homepage Forums Air Combat & Civil Aviation DCS World 2..5 Release Date ANNOUNCED!!

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.

Sure. That's a valid opinion.

My post was more about people stating that ED gave up on fixing memory issues and was just asking customers to upgrade ram instead. The reality is while they have upped minimum requirements, they are still working to improve ram usage.

To your point, should they have waited to release 2.5 until after they had that fix in place? Maybe. Everyone's entitled to their opinion on that one.

The other big one for me is that most of the FC3 campaigns are broken in 2.5. Now that 2.5 is the "release" branch, they better get those fixed.

It's almost funny when you hear it spoken verbally in your head: "C'mon guys...I get that ED has a poor track record and has disappointed many customers, been 4 years late on a pre-order bonus, slashed WWII rewards, marginalized 3rd party devs, released unfinished work and left it that way for years, banned scores of paying customers from their forums, released non-fitting aircraft/terrain based on private contracts, and a bunch of other stuff...but...now you're just looking for stuff to complain about"

And funnily enough, that looks as if that’s exactly what has happened!




Yes, and isn’t it a coincidence that after all the years of development this isn’t ready? It’s like they gave up on a proper fix recently because they haven’t got a hope in hell of finding the real problem, and have just started work on a band-aid. How convenient for ED, and how inconvenient for the majority of customers.

I have 32GB of RAM by the way......not that it makes any difference to this open beta release version as it’s still a mess with huge performance issues and for me unplayable due to the stuttering and graphical artefacts present regardless of the settings used and that’s with a high spec rig paired with GTX 1080.

hold on buddy, if you want to get 32G ...... you will nmost likely need to buy a new kit of 32G

Even if you buy another exact same 16G set of what you own there is NO certainty that they will play together
I know this from experience

I have 4x8GB 1333 RAM and DCS 2.5 ran so poorly on my PC that I had to removed it - and I run P3Dv4 at 40 FPS and Il-2 at 50FPS and most games at 60FPS with most options maxed out.

I would suggest buying 64 GB RAM : 4x16GB

and a GTX1080 with a 1 TB M2 SSD as well.

From what I have played 2.5 ran very smooth for me. I did not try Nevada yet though. The only performance related issue I have is some stuttering at the start of the mission, but panning around will "load" the terrian and fix it in around 2 seconds. That used to be an issue/fix in older versions of the engine and at least for the time being, may be required now. Outside of that the game ran very smoothly.

I noticed some minor issues with tree shadows in certain areas near the dam at a time of 8-10AM, but otherwise I didn't notice any graphical artifacts. Are you sure these issues were in the release version and not the prior builds?

yes, I am glad I was only mildly curious about 2.5, there is nothing more frustrating than after spending a lot on a game or a sim it does not work

then read that others with similar PC to yours, can run it well and you cannot.

and my old Nevada install ran rather well ...

Memory usage graph for today, 2.5.

Well, I am done with DCS until they sort things out. I posted this on Ninelines thread and I tried to remain polite.

S!Blade<><

Edit: Within 2 minutes of me posting this Nineline deleted it. Now I can officially say that if I see anyone seeking advice on whether to purchase DCS or not that I will fully voice my disappointment and decision to no longer be a customer of theirs.
They can run their Forum and Company anyway that they want, but I do not have to sit ideally by while they censor their Forum or sell products using false advertisement or changing requirements after the product is released.

Edit2: I have to give them credit, DCS 2.5 is now running on 70% of 16GBs of DDR 3 at 2133mhz I believe with 8 planes in the air and nothing on the ground. It is getting better. For comparison BOX uses about 6GBS in Career mode with 12 planes and multiple ground assets. They still have a long ways to go IMHO.

Looks like DCS are leaking not just memory but customers...

I don't understand what this graphic means - that there is no RAM problem ? Is this good news ?



seems so - I had many disappointments with DCS customer service over the years but at least the sim worked.

But when Nevada was released , I started to have plenty of game quality related issues and on top of that the map looked very bland , Normandy was a another disappointment FPS wise and 2.5 ended up being a wasted 100GB download as I could not make it work.

Yes, and I simply brought up those points to highlight that the damage has still been done anyway



Maybe stop reading the threads to begin with? Putting people on ignore the toggling to read the ignored post and then complaining about what you're reading, LOL!!



No, I think Sith just has a hard-on for you!

Here is proof of Sith and Winfield in their last seminar






What??? You mean to tell me taking the sticker off and applying a new label doesn't fix things?!!?!?!