Memory Limit/Load Issues

To join the analogy train...i built this house about three years ago (see sys).

 

Recently rennovated upstairs from an R295x2 to a 1080ti. No problems then and no problems now. Go figure.

I have an Alienware Aurora 7 with 32GB memory and i have this happen all the time

Weird! 24GB of RAM and SSD but still experience 4-5 min load times (only in multiplayer). i7 4770k OC 4.2Ghz w/ GTX 908ti. When finally loaded into multiplayer, it is nice and choppy for about another 4-5 min before smoothing out.

 

SO weird! Being that its only in multiplayer that I have these problems. I guess I should get that extra 8Gb of RAM to fix this!

the long loading time only happens the first time for me. After that is smooth sailing all the way.

Weird! 24GB of RAM and SSD but still experience 4-5 min load times (only in multiplayer). i7 4770k OC 4.2Ghz w/ GTX 908ti. When finally loaded into multiplayer, it is nice and choppy for about another 4-5 min before smoothing out.

 

SO weird! Being that its only in multiplayer that I have these problems. I guess I should get that extra 8Gb of RAM to fix this!

In multiplayer the server/host upload is a factor as he needs to upload the whole mission to all clients when they join.

I don't really care to much about long loading times. As long as i get in. And as long as i can ALT TAB to do other things or press ESCAPE to stop the loading any time i want. A certain mil sim game had the same issue. And this solution about pressing ESC to stop the loading was first answered with that that it would not be possible. But voila... After some time mil sim 3 could exit the loading at any time. Saves a lot of frustration.

This loading dance i need to do every time to join a MP server is driving me crazy. I'm glad to hear you pro's are working on it. I will be playing Squad till then (i probably still be tempted haha).

Going back to 1.5 does not make sense... I tried doing that every time I got frustrated with 2.5 but going to 1.5 (although more stable) feel like being stuck in limbo or purgatory). I decided to stick with 2.5 and ride thru the bugs with ED.

In fact, it looks pretty decent, compared to what I've seen in 2.5. Perhaps 2.5 shines on all-medium or all-max settings, but on low it looks far worse than 1.5.

 

Older versions will not receive updates. That is why they are old versions.

I sure hope ED reconsiders this. This is one of two extremely important gameplay features that were truly needed for all these years (the other one is BMP-2 related).
Edited April 14, 2018 by NineLine
Removed 1.15

I don't really care to much about long loading times. As long as i get in.

 

This.

ED wants to focus on one version, we have spent a long time with them balancing 1.5.X and 2.X and it hasn't been that easy or fun, I look forward to them going full steam ahead with 2.5 and optimizing and improving further, it makes no sense to support older versions, the goal is to move forward.

 

Totally agree to this. Old versions is, well, old. :thumbup:

Thats Like asking MS to put DirectX12 on Windows XP

I sure hope ED reconsiders this. This is one of two extremely important gameplay features that were truly needed for all these years (the other one is BMP-2 related).

 

I have no clue what world you are living in but life, and software, does not work that way.

On one of my older PC's, I spend less than 200 euros on a rather low-end GTX 1050 with 8GB VRAM that only needed one slot and no extra power connection, and I was all set and done: I have excellent graphics in 2.5 on that system.

 

The only thing you have on all systems high or low is the long loading time, but that doesn't really matter since once in game everything works fine.

This problem es a big problem, because if this happen with actual size of maps, make bigger maps it´s almos impossible

 

Why ED doenst do the technique "bubble" around the plane, and load only that bubble of let say, 75 km?

ED wants to focus on one version, we have spent a long time with them balancing 1.5.X and 2.X and it hasn't been that easy or fun, I look forward to them going full steam ahead with 2.5 and optimizing and improving further, it makes no sense to support older versions, the goal is to move forward.

Updating the game engine or assets is obviously not fun, it's work. I know that ED wants to focus on one version. But we should all clearly understand that since 2.5 not everyone will be able to use that version. When a typical user with 4-6GB RAM and 1GB video card attempts DCS, the result will be predictable. They won't listen to cool stories about 200E instant satisfaction video cards here -- they won't even go to the forum. This is a problem, it always was. In 1.5.6. that problem was solved, but for now it has resurfaced. Making something that looks awesome is not that hard. What hard really is it's when you try to put that something onto a real machine that does not have large (any, in fact) SSD or 32GB RAM.

 

This problem es a big problem, because if this happen with actual size of maps, make bigger maps it´s almos impossible

 

Why ED doenst do the technique "bubble" around the plane, and load only that bubble of let say, 75 km?

I don't think anyone here knows. This is an inherent engine problem since F2 :(
Edited April 14, 2018 by Черный Дракул

There is already a bubble around the plane.

 

Is called Terrain radius preload.

When a typical user with 4-6GB RAM and 1GB video card attempts DCS, the result will be predictable.

 

It has been many years since that was a typical system.

 

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam?platform=pc

It has been many years since that was a typical system.

 

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam?platform=pc

Not that many, although it seems ATM 8GB RAM and 2GB VRAM is the most common config. Anyway, even judging by this graph, by forcing 16GB requirements, ED will cut off almost half of the playerbase. And I can't find HDD type to find how many will be cut off by required SSD - is there such an info on that graph?

Not that many, although it seems ATM 8GB RAM and 2GB VRAM is the most common config. Anyway, even judging by this graph, by forcing 16GB requirements, ED will cut off almost half of the playerbase. And I can't find HDD type to find how many will be cut off by required SSD - is there such an info on that graph?

What do you expect from ED and the 3rd parties?

Half the player base? Where did you get that figure from? Source required.

He said "almost half"

42% exactly. Source ? the link he quoted…

TEMPUS FUGIT

 

What is cool & fast today is medium class in 6-12 month, ok for another 12-24 months and then it gets very long in the tooth until it is obsolete.

 

I have 3 kids on my own, 2 step children, money is always tight and I am happy I have the rig in sig as I won't have the cash to upgrade next few years, rather I am buying shoes.

Still, I do understand ED with this concept in forcing better hardware, there is no way around.

When the time comes when my machine gets old, I will accept it and not ask ED to turn back time. Be honest, be true, be fair.

 

The 16-32GB issue is tough, yes, the current prices make it even harder, but let us not forget that we all wanted ED to move on, go further, make it better, more modules, more maps, better terrain....it came at a price.

I got all of my data saved when I did Over The Hump, but I'm doing Fortress Mozdok, and lots of flight time (but only flight time) got lost.

He said "almost half"

42% exactly. Source ? the link he quoted…

 

Thanks. :thumbup:

What do you expect from ED and the 3rd parties?

To do something with BMP-2 AA scourge?

 

What is cool & fast today is medium class in 6-12 month, ok for another 12-24 months and then it gets very long in the tooth until it is obsolete.

That was quite a few years ago. ATM the market pretty much stagnates. From one side, most studios have learnt to implement optimizations to fit their games into current machines, from the other it seems hardware vendors have hit a stone wall with current technology. 8GB RAM + 2GB VRAM is viable for everything for how long now? And it does not show a tendency to change.

 

I do understand ED with this concept in forcing better hardware, there is no way around.

(with quiet wisper) ...optimization?..

 

when my machine gets old, I will accept it and not ask ED to turn back time. Be honest, be true, be fair.

No one asks for turning back the time. The only thing I ask for is when new DM and AI is implemented, it would be to all versions of the engine, since those of us that can't keep up with ED hardware expectations still play the game.

 

let us not forget that we all wanted ED to move on, go further, make it better, more modules, more maps, better terrain....it came at a price.

It didn't have to and you know it.