Future of 1.5?

Hello!

I run only version 1.5 of DCS because I think 2.0 with NTTR is not running with my specs (see signature). I have a few problems running 1.5 also, but it basicly works.

My question is, what will happen with 1.5 in the (near) future? Is the plan to keep both versions active or will there come a complete swap to 2.0?

Thank you!

I understand that version 2.5 will replace both 1.5 and 2.0, it will feature a Caucasus map with the same technology used on the current Nevada Map.

As of right now DCS 1.5 is the stable release of DCS world. 2.0 is an open alpha version of the game that has many improvements over 1.5 which I will not get into now. Once the new technology used in 2.0 is completed, both DCS 1.5 and 2.0 will merge into a 2.5 release. At that point the current Caucasus map will also be given a complete overhaul to the new tech used in DCS 2.0. Also both maps will be playable from the one instance (providing you have purchased the NTTR map or any of the upcoming ones.)

Thanks!

As stated, Everything is subject to change. :)

As stated, eventually 1.5 will be replaced with a version that can run the new maps. SO eventually it will go away.

Take your time and do it good, my plans changed and I won't have my new GPU for at least the next 2-3 month or so, so I'm not in a hurry but I'm still speaking for myself, others may not be so patient.

I would also love to see an ingame indication for the current RAM and/or GPU memory usage of the DCS application. This could be displayed in options screen when the game is paused mid-game.

And also an overhaul to the FPS statistics overlay, the "video mem" seems to not be a proper indication of current texture memory usage, it's instead a sum of the size of all (presumably) textures loaded from the HDD in a session either into GPU or CPU memory, which means it's not showing actual current (presumably) texture usage in any of the Memories, caused me a lot of confusion, if this item is useful for some, it should be renamed. A side effect of GPU Memory exhaustion also produces that some files (textures) are re-loaded from the HDD each time they're needed inside GPU Memory, they may get constantly cleared out of system RAM by mistake when they're not needed in GPU memory anymore, for that occasion.

And for the added indicators I think it more helps if it's showing the total memory usage, not just textures, each GPU and RAM, separated. Textures probably being the only thing in GPU memory should be treated as a coincidence.

As a bonus if possible, there could be another indicator showing how much memory that should be in GPU memory is offloaded to the CPU, but this could be made part of the GPU indicator simply as example 3000 / 2048 GB ... which would be easy to claculate for anyone manually, anything above the GDDR limit is definitely offloaded to the system RAM.

With these indicators, troubleshooting should be better in cases when optimal requirements aren't met, I spent many days thinking the game was buggy because I didn't realize 2GB of GDDR was simply not enough.

Thanks for passing this feedback forward.

Both 1.5 and 2.0 Run the Same DirectX 11 Graphics Engine,

The only Difference between the 2 is the Underlying Engine that governs Terrains and How they are Rendered (ie, NTTR Uses ClipMaps, Caucasus Does not).

Both 1.5 and 2.0 Run the Same DirectX 11 Graphics Engine,

 

The only Difference between the 2 is the Underlying Engine that governs Terrains and How they are Rendered (ie, NTTR Uses ClipMaps, Caucasus Does not).

Cool. Is there a general performance improvement going to clipmaps?

all i can say is, that nevada looks 10times better and runs 10times better on my rig...curious whether 2.5 will mean better performance for caucasus map as well...but regardless of performance, i dont see myself flying much on caucasus once 2.5 is out.

...but regardless of performance, i dont see myself flying much on caucasus once 2.5 is out.

Caucasus do have one big plus: there is a lot more missions and campaigns available for it ... it will take a long while for NTTR to catch it on this aspect :)

ah actually 1.5 doesnt run bad overall....but my feeling is, that there are a few unoptimised objects which cause some hickups...while 2.0 and nevada is 10times as detailed, and really really beautiful, and runs smooth as butter.

Caucasus do have one big plus: there is a lot more missions and campaigns available for it ... it will take a long while for NTTR to catch it on this aspect :)

thats true, but as im mainly into ww2 prop birds, i will probably be over normandy 99% of my time in dcs

ah actually 1.5 doesnt run bad overall....but my feeling is, that there are a few unoptimised objects which cause some hickups...while 2.0 and nevada is 10times as detailed, and really really beautiful, and runs smooth as butter.

My new GPU ETA 1 week, should see how smooth.

Black Sea map is getting a heavy overhaul, it should be much better, but this is a major part of the delay.

Crimea and Kerch Bridge right, right? :pilotfly:

... in future

As I am unable to make a big upgrade on my sytem for the next year I already have closed hopes for running 2.0... but when I read thru the answers it sounds a bit like 2.0 could run better as v1.

I think my sytem has the minimum requirements (see signature) What do you think, will it run on low to middle settings?

Thanks

all i can say is, that nevada looks 10times better and runs 10times better on my rig...curious whether 2.5 will mean better performance for caucasus map as well...but regardless of performance, i dont see myself flying much on caucasus once 2.5 is out.

cool stuff. On my system both maps run pretty much the same (i.e. very smooth) . I don't see a big difference in term of eye candy. Maybe it's because I use VR and the difference is masked by the resolution limits of actual VR.

Cheers

Fulcrum_64th

As I am unable to make a big upgrade on my sytem for the next year I already have closed hopes for running 2.0... but when I read thru the answers it sounds a bit like 2.0 could run better as v1.

 

I think my sytem has the minimum requirements (see signature) What do you think, will it run on low to middle settings?

 

Thanks

It runs better on new cards, because it utilizes them more efficiently (even on my old GTX780 2.0 reports 100% GPU usage vs up to 60% in 1.5). However, being MUCH bigger map (with more of everything - object count, terrain mesh and textures), it's also hardware-demanding, especially VRAM hungry, so users of old cards report better performance in 1.5.

2.0 is between comparable and a bit slower on my aging config.

I have found that Older Tech will run better on the G-force cards.

What I mean by that is this: G-force has legacy drivers that just work good.

AMD, never bothered to fix there issues when they purchased ATI.

1.5 bottle necks huge and is Processor bound .... and sees no benefit from newer video cards.

if there is, it is very little.

2.0 uses the GPU card much more effectively. But still doesn't have 2-card rendering which is too bad, as 2-high end cards running in 4k is magical. This is also a big consideration with VR!.

The only reason I still fly 1.5 is because it has missions and online play, otherwise I would not run it at all.

I have Radeon Fury X R9 and is over run for take off when 8 vrs 8 in 1.5. (again it is 2 big reasons why)

In 2.0 Navada with 8 vs 8 or more... so far I have no issues like in 1.5 with the Fury X.

@ $310.00 per card, I though I would try it. As it has very close results to the 980 TI when utilizing the 4k output. Says the results from different testers. I have yet to purchase a 4k monitor. That will be next.

Again...

1.5 and 2.0 Both Use the same DirectX 11 Rendering Engine.

Oculus and SteamVR both Do not Support SLi/Xfire Period, so no point in using VR as a Base for Multi-GPU.

It runs better on new cards, because it utilizes them more efficiently (even on my old GTX780 2.0 reports 100% GPU usage vs up to 60% in 1.5). However, being MUCH bigger map (with more of everything - object count, terrain mesh and textures), it's also hardware-demanding, especially VRAM hungry, so users of old cards report better performance in 1.5.

 

2.0 is between comparable and a bit slower on my aging config.

I agree that 2.0 uses the GPU cards more effectively, but don't you think the Desert is less of everything, comparted to a never ending forest, ocean, mountains ect. in 1.5?

Perhaps I am missing something (just trying to understand, as I am not an expert by any means)