DCS 1.2.7 Open Beta - Preliminary Changelog

[Flagrum]

Agree, that's why there are beta testers and closed group access to beta.

 

So far (as I recall - could be wrong) the community was kept away from beta access to DCS updates. May I ask: Why the sudden change in testing policy?

Because of 1.2.6, 1.2.6u1, 1.2.6u2, 1.2.6u3 ...

 

Actually it was announced already earlier. Why? Because the quality of the releases were not, hrm, optimal? This software is immensely complex and is getting more complex every day. A few devs and 1-2 hand full of testers can just do so much. That's why over the months and years a new release almost always broke something that was working before - you never ran into that?

[GGTharos]

No one's forcing you to participate in the Open Beta.

 

The OB is being implemented because the beta team does a bunch of bug hunting, but cannot possibly check all configurations and all conditions, period, end of story.

 

So, you can join the OB to help create a quality product or you can choose not to.

 

Edit: Flagrum gets it.

 

However, I do agree that we, as the community members, should show our dedication and support towards ED by actually doing something for them and helping in the bug-hunting effort by testing the beta version. After all, it will be us who gets more polished product at the end.

[HungaroJET]

You Guys have it lucky - I currently have 4 (sometimes more) installs to deal with :)

 

Nate

 

Currently I have 47 working install on my rig (from Warthog beta to the latest version) :lol:

These are DCS-WH/DCSW only, not mentioning BS1, FC2, FC1, LOMAC and Flanker2 versions (few dozen also) :smilewink:

 

I think another complete install won't be a problem to me :D

 

There are many cheap terabyte-HDDs on the market guys :idea:

[Flagrum]

Currently I have 47 working install on my rig (from Warthog beta to the latest version) :lol:

These are DCS-WH/DCSW only, not mentioning BS1, FC2, FC1, LOMAC and Flanker2 versions (few dozen also) :smilewink:

 

I think another complete install won't be a problem to me :D

 

There are many cheap terabyte-HDDs on the market guys :idea:

:shocking:

 

But you keep seperate installs for every module, even for the same DCSW version?

[danilop]

It was thought it would be beneficial to the process.

 

Nate

Fair enough! :thumbup:

 

I guess it's MP stability issue then, isn't it? Current Beta testers are overwhelmed and ED needs much broader tester base to hunt for bugs?

[Mainstay]

Currently I have 47 working install on my rig (from Warthog beta to the latest version) :lol:

These are DCS-WH/DCSW only, not mentioning BS1, FC2, FC1, LOMAC and Flanker2 versions (few dozen also) :smilewink:

 

I think another complete install won't be a problem to me :D

 

There are many cheap terabyte-HDDs on the market guys :idea:

 

And why would you wanna have so many installs? I can understand a couple of different builds for testing purposes but this....

[Eddie]

i dont understand the removed sparrow and amraam changes :dunno:

those are real/valid loadout for the mudhen

 

^

this

 

+100

 

For this.

 

Why they remove those? , they are used RL in those stations.

 

x10

 

You all need to read up on this a bit more.

 

With the aircraft in the role configuration (air-ground) seen in DCS, it cannot load AIM-7 or AIM-120 on the inner CFT stations. And when I say cannot, I don't mean "it's not authorised" I mean it is physically impossible to do so.

 

The stations that can be loaded on the Strike Eagles inner CFT racks in DCS are the BRU-47/A Ejector Release Units (ERUs) on stations LCT-1, 2, & 3 and RCT 1, 2, & 3. They carry free fall stores which are attached via a pair of suspension lugs (loops basically) and held by the hooks on the ERUs. These ERUs cannot carry or launch any missile (again physically).

 

The Strike Eagle also has 2 LAU-106/A Missile Ejector Launchers on the inner CFT racks, Station 3C, 4C, 6C, & 7C. These are not modelled in DCS at present. The real F-15E has 23 weapon stations, the DCS F-15E only has 19.

 

When in the AA role config, the forward LAU-106/As for stations 3C and 7C are switched with the BRU-47/A ERUs for the forward AG stations RCT-3 and LCT-3. Meaning you either have a Strike Eagle in AA config, or AG config. Again, the DCS Strike Eagle is currently setup in AG config.

 

The read MELs (STN-6C and 4C) are always in place, so this means that they could in theory be used. However if you load a missile onto either station the centre and rear ERUs (RCT-1 , RCT-2, LCT-1, and LCT-2) cannot be used. In addition if you load any stores on RCT-3 or LCT-3 those stores must be released before a missile loaded on STN-6C or 4C can be fired. Essentially this means that while physically possible, it's not practical to do so.

 

Quick illustration showing the stations on the DCS F-15E model.

 

 

Also see the two links below for more information.

 

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/weapons/weapons-stores/122-external-stores

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/weapons/weapons-stores/121-ejector-launcher

[danilop]

Because of 1.2.6, 1.2.6u1, 1.2.6u2, 1.2.6u3 ...

 

Actually it was announced already earlier. Why? Because the quality of the releases were not, hrm, optimal? This software is immensely complex and is getting more complex every day. A few devs and 1-2 hand full of testers can just do so much. That's why over the months and years a new release almost always broke something that was working before - you never ran into that?

 

They should have been more open about it. No need to hide it from community - we know it already. We are here to help. It's obvious that there have to be a major change in the testing process. As you stated, bug squashing has not been very effective so far.

[Cibit]

Currently I have 47 working install on my rig (from Warthog beta to the latest version) :lol:

These are DCS-WH/DCSW only, not mentioning BS1, FC2, FC1, LOMAC and Flanker2 versions (few dozen also) :smilewink:

 

I think another complete install won't be a problem to me :D

 

There are many cheap terabyte-HDDs on the market guys :idea:

 

Lolz I only have 7;)

[HiJack]

Lolz I only have 7;)

 

7bits Cibit? :music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

No one is hiding anything, and bug squashing has been a lot more effective than you will ever know.

 

The OB probably won't be some raw beta version like we get - a lot of bugs/features will have already been dealt with. But the testers can't deal with everything. There are situations and conditions that the testers cannot replicate.

 

They should have been more open about it. No need to hide it from community - we know it already. We are here to help. It's obvious that there have to be a major change in the testing process. As you stated, bug squashing has not been very effective so far.

[genbrien]

You Guys have it lucky - I currently have 4 (sometimes more) installs to deal with :)

 

Nate

 

says the guy who is probably flying the new F-15/S-27 AFM + F-18 + other goodies we don't know yet :thumbup::music_whistling:

[Gloom Demon]

Flagrum Sorry - must have missed that :-)

[HiJack]

says the guy who is probably flying the new F-15/S-27 AFM + F-18 + other goodies we don't know yet :thumbup::music_whistling:

 

With all the bugs :megalol:

[Psyrixx]

Why is v1.2.7 Open Beta? Aren't there enough beta testers working for Eagle Dynamics?

 

Yes and no. Even if there are 100 beta testers (which would be more than enough, you would think -- and, by the way is a very generous estimate simply for illustration purposes) they cannot cover the scope of possible hardware, software, and internet configurations that clients have. Providing early access to a version of software to customers that do not have an issue with potential bugs, maintaining a separate install, etc. is a wonderful way to boost the number of testers. Furthermore, only people who are willing and able to work within the scope of a beta process are likely to download the beta release and assist with testing.

 

If you can't download it or don't want to download it (hard drive space, internet speed, or other concerns) then you can patiently wait for v1.2.7 public release. No harm, no foul, and no reason for you to get upset. If it were a closed beta, you still would not have v1.2.7 until it was completely tested anyways. Just go on your way and be patient. Complaining about the open beta (in any fashion) will not get you a public version of 1.2.7 any faster, and will likely even slow the process down.

 

But I don't want to maintain two installs! Why not just use the auto-updater and allow selection of Beta/Non-beta like Steam allows you to do?

 

Maintaining two separate installs is an isolation method of testing. Your release version (currently v1.2.6) may have community mods, custom settings, LUA script modifications, that may be causing the game to crash or be unstable. By maintaining a separate, clean, install (v1.2.7 open beta) it is much less likely that you will crash the game because of something extra you have installed. It's a clean install that brings a much more consistent platform on which to test.

 

The Steam method of opting in to beta versions or not, does not allow this kind of "clean slate" testing and would in fact probably be much more difficult to manage.

 

Then why not just release v1.2.7 if it's more stable than v1.2.6? I want the better multiplayer code!

 

The problem with any major release, as stated above, is that it is only as much "better" as their limited number of testers are able to confirm. If every tester said "hey, this seems to be completely stable" but they are only able to get 5-10 testers into a multiplayer session at a time but the instability only starts when 11 players or more join a server, they will never be able to pinpoint what the problem is.

 

The first item in the preliminary change log talks about the automatic creation of track files that can be sent in should the game crash.

 

Track file are now automatically created when a crash is detected. In order to help the team find and correct MP issues that we are not always in position to produce during testing, 1.2.7 introduces the writing of tracks even when the game crashes. These tracks can be provided to the testers and developers in order to reproduce the conditions that caused the crash and correct it. This feature is a big step towards solving possible future and current problems that are often difficult to hunt down. When playing on a server and you experience a crash, put up an MP crash post and include that track in your post. Same thing goes for server owners.

 

So when someone on open beta tries hosting a server with 32 players, and the game crashes after five minutes, a record of the crash can be sent in so that Eagle Dynamics can look at it and say "oh, wow, OK, so here's why that's happening" and take steps to try and fix it. Then, they can update the open beta version and early adopters/public testers can try hosting the 32 player match again. In this way, non-beta players will not be inundated with minor patches every few weeks until the issues are resolved (and as we know, even small patches are usually several hundred megs in size). It ends up saving people who may not have the ability or desire to download a large amount of update data quite a bit of time.

 

I still don't get why it is going to be two releases. Why confuse people with two versions?

 

There is still only one release version. v1.2.6 is considered the latest stable version. v1.2.7 at this time clearly states in its name that it is BETA software and is more prone to known (and unknown) instability, crashing, etc. The point is, if you don't want two installs of DCS World, stick with v1.2.6 until v1.2.7 has been thoroughly tested and a stable public version is released through the auto-updater.

 

They are purposely making it difficult to install the open beta to weed out people who do not want to go through the hassle of installing separate versions just for testing. They are not the first company to do so nor will they be the last. Eventually, once v1.2.7 has gone through more extensive public testing by individuals who don't care about crashing every once in a while and submitting rational bug reports with evidence and data to Eagle Dynamics, it will be released publicly and replace v1.2.6.

 

 

Hope this helps!

Edited December 15, 2013 by Psyrixx

[danilop]

...and bug squashing has been a lot more effective than you will ever know.

 

If it has been so effective, why open beta then? :D

 

Actually you answered it just a couple of sentences later:

 

...But the testers can't deal with everything...

 

Bring it on!

 

[SkateZilla]

Why is v1.2.7 Open Beta? Aren't there enough beta testers working for Eagle Dynamics?....

 

 

There are an Infinite number of hardware configurations now..

 

The more people that participate in the open beta and submit tracks/logs of bugs.

 

The more the Sim is run, and the more things tested by others, the more things are found, there are some users that play DCS for more hours /week than I work at my management job,

 

The more problems that will be found and logged, and fixed.

[Psyrixx]

There are an Infinite number of hardware configurations now..

 

The more people that participate in the open beta and submit tracks/logs of bugs.

 

The more the Sim is run, and the more things tested by others, the more things are found, there are some users that play DCS for more hours /week than I work at my management job,

 

The more problems that will be found and logged, and fixed.

 

Correct. I wasn't asking for me, I was answering for the frequently asked questions in this thread. I assume you were adding to my original replies and thank you!

[SyntaxError]

I'd love to participate but since I'm not on uncapped I'll have to pass.

[Rangi]

Yeah, would take me 2 days or more to download the whole thing out here....So test away peoples and please have it all fixed up and ready for updating when I get back from holidays in February.....

[Gloom Demon]

Will having two separate installs affect in any way the number of activations/deactivations of the modules?

[Suchacz]

Will having two separate installs affect in any way the number of activations/deactivations of the modules?

Imho both instalations will share the same activation

[HiJack]

Will having two separate installs affect in any way the number of activations/deactivations of the modules?

 

No, they will of course use the same registry key.

[cichlidfan]

All installs on the same machine will use the same activation. You can only run one at a time so there is no licensing issue.

[NRG-Vampire]

You all need to read up on this a bit more.

 

With the aircraft in the role configuration (air-ground) seen in DCS, it cannot load AIM-7 or AIM-120 on the inner CFT stations. And when I say cannot, I don't mean "it's not authorised" I mean it is physically impossible to do so.

 

The stations that can be loaded on the Strike Eagles inner CFT racks in DCS are the BRU-47/A Ejector Release Units (ERUs) on stations LCT-1, 2, & 3 and RCT 1, 2, & 3. They carry free fall stores which are attached via a pair of suspension lugs (loops basically) and held by the hooks on the ERUs. These ERUs cannot carry or launch any missile (again physically).

 

The Strike Eagle also has 2 LAU-106/A Missile Ejector Launchers on the inner CFT racks, Station 3C, 4C, 6C, & 7C. These are not modelled in DCS at present. The real F-15E has 23 weapon stations, the DCS F-15E only has 19.

 

When in the AA role config, the forward LAU-106/As for stations 3C and 7C are switched with the BRU-47/A ERUs for the forward AG stations RCT-3 and LCT-3. Meaning you either have a Strike Eagle in AA config, or AG config. Again, the DCS Strike Eagle is currently setup in AG config.

 

The read MELs (STN-6C and 4C) are always in place, so this means that they could in theory be used. However if you load a missile onto either station the centre and rear ERUs (RCT-1 , RCT-2, LCT-1, and LCT-2) cannot be used. In addition if you load any stores on RCT-3 or LCT-3 those stores must be released before a missile loaded on STN-6C or 4C can be fired. Essentially this means that while physically possible, it's not practical to do so.

 

Quick illustration showing the stations on the DCS F-15E model.

 

 

Also see the two links below for more information.

 

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/weapons/weapons-stores/122-external-stores

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/weapons/weapons-stores/121-ejector-launcher

 

it should not be a problem, as you see HungaroJET already add 4 more pylons/stations for the mudhen two years ago (pylon 20, 21, 22, 23)

 

so ED can add those four missing pylons for sparrows and amraams easily as well - in f-15e.lua with restricted/disabled/forbidden other pylons/weapons if a/a, a/g or mixed payload used on the inner CFT stations

 

sure they can add pylon connectors too in the f-15e.edm model file but those connectors are not necessary however an easy and quick update would be nice (by GK) on the f-15e 3d model

 

GK can easily add/make the four missing lau-106/a ejector launcher - he needs to copy only the aft ejector foot and the forward ejector swaybrace from his f-15c.max model and import to the f-15e.max model and they needs to make these ejector feet visible/invisible by arguments furthermore (depends of STA-3C/4C/6C/7C used or not)

 

i hope ED is going step forward (adding pylons and ejector model parts) and not step backward with removing sparrows and amraams from the f-15e

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?p=1267661#post1267661

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?p=1304485#post1304485

 

Edited December 15, 2013 by NRG-Vampire