Just done some more testing for the MODS.

Running the pre-12JUL17 Free Flight Open World map at normal settings in 4K I'm getting a stutter every second and 20% FPS loss

ED have messed with the Graphics settings again (check your system config) although not in the change log.

My system in OK...

Overclocked Intel® Core™i7-6700k Quad Core (4.00GHz @ upto MAX 4.60GHz)
STRIX-GTX980TI-DC3OC-6GD5-GAMING
ASUS® Z170 PRO GAMING: ATX, LG1151, USB 3.1, SATA 6GBs
32GB HyperX FURY DDR4 @2666MHz
500GB Samsung 850 EVO 2.5" SSD, SATA 6Gb/s (W10 & DCS)
CORSAIR 750W CS SERIES™ MODULAR 80 PLUS® GOLD
Corsair H80i GT Hydro Cooler w/ PCS Liquid SerieS

At first I though it was the MODS... then after deleting them I thought it was the scripts and deleted all of those.  It seems the culprit is none of those but the amount of targets and client planes that I have stuffed in there..  This NOW causes a CPU load issue which consequently does not feed the GFX card correctly...  Bearing in mind the clock speed I run which is about 4.5 in DCS other s may have issues too...  hmmmmmm.....

So, I feel that the Free Flight missions on the servers need to be redone from scratch rather than a re-hash and not place anywhere near the past available fixed wing slots and some rotary slots.  

The Servers are hardly used 24/7 by any bar maybe 2 or 3 these days so it should not inconvenience people.

The number of targets and 3rd party objects to be gradually increased performance allowing.

I did the last maps but now SIX graciously looks after them.

Views folks?  @SIX if there are changes of course any thing you want done, just shout...

These incremental updates seem to be doing more harm than good, and leave us scrambling to pick up the pieces.

I came here before I performed the most recent update, and seeing your post Gizzy, about the 229th mod breaking something I decided not to update so I could keep flying the Argo missions with all the unit mods enabled and no drawbacks. (I haven't touched them since I got them working a few months ago, and don't look forward to doing so).

What gains are to be had from these updates, which might make up for performance losses and necessity to trim down the map objects? If there is no tangible benefits, or if the cons outweigh them, then ideally I'd like to have a unit-wide standard to stick with a certain update, until some adventurous people (who know how to test and roll back etc) go scout the new territory so to speak, and give us the all-clear. We could have a dedicated thread for that purpose.

Otherwise, I feel like we're putting ourselves in a bad spot, vulnerable to disappointment and outrage, by always hanging out on the bleeding edge, at the mercy of the devs.

(A/229) Huckleberry wrote:These incremental updates seem to be doing more harm than good, and leave us scrambling to pick up the pieces.

I came here before I performed the most recent update, and seeing your post Gizzy, about the 229th mod breaking something I decided not to update so I could keep flying the Argo missions with all the unit mods enabled and no drawbacks.  (I haven't touched them since I got them working a few months ago, and don't look forward to doing so).

The old MOD caused DCS to crash because DCS had added the WW2 assets pack objects to the Caucasus Map.  To do this, they changed the database related entries.  Once I had changed the MOD lua files to this new format, the MOD was fixed.   Now I presume you will have to have the 'Assets Pack' in your hangar to use them on the 'Free' Map...

Depends on whether whoever designs the missions on the 229th servers will dictate whether you need that pack... my gut feeling is that people will as they will complement 'Vietnam Era' missions.

(A/229) Huckleberry wrote:What gains are to be had from these updates, which might make up for performance losses and necessity to trim down the map objects? If there is no tangible benefits, or if the cons outweigh them, then ideally I'd like to have a unit-wide standard to stick with a certain update, until some adventurous people (who know how to test and roll back etc) go scout the new territory so to speak, and give us the all-clear.  We could have a dedicated thread for that purpose.

There are gains, sometimes hard to see but they are there... i.e. this latest update introduces scripting for F10 mark labels.  In my view this totally changes interactive missions.... you can now at a specific time OR trigger broadcast a TEXT statement saying XXXXXXXXX mission -GO DO IT..... and then place labels on the MAP for you see.... UPDATING your, Group, Force or ARMY MAP for you see and act upon..... SIX I know has been busy in the background updating all of his excellent missions to enable this feature.

Now as for checking out new DCS updates, getting everyone sorted, BEFORE we change the servers.... sure that's good and it is done that way on the more active vCommunities.

I had considered suggesting that route but the 229th currently is not in the 'active' bracket with online interaction at the moment being minimal - I have tried to generate interest for co-op missions but there is none, with me anyway... so to do as you suggest would take a lot of co-ordinated effort for no real benefit - because there is minimal group interaction... anyway that's my view..... and I always get into trouble for expressing my views... I'm sure others disagree....

DaBomb and SIX look after what's on the servers so that'll be their decision...

(A/229) Huckleberry wrote:Otherwise, I feel like we're putting ourselves in a bad spot, vulnerable to disappointment and outrage, by always hanging out on the bleeding edge, at the mercy of the devs.

I know the feeling and share the same frustration with ED / DCS however for the bucks there is nothing else around anywhere near as good...  Maybe their development and marketing models allow this...?

(D/229) Gizzy wrote:
I had considered suggesting that route but the 229th currently is not in the 'active' bracket with online interaction at the moment being minimal - I have tried to generate interest for co-op missions but there is none, with me anyway... so to do as you suggest would take a lot of co-ordinated effort for no real benefit - because there is minimal group interaction... anyway that's my view..... and I always get into trouble for expressing my views... I'm sure others disagree....

No doubt, the 229th is in a lull. In my view, the "interest" issue reflects a perfect storm of membership real life considerations, time zones, sitting back waiting for the Map/Version merger, recent attractive alternatives to the relatively stagnant rotary domain, and struggling to keep frustrated less experienced members up and running through these agonizingly disruptive updates.
I look at it as temporarily operating in maintenance mode where the currently active core membership is gaining experience and skill. When the storm subsides, we will hit the ground running and Gizzy's struggle will then be trying to keep the membership fed.



_________________

Elegantly penned Chic... you're right of course...

(A/229) Chic wrote:... and Gizzy's struggle will then be trying to keep the membership fed.

I am only posting to show I'll paying attention.

I'm also posting in support of Chic, Gizzy and all upper level staff that are standing tough. Just as Chic say's when the storms subsided between the updates, new models and real life conflicts that hinder us from doing important stuff like flying online... , I too will be in a better position to help pump out mission ready pilots for some of those advanced high profile online missions. Don't lose faith and to those of you that are holding this group together...I salute you.

I think alot is the summer lull. All the really cool outside things that need to be done. lol

That and speaking for myself I have some games that has released new content so I've been trying to catch up on them but Im around.