DCS 1.2.7 Open Beta - Preliminary Changelog

[HiJack]

If there is no way back after updating to 1.2.7 but then ED should say so and let us all download the full version of 1.2.6 (witch I've done already :) )!

[fjacobsen]

As far as I know multiplayer in 1.2.6 is still very bugged and unreliable.

So why not just directly update 1.2.6 to 1.2.7 and You surely still will get the same feedback on multiplayer issues.

 

If 1.2.6 had stable and reliable multiplayer, then it would be a different story.

It will be hard for You to break something thats allready broken.

 

Fjacobsen

[joey45]

I think it'll be easier as a separate install. You must remember that the ED tester team isn't that big and to test network code you need to open it up, bit like BF3/4. Why I think it'll be easier is, if you don't like it or it isn't working properly you can uninstall it easier cos it's separate.

[Flagrum]

No I’m sorry, I just don’t see the gain in having a separate install of DCS World but I will participate.

The whole point in finding bugs is to isolate them. That means to reduce everything to bare minimum that still shows the bug. This principle was already in place in the past when we were asked to provide .TRK files for example. Now with the new opportunity of a dedicated open beta phase this just means to have separate installs - so that any potential problems with your current install (think of how often "Repair DCS" is used to cure some odd problems!) won't interfere unneccesarily.

 

Does this “beta” 1.2.7 mean that the normal “testers” have found weaknesses in the 1.2.7 build? Or can’t provoke the network bugs?

No. I suppose the testers have made their job as usual already when the open beta is released. The open beta is an additional opportunity to catch bugs ... in a more structured way than before.

 

Or is the build of 1.2.7 not working in an update at all? If it doesn’t work at all ED should go for a new build and let the “testers” test using the normal auto updater.

That it will not be delivered by the normal auto updater is a conscious decision. See above.

 

I see massive problems for ED support on this decision, support tickets on two different versions? So first question on any reported bug would be “what version are you running of DCS World?”. And I guess the next question would be “what module version do you have?”. No I’m sorry folks I think this will be a nightmare for ED support and for the BUG reporting forums.

Yes, an additional beta phase will also add some more work load to ED. And therefore, you are right, there should be some precautions made by ED that go hand in hand with the open beta. The way we report bugs should be rethought and be better structured and organized. These several dozens of bug sub-forums with their mix of several hand fulls of version .... won't be good enough, true. I hope - if we won't get access to a dedicated bug database - that we get at least a sub-forum hirarchy specific for every beta release.

 

Some remarks directly added in blue! :o)

[joey45]

Well what you say when submitting a bug is

My version is 1.2.7. Beta with "x" module installed with "x" mission

My Specs are -

[HiJack]

That's fine with me Flagrum but I don’t see the gain over just going for a new release and full download for all to the 1.2.7 as it is. 1.2.6 still got MP bugs so it's not a keeper anyway ;)

[msalama]

support tickets on two different versions?

 

I'm pretty sure there'll be no support ticket system for v1.2.7b per se, but an entirely separate bug submitting and tracking mechanism. And this, contrary to what you may believe, is in fact only possible with a separate beta install ;)

[zaelu]

Me and my squad mates will help with Open Beta.

 

When is it out? :D

[Flagrum]

That's fine with me Flagrum but I don’t see the gain over just going for a new release and full download for all to the 1.2.7 as it is. 1.2.6 still got MP bugs so it's not a keeper anyway ;)

The gain is a defined starting point for the bug hunt: the seperate beta install that is known to not contain any user-related old, inherited issues.

 

Furthermore, although this should be already known and be the standard already, I would ED expect to make explicit and absolutely clear that there should be not a single mod be allowed in the beta install if you intend to report a bug.

 

But I don't understand your point with MP. What has MP to do with this all? If you mean, that the intent of two seperate installs is to keep MP stable for 1.2.6 while debugging 1.2.7 and to not "break 1.2.6" ... sorry, that is not the goal of a beta. If you participate in a beta, you know that there might be issues - with MP or otherwise. If you don't want that, don't participate (or be glad now that we DO get seperate installs :o)

[Flagrum]

Me and my squad mates will help with Open Beta.

 

When is it out? :D

When it's ready! :clown:

[Angel101]

+100

 

For this.

 

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

 

x10

[Rotorhead]

What you ask is technically doable (in general, I'm not involved in DCS dev or testing) but involves a significant risk: if you've messed with your 1.2.6 files, you may encounter bugs that are not "part of" 1.2.7, and declare bugs that devs won't be able to reproduce, understand, and fix.

 

I dunno, I think that auto updater should not only load new 1.2.7 files, but instead, check EVERY file in your DCS install and re-download all files that are different from current build. This way, after every update you should end up having an EXACT copy of the latest version. But yeah, to avoid any possible complication, deleting you user files would be needed as well.

 

In addition, developers should invest time to create the necessary functionality (which also should be tested to ensure that it does not have bugs ...), thus "wasting" time.

That's actually very good point.

 

Climb on or don't- but for the love of whoever you believe in if you don't jump on then don't you DARE complain about what doesn't get fixed.

 

Uh, no. We are all paying customers over here, so we have the right to expect reasonable quality of the FINAL product no matter if we took part in any testing program or not.

 

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.

 

If you participate in a beta, you know that there might be issues - with MP or otherwise. If you don't want that, don't participate (or be glad now that we DO get seperate installs :o)

 

Yep, the only downside of two installs is increased size and the need to define all your settings again. Otherwise, the ability to switch from beta to stable and back whenever you want is very nice.

[Nate--IRL--]

Yep, the only downside of two installs is increased size and the need to define all your settings again.

 

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

 

Nate

[danilop]

We have plenty of beta testers already and there are lot of members of community who would happily jump in to offer their resources for beta testing.

 

The question is: Why two separate versions then? It just confuses the majority of current and potential customers.

 

And notion that we, as a PAYING CUSTOMERS, HAVE to participate in bug hunting if we want to complain about game not working is just absurd:

 

Climb on or don't- but for the love of whoever you believe in if you don't jump on then don't you DARE complain about what doesn't get fixed.

Edited December 15, 2013 by danilop

[Scarecrow]

Kewl. Beta patches are a public relations way of saying "if you find any bugs we'll fix 'em but don't go on and on like its the end of the world"

 

What's in a name...

[Darkwolf]

Well - I don't see the point of the "beta" 1.2.7

 

People will:

 

-get it because they want the last huey stuff

-get it because they want AAR

-get it because they want patch fixed asap

-get it because they can't wait for new stuff and improvment

-get it because everyone else did and no one will left in MP with 1.26

 

But.... I can see any reason to stay with 1.2.6. Stability? Such thing don't exist.

 

I don't see the point having multiple release, now that we had something simple and easy such autoupdater.

[BIGNEWY]

you do not have to participate, you either download it or you do not, its that simple.

 

Looking forward to 1.2.7 and the open beta testing

 

DCS is evolving at a quick pace now, some people do not like change some welcome it.

[Gloom Demon]

ALQ-184 is 100 kg lighter and has less drag.

 

A guy here says there's more to AN-ALQ-184 than that:

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12353

 

I worked on the ALQ-131 in England in 1986-87, and then I became the lead field engineer for Raytheon on the ALQ-184 from 1987 to 1998. Everything I am saying here is freely available in industry publications (I checked carefully).

 

The ALQ-184 is a heavily modified ALQ-119. Raytheon gutted the RF bay and changed the layout. The various RF channels were standardized. The analog control section was replaced with a digital control section with 15 microprocessors.

 

The ALQ-131 is a modular ECM system, with removable equipment racks to provide a versatile mission package. Changing equipment configurations isn't as easy as Westinghouse made it out to be, though, so the standard package is pretty closeley adhered to. The F-16 typically flies with a shallow pod configuration. A "deep" pod configuration with an equipment gondola underneath adds another octave of frequency coverage but is dangerously deep for the F-16 centerline mount. The ALQ-131 was designed with maintenance in mind, with easy access to all the RF and control sections. Cooling is provided through an evaporative freon recirculating system.

 

The ALQ-184 incorporated the Rotman RF lens used in the Navy SLQ-32 shipboard ECM system. Reliability was increased using multiple mini-TWT's instead of single high gain TWT's like the ALQ-131 and -119. High gain antennas and a pulse processing receiver dramatically increased the effective radiated power of the system. Cooling is provided using coolanol 20 recirculated through a high pressure pump to radiating heat exchangers. The system is not as maintenance friendly, since the RF section is contained in a 9-inch tube and requires a great deal of effort to remove for troubleshooting.

 

Both systems are designed for self-protection jamming for tactical fighter aircraft. Neither system provides enough power to deny the use of the spectrum to modern weapons systems, so the objective is to achieve an acceptable miss distance by spoofing the threat radar. This is done through a variety of techniques that I won't discuss. There is no doctrine to choose one pod over another based on the mission requirement. Active units do not employ more than one type of pod. The ALQ-184 has been proven to be more effective than the ALQ-131, and doesn't have as big an impact aerodynamically, so is the pod of choice for combat units.

[danilop]

^^

Change is guuuud. :thumbup: However maintaining two versions of "reality" is clearly not (1.2.6 and 1.2.7). Online confusion, anyone?

 

Release 1.2.7 without "beta" suffix (when it's ready) and call it done.

[Nate--IRL--]

^^

Change is guuuud. :thumbup: However maintaining two versions of "reality" is clearly not (1.2.6 and 1.2.7). Online confusion, anyone?

 

Release 1.2.7 without "beta" suffix (when it's ready) and call it done.

 

The Purpose of the Open Beta isn't for your benefit - it is for aiding in testing.

 

Nate

[Flagrum]

Well - I don't see the point of the "beta" 1.2.7

 

People will:

 

-get it because they want the last huey stuff

-get it because they want AAR

-get it because they want patch fixed asap

-get it because they can't wait for new stuff and improvment

-get it because everyone else did and no one will left in MP with 1.26

 

But.... I can see any reason to stay with 1.2.6. Stability? Such thing don't exist.

 

I don't see the point having multiple release, now that we had something simple and easy such autoupdater.

Stability of previous version don't exist? And why are then so many people upset when something breaks that was working before?

 

The first few days only a few people will D/L the beta and start testing. Others will surely wait for the first feedback of those "early adopters".

[Cibit]

Can we expect an official announcement when its available. I keep logging in and see the thread multiply exponentially :)

 

Looking forward to being able to assist in the stable release of 1.2.7:thumbup:

[Flagrum]

A guy here says there's more to AN-ALQ-184 than that:

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12353

 

Thanks. That already is quite nice.

 

I just also found this where some of the differences of the real thing(s) are discussed: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=157668

 

Leaves the question if differences in their effectiveness against threads are modelled in DCS (I doubt it but I am totally okay with that ... at this point in time :o).

:huh:

[danilop]

The Purpose of the Open Beta isn't for your benefit - it is for aiding in testing.

 

Nate

 

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?

[Nate--IRL--]

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?

 

It was thought it would be beneficial to the process.

 

Nate