Because I would have to spend some big $ to upgrade my PC to be able to fly version 2.5 and hope it flies without problems, I have opted to stay with version 1.5.8 until all the bugs are worked out. Will DCS continue to maintain 1.5.8? For example: will the upgrade to the Spitfire IX (I think promised at end of June) be available to those that still fly 1.5.8?
Badbud

As far as AJS 37 it will never get any updates in 1.5.8 but will stay early access forever and I am pretty sure that goes for all other modules too.

I should not have deleted mine either - which I did back in November last year, 1.5.8 ran very well,

At first 2.5 would not run at all, now it does but in slideshow fashion - great for taking screenshots. I'll wait until I buy a new PC before giving it a try again.

1.5.8 stays as it is after the last update for it and will not be expanded. Unfortunately that means no updates for individual modules either.

@ Tom - the version is still available on the ED servers for those who can't or don't want to play 2.x.x, so technically you can still download and install it.

Thanks - but the map I would be interested is Normandy and Nevada.



it is a stable build then - it is good that it is still available.

Rats!!
Really wanted the new Spit update.
BadBud

I've reverted to 1.5.8 and will not go back again. It looks so much better with working AA and my old mods enabled again with no crashes.

In 2.5 I can hardly keep 45 fps with constant drops to 30 fps even with an empty map. 1.5.8 I can stay above 90 fps 99% of the time even with more demanding missions.

I think that it is sad that we flyers of 1.5.8 who paid the same as those able to fly 2.5, for modules and now may not be able to enjoy any fixes or whatever that are made to those existing modules. I for one, have most of the modules (no helos) and of course want to see any changes that should be available to all DCS flyers, both 2.5 and 1.5.8 users. I may never see the Nevada map that I pre-paid/ordered a long year ago if I decline to update to version 2.5.........................which is a real consideration. Luckily, I did not pre-order the Normandy map!
If true to opinions voiced here to my question, it is a bad decision for DCS!
Battle of Stalingrad will probably now be getting a lot more of my busine$$.

BadBud

Just curious about your PC specs, BadBud. Care to post the specs?

PC specs:

CPU Intel Core i7
RAN: 8 GB
VIDEO CARD: NVIDIA GTX 570 1.2 GB
Power Supply TT 750W TR2

BadBud

Ah, there lies the problem....minimum specs require you to have another 120GB of ram

But that will only give you 30 mins of gametime, right?
Double that for a full hour that any reasonable mission should require.

I have quite a good rig and run Il-2 and P3D at near maxed out settings and can't get (yet) DCS 2.5 to run - my guess (and that is all that it is) is that it is not a question of RAM or SSD but that DCS is still very much being tweaked and that in time it will run acceptably in most PC, it make take a couple of years to get there.

This is not unheard of - until P3D v2 I got used to very low FPS in FSX, took almost ten years for it to reach its full potential.

Speaking of time played, is there any way to find out how much time we spend in game, I'd be interested to find out

I guess pilots' logbook is the only option for non-Steam DCS users. IF it works - I haven't looked at it for years so can't comment on its reliability, but there was a period long ago when it was bugged and was not registering flight hours.

Okay thanks Art, I'll have a look

Which i7? And do you have an SSD? To be fair, another 8GB RAM should be needed as well as a GPU upgrade and an SSD if you don't have one yet, but these upgrades will benefit your entire system and other games, not just DCS, so might be worth considering. DCS running respectably on your average gaming PC might be a year or so down the line yet, so even with an upgrade, you may not see the results you were expecting for the money spent.

Oh my god. 2.5.2 is out on the main branch so i took the plunge and updated.

How in hell can 2.5 be considered an upgrade at all.

The color palette is awfully cartoonish
The ground textures are utter #%&*$#, vastly inferior to 1.5
Jaggies everywhere
Horrible performance
Abysmal loading times
Stuttering

It's literally a downgrade over 1.5 in every single facet! (except finally they're doing something about the sound, small mercies)

-Ice:

Have INTEL Core i7 2600K 3.4 1155 unlocked
Have SSD, but do not have DCS loaded there.

BadBud

You may want to review the minimum/recommended specs for 2.5, Jetronic.

Guys, take a look at my screenshot post. That's on a 4 year old AZUS laptop. Only 8 GB's of RAMM. I did, however add a portable SSD drive. Major improvement. You do NOT need a NASA computer to run DCS. Admittedly, I don't really enjoy running missions with huge amounts of airplanes. I'll do a 4x4 dogfight or have a few planes going after ground targets...that sort of thing. But, I don't see how this is unplayable. And I'm running the Normandy map, now. With the Spitfire. Boy! am I enjoying it. For the last few days it's the only thing I've been playing on my rig.

I have a 1TB RAID SATA SSD with a 1080 GPU, 32 GB RAM

I had time to do it and give a try and updated today and it is still a slideshow.

Was thinking of 1070 to replace my 670, think I better hold fire for now it that's the case. New cards are due in the next few months aren't they?

Nate

I paid US$600 for my GTX 1080 GAMING, 8GB GDDRX, they have become too expensive.

I have terrain set to low, but textures set to high. Pre set is medium. Visable distance is medium. I've turned off anything I think I don't need. Heat blur and civilian traffic. Just for the hell of of it, I put chimney smoke on zero, too. I'm playing at 1920 x 1080. Runs flawlessly. I don't know HOW you guys are geting slideshows if my weak ass rig is running this the way it is.
One thing I've also done is to set the games priority to high, in the task manager. I think that helps a lot.
Can't play with everything set to high, but I don't care. If you saw my screenshots, it still looks great . To me, anyway.

And i just picked up the Epsum campaign a few minutes ago. Looking forward to seeing how that will run with a whole lot going on.

doing that you take away all the eye candy




good question.

all things considered, I would not like to have to pay $100-150 for a module and terrain and have to "turn off all I don't need", I rather have 40-50 FPS and max out settings like I do in Il-2 and P3Dv4.

Oh yeah, I know, but really, I think it still looks great. Things like chimney smoke don't bother me.

"I would not like to have to pay $100-150 for a module and terrain and have to "turn off all I don't need""

Oh, and I got the Spitfire, Normandy map, and WW2 assets pack...all with a 50 dollar Steam gift card during the big sale going on, now. I wouldn't pay 150 bucks if I had to turn it all down, either. These sales are how I've gotten all of my DCS stuff.

No eye candy? Looks pretty sweet to me!

I haven't bought anything these past two years, but I used to buy the modules as soon as they came out, the $100-150 would be for the Homuz map and F/A-18.

I have I5 8400 (6core) 4.0ghz and 16gb DDR4 and 1070 ,

2.5 latest patch runs really smooth. High settings, in monitor i get 90-120fps easily even big missions.

And VR with Oculus runs great too.

Performance is now much better after patches.



And our Finnish flight group has about 100+ pilots and no performance problems. Even 1060 is enough if using only fullhd monitor. And lots of pilots with 8gb ram only (ssd drive helps) and no problems.

They've not increase ram again have they? 64gb min now



Pooch, you're kinda proving my point, having to turn ALL they eyecandy off to get worse frames than 1.5 & have it look worse is NOT progress.

I don't have normandy, it's a pointless map, but PG has all the visual fidelity of Battlefield 2 circa 2006. ED appear to be trying to develop a screenshot simulator only.

I think what Tom's trying to say is that it doesn't make sense to turn down eye candy when his hardware SHOULD be able to handle it fine, as it can handle IL-2 and P3D very well. Just imagine having to turn down the sliders and decrease resolution just to play ONE game while all others run on ultimate graphics settings and 4K; it'll be like taking a step backward!



I thought that statement was going to be a positive for ED but then your last sentence seems to have turned it around.... what do you mean?

Haha, i'm not sure if looking like BF2 is a complement or not!

The priorities and decisions on the graphics engine are just nutty. The overexposed color palette making everything looking Instagram ish. Having gauges go opaque white in sunlight. Massively overdone baked in reflections. I think they are trying to emulate a CAMERA in the cockpit rather than a human eyeball which adapts to these conditions. Defered shading seems to be worse but they've enforced it because they can't manage to get one shading strategy right, never mind two.

Then we have things like ultra high poly and texture trains, cows, grass that seems to consume resources all the time, but is seldom seen. I swear people take more time posting screenshots on H*ggit than they do playing the game!


And yes P3D runs a million times better on my machine whilst also looking much better.

Didn't play BF2 so had no idea Thanks for clarifying.

Oh, and I snub your P3D comment as XP11 is clearly superior! Hahaha!! Just kidding!

Maybe we someday get proper camera screenshot tools in game, where you can choose from variety of angles and different effects then one could share the shots by clicking the facebook or reddit button on top of the screen. Honestly can't wait to get in game and shoot.. some selfies in cockpit.

back in November I was running 2.0 beta quite well, not that I playing that much, but it was running fine.

The fact that with 2.5 I am not , means (to me) that this version was not tested across that many platforms so that similar rigs have different outcomes.

when the next version comes out, I'll give it a try, eventually or never, it will work.

Glad to hear it's running well for you Pooch, I've never had a problem running this game so I've been lucky. Yes fairly sterile environment but runs well(have not even tried flying an actual mission yet), frustrating performance seems so inconsistent.

And it's nice to hear from the Water Cooler Jockeys

"Pooch, you're kinda proving my point, having to turn ALL they eyecandy off to get worse frames than 1.5 & have it look worse is NOT progress."

Well, I showed screenies at the screenshot section and I posted one here that I thought showed that I WASN'T turning ALL the eye candy off. I understand that people running super rigs are frustrated that they can't run this. That's why my point is, that, I'm surprised that I can run it it on my laptop, at all, and still have it look good and run well.
And I'm running this at 1920 x 1080. Oddly enough, when I first picked the Spit and the map up, I automatically turned down the res to 1600 x 900 because I fully expected not to be able to run at my screens resolution. It actually runs like crap at the lower setting, which doesn't make sense to me. Stuttering and micro-freezes. It seems to prefer the high res...which is good.