DCS Newsletter Discussion 24th March 2023 - PC-9/A Announcement | Spring Sale 2023

[BIGNEWY]

DCS Newsletter Discussion 24th March 2023 - PC-9/A Announcement | Spring Sale 2023

 

Check Six Simulation 

Discord

https://discord.gg/htkBtAVCgC

DCS Forums

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/1070-check-six-simulations/

[Beirut]

I'll be first in line to buy that plane. Looks like great fun. Problem is we might not see it for years. 

[ngreenaway]

that was perhaps the most "lightweight" newsletter in awhile. guess nothing happened last week worth discussing

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, ngreenaway said:

that was perhaps the most "lightweight" newsletter in awhile. guess nothing happened last week worth discussing

Newly announced aircraft coming to DCS and its "lightweight" lol

no pleasing some people

[Beirut]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

Newly announced aircraft coming to DCS and its "lightweight" lol

no pleasing some people

 

Release that lovely PC-9/A today and I'll buy it today.

 

I will be very pleased. 

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, Beirut said:

 

Release that lovely PC-9/A today and I'll buy it today.

 

I will be very pleased. 

yeah will be nice, and thank you

[ngreenaway]

10 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Newly announced aircraft coming to DCS and its "lightweight" lol

no pleasing some people

yea, i suppose thats good news to some. i hope the best for a new dev balancing a map and an aircraft both in development

so we have an early stage announcement on a product that may not see the market for another few years, and a notification that the sale announced last week is on still, but closing soon. lightweight, indeed.

this is your weekly opportunity to show off, and it looks like there wasnt really anything to highlight i guess. some weeks are like that

of course you can never please everyone, cuz everyone wants something different.  im just happy its friday

Edited March 24, 2023 by ngreenaway

[BIGNEWY]

4 minutes ago, ngreenaway said:

yea, i suppose thats good news to some. i hope the best for a new dev balancing a map and an aircraft both in development

so we have an early stage announcement on a product that may not see the market for another few years, and a notification that the sale announced last week is on still, but closing soon. lightweight, indeed.

this is your weekly opportunity to show off, and it looks like there wasnt really anything to highlight i guess. some weeks are like that

of course you can never please everyone, cuz everyone wants something different.  im just happy its friday

 

We are not going to please everyone, every week. But thank you for the feedback. 

[Wing]

I guess what some people have in mind, is that the newsletter shows an announcement from a 3rd party dev. We primarily want to know what is going on in ED's development hangar in every newsletter. The extra 3rd party announcements are great and also added icing on the cake when they do come to fruition. This is a normal expectation when it comes to development newsletters -has nothing to do with "not pleasing people" tbh.

Edited March 24, 2023 by Wing

[ThorBrasil]

It's going to be a lot of fun flying this aircraft.

[Mar28]

Hi everyone!

Would like the A-29 Super Tucano First!!!

Then we would be able to put one against other !

Nice Weekend!

[Lace]

PC-9 a nice surprise.  

[twistking]

@BIGNEWY do you think you could - in the near future - make a newsletter happen that talks a bit more about technical implementations of MT - especially looking into the future a bit?
Background would be that i (and i think many others around here) are thinking about upgrading our PCs with DCS MT in mind. Unfortunately user benchmarks are all over the place (regarding reliability of sources due to different setups and quite frankly different levels of technical knowledge) and only a fraction of users run newest generation of CPUs anyway.
For example your MT FAQ mentioned that DCS would only use intel e-cores for data streaming. Is this just a WIP stopgap solution (E-cores should be capable of doing much more: A 13th gen cluster of 6 or 8 e-cores alone should be faster than my current CPU (i7-860@3,4ghz), which runs ST DCS just fine in pancake.)?

I don't expect a CPU recommendation, but it would be nice to get some more technical background on current implementation of MT as well as goals for future improvments to get a better understanding of how different architectures might handle DCS MT. Examples: Focus on ST vs MT performance, Cache, Memory speed and as mentioned before: Thoughts on classical multicore design vs big/little design (intel 12th gen and newer).

Maybe an engineer can write a little piece about their design goals and expectations...

Thanks.

 

[Fastbreak]

34 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

We are not going to please everyone, every week. But thank you for the feedback. 

Well, no matter what happens ED's newlsletters are some superb pieces of marketing efforts that will never fail to amuse me - thank you very much.

 

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, twistking said:

@BIGNEWY do you think you could - in the near future - make a newsletter happen that talks a bit more about technical implementations of MT - especially looking into the future a bit?
Background would be that i (and i think many others around here) are thinking about upgrading our PCs with DCS MT in mind. Unfortunately user benchmarks are all over the place (regarding reliability of sources due to different setups and quite frankly different levels of technical knowledge) and only a fraction of users run newest generation of CPUs anyway.
For example your MT FAQ mentioned that DCS would only use intel e-cores for data streaming. Is this just a WIP stopgap solution (E-cores should be capable of doing much more: A 13th gen cluster of 6 or 8 e-cores alone should be faster than my current CPU (i7-860@3,4ghz), which runs ST DCS just fine in pancake.)?

I don't expect a CPU recommendation, but it would be nice to get some more technical background on current implementation of MT as well as goals for future improvments to get a better understanding of how different architectures might handle DCS MT. Examples: Focus on ST vs MT performance, Cache, Memory speed and as mentioned before: Thoughts on classical multicore design vs big/little design (intel 12th gen and newer).

Maybe an engineer can write a little piece about their design goals and expectations...

Thanks.

 

I can ask, but at the moment our engineer is very busy with MT and tweaking, for him to take time out for a in depth newsletter piece would not be good timing. Maybe something for the future when things are not so busy.  

[twistking]

48 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

I can ask, but at the moment our engineer is very busy with MT and tweaking, for him to take time out for a in depth newsletter piece would not be good timing. Maybe something for the future when things are not so busy.  

fair enough! if the technical staff is too busy with doing more great MT magic, it would also help to have a slightly more high level overview of what the midterm goals for MT and general performance are. maybe this is something that a team-lead/producer could say sth. about without knowing all the nitty gritty details.
i (we?) don't expect any guarantees how DCS will perform on a specific system, but - again - some technical overview over current MT implementation and goals would already help a lot to form a new understanding of DCS performance, now that the old dogmas are shattered (hooray!).

[kotor633]

Yes, another 'training plane' is exactly what is needed in DCS... 

Edited March 27, 2023 by kotor633

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

3 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

I can ask, but at the moment our engineer is very busy with MT and tweaking, for him to take time out for a in depth newsletter piece would not be good timing. Maybe something for the future when things are not so busy.  

Just an idea, but perhaps you could ask SkateZilla to write it instead, if he has the time? I think many people quite enjoyed his recent technical posts on the subject.

[Convexrook]

6 hours ago, Beirut said:

 

Release that lovely PC-9/A today and I'll buy it today.

 

I will be very pleased. 

BOOM!! DCS Bomb DROP, Heard it here first  

[BIGNEWY]

44 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Just an idea, but perhaps you could ask SkateZilla to write it instead, if he has the time? I think many people quite enjoyed his recent technical posts on the subject.

Hi, 

Skatezilla is a volunteer tester who has been with us for a long time, but he has no connection to the development of multithreading in DCS, it would need to be an ED Team member with technical knowledge of the development. All of those team members are busy currently. 

[Mike Force Team]

@BIGNEWY Thank you for the update on the "lightweight" plane. I might consider it when more information is available. 

In the newsletter, there is information we would love to hear but don't. What is the latest development on the F-4 phantom? Many virtual pilots are really, really, really eager to buy it. Periodic updates show that ED and the third party software developer are mindful of their customers' expectations.  At times, the lack of regular updates on the F-4 seems to convey that ED or the software developer are not giving timely updates. Giving updates should be an ongoing process. 

Mike Force Team

Edited March 24, 2023 by Mike Force Team

[NineLine]

They have not given us anything to share recently, best to visit their forum section or their Discord. Thanks.

[79Au]

I hate to say it but I'm fed up with all the premature announcements. It's ridiculous. I'd rather hear about the modules that were announced 2-3 years ago, or you know, the ones that stalled in development like KW and F4U.

Wait until you are almost done and have something that's actually in reach and about to enter the market and not some concept stuff we won't see for the next 2 years minimum.

The base game doesn't get nearly enough attention and the empty newsletters are depressing. I mean, I'm waiting for a couple AI planes for over a year. And that batch doesn't even include the KC-10. SAM repetoire is incomplete and inaccurate, so many things could be optimized or corrected.

But of course, new modules it is.

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, 79Au said:

Wait until you are almost done and have something that's actually in reach and about to enter the market and not some concept stuff we won't see for the next 2 years minimum.

That's exactly what the policy was until recently. It resulted in a lot of teams starting initial work on an aircraft, spending a lot of time on it, then finding out it's already in development. The current announcement policy might be somewhat meh marketing-wise, but it's necessary to avoid this kind of situation. What this newsletter does is "stake the claim" to the module, so that nobody else starts work on a PC-9/A. Now, there's admittedly not much risk of that in this case, but something like Tornado was a different matter.

Kiowa Warrior and F4U, OTOH, are being finalized, which tends to have the devs focused on work, and not on marketing, at least until they reach the "final touches" stage when they can start building pre-release hype. Also remember, it's all 3rd party stuff. They don't work on core features and seldom make AI-only models. 

[BIGNEWY]

7 hours ago, 79Au said:

I hate to say it but I'm fed up with all the premature announcements. It's ridiculous. I'd rather hear about the modules that were announced 2-3 years ago, or you know, the ones that stalled in development like KW and F4U.

Wait until you are almost done and have something that's actually in reach and about to enter the market and not some concept stuff we won't see for the next 2 years minimum.

The base game doesn't get nearly enough attention and the empty newsletters are depressing. I mean, I'm waiting for a couple AI planes for over a year. And that batch doesn't even include the KC-10. SAM repetoire is incomplete and inaccurate, so many things could be optimized or corrected.

But of course, new modules it is.

As mentioned above we changed the policy on releasing information on third party projects when they are approved, this helps other teams decide where to best put their own future plans for modules. 

As for the base game, we have just released multithreading, it was featured in our newsletter and a very big step forward for our teams. We will release more information on core / base game developments when they are ready, but it will probably not suit your own time frame, development will always take a long time and does require some patience. 

thank you