2..5 Release Date ANNOUNCED!!

Source




Anyone taking bets on this?

So will 2.5 be released with only Summer map available? And no compatibility with currently-released missions and campaigns? I don't see them doing Spring/Autumn/Winter plus mission/campaign fix in 6.5 weeks with maybe a week or so of holiday time in there, so maybe 5.5 weeks?

The skeptical part of me says they won't hit this release date.... or if they do, it'll be barebones.

Said by "everything is subject to change" Wags.
Think I will hold my expectations until I see it on my SSD.

Who would have thought!

Perhaps if they had focused on the 2.5 build in late 2015 it would have been completed without wasting all those funds and resources......only for them to have to re-tread over all this ground again. The same old faces argued this wouldn't be the case but it was highlighted on these forums many times. Their greed in trying to get funds by putting so much effort into supporting payware campaigns has just taken a massive hit.....but no surprise they couldn't see this coming. Four working weeks also seems quite tight given the amount of work identified as incomplete. At the same time, ED's 'promise' counts for nothing.

I can't wait for NTTR to be released.

Lols, the tear jerking letter from the bottom of Wags "heart" stated coming weeks
when it should have stated coming months

Bet it will still be late

Just to clarify because I’m totally confused.

Does this mean all betas alphas or what the #%&*$# Evers will all be united into one simple edition?

In order to avoid confusion and any update issues, DCS World 2.5 will be released as a new download. The current Open Beta will be updated to DCS World 2.5, the Open Alpha will be removed, and DCS World 1.5 will remain but be unsupported.

So the beta simply be updated to become the actual proper game?

There will just be one supported branch which will be 2.5.... 1.5 will still be available but will be abandoned.

Yeah, sure. I'll believe it when I see it.

Yeah.... someone on another forum just tried saying that plans don't mean anything whereas a promise is a different thing and you can count on a promise...

I actually think they will make this date. I can't recall ED ever using the word "promise" when it comes to release times. They're usually very vague to keep expectations low.

I also think they'll make the release......but it will simply be pushed out at whatever state it's in and totally unfinished with the other seasons, lighting and patches that will follow whenever they are ready.

The last statement by Wags was just a pre-cursor to the disclaimer that will come with it on release. It's obviously still.going to be a beta with a '2.5' prefix and the Hornet will supplement it nicely with all the unfinished content that comes with that module too. I'm tempted to plump for the Xplane 11 version of the F18.....there's probably more combat in it anyway

They've no qualms releasing Hornet with most of the interesting stuff missing, I'm sure they'll have no qualms doing the same with "2.5"

I was tempted by the Collimata F-18... carrier ops, the latest version of XP allowing weapons again, but most of the switches are INOP and the videos I've found have failed to impress.....

Being late to the DCS party...what is the version history as of late? I got DCS on Steam and it is currently 1.5.8. What is this alpha and beta you speak of? And what does it mean for me when it goes to 2.5? What will work, what won't, what do I need to do to get things to work?

Also I noticed snooping around the file folders that there is a Nevada Test Range on my hard drive. I can't get it to work. Is this some beta or alpha, or is it only operable when you buy NTTR from Steam via DRM or something?

v6,
boNes

I would suggest that you just wait for 2.5 release at the end of January 2018 which is sure to come because it's not an estimate, it's a promise!!

NTTR is an extra map that you can get by either buying it or for free if you pre-ordered DCS A10C . Depending on how old your Nevada files are, you may either own NTTR or you played with DCS A10C Beta 2 or Beta 3 when Nevada was available to fly in.... either way, you should beable to play with NTTR.




Speaking of this "it's not an estimate, it's a promise" nonsense (which they repeat again in the newsletter today), is it just me or does this make ED look even more comical?? Since when did companies have to "promise" on product delivery?? Since when is "deadline" not a good-enough word?

You have to 'promise' something when you've consistently failed to meet your own deadlines over the previous 10 years and your customer base doesn't believe a word you say.

OK, I didn't pre-order A-10 and I didn't buy NTTR. SO why do I have it? In case it is activated? I also have Normandy, but the same way...It's on my hard drive but I can't get it to work. What did you mean I should be able to play with NTTR?

Also, I tried to PM you but I can't...wanted to ask you some questions since to me you are a DCS guru.

v6,
boNes

NTTR and Normandy are for DCS 2.x, currently 2.2, and as you have 1.5.8 installed, the maps are useless.
As Ice noted, you can wait for 2.5 (end of January) and upgrade your 1.5.8 for free.
If you then want the NTTR/Normandy maps, you have to buy a key/serial number.

You can play with NTTR either by buying the map module or if you pre-ordered DCS A10C before Dec 2010 or Feb 2011 IIRC. I assumed you have done either one as you've said you had files on your HDD. If you hadn't and still have the files, I don't really know why they'd be there. Maybe just small tidbits of files so that these modules show up on your DCS menu? I'm not exactly sure as you've not stated what files or folders you have.


Haha!! Thanks for the nice words but I am in no way a "guru." I am simply a critical DCS fan I've sent you a PM so feel free to respond to that or if you wish, do post here on the forums as there are more people that have more current DCS experience than I do




Indeed! They've worn out their credibility and reputation that they now have to use words not normally used in this area. If they ever start talking about target dates again, I hope people start asking them "is that an estimate or is that a promise?"

Anyone can have any of the files for any of the modules at any time. I could download the Viggen files without problem, I just wouldn't be able to activate and use it without a key.

If you think you have NTTR access you can download the Open Alpha branch client and try it.

Whoohoo!! Only 30 days until 2.5 release!

Will Wags look stupid when ED can't deliver on their estimates and can't deliver on their promise?
Will 2.5 be released as planned but have so many things wrong with it?
Will 2.5 be released as planned but with missing features?

Or will we all be in awe of ED's programming prowess as 2.5 blows all expectations out of the water?

Only 30 days and we'll have an answer!!

New terrain is great.

And it runs good.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cmRGut0lXmE


First thing to do with 2.5 is hop in helo and go for noe flying

From the latest video, the new terrain does look great! Can't wait to fly around.

Haukka81,

Do you have the new terrain running on the rig described in your signature?

Clutch

Nope its not out yet, but i got new rig about same that is used in video

Does this mean I can finally just have 1 install?

Looks like there will still be a Beta 2.5 also, so 2 different versions if you want the latest it seems.

From what I understood, there will be a "released" version which will be 2.5 and there will be a "beta" versions of 2.5.XXX, but that's it. 1.5.whatever will still be available but will no longer be worked on or supported. Hopefully, once this is in place, they can move forward at a better pace.

Looks awesome, but can DCS give me the unpredictable adrenaline rush similar to this(at about 44:00):

I doubt DCS will ever match the immersion of simulations of the past. They are an airframe sim first and foremost.

I've been watching some of the Grim Reapers DCS stuff on youtube, and their missions get pretty intense!

very interesting and fun to watch - thanks !

Honestly I wouldn’t give these guys any cash after past performances.

That weird business with dcs ww2 where we backed the project on Kickstarter. The whole thing fell over and bizarrely they took over but since seem to have abandoned it.

Then you ask reasonable questions about when you will get what you paid for and get banned on their site.

Buyer beware.

What are these idiots thinking? With only a few weeks left to go from, hopefully, a 2.5 release, they release a Viggen campaign? I suppose there's no work needed to convert it from whatever it is now to be compatible with 2.5? Or do they just really, really need the cash?

The Viggen campaign is based on Red Flag. That means it is based on the NTTR theatre. The NTTR theatre won't change much from 2.2 to 2.5, at least not that i'm aware of.

You underestimate the incompetence of ED.

As opposed to waiting a few weeks and releasing it under 2.5???

need moar schekels quickly ,,, that why released now

How would that change anything?

I'm sure you're quite capable of figuring out the answer to that

Ice, if you thinking that the rework needed for Caucasus campaigns/missions will also be needed for those that are build for Nevada, there is no likely reason for that to be the case since Nevada has not been changed, nor will it be.

I hope so.... but I wasn't just thinking of that. I remember how things would break between patches and going from 2.XXX to 2.5 isn't really just a patch now, is it?

Care to buy the campaign and tell us whether 2.5 borks it?

The possibility of any given patch breaking something is always there. I just don't think the v2.5 release is going to be all that earth shattering for Nevada based missions.

As for me buying the campaign to test it, no thanks.

Yep.... but some people seem to have a knack of hitting the jackpot

2 weeks to go. Who's taking bets? it's getting close. A promise is a promise.

I'm guessing they'll chuck whatever they have out the door and call it 2.5 and if anyone complains of missing features, we'll get the "everything is subject to change" line and Wags will lose whatever credibility he has left.

Pretty much sums it up

Humbug!

Yeah i'm pretty sure they'l just throw it out and if the "everything is subject to change" line doesn't work there's always the moderators to "clean" things up over there.

Some updated info from -> https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200340

Gentlemen, here is some explanations how your current 1.5 (and/or 2.2) will be converted to 2.5, please take a look the attached diagram. Transition will be made in 2 stages:

1 stage: Beta-version. 1.5.8 Open Beta will be updated to 2.5.0 Open Beta. Updater will check 2.2.0 (Alpha) and add necessary modules to 2.5.0. Then Open Alpha 2.2.0 will be uninstalled (user will be prompted about 2.2.0 removing).

1.5.8 release remains as is on this stage.

Some time (maybe one-two weeks, we hope no more) for wide test of this procedure.

2 stage: Release version. 1.5.8 release updated to 2.5.0. User will be prompted before update about saving 1.5.8 Final version in the separate directory.

Modules from 2.2.0 Open Alpha (or 2.5.0 beta - see 1st stage) version will be used for 2.5.0 installation, after that old 2.2.0 will be uninstalled (user prompted).

Open Alpha 2.2.0: this branch is no longer supported. If user have only 2.2.0 Open Alpha, updater will suggest to download 2.5 installer - it will install 2.5 release and remove 2.2.0 Open Alpha.

Home folders (Saved Games\DCS) remains the same (Saved Games\DCS and Saved Games\DCS.openbeta). New Saved Games\DCS.release_1_5 will be created for 1.5 Final version and all content will be copied into it from Saved Games\DCS. We also strongly suggest to remove Saved Games\DCS\Config\options.lua and make graphic tuning from scratch using DCS GUI because of 1.5 and 2.5 renders are significantly different.

Activations. All activation keys are saved in Windows Registry and NO additional activation needed.

1.5.8 Final version installer will be available on DCS site.


and they have a wee picture as well, excellent

So only the beta version gets updated to 2.5 in January? Then 2 weeks later the release, maybe, "depending on wide test of this procedure"?
Sounding like a promise breaking to me.

No, it looks like they will be testing this the next 2 weeks. and the new 2.5 takes from all the versions and combines it in stages to 2.5.. No Promise broken yet

Some Vivaldi to chill things out....

https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/videos/10159975977600341/

Nate

"2.5 Open Beta coming January 31, 2018."

"Given this, we will be releasing DCS World 2.5 by late-January 2018. This is not an estimate, this is a promise."
Nothing there about Open beta. It clearly states we will be releasing DCS World 2.5 by late January 2018. Not 2.5 Open Beta
Sounds like a broken promise to me. Sounds like ED have missed yet another deadline. Oh well I doubt anybody really thought ED would keep a promise and meet a deadline. Why change now?

And there we have it! 2.5 is being thrown out the door at whatever state it's in... now called "Open Beta" and careful monitoring is now their excuse for any succeeding delays. I'm sure there'll be bugs that will delay 2.5 Release that NOBODY could've foreseen, surely not this company that's been in this business for 27 (?) years.

Anyone taking bets that Stage 2 will be more than "next one to two weeks"?

So now "late January" stands for "end of January and Beta"? For me "late of" is NOT "at the end of", but english isn't my native language. So is "late of" now at "the End of"? But why do we need a "late of" if that always means "at the end of"?
Word gaming... lol!
It's a promise? For sure it never wasn't!
!

"late January" could mean anything during the 2nd half or last 2 weeks of January... or even last week of January as weeks 2-3 would be "mid-January." Knowing ED, I think most of us interpreted this as 31st January 2018 on 23:55:55

Also, as we can see now, "releasing DCS World 2.5 by late-January 2018" means releasing DCS World 2.5 Open Beta. Like I said, they'll chuck whatever they have out the door on the deadline and now they've added the "Open Beta" wording so nobody can really complain when they find out that it's still bug-ridden and in a poor state. "Why do you people complain about a Beta? If you wanted a polished product, wait until Release comes around!" and now they can use that line as their defense.

Gotta love ED!

I got trolled by them prior the Viggen release.
Planned a full evening and stockpiled beer and such only to have the stellar news day before release that we 1.5 series customers was out of luck since the release was going open beta at "promised" date (website still said 1.5 days after release, I don't think they ever wrote anything else but 1.5 actually).

Can you guys see how much I expected this 2.5 to be released as promised?

Yeah, spot on.

Why the hell would you even announce when betatesters are to receive stuff?
Wags is very very different from the project managers and producers I've met in my professional life.

I know he is a very dedicated simmer, just listen to him on that Viggen sortie they did, and I actually like him as a simmer but some days I would like to see on what grounds ED hired him as a producer.

I dunno, maybe there are no wheelchair ramps at ED HQ and he cant get in to work most days? There must be some reason for his lack of competence. His credability has just hit a new low with me.
A promise!
"I know most folk dont trust what i say anymore and so dont get frustrated anymore. This time I'll promise! That way folk will trust and get frustrated all over again".

Your mistake, Johnny, was that you failed to see the difference between a promise and a pinky promise. Promises can be broken, but not pinky promises! Pinky promises are along the same level as:
cross my heart and hope to die
swear on my mother's grave
swear on the heads/lives of my children
in the name of all things holy

I hope now you can see and appreciate the difference and you can adjust future expectations accordingly.

Today's update says 2.5 Open Beta will be released JAN 31st. The actual release version of 2.5 won't come out until "one or two weeks later". Good news for those who like the open betas but for those who only use actual stable release versions...we're still going to be waiting.

The original announcement says the Beta is what's being upgraded to 2.5. I'm not sure that it would have made much difference anyway if the release was non beta as I don't think 2.5 was ever supposed to be "feature complete" on launch.

Considering that the 'stable' release isn't all that stable, I don't see an issue here. We are still talking about two versions, at different patch levels, neither of which has been tested at any depth. This is obvious when the release version is updated to the OB patch level within just a week or two. You can't do comprehensive testing and patching in that time frame and if you could then the release version number should be different since the code should be different. The version numbers are indicative of the fact that they don't actually fix anything between the Beta and the Release, but instead just pass the same code and call it 'released'. IMHO.

Is it actually going to be "released" or will it just be Open Beta slapped on with a different title?


Yeah.... expecting ED to be working years on something and then expecting that to be feature complete on launch is just asking for too much, right? We see this for 2.5, we see this for the Hornet.... why, oh, why were we hoping for any different?



Haha, true! Doesn't really matter, this is just really to show that ED can't even deliver on their promises and will rely on word play to get out.


Well, the testers are supposed to be "hammering away" at the Open Beta version..... but we've all experienced stuff before that made us scratch our heads and wonder how bugs made it past the supposed internal beta team.


Also note that what will come out on Jan 31st will be an update to the Open Beta while the full installer will come out on Feb 1st.... what's the difference? Those who want it on Jan 31st will simply install the Open Beta now and upgrade it to 2.5 on that day.....

Well the thing is DCS can't really be feature complete. It's updated continuously. The difference between Open Beta and final release won't mean much because of this outside of bugs perhaps.

In particular I think ED has hinted that planned features like ATC, missile guidance, and damage model aren't necessarily releasing with 2.5. I can't say for sure because I don't have quotes on hand.

Nate

pmsl

Well... he did produce that Jane's F-18 thingy back in the the 90's and has been a producer for ED since the LockOn days (or even as far back as Flanker. not sure about that). So, yes! He brings a lot of experience with him and is, obviously, very successful at his job. They wouldn't be here if he did such a lousy job, right?

I'm disappointed but not surprised that the usual suspects around these here parts would obviously like to see ED fail. Why do you even frequent this board if all you do is spread negativity. I just don't understand that attitude...

The nature of this business is such that "everything is subject to change", schedules are missed repeatedly and the end-product does not appeal to all of the potential customers. Oh well, deal with it. Do something constructive with your time as opposed to trolling and turning other people off that might actually enjoy using ED's products, warts and all.

Oh on the contrary I would like to see ED succeed just once. I'd love ED to succeed just frikin once in hitting a deadline/release date. It's beyond incompetent to promise a release then miss it. Or hide their incompetence behind a "beta". They probably had that ready to go weeks ago but held it back in case Wags failed to live up to his promise. And here we are
ED fail all the time. It's nothing new and nothing anyone enjoys

Considering the mayhem DCS been last few years with the need to use 3 installs and the fear of even "stable" going, despite open beta, up in smoke when normal customers get their hands on it I'm pretty sure you and I do not share views here.
We could extend this to look at the 3rd party adventure but as I said, let's agree to disagree.
Only thing I know for sure is, ED should be helluva happy to have customers of your kind.
You know, the apologistas flocking over at the Orwellian forums.
I good screenshot is all we need, right?

The negativity here is just overwhelming. So even if they release on time you would still bash them and accuse that they "had that ready to go weeks ago". Even if many devs do that to ensure they have margin for error. After so many delayed releases why wouldn't they play it safe?

I had my own criticism over ED but what's going on here is just silly.

I'm just glad they' still in the flight sim genre business. They are certainly not perfect, but that's the market shaped them this way I guess. Since they are still afloat however, they must be doing something right, unlike all those dev studios that perished long time ago (RIP Microprose, Spectrum Holobyte, Origin ...)

Playing it safe would be to not promise anything. Playing it safe would be to tell their customers we hope we can bring you the release of 2.5 at the end of January. Unfortunately we cannot guarantee that but we are definitely going to try. But no Wags promised. not an estimate but a promise. Hardly playing it safe in anybodies book but yours apparently.

Well I guess we will have to see for ourselves if his promise will be true. Four more days ...

Am I missing something here?
Isn't it already confirmed the release is not in January but mid or end of February?
Unless you're a spare-time unpaid beta-tester?

You're not missing anything. damson is.

Good, if you guys watch me now you can see how I make an Ace Ventura exit from this thread.

This is from yesterday "weekend news"



What am I missing? That the version released first will be open beta? This platform is in constant developement, so frankly I don't mind that.

You can be angry all you want.

Damson, If this platform is in constant development, then it can be nothing other than a 'beta' at every single stage and will never become a stable release......that's what you seem to be referring to here and also what ED use as a particularly weak excuse as to their incompetence in never finishing any of their content.

There is nothing stopping ED from finishing the modules they started, creating a baseline whereby a particular build becomes a fully tested release and then working on the integration of modular content with patches and updated builds (it is no way modular now and the evidence of that is how they have to patch the core game just to support campaigns and other new content). They clearly have no idea of how to manage this project properly and that has been clear from a number of years.


No, that's absolutely rubbish.... That particular line is really only used by ED because they have no road map and are constantly letting feature creep, their lack of planning and management of integration activities and their reaction to commercial products steer this rudderless ship. I can't think of any other developer in any genre that consistently miss deadlines not by days and months, but by years and no other dev uses the 'everything is subject to change' as part of their company mission-statement and branding.

The anger from some members in SimHQ comes in the utter frustration of something that has so much potential yet is absolutely wasted by the people in charge of ED. For me, 2.5 is the last chance......I'm fed up of the consistent let-downs and their inability to learn from all the previous mistakes and they've had more than long enough to sort this mess out. It really doesn't look like promising news though that the 2.5 merger/release is rapidly turning into a pre-release/alpha/beta with what sounds like a lot more work still to come before it gets close to what we were really expecting......it's already over 4 years late from their intended 2.0 release which is what all these core changes were based on.

I get your point Paradaz, really I do. All I can say is that I reconciled with what ED is doing with their platform. It's really complicated piece of software and many had failed at building their business around it. ED is doing rather well I suppose so I'm just glad I'm able to use it and it didn't turned into another vaporware project.

Lol!! So if something gets new features and fixes, then it's in perpetual beta, huh? So I guess Windows 10 was never "released" as we then had the Anniversary Update, Creators Update, and Fall Creators Update... all this time we were using Windows 10 Beta. Such wow! Many logic! Amazement!!

I guess you do have to start thinking this way if you want to try defending ED



Somebody's gotta do it!!



Please explain how years of delay does not equal "lousy job".... I'll wait.


Obviously, you have no clue about what you speak of..... I've mentioned multiple times that I'd love ED to prove me wrong, and for a good time now, the ball has been squarely in ED's court. Spread negativity? Or just give you a dose of reality? Maybe try to discern the difference.


Please show me another game company that has repeatedly delivered years late and is still in business..... I'll wait.

If you're content to dine on what scraps fall off of ED's table, that's on you. Some of us want more for our money.




Hmmm.... I wonder if there's no other location you can go to where there is no negativity.... any idea guys? No? Damn.


Tell you what..... get them to release something on time THEN see if we bash them. And no, 2.5 "release" no longer counts as we've already called this and ED has proven us correct.


Or they just have legions of blind, brainwashed masses who are happy to pay 100% for 40% of a product and then wait years for the remaining 60%. Just because they're afloat doesn't mean they're doing something right. Just because other dev studios perished doesn't mean they did something wrong (ie, the market interest just went elsewhere).


What you're missing is that Wags promised a release by the end of January. What we're getting is Open Beta. If you can't figure out the difference between RELEASE and OPEN BETA at this stage, I don't think any explanation will fix that. If you insist that constant development = open beta, please cite a couple of software that had no development after release? Please cite a couple of software that remained open beta for years because their developers were constantly developing the software and thus did not "release" it? Again, such wow! Many logic! Amazement!!

Now they're stating Release will follow 1-2 weeks after Open Beta.... let's see if they'll actually make that window. I'm not holding my breath on that one.



If you've made your peace with ED, then understand that there are those of us that haven't and still hold ED's feet to the fire. Funny how you can understand ED but then cannot understand the negativity that is the result of ED.

What an odd forum

Yes Ice there are actually forums that have been able to keep a positive spin on this announcement. GASP! lol

But of course these must be the brainwashed simple minded folk

And you obviously missed the sarcasm.

Please do be so kind as to show us how being promised a RELEASE and then being given an OPEN BETA can be given a positive spin!!

I would point out that they said that they would release, as in make available to the public, v2.5. Nobody ever said that the 'release' version would be available on a given date. If you thought otherwise then you have not followed the release of any module in the past 8 years.

By the way, with regard to the 'unpaid beta testers' comments. The beta testers for pretty much every game are unpaid. Ask anyone that is/has taken part in a beta testing program. They volunteer/apply for the opportunity and the only compensation is the early access to the game content.

Large studios do have a paid testing staff but what they test is pre-release alpha content that is most certainly not ready for public consumption. I am basing this, not on speculation, but on conversations with the head of a AAA gaming studio.

Technically you are correct.
"Given this, we will be releasing DCS World 2.5 by late-January 2018. This is not an estimate, this is a promise."
No given date just late-January.
" they said that they would release, as in make available to the public, v2.5." and you know this because? Because you're privy to the goings on in Wagners mind?
Please explain this then
"In order to avoid confusion and any update issues, DCS World 2.5 will be released as a new download. The current Open Beta will be updated to DCS World 2.5, the Open Alpha will be removed, and DCS World 1.5 will remain but be unsupported."

"Dear all,

Work is going well with the updated Caucasus map and the summer map is ready to go! However, there is still work to do on the Spring, Autumn, and Winter maps. Much of this revolves around integration of the new SpeedTree tech. This is a rather time consuming process and not a case of just dropping in new tech.

Additionally, a lot of work continues on updating the hundreds of missions and campaigns that need to be adjusted for the map changes. This primarily entails moving units and their routes out of the many new forested areas on the map.

Finally, we have the holiday season fast approaching and we need to give our staff time with the loved ones.

Given this, we will be releasing DCS World 2.5 by late-January 2018. This is not an estimate, this is a promise.

In order to avoid confusion and any update issues, DCS World 2.5 will be released as a new download. The current Open Beta will be updated to DCS World 2.5, the Open Alpha will be removed, and DCS World 1.5 will remain but be unsupported.

Movement of DCS World 2.5 would then soon follow to Steam.

Thanks,
Matt “Wags” Wagner
Eagle Dynamic SA, Senior Producer"

You may feel the need to defend ED and Wagner for whatever reason but I'm sorry your post is nothing short of spin and BS

No it is not. It is just pointing out the facts. As you said in your first sentence.

'Technically you are correct'

Every ED release has always started as a beta release. To have expected this one to be otherwise is just ignoring the history of the product/company.

You read what you want into my reply. Technically you were correct that Nobody ever said that the 'release' version would be available on a given date. because there was no given date just late January.
Everything else in your post was spin and BS

Ok, I will rephrase. Nobody ever said that the release version would be available in late January. They said that v2.5 would be released in late January. Nobody specified anything about the state of the release (whether beta or release candidate or anything else) and if you expected it to be anything other than the open beta then you were fooling yourself.



What part of that doesn't imply that v2.5 will be an open beta? You obviously don't comprehend how the Release and Open Beta are development branches and not 'versions'. I am certainly not the biggest fan of ED, and, by far, not a spin doctor for them. However, in this instance, you are trying to make their normal release pattern seem like a head fake when it is, actually, just business as usual.

This part
DCS World 2.5 will be released as a new download.

So what? That just means that they built a scratch installer. It doesn't speak to the purported state of the code in any way. Sometimes a game update is so different from the previous version that applying a patch is impractical, which is what is likely the case here.

Have you ever used MakeMKV? Every single update requires removal of the old version prior to the installation of the new one, even though it is still a 'beta' product. This is actually the simplest way to update a software package.

I give up. That doesn't change the fact that ED and wags are full of sh1t. It just means I'm not going to argue the fact with you.

I never denied that. It wasn't what we were discussing.

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize. I actually was discussing that. I have no idea what you were discussing then. My apologies.

Wow, in which post, prior to your last, did you mention ED/Wags being FoS? I am sorry that you lost track of the discussion so quickly, I will speak slower next time. As a reminder, we were discussing the specifics of the v2.5 release announcement.

So Cichlidfan....when you think the 'release' version of DCS World 2.5 will become available?

I will estimate......NEVER. Because like others have said it will always be in a state of perpetual beta. What's strange is that ED for the first time are actually calling this the 'release version' which indicates some polish but it's quite clear that this is merely following their normal procedure and of course 'everything is subject to change' and there will undoubtedly be a lack of polish. Don't believe me that they are calling it the 'release version'?...then click here, it's a link to their newsletter.

On a more serious note, my biggest concern with this whole 2.5 mess is the way ED has recently stated that "The 2.5.0 “Release” version will launch a week or two later, depending on how the Open Beta release goes"......so ED really think that their software can go from Open Beta to 'Release' in two weeks?.....either that, or right there is the disclaimer for the release version to be delayed even further due to the amount of problems and bugs that are found with the modules and campaigns that have been integrated with the 2.5 core game. The mere fact that the software is getting tested for the first time by the community suggests that the 'release' version as they are calling it is not a release at all, merely an update that will be available to their customers at whatever state it's in at that point in time. If that is the case, then why are they calling it the release version now and never have done before?

In summary..... ED continue to talk crap, don't learn from any of their previous mistakes but it looks like they are trying to pull the wool over their customers eyes. What is more weird is that the ED defence force like to move the goalposts and try to align their expectations with what is a version and what isn't even though they go against the very language that ED are speaking themselves.

I have no clue. Personally, I hope that they will have all four seasons looking decent by the end of this year. Currently the fall season shows deciduous trees where the winter season shows only evergreens (how does that happen?).



I have already mentioned, previously, that (historically) I thought that the move from OB to release was not indicative of anything since there are no notable changes between the two and that the time frame is insufficient for a meaningful amount of code to be corrected.

When we start having to do word play tactics to distinguish between a RELEASE and an OPEN BETA being made available, we know that the ball has been dropped yet again.


There is no mention of Beta, Open Beta, or Early Access in that statement. Having to clarify the phrase "releasing DCS World 2.5" as whether it is RELEASE or OPEN BETA is like asking Wags whether anything he says is an ESTIMATE or a PROMISE. This just isn't done in normal conversation.... and having to do it here just shows how ED is now (and in the past) resorting to word play in order to try and look less foolish when already caught out.

Go back and read all my posts in this thread. You may believe the discussion started when you showed up. You may believe "ED/wags didn't promise the release in January" "they promised the open beta in January" You can believe the conversation is whatever you want it to be. You can go a slow as you'd like feel free, take as long as you like.
I was, and have always been, discussing EDs/wags volume of sh1t. no matter what you wish to believe. I don't care what you believe. I don't care that you've resorted to insults because folk don't believe your paper thin argument.

Typically open beta comes right before release and is the final round of testing. It isn't exactly uncommon. It actually is quickly becoming standard procedure for AAA multiplayer games. It is also very common for other sandbox style games. Even ArmA 3 was released in ahlpa for almost a year before it got to a released state, and another 6 months (or more) for the campaign. The exception to this rule are story based SP campaign games. So it certainly isn't uncommon. I imagine the beta version is close to what ED would be releasing in the "Release Branch".

I think I will wait until the "release" version is ready. I don't have much interest is playing around with more installs. I have the current "release" version and "Open Alpha". If I could update one of those I'd try it but it sounds like I need the open beta?

Why are we suddenly comparing ED with other dev studios and AAA ones at that? The fact that a procedure is common and that it is exercised by AAA studios does not mean that ED exercising the same procedure will generate the same results in the same timeframe.


Well, if you follow the "logic" of some people on here, there won't be much difference between Open Beta and Release version

There already isn't. People are joining the same server with OB and release causing minor discrepancies. Someone I play with hasn't updated their release in like 9 months. He just considered OB "the game" and has been playing that 100%.

Because the question/complaint I quoted is very commonplace. It certainly isn't my favorite trend either, but to take issue with a practice that is becoming almost standard industry wide is fairly superfluous. A big, free platform update? I'd almost expect an open beta before a release in 2018. That is just reality whether it is good or bad.



Well assuming ED did their job right the difference should be small. Open Betas are supposed to represent a fairly stable build of the game. The majority of the bugs should already have been ironed out, meaning the difference shouldn't be that large between the Open Beta and release.

Again, yes..... the question/complaint/solution is very commonplace. Still doesn't justify comparing ED with other dev studios especially AAA ones. Like I said before, just because other studios are doing this does not mean ED is excused for doing so and besides, ED practicing the same procedure as a AAA studio does not mean ED will get the same results under the same timeframe as AAA studios.



Big assumption right there. The fact that we're getting an Open Beta now does not support that assumption. Please show me a AAA title or dev studio that promised a release date on [DATE] and when that happened, the customers got an Open Beta? Did we get an Open Beta on the release date of Assassin's Creed or Project Cars 2 or The Witcher 3?



That remains to be seen

Not necessarily. It just means that getting the release version doesn't get you the final product. There can be a released 2.5, but it's probably going to be superseded by 2.6 at some point. If that's the case, then I don't see why release versions are special except perhaps in the case of significant bugginess as I mentioned. If the 2.5 OB is a stable piece of software though, then it's as good as a release version.



I guess it depends on your definition of beta, but the label isn't the point. It's about the software we get. If the OB is the same as the release version, minus having OB in the title, what's the difference? Especially if 2.5 will only ever be an intermediate state of DCS.

Why not?



I'd imagine it will be similar to other independent games of similar scale, which typically ranges from months to years.



What is why I said should.



I never made that argument.



One can only hope.

So why are we getting an Open Beta and not a Release version?



The label **IS** the point. If you get a product full of bugs, "Oh, what do you expect? It's a Beta!" can be a perfectly valid excuse which they cannot utilize if the product is labelled Release Everyone here understands the difference between Beta and Release versions.... it's only you guys that is insisting on different definitions and even stating 2.5 will only ever be an intermediate state? **ALL** products that get developed or get post-release support are in an intermediate state, but none of them blur the lines of Beta and Release like you're insisting for DCS. Windows 10 was RELEASED although it's in an intermediate state, then Windows 10 Anniversarry Edition was RELEASED although it's in an intermediate state.... Elite Dangerous was released, then we got Horizons which was released, then we're getting [forgot the name] which is going to be released. We were **NOT** playing with Windows Beta all this time; we were **NOT** playing with Elite Dangerous Beta all this time.



Aaaannnddd.... we're going 'round in circles now. Re-read the posts as to why not.


You can imagine all you want.


Why even make an assumption when we can already see that the assumption is already wrong. ED *should* do their job right and so the work between Open Beta and Release *should* be small.... but then why are we getting the Open Beta on the RELEASE date and not before?


That was just a follow up to my statement about Open Beta being released on the RELEASE date.... something no other dev group or studio does. Why should we then compare ED to other dev studios and AAA groups when ED clearly does things its own way and none of the other studios do this? Why should we accept ED's "commonplace" practice when it clearly results in a non-commonplace outcome (Open Beta on release date)?


Well, I can see your level of confidence on ED seeing as you've not taken any of the wagers set earlier

I think it's pretty clear that if we're discussing or arguing what the definition of EDs 'release version' is then everyone else is just as confused too.

So ED have pulled the wool over everyone's eyes and can happily release 2.5 in whatever state they want knowing they have a fall-back position of claiming the release build/release version is still unfinished and was never intended to be either, and their cycle of never finishing their content continues as normal.

Great.

What's the odds on the presence of some absolute howlers come the end of the month and whats the chances of a multitude of campaigns not being fully integrated/compatible? I guess we'll see the first indication in a couple of days.

Two more sleeps

Two more weeks?

Damnit bisher, you've joined the dark side of unpaid betatesters offering gigabytes of space on your hard earned SSD too?

One more Night to go!

Im ready to 2.5 beta or not , finally terrain to use shark and Hueys , trees ahead


And if 2.5 is not bug fest too much i will buy least mirage maybe even hornet ( or may i say 30% of hornet :P

umm, there has always been terrain to use the shark and huey.....

I'm pretty sure he references the increased details

But, this got me thinking - will 2.5 stop AI from shooting missiles (AT-3 Sagger for instance) right through 7 store buildings like they can today?
Or is it just eye-candy all the way?

That's what I read and makes us rotor heads spinning round on the floor

We will know tomorrow.

ah....to the naked eye, I made comment on what is the obvious.....put yourself in the backers\supporters or those who are directly or indirectly sponsored by ED\TFCs shoes who comment\reply on posts here at SimHQ that state the obvious (or do they)......I would have my name in the credits within the 'DCS World' would I not?

numerous posts that 'state the obvious' get responses such as mine by those who are directly or indirectly endorsed by ED....(this includes those who at some stage were 'moderators' over the fence and are no longer 'moderators' or 'testers' yet comment on what is perceived to be 'the obvious'

did I really seek clarification on what actually is the obvious? or was I just asking someone to point out the obvious........

perhaps KeyCat...or will it be an unmitigated disaster.....like Nevada, WW2 map and any other major update which no doubt will break the download and have Huckleberry Finn come up with the 'community' solution on utorrent outside of DCS\TFC that solves the download issue for the end user.

Someone jumped the gun a little

I popped on here a few minutes ago to see a thread announcing it was out so I dashed off to do the update only to find it's not and the thread had gone.

so once 2.5 is out, what,s the normal procedure?

should we uninstall 1.5.XXXX?

will it update from the current OB of 2.2.XXXX ?

or better to uninstall all and reinstall fresh?

That was me. I was a little early. But many on Reddit are reporting they are downloading right now.

Genbrien, they sorted it all out in this thread:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200676

I can see some might get semi-confused but after surviving a few Falcon4 dances I think I will manage once my turn comes late February.

thx, I havent visited ED's forum for months

Not showing up for me yet. I'm running both the 1.5.8 release and the 2.0 Open Alpha. I'll try later.

The update is for the 1.5 OB. Since you don't have it installed you will have to wait for the v2.5 installer exe to be posted which probably won't happen for a day or two.

I had OB 1.5.8 installed, wanted to fly it today before 2.5 comes. I was very surprised when it asked me if I want to update to 2.5. Currently downloading, 20% complete!

Ah,thanks Chichlidfan,I didn't spot that.

Try running this command from your 1.5 DCS\biin folder.

DCS_Updater.exe update @openbeta

However, this will replace your v1.5 with v2.5 OB. Come to think of it, you could run that command from your v2.2 folder and it would replace your v2.2 with v2.5 OB.

How do I do that? I see the file,how do I run it with 'update @openbeta' added. Thx.

Once I update 2.2 to 2.5 I can ditch 1.5.8 I assume because everything I want to use will be in 2.5?

Hold shift and right click on the Bin folder. Select Open Command Prompt here (for Win 7/8) or Open Power Shell here (Win 10). Then type

DCS_Updater.exe update @openbeta

in the Window that opens.

Yes, everything should be in 2.5.

It won't work,just gives an error.Same on both installs. I am definitely doing it right and I copy/pasted the command you typed.

No worries,I can wait,thx for the help

Would be nice to hear reviews from those that have it.... but I thought it won't get here till tomorrow?

When's the standalone installer going to be available? 2nd Feb?

Thanks!

What do you mean Ice - it's the 31st here!

I'm pleased with the release, had few flights - the sim runs fine, comparable to 1.5.8 on my rig (i5 6600K, GTX970, 16GB RAM). I captured some footage from one of the flights. Will post the link when the vid finishes uploading to youtube (9GB 2-3 hours).

I'm not sure about standalone installer, I had my open beta (1.5.8) updated to 2.5.0.

Edit: Since I'm going to sleep soon, I will throw the link here:



the video is still uploading and will take additional time to process by YT to high quality. It should be ready in less than 3 hours, maybe even 2.

amazingly good you should get it asap

Menus are a little slow for whatever reason, but I had my OB installed on my backup HDD and not my SSD, so I can't make a direct comparison to 1.5/2.0 which are on my SSD.

I'm running the Georgia map on custom high settings, GTX970:

https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=177070&d=1517361115

30-40 FPS is the norm, though I've hit 60 near the ground when not directly over dense areas. I haven't really played with settings yet. So far it's working fine, but I spotted a couple of minor bugs. One related to changing the resolution and the other to a blue shine appearing on bridges and some buildings.

Thanks damson enjoyed that
Fuzzy

Still no standalone version so I guess that'll come tomorrow or the 2nd Feb.

Not watched the whole video, only the first few minutes but found it weird to have different draw distances for the buildings and the trees... with the trees fading in much closer-in. Made the further mountains look barren. The lack of grass looked weird too.... but maybe it's just because I've not flown in DCS for so long. How does high-altitude look like? I remember one Nevada screenshot here with the terrain looking very out-of-focus on a high-altitude screenshot.

I'll need to get set up again in the gaming room to give this a proper try.

ICE @ it Looks great from high to low , least IMHO.

I run high visiblity and tree distance set to 100% , no pop ups yet.

Maybe not so maxed out settings in that video.

Runs over 100fps most of time. (Least in my 1080p monitor)

My new system is:

I8400 6core 4ghz , 1060 6gb , 16gb DDR4

VR seems to run fine too.

Fps will stay high but do not use msaa and defered shading same time, they wont work well together.


Im quite happy, only minor bugs and trees block Ai vision and weapons, shark is nice to use now.

Sure there is some bugs but im so far happy, still testing.

And deffered shading is must have, trees wont look good without.

Well i've now got 2.5 and i'm not sure i like it.

The color palette is far too pastel tones for my liking & outside the cockpit is way too light and shiny whilst inside the cockpit is way too dark.

Also take a look at the real Caucasus mountains are jagged angular bastards, in game it looks like someone has draped a massive green blanket over them, everything just looks soft. The baseline textures also seem to be way worse than 1.5.8

Just took the Gazelle for a short test run and pleased to see...

Hugging a tree = Booom!
Tree (and other objects) = No AI LOS
Higer mesh resolution
I rate this as one of the best updates since LOMAC 1.0 for all rotor heads as well as CA commanders



Unfortunately so but without MSAA it is jaggies all over, at least for me on a 2K monitor but I maybe doing something wrong, still early days.

Performance wise I lost quite a few FPS down low in the weeds with the Gazelle (~35-40 vs 45-60) but I'm still tweaking and I do use MSAA 2x along with deffered shading since I can't stand the "back to the 90's jaggies" but I need to check all my settings so I don't miss something. 1.58 is crystal clear on my 2560x1440 screen in that regard :-/

Is it perfect? Most likely not and I still miss my AH-64A/D . But at least the 4+ years of waiting for EDGE is over and hopefully things will speed up at ED - some positive thinking and time will tell...

Switch MSAA off and use antialiasing from GPU Control panel. At least with nvidia card that helps

Quite a few people are complaing that the sim doesn’t look at all like the videos on YT. In order to fix that, do the following...
In order to let DCS rebuild shaders
- go to: Saved Games>DCS.openbeta>
- delete fxo folder, options.lua and metashaders and switch off MSAA.

Performance should be on par with previous versions. Quite extraordinary considering 2.5 is such a step up, visually.

Great News!
Keep reporting new finds for us non betatesters
Anything on AI side, do you (as a horrible swede) fly Viggen? If so, do AI respond to formation orders etc?
Looks are a bit secondary for me, I need better simulation.

I'm a shame LOL - don't have Viggen, to little time I guess

I've only mucked around in the Gazelle and a few minutes in Su-33 to check up in the blue (it really looks good if u bump up the trees). I gonna try to fix my AA problems and just downloaded ReShade to see if things change. Gonna try DSR as well.

https://reshade.me

As a side note: I you fly the Gazelle the rudder trim options is gone in the GUI (huuuhhh ???) but I found a work around. Just edit the file "options.lua" in your config folder and change ["RudderTrim"] = false, to ["RudderTrim"] = true,



It will not show up in setup GUI but it works

I should have known, you always were a rotorhead in ArmA
Good heads-up for all Gazelle pilots over here.

DCS ignores my Nvidia Control Panel settings...

Do you use the standard control panel or Nvidia Inspector?

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4402758#Post4402758

Standard

I deleted options.lua only and saw a jump in FPS and a lot less stuttering around cities. I'll have to try the shader rebuild later too.

At the moment performance is very good, but I've only been flying solo. Now that I have settings nearly sorted I can start some stress testing.

Thanks for the feedback guys! I do hope this is the start for more positive things on ED!

I don't really care much for graphics now, but DCS always looked pretty. Any chance of on-the-runway pics? It seems like the grass doesn't show up from aerial shots? With more trees, the open spaces now just looks more flat, but like I said, I just may be remembering DCS wrong. Also, with more trees, the further mountains look barren or less 3D.... won't be an issue for helo pilots or low-flying A-10s but for others.... but again, this may be a slider/setting issue.

I may need to dig in my old Photobucket account to see if I have some old screenshots to compare against.

No problem





2.5 is also in steam now:

http://steamcommunity.com/games/2237...12901652612015

lucky people on steam , having decent servers to download from ... not crap slow ED ones

In my environment, visibility settings in option menu needs to be set to "Ultra" otherwise tree pop up is very visible

You'll typically find when torrenting the DCS updates that your upload speed is far higher than your download speed. Normally it's the other way around but not with the DCS community.

Reading that some people have slightly less fps makes me a bit nervous - for VR things seemed to be really on the casp: I had no issues running the old map, even the Nevada (more recently. Initially it was worse I think), but Normandy was still a stutter fest. Anyway, it's not like I'm going to try it anytime soon as long as baby cries every 10min every night - I'm lucky if I can get a 10min break to play something and not pass out instead...

Well i got 6-10mb/s avarage from ed servers , Steam is so much bigger company and has servers all around world so sure Steam is faster




Performance for me is way better than 1.5.x and 2.5 uses better my 6 core cpu.

Nice video: https://youtu.be/UKD8cxEhjPg

FYI: I now (mostly) fixed my issue with the jaggies

All settings in nVidia CPL to Application controlled , deleted shader caches in config folder and loaded
SMAA with ReShade 3.1.1 it is not as good as MSAA x8 I use in 1.58 a major improvement

ReShade was the key, you can still see some jaggies on some objects if you looking
for it but as I said, major improvement. Some object like power line towers still shimmers
a bit but I can't have it all I guess

https://reshade.me

Ohhh... disable MSAA in settings it's a real FPS killer, at least on my 980.

Wow... is 2.5 over now? The installer/updater says 2.6.23.34.... or is the installer version number separate from the actual game version number?

Yes.

LOL, okay then!

48GB at 1.7MB/s.... Really? That's with direct download, 1.4MB/s via torrent.

Ice,mine started like that but eventually it hit max (9.4 mb/s). I gave up on the torrent.

I'm the other way around.... the direct download started out strong, then petered out.

6 hours download on Virgin Vivo 200 here, 2 hours trying to set up 3 screens in nvidia surround...I give up.

Every time I reinstall this game it beggars belief the level of configuration it takes to get it up and running,hours of trawling forums looking at 7 year old posts to try and find out the line of .lua I need to change, while trying to comprehend why not a single user friendly feature has been implemented over the years.

It's still an utter #%&*$# fest of conflated nerdish config.

...anyway I don't know if it's because of the beta state or something I'm doing wrong on my end, what I do know is a few checkbox's in the GUI would save a ton of frustration, something ED are clearly incapable of grasping.

Ok. I’m totally confused.

I have DCS alpha on my PC. I deleted the other yonks ago to play Normandy and Nevada.

So what am I doing here?

Downloading a whole new module?

And what happens then to my activations? I’m thinking about buying a new PC soon and am worried all these various installs and re-installs will wipe the number of activations I have for aircraft (this system is outrageous by the way - surely when u buy the module you should get to keep it).

Your activations are in your registry so they will remain untouched regardless of the downloads/updates.

However, if you are going to build/buy a new machine, you will want to deactivate each module on the old machine before installing on the new machine. This will allow you to save an activation for each module.

Well I had high hopes for 2.5. I see no difference in performance from the alpha. Nevada, the empty wasteland, is the only map that has no stutters. As a VR experience DCS is piss poor unless one drops all sliders then the tree pop ins are just rediculous. Like theyre growing right in front of you. Thank you ED and those folk who say the "release" will basicaly be the same as the beta. I have absolutely no doubt now that DCS is a complete waste of time for myself. So many years in development for such a disapointment.

Thanks but am I downloading something completely new? I can’t follow all the various strains of releases any more

You could update the alpha to the new beta through the command line. Or you could download the new stand alone beta 2.5 from the downloads page at Dcs website. It is "something completely new" however as you have the alpha it will transfer data from your alpha to the beta directory so your download will be smaller but still take hours to complete. I didnt have to re activate anything.
Sorry it wont transfer data it will copy the data from alpha to beta.

And so I don’t have to go through all this rubbish again, will this new download become the standard release version in a few weeks time?

Try setting the slider to 100% and then set object shadow to Flat, no popups for me and by doing so I gained ~15 FPS with my GTX 980.

That i dont know. I would assume you'd have to download the 2.5 "release" and it would transfer data from your alpha/beta to the "release". But once you get your new PC you'd have to do it all again

I have my shadows on flat. I have a 1080ti i have a 4.6 cpu. BoS looks increadable in VR. Its smooth as silk at a constant 90fps. DCS just hasn't got it right. Sure it looks good on a flat monitor, performance is good on a flat monitor but VR is the future. Judging by EDs track record it will take them a decade at least to get VR acceptable for me. After so many years in development its so disappointing. Thanks for the suggestion but I will uninstall and once its possible i will gift all my modules. I will forget all about this platform. To frustrating and too disappointing.

Real rage quit

Just play something else until performance bug’s are ironed out.

I get quite good performance with my rig(in sig)

Also, if you insist on VR being perfect, that is your own self-imposed limitation. I still enjoy flying on my 4k monitor.

Yeah ok call it rage quit. Whatever man.
Performance bugs? Throw them on the to-do pile of other bugs. I'll play something else. I'll free up multiple GB on my hard drive.
Im not playing on your PC so.... what does your performance have to do with me? You may be happy with a shimmering, jaggy stutter fest i am not. Can you grasp that? I hope they do "iron out" the performance bugs for everybody who purchased anything for DCS. I hop y'all have fun

Yes it is my self imposed limitations. Thats how i want my experience to be. Why do you make it sound like a bad thing? Its my choice. BoS offers that experience. DCS does not so far.

Sorry, I totally missed the VR part. My bad

You may have to wait for years for the ability to gift modules again

Well they're all deactivated. They all have 9 activation's remaining. They will sit gathering dust but not on my hard drive. Maybe when the p47 and 262 are released and the "Copy of any Eagle Dynamics developed DCS product" are available ED may get around to customer support and I can give them away. Until then adios amigos.

What graphical settings are you using in-game? I noticed you are playing with very similar spec to me (6700K @4.6GHz, GTX 1080 OC, 32GB RAM) and a 4K monitor too and the framerate is chugging at anything above medium. MSAA off, AF on x4 and flat shadows. Performance is a lot worse than before where I could have the majority of settings at High with 8 x AF

I am not at home right now. My recollection is that most things are set to high, flat terrain shadows, MSAA off. I haven't done a frame rate test since v2.5 installation but if feels smooth from my test flights in the Huey and A-10C. I will be home, and able to test, in about 18 hours.

Just looked at the ED forum message board. I think this probably explains it. 2.5 is clearly an unoptimised mess. The biggest problem is abnormal RAM and VRAM usage with low GPU utilisation. In multiplayer the RAM usage jumps from 8-10GB single-player up to 16-20GB which is ridiculous. Anyone with 8GB system RAM is going to be crippled in multiplayer until it’s fixed.

But it’s a beta? Yep, a beta that has been thrown out in whatever state it was in at the end of Jan! What happened to the internal team hard at work doing their testing?

I thought there was either something wrong with my settings but everyone has stated the same regarding those lime green trees (over-saturated deferred shading?) and little variation in the the base models, it’s all so garish. I think I’ll wait until ED unleash the ‘release’ version but I can’t see this happening for a while with so many performance issues.

For anyone wanting to persevere with the beta, a temp workaround on the borked lighting/colour palette after removing all the cached shaders etc. is to;

Deactivate Deferred Shading
Activate HDR
Go into Caucasus and fly anywhere (game rebuilds shader config)
Exit map
Deactivate HDR
Activate Deferred Shading

It should look a lot better but overall performance won’t change

Back to XPlane 11 and BOS it is then.

Yes, i agree. This is unoptimised least in VR. In my rig i get 100-150fps plus in high settings IF i use only 1080p monitor.

Soon as i use VR , fps dive to 45 (looked with ASW) and even then some thing must lowered (draw distance, shadows, AA )

Its sad that they wont make VR more priority :/

I got this playable in VR now but it would not hurt to get couple fps more

^^

this

Pretty much where I'm at with this too, they've stuck a few new trees in, subdivided a mesh, and tweaked some textures, but at it's core it is still an un-optimised undeveloped bug ridden legacy mess.

...just enough to hold up overpriced modules for those with the patience to endure the issues...no change there then.

Some video to brighten your day maybe?

Source

You mean to tell me flying tanks is not realistic?


Okay, okay, 2.5 is a mess, but it's not like that's a surprise. We suspected they'll release 2.5 in whatever state it's in, at least they had the decency to call it an Open Beta and not insist it's a Release version. Now who's taking bets that Release will come in 1-2 weeks as they originally stated?

I think 1-2 years is more realistic

That was great fun Dondy, thanks

I think DCS WW2 will suffer heavily when Bodenplatte gets released reducing ED's market, and this sorry excuse for ground unit sim CA module has made its best to get a lousy reputation since release so they can call it "authentic and realistic simulation" all they want.

Ice, I'm sure 2.5 will release within February but as Paradaz says, it will take 1 or 2 years before it's what it should've been.

Look at my half-assed DCS Viggen module, features comes and goes and now, more than a year from "release" they have removed the beta status (last summer autumn even IIRC?) but it's still the same weak product with missing features, bugged features, ai not able to loft bomb and going for circles a few tries before unloading a rocket salvo (if at all), no working bort numbers connected to editor and the 8 points I have in a textfile that I check after each release.

Since this is ED's definition of a complete, out-of-beta module, then this is what we can expect from all other modules.

Put it on the marked under beta flag to block people from complaining and do nothing for a year then sell it as complete.
This is what we get for paying in advance, why bring more costs to your project when you already have the dollars.

Bloody Hell if I'm not getting annoyed when writing this, I need to go fly il2-1946 another hour.

Johnny Redd, if you're really gonna gift your modules I'd love to try out the Spitfire! If you have it, of course.
But yeah, I think it took me about four or so hours to finally download this. Then when I finally got it started....it froze on me. Had to turn of my laptop and restart it. Then I got a slideshow when I got it running.
Eventually I got it sorted out by playing with the settings but I'm not really thrilled with the look. My Mustang cockpit looks white when the sun is on it. The F-86, too. And the A-10 is too black!
I'm happy to see that it doesn't replace your 1.5 install. I do love flying my Sabre, so I can go back to that until they fix this. Or, never, I suppose, 'cause I was actually fine with 1.5.

One of the comments from the OP of that video



I have often wondered that myself when people find major flaws in their game.....However this just proves that the official testers are spending too much time in the hornet to bother actually doing their job and test the software being released to run the Hornet.

$19.99USD for a neglected POS module that the 'official' testers gave up testing back in 1.2.0

I love it when I see video's and posts\quotes from the Devs telling the consumers how far their development has come only for some Joe-Blow Public to prove them wrong.

ED's response is quite similar to Bill Gates at the end of this video



In ED's case, they already shipped the software already even with the flaws\bugs and nothing actually being tested by those endorsed by the developers. It's like, release it in a broken state and then go back to working on the hornet, then find some other new module to work on for the next few years before actually fixing the software the modules are designed to function in.

If that's a review from someone who actually liked the Viggen... oh boy!

That price is a steal since it is soon to double. Such a deal for an MP JTAC module, which is really all it has to offer.

The price is a steal because he paid $19.99 for a neglected POS module when it could very well be $39.99 for a neglected POS module?

CA isn't just an MP JTAC module, at least that's not the plan for it:


When it was first released, the plan was for it to be basically DCS Ground Combat from what I heard... one of my buddies bought the module and was just gushing about how cool it was.

If you ever figure out a way to gift them I'd gladly take a module or two off your hands.

I don't know how big DCS's QA team is, but I'm gonna guess it's small, real small. I was QA lead for Acclaim Entertainment's Austin studio back in the early 2000's, and we dealt with console titles exclusively. I had 18 guys working for me at any given time, which at the time was the worlds largest studio QA team (sure sounded good on my resume). That was for a publisher with AAA titles, huge budgets etc., 18 testers. It would take my guys a week to roll through a platformer, so imagine what testing something as free form as DCS would be like? The publishers are where the big groups of testers are (corporate had between 100-300 testers on at any given time depending on what was getting close to release), and ED doesn't have a publisher to provide that kind of support.

So not saying that particular bug should/shouldn't have made it out into the wild (also remember 2.5 is beta, not release). Just remember that ED probably doesn't have near the resources to do as thorough a job testing as most assume they do/should.

-Jenrick

Exactly, so what sort of progress do you really think will be made when they only start 'testing' mid January on a complex title like DCS? I'm not sure why people still defend ED like this.......it doesn't reflect on the community not understanding the issues, it reflects on ED management being utterly incompetent because it's them that aren't planning, resourcing and setting the correct timeframes for their integration and test activities.

Oh, but it's a beta so we should expect lots of bugs and problems? No, not to this extent......this is software that is already 5 years late and has allegedly being worked on as a priority for a long time now.

I agree jenrick,

Many of the DCS community are happy to help out here, that's why it's in beta first, that's why there are bug sections in each of the sub module forums, there is 1000s of things you could test in DCS, you would need an army to fully test out "all possibilities" for bugs, and in the first stage of the merge too.

Take just the A-10C, how long would it take to fully test out this one module in DCS with all it's systems and weapons.

I'm happy to help and report the bugs in beta builds, I don't go out of my way, just fly missions in a module, if I come across something I will report it.



It's the merge finally!! With a new free updated map, that is very well done and most people are seeing better performance too, yes it needs some tweaking still, especially for VR, looking forward to them adding the Vulkan API, should boost up the fps quite a bit.

From my travels around the net lately, most people seem happy with the free update, and no it's not on the ED forum, places like YouTube and all the DCS 2.5 videos, this is the only place, generally, to look at anything in a negative light, so you can keep crapping on ED.

Thanks for sharing! I agree, ED's team is probably tiny but I did not think it would just be 1-2 guys, maybe 5 max? I would've thought there'd be more. But then that's why they have Open Beta, right? However, if they did want to make the end-of-January release date, maybe instead of promising the release at the end of Dec 2017, Wags should've opened the Beta at that point and the community would've been able to play the heck out of the game during the Christmas break and the dev team would've come back by mid-January to a big list of bug reports they could sift through.

Promising a release date and then releasing the Open Beta at that date just doesn't look good for them. If they don't release the Release version by the 3rd week of February, or just release 2.5 in whatever state it's in and call it "Release," it'll look worse.

You and I make care about the distinction between released and available in a build for public testers but no one else on the planet does. They consider NTTR released (it's not), 2.5 released (it's not).

<Long version>
You clearly haven't been playing or involved with DCS for very long......There are 1000's of people playing and testing DCS, there is an army of testers going through every possibility and highlighting bugs and errors. It's ironic you mention the A10 and the Shark because if you venture into the ED subforums for these modules you'll also find literally hundreds of problems that the community have raised from 2011 and 2009 respectively and they are still outstanding problems even today.

Add to that the associated issues that each patch and core upgrade brings and you have many many modules that are just left to rot. Regardless of how much back slapping you want to give ED they simply haven't got a good history of releasing software on time to a high standard and even less impressive record of actually seeing their work through to completion.

Their beta release of 2.5 just cements their appalling attitude and disdain to their customers. Let's see when the 'release' version of 2.5 arrives because one thing is sure, and that is there are a lot of issues with the current beta and it's a long way from being to the standard expected from what any other developer would call a 'release' version......never mind the two weeks that ED thinks it may take to get there. That alone clearly shows that ED think this software is very close to being ready for release as it stands now. Go and look in the relevant sub-forum of 2.5 on the ED message board and see the pages upon pages of issues. Most of it is performance related......The community have barely scratched the surface of 2.5 campaign and module integration yet! I fear we'll get the same old ED that fixes a few issues , leaves the bulk of them intact and calls upon their famous slogan of 'everything is subject to change' and is totally reliant on their censored community to defend their ever-changing engine with 'it will never be truly finished' moniker.

One word.....'baseline'. ED should try it sometime instead of blindly falling over each obstacle they find as they stumble around in the dark in a farce that never pauses for breath.


<Short version>
ED's products are in a perpetual state of beta......they receive so much feedback but fix so little no-one can defend the state and lack of polish on their software. People talk about these betas as if ED are doing everyone a favour yet the entire DCS World has never even left beta. Seriously, just how much time and how many chances do they need to improve things?

Well, 2 weeks has come and gone.... how are we doing with the Release version?

As David_OC says, it seems like the community is generally happy with 2.5 so that means there isn't much broken with it, right?

Given that the ED '2.5 Open Beta Bugs and problems' thread has 27,000+ posts, I'd suggest all is not rosy. I've given.up on the complete and utter mess. ED incompetence and utter ineptitude on show for all to see yet again. It will be many months before this even resembles a beta never mind getting anywhere close to a 'release'.........but this isn't coming as a surprise is it!

What the heck have ED been working on for the last 5 years, because it clearly wasn't 2.5, nor does it seem to be the hornet or putting any progress or polish to their previous line up of unfinished modules. Good to see them supporting a new payware campaign in their latest newsletter.......What could possibly go wrong with that given they can't even get the core engine baselined?

I thought that Charnwood campaign was released already in the past? The name sounds familiar, that's all. I thought maybe they've re-worked it to function properly in 2.5 and that's why they're announcing it again.

If there's that many bugs in 2.5 Beta and yet ED initially quoted 1-2 weeks between Beta and Release, then it would look like ED had absolutely no clue about the state of 2.5 Beta when they released that 1-2 weeks statement. That or they don't really give a fk about giving correct/achievable deadlines anymore. Either way, not good.

Actually ED has done something very good too - and because I have trashed them so much in this forum, I'd like to use this opportunity to say thanks to them for a change;

So thank you ED for giving me opportunity to get all these planes, beautiful graphics for a cheap price I never knew I could be so interested in IL-2 series, so thank you for steering me into right direction

The latest announcement was for Steam. Charnwood has been available since some time in December, IIRC.

I can only shake my head at the people who voluntarily installed the for-testing-only build (often deleting their for-actually-playing build at the same time) and are exasperated that it has issues expected of experimental software. They get mad and stomp off in a huff how they aren't going to take this kind of treatment!

If you want to play DCS, play DCS. If you want to be a tester then test DCS.this.is.a.testing.version. I swear it's like someone who buys a construction site to complain that the houses on it aren't finished. That's what it's for! You're not supposed to inhabit a house that's half built!

To be fair, if you're told that this Beta is out now and the Release will follow in 1-2 weeks, you're really given the impression that the Beta only needs a little fine-tuning before the Release is, well, released.

How many of us simmers are actually critical of ED? vs. how many are blind sheep that are grateful for whatever scraps fall off ED's table? They are being misled, and actively so, but such has been ED's practices for a good while now.



Indeed it is! I missed the two short lines stating this. Thanks!

I think we can extend that to just about any sim or modular type of game. DCS, ArmA, obviously Star Citizen. FSX from what I am told feels similar due to needing various 3rd party modules which are all developed at difference paces. Perhaps IL-2 BoS is the exception to this rule in modern sims? Far from ideal but sadly I think it has become expected for anything slightly related to this genre.

I'd completely disagree......take your Arma example for starters, BIS listen to the community and provide updates and free content. Their games are supported and it doesn't like it's all about the money and making a profit.....there appears to be a genuine passion about their work and what they do for their customers. I wouldn't say that Arma 3 for example would ever be classed as a beta - just like Arma 2 then sure, there are bits that are clunky but it's absolutely a polished game, the possibilities are so vast and the game is so large and so immersive but it's certainly not unfinished and I can't recall any problems and bugs that have been there for years and years, especially after being reported which you can't say for DCS or any single module that is part of that 'world'.

I'm not so sure that you can even class Star Citizen in the same class either, it's very much an ongoing alpha which the devs don't try to hide in any way, shape or form.

In addition to what Paradaz said, I think you're confusing RELEASED games that are then patched/tweaked/fine tuned with ED's perpetual-beta status.

You really think that there's much difference between versions? Nope. It really doesn't matter cause all versions have bugs. When people install betas they get certain features sooner, because for incompetent ED it takes ages to fix any bugs and people would have to wait fixes forever. And then there's this fact that ED's early access titles come to beta first, so people install rather install it to get the new modules quicker.
One question: Have you looked at bugs reports section for release version? Feel free to compare it to betas section.

Beta "Because we are incompetent enough, let's use our customers to find the bugs" Version
Release "We hope that they found all the bad bugs, maybe we fix some of them" Version

2.5 is as bugged as VEAO's POS hawk....and that really says something about the state of 2.5. Here is the proof




ED should have blocked attempted install of the hawk....or completely erased all traces of VEAO being a 3rd party dev before the release of 2.5 or perhaps 1.5.

DCS says minimum requirement is 1.5 as it says on all modules.

And how is that different from the titles I mentioned? ArmA 3 was in alpha/beta for well over a year, the campaign released even later, and many of the fixes and improvements came well over two years post release. Star Citizen will end up being the same, as stated years ago. FSX and its derivatives are essentially the same in regards to many of the 3rd party projects. They're all on going projects that will never have the quality equally superb in every aspect. They're partially developed, released, small bits added on, small bits then revamped, then later other bits are updated, ect.

I'd rather go back to a traditional release style myself. All of these games, especially simulator type of games, are never feature complete and the quality varies wildly.

Arma3 was alhpa/beta for a year....correct. DCS has been alpha since 2008 yet you struggle to see any difference!

Here....I punched in the question on everyone's mind the best military sim into google and arma 3 comes up well before DCS.

perhaps if ED\TFC\Belsimtek sorted out the bugs before the release of Arma3 (2013), maybe it would be king of the google search.....before someone jumps on the bandwagon, these screenshots were taken in a private window so that searches prior were not a factor.





the addition of "combat flight simulator" in the search would have surely brought up DCS\TFC\Belsimtek if it was as good as Sobek and Co say it is in these very forums yet it reverts back to "Lock on Modern Air Combat" go figure...(see what I did there cichlidfan)

And you think the broken-ness of ArmA 3 and FSX is the same level as DCS? So if it's not 100%, it doesn't matter if it's 98% or 54%, just to fit your narrative?

ArmA 3 was released September 2013. DCS (World) was released 2008. Is ArmA still in Beta? How about DCS?

Star Citizen doesn't even fit in here as it's clearly in alpha state and the devs are still hammering away at that game. FSX is done, no more development done on it for years now, but tell me again how a patch in FSX would break the FSX tutorials?

I just got a weird thought --- what happens to those who stick with 1.5.xx when ED updates their aircraft modules? Will we end up with modules that are 2.5-compatible and modules that are 1.5.xx-compatible? I can't see fixes to modules to work in 2.5 to still be working in 1.5.xx. 2.5 is a core revamp, isn't it? It's not just pretty graphics on top of the old engine?

V1.5.8 is the end of the road. There will be no further updates to that version, that includes the modules as well. How long ED will keep that version available to download is unknown.

All further work will be in v2.5 only which won't affect v1.5.8 at all.

I understand as much.... but the does that mean there will be modules that will remain 1.5.8-compatible? ie, have two download options, one for 1.5.8-compatible and one for 2.5-compatible? Or does 1.5.8 know which version of specific modules to auto-download and not really get the latest version of said modules as they would probably be 2.5-optimized and may not work in 1.5.8?

Modules are downloaded from inside the game, so yes, it will download the compatible modules for the version that is executing the downloads. This is the way it has worked since the introduction of the Open Beta and Open Alpha versions.

I believe from what I've read, almost all modules will have a final 1.5.8 version released here at some point shortly, and no more updates for the 1.5.8 branch will occur. All further updates after that will be for 2.5+ if I read it all correctly.

-Jenrick

The same thing that happens to people that choose not to keep a game patched when it patches. Their software doesn't change. You won't be able to install future models on an old version, certain modules have minimum version requirements.

Exactly. No more patches for DCSW 1.5.8, but obviously, the modules will have to be patched to work with the latest version of DCSW which is 2.5.

Work stops on DCSW 1.5.8 and there will be modules that are compatible with 1.5.8.... and hopefully the DCSW installer/downloader will know which module version to get, but then that also means work stops on those 1.5.8-compatible modules. Work continues on DCSW 2.5 and all modules will be made 2.5-compatible and work continues on those modules introducing more fixes, features, etc. This means that whoever chooses to or is forced to stay at 1.5.8 not only is stuck with an old version of DCSW, they're also stuck with all the bugs and issues with their modules and won't see any improvement until they choose to or they can update to 2.5.

2.5 Open Beta is released and as it stands currently

There is a total of 3956 separate threads in the bugs and problems section related to the release of 2.5 open beta.

No doubt tomorrow 7am AEST that it will have surpassed 4000 separate threads.

Proof that releases are no longer tested....and here is why. Wags releases a new Hornet video. That screams, "we don't care for 2.5 bug fixes but how cool is this hornet"

To put this into perspective, that is almost 1\4 of the total threads in the SimHQ DCS section....now that's a lot of bugs

EDIT: over 100 more in less than half an hour.....just wow. Go Figure (see what I did there cichlidfan)

How dare you? DCS is the best SIM out there! /s

for a moment there I thought Sobek had a 2nd account

The other day i was in another forum when someone asked for a list of the best WW2 sim available. The first post suggested DCS before CLoD and BOS....mfw when even il2 1946 is a better WW2 sim than DCS

Shut up you two!! We whould all be thankful that ED is making sims, otherwise there is absolutely nothing else we can play! Now go pay your respects and buy the Christen Eagle module.

....people nowadays.... very entitled...... just because they paid money, they think they're entitled to a complete product, and on a timely manner to boot! Millenials....

loved the millenials... haha

Even after enticing the 2 most vocal supporters to comment on the fail that 2.5 beta has been....our comments have opened their eyes to just how bad QA is at ED\TFC\Belsimtek.

that is the most likely reason there was no refute to the evidence put forth

What's a failure about it? It's an experimental build so TESTERS can TEST it. All of you idiots that deleted release branch and are trying to PLAY a testing branch are just suffering your own idiocy.

And the 'release' version coming a week after the beta? It's not an 'experimental' build at all.....this is supposed to be a beta release close to resembling their 'release' version. It had to be thought of as almost ready as ED had stated their test team was hard at work testing it and the the follow up version was due a very short period of time afterwards. Let's not forget this is over 5 years of work we're seeing here too!! It's not so ridiculous that some people have deleted the old release branch given that 2.5 beta was allegedly so close to being the 'release' version.....or at least it wouldn't be so ridiculous if it were any other developer who had a clue what they were doing.

ED clearly weren't ready for the beta
ED clearly didn't do their testing properly because basic errors and optimizations were found within minutes of it going live
ED still aren't learning from previous mistakes
ED are incompetent. One of the definitions of 'incompetent' is the inability to make changes whilst continually making the same error(s) over and over again.

Maybe what Frederf means is that this is already a regular occurrence so he's surprised that people haven't caught onto it yet.

Are we past that 1-2 week period yet? Where's the 2.5 Release version? Funny how certain people are suddenly nowhere to be found......

Yep, guess I'm one of those idiots frederf mentioned.

BTW, 2.5 works great for me. Get FPS's in the 50's. Damn thing is too bright though. Glad the gamma slider is there to tone it down.

Just waiting for the Tomcat to come out.

I have no idea. There is no definite schedule.

You are wrong. You are substituting reality with your wishes.

Yes it is. 1.5.8 isn't old; it's current. Don't delete the current version of the game. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. You are confusing the concept of beta with release candidate which you also shouldn't delete the main version for.

If you want to beta test, beta test and shut up about the inconvenience. Otherwise stick to the playable version which at this time is 1.5.8.

Ya like Fred says 'shut up'

Yes me too piper but it's best we keep quiet, what with Fred and his bloody rules

F-14 tomcat will be instant buy here too. Dont care so much about hornet but maybe i will get it now anyway.

Overall DCS 2.5 is really good , lots of things need work sure but nothing too serious.

Coop missions with friend or two is fun.


Just my 2cents

Is it? To my mind it seems that a staggering 5 years of development of 2.5 has resulted in essentially an Instagram filter slapped over the visuals, and a bought in 3rd party Tree tool liberally paintbrushed over some massively simplified ground textures. The fact that this has broken cockpit display screens, the load times are glacial and a black hole of a memory leak was somehow missed in that 5 years+ of development is just the cherry on the bakewell!

I do wonder if all this bumfuckery is starting to hit ED in the pocketbook, as there seems to be a big drive in 'community engagement' and unbelievably, crew chiefs and aerodynamicists aren't being banned from the ED forums for pointing out errors (for the time being!)

oh please, if you are going to start placing people and not their comments into that category, I would accept the torrent of abuse you waste in uploaded bandwidth only IF I had been part of the VEAO team which I am not, there for your outburst is completely uncalled for.

I am happy to quote myself in this saga and give a prime example\s of the term "waste in uploaded bandwidth" for the next member here who feels the need to burst a perpetual s**t valve aimed entirely at other members.




and here are some of the prime responses supporting the complete waste of bandwidth on a locked topic.

(mind you, feel free to quote this post when the next member here takes aim and fires off a few rounds aimed at another member and not the topic at hand.













and as you can see....you can draw more inspiration as to the terminology "waste in upload bandwidth" from this thread here.

Source

I'll refresh you with a link to the DCS Update which described this......link




Well, we all know how the beta has gone....it's been a shocker, it clearly wasn't tested in any logical way otherwise the most basic errors would have been found including the huge memory leak. The 'Release' version hasn't launched a week or two after the beta release and looks unlikely to be release for several months, probably years given the amount of problems people have. Not really sure why you're trying to defend this. ED are incompetent. Simple.

You may want to describe this too, how on earth did this not get found?

Testing is never been part of ED work. Just relase alpha beta whatever and see what players come up

Its so ”normal” in dcs series that i dont even wait anything different

I agree, but when there is over 5 years of development together with a statement that their team has been hard at work testing and a release version that follows shortly after an open beta you would like to think that there has been an element of testing and ED are confident that the beta is reasonably mature.......and not the clusterf**k that actually happened.

Exactly what did the ED team test?....because every single thing about the beta has massive flaws and bugs.

My guess is the testers have had access to the Hornet for probably 3-6 months.....that is where the time has been spent, 2.5 was placed on the back burner the moment the 'official testers' had access to download and test it.

It's not a "wish", it's a logical assumption based on ED's statement. If you release a Beta that is just come from a closed Alpha, do you expect a Release date that is 1-2 weeks after? Nope, because this fresh Beta will clearly need a lot of work. A **LOT** of work. But no, ED stated Beta release followed by Release version 1-2 weeks after, therefore hinting that the Beta release only needed minor bug-squishing and would be done.

The people who beta-tested expected a close-to-release version, not an early-beta build, and thus the complaints. If ED knew what they were doing and were competent in gauging work progress, we'd hae 2.5 Release version now. But we don't. Hence the complaints.



+1



Wait, what??? After all that, it was just a trial period of Sith? So what's the difference now? He gets paid?




Testing should be part of **ANY** work, that is if you care about putting out a quality product and not tarnish your company name. Not doing so just clearly shows how much value they put in their "valued customers."

Just because you're happy with things as they are.....

I was not serious , but yes they should test more

I may have to use sarcasm smiley or something.

And im not happy how they work / test .. but i can live with it.

And they'll release the hornet into this #%&*$# show and folk will still buy it in the hope that one day, eventually, oh god please do, ED will finally get their act together.
Sith is the "comical ali" of the Gaming world. 'Everything is great' 'we're winning'. Nobody believed that clown why do they believe this one? I have my theory.

Sorry, missed that entirely



Ironically, your continued tolerance of their practices is contributing to the continuation of their practices....



Sorry, he continues his role as moderator for ED but he thinks it's worth a name-change? Me thinks there's an underlying reason to it.... and it's not what he said it was.

Did that guy sithpawn have to change his name because he had such a bad reputation?

Well put it this way, i'd rather have Gary Glitter babysit than SS moderate my community.

Still new name, new outlook and all that, whats the phrase? 'a leopard can't change it's shorts' or something like that

The thing that sticks out to me is "will be focusing on our forums, Steam forum, Facebook, Youtube channel, tech support tickets, and module research"

...and then on top of that is "In addition to improving our community outreach and communication, NineLine will also be working on new campaign content… in particular Combined Arms"

My Gosh...talk about spreading someone thin! That is a lot of responsibilities for one person! I hope their developement team isn't spread as thin as this...maybe they are and that could be why certain fixes/updates come out at a glacial pace. IMO of course.

"In addition to improving our community outreach and communication"
What?

Nine lines of BS

They probably had to lay a few folk off due to very poor sales and now comical ali has to do the job of 5 folk and he's probably doing it for free

Another leaked poster from ED.

brilliant

No it is
I guess you can name a donkey whatever you want ..... but it is still an ASS



oh a thought, is this where he got his inspiration for the name ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKRgFv9FHTE

What a boring thread..

What a boring post...

give the guy a break ... after all it took him 18 years to get to a post count of 68

Now that is.....



Source

Have a go at this Gem, pretty much sums it up



It is not the thread that is boring but the person posting

Source

But then again



Source: Somewhere on this page

Now I am....



Just giving my 2 cents:), but like Leaf said prior to my post. Leave the bloke alone, it is not his fault that he got



For the improvement of this thread so Chaos does not see it as "boring" then



which I feel I have achieved in this thread, including several respected members here at SimHQ which have all so contributed...



Chaos and those other members who may find this thread boring than may I suggest you



Source

back on topic gents



Source

How is the 30 FPS working out for you in 2.5 Beta?

For the record, Chaos did not willingly help with this post

Thanks for the effort Winfield

Cheers, Nice to see someone appreciates the great work I put into these non-boring threads in these forums

Ummm...is this the internet argument club????

first rule of internet argument club ..... is we dont talk about internet argument club

second rule of internet argument club ..... is we dont talk about internet argument club

Still don't own that desktop (2014!) although I am playing ver2.5 on my current laptop without any issues. It's a "built to order" type with beefy specs for 2016 standards (lowly GTX980 desktop part in a laptop). I get 50-60fps easily.

Thanks for your interest! ;-)

my interest is absolutely warranted, do you care to share the system specs of this laptop you had custom built?



I call BS on your thesis that a laptop can better a desktop PC in regards to system specs.
upload a video running FRAPS or any other program and disprove my point. Show the community an in game recording showing the FPS within DCS 2.5 "beta" or it never happened. This upload must all so include a starting point from the main screen of you opening the editor placing a unit and flying over cities in either Caucus or Nevada.

Source for refrence

I have all week.....

perhaps wasting money on a 'custom built laptop" could have been better spent buying an ebay desktop job to achieve the same result of 30 FPS....my point still stands

Winfield Dearest…

As per your request I have recorded a video. My system specs are as follows;

Intel i7-6700 @ 3.4GHz
32GB RAM
Win 10 Pro
2 Samsung 512GB Samsung 950Pro SSD
NVIDIA GTX980 (desktop part)

You can view it on YouTube all day long.

https://youtu.be/dWYm3qU-9VY

You're welcome!

P.S. My apologies for the p*ss-poor flying skills. I did not use TrackIR this time as I am away from home. Also, I couldn't be bothered silencing the morse-code beeping in the background. I also hasten to add that I usually play in 4k (albeit at significantly lower, but very playable, framerates).

Now go and stand in the corner for a while... and don't forget to wear your Dunce-Hat.

What happened to the grass in the airport?

I miss my Hawg....

Thanks for the video Chaos

Some things for people to think about that say "Laptop"

Probably a Clevo ODM chassis retailed by places like Sager,Prostar, Eurocom, etc

Has a Desktop Processor
Has a Desktop Graphics Card

Not your normal office depot, best buy, etc laptop




He/she had trees on 70%
Clutter/grass 0% (off)
Shadows low

As far as gaming on a "laptop" or should I say a "Desktop Replacement" style Notebook

If you have the buget, you can configure a Desktop Replacement Notebook that has
8700K delidded with unlocked BIOS to overclock to 5.2ghz or higher
SLI Graphics (2 cards)
On and on depending on your buget
Battery while running at the Highest settings is basically a UPS Battery Backup.

Have a look here at Eurocom retailer of Clevo ODM chassis for an example Eurocom Sky X9C


I have had/have several Clevo Chassis and I highly recommend them if you want / need something like this. Clevo even makes Engineering types with Quadro cards if that is your profession.

Happy Simming,
Monnie

So it's not really a laptop but a portable desktop

Exactly - Ice.

A Portable Desktop Replacement

But you can run on the battery with the iGFX of the intel processor and have the processor using the C-states to get some decent battery life if you are on the move.

Once you want to "Game" or use demanding applications (AutoCAD, Maya, 3DS-Max) etc, you better plug in

Oh BTW - Ice, don't think you are going to plug in that 780W AC Adapter on the Plane to the Philippines . You might bring down the Plane

We're playing the semantics game again. At the end of the day it _is_ a laptop that anyone could buy. Yes, it is expensive compared to your average lappy from Dell or the like but let's be honest... No "serious" simulation player would put up with a business laptop unless they have to (even those are now getting fast enough to play DCS comfortably i.e. MS Surface Book). I'm using it primarily as a development machine. The fact that it plays games nicely is an added bonus.

My laptop is an average desktop by today's standards. The impression that the usual suspects here are trying to create is that DCS is somehow a resource-hog whereas in reality, it plays great on an average system. Plenty of things that need to be improved upon or need fixing but that is not what we're discussing here. Also, I find the official forums to be fine. I've been critical in the past and my posts have never been deleted. It is important _how_ you word things though. Even when you have an issue with one of the moderators, things can usually be cleared up by emailing them directly and asking for clarification. These are not 'bad' people.

BTW; I added 'grass' to the graphics options and it doesn't make one bit of difference with regards to framerate.

reminds me how long it has been since I flew the A-10 ... is that the FC3 A-10A or the A-10C ?

I am curious to see how DCS 2.5 runs on my PC.

I have installed 2.5 when it came out (120GB !) but haven't had yet the opportunity to run it as I am quite busy right now.

but hopefully I'll do it as soon as I find the free time.

Thanks !

I hate to think about the battery life on such a "laptop"


Is it really? Good luck working with that thing on your lap! It's like calling a Lamborghini Aventador a daily driver because you use it to get to work everyday.


Who's playing semantics now? At the end of the day, it is a desktop on a laptop form factor "Anyone" can buy? Just like "anyone" can buy a Lamborghini Aventador and use it as a daily driver?


Since when have "average desktops" been fitted with i7 6700s, 32GB RAM, 512GB SSDs, and a GTX 980? Win10 Pro too?


I see! That's why you were pushing that strawman.


Yeah, with lines like "please don't ban me but...." or maybe pledge allegiance first with "I own every DCS module but.....". The thing is you shouldn't have to do these things. A complaint is a complaint, an issue is an issue.... if you're picky how if it's not delivered in an exact, precise manner you don't entertain the issue, that just shows how much value you put in your customers. I shouldn't have to email anyone or ask for clarification. The fact that people have to defend the mods makes this such a laughable matter.

A-10C.



DCS' performance is primarily dependent on proc. and gfx card. a GTX980 is decidedly average for today's gamer systems. Replace the i7 with an i5 and nothing will happen to your framerate. Mine is clocked at 3.4 GHz which is LOW. Also, be aware that this is an old generation i7. Win 10Pro or SSD doesn't do anything for improving framerate.

Your point being?

Like all fish in the pond....you took the bait then went back and ate one piece of everything at the buffet

Thank you for the upload though.

You just said DCS performance is dependent on processor... and then you claim that if you replace the i7 with an i5, nothing will happen. Which one is it?

As for SSD not doing anything, feel free to peruse the ED forums where SSDs are constantly recommended for various "fixes" to some of DCS issues.

The point is -- you laptop specs are anything but average when you bought it and it's anything but average even today. To pretend it isn't to try and prove a point is just weak.

I think the mode of operandi with regard to software development is to kick the product out early. Compnaies are more concerned with capturing market share with flashy videos than disgruntled customers. They believe they can use customer feedback to find all their bugs, and fix it afterward ....therefore capturing the share and eventually delivering a reasonable product.

Being first to market is paramount, bugs... they are just a nuisance, like going camping, but dont stop the campers especially in the hardcore niche markets. Attempting to maintain backward compatibility, and a myriad of 3rd party addon's is problematic.

Clock for clock, i5 and i7 performance in-game is basically the same. DCS 'cares' about the GHz's and not about multi-threading where the i7 really shines. I had to spell it out for you, didn't I?

My rig is avarage , least not top end and it runs dcs just fine.

Flight sim’s needed best cpus etc.. even back in early 90’s so nothing new.


My rig is in sig.

Its raining here right now, i dont give a sh1t how sunny it is in Australia right now.
You see what I'm getting at?
My system, along with anybody elses has zero relevance to those folk who are having performance issues with DCS. DCS runs fine on my monitor. Pretty Good in fact. In VR, where i want to play, its piss poor. In fact its pretty appalling compared to other flight games. Hows your performance in VR, nevermind i dont care because its irrelevant to me.
Quick question... those folk who have been banned from the ED fan pages, can they send in bug reports?

They still have access to support. That's a bit like the scenic route, but it should suffice.

I tried yesterday to run 2.5 for the first time on a clean install I made a few weeks ago - I clicked on the icon and it never loaded

I left the PC running and came back a couple of hours later, nada.

I guess that is that.

Tom, check %savedgames%\DCS\Logs\dcs.log and see if there are some clues.

nothing - not a single file created in 2018 , not even an install log

I don't really think so. Who does ED compete with commercially especially in the modern, high-fidelity area? I know there are other combat sims, but the commercial ones are WWII or the more modern aircraft are not study-level.



Well, you were the one making stupid statements.

So because DCS does not care between i5 vs i7, because DCS does not care about 4GB vs 8GB vs 32GB RAM, because DCS does not care about Win10 Pro vs Win10 Home, because DCS does not care between SSD or HDD, your system is now considered "average"?? Yeah, just like a Lamborghini Aventador is just an "average" car in rush hour traffic.

No if you try and raise a bug thru that they tell u to just use the ED forums

Backup & delete "Config" folder then delete "FXO", "Data" & "MetaShaders" folders and try to launch again.

IF that is true, then that is indeed a problem.

no such folders exist - is this good ?

I deleted my 2.0 install six months ago and the 2.5 install I have is a clean install made when it was released early last month.
,
I ran it then, once, for 30s after it installed.

It worked and I quit so that 2.5 could proceeded to add another 50GB or so of additional modules.

I haven't touched or tested it since, no mods or any skins nothing was added to it.

I don't even know how 2.5 looks like

Yes it's ok (game will create those, and "Config" folder too - I just recommended backing it up if you have some own settings in there - also your custom control settings are there (if any)).

That is weird, it should launch at least..

Make shortcut: ' "[Location to Parent folder]\DCS World\Bin\DCS_updater.exe" repair ' - and you guessed it; double-click


Other:
1) Make sure all your other Win drivers etc. DirectX, VC++ are updated - found in [Location as before]/DCS World/Distr/
2) Try renaming the whole DCS folder in Saved Games.

everything else works - Il-2 and P3Dv4 ( i7 4.0Ghz , 2 SSD RAID, 32 GB RAM and 8GB GTX1080 )
this is what I have


the open alpha folder has only what the uninstaller left there.

and the registry is pointing to it


looks like DCS is in install DOA mode.

Are you sure that your ”username”/saved game/ etc.. folder dont have dcs folder? My install was not runing until i found out that i have old config folder there and deleted it.

But you allready know this i think ?

yes



I installed it on 2/2/2018

it simply does not want to run and I can't download again 100 GB of data.

I suspect you know the next step. Assuming a Windows installation, was there anything in your event log?

delete it ?

the only I can do is wait until a new build is out and start from scratch - from the little I read there are some issues that they are working out that could be the reason.

I'll wait.

Did you try the methods above Tom?

I did - DCS shows up in the task manager as a background process but does not load.

Does your Windows event log record an event?

nothing at all - the log date is the install date

=== Log opened UTC 2018-02-03 12:03:08

and DCS is 0/0/0/0/0 in the task manager - so it loaded and did not run

If you repaired DCS it should work, it might take some time to load at first time. Not sure what you tried but renaming DCS folder in Saved Games and repairing DCS are the final solutions and it should work now. Maybe you just didn't wait enough at the launch.

how do I repair DCS ?

There's an option in the start menu.

You said you tried my previously mentioned methods...

it won't start for me to do that



I did - but the folders were rebuilt

"FXO", "Data" & "MetaShaders"

going to finish what I am doing first then I'll give DCS a try, don't want to CTD my work.

I loaded DCS and the launcher appeared and it is downloading 2.5GB of stuff - hopefully it will work now ...

Please read what I posted before about the shortcut. DCS should make 'repair' shortcut anyway, but your can make your own - running repair ensures that DCS has all right files to itself and should launch then, also if the users DCS folder in Saved Games is in order, like yours is now when it has created the new folders (FXO etc.) there, i.e. it was supposed to create the new folders in Saved Games/DCS folder.

I did - I repaired it and afterward after a brief pause it loaded DCS and I was able to run it, thanks !!!

Thomas,

If you're having troubles with DCS 2.5 just do what I did.

Bought EF2000 v2.0 off ebay for $25. Downloaded the free "reload" addon and now have a sim with life! And a dynamic campaign.

EF2000 ... by DiD - I loved that flight sim

Nice Tom - for a second I thought they had injected some anti-tom mechanism into game's executable - we all know how much they love you =D
Happy gaming - I wish you very not-so-frustrating moments with it.

Just read the latest newsletter and can somebody please explain this to me:



1. Why can they share this level of info on the Yak but not on the F-18?
2. Why are they concerned about "purists and accountants" now but they didn't seem to be that bothered when crew cheifs raised an issue about the A-10C's engine performance, citing that it'll only be a small number of users that will notice and it wasn't worth the fix?

I hope they get paid really well by this private contract judging by the amount of work they put into it. I guess they get more money from this contract compared to expected income from F-18.

1. ED\TFC\Belsimtek are just rubbing it into VEAO\ BLUESKY FLIGHT SIMULATIONS on how easy it is to design a flight model.

Ice, I'll let someone else answer question 2

What a shortfall this release has been.

over a million views (give or take 100,000) to topics within 4292 separate reported issues within ED's 2.5OB threads??

The so called 'Stable' 1.5 version is currently....
11 295 post replies to the topics within 1527 threads (excluding views on the subject matter)

Not a good look at all when the numbers are crunched.
Yet the post views in this very thread here at SimHQ fall short of the replies which is expected. Sit back whilst I explain my point

Let's crunch some numbers here..

This single thread alone covering the entire 2.5OB release has 318 replies yet 26,036 views. that is 318:26036 yet over at ED's 2.5OB a single bug currently has 78 replies and a page view of 22319 or a ratio of 78:22319




Source for clarification

Seriously a lot of bugs and many consumers looking for answers to issues they are having with bugs on this so called 'release'.......4 or so weeks has past, Better estimate of an actual 'playable' release is more likely 2 years as I have mentioned before

Patch out. 11Gigs


DCS 2.5 Open Beta Update 4
MP. Fixed issue when client can only see up to 5 ground units that are stationary.
MP. Ground units will be able to activated on client.
MP. Fixed crash on P-51D MainPanel:update_arguments().
MP. Client in multiplayer will see missiles of SAM launcher after its rearming.
MP. Fixed issue when player can't join server with password if he previously enter incorrect password.
MP. Stingers and Igla missiles will be visible for Clients.
MP. Fixed multi-monitor setup crashes when joining or hosting multiplayer game.
Speed indication on external view status bar will show more number positions.
Aircraft AI will take damage after collision with trees.
Enemy Within campaign. Added Doc folder and corrected missions.
Museum Relic campaign. Added corrected missions, version 2.6.
A-10C. Typo correction German A-10C manual.
Mi-8MTV2. Spring Tension campaign updated for DCS 2.5
Mi-8MTV2. Wrong reading of the working pressure in the hydraulic system fixed.
A10C Sturmovik campaign adapted for DCS 2.5.
Stryker M1128. Corrected machine gun position.
Corrected waterline level of several amphibious ground units.
NS430. 2nd ref wpt for user waypoints is calculated incorrectly when changing distance manually.
NS430. Approach data errors: KHND.
NS430. Menu button breaks Right Knob.
Updated and corrected Vegas tour missions.
Fixed issue when trigger zone can't be moved.
GUI. The open mission panel. Sorting order in mission list will be saved.
Increased max number of sound hosts for avoidance runtime errors in complicated sound conditions with many sound emitters.
L-39. Update training missions.
Fixed crash when player switches to another aircraft on the ship's deck.
Georgian Hammer with CA campaign adapted to DCS 2.5.




There is lot more fixes than in that list. (one special ed way to make things )

27 bug fixes.....only 4266 to go......

Source

One of those 4266 bugs is the Memory leak.

There is more than 27 fixes , they are not in change log.

Yellow fog is fixed. Etc..

Where is the source for every bug fix? Surely the source for every bug fix will not total 4265 including the yellow fog. Lighting fixed at night inside aircraft, airports and cities?

I would test it myself but I am not paid to be an 'official tester' or 'community manager' who enthusiastically test\monitor issues with ED\TFC\Belsimtek
perhaps if there is a spot at ED\TFC\Belsimtek for a whinger, AND it is a paid position....I may also quit my day job and get 'on the books'

Surely if employing a full time (paid mind you) 'moderator\community manager' is more important than employing someone with skills to read lua, c++ etc, build maps, 3d texture etc etc I am surely in with a chance.

So sithspin has been employed, paid, by ED? That in itself shows EDs total lack of respect for their customers.

hotfix released to cure some serious bugs eg not being able to fly aircraft you have paid for ......

........ but this was introduced https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=204551

No buildings in Neveda lol

wow!! just Wow

Who is doing the testing for these guys? Stevie wonder?

I had the problem where none of my FC3 aircraft are authorised and so are disabled, then they put out a patch that ac tually makes thinks worse. Oh My.

Way to go ED

At least the waterline for Amphibious vehicles was fixed

SD

That raises the question, if ED test anything at all.
What a joke!

time taken to load a quick start Neveda map and discover something was missing ..... literally 30 seconds

And how did THAT get past testing? I'm glad to see ED still does the 2 steps forward, 3 steps back routine! Who said only Falcon had a Falcon dance?

Read the newsletter today re: Hornet progress..... still no word on the A-G radar. Still working on the A-A radar. At this rate, the Hornet will probably be out a year before the A-G radar is released to the public, and who want's to bet it'll have weird bugs with it? Like if you go to A-G mode with the speedbrakes open, your next door neighbor will cluck like a chicken for 3 hours.

.....Don't lose hope people, everything is OK, BIGNUTJOB says so



Source before it is lost into the abyss

+1 funny as


I like this weeks newsletter,

"team are hard at work"

to

"How good is this hornet that we are working on. Systems, navigation blah blah blah"

to me that reads, "all of our resources are directed to the hornet so that we can release it in it's bugged state to take the emphasis off how p!ss poor the 2.5OB has been"

What's that?

"we believe we have largely addressed these issues" then "Work on memory issues is still ongoing"

They're using the phrase "addressed these issues" to mean they've acknowledged that the issues exist, but they've not really done anything to address/resolve the issue. ED double-speak at it's finest!

This would be funny in a Laurel and Hardy way if it wasnt so painfully pathetic. What a bunch of clowns. Talk about incompetence. Just when you think they can't get any worse.

People it is a beta, This is the way betas go. Relax and take pill.

Hello and welcome to SimHQ!
Now who might you be?

Yes and if it was just little nigglie things but it has major issues. How is that 2 weeks going?

Folks its a beta. It will be a beta for another dacade, relax and go play something else.
Just a shame folk have paid real money in the misguided belief that ED would be as professional as other game developers and move their products out of a beta state in a reasonable frame of time. Just a shame folk have paid ED to sit wirh their thumbs up their a$$es and a permanent look of confusion on their faces when their customers find the bugs for them. Wank3rs.

I wonder, are the "released" 3rd party modules really worthy of a released title? Or are they still in beta state but just with a "release" sticker applied?

I am taking bets that the new member is a "Scientologist"

Ok, you'll have to explain that one. I don't get it.

He is a propaganda puppet of the ED cult.

Some one get a hold of BEACHAV8R over at Mudspike and find out where his Review on the 2.5OB is.

The bloke reviews everything DCS before public release yet not one review on just how 'awesome' this 2.5OB is.

If BEACHAV8R is maintaining a spell of radio silence regarding the 2.5OB he must not be able to find anything good to write about it. Now that says something for the state of the OB

Prove me wrong BEACHAV8R.....i'm waiting.......and have the next 2 years free

Mudspikes rave reviews are talked about numerous times. Some consumers go as far as to have BEACHAV8R's reviews decide what module they will buy next, campaigns yet absolutely no word on the 'free' world that modules are pointless in with out it.

Refrain from characterizing other members. Address the content of the posts.

Agreed, but this may be account #5? 6? by this certain individual

Nope...I don't think so as far as I can tell at this point. So let's give him some breathing room as this is not the person you think it is.

I'm not entirely sure as well, that why I was asking and saying "may be"

If I am wrong, then another welcome and apologies to Grumpy.
If I am not, then welcome back

Thanks for finding Mudspike Winfield! I was looking for some old SimHQ friends and I found them over there on their forums. So far I've found JediMaster, Komemiute, Paul Rix, Tankerwade, smokinhole, Troll, Navynuke, plus lots more - a whole bunch of sim playing people and good friends I used to hang out with here. I thought they had all just stopped playing! Cheers bud!

Mudspike is a good place

Hello all,

I have been a member of simhq for a very very long time. Back to the Janes F/A-18 glory days. Unfortunately I forgot my password and don't have the email associated with my old account anymore. So I had to create a new account.

Ice, as far as your preconceptions about me, you are totally wrong. I am not an ED puppet, nor am I dumb enough to believe that L. Ron Hubbard is a prophet. I was just trying to say that you guys get a little to worked up. But hey its your nickel, spend it how you want

My previous callsign was 14th Gator when I flew with the tophatters in Janes F/A-18. Please do not confuse me with 531 Gator. Not the same person.

I could not use my previous callsign here so I made Grumpy. And for the record, only account number 2.

In all honesty, it would have been better if you were totally new to this forum.
Maybe this is the first time ever you visit DCS section of this forum considering your "it's only a beta" comment?

Ah, all decent people no doubt.

Komemiute actually has a soft spot in his heart not only for SimHQ in general, but the entire DCS forum and many of it's valued members and critics such as Ice, Paradaz, Myself




As you can see, we hold him in high regard non the less

The rest are long before my time on here. Give my regards and happy to have assisted you finding friends

lol komemiute

I wasn't saying that at all. There has been a member who keeps making new accounts and pretends to be a different person each time, only to be caught out and then he disappears and comes back under a new alias. Apologies for confusing you with him.

As to getting "a little worked up," I'm guessing you're not very familiar with ED's track record and their "betas"
I'm also guessing you're not very familiar with those who have spent their nickel and ED continues to fail to deliver.

Updating to hotfix 5.....wish me luck gents, who knows what will happen

57% done, no BSOD.......yet. I'm hanging on, it's not over yet

Edit: wow, it actually worked....the adrenaline of the 'will it work or won't it work' is like Chuck Yeager heading towards the sound barrier

I ended up deleting my 2.5 install.

Decided to update my copy of DCS just to see what will happen (not run DCS yet) and the installer's torrenting system stopped responding and after closing it manually, the installer itself stopped responding. I'm guessing it has done it's job anyway? WTF devs? Can't even make an installer/updater that doesn't crash?

Then the game started up and I was met with this funny message





Really, ED? I'm quite sure you don't need to do this. People will gladly give you data, anonymous or not, that will help you improve the quality of your products. But will you listen? You don't have to improve the quality of our experience when using your products, you have to improve your products and the experience of using your products will improve. Is it only me who sees that ED is yet again focusing on the wrong thing?




I clicked on DISAGREE.

you can disagree and run it - so no harm done.

I wasn't reffering to any "harm" anywhere. I was just LOL'ing at the fact that ED can be spoonfed feedback and still refuse to "eat" it and then they do this.

anyhow I'll wait until late 2028 before installing again, there seems to be too many issues right now to do otherwise.

Yes! By then they may have collected enough info

.......and still ignored it

Gotta love the newsletter:
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator....406.html?bx_sender_conversion_id=1876288



About frikkin' time.


Want more proof that ED doesn't have a clue? They're now bragging about how many skins the Hornet will be released with. Who the fk cares about A-A radar modes or A-G radar modes? We wants moar skinz!! Who the fk wants this? Anyone here seriously play in external view mode? Do they not know we can't really notice the paintscheme if we're in the cockpit doing fighterpilot stuff? But this is what they concentrate on.

Remember when I was saying that ED had too many useless staff and not enough of the staff they need? They're still working on STT so I guess TWS is further down the ladder in development, and A-G radar is probably underground in terms of priority. I doubt they'll be able to meet their pre-release deadlines with the stuff they want to be in the pre-release, but hey! At least we got lots of skins, huh? It's becoming more of a screenshot generator (hey! check out my new skin!!) than a simulator.

Nah, I think you're going a bit too far with the "useless" part. For a skin-oriented guys like me (and Tom I would presume ) there is NO such thing as "too many skins", and yes, the external views enabled option is one of the very first things I check when installing the new sim (just bough BoK last week). I'm using it a lot, especially if the WWII "combat" part is severely lacking and I have to use DCS strictly as a "poor man's P3D" nowadays . External texture artists seem to be the ones who actually do their job very well at ED's (I'm talking about planes, 'cause terrain is more controversial matter!) so I want them to do even more of it.

I do agree with you, however, that it would be great if the rest of their staff caught up...

Yes, sorry, I wasn't being clear there. I do like skins too. I just think this is something that can either be given to the community to work on, Tom for instance, or done AFTER the module is released and not something that should be given much priority especially now when they're working towards a set deadline. Release the damn thing with two skins and a template and I don't think anyone would care. Release the Hornet with LESS than the stunted feature list already stated and, well....

If they have enough texture artists to whack out that many skins, yet can't release a Hornet with A-G radar, do you think ED has the right balance of staff? Would you rather wait for skins or would you wait for A-A and A-G radar modes?

I don't plan to buy the Hornet, so I'm not worried whether it's released even with one engine missing , but I feel for you jet-heads and fully agree that the balance is way off. Suffering from it myself - a couple of weeks ago, we (by "we" - I mean prop-heads) were pretty much being told by Sith, that programmers responsible for crucial and long awaited new damage model for warbirds took a break from this particular work, as the had to be moved to hepling with something more important (Hornet, maybe? ). Needless to say, If that's how things are, I decided to move something as well - my money to 777 studio, investing in their product for a change .

What a way to divide the community!! Us (propheads) vs. them (pointynose) indeed!!




Congrats!! I just might need your assistance over there soon!

I think Art and Ice are saying the same thing.

A lack of focus. The glaring issues are taking beyond a reasonable amount time to fix. All of the multiplayer sessions where they "gathered info", dont appear to have done any good as the issues still abound and have gotten worse.

In trying to host my own missions for our group, I've found that certain jets cause a higher spike/lag. Again, all of this has been reported but ignored in favor of moving on to the next money grab. Optimize and stabilize the current platform, then expand. It's really an easy concept.

DCS has enough toys to be enjoyable. It needs to stop releasing products and fix bugs while refining the user experience with the existing products.

What we've been saying about ED, we've been doing so for a long time now We sync up eventually!

DCS isn't suffering due to lack of modules, it's suffering because the powers in charge of the project doesn't have a clue about what he/she/they is/are doing and the fanbois are only too happy to serve up excuses and lies to cover it up.

I can only think that ED are way over budget in everything they have ever done, especially given that the whole DCS 2.0 path is about 5 years late now and the money/resources they must have put into that will have been through the roof. Unfortunately, the only way they can get additional funding is to announce a new module and get it out as an early release........however the money from these early releases is probably paying for all the other ongoing work and then the module in progress is in exactly the same state with no funds to pay for the work......they are in a vicious circle that they can never recover from and why they should have baselined DCS many years ago. Only their military/commercial contracts will be keeping them afloat, but surely it is only a matter of time before they tighten that up because they exist to turn a profit and there is no way the desktop products are doing anything other than hemorrhaging cash.

It's their own greed that has put them in this position and now all they offer is disappointment and let-downs to their customers. They had the opportunity and time to recover some of their damaged reputation by getting 2.5 right.....however that has turned out to be the mother of all clusterf****

I think the expression here is "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul," correct?

This
Ive said it before and i'll say it again, ED business model is unsustainable. The core fan base will buy the module on the first day, no matter how early the access is. The second big round of income will be during the first sale, reduced price. Then its drips and drops for the next 3-5 years of development. There is no way, in a niche market, that one module is going to pay the bills of all EDs employees. So they release another early access module. Then the customers start drifting away, tired of the never ending development, tired of the BS excuses, insulted by getting banned from the forums for voicing any form of displeasure in their purchase. First day income drops off, updates and development of previous modules stagnate due to low income. Its not a vicious circle, its a spiral. To reward sithspin, who is single handedly responsible for alienating a very large percentage of customers, with paid employment. is one of the bigger 'LOL WHAT!' Moments since i discovered DCS, and there have been quite a few.
Edit
And this is why prices are increasing. $80 for a hornet that is going to be missing a large percentage of its features on release. Instead of re evaluating their business model they penalise their loyal customers. LOL WHAT!

Source

That was my thought as well.

I replied with

So this is an April Fool's joke, correct?


and I got suspended

And I thought the ban hammer was given a break already? Guess not?

Is it just me or is Sith basically admitting that ED will release a known-buggy build just for the sake of releasing something?

That will do it. Mind you, you could have achieved the same outcome had you of posted that view here on these forums.

no mate, their view is "something is better than nothing"

Yet at times....I much prefer nothing

TA DA ! ... it is "released"


https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3442032#post3442032

And with no single comment on if/what's been fixed?

"DCS 2.5 with new Caucasus map is available for public now! "

Not feeling too confident about this.
Guess I will notice when I launch DCS next time.

They couldn't fix the memory leak, so they just changed the minimum/recommended system requirements.
source

Well that's kind of a bummer.

As you can see by changelog, ED was really hardworking on fixing major bugs during these last weeks.
I don't get why so many negative coments on their work. It only take a couple of months to correct a major bug like memory leak. I know that fixing that by just changing minimum spec looks like nothing but hey, lets be positive and suport them by buying some more modules.

Wow, that's an extensive changelog!! ED has been hard at work indeed! Let us all rejoice!!

Maybe ED can fix more of their bugs by increasing the minimum specs to a Core i7 Kaby or higher, 64GB RAM, 1TB free SSD space, SLI GeForce 1080Ti or better, 1080p monitors or lower. That way, they can safely ignore any complaints from anyone running under-spec'd PCs! Win!! Then they can concentrate on making the Hornet module!

You know, it is what it is. The flightsim enthusiast is number 3, on ED's list of 2. While I applaud what you're doing here, the only folks listening is yourselves. Unfortunately.

I've gone completely retro, and enjoying it. BMS Falcon is the latest sim I fly. damson got me interested in DiD's EF2000 all over again. Bought it off Ebay for $20 bucks.
Holy crap, what a sim. Graphics, ummm, but gameplay - remember what that is/was? - is tremendous! Yall should try it.

OMG

What clowns are running that business? A bug-riddled open beta with a memory leak (masked by higher requirements) has just had a name change and suddenly becomes the stable 'release' version. What an absolute farce.

Still, it's good to vent

Also, you're not exactly correct there. ED is keeping an eye on us too.... as shown by my warning levels on their forums despite not posting there for years Others have been banned on there too, for statements made here or in other forums.


+1 to that. Thinking of trying IL2 BoS again as well, but I'm not much of a WWII simmer even though I like watching those airplanes in movies.

That is an insult to clowns everywhere.

@Ice , since Jason took over the IL2 BoX franchise is doing well. You being a jet guy, not sure how you would like the WWII birds.
Advise to wait on sale of Kuban though. Their latest, and it's fun.

Indeed, I've been hearing good things about it. I'm a jet guy, you are right, but I'm also looking to improve my dogfighting skills and my energy management and I was under the impression that flying and fighting in WWII birds would help with that. Am I wrong in that?

No fear, the "people jumped the gun on the System Requirements change" crowd are already out and at it. It's your fault for not keeping up with the changing requirements because of the more demanding builds. Also they are still working on the memory leak, that they've at least made a point of today. I give it one more update and then it's going to be vacant hard drive space. This is beyond ridiculous.

@Ice, tried to PM you, but you're over the limit. You will either love, or hate BoX, due to prop planes. Like I said, wait till a good sale is on. They have many.

PM sent

I don't mind paying in full for a good sim, happy to support the devs that make good stuff. Or are you saying it's not worth the full price? I do know they have a sale every so often as I am subscribed to their newsletter, but didn't think of getting the newer games as I have the premium edition of BoS but haven't really spent much time in it.

I can confirm this as this is how I was banned. Ask Skatezilla over at ED for the run down, even 4 lines short of NineLiner would be more than happy to confirm this, just ask him about the my proposal to put forward a member for the vote on the next community manager, that should jog his memory.

From the maybe 2-3000 people that play this game (which is very very low number in case you are wondering) there are 5-10 old grannies that just stay here and bitter. every single friggin time I log in here... same babushkas... yada yada yada yada... most of them look like this:

*** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post

I don't know who invited you back to read these forums but it sure as hell wasn't me. However let me inform you that the numbers you have proposed are completely incorrect. 2-3000 is an extremely low number when Chris from VEAFAIL informed this community that his company has sold 10's of thousands of his HAWK module alone. that would put the number in the 10's of millions who actually play DCS based on Chris's sales facts on a single module alone. 5-10 old grannies? what are you 5 years old? I'm 34, hardly a grannie unless you are 5 and have the mentality where everything in the world is much larger than it actually is.

It is always a ray of sunshine to the forms when a member comes in and spits out a fictitious post like the one you put forward that holds absolutely no fact.

I too will sign off with an awesome link to a gif image for added bonus

fictitious image

According to the ED forum rules, the rule about posts on non-ED forums (1.13) was removed.

ah so if that is the case, than the original ban is null and void. If the original ban is null and void than my comments following the original ban in response to the original ban should see me reinstated to spit factual venom on the ED forums?

I'll put in a support ticket and post the response here. It may help other banned members at ED if they wish to state their cases however....I am not holding my breath on the matter

Let's see how this goes shall we




So far it's looking good gents.....



This live support thing is the best thing implemented since the memory leak......

Hmmm... so these users that you are "ignoring"... Are you really ignoring their posts, and therefor assuming that they are posting "bitter" "yada yada yada yada..." "every single friggin time", or are you actually reading all of their posts in spite of having them on ignore?

If you are let back in Winfield they will use another rule to give you the boot, again.

that is an interesting development - I wonder if the developer will do something to fix their relationship with me, I'll wait for them.

Should be fairly easy for you to add the same babushkas on your ignore list then. So what exactly are you complaining about? Is the ignore feature broken?

You do know you are free to skip over forum posts or entire threads if it offends you or annoys you. Nobody's forcing you to do anything.



Whoops! Seems like you caught him red-handed there, CyBerkut!

If he is indeed ignoring the same babushkas, for all he knows they've now turned a new leaf and are singing ED's praises. Somebody's painted themselves in an embarrassing corner with this one.



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 got £50 that says it won't happen within the next 5 years or until ED's management gets a serious shake-up. I hope you're not holding your breath on this one, Tom!

I am so out of the loop that if it weren't for you guys, I would not even know what is going on in DCS, so it is kind of a moot point any changes by now.

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.

I can see when someone quotes the ignored users posts.... then I can toggle to understand what they said in a longer exchange...

We already waited for that. In fact, the dude that I was dealing with was rude when he read my side of the situation. Frankly, I could give AF if I ever get reinstated over there.

it is time for all of us to move on, I already did.

Looks to be that way Tom.





Looks like we both got the same 'dude'...AKA Norm\SithSpin\FourLiner

I like it how I need to apologise though to this this now 'paid employee of ED' over a forum ban but where is the apology from ED for such bugged out releases like 2.5, the 3rd party modules that are still half finished which ED endorsed. The list goes on and on.

Have ED ever released a statement publicly announcing they are ready to apologise to the community? Anyone ever been contacted privately by any employee in a private e-mail apologizing for being so sh!t? well I won't be apologising any time soon as the original ban is Null and Void.

proof again the ED have contradicted themselves on this matter once again. Being a paid employee of ED does not entitle one to have an apology for words said here at SimHQ over a rule that does not exist any more. It is quite unfortunate the this paid employee of ED who holds a personal grudge against me in the

DCS forums, feels that he needs an apology from me for words said in a support ticket.

I don't know what his alias is over there, heck it could be FiveLiner or SadSpawn for all I know,

This should help you Winfield, https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=Norm+Loewen

Hence the underlined parts of my question, which you still have not actually answered. I understand that quoted material in a 3rd party's post circumvents the ignore filtering function... but for you to know that something is occurring "every single friggin time", you would need to be actually reading all of their posts in spite of having them on ignore. You are, of course, welcome to use the ignore function. I encourage people to use the ignore function to spare themselves grief, ( but then reading all of the ignored posts rather defeats the purpose... and announcing on the forums that you are ignoring people, especially if you really are not ignoring them in effect, just appears odd, and perhaps even "bitter".)

Not exactly shocked...when you make a request to be re-instated and make fun of the moderators name in your request...it's a no-brainer.

I'm not sure if you were actually expecting them to take your request seriously given how you worded it.

I was actually being serious about the ban removal. This response from Norm proves that people in a position of power and control take their roles at ED just a tad too seriously. I have been called numerous words here at various times over the years, had my handle smeared.

but I don't respond with the words to the effect of "I deserve an apology for what you said" If I was a moderator either here or over at ED (god help the communities), I would find some humorous way of responding to the member rather than pull the "apologise to me" card like in Norm's case.

I gave it a look - I would like to get in touch with them, have my account deleted -

but I can't find my way there, any link I might use ?

Sign into digital combat simulator website > Support > User Support > Create A New Ticket > Hit Next > Scroll down to the bottom > Next again > Website and Forums in the Category > Next

Send your request there Tom.

I like the terms you have to accept about. They look like this.

Thanks, I requested that my account there be deleted.

1.13 is still in effect, as you can see from the response herein

I like the contradictory response but it proves that comments made on other forums away from DCS still results in the same outcome, even after 1.13 is removed or not.

Holding a personal grudge against someone rather than looking over the facts put forth, To me proves 4 lines short of a NineLine is unfit to be a Community Manager. Sobek, I put your name forward for the next Community Manager vote 2 years ago, however that resulted in a permanent ban under the 1.13 ruling which currently still exists hence the following statement

No doubt, however the next ban must be based on my merits from when the original ban is removed. Not on the extended bans that followed from the facts put forth that resulted from the original ban.

Fact of the matter is 1.13 still exists in it's current form as is it did when the original ban was placed.

cichlidfan, I have submitted enough factual information that 1.13 is still going strong.

If 1.13 was removed, I would be posting here that I am currently not banned from the official ED forums. That has not happened nor do I see it happening.

it is unfortunate, but their forum policy does not allow for accounts to be deleted.

the only reason of having an account in a consumer support forum is to get support and since I no longer play it, it is a redundant account.

That is the way it is and of this, nothing more ever again.

Happy Birthday, Tom!

Thanks !!!

Have a great day, Tom

Have a good one Tom

Happy Birthday Tom!

Are they gonna need a couple books of matches and a fire extinguisher when they light off that cake?

!!!

Looks like the release version is out. Downloading now.

You may have missed a few posts Flogger.......the 'release' version is just the open beta but it's renamed. There are still all sorts of bugs and issues including the memory leak. I've no idea what ED are playing at........normally, they try to keep their incompetence under wraps and have excuses at the ready, this time they are broadcasting that they don't have a clue how to integrate, test and release their own products.

I assume it's just a case of the same old. They will most likely drop work on 2.5 like a hot stone now and focus on the Hornet. That is after all, a way of ripping more people off with an early release and yet another product that will never be finished before moving onto whatever comes after that.

Appartley...it's not a "memory leak":



Looks like they spent so much time making it shiney...now you have to strip units out of an already sterile and lifeless battlefield to make it playable.

That explanation doesn't make sense to me. When you run out of ram, you still have virtual memory... Going to harddrive for VM would make it slow, not crash.

Amazing that they still exist on the market.These explanations are more and more pathetic

What he means is that, the ED developers are getting lazy and will not optimise wherever possible. I'd say play it safe and ensure you have 128GB RAM within the next couple of years.

Quite amazing how the customer base on the ED message boards are just lapping this up and accepting it.

giving additional virtual memory with SSD seems way to go.

They've all been castrated. I'm not trying to be funny, After so many years of censorship and bans folk are too scared to voice an opinion. Too scared to do anything other than praise ED for whatever ED does. ED the company could write into their EULA that they can have the customers first born child, take the child and the ED regulars would thank ED for their modules. There are literally no balls left over there.

If only ED made RAM. they'd be quids in

It's probably the next 'module'

Ba-boom-tish

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.



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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.