta for the sake of one module upgrade. I hope, this makes it clear about the reason for rising the issue.

Just to clarify - you don't want to update to the current OB version, but you want ED to force stable users to update to the same OB version you don't want to upgrade yourself by promoting it to stable, so you can run that OB version without going 'OB'?  I don’t understand your logic.  That wouldn’t be any different to you to posting to open beta yourself, it’s only negatively affect every one else on stable at this point in time. Or am I misunderstanding your request?

The other suggestion to update stable to the first 2.8 open beta build by another post earlier is even more confusing. 

I can’t understand why OB vs Stable is so confusing to many. 

If the other poster wants that, they could do that themselves without forcing it on the rest of us. You can choose any build you want to update (or down grade back to) if you want. 

Additionally if you're worried about an OB update screwing up the config- you should be backing up anyway - as the config could get corrupt for a variety of different reasons, and it's pretty basic to backup. (Just copy the saved games directory). 

ED has given FULL options to customers to have any build they want (past or present, on the OB or Stable release), at any time, and even to update "backwards". None of the reasons mentioned makes sense to advocate to push stable to any release that isn’t ready yet. There's not a single reason that makes sense that can't already be achieved by those complaining about SR still being on 2.7.

About the only complaint that would make sense is 'why don't we have a stable enough version of 2.8 yet' - and I think that's exactly what ED have as their primary focus, just that it takes more times sometimes depending on the bugs introduced.

Edited December 26, 2022 by Dangerzone

[SharpeXB]

Thank you! Just in time for the big holiday week off

[ac5]

Well, thank you very much INDEED ED! 

VERY Nice to have this update in time for the holydays!

Most probably this was already planned, but nevertheless there is a slight

possibility that my thread had some influence.......

[Mars Exulte]

1 hour ago, ac5 said:

possibility that my thread had some influence.......

 I'm sure that was the deciding factor, they were just waiting for that lone man striding from the shadows in a long duster and black hat to remind them about their patch schedule. It's a thankless job, but if it wasn't for people stating the obvious, where would the world be? One step closer to the heat death of the universe, that's where!

[ac5]

Not a lone man striding from the shadows nor in a long duster and black hat, but yes,

stating the obvious..... 

[ac5]

So here we are again.. It's been 4 months since the last stable....

[5ephir0th]

Dont know what is this about, the "i dont want to update to open beta but i want a new release on stable" knowing that, when an stable is release, its just the last released iteration of the Open Beta, so, if you are afraid of the Open Beta problems why do you want that ED release it as Stable?

No offense but it makes no sense...

[SharpeXB]

The release cadence isn’t fair to people who run the stable version. It seems 75% of the time the current version is the Beta, effectively shutting people out of MP. 

[Baldrick33]

50 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The release cadence isn’t fair to people who run the stable version. It seems 75% of the time the current version is the Beta, effectively shutting people out of MP. 

DCS is a bit unusual with its openbeta best for multiplayer stance but I think that is just how the community has evolved rather than by design. Having been involved with race sim leagues having a tried and tested stable version with balance of power a known entity is pretty much essential. Knowing a new version could drop tomorrow which changes the effectiveness of weapons and maybe a few game breaking bugs seems high risk but so be it. 

That said DCS multiplayer seems a pretty niche enthusiast aspect and not really for the more casual drop in kind of player.

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Baldrick33 said:

DCS is a bit unusual with its openbeta best for multiplayer stance but I think that is just how the community has evolved rather than by design. Having been involved with race sim leagues having a tried and tested stable version with balance of power a known entity is pretty much essential. Knowing a new version could drop tomorrow which changes the effectiveness of weapons and maybe a few game breaking bugs seems high risk but so be it. 

That said DCS multiplayer seems a pretty niche enthusiast aspect and not really for the more casual drop in kind of player.

Yeah it’s an odd situation. I can’t see why anyone would prefer a buggy or experimental game especially for multiplayer. No other game is like this. It doesn’t serve the game well because I imagine a lot of people new to the game are put off by vacant multiplayer. 
DCS needs an unpredictable unscripted way to approach the game which mp provides. Otherwise DCS is nothing but quick missions and scripted campaigns. Pretty dull when you think about it. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

 

9 hours ago, ac5 said:

So here we are again.. It's been 4 months since the last stable....

It's almost as if a stable release candidate requires testing. Wow!

[Dangerzone]

10 hours ago, ac5 said:

So here we are again.. It's been 4 months since the last stable....

That's OK. Yes - I too am looking forward to the next Stable Release, but I'm reminded that Multi-threading has been implemented and it's no small change. 

From what I've been observing, multi-thread hasn't been stablised enough yet to be at a point where it's 'worthy' of being called stable, and that's understandable given the complexities of changing from a single thread to multi-threads, so while I'm looking forward to SR being incremented - I'm happy to wait if it's going to be less stable than what we currently have until it's good. 

I admit, I would love to see focus more on bugs to get it to stable before introducing new features now. (What I've noticed a bit of a trend on, is incrementing the version number to implement more features when the current version hasn't been developed enough to remove the existing bugs that were introduced since the previous stable release. ie - ED started working on 2.8.2 in January, and then in March instead of finishing off 2.8.2 to be stable, started developing new features in 2.8.3, and then last week it would seem has now started new work on 2.8.4. It would be nice if there was a policy that "No - we're not going to start work on new stuff until we have fixed enough bugs that we've introduced in this version to make DCS more stable". I think this would benefit not only Stable Release players - but also Open Beta players in that introduced 'de-stabling' bugs  would be given a higher priority than normal.) 

However I admit that I say this with the ignorance of not knowing what's going on behind the scenes. It's possible that dev's working on the bug-fixes to Multi-Threading are still going to need significantly more time - but if DCS waited for them to get these bedded down it might hinder other non-multi-thread developers are ready to move on with features that are required to continue the F4, or C130, or Chinook, or who knows what - so an increment in version and implement in features is a necessity even though they haven't managed to get MT where they want it yet. 

Either way, ED needs more time to get the last round of changes stable. They've been generous enough to give us the option to use either Open Beta or Stable ourselves (or even use a build in-between if we want to choose a build we're happy with). There's really not much more they could do with giving us more options. And changing the way they do things might benefit some people, but would hurt others, so we really have the best options available already in our not-perfect world. 

[Baldrick33]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah it’s an odd situation. I can’t see why anyone would prefer a buggy or experimental game especially for multiplayer. No other game is like this. It doesn’t serve the game well because I imagine a lot of people new to the game are put off by vacant multiplayer. 
DCS needs an unpredictable unscripted way to approach the game which mp provides. Otherwise DCS is nothing but quick missions and scripted campaigns. Pretty dull when you think about it. 

Personally I don't think it is dull. Multiplayer provides that ultimate player vs player challenge for sure but simulating operating a complex military aircraft provides loads of scope for enjoyment in single player IMHO.

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, Baldrick33 said:

Personally I don't think it is dull. Multiplayer provides that ultimate player vs player challenge for sure but simulating operating a complex military aircraft provides loads of scope for enjoyment in single player IMHO.

Actually what I mean was the lack of multiplayer is dull

[ac5]

On 4/21/2023 at 12:09 AM, SharpeXB said:

The release cadence isn’t fair to people who run the stable version. It seems 75% of the time the current version is the Beta, effectively shutting people out of MP. 

Could not agree more. Exactly my point. 

[Baldrick33]

The current (latest) version will always be the OpenBeta. The only exceptions being the small period between an OpenBeta version being readied after the last OpenBeta was promoted to Stable when the versions are the same.

Although as stated above it is a bit unusual for the beta version to be used almost exclusively for multiplayer, this appears to be what the community have decided. There is nothing to stop members creating and joining servers using the stable branch, just typically members don't.

To this end ED clearly state the OpenBeta is the better option for multiplayer on their website..

Stable should be exactly that and where we have major updates to the software as opposed to content, the time for the OpenBeta to mature sufficiently to be promoted to Stable will be longer. No amount of pointing out the time since the last one or prompting for an update should change that due process.

Opting in to the OpenBeta is for most relatively painless but if it is of concern then hurrying up the process of moving OpenBeta to Stable should be of equal concern.

[SharpeXB]

48 minutes ago, Baldrick33 said:

Although as stated above it is a bit unusual for the beta version to be used almost exclusively for multiplayer, this appears to be what the community have decided.

Very unusual for sure. And it’s a detriment to the game. What ED should do is set the release timing so it allows equal opportunity for both versions. And do more internal testing instead of having months and months of the public game in a Beta state

Edited April 22, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Baldrick33]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Very unusual for sure. And it’s a detriment to the game. Maybe ED needs to do something like a rotation enforcing odd / even days for Stable and Beta online.  That seems ridiculous and probably not doable but the situation is ridiculous, so…

Unless ED want to throw a ton of resource at managing multiplayer servers like a flight combat equivalent of iRacing then I think they are best off leaving it to the community.

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, Baldrick33 said:

Unless ED want to throw a ton of resource at managing multiplayer servers like a flight combat equivalent of iRacing then I think they are best off leaving it to the community.

Yeah that idea wouldn’t work. But they could simply change the release cadence to allow Stable users fair time online. Leaving it to a small portion of the community to wreck it for everyone else isn’t a good solution. I have a hard time imagining that the majority uses Beta. I don’t think Steam users have access to it, do they?

[Baldrick33]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah that idea wouldn’t work. But they could simply change the release cadence to allow Stable users fair time online. Leaving it to a small portion of the community to wreck it for everyone else isn’t a good solution. I have a hard time imagining that the majority uses Beta. I don’t think Steam users have access to it, do they?

Steam users do have access to the beta, it is a simpler process than standalone.

My view is that multiplayer is a small niche, the numbers are tiny. This isn’t like War Thunder where you can just dive in to a fight. What DCS multiplayer has is a small number of enthusiasts who dedicate significant time and effort into their hobby and opting into openbeta is a minor task in the scheme of things.

That said it can be off putting for more casual players. Having some entry level stable version servers 24/7 for novices to get some experience might be good though quite how you stop the aces using them for cannon fodder I am not so sure?

[SharpeXB]

23 minutes ago, Baldrick33 said:

My view is that multiplayer is a small niche, the numbers are tiny.

It’s tiny for many reasons. This is one of them no doubt. 

[rob10]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Very unusual for sure. And it’s a detriment to the game. What ED should do is set the release timing so it allows equal opportunity for both versions. And do more internal testing instead of having months and months of the public game in a Beta state

So how many people would you like ED to hire?  Reality is that this is a complex enough game with a really broad breadth (multiple planes AND multiple maps) and that's before you throw in user hardware differences, that short of having a public beta you're going to miss a pile of bugs because there are so many different combinations that even a 1,000 internal testers is going to miss a pile of them over 6 months (and that's a high cost to have that many).  Good luck getting that many volunteer testers who are going to be willing to strictly play with internal people for extended periods because they are the only ones with the version to play on (you aren't likely going to have enough with same interests, same availability times etc).  Your wish for this is never going to happen.