… and then suddenly the MP community will call to arms because that ’ patch ’ will fragment the MP community
But agree. It seems to me like only two solutions
include the upgrade costs of older products in new products
to release v2.0, v3.0, v4.0… of the older products
Anyway, the first seems to be less harmful for the community I would say.
Upgrade costs are hidden in that case and even small upgrade to the older product seems to be delivered for free.
The second seems to be much more fair, you know what you are paying for in that case.
It goes both ways. FPS has always been an issue with Normandy. VR or not. The trees have been identified as being a solid wall vs a semi-transparent object.
The dev should have to make these fixes, before dropping support. Get it to a level that fixes the bugs. But ED passes the buck to the dev, but was happy to accept the $$. Lesson learned for me.
@ST0RM Normandy has/had hedges of trees. Ugra made those into the map. There was no speedtree in DCS back then, only Nevada’s single collideable lone trees.
Imagine what the performance would have been like if all those trees had been singly collideable instead of solid walls…
The truth of the matter is: they developed this map one year too early for good performance. Does this force them to redo parts of the map for free due to improvements that they had not foreseen being implemented in other maps?
Tough question, and not an easy judgement I would say. Only thing wrong about this whole thing is that Normandy was not very clearly marked as a 3rd party product.
I think Ugra should want to update their products to keep them relevant and desirable - whether or not for free, I can’t say.
I also think ED should want to be clear with the 3rd party devs that they expect content like this to be kept up to date. Maybe that means update costs, or perhaps larger initial prices that cover future work to an extent. I guess it’s a learning curve for them as well, given what happens with the Hawk. Maybe this issue will drive some company policy changes as far as maps are concerned.
Agreed on the clarity of who produced it. DCS is having 3rd party teething issues (to be somewhat expected) and users should have the option to steer clear of that if they desire.
I would guess that will depend on how well the Normandy map sold. It would have to be worth their while financially before sinking man-hours into updating the product to this extent.
My guess is that Normandy was probably not as big a seller as the NTTR or PG maps. That is pure speculation on my part of course.
And there are new (edit) WW2 maps coming, so maybe ED saw that as a better way to correct their weak spot on the portfolio instead of trying to work on Normandy…
Don’t forget Normandy has had some work done updating the airfield textures and maybe other stuff, clearly they where prepared to spend time making it nicer.
Surprise! The VR optimization was already released apparently.
Hey everyone,
In the Open Beta before last, we fielded the VR optimization; however, we have been getting very inconsistent results internally after building version 2.5.5. Some are seeing significant improvement; others are seeing a reduction in VR performance. We are seeing the same results with clients over the past week or so. As you might imagine, we are trying to pin down this discrepancy. We are unclear if it is based on drivers, VR set, graphics settings, VR settings, missions, etc. As such, we are asking for your help!
Using the TF-51D Instant Action mission Flight Over Tbilisi, please provide your average FPS in VR for the first few seconds in the current Open Beta. Then, run the same test in the Stable version that does not include the optimization. This allows us to determine the delta. Please turn of ASW! Please include in your report:
FPS for both tests
System specs
Graphics settings
VR settings
Type VR set used and driver version
Please, please, please keep posts to the data requested without off topic and commentary so that we can easily sort through and analyze the data. Posts that cannot follow this direction will be removed.
I’m doing the update back to release, which is a 17.8 GB download for info.
Plus, ironic we already had the fix but was still looking forward to it, e.g.
lol
EDIT: I ran the test and posted at the ED forums specs etc if it helps them. Release 68 fps / Open beta 72 fps, but a 1 minute sample time so probably within the error zone of being a wash.
I’ve had worse frame rates in non-VR, external views only, dawn-noon timing (so far, haven’t ran any evening/dusk/night). Or more specifically, slightly lower rates with more stutters - the stutters being longer.
With a look at Wags results so far, I don’t think anyone is really seeing much of an improvement, maybe 10% tops?
In some ways it would help if they said what the changes they made were, plus for those that did see a 50% improvement (which was the original claim) then what sort of system did they have? It’s perhaps like an off-average/stddev result sort of gave a false reading on how good something was, as in some other variable changed (driver, power setting for GPU etc etc) and that got accidentally put on the path of indicating that there was a big boost.
The 2.5.5. update log when I went back to stable did show many many texture and dsf updates to the maps, so they obviously had altered and shipped the changed map data. I just thought it was the trees LOD (that picture of the palm tree in Batumi ) but perhaps that was the placebo that led them to think there was a 50% gain?
Your DCS Install/bin/DCS_updater.exe update @release
…and back again…
DCS_updater.exe update @openbeta
…torrents about 18 GB pretty slowly, and then applies 45 GB of changes, so make sure you have a coffee ready.
Btw, your MSAA at x4 is brutal on any poor GPU. Plus that Visib range at Extreme is even mean to a beefy i9.
The WMR motion reprojection (the nice one where if you look sideways you don’t get juddery trees) only really kicks in at 55 to 60 fps, so tune for that. Otherwise it will reproject at 45 fps but it’ll be a bit ugly.
Yeah…with those settings I’ve been running in the 45 FPS reprojection range pretty reliably - but I’ve not been flying very FPS intensive missions though. I can dial back quite a few of those settings (tree visib range…etc…)
) but perhaps that was the placebo that led them to think there was a 50% gain?