Weekend news:

Since the release of 2.5 DCS World, the team has been hard at work addressing issues identified during the Open Beta process. In this sense, the Open Beta has been a great success and will result in a better finished product. Many issues have already been addressed like night lighting and Spitfire damage model, but we still have a few issues that we need to resolve before we can move DCS World 2.5 out of Open Beta. Some of these issues include a memory leak after starting several missions and more efficient shader compilation* for first time mission loads.

So they have been very excited when addressing issues and they will get this success story to a finished release soon and they also have done better damage model to Spitfire, which obviously was priority #1.

I can't believe I was worried, silly me.

* that wasn't in the OB and has nothing to do with current issues

Got to admire they brainwashing technique, now all they need to do is to get rid of customers' brains.

2 weeks they said......reality is 2 years

Anyone else remember the Wednesday updates? yet the latest update was 3 weeks ago. hardly noteworthy fixes BTW

Even the 'stable branch' is lacking an update since 24/01/18

numerous posts of the F-18C since those updates though......Pretty sure I and several others have pointed that out in other threads here though on where the focus and testing has been

The point of the stable branch is that you don't update it very often. Don't expect an update to the stable branch as long as there are blocking issues in the open beta branch.

What "stable branch"? You mean 1.5.8? Wasn't that supposed to be abandoned now that 2.5 is out?

the problem when you quit using a product is that you slowly but surely get out of date with developments, I thought that the 2.5 I have now is the RC, so it isn't, DCS is still in beta ?

edit
read the thread, this is still a beta. OK.

Yet in the 2.5 thread , numerous backers of the 'world' saying that 2.5 is open beta and people should not be complaining about bugs in the 'open beta' release...

No love given to 1.5** since January.....yet from this point on practically weekly updates right up to the release of 2.5OB. Not the same love given to the OB considering that this it is meant to be the 'brain child' of the merge between 2.0 Nevada and 1.5?

You can't necessarily draw conclusions on the amount of work being poured into a branch from the frequency of updates being released. Sometimes things take longer to develop, sometimes they don't. The current memory leak seems pretty hard to fix.

It just blows me away that the memory leak only suddenly appeared with the 2.5 Beta, even though they've been using it internally as 2.3 for over a year.
They think we're stupid and insult our intelligence with comments like that. But I guess when your target audience is kids with allowance, you can say pretty much anything.

It may or may not have been there. C++ is a very unforgiving language when it comes to memory management and they could potentially have introduced the leak at any point in development, even shortly before release.

^it makes sense for anyone else.in the case of ED, such this translation is absolutely unacceptable.because it is not an individual case, nothing works in them as it should.

It may or it may have not! Who knows? ED surely doesn't!

Looks like the Tango found himself a new job at ED.....obviously he is not happy that he has not been paid this month as Wags had to make way for the NineLiner who is now on the Pay roll....

Just pay the man, like VEAO failed to do and the memory leak would be fixed pronto

memory leak

too much malloc() ... not enough free()

Exactly. Surely the accusations made in this thread should be based on hard facts, instead they are based personal feelings.

Makes for less than intelligent discussions for sure. This type of stuff really dumbs down the conversation AND these guys say ED think their customers are stupid. It's funny

Well, you were the one that said it may or may not have been present in any period of time; thus it was you that had no facts. Fact is there is a memory leak issue. Fact is you can't even tell if it was present long before or just before 2.5 Beta release. Oh, the irony!



As opposed to this "intelligent disucssion"??


Oh, the irony!

You must have gotten confused there. I didn't state as fact that ED did not know of the memory leak issue. If i did, i would indeed have to prove it. I didn't, so i don't.

I merely pointed out that there is no way for STORM to know whether ED knew of the memory leak prior to 2.5 open beta or not. I didn't raise any accusations, there's nothing i need to prove. Rather it is up to STORM to prove that ED were aware of said problem if he wants to accuse ED of bad intent. The whole discussion raised by STORM is nonsensical, because we don't have any facts.

Let's see what we do know: there is a memory leak. We agree on that, right?

So either ED **KNEW** there was a memory leak and released it anyway, or ED **DID NOT KNOW** there was a memory leak and released 2.5 Open Beta. There is no third option. So you can pick either bad intent or incompetence. You want facts on either one? Go knock on ED's door but I doubt they'll have any answers, or if they do, I doubt they'll be in a sharing mood. So here we have reasonable assumptions based on the fact that we do have. Take your pick.

Ice - my money is on they knew but as they had promised the release they weren't going to not release....

The memory leak has been introduced since a patch made to 2.2. Ya know, the stuttering issues in NTTR/Normandy?
So yes, I do believe that it has been present in the build PRIOR to 2.5 being released, based on my and several other's reports of the same issues that began in the 2.0 build and continued through it.

See the problem lies with people like you Sobek, that come to ED's defense at every mention that there is a legit discrepancy. The excuse of "its Beta" is crap when it comes to this type of issue. I'd expect some features not working or missing, but when you cripple the playability of the core game in both SP and MP, you've got some serious problems that just didnt appear overnight. The ED forum has turned into a "Sanctuary State" where nothing negative can be reported and acknowledged. 3rd Party devs are safe to ignore their obligations to their customers and if the customers speak out, that joke of a Community Manager shuts down the customer. He even called it a safe area.

So the hard evidence is there, even though you choose to ignore it. I'm not speaking just to #%&*$# about something, I just want the core to be usable. And with as much money that I've sunk into the modules and maps, I'm a paying customer that expects a product to be functional in a reasonable amount of time. So far, this hasnt been the case.

^^^^^^^^

Bang on the money. Can someone let me know when licences can be transferred again. I've had enough of ED's crap and some unlucky chap can have mine.

I didn't know things were so bad, I guess ignorance is bliss

Unfortunately yes.
My P3D install has been getting some serious airtime.

P3D : it only gets better and better

^^^^^^^^^ This!
This is all I expect of ED and DCS 2.5. A core game that is well optimized and works well in the basic main features with bugs to be squashed as they go, not a core memory leak problem from the starting beta release. As stated above, it was either incompetence in being able to see this while they tested(I found it the first time I ran it with Process Lasso) or they simple pushed it out the door because of the promise Waggs made to release it. Either way, they should just tell the truth and make the memory leak(problem) the # 1 priority to resolve. Seeing ED announce damage model fixes to the Spitty when this glaring memory problem is still in 2.5 just doesn't lead me to believe that they have their priorities straight. Even if they are trying and haven't figured it out yet, their PR people should still be addressing the situation and letting its Customers know that they are fully engaged to repair this major problem. I just can't see how any company in its right mind would release a product with this glaring and crippling of a problem, promise or no promise. I am not a MP guy, but even if I wanted to try MP I could not because I only have 16GBs of memory, even though Ed's recommended Ram is 16GBs.

S!Blade<><

These issues you mention are not related. The stuttering in Normandy is the most likely reason that they had to introduce SpeedTree to Caucasus so late in its development.



Excerpt from the last newsletter from March, 9th:

The newsletter is March 9. When was Open Beta released?

It's also misleading, acting as if the memory leak was only discovered AFTER the Open Beta was released. If this is true, then ED did not know the state of OB when they released it. If this is false and ED did know about the memory leak before OB was released and released it anyway, they're lying to their customers. Take your pick.

I pick the latter, ED have neen lying to their customers for years.

Two problems here as to what I highlighted in red from your quote.
1. The memory leak is there when you run the first mission. In my tests DCS uses 16GBs of memory in SP from the first second of the first mission onward.
2. DCS World's minimum Ram spec is 8 GBs. There is no way that will DCS will operate on 8GBs of Ram. Not to mention that MP uses 32GBs to be operational, from what I have read. Not an MP guy here.

Thank you for posting this as I missed this update, but it still shows EDs pure departure from reality concerning DCS 2.5. When you let something out into the public, Beta or not, with a problem that directly contradicts your published minimum specs to use your product, then there is a serious fubar in inter Dev Team communication, or they just knowingly shoved the product out the door with the major memory problems because Waggs made the "promise" that DCS 2.5 would be released on a certain date. IMHO, a bad idea in the first place. Never let your customers or publishers force you to release your product before it operates the way it is advertised to operate. Either way, it does not speak well for Ed's private Beta Testing people or an in house ethical honesty policy being used to evaluate product release status. Again, I hope ED gets this fixed pronto as I Love the WWII birds and I am still waiting on my P47 and Me262, but the way ED and certain other people want to hail this as a "Great Success in Open Beta" is just dumb and ignorant to me. Work hard on fixing the problem, keep us up to date on your progress and get it done quickly as you never should have released DCS 2.5 like this in the first place. If Ed does this, they will be heroes, if not, they will reap what they have sown like any other Flight Sim Dev Team. Good luck ED, I hope you figure it out soon for your benefit, and mine.

S!Blade<><

I'm cynical about all software releases, being first to market is paramount (let the users find the bugs) sorry not me!!

I dont buy ANY software for at least 3-4 years after release. I cant be bothered with the frustration of assisting some company "tune" their software to an acceptable product! All companies do this!! Microsoft one of the worst! look at Windows XP tablet version 2005 almost unknown (used a pressure sensitive pen), Vista, followed by Windows 8 they dont care, they do what they hope will become a "killer app" and then adjust later to save the company!! All software companies want to lead the pack, but users have the final word, but only after a lot of pain! I prefer to wait with old software that has the bugs worked out!!

My version of DCS is 1.57 I believe, no intention of changing anytime soon! Hardware prices come down quickly after a couple of years so cheaper to run the new hardware demanding software on new hardware if you wait! To me, buying new software is just an investment in frustration and plain dumb!

So what version of DCS are you using: