More frustrating than the product itself?
I would not bother with how the testing-beta-release flow works if the end product was worth it.

To be fair, Paradaz, Sobek's statement does make sense, but so does your claim. Your downfall, however, stems from the fact that you assume/require software companies to actually fix something to move a version from beta to release or from beta to stable. While ED does follow the flow of beta-then-release, it does not mean ED follows the assumption that a release or stable version is actually release-worthy or befitting of the word "stable."

ED knows of their memory issue but they deploy the software anyway and even move it from beta to release.
ED notes that people complain of the memory issue so they change their system requirements and call it a "fix".

Expecting ED to follow the norm? Have we not learned anything?

I haven't found any of the release versions to be particularly unstable, feature mistake/break/lack yes, but not unstable.

You only need to check EDs very own message boards to see the problems. Also, I doubt you play in VR to make that claim either......It's very much broken never mind unstable.


I absolutely agree........but only if you're talking about any other developer than ED. The way they go about their integration, testing and release does not reflect normal process and this is reflected in the quality (or lack of it) in their end products.


Yes, and I know exactly which line you're going down here........so given that EDs definitions of the stable/release builds and intent of these builds are different to that of every other dev why don't you go right ahead and explain how ED will ever get out of this perpetual beta. I don't believe it's even a target of there's because they can caveat these problems with the 'always subject to change' and 'in progress' banner for as long as they want/need and their customers (at least some of them) seen happy to go along with it.

I estimate that ED has gotten in a situation where they do not have the money to stop selling stuff and finish to a more polished level that which they have committed to.

I doubt that statement very much. I can name numerous people who have made statements about DCS in the DCS Forums yet have changed their tune now the hornet is going to be released.

The Hawk alone sold 10's of thousands of copies. So that would put the hornet in the ball park of 100,000 copies.

that is roughly $7,999,000 or more on a single module alone. If those same people buy the Gulf map, another $7,999,000. Endorsements and percentages of sales from all previous modules, 3rd party modules etc etc....DCS is not going broke any time soon.

Now I am not up to date with US tax laws or Russian tax laws but here in Australia, all that development time and wages going to developer's\coders in other countries is all tax deductible. Taxes are only implied on the sale of the completed module.

I have said it before about VEAO that is a tax right off, however DCS are actually producing more than one module.

Sorry, who is talking about unstable?


If you are saying ED does not have the funds that will allow them to survive long enough to polish their products to their own hype levels, we agree on that point. That is why ED has to make new modules and new terrains and take any and all private contracts that come their way, otherwise, kaput.



I love it how people excuse ED because other companies do it too.

What? ED missed a deadline? So what? Other companies miss deadlines too. Yeah, except ED takes missing deadlines into an art form!
What? DCS is a broken mess? So what? Falcon, FS9/FSX, ARMA and other games were a mess too. Yeah, except ED keeps DCS in a broken mess for years and years!

Just because other developers follow steps 1, 2, and 3 does not mean ED is doing it right when it takes steps 1, 2, and 3.

I think with the move from 2.5 beta to 2.5 release they've just wanted to end the support for 1.5.8.
They pretty sure know about the quality of the 2.5 release and the time they needed for 2.5.1 and
the "unload memory" fix lets me guess that something was already in the works.

I thought with the release of 2.5 (beta) meant the end of support for 1.5.X? Why would a label of "beta" be any different from a label of "release"?

The 'master of puppets' pulling the strings at ED himself (NineLies) stated there was no 'memory leak' the hoard over the fence bought into the 9th lie and now it comes to light in this update that there is a 'unload memory' fix......

A fine example of ED\TFC\Belsimtek buying time until a solution is found

A memory leak is a very specific problem. His statement was with regard to the higher memory footprint of 2.5 being erroneously termed a memory leak, which in fact it was not. No lying involved on that case, just clarifying terminology.

Please clarify this for me. Was there or was there not a memory leak? if there was not a memory leak, why is there an 'unload memory' fix.

Sobek, you have basically stated that there was no memory leak. I am just asking how changing the minimum specs of DCS has added factual evidence that something obviously 'memory related' happened, considering Chiz or what ever his name is stated that ED were investigating
a 'memory leak' when you have just said that NineLies was correct that there was no such 'memory leak'

There either WAS a memory leak "confirmed by the russian developer" yet disputed by the "community manager" obviously 2 different people in the chain of command on separate pages in the development 'world'

Edited to seek an elaborate answer to the matter that has plagued this thread numerous times.

So is it a memory leak or a higher memory footprint? Doesn't really matter. Either way, ED doesn't seem to know it's own product and the hardware required to run their software at an acceptable level. ED also relies on its paying customers for bug testing and doesn't even treat those paying customers with respect and ED doesn't see the need to be honest with its paying customers/beta testers. The funny thing here is that the people making excuses for ED then looks silly after ED changes its stance on supposed bugs.



Source
So if it's a higher memory footprint, ED did not notice this during their own development and testing? Or is this just evidence that ED did absolutely no testing at all?


Source
Seems like the fix is just to re-label it and change minimum requirements specs!


Can you tell me again how there is a "no lying involved" claim in this fiasco? Seems like ED had an excuse, then you had to find creative ways of defending that excuse but now that ED has settled for a different excuse, you're now looking silly having to find yet more creative ways of defending the new excuse. I do hope ED is paying you for your services though.

I seriously could not have asked these questions or raised the points better myself Ice. I was seeing if old mate would elaborate but you went all in Looking forward to see what Sobek has to say in the topic at hand

"NineLies" 😂

From the upgrade discussion:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200340


There is a picture showing the upgrade path(s).

Well the thing is, i never encountered the issue so i didn't investigate it. I just went off of the mod staff running along with the 'memory leak' theme. Most of the mods aren't developers themselves, so they don't know what a real memory leak is. Turns out that the 'memory leak' term was just falsely picked up by everybody for this particular increase in memory footprint until ED themselves stepped up to clarify what was really happening.

As to why they weren't more upfront about 2.5 using more memory, i don't know. It certainly would have been helpful. Maybe they didn't recognize it because the closed beta testers run high end machines. I wouldn't know, really.

Anyways, IMHO the silver lining to all this is that if you play a bit with settings in 2.5, you still get good visuals at a memory footprint that is roughly equal to 1.5.

Looks like all owners of FC3 and the standalone Su-27 are getting a free flyable J-11A. Now it is very much an Su-27B, but we're getting the appropriate 3D model changes and weapons. The news letter claims an R-77, but I didn't know the PLAAF used them.

Sounds like a 3rd party is donating Chinese assets (as well as the J-11 modifications) for free.

What, like turning your settings down to ‘low’ when you previously had it at ‘high’ in order to maintain framerate and lower memory footprint! That’s a quality ED silver-lining isn’t it.......it’s pretty much the same as the “double your RAM” debacle.

Weren’t ED telling us only a few months ago that 2.5 was highly optimised and was running even better than the previous build!

Yes but I seem to be remembering that this was not what ED stated before. I could be wrong but can't be bothered to dig up the source for now.



Well, ED said it was a memory leak:
Source

So is it a memory leak or or a higher memory footprint? Doesn't really matter, ED didn't know about it anyway and again shows how they don't know their own product! As of the latest newsletter, it seems that a video memory manager is now a newsworthy item. What's next? A manager that unloads DCS correctly once you exit the game? Funny how what is standard in other games is now suddenly a feature in DCS.



Remember when preview videos of the Hornet flying in 2.5 came out? The low-flying one with lots of trees? No wonder they wouldn't release the PC specs of the rig used in that video; it's probably something stupidly expensive and ED would in no way be able to claim that it would run the same as 1.5.X on end-user's machines. Where was ED's honesty in that scenario? How do you think the community would react if they released the true PC specs? We don't know what the specs are.... and we now know the reason ED wasn't up front about it. How can you tell your customers about an issue you don't know about yourself? Besides, why bother testing when people will PAY you to test your software? You can also ban them if they get too annoying! Why bother being open and honest with your customer base when there are people out there who will defend anything and everything you do?

Also, good work on insulting your end-user's machines. So anything below 32GB RAM is now no longer "high end"? Or are we just moving goalposts again as far as labels are concerned in order to cover up ED's unoptimized mess?



DCS isn't broken! You simply have a weak-ass PC!! Get with the times you poor slob!
DCS doesn't have a memory problem! But look! We released a video memory manager anyway!!
DCS isn't broken! You simply have to play with the settings to un-break it!

Good job!