Force10 I'm just a Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,183
CA
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Personally I've never had an issue with 8GB of RAM for any game before, but honestly I don't expect developers to need to keep catering to it forever. Just like a number of games are now having some performance issues due to streaming textures if installed on a HDD. 8GB is certainly on the lower end these days.
I agree for the most part...I've had 16gb for years and assumed that was the norm for most. I just don't like how ED handled it...first they accepted what was being said of there being a memory leak. After looking into it they apparently were "surprised" that it wasn't a leak...just their engine/coding sucking up more resources then they would have guessed. Only then did they change the requirements as a "fix".
Asus Z87 Sabertooth motherboard Windows 7 64 bit Home edition Intel I5 4670K @ 4.4 ghz 16 gig 1866mhz Corsair Vengence Pro memory EVGA GTX 970 Superclocked 4gb Video Card Intel 510 series 120gb SSD (boot drive) Samsung 840 1TB SSD Onboard Realtek sound ______________________________________________________
Oddball from Kelly's Heroes: "If we're late, it's cause we're dead"
I have to agree. This is just a step too far from ED. I have what I would consider a decent PC
i7 8700k @5Ghz 16Gb DDR4 @ 4Ghz Samsung Evo 840 500Gb SSD ASUS Posiedon 1080ti
I would consider this a pretty beefy PC but I now have to buy another 16Gb of RAM which is going to cost me about £230.00 (as I have to get matching pairs)
to play this game ONLY???? Not bloody likely.
This just feels like a massive cop out from ED and I am just about ready to uninstall the bloody lot of it.
Yeah it's not our fault its your fault for not having enough memory.............. Bollocks
I was looking forward to the Hornet release..........now not so much.
SD
From the hills rebounding Let this war cry sounding Summon all at Cambria's call The mighty force surrounding
Men of Harlech onto glory This shall ever be your story Keep these fighting words before ye Welshmen never yield
Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 3,922Paradaz
Senior Member
Paradaz
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
It all goes back to their testing....or lack of it. If this was a genuine requirement it would (or should) have been flagged up a long time ago - it’s not like 2.5 hasn’t been in development for the last 5 years. You’re telling me ED and test team didn’t see the dependencies and requirements increasing?......all we’d been hearing was how optimised it was and even with the increased graphical effects, how much better it was performing and how the frame rate was higher than the 1.5 and 2.0 streams.
ED are at least one of the following;
Incompetent Clueless Liars
Make your own mind up. In my opinion they are all 3. If I was anything to do with their company or test team I’d be highly embarrassed.
On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
You guys are all acting like they gave up and just said "Oh well. We can't fix it. Guess you guys need more RAM." Did you read the part of the update where they state they are still working on a fix to optimize RAM usage?
I get that ED has a poor track record and has disappointed many customers. But it also seems like people are looking so hard for opportunities to critcize ED that they selectively read updates and statements to spin them in the worst way possible just for the purpose of having something to complain about.
Played a quick mission centered around ground units. Looks like ground vehicles still have obscene tracking and accuracy against fighters. Must have been at least 1500 feet in a MIG-29 when a BMP-2 blew me to bits with ease. Every ground vehicle can still track me extremely fast, even if they are manually operated turrets. With the field of view in a vehicle such as a BMP being very narrow I can't see why they can accuracy pinpoint an aircraft and track with such accuracy. Coming in for a gun/rocket run is almost suicidal because they tend to track, aim and open fire right as you get into range and start lining up your target. Very disappointed in this, because air to ground (outside of ATGMs) is still practically non-playable
As an A-10A flyer, I'm also anxiously waiting for this to be fixed. I bumped a thread about this at ED a few weeks ago hoping it gets fixed soon.
You guys are all acting like they gave up and just said "Oh well. We can't fix it. Guess you guys need more RAM." Did you read the part of the update where they state they are still working on a fix to optimize RAM usage?
I get that ED has a poor track record and has disappointed many customers. But it also seems like people are looking so hard for opportunities to critcize ED that they selectively read updates and statements to spin them in the worst way possible just for the purpose of having something to complain about.
Sorry but shouldnt they have tried to fix the(maybe non existent)memory leak before they declared the alpha/beta good enough for public consumption?
It just sticks in my craw?? that they are pushing the blame on us.
SD
From the hills rebounding Let this war cry sounding Summon all at Cambria's call The mighty force surrounding
Men of Harlech onto glory This shall ever be your story Keep these fighting words before ye Welshmen never yield
Played a quick mission centered around ground units. Looks like ground vehicles still have obscene tracking and accuracy against fighters. Must have been at least 1500 feet in a MIG-29 when a BMP-2 blew me to bits with ease. Every ground vehicle can still track me extremely fast, even if they are manually operated turrets. With the field of view in a vehicle such as a BMP being very narrow I can't see why they can accuracy pinpoint an aircraft and track with such accuracy. Coming in for a gun/rocket run is almost suicidal because they tend to track, aim and open fire right as you get into range and start lining up your target. Very disappointed in this, because air to ground (outside of ATGMs) is still practically non-playable
As an A-10A flyer, I'm also anxiously waiting for this to be fixed. I bumped a thread about this at ED a few weeks ago hoping it gets fixed soon.
Agreed, one of the biggest issues with DCS and this has been on going for years now. A lot of petty (IMO) stuff gets brought up so frequently yet this issue is glossed over. I hope they get to tweaking it sooner rather than later. At this point I wouldn't buy an A2G oriented aircraft unless it primarily used modern air to ground missiles with a decent range. The Harrier is a bit slow and has a small missile capacity as an example... so I'm less likely to buy it if I can't use half the weapon systems.
You guys are all acting like they gave up and just said "Oh well. We can't fix it. Guess you guys need more RAM." Did you read the part of the update where they state they are still working on a fix to optimize RAM usage?
I get that ED has a poor track record and has disappointed many customers. But it also seems like people are looking so hard for opportunities to critcize ED that they selectively read updates and statements to spin them in the worst way possible just for the purpose of having something to complain about.
Sorry but shouldnt they have tried to fix the(maybe non existent)memory leak before they declared the alpha/beta good enough for public consumption?
It just sticks in my craw?? that they are pushing the blame on us.
SD
Sure. That's a valid opinion.
My post was more about people stating that ED gave up on fixing memory issues and was just asking customers to upgrade ram instead. The reality is while they have upped minimum requirements, they are still working to improve ram usage.
To your point, should they have waited to release 2.5 until after they had that fix in place? Maybe. Everyone's entitled to their opinion on that one.
Played a quick mission centered around ground units. Looks like ground vehicles still have obscene tracking and accuracy against fighters. Must have been at least 1500 feet in a MIG-29 when a BMP-2 blew me to bits with ease. Every ground vehicle can still track me extremely fast, even if they are manually operated turrets. With the field of view in a vehicle such as a BMP being very narrow I can't see why they can accuracy pinpoint an aircraft and track with such accuracy. Coming in for a gun/rocket run is almost suicidal because they tend to track, aim and open fire right as you get into range and start lining up your target. Very disappointed in this, because air to ground (outside of ATGMs) is still practically non-playable
As an A-10A flyer, I'm also anxiously waiting for this to be fixed. I bumped a thread about this at ED a few weeks ago hoping it gets fixed soon.
Agreed, one of the biggest issues with DCS and this has been on going for years now. A lot of petty (IMO) stuff gets brought up so frequently yet this issue is glossed over. I hope they get to tweaking it sooner rather than later. At this point I wouldn't buy an A2G oriented aircraft unless it primarily used modern air to ground missiles with a decent range. The Harrier is a bit slow and has a small missile capacity as an example... so I'm less likely to buy it if I can't use half the weapon systems.
The other big one for me is that most of the FC3 campaigns are broken in 2.5. Now that 2.5 is the "release" branch, they better get those fixed.
Force10 I'm just a Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,183
CA
Originally Posted by malibu43
You guys are all acting like they gave up and just said "Oh well. We can't fix it. Guess you guys need more RAM." Did you read the part of the update where they state they are still working on a fix to optimize RAM usage?
I get that ED has a poor track record and has disappointed many customers. But it also seems like people are looking so hard for opportunities to critcize ED that they selectively read updates and statements to spin them in the worst way possible just for the purpose of having something to complain about.
It's almost funny when you hear it spoken verbally in your head: "C'mon guys...I get that ED has a poor track record and has disappointed many customers, been 4 years late on a pre-order bonus, slashed WWII rewards, marginalized 3rd party devs, released unfinished work and left it that way for years, banned scores of paying customers from their forums, released non-fitting aircraft/terrain based on private contracts, and a bunch of other stuff...but...now you're just looking for stuff to complain about"
Asus Z87 Sabertooth motherboard Windows 7 64 bit Home edition Intel I5 4670K @ 4.4 ghz 16 gig 1866mhz Corsair Vengence Pro memory EVGA GTX 970 Superclocked 4gb Video Card Intel 510 series 120gb SSD (boot drive) Samsung 840 1TB SSD Onboard Realtek sound ______________________________________________________
Oddball from Kelly's Heroes: "If we're late, it's cause we're dead"
Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 3,922Paradaz
Senior Member
Paradaz
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
Originally Posted by malibu43
You guys are all acting like they gave up and just said "Oh well. We can't fix it. Guess you guys need more RAM."
And funnily enough, that looks as if that’s exactly what has happened!
Originally Posted by malibu43
Did you read the part of the update where they state they are still working on a fix to optimize RAM usage?
Yes, and isn’t it a coincidence that after all the years of development this isn’t ready? It’s like they gave up on a proper fix recently because they haven’t got a hope in hell of finding the real problem, and have just started work on a band-aid. How convenient for ED, and how inconvenient for the majority of customers.
I have 32GB of RAM by the way......not that it makes any difference to this open beta release version as it’s still a mess with huge performance issues and for me unplayable due to the stuttering and graphical artefacts present regardless of the settings used and that’s with a high spec rig paired with GTX 1080.
On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
I have to agree. This is just a step too far from ED. I have what I would consider a decent PC
i7 8700k @5Ghz 16Gb DDR4 @ 4Ghz Samsung Evo 840 500Gb SSD ASUS Posiedon 1080ti
I would consider this a pretty beefy PC but I now have to buy another 16Gb of RAM which is going to cost me about £230.00 (as I have to get matching pairs)
to play this game ONLY???? Not bloody likely.
This just feels like a massive cop out from ED and I am just about ready to uninstall the bloody lot of it.
Yeah it's not our fault its your fault for not having enough memory.............. Bollocks
I was looking forward to the Hornet release..........now not so much.
SD
hold on buddy, if you want to get 32G ...... you will nmost likely need to buy a new kit of 32G
Even if you buy another exact same 16G set of what you own there is NO certainty that they will play together I know this from experience
Last edited by leaf_on_the_wind; 04/07/1802:00 PM.
Ferengi Rule of acquisition #1 Once you have their money ... never give it back.
I have 4x8GB 1333 RAM and DCS 2.5 ran so poorly on my PC that I had to removed it - and I run P3Dv4 at 40 FPS and Il-2 at 50FPS and most games at 60FPS with most options maxed out.
From what I have played 2.5 ran very smooth for me. I did not try Nevada yet though. The only performance related issue I have is some stuttering at the start of the mission, but panning around will "load" the terrian and fix it in around 2 seconds. That used to be an issue/fix in older versions of the engine and at least for the time being, may be required now. Outside of that the game ran very smoothly.
I noticed some minor issues with tree shadows in certain areas near the dam at a time of 8-10AM, but otherwise I didn't notice any graphical artifacts. Are you sure these issues were in the release version and not the prior builds?
Well, I am done with DCS until they sort things out. I posted this on Ninelines thread and I tried to remain polite.
S!Blade<><
Edit: Within 2 minutes of me posting this Nineline deleted it. Now I can officially say that if I see anyone seeking advice on whether to purchase DCS or not that I will fully voice my disappointment and decision to no longer be a customer of theirs. They can run their Forum and Company anyway that they want, but I do not have to sit ideally by while they censor their Forum or sell products using false advertisement or changing requirements after the product is released.
Edit2: I have to give them credit, DCS 2.5 is now running on 70% of 16GBs of DDR 3 at 2133mhz I believe with 8 planes in the air and nothing on the ground. It is getting better. For comparison BOX uses about 6GBS in Career mode with 12 planes and multiple ground assets. They still have a long ways to go IMHO.
I don't understand what this graphic means - that there is no RAM problem ? Is this good news ?
Originally Posted by mdwa
Looks like DCS are leaking not just memory but customers...
seems so - I had many disappointments with DCS customer service over the years but at least the sim worked.
But when Nevada was released , I started to have plenty of game quality related issues and on top of that the map looked very bland , Normandy was a another disappointment FPS wise and 2.5 ended up being a wasted 100GB download as I could not make it work.
According to the ED forum rules, the rule about posts on non-ED forums (1.13) was removed.
Not before it has done a great deal of damage though. Have the banned users been re-instated? Have ED specified why they've stopped implementing 1.13? Simply removing it after years of it being active does not really "fix" anything nor does it invalidate the concerns of those who were hit with the ban hammer under 1.13.
I never said anything about that. All I said was that the rule no longer existed, since Winfield spoke as if it was still in place. As for an explanation, ED rarely explains anything that they do, so this no different.
Yes, and I simply brought up those points to highlight that the damage has still been done anyway
Originally Posted by zaelu
I can see when someone quotes the ignored users posts.... then I can toggle to understand what they said in a longer exchange...
Maybe stop reading the threads to begin with? Putting people on ignore the toggling to read the ignored post and then complaining about what you're reading, LOL!!
Originally Posted by Winfield
Fact of the matter is 1.13 still exists in it's current form as is it did when the original ban was placed.
No, I think Sith just has a hard-on for you!
Here is proof of Sith and Winfield in their last seminar
Originally Posted by Paradaz
You may have missed a few posts Flogger.......the 'release' version is just the open beta but it's renamed.
What??? You mean to tell me taking the sticker off and applying a new label doesn't fix things?!!?!?!