It looks like this version will have a ton of new features and upgrades.I’m wondering if any of you have concerns/thoughts on performance or it running on older equipment and systems?
Also.Do you think The Migration to 2.7 might have delayed some 3rd party projects such as The Kiowa,Strike Eagle and Falklands Map?
Not trying to start any controversy or Drama,Just looking for thoughts and opinions.
I’m slightly worried how my system will cope. I have put off buying Syria map due to the problems I have on PG when things get busy. I cant imagine it will be much worse on 2.7 and I’m still looking forward to the updates. I still have a backlog of things I’m trying to learn on DCS (gazelle, huey, CE2) so the holdup on the Hind isn’t the end of the world to me despite it being the most anticipated module I have to look forward to.
I am extremely keen to see how this pans out in the next few weeks. I just hope it doesn’t force me to upgrade my PC as I really want to limp along a bit longer until the graphics card situation sorts itself out a bit.
Slowly building a pile of parts in preparation. Waiting for a GPU. I’m expecting my current system will lose some; it is claimed the clouds aren’t any worse on perf. than the current ones. Not real sure I’m buying that but looking forward to them anyway. And, as always, hoping we see some AI improvements coming soon too.
And a couple of API functions I’m having to hack around. But that’s another topic.
Yeah, it’s the worst performer in my list (PG, NTTR, Syria) but, it really seems like VRAM is the key, on my machine (8GB nVidia 1080) in VR. When I can keep it from going over 8GB (as viewed in various apps) it does alright. It looks so good though.
I like how it appears they’ve ‘baked in’ some very slight shadowing (slightly dark-ish area) under the trees, giving them a bit more depth in my eyes - I have to run with shadows OFF. Now, this is all to keep it at 45FPS (motionVector ON)
Could mean a performance hit. OTOH it could also mean better optimizations… Hard to tell.
New features tend to break modules, so yeah, quite likely.
But it’s the nature of the beast. In the future we will probably see more modules being discontinued because of core updates. I fear the day when Heatblur will tell me I have to stop updating DCS if I want to continue to fly the Viggen…! May it be many updates from now.
Cold sweats caused by the thought of losing this and a few other modules in the future.
NO! it’s next on my list…after I pay for new machine to run it all!
I’m not saying it will happen anytime soon, but it is the inevitable result of all the modules, I think.
Actually the newly implemented tech might run even faster than the older one if they do some improvements on the core engine. Few years back when Flight Sim World introduced the new clouds (trueSky) and you had the ability to run the old clouds and new in the same build, the sim run better with the newer ones (most likely to balancing CPU thread utilization). Furthermore, the new FS2020 runs better on my rig (mix of medium/high settings) than FSX from 14 years ago.
So I’m being slightly optimistic, but the time will tell.
Definitely with you here.
Kate has said that the new clouds run well, and so far she’s been a straight shooter in my book. I don’t expect stellar performance on my 970, but hopefully it won’t get much worse.
It will probably run a lot worse. At least on launch. I expect a lot of bugs, some performance issues and a very unpleasant experience on ED forums.
Then, it will be gradually patched into something that actually works, and after that, my take is that it will need a little more resources than today, but not radically so.
I think that it will run a little bit worse, but nothing that will change the overall experience. The problem with this statement is that I consider the experience today to be pretty bad in that regard. For those who have top of the line machines it will run alright, not great, and for those with average or even above average machines it will continue to be borderline acceptable.
That said, I’m very optimistic overall about their roadmap. I think they are actually addressing everything the users asked them about. Weather is going to make DCS a different experience altogether and all the improvements, although will take a long time to actually arrive, will keep it current and relevant.
I have high hopes for Vulkan, even when thinking that, realistically, we cannot expect a lot more than 10% improvements for their first implementation. In the long run, I think we will get a lot more headroom for ongoing enhancements.
But I’m thinking it will get worse before it gets better…
I always found the DCS update system a bit unfair to 3rd party module producers…In all other Platforms in our niche hobby …XPlane,P3D and maybe MSFS when a new version is introduced there’s no guarantee that your paid content will work in the new version.
It’s up to the developer to update their product for free…or charge a usually discounted fee for extra work involved to make that content work correctly.
It’s then up to us as the end user of the product to decide if we want to pay for the updated version?
I do believe The DCS way of updates is fantastic for Us The Sim Enthusiast but might be keeping some third party developers[thinking VRS/Milviz others] away from entering The DCS Platform.
As far as Performance goes as a VR only user…I’m expecting to take a hit with 2.7…just cause VR in DCS is such a resource Hog as is.
But I know there’s hope on the horizon with the promise of Multithreading and Vulcan coming later this year…This is probably the best news in the 2021 DCS Roadmap outlook.
I agree. We can’t expect module makers to upgrade their stuff indefinitely. Especially not for free.
At a certain point I wouldn’t mind at all paying for viggen 2.0, back shark 3 or mirage II.
I would actually like DCS to freeze the code base at some point. FSX was stable for well over a decade and had probably over a thousand payware aircraft. You wont ever really get to the that point with a constantly evolving base system. I’d prefer if ED said that they were going to take a 3-4 year pause to create the next generation of DCS, and give the 3rd party devs the opportunity to finally get some modules fully working and complete. A 5 year or cycle would I think be commercially viable for ED, and for the 3rd party devs. Additionally if legacy content can be updated/imported, I really do think they’d see a much larger 3rd party development base, and end user sales.
Do you believe that model is sustainable today? Honest question.
I Mean, even MSFS is now going to be regularly updated every 3-4 months. I mean, their code might be a lot cleaner than ED’s, but in a couple of years, I wouldn’t be surprised if some 3rd party content start showing some age…
On the one hand, the people coding one thing generally aren’t coding the others. So people working on jet radars aren’t coding clouds and lighting.
On the other, if I was working a module that was “close” to qualifying for early access but I knew 2.7 was coming soon and could just break things, I could well imagine concentrating my efforts on making it work with 2.7 instead and forget about a 2.6 release.
You don’t spend hours setting up your booth the night before the fair if you know a big storm is coming through overnight and you’re still going to have to fix it up again in the morning before the fair opens. Just start once the storm passes.
I do. DCS currently has tight control on the SDK necessary to interface with the radio system among other things. In general the quality of releases are high (compared to vast numbers of “sim-lite” FSX offerings). I am assuming ED get’s either a precentage of sales, a fixed amount per sale, or a flat fee from the 3rd party devs. Most 3rd parties have a rather rocky initial outing as they learn how to create for DCS, and follow on modules (if they occur) are usually of a higher quality, complexity, and in general the release goes smoother. The ever changing code base however breaks things, and does so often. Polychop is working on the Kiowa, but they have to go back and fix the Gaz after a DCS update breaks the HOT optics. This occurs over and over, slowing production, and IMO keeping some developers and dev teams away.
Having a frozen code base at some point solves this problem. A 3-4 year stability period on the code base allows for far more focused work on modules. Additionally a stable base means smaller teams have a much better chance of success, leading to more dev teams. All of which amount to more modules, and more sales, meaning more revenue. The new DCS core won’t be written in secret and then suddenly appear, causing all previous modules to break (well it shouldn’t be at least). Proper and timely communication between ED and the development community can allow for future proofing modules, or updating them in a timely fashion to the new core. While I’m not a huge fan of paying for something twice, the $10 A-10C upgrade is a great example of how that might work.
how about the gray outs / black outs / g-locks ? is this already realistic in DCS or is this going to be addressed in 2.7? 