... I don't have the F-15E, but it's using 6GB in CoreMods??

[Snacko]

nullI have not purchased the new F-15E.  But it is taking up over 6GB on my Hard Drive.  I noticed this when Windows Pointed out that my Drive was almost Full!  

Edited September 22, 2023 by Snacko

[Tholozor]

Most of it is going to be in the textures and liveries.

[Snacko]

Well, I don't think I need 6GB of that either..

[LazyBoot]

37 minutes ago, Snacko said:

Well, I don't think I need 6GB of that either..

You do if you want to be able to see it in multiplayer.

[Ramsay]

59 minutes ago, Snacko said:

... have not purchased the new F-15E.  But it is taking up over 6GB on my Hard Drive.

That's just the way DCS works, expect to need more HD space when Heatblur's F-4, ED's CH-47, etc., etc. is added.

[Snacko]

Oh, ok.  Thanks.

[Sarge55]

Too bad there isn’t an option to replace it with low resolution images. Or, any other aircraft you don’t own or have installed.

A mod perhaps. 

[Kercheiz]

Doing a mod is quite straightforward, you just need to rescale the textures (keep in mind you need to keep power of 2 size and save the texture with mipmaps).

However, it will most likely break integrity check.

I agree that having a default base DCS install with low detail models, and the option to download high detail versions for each aircraft or in a pack, would be a plus. This should be requested in general DCS forums.

 

[draconus]

It's not a bug. If you want to complain about DCS core liveries here's your place:

[Hiob]

Seriously people. Upgrade your storage. Every hobby comes with expenses. I get that for some people it is hard to spend extra cash. But what do you expect? Holding back the developement for everyone so that the unfortunate can keep up? It has never worked that way - and never will.

Also storage has never neen as cheap as today. A 1TB sata-ssd cost less than 40 bucks.

[Rudel_chw]

On 9/22/2023 at 12:42 PM, Snacko said:

have not purchased the new F-15E.  But it is taking up over 6GB on my Hard Drive.

 

and the F-14 uses up 16.6 GB, why not report that as a bug too, on their part of the Forum?

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Hiob said:

Seriously people. Upgrade your storage.

Why should people spend any amount of money to store files they don't need (well maybe for multiplayer, not for single player), want or use?

2 hours ago, Hiob said:

Holding back the developement for everyone so that the unfortunate can keep up?

Seriously people, nobody has asked for this, even in the slightest. What is it with these threads and people not actually reading what's being said and just inserting their own straw man interpretation of it?

It is perfectly possible to have development be completely unhindered, while giving the users the choice of what they store - this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone as this is exactly what the DCS module manager already does.

And before anyone talks about how "it's only 6 GB and $1 in storage space" and whatever, the module manager does it for things like campaigns - also pretty small and tiny fractions of the total space a drive would have and the installation size of DCS.

[Hiob]

20 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Why should people spend any amount of money to store files they don't need (well maybe for multiplayer, not for single player), want or use?

Because a game that is to be sold and delivered to thousands of people can't be taylored to fit any individuals needs. No game does this. And it is a very modern occurrence that people are demanding developers to cater to their very individual needs.

DCS is in no way special in being a triple-digit-GB behemoth. And due to its nature, it is on the upper scale of this kind. Just take a look at MSFS. The times where you could fit dozens of full size games on a 500 GB HDD are just over. Resolution got bigger, and with it the size of textures.

Fortunately the size of harddrives and the pricedrop per GB did hold pace.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Hiob

[Northstar98]

9 minutes ago, Hiob said:

Because a game that is to be sold and delivered to thousands of people can't be taylored to fit any individuals needs.

Except here it absolutely can and DCS already has all the prerequisite technologies - look at the module manager. Same exact concept, actually implemented in DCS.

EDIT: Heck, you can already delete liveries left and right as is and particularly if you're playing SP you will face no consequence for doing so, they'll just get redownloaded again every time you run a repair or run an update - all this would need is a way of excluding files from being redownloaded, which, again, is something the module manager already does, just not for this.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Northstar98

[Hiob]

I

15 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Except here it absolutely can and DCS already has all the prerequisite technologies - look at the module manager. Same exact concept, actually implemented in DCS.

 

I think you missed a point. You still need the models and textures of Aircraft you don't own as flyable mods, because they can appear as AI or static objects in the game. And how are the developers supposed to know that any individual don't need or care for them?

Next thing then: People are starting to complain that some campaign they bought or some training missions are bugged, because they forgot that they choose to not install some assets.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Hiob

[Njinsa]

I always thought that DCS is held back from wider acceptance due lack of dynamic campaign engine, stable and convincing weapons behavior, smart system resources allocation (MT and Vulkan API wise).

Now I get it.

It's about storage we need to take care of.

Seriously guys.

This is a niche and almost dead game genre which is everything but optimized. If one can afford a decent GPU to run this spaghetti piece of early 2000s code, how much more it takes to get a dedicated 1TB drive just for DCS.

[Northstar98]

25 minutes ago, Hiob said:

I think you missed a point. You still need the models and textures of Aircraft you don't own as flyable mods, because they can appear as AI or static objects in the game.

If I exclusively fly my own SP missions, then no I don't.

But even if I don't do that, all that happens when there's an aircraft or whatever asset using a livery that you don't have, is that it uses the default livery, which probably shouldn't be deleted. But this is an issue already without needing to delete anything, if a mission users user mods that you don't own (be it a single livery or whole new assets).

But even so there are solutions here - you can have a compatibility check, which, once again, DCS already has a system implemented to perform this - the intergrity checker and the repair utility:

The former is able to see what files have been modified and will return false if they have. If you want to fly on a server that's enforcing pure files, then you won't be able to join - you then have to weigh up whether you'd rather keep your files the way they are, or to return them to their default state so you can play on that mission.

The latter is able to check for what files are installed and what aren't installed and, like the integrity checker can check for deviations between your files and the files on ED's servers.

25 minutes ago, Hiob said:

And how are the developers supposed to know that any individual don't need or care for them?

They don't need to - if a player is trying to run a mission (be it SP, MP or as part of a campaign), which relies on files that you don't own, then that's not really the developer's problem is it?

10 minutes ago, Njinsa said:

I always thought that DCS is held back from wider acceptance due lack of dynamic campaign engine, stable and convincing weapons behavior, smart system resources allocation (MT and Vulkan API wise).

Now I get it.

It's about storage we need to take care of.

Seriously guys.

You realise that people can care about more than one thing at once, right? People talking about this, doesn't mean that they don't think any of the things you listed aren't issues?

And people can have plenty of storage space (like me) and still feel like they shouldn't need to store files they don't need to store.

Hang on, getting some deja vu here - I swear I said something along the lines of straw men and how a running theme with people opposed to this aren't actually reading what's being said.

10 minutes ago, Njinsa said:

This is a niche and almost dead game genre which is everything but optimized. If one can afford a decent GPU to run this spaghetti piece of early 2000s code, how much more it takes to get a dedicated 1TB drive just for DCS.

I have 1 TB of storage dedicated to DCS, it has loads of space on it left.

Why does that mean I should store files I don't use, don't need and don't want? I mean, I don't store things I don't want, need or use in the place where I live, I don't do it with the car I drive, why should I do it with my storage drive?

But even if I've filled my drive (as in the OP's case), but there's something I want to store that's only a few gigabytes, why should I choose buying a new drive, if I can simply delete a few gigabytes of files I don't need, want or use? Something that can be done, for free. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not spend the money if it isn't necessary to do so (which, it isn't). You said yourself - DCS already demands expensive hardware, why should I spend even more money, if I don't actually need to do so, if I can use my current drive at no extra cost, if I delete some files and stop them from being downloaded?

I can already uninstall modules, terrains and even things as small as campaigns with the module manager, that doesn't seem to be a problem, but taking, to the letter, the exact same system and applying it to things like liveries is a big no no?

Edited September 27, 2023 by Northstar98

[Hiob]

18 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

If I exclusively fly my own SP missions, then no I don't. 

This is a very special use-case and can't be assumed for all players. You're just proving my point. 

They don't need to - if a player is trying to run a mission (be it SP, MP or as part of a campaign), which relies on files that you don't own, then that's not really the developer's problem is it?

Yes, it absolutely is. Because who do you think they will be complaining to?

 

 

[Northstar98]

39 minutes ago, Hiob said:

This is a very special use-case and can't be assumed for all players. You're just proving my point. 

How, exactly?

You said you "need" to do it, I showed that you don't actually.

And yes, you can't assume it for all players, which is why I didn't, after all the very next thing I said was this:

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

But even if I don't do that, all that happens when there's an aircraft or whatever asset using a livery that you don't have, is that it uses the default livery, which probably shouldn't be deleted.

So, I still don't "need" it, even if I don't exclusively play my own missions. The mission then might use liveries unintended by the designer, but then there are solutions to that as I said. If it doesn't matter what liveries whatever aircraft has, then so what? If it does matter, then, that's what compatibility checkers like the integrity checker (something that already exists, it just doesn't check liveries) is for.

Again, I can already delete liveries left and right, so I can test whether what you're saying actually holds water.

And this is already a problem for user mods, using liveries or models not included with the base game, so it's a problem that already exists with the current system, without needing to delete anything. Which is why I then talked about maybe doing a compatibility check, for which the relevant technologies already exist.

39 minutes ago, Hiob said:

Yes, it absolutely is. Because who do you think they will be complaining to?

What?

If a developer makes a mission using the Persian Gulf map, and I uninstall the map (something I have all the tools to do), how on Earth would it be the developer's problem?

Surely the only thing to be said in such a case, is either reinstall the map, or you can't play my mission. I then have 2 choices - I either keep the map uninstalled meaning I can't play that mission, or reinstall it the map. As far as I'm concerned the choice should be mine to make and if I'm going to make the bed, then I should be the one to lie in it.

The same exact thing absolutely applies here.

But it's even better; simply deleting liveries doesn't actually prevent me from playing a mission, even if that mission uses those liveries - it just reverts to the default livery, or if that's been deleted the missing texture. If I'm okay with that, then what's the problem? If you're not okay with that, then you need to decide whether playing the mission is a more important than deleting whatever you've deleted, which should be (and already is, beside them being automatically redownloaded) you're choice to make.

Now it's perfectly reasonable to want to enforce certain liveries be installed, in which case, that's what compatibility checking is for - the integrity checker is an example, as I've already said.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Northstar98

[Snacko]

3 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

and the F-14 uses up 16.6 GB, why not report that as a bug too, on their part of the Forum?

Sheesh..  I have the 14.  And I didn't exactly call it a bug.  And you're usually nicer than this...

[Hiob]

@Northstar98

Okay, this will be the last time I will answer to this topic, because, honestly, I value my time to much to read through your walls of text.

1) you needed to construct a special use case to make your argument work which shows that it won’t work universally, which is exactly what it needs to do.

2) we were talking about liveries and not maps, which is a completely different animal

3) I don‘t really care. Make unreasonable demands as much as you like, argue for the sake of arguing, it doesn’t affect me and I strongly doubt that it will change anything. As I said, it is close to impossible to tailor a suit of software to those kinds of granular individual needs. The amount of maintenance will skyrocket and the effort isn’t worth it.

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Hiob

[Northstar98]

43 minutes ago, Hiob said:

Okay, this will be the last time I will answer to this topic, because, honestly, I value my time to much to read through your walls of text.

Well, by the looks of it you weren't reading much of it anyway - common theme with this one it seems.

43 minutes ago, Hiob said:

1) you needed to construct a special use case to make your argument work which shows that it won’t work universally, which is exactly what it needs to do.

1. I didn't, you just cherry picked one example I gave and pretended that's all I said, when it clearly wasn't.
2. I've addressed this twice already.

It isn't my fault you invented a problem and then didn't acknowledge the solution to it.

43 minutes ago, Hiob said:

2) we were talking about liveries and not maps, which is a completely different animal

It's called an analogy and it is, to the letter, the exact same concept.

43 minutes ago, Hiob said:

As I said, it is close to impossible to tailor a suit of software to those kinds of granular individual needs.

Only, what would be necessary has already been developed, so no it isn't, in the slightest. I swear I already said this.

43 minutes ago, Hiob said:

The amount of maintenance will skyrocket

Which is completely baseless.

43 minutes ago, Hiob said:

and the effort isn’t worth it.

*In your opinion.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Northstar98

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, Snacko said:

And you're usually nicer than this...

You’re right, I’m genuinely sorry for the comment  …  all the recent threads about disk space requirements of dcs got a bit on my nerves, will try to be more helpful on future threads. 

[Snacko]

On 9/27/2023 at 2:01 PM, Rudel_chw said:

You’re right, I’m genuinely sorry for the comment  …  all the recent threads about disk space requirements of dcs got a bit on my nerves, will try to be more helpful on future threads. 

No worries mate!  But I did uninstall the F-14 ATM since I don't fly that.  No more space problems for now.