Update the System Requirements

[itsthatguy]

I don't think this really belongs here but I wasn't sure where else to put this:

The system requirements on the DCS download page have not been updated since the OB release of DCS 2.5, more than 5 years ago now.
As someone who has been using the same system for almost 5 years (except for a GPU upgrade 1 year ago), these requirements are extremely outdated.

-Performance dropped in the notorious 2.5.6 update
-Performance dropped with 2.7
-Performance dropped with 2.8
-Performance on newer maps is worse
-Performance is worse when using newer assets

A GTX 1080 for VR? Sure, in 2018 back in 2.5.5 that worked great. Now that's laughably incapable - I should know, I had one up until a year ago.
Please update the system requirements, because what is published on the website currently is a straight up lie.

[cfrag]

While I agree that in principle the stated reqs are quite optimistic (both native and steam), I'm not entirely sure what you point is, given that

• A system that meets the published requirements will run DCS. It will not run it well (by a long shot), but it will run, so it's factually not "a straight up lie". Technically, ED are correct. Winning by technicality isn't my aspiration, but still...
• Since DCS is a free download, there's no risk involved for first-time players. Should they download DCS and see crappy performance, this may reflect badly on ED, so they might want to take this under advisement, yet...
• Of course ED have a vested interest to have the published reqs as low as possible to get more people to try the game for free, in the hopes that players attribute bad performance to a marginal system rather than badly communicated minimums. 
• Hoping that VR will run with a marginal system seems very optimistic on your part. Since VR makes DCS better by a factor of roughly a gazillion, I too am hoping for better performance; reading the reqs closely I have to conclude that nowhere do ED claim that DCS runs in VR at minimum requirements. That's just you and I hoping (I'm running a 2080Ti and feel need to upgrade very soon - I feel your pain) against hope.

But most importantly: Upping the reqs will not solve your nor my performance problems. Those requirements may be lipstick on a pig. Problem is: we love this pig; removing lipstick or adding eye shades won't change the nature of the beast: we need better hardware and hopefully DCS receives better performance through better tech (MP, Vulkan, ...) 

Edited September 4, 2023 by cfrag

[sirrah]

8 hours ago, itsthatguy said:

A GTX 1080 for VR? Sure, in 2018 back in 2.5.5 that worked great. Now that's laughably incapable - I should know, I had one up until a year ago.
Please update the system requirements, because what is published on the website currently is a straight up lie.

Fwiw: although I'm not sure about the gtx1080, my system is running DCS in VR on a 1080ti and it's still very much enjoyable.

I not even have to set all gfx to low.

 

Sure, upgrading would make everything better/nicer, but it's definitely still very well playable in VR on my old system.

All just a matter of managing your expectations

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by sirrah

[BIGNEWY]

9 hours ago, itsthatguy said:

I don't think this really belongs here but I wasn't sure where else to put this:

The system requirements on the DCS download page have not been updated since the OB release of DCS 2.5, more than 5 years ago now.
As someone who has been using the same system for almost 5 years (except for a GPU upgrade 1 year ago), these requirements are extremely outdated.

-Performance dropped in the notorious 2.5.6 update
-Performance dropped with 2.7
-Performance dropped with 2.8
-Performance on newer maps is worse
-Performance is worse when using newer assets

A GTX 1080 for VR? Sure, in 2018 back in 2.5.5 that worked great. Now that's laughably incapable - I should know, I had one up until a year ago.
Please update the system requirements, because what is published on the website currently is a straight up lie.

Sorry to see you are having performance drops. 

if you want help I would suggest you 

1. post a track replay example showing a performance dip

2. post your dcs log from the session

3. attach your dxdiag

4. a screenshot of your VR headset settings and any associated settings

5. Screenshot of your DCS graphic settings and VR settings

 

this will help us help you. 

thanks

[SharpeXB]

It would only make sense that the posted system requirements should be updated as the game evolves. The ones listed for DCS seem laughably out of date, indicating a GPU from seven years ago. And like most other games they’re so vague as to not be much help, for example “CPU: Core i5+ at 3+ GHz” could literally mean any CPU from up to 10 years ago. But of course since DCSW is free and all the modules have free trials my guess is that most people don’t rely on these specs very much. 

[draconus]

On 9/3/2023 at 11:08 PM, itsthatguy said:

-Performance dropped in the notorious 2.5.6 update
-Performance dropped with 2.7
-Performance dropped with 2.8
-Performance on newer maps is worse
-Performance is worse when using newer assets

Yes, if you keep adding more calculations and data (as is the case with every update: new effects, models, textures, all with higher quality than before) the performance will drop but you also conveniently ignored multithreading support added in the meantime. Nowhere the requirements say what kind of performance you can expect at what settings and on which hardware.

[Art-J]

I think the main issue is these obsolete specs are listed as "recommended" for high gfx preset and VR.

Everywhere else In normal gaming world the "recommended requirements" phrase means hardware capable of running the game with all bells and whistles cranked up to 11 (or 9 at least), for these customers who can afford such hardware. I don't think even the most radical DCS fanboyz can say with a straight face that an i5 + GTX 1080 combo fits that description. Multithreading at its current phase doesn't change that and comes with its own issues anyway (I, for example, after initial MT honeymoon period and dealing with increased stuttering on my good old i7 9700k, switched back to ST for simply much smoother rendering all around. Extra framerate in MT was just not worth it when paired with choppiness).

It's all moot anyway. As mentioned, free DCSW plus free module trials (the best idea ED had in recent years) should be enough for any newcomer to check out how his hardware really performs in 2.8.

 

[SharpeXB]

The thing is that although games can have free trials, hardware doesn’t. Someone who buys a machine or VR headset based upon these specs thinking that will run DCS is going to be vastly disappointed. 

[Gunslinger52]

11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The thing is that although games can have free trials, hardware doesn’t. Someone who buys a machine or VR headset based upon these specs thinking that will run DCS is going to be vastly disappointed. 

I agree.  I was.  Only the minority are well able to know what to buy for their machine, to run DCS to their satisfaction. 

For others like me, we can't simply go out and immediately buy more gear, upon learning 'from our mistake'.  Surely ED would also benefit from initial users 1st experience being a positive one.  The specs need to be increased as the real-world demand from the engine increases (or decreases (MT??)). 

Perhaps an annual, ED generated vote, on 'what spec machines work well' could give us with less tech knowledge, a better start into this fantastic sim.

'52

[draconus]

5 hours ago, Gunslinger52 said:

Only the minority are well able to know what to buy for their machine, to run DCS to their satisfaction.

You should've asked on the forum before buying.

I had somewhat opposite experience. I did ask on the forum before jumping to VR back in 2021. They told me I need at least 1080 to have decent fps. I had 970 and the GPU prices were crazy in those times, so there was no way for me to accept the upgrade but I went with it anyway and it was so good for me that I never looked back. Of course I had to lower the settings and the graphics were not great until the upgrade a year later but it's individual thing for everyone how much performance they need to have fun - can't measure that.

[Gunslinger52]

New users to DCS shouldn't have to already know what to do (scour forums full of subjective opinions) to get the experience they want.  How each new user decides on what is fun for them, is of course not a requirement that can ever be met by ED.  

It shouldn't be too hard, to have a table with say 3 builds (low budget/med & high) for Intel machines, AMD machines, and of course Nvidia vs AMD.  There could be very short videos of the same flight sequence, made with each build.  Then people looking to spend their money, could have at least some idea of what they are likely to get.  

The last request would be a warning when a new version of DCS is due, so that buyers could wait until the new demo videos made with each build, could be released.  I'm sure it wouldn't unduly hurt ED, to update the specs yearly, instead of the 5 years mentioned above. 

[cfrag]

On 9/5/2023 at 2:59 PM, SharpeXB said:

Someone who buys a machine or VR headset based upon these specs thinking that will run DCS is going to be vastly disappointed. 

Do those people really exist? Who buys a computer and VR set based on the recommendations of a game that they read about or just downloaded for free? That seems an excessively academic case; it may be imaginable that such a person exists - but I assert that it is highly unlikely that they do in reality. I would wager that someone who buys a VR set (which by itself is by no means cheap) puts in some thought, time and research for the headset alone. Then figure out the computer and GPU to match on grounds of principality, not a specific game. What's more, at that point we have definitely crossed into four digits (likely even mid four digits) USD territory. Such a purchase based on the blurb of a free download off the internet? I think that very few people would be that inconsiderate. I posit that people first set their computer requirements and assemble their rig, and only then see what can run on it. And yes, when they run DCS, even then they may be disappointed (which, I think and based of many comments here will happen anyway, no matter what they purchased). 

So my question is: did anyone here ever base the specs of the computer they purchased (a multi-k expenditure) on the 'recommended' specs of DCS?  

[draconus]

24 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Who buys a computer and VR set based on the recommendations of a game that they read about or just downloaded for free?

Well, I had pretty low end PC at the time and decided to try VR and have choosen the headset (the older ones are cheap!) just based on the users' comments on this very forum. Granted I'm IT guy and was not a new DCS user.

30 minutes ago, cfrag said:

So my question is: did anyone here ever base the specs of the computer they purchased (a multi-k expenditure) on the 'recommended' specs of DCS?

I only checked the minimum requirements before the first DCS download.

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

I only checked the minimum requirements before the first DCS download.

Indeed. And you did not purchase your computer based on DCS's requirement specs. I believe your's to be the "correct", sane approach. Other people seemingly stipulate the reverse, that some individuals may base the purchase of their PC and VR on DCS's system requirement, a line of thinking which I find difficult to believe that it exists in the real world. 

[MAXsenna]

4 hours ago, cfrag said:

And you did not purchase your computer based on DCS's requirement specs. I believe your's to be the "correct", sane approach.

Same here. Discovered DCS (2016) three years post my computer purchase. It was already obsolete, even with dual Titans and 32Gigs of RAM, SSDs all the way...  

[Beirut]

4 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Same here. Discovered DCS (2016) three years post my computer purchase. It was already obsolete, even with dual Titans and 32Gigs of RAM, SSDs all the way...  

 

I ran DCS on a baked potato years ago. It was fun. Getting an SSD was a yuuuuuge improvement.

 

No one needs a fancy rig to run DCS. On the other hand everyone wants a fancy rig to run DCS. Expectations are the key. If someone is happy flying the FC planes over the Caucasus, then a potato might well suffice. That can be a highly enjoyable low-budget affair.

[SharpeXB]

7 hours ago, cfrag said:

Who buys a computer and VR set based on the recommendations of a game that they read about or just downloaded for free?

Even if that’s a rare or hypothetical case, that’s still not an excuse for posting outdated system specs. And yeah I’ve seen threads here exactly like that. Someone for whom DCS seems to be their first game. And the hardware purchase wouldn’t necessarily be an entire PC, it could just be components like a graphics card or HMD. Regardless there’s little excuse to list outdated info. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by SharpeXB

[cfrag]

43 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Even if that’s a rare or hypothetical case, that’s still not an excuse for posting outdated system specs.

I agree that there is no good excuse for posting bad system specs. My point was that constructing purely hypothetical cases against this doesn't help much either, bad specs are just that: bad. 

43 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Someone for whom DCS seems to be their first game. And the hardware purchase wouldn’t necessarily be an entire PC, it could just be components like a graphics card or HMD

Let's disregard these somewhat silly edge cases. I know some idiot who picked up smoking because some ads told him that it made him look cool (yeah, that was me). I'm not blaming my stupid decision on someone else's marketing. And I'd apply similar logic to someone who tries to blame their silly decisions on a game's marketing. So that entire line of reasoning is irrelevant. You already said it succinctly:  A seller's info should be correct. "Quality is if the client returns - not the product".

Edited September 7, 2023 by cfrag

[SharpeXB]

For the same reasons as listing a joystick, the non-VR recommended specs should actually list TrackIR for at least any modules with HMDs such as the AHA-64 or Hornet. That feature is almost unusable without it. And in the case of the Apache it’s literally required to use many of the weapons correctly, essentially the module assumes the use of either VR or head tracking. Honestly it should just be recommended for all. 

[sirrah]

In addition to my previous reply (2nd reply in this thread) and after actually reading the recommended VR specs on ED's website for the first time in my life ;

 

For sure, the "Recommended for VR" specs, should say "Minimum for VR".

(or "Bare minimum" in fact )

 

If you build/buy a new "VR pc" based on just a brief "recommendation" text on a products website, without any further investigation, you kinda deserve to be disappointed imo  (sorry.. couldn't resist).

Then again, why put a "Recommended for VR" text on your website, if it doesn't mean anything? I mean, no sane person would "recommend" those specs to someone new into DCS VR.

 

Again, "Minimum for VR" I can agree with.