DCS World Patch Notes Discussion Thread

Has there been consideration of not adding things to 2.5.6 and cleaning up the bugs that exist on the open beta? If you're going to keep introducing new content that creates more bugs that delay the stable, then you might as well just get rid of it as you will be in a perpetual loop. This is coming from someone with no horse in the race as I only use open beta.

That's not really how software development works, not all bugs are clearly identifiable, nor can they necessarily be 'cleaned up'

well, until the end of last year, the stable was updated every two weeks with all the bugs of openbeta being ported over, only if they were completely game braking the update for stable was postponed, so the only thing more stable on the stable version was, that you saw the bugs coming two weeks before and then had to wait two weeks before it was fixed.

 

Now they finally use the stable build as what it is supposed to be: a platform that is not updated so often, but then by a substantial ammount and not with to many bugs. This means you have to wait longer for new features, but you don't get the stability issues and bugs that some openbeta patches get.

you said it brother :thumbup:

That's not really how software development works, not all bugs are clearly identifiable, nor can they necessarily be 'cleaned up'

That is how software development work. Look and Unreal Engine. They implement new features in alpha and CLOSED beta. Then stop implementing new features and troubleshoot bugs in OPEN beta. And then release to the public.

Looking at the latest changelog, it does look like ED are stop implementing new features....

I just tried the DCS Open Beta and man, what a difference. All the things that were bothering me in stable versions were gone in the OB. For example, A10C was constantly yelling me to "Pull Up" whenever I make hard level turn in Stable. That's fixed in OB. In some ways, stable version is buggier.

well, until the end of last year, the stable was updated every two weeks with all the bugs of openbeta being ported over, only if they were completely game braking the update for stable was postponed, so the only thing more stable on the stable version was, that you saw the bugs coming two weeks before and then had to wait two weeks before it was fixed.

 

Now they finally use the stable build as what it is supposed to be: a platform that is not updated so often, but then by a substantial ammount and not with to many bugs. This means you have to wait longer for new features, but you don't get the stability issues and bugs that some openbeta patches get.

Spot on! :thumbup:

Looking at the latest changelog, it does look like ED are stop implementing new features....

No, the train doesn't stop. Just because new features are implemented doesn't mean that bugs won't be fixed.

I just tried the DCS Open Beta and man, what a difference. All the things that were bothering me in stable versions were gone in the OB. For example, A10C was constantly yelling me to "Pull Up" whenever I make hard level turn in Stable. That's fixed in OB. In some ways, stable version is buggier.

Yeah, as many people have stated, Stable hasn't been updated in five months or something like that, there is a lot of good things in there, but a lot of bad as well.

I imagine once the kinks are worked out of the Open Beta, Stable will be updated to be on par, but its not there yet so you'll need to be a bit more patient.

No, the train doesn't stop. Just because new features are implemented doesn't mean that bugs won't be fixed.

I think you missed the point of what Thump was saying. New features "Usually" introduces new bugs. So as long as you're constantly implementing new features, bug fixing will never stop. You fix a bug, introduce new feature at the same time. The new feature has bugs so they fix that bug but introduce another feature at the same time, that new feature has bugs so they fix but introduce next feature with the fix..... endless.

You have to stop implementing new features "in open beta" if you want to release it anytime soon.

Of course the train doesn't have to stop for alpha and closed beta. But it is open beta we're talking about.

That is the Unreal Engine example I gave and that is how software development "supposed to" work.

It's probably just not the priority at the moment, I'm super excited about it, but I guess it's just not the in-focus thing right now, we'll probably hear more about it once SC and 2.5.6 is more out of the way.

Maps on DCS has builded by the map team Studio on Minks with building the Terrain engine and the TDK (Terrain Develop Kit). Has separate teams of the Moskov team and old BSK team.

That's not really how software development works, not all bugs are clearly identifiable, nor can they necessarily be 'cleaned up'

By this logic and the reason given by BigNewy, you're looking at never updating the stable version. So again, why have it in the first place?

I wonder about the Syria map as well, long time no news...

I'm sure the team doing the map, is not the team doing the carrier or working on the hornet/viper. I'm sure its in process.

 

A better question might be, what ever happened to the planned Afghanistan map.

I was explaining the news, not the development...

By this logic and the reason given by BigNewy, you're looking at never updating the stable version. So again, why have it in the first place?

What are you talking about? The stable can exist without updates, and it doesn't stop existing just because it gets left alone, in a more stable state (ha, get it?).

The idea is you update the OB so everyone can test it with their wildly varying set-ups and scenarios to see if everything works the way it should work, or at least more in line with how it should work (i.e not crashing or dropping tonnes of performance, like the initial release of 2.5.6 did) it'll get updated to stable.

The benefit of having the OB is that developers should get access to tonnes of diagnosis and reporting, on a huge range of hardware, user set-ups and scenarios, that would otherwise be impossible or require a heck of a lot of resources (referring to what Nick Grey said) on their end.

The thing is 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 are 2 different versions, stuff designed to work on 2.5.6 might not work with 2.5.5 and vice versa - it's why patches can sometimes break things that were working on a previous version.

So what will we have to do to make some features of the 2.5.6 Open Beta work on the 2.5.5 Stable? Well, we'll either have to test the features on stable (completely undermining the point of stable), and when they're working properly, patch again (so we've just made another version of the OB, both doing the same thing). Or we'll have to develop features to be backwards compatible, creating even more work and arguably doubling the testing workload. Then, once stable does get updated, all of the work done getting it to be backwards compatible with an earlier stable build, will have been totally for nothing - which sounds like a great use of already stretched resources...

Also that work making stuff backwards compatible will take time, so we'll either see more infrequent patches, or patches that when they do come, have less in them.

Look the current system is the most efficient and productive one given the smaller size of our resources - and that's Nick Grey saying that... Seriously accept it, and come to peace with it, you'll be far less frustrated.

Is the current OB/Stable model sustainable as a business for ED...

Two thirds of ED Customers are on stable...but they can't access any of the newer content (IE: They've still not got access to the JF-17 6 months after Deka released it to ED) they're not going to have access to Supercarrier...(or presumably the P47D etc)

Now that's obviously not THAT important to everyone on open beta (but they're a minority...and just because they're REALLY passionate on the forums/Hoggitt doesn't make their $s any more valuable)...but if that 60% of the user base (on stable) has no reason to buy ANY new content (be it modules, terrains, DLC campaigns etc) because they'll not be able to access it and because ED point blank REFUSE to give any information about when/if it becomes available...that means ED is now only selling to 30% of its potential customers...in what's already a niche market...

After the Jeff and SC...nobody on stable is going to be buying any add-ons until they know whether they'll ever be able to access it...will they?

They need to test it publicly first, before releasing it to Stable. The whole reason why people are on Stable is to avoid (most) of the issues of the OB. Unless they release it on OB first and fix the most important bugs, people are going to complain that it's super buggy. And that goes for the entire version build, not just the module. The only exception to this is the Jeff, true, but I think Deka wants to actually finish it almost completely before releasing on Stable. It's just that one module and although it's in a good state now, there are still radar issues and some other things to fix.

They need to test it publicly first, before releasing it to Stable. The whole reason why people are on Stable is to avoid (most) of the issues of the OB. Unless they release it on OB first and fix the most important bugs, people are going to complain that it's super buggy. And that goes for the entire version build, not just the module. The only exception to this is the Jeff, true, but I think Deka wants to actually finish it almost completely before releasing on Stable. It's just that one module and although it's in a good state now, there are still radar issues and some other things to fix.

There's truth in what you say - but where's the incentive for someone to buy Supercarrier?

No release date, no estimated timeline, no confirmation from ED it'll even be available in 2020...(a sneaking suspicion it might never be available is starting to float past many people i'm sure given EDs radio silence on the future of the stable branch)

That's for TWO THIRDS of the user base...and same will apply to the P47 and also to third party releases...though as evidenced by ED refusing to release the JF-17 to stable (not a hold up from Deka at all) they're not THAT bothered about licenced product generating revenue streams.

Its not the same as buying a product in EA...its far, far more ambiguous than that...

Without money from the majority of their existing customers...how sustainable are things?

Ok, I'm sorry, I know that Stable hasn't gotten any love in a long time, but now it's suddenly abandonware? That's insane. The 2.5.6 OB launch had tons of issues, issues that cannot be brought to Stable. ED never intended for this to be the case. Performance went down the drain for the majority of the user base, other issues popped up with modules, serious MP issues. I've never seen that amount of bug reports and users affected, at least since I started being active in the forums.

2.5.6 slowed development down, a lot. Are they taking their sweet time? Yes, but they have a ton of stuff to fix. Everything's coming to Stable, as soon as ED deems that's it's ready and bug-free enough to do so. That's always been the case.

About the Jeff, I'm not sure what's the holdup, maybe because Deka is a new third party dev, maybe because ED wants to verify info on the Jeff before it goes to Stable, maybe because Jeff is supposed to be released 99% complete on Stable, I don't know, I'm not affiliated with ED. But it's one module, this is not the norm.

Is the current OB/Stable model sustainable as a business for ED...

Probably (just my guess). EDIT: Yes, Nick Grey framed it as simply the most efficient way to do things without needing a hell of a lot more resources, and without it, you'd see aircraft that cost more and come out later and later.

Two thirds of ED Customers are on stable...but they can't access any of the newer content (IE: They've still not got access to the JF-17 6 months after Deka released it to ED) they're not going to have access to Supercarrier...(or presumably the P47D etc)

No, just the more earlier access content that's undergoing public testing. Later on they'll be able to access content by doing what I do in stable - and be a little bit more patient. And if I can't hack being patient, the OB it is then.

I mean, I am one of the younger people who play DCS World, and actually try to do it seriously, I started in April 2015 when I was 16, and I'm now 21, waiting around for stuff has always been an issue, sometimes it's weeks, sometimes it's months, sometimes it's even a year or two (like the 1.5 + 2.0 unification).

Now that's obviously not THAT important to everyone on open beta (but they're a minority...and just because they're REALLY passionate on the forums/Hoggitt doesn't make their $s any more valuable)...but if that 60% of the user base (on stable) has no reason to buy ANY new content (be it modules, terrains, DLC campaigns etc) because they'll not be able to access it and because ED point blank REFUSE to give any information about when/if it becomes available...

Look, the current situation isn't some massive conspiracy to wave around a gigantic middle finger to everyone on stable... 2.5.6 was bad and it's all hands on deck trying to fix it and get it working properly + there's the Supercarrier module. I'm guess that pulling resources away just to appease the impatient, especially when in the future, stable will eventually get updated to match the OB build (when the OB build is behaving itself), is a massive waste of resources that in the long run would've been for nothing...

There shouldn't be anyone on stable who wants just a second OB, it undermines the point of stable - stability, not something the current OB builds are famous for. It's getting fixed, when it is, it'll get ported to OB.

I don't want them even thinking about touching stable before 2.5.6 is properly ironed out - it works better for all of us at the end of the day (stable users get to suffer a wait, OB users get to suffer broken stuff, poor performance, crashes and being used as the DCS equivalent as guinea pigs). I like the fact that I can get decent-ish performance on very small missions while hosting multiplayer on my laptop with it's terrible thermal performance. I don't want to suddenly be faced with something unplayable, just because I can't hack waiting (even if it is a long wait).

You either pick good performance and no showstopper bugs, but larger time between patches (maybe even much longer patches); or you pick frequent updates, but more broken stuff, potentially showstopper issues (poor performance on high-end hardware, frequent crashes, stuff straight up not working etc), in the knowledge that you've installed something designed to test stuff out.

After the Jeff and SC...nobody on stable is going to be buying any add-ons until they know whether they'll ever be able to access it...will they?

YES!!! Of course they're going to be able to access it, what are you talking about?

And I pre-ordered the supercarrier from basically day 1. It does say in the E-Shop what it's compatible with, and if you want to access the JF-17 in stable there's a simple option - wait for it.

If you simply must have it right this second now, install the Open Beta - because stable isn't going to be for you... Later when it's ported to stable you can unistall the OB and reinstall the stable.

Don't want 2.5.6 and all it's issues? Fine, download SkateZillas tool and see if you can roll back to 2.5.5.41962 OB (though it should be said, I wonder why stable wasn't updated to the same level, before 2.5.6 happened - I guess it's because they got caught up in 2.5.6 and that's been the case since due to how botched it's initial release was).

Ok, I'm sorry, I know that Stable hasn't gotten any love in a long time, but now it's suddenly abandonware? That's insane.

It certainly SEEMS insane...but then if its not abandonware presumably ED would just come out and say Yes, we do intend to update stable by Summer 2020/Autumn 2020/the end of 2020...(delete as appropriate)

As i've pointed out before, putting dates to ACTIVE projects doesn't seem to be a problem for ED - Supercarrier, the Jug, the Marianas, the Hornet out of early release etc etc all have end dates attached to them...

An update to stable DOESN'T have an end date attached - and as we all know from our professional lives...no date, means it doesn't happen...as its not enough of a priority.

There's truth in what you say - but where's the incentive for someone to buy Supercarrier?

No release date, no estimated timeline, no confirmation from ED it'll even be available in 2020...

All incorrect.

DCS World roadmap update https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269757

...(a sneaking suspicion it might never be available is starting to float past many people i'm sure given EDs radio silence on the future of the stable branch)

That's just you.

That's for TWO THIRDS of the user base...and same will apply to the P47 and also to third party releases...though as evidenced by ED refusing to release the JF-17 to stable (not a hold up from Deka at all) they're not THAT bothered about licenced product generating revenue streams.

The last Open Beta version of 2.5.5 is available on ED's and Steam's servers for players wishing to fly the JF-17 on 2.5.5

Stable and Open beta is available to all, users have the choice to switch versions or not.

Its not the same as buying a product in EA...its far, far more ambiguous than that...

As has been said before EA has nothing to do with it, Open Beta is about catching game breaking bugs before making it the main/only way to play.

Without money from the majority of their existing customers...how sustainable are things?

Some players prefer a more stable game, but the trade off of avoiding new bugs, is waiting longer for new features/fixes.

There's a belief that users are mature enough to choose the version that's appropriate for themselves i.e. start on the most stable version and then switch versions as appropriate.

Comment

You seem to "want your cake and eat it" i.e. have all the latest features and bug fixes and none of the new bugs.

ED are working to make "stable" just that.

If impatient (after 5 months of waiting) you can switch versions or not, asking "are we there yet", "why do I not have the Open Beta stuff", etc. doesn't help.

It certainly SEEMS insane...but then if its not abandonware presumably ED would just come out and say Yes, we do intend to update stable by Summer 2020/Autumn 2020/the end of 2020...(delete as appropriate)

They've said, when 2.5.6 is fixed, they'll update the stable, how many times does BIGNEWY need to tell you?

They have an OB patch planned for May 20th if it goes well it'll get ported to stable a couple of weeks after that.

As i've pointed out before, putting dates to ACTIVE projects doesn't seem to be a problem for ED - Supercarrier, the Jug, the Marianas, the Hornet out of early release etc etc all have end dates attached to them...

Quote me a single date for when ED plans to have the OB all fixed and working normally. Guess what? they can't give you one.

Why can't they give you one? Because they don't have a crystal ball. Something could easily go wrong when released to the OB, so the OB is the testing branch, where stuff can be tested to the scale and variance not possible with developer hardware alone, which is why it exists. Because it's the testing branch stuff gets to the OB first. Once they can make an OB build where all the implemented features work properly, then stable gets an update. Stable hasn't gotten an update in ages because the 2.5.6 build isn't working properly yet, and hasn't been working big time at that - big problems require big amount of fixing, big amounts of fixing, means big amounts of time. I really can't put it more simply than that...

An update to stable DOESN'T have an end date attached - and as we all know from our professional lives...no date, means it doesn't happen...as its not enough of a priority.

Right, stop, just stop, there's far too much silly and brain disconnection going on here.

They can't tell us when, because it's impossible to determine when without testing and without results.

What's the point of hitting a deadline if it doesn't work?

It's like asking "when's your fusion reactor going to work" there's no way of answering it apart from "it works, when it works". They can't predict the future with these things. I mean if you want a demonstration of not being able to predict the future look at the missed release dates...

There's no priority here, - it comes down to the point of the Open Beta and the point of Stable. Stable, is supposed to be, well stable. Which means fewer updates, and only updates when they work properly. We'll know that they work properly, when they can be tested on the public testing version of DCS, the Open Beta.

Hopefully, the planned update on the 20th of May will go well, provided it does, a stable build could be a week or 2 away...

(Just want to apologise if I seem to be bashing ED, it wasn't my intention - it's just I understand that something goes wrong that didn't rear it's head until released for testing, I'd much rather wait (even for a long time) for something that works, than be impatient for something that's broken).

Utter waste of time...

I wonder about the Syria map as well, long time no news...

I recall reading that ED evaluated it and sent it back to urga for improvment. So still in progress.

This is getting silly really, no stable version update in over 5 months.

Some of us really don't want to fly Open Beta. Now if people say just switch over, so many good things, only little bad... no, some people simply don't want the bad, and rightfully so.

I hope we can see a new update soon.

This is getting silly really, no stable version update in over 5 months.

Some of us really don't want to fly Open Beta. Now if people say just switch over, so many good things, only little bad... no, some people simply don't want the bad, and rightfully so.

I hope we can see a new update soon.

Then you will always be disappointed if you don't want "ANY" bad. There are bad in current Stable build. Next stable build will not be perfect either.

it's time to update the stable ver.

after long time in OB it's time to update the stable