ED has raised the DCS system requirements on the steam store page (GTX 1070 is now listed as a minimum for low settings).

[statrekmike]

Just noticed that Eagle Dynamics has updated the system requirements on DCS's Steam store page. I can't find a topic about it here so I figured that it would probably be a good idea to let folks know if only to avoid confusion. Hopefully this isn't as severe a requirement hike as it looks.

 

  Here are the updated requirements as they appear on the Steam store page. 

 

 

• MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS (LOW graphics preset settings): OS 64-bit Windows 8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+ at 3+ GHz or AMD FX / Ryzen; RAM: 16 GB (32 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 120 GB on Solid State Drive (SSD); Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 / AMD Radeon RX VEGA 56 with 8GB VRAM or better; Joystick; requires internet activation.

• RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS(HIGH graphics preset settings): OS 64-bit Windows 8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+ at 4+ GHz or AMD FX / Ryzen; RAM: 16 GB (32 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 120 GB on Solid State Drive (SSD); Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 / AMD Radeon RX VEGA 64 or better; Joystick; requires internet activation.
  
  RECOMMENDED VR SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS (VR graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i7-9700 / AMD Ryzen 3700X or better; RAM: 32 GB; Free hard disk space: 120 GB on Solid State Drive (SSD); Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 2080 Ti / AMD Radeon RX 5700 or better; Joystick; requires internet activation.

[NineLine]

DCS World is an ever evolving product, as such, we tweak, adjust and update specs all the time, the changes you see are all encompassed in that, as well as making sure they match across the board on our other products, thanks!

[statrekmike]

8 minutes ago, NineLine said:

DCS World is an ever evolving product, as such, we tweak, adjust and update specs all the time, the changes you see are all encompassed in that, as well as making sure they match across the board on our other products, thanks!

 

  That is totally understandable. I guess if I have one specific question, it is if this is something that will really hit us when 2.7 comes out and if so, how severe of a impact can we expect in practical, normal use terms (where running everything on low isn't really a viable option). 

[panton41]

Well, the only problem for me (with a 1070) is that it's impossible to upgrade if I wanted to because the graphics card market is crazy right now and will be for the foreseeable future.

[Adder76]

Sorry, but does it mean that having an 8gb graphics card will be mandatory in short term? That kind of graphics cards are absolutely skyrocketing right now. I'm afraid that buying a new one with that amount of memory will be prohibitive for many users. At least, for a long time.

[3WA]

Actually, I have a (all components) 7 year old computer with a GTX-770 in it, and I can hit 60 FPS at all low with Ka-50.

 

So, graphics are still well within decent bounds for modern video cards.  Go ahead and push it DCS!

 

Besides, aren't we getting Vulcan around 2.7ish or so?

 

And just give it a few months.  GPU production will catch up with demand, and prices will start coming down again.

 

We've just got to hold out and be patient.

Edited February 21, 2021 by 3WA

[NineLine]

42 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

 

  That is totally understandable. I guess if I have one specific question, it is if this is something that will really hit us when 2.7 comes out and if so, how severe of a impact can we expect in practical, normal use terms (where running everything on low isn't really a viable option). 

We are monitoring it all as we go, clouds so far haven't really affected anything noticeably, if anything those hanging on with lower end systems and already struggling my have a little more trouble, but I havent seen anything so far that would make me want to wave any warning flags.

 

Also, those commenting about Vulcan, it is not a silver bullet to make older systems ad good as new ones, and Vulcan allow wont make huge differences, the total work on the graphics engine should help, but understand, DCS is moving forward, along with computer hardware.

[wilbur81]

52 minutes ago, panton41 said:

Well, the only problem for me (with a 1070) is that it's impossible to upgrade if I wanted to because the graphics card market is crazy right now and will be for the foreseeable future.

Agreed. It's a bummer.

[Taz1004]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

but understand, DCS is moving forward, along with computer hardware.

 

I don't think anyone's questioning that.  Doesn't need to be repeated.  Question is... that's a big jump from GTX 760 to GTX 1070.  3 generations jump.  And the question on everyone's mind is... is the 2.7 performance hit relative to that jump.

 

I'm guessing it's not the chipset but the 8GB VRAM that became the minimum requirement.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Taz1004

[statrekmike]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

We are monitoring it all as we go, clouds so far haven't really affected anything noticeably, if anything those hanging on with lower end systems and already struggling my have a little more trouble, but I havent seen anything so far that would make me want to wave any warning flags.

 

Also, those commenting about Vulcan, it is not a silver bullet to make older systems ad good as new ones, and Vulcan allow wont make huge differences, the total work on the graphics engine should help, but understand, DCS is moving forward, along with computer hardware.

 

 

   I do indeed understand that computer hardware moves forward but right now, I guess I am concerned that we will see a case where many with 10 series cards (or the equivalent, or less) are suddenly going to go from being able to run DCS with a certain measure of compromise between graphics and performance one day and then get pretty much locked out the next. I mean, the jump from a GTX 760 to a GTX 1070 as the minimum for low settings is a bit alarming and even something as simple as a straightforward, relatively basic outline of what users using such cards can expect when 2.7 arrives will perhaps at least help us put this into some kind of perspective. 

 

  Don't get me wrong. I am not exactly getting ready to light up any torches or start a pitchfork distribution stand but I do think that such a jump does warrant some kind of realistic, practical, perhaps overly conservative outline of what the minimum, recommended, and VR users can expect if they fall into one of such categories. If only so we can start the process of selling internal organs to afford a new GPU or something to that effect.

[NineLine]

25 minutes ago, Taz1004 said:

 

I don't think anyone's questioning that.  Doesn't need to be repeated.  Question is... that's a big jump from GTX 760 to GTX 1070.  3 generations jump.  And the question on everyone's mind is... is the 2.7 performance hit relative to that jump.

 

I'm guessing it's not the chipset but the 8GB VRAM that became the minimum requirement.

 

Yeah, the VRAM is a big deal for sure. 

[Enduro14]

Hate to say it folks, but it’s the reality of this industry.  Save money for upgrades....

[Taz1004]

1 minute ago, Enduro14 said:

Hate to say it folks, but it’s the reality of this industry.  Save money for upgrades....

 

As said above, it's not the money.

[statrekmike]

2 minutes ago, Enduro14 said:

Hate to say it folks, but it’s the reality of this industry.  Save money for upgrades....

 

 

 Yeah, we have already acknowledged that we understand the nature of the industry. Hardware gets better and long-lived titles like DCS have to follow suit. What we are asking for is a practical outline of what we can expect now that the minimum requirements have taken a very, very significant jump. It is a valid question and especially valid considering the way the hardware market is. I am not engaging in this thread because I want them to slow down for my sake, I am engaging in this thread because jumping that many GPU generations in the "minimum requirements for low settings" is a big deal. It may not be a big deal for those already running very high end systems. It may not be a big deal for those that can afford the $1000+ for a decent GPU for DCS but it is a big deal none the less.

[Mars Exulte]

It's no different than the jump from 1.5.8 to 2.5, if people aren't able to follow right away, they can hang on to the older version for a few months until they can get their hands on a more appropriate GPU. Not that big a deal, folks, don't worry. Your game won't suddenly stop working altogether.

[LucShep]

20 hours ago, NineLine said:

DCS World is an ever evolving product, as such, we tweak, adjust and update specs all the time, the changes you see are all encompassed in that, as well as making sure they match across the board on our other products, thanks!

 

We all understand that's how things naturally evolve in the games industry along with tech. The main issue here is that we're living in a particularly strange moment in history, and it starts to look like DCS is not keeping up with the times.

 

The "mid-range" PC gaming system of 1000,00 EUR/USD had been fine each given time of DCS releases before (e.g., such value system in 2011 would be fine for DCS A-10C, it'd be fine in 2013 for DCS World 1.2, and it'd be fine in 2016 for DCS World 1.5). It's no longer the case since DCS World 2.5 in 2018, with much steeper requirements comparatively. Not just substancially higher in terms of RAM but especially of GPU requirements (and let's not get into VR!). It didn't get better with each update.

While not ideal, it got -more or less- accepted by the userbase. But then 2020 happened...

 

Enter 2020 and.... we got Scalpers, Crypto-Mining and the global pandemic. With no known date for solution, as of today, in 2021. 

The PC hardware market is no longer what it used to be, prior to 2020. What was previously expensive yet available, is now pretty much impossible to get.

Meaning, even users who are able to pay for big upgrades, simply can not do it. Look around - GPUs are globally out of stock!

 

Recently, talking with a few friends in the gaming industry, the problem seems to be taking such proportions (even devs having troubles, unable to upgrade GPUs), that a considerable part of the workflow for upcoming projects is leaning towards urgent optimizations, to achieve lower hardware requirements for current graphical standards (so, to allow a larger userbase, as so many will indefinitely be stuck in current or older GPUs).  

 

 

My personal appeal to ED is to:

 

1) Understand that we're living unprecendent problems in PC hardware supply and prices, and act acordingly by adjusting solutions.

The current hardware requirements are already harsh for many current users, and a pretty severe entry barrier for new and coming users.

Making things this hard (or even harder) on hardware requirements will only funnel even more the small customer base, on what is already a very niche segment of gaming.

I'd even say that (not adopting solutions for optimizations) may hurt business.

 

2) Optimize textures for lower VRAM consumption - should not only be considered, it's a real necessity.

Anyone with basic understanding of 2D textures will have their jaw dropping once opening DCS's texture packages - useless and absurd solutions in so many things, everywhere. 

For example:

• 4K and 8K size on Bump/Normal maps and Specular maps, when 2K and even 1K size would've been the most correct; 
• Texture formats at DXT5 for textures with no transparencies (no alpha-channel), when DXT1 would've been the most correct;
• Usage of 32 bit-depth, even on Bump/Normal maps, when 8 bit-depth would've been the most correct;
• 4K size for Diffuse + Specular + Bump/Normal map textures on objects that'll rarely, if ever, be at very close view (missiles, vehicles, boats, huge etc), when 2K size for Diffuse and 1K for Specular + Bump/Normal maps would've been the most correct;

All of which makes no sense, it's absolutely insane (a humungous facepalm) once you realise how easily this overloads in the game. 

This has been pointed out in these forums before, namely in this thread and also in this other thread. 

 

No wonder then that even 8GB GPUs can choke with video memory maxxed out in DCS (and now a minimum requirement!) - there's a huge waste of resources.

Instead of neglecting it, the problem is easily remedied if all of the content by ED and third-parties has (re)adjusted textures for correct texture size, format and bit-depth.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of textures that could be down to 1/4 and even 1/8 of current size, with no noticeable image quality degradation when in-game.

Not only would it allow for a substancial decrease of installation size in disc and its usage, faster loading times, and lower downloads size/time, but especially a huge decrease of VRAM usage - resulting in much faster flow of texture streaming, instantly solving many of the current in-game stuttering issues (and less users complaining on forums!).

No buts or ifs, it would 100% be a win-win scenario.

Just this single correction/optimization on itself would very likely allow a decrease of hardware (GPU) requirements, making 6GB GPUs (for example, GTX1660, GTX980Ti, RX5600, etc) to imediately become perfectly usable in this aspect.

Do something about it or ignore it at your own peril.

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by LucShep

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Honestly, sounds more like admission that 2.7 is going to be pretty raw when it's dropped. Also, as LucShep pointed out, it's really time for ED to optimize texture rendering in a huge way. Mag3 did it. ED can too.

Edited February 21, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[statrekmike]

Texture resolution is really something that needs to be taken more seriously. Obviously there are going to be players that have rather high-end hardware and 8k displays that will want a option for 8k stuff (which could be offered as a separate download perhaps?) but as a whole, reducing texture resolution would make for some pretty quick wins in the optimization department and would not really impact visual quality in any major, wide-ranging way.

[Fri13]

I see in the future a new installer, where you select that what texture mode you want to download and install.

Four versions with a definition and explanation.

 

Low - 8 bit textures, 512px maps. Meant for max performance and minimum specs.

Normal - 8 bit textures, 1024px maps. Meant for balanced performance and common high end graphics cards.

High - 16 bit textures, 2048 px maps. Meant for best look with high end computers.

Raw - 32 bit textures, 4096px maps. Meant for texture modders.

 

ED would scale the textures and all to few presets. And they would be downloaded separately but automatically of so chosen in installer. The Normal is the default choice, but can lowered.

 

Those who want the current ridiculous textures can get them separately downloaded if so wanted.

 

 

[3WA]

2 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

It's no different than the jump from 1.5.8 to 2.5, if people aren't able to follow right away, they can hang on to the older version for a few months until they can get their hands on a more appropriate GPU. Not that big a deal, folks, don't worry. Your game won't suddenly stop working altogether.

THIS.  I'll just wait for GPU prices to fall.

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

It's no different than the jump from 1.5.8 to 2.5, if people aren't able to follow right away, they can hang on to the older version for a few months until they can get their hands on a more appropriate GPU. Not that big a deal, folks, don't worry. Your game won't suddenly stop working altogether.

 

Problems are that not everyone can drop a 500-1300 for a new GPU, and likely new CPU and motherboard and RAM as all goes hand to hand together to be usable.

 

To buy a 4 years old setup is not so expensive, but it is of course not enough.

 

Would it be bad to offer DCS version that might look as a game but works? Not all need a reality looking cockpits. Especially VR users can anyways use much lower quality.

 

But problem is again that so much is promoted on Open Beta, and average players are directed primarily to be Open Beta users. The stable is left behind and it is not marketed or promoted as primary platform as should. So that leads situation that all go to Open Beta and all get pushed with the latest problems and latest hardware demands and it just cause situation where lot of messages are about hardware demands and problems etc, that leads to overall product reviews and opinions being negative.

 

I can see it as a big deal in many scenarios.

But it is normal as so many want to be the first or have the best hardware and showoff that superiority over others.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

It could also affect sales in the interim. Who's going to buy modules they can't play, after all? Not many. Inactive players aren't exactly big spenders.

 

[NineLine]

Guys, honestly, I don't see a huge performance change right now with 2.7, so guys still with lower cards than a 1070 will still have similar results they have now, but really the requirements will continue to climb. We want to set expectations for users coming in and for the future.

 

Try not to panic right now.

[Nealius]

Wow, even an RTX2070 isn't enough for recommended VR settings? $1000 just for a video card is rather unacceptable....

[3WA]

Yeah, I have an old GTX-770.  Already hitting about 60 fps on low graphics.  If I drop to 45 or so,  no HUGE deal.

 

I prefer DCS to keep on moving forward.  Graphics cards will eventually come down in price.

 

Besides, you don't HAVE to upgrade.  Just wait until you can buy a new machine that can handle it.

Edited February 21, 2021 by 3WA