The 2.7. crashes – My preliminary conclusions

[wernst]

What can be said so far is that there are many solutions which have been reported here. 

All proposed solutions seems to be promising first, e.g. Nvidia driver update, critical Intel CPU, bad Windows update, DEP settings,

page file settings, TEMP folder deleting, DCS repair, deleting all mods, no OVC, Windows full screen . . .  etc . . .etc  

but . . .

 

. . . but the point is:

This kind of crashes have not been before with open beta 2.5.6. 

Yes, it's "open beta test" as BIGNEWY pointed out in bold letters. Which means, you have to expect and accept unexpected issues. 

Ok., but I never had any serious crashes in all beta versions before. I was always relying on betas because they all had minor flaws only. 

 

Almost none of all cure recipes reported here have been proven to solve the crashes successfully.

Any solution attempt may fool you with the desired effect which may suggest, you got it - but crashes come again, sooner or later.

The more you are playing with core settings of the system the higher the risk of implementing even real serious, new problems.

The crashes appear not consistently, this makes any problem analysis even more difficult.

 

Conclusion:

Only the ED devs know well what they have changed with 2.7.

Let them review all reports here and wait until they come up with an update. They truly know what to do, I'm betting on it. 

Meanwhile I have rolled back to 2.5.6 and enjoy DCS which is great even without smart clouds and new carrier features.

The only concern I have is that I already bought Mi-24P Hind which, when released, needs 2.7.

Edited April 30, 2021 by wernst

[TheGuardian]

Good on ya for rolling back to 2.5.6 till the bugs are sorted. At least you understand the Open Beta concept that many seem to struggle with. I guess I have been a lucky one, having only had 2-3 crashes since the new release. Hopefully ED will have it all sorted by the time the Hind makes her entrance.

[Fastbreak]

Hello wernst,

 

I have come to a similar conclusion as you did. Matt Wagner in one of his interviews talked about ED's expectation mangement and their trying to adjust users' expectations to an appropriate level. I deemed it a quite reasonable step to avoid frustration or annoyance to both ED and users. Thus -with regard to the 2.7 update- I was hoping for the best, but took some errors into account. When I realised the immense performance loss (fps/frametimes) I had to remember the begining in 2008 ... unfortunatelly. I do not enumerate all items neither my error recovery, I'm simply tired of it.

 

Conclusion plus:

I never lost my interest in flying DCS, but with 2.7 update I did.

Until further measurable results (not marketing statements), I have stopped flying (especially helicopters), because DCS momentarily is simply below the accepted quality for flying!

For the time being I continue to not purchasing any module (first stop due to long-time missing KA-50 bug-fixing). 

Best

Fastbreak

   

[wernst]

10 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

Conclusion plus:

I never lost my interest in flying DCS, but with 2.7 update I did.

Until further measurable results (not marketing statements), I have stopped flying (especially helicopters), because DCS momentarily is simply below the accepted quality for flying!

For the time being I continue to not purchasing any module (first stop due to long-time missing KA-50 bug-fixing). 

  

 

Hello Fastbreak

 

I fully agree with what you said, except for your decision not to fly DCS for a while. My frustration is as high as yours and many others.

But my solution to the problem is simple, I rolled back the update. I now have 2.5.6. stable that runs truly stably and that is the only thing that counts.

The 2.7. innovations e.g. such as smart clouds and prop graphics are nice to have but not so important to me.

 

So far I have always installed beta versions, there have rarely been major problems like the current crash problem. (I only remember micro stutters on the first 2.5. betas).
My annoyance about 2.7. beta is that the crash problems were predictable because the update is gigantic and new graphics functions (clouds) were introduced at the same time.

One could have guessed that this would go wrong. With small steps there is less risk of stumbling.

 

I just hope the developers will come back soon with an update that solves the problem - or at least with preliminary information. 

The only (marketing) statement which we got so far:  DCS World 2.7 Open Beta is now running at full power and feedback is coming in fast from the community. 

Full power? Hmm. Where? Who? Any answers to the community feedback?

 

The ED devs know exactly WHAT they have changed and WHERE it is. It should be feasible for them to identify the problem and create solutions to solve it, soon. 

We, on the other hand, try and tweak 1000 system settings that, at best, do not cause any new problems.
 

I also like to fly helicopter, my favorite is the UH-1H, I've already bought the upcoming Hind.

But now I'm afraid I won't be able to fly the Hind until crash free 2.7. stable has been released. 

 

best

wernst

[Pocket Kings]

Guys, I don't want to sound rude, but being a programmer myself I can tell you:

In-House, Alpha, Beta, Testing, Stable

These are the stages we use.

 

Nick in an interview with Growling Sidewinder a few months back said that ED changes their release strategy towards more frequent but smaller steps. 2.7 beta being the exception of course. Then two weeks of testing, then watch the community bug reports closely, then fix and move on to the next stage. That's exactly how I work alone / with fellow programmers in a team.

 

Just because beta has been stable for you in the past, doesn't mean it will be in the future, especially with the paradigm shift.

 

Or to phrase it differently: Beta became more of an Alpha 2.

 

Believe me, apart from the annoyance, the benefits for the development efficiency are huge with that kind of approach. With new updates, expect more frequent crashes and glitches than you're used to, but you can for sure expect a better bug fix management at ED.

[wernst]

3 minutes ago, Pocket Kings said:

 . . . a few months back said that ED changes their release strategy towards more frequent but smaller steps. 2.7 beta being the exception of course.

Yes, that's exactly the problem. 2.7 is a huge update with many new graphic related features. As consequence the chance to have multiple bugs is much higher than update in smaller steps. Why ED didn't stick to what they have announced before? 

I'm not a programmer but it sounds logic and makes sense not to write many new lines all in one go. That's my understanding of a beta program.  

 

[BIGNEWY]

Hi, 

 

if you have tried everything but have not resolved the problem 

 

Please contact technical support here 
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/

 

The guide below will help you provide the data needed.
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/support_ticket/

 

The support team will do their best to help you

 

thanks

[Tank50us]

Don't worry ED, not everyone here is taking the FTSIO route, others, like myself are sticking with it since there isn't really much going back, not when you play on servers and the things you use (like the Super Herc) require you to be on the latest build. That said, my guys take bugs like the ones we experienced today with a bit of humor. Sure, it sucks when it happens, but we know that fixes are coming, and they will come in due time.

 

But then again, what do I know, I'm just a steam user

59 minutes ago, Pocket Kings said:

Guys, I don't want to sound rude, but being a programmer myself I can tell you:

In-House, Alpha, Beta, Testing, Stable

These are the stages we use.

 

Nick in an interview with Growling Sidewinder a few months back said that ED changes their release strategy towards more frequent but smaller steps. 2.7 beta being the exception of course. Then two weeks of testing, then watch the community bug reports closely, then fix and move on to the next stage. That's exactly how I work alone / with fellow programmers in a team.

 

Just because beta has been stable for you in the past, doesn't mean it will be in the future, especially with the paradigm shift.

 

Or to phrase it differently: Beta became more of an Alpha 2.

 

Believe me, apart from the annoyance, the benefits for the development efficiency are huge with that kind of approach. With new updates, expect more frequent crashes and glitches than you're used to, but you can for sure expect a better bug fix management at ED.

and we have quite a few big patches still to come. Hind, Mosquito, Marianas... just to name a few. And that's just from ED. The stuff coming from the third party devs have to be released at some point, and when they are released, they'll have to do the same thing ED is doing now. It's not an easy process.

[Pocket Kings]

Nick in the mentioned interview also talked about "new rendering scheme in order to benefit from modern graphics architectures" (loosely quoted). They way I perceive the current situation is, like with all good catastrophes, a culmination of three factors:

1. Major DCS update

2. Microsoft hotfix regarding Intel microcode update ... as if Intel EVER gets hold of the exploits due to their uber bad CPU architecture

3. NVIDIA also incorporated the virtual gaming capabilities into their driver. A wild guess by myself but the way virtualized architectures work (which is among my specialties) is they add a layer of abstraction but also of complexity. I have no data that supports my gut feeling here, but history has shown that once a stable system that's being injected with another abstraction layer usually suffers greatly in stability in the beginning.

 

Some people act more emotional than others when it comes to frustration. If you can't stand the current instabilities and they ruin your mood, by all means, roll back to 2.5.6. To me personally I see it like the late von Braun: "I don't see an exploding rocket, I see opportunity to learn. As long as we receive telemetry from the rocket, it's not a failure to me" (loosely quoted).

[cfrag]

40 minutes ago, wernst said:

 

I'm not a programmer but it sounds logic and makes sense not to write many new lines all in one go. That's my understanding of a beta program.  

 

 

Not to put too fine a point on this: you aren't a programmer, and your interpretation of the term 'beta program' may need some re-adjustment. You seem to indicate that you have expected fewer bugs. That is your expectation, but 'beta' in no way implies few bugs, nor does it mean that there are only small changes. In development terms, 'beta' means that the feature set is closed (alpha stage) and that the development of all features is done. More to the point, beta simply means that the bug hunt has started in earnest. It does explicitly NOT mean the software is ready to use in any way shape or form. This has strong implications for anyone brave enough to run a beta: participating in beta means you are willingly participating in the bug hunt. We all want the latest and the greatest, and some companies bend to pressure and release software as 'open betas' to people who think it means 'good to use'. This thread is a testament to how this strategy can backfire and actually hurt sales and customer perception. 

Edited May 1, 2021 by cfrag

[Pocket Kings]

13 minutes ago, cfrag said:

 

Not to put too fine a point on this: you aren't a programmer, and your interpretation of the term 'beta program' may need some re-adjustment. You seem to indicate that you have expected fewer bugs. That is your expectation, but 'beta' in no way implies few bugs, nor does it mean that there are only small changes. In development terms, 'beta' means that the feature set is closed (alpha stage) and that the development of all features is done. More to the point, beta simply means that the bug hunt has started in earnest. It does explicitly NOT mean the software is ready to use in any way shape or form. This has strong implications for anyone brave enough to run a beta: participating in beta means you are willingly participating in the bug hunt. We all want the latest and the greatest, and some companies bend to pressure and release software as 'open betas' to people who think it means 'good to use'. This thread is a testament to how this strategy can backfire and actually hurt sales and customer perception. 

 

Lovely! Perfect explanation. Thank you!

 

I myself tend to drift too much into technicalities when talking to users. Your post should appear as a nag screen before entering this part of the forum so that anybody is on the same page

[silverdevil]

i would like to offer my perspective on this. i have been in IT since 1989 and for the past 25 a system engineer. so i have lived through a lot of dumpster fires and for the most part there are less dramatic failures. don't get me wrong, there are still plenty of debacles. i remember in the early days, patching a server was an adventure in pessimism. you always had to think "wtf do i do if this patch bails on me?" essentially a good backup and a back out procedure and a plan for how long to tread water. in the gaming world we battled the (d)early days of directx that was commonly a huge mess. but now directx is nearly only a footnote in the world of games. sure it is totally necessary. just not in the forefront of the users' perception. the DCS betas do have issues. the ED team learns from the deficiencies. i just moved from a pc i have had since late 2018 to a new one. i really took a look and planned out my process like i was upgrading a server or something. i had a good backup (most important thing in my post!) and was ready for a possibility for this to go awry. i have put a lot of money over the years in this hobby and i take it seriously. i was determined to not have to throw all the controllers, modules, and pc into the trash. my point here is ED, even beta, has a great product. sure there are issues. do a search for videos of the first test flight for the F16. but there will be joy in the end. there are many more people flying this sim that do not have issues then the other end of the spectrum. my grandfather used to say about electricity "it is amazing that it works at all. just be careful and expect problems". i can hear his voice saying this and he would be amazed at computers and flight sims. just be careful and expect problems.

[wernst]

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

 

 . . .You seem to indicate that you have expected fewer bugs . . . 

 

 

Ok, thanks for your verbose explanation of what "beta" means. However, it does not really explain what I expect from "beta".
Maybe I did not express myself correctly.

 

I do not expect fewer bugs but that there are no fatal bugs.

How do I come to this expectation? Simply because since version 1.5 I only had beta versions installed.

There were always bugs, sometimes they were not really bad, unimportant, sometimes they were even annoying.

But, I could fly, the PC was running, most of the time the joy of flying was not really limited.

The worst beta experience which I had was micro stutters when 2.0. was released. Annoying, but flyable. 

". . . participating in beta means you are willingly participating in the bug hunt". Agreed, but  . . .  
. . . but now I can no longer be a beta tester simply because the system keeps crashing and I shut down the computer in frustration.

I have two options: Roll back to stable or forget DCS at all until a stable version is released.

Can that be in the sense of ED? Make beta testing impossible? To frustrate their valuable testers?
Forcing all pilots to go stable so that no one wants to be a beta tester anymore?

Or even worse, they don't play DCS and don't buy modules anymore. 

I am curious what you think about this argument.

 

You're arguing from the developer's point of view, please allow me to sit on the other side of the table.

I would like to help make DCS better by testing, but I shouldn't be prevented from testing.

Edited May 1, 2021 by wernst

[Pocket Kings]

Hey, silverdevil, how dare you didn't mention BACKUPS BACKUPS BACKUPS!

 

Seriously, it's always a great experience to read the humble words of another professional. Most people don't realize how many moving parts modern software systems are comprised of. I bet not anybody on earth knows everything about Windows alone. Not one! Same is true for hardware, down to the electrical components, further down to physics.

 

You are spot on stating that people should be grateful for DCS World. It will never be perfect, never! It's software running on mostly broken hardware (yes people, they sell crap and you buy crap). The evolution is just too fast and people demand too much. We've seen over the years so many debacles, 3dFX anyone, it's funny to me so many people willingly still buy the PC hassle... for money. I thought back when Playstation came out that within 10 years no gamer would dare to touch a PC again. After all they wanna play games, right? Not be developers and bug hunters of their own.

 

If we could appreciate ED's mission a bit, maybe they should show the life of a typical ED programmer in a video, everybody would lean back a little bit and probably help in a constructive manner, rather than to expect perfection.

Edited May 1, 2021 by Pocket Kings
typos

[Pocket Kings]

13 minutes ago, wernst said:

 

I have two options: Roll back to stable or forget DCS at all until a stable version is released.

 

I am curious what you think about this argument.

 

You're arguing from the developer's point of view, please allow me to sit on the other side of the table.

I would like to help make DCS better by testing, but I shouldn't be prevented from testing.

 

 

No, you have many more options, one of them being:

Install Windows twice (separate partition, hard drive) and don't even bother to activate the "beta windows". Or run Windows virtualized like I do, then you can take snapshots of the current hard drive state and if something with ANY update (DCS, Windoze, drivers) goes south, rollback. It's not as complicated as you might think. I bet these days you don't have to touch the command line for such a profane setup. GUIs and web interfaces for everything. If you're interested, I can elaborate further and point you to guides, videos and such.

[MAXsenna]

Is there anywhere those of us who haven't had one single crash in 2.7 can report anything?
Yes, my frames went lower, and SLI doesn't like the clouds, (I know it's not supported, but it used to work and doubled my frames), so I have about 22fps on any map, depending on the module. BUT it's buttery smooth!!!! My experience seems better. So I'm looking forward to the future!
Cheers!



Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[XCNuse]

20 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Is there anywhere those of us who haven't had one single crash in 2.7 can report anything?
 

Me.

I have had a single crash, day after 2.7 dropped, after deleting FXO and Metashaders, the load times were severe and it was likely more my fault that it crashed.

 

So believe it or not.... yeah, there are people out there who literally haven't experienced anything that I've seen around.

 

I've been pretty active on the Discord server and have seen a lot of weird bugs and crashes etc. But somehow, I have not experienced any of it, nor has my [low user count] server.

[Pocket Kings]

Also don't forget that the perception is skewed. People rarely hit the forums and post something along the lines of "Hey, beta 2.7, works superb and stable, thank you". People open threads when something goes against their liking, naturally. We have a saying in Germany: "It's cooked hotter than eaten".

[wernst]

16 minutes ago, Pocket Kings said:

Also don't forget that the perception is skewed. People rarely hit the forums and post something along the lines of "Hey, beta 2.7, works superb and stable, thank you". People open threads when something goes against their liking, naturally. We have a saying in Germany: "It's cooked hotter than eaten".

So, may I assume, that your beta 2.7. works superb and stable? If so, you are the first on my new list of happy 2.7. beta tester. 

When this list reaches 100 names, I'll assume that something is wrong with my PC system and not with the 2.7. software.

But, on the other hand, until 2.5.6. everything was also superb and stable here . . . 

[flameoutme]

I just wanted to report that I experience 2.7 crashes. It doesn't happen on 1st flight. When I go to take off again it crashes. I start DCS again, it flies ok, then when I take off again... you guessed it.

 

I don't have mods, my 1080 nvidia is up to date, 32GB memory, win 10 (up to date). i-9700K intel. I do run VR Valve index.

 

Never experienced this level of instability before 2.7

 

I'm going to roll back now and wait for things to work themselves clear..

 

[Pocket Kings]

35 minutes ago, wernst said:

So, may I assume, that your beta 2.7. works superb and stable? If so, you are the first on my new list of happy 2.7. beta tester. 

When this list reaches 100 names, I'll assume that something is wrong with my PC system and not with the 2.7. software.

But, on the other hand, until 2.5.6. everything was also superb and stable here . . . 

 

For the most part, yes, surprisingly stable. Only crashed repeatedly as a fresh beta install, but that was probably my fault. Once I extended the page file, everything went fine. I once had a hard freeze, probably due to thermal issues of the graphics card (froze the whole host). It can get bloody hot in the server room this time of year since the AC isn't turned on yet.

 

Then, I'm well underspec'ed compared to those hardware beasts that people run. I only run a server grade CPU 4 cores + 24 GB RAM + 1060 GTX and I can play mostly on high settings to my liking. I even play remote, that adds latency, but hey it's not a shooter.

 

However, I'm assuming my setup is as clean as can be. Windows 10 + upgrades + DCS + NVidia drivers, nothing else. NOTHING. No helper this, no anti-virus that, except the "Great Defender of Redmond".

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, wernst said:

 

I do not expect fewer bugs but that there are no fatal bugs.

 

 

Your expectations are, unfortunately, unrealistic (and a sad truth - this holds even true for the release version of many other titles). Past performance is never an indicator of future performance; being upset because suddenly ED no longer exceeds your expectations when they are still within the parameters of what is considered 'normal' is a bit unfair.

 

1 hour ago, wernst said:

. . . but now I can no longer be a beta tester simply because the system keeps crashing and I shut down the computer in frustration.

 

Methinks you never should have been using a beta in the first place. And no, you can still be a beta tester (although seemingly ill advised) - you merely have to wait until the update cycle hits that fixes your particular issue. If you now say 'but I can't run DCS!' then, unfortunately, that is why you should not run unstable software. Your reasons for running beta are at cross purposes with the beta program. The beta's goal is to find bugs. Yours is to have an unimpeded gaming experience. They don't match, and you get frustrated. Use the stable version. That one has the same purpose as the one you are looking for; that one will not crash (... as often). 

 

 

1 hour ago, wernst said:

Roll back to stable or forget DCS at all until a stable version is released.

 

Oh my, how did we ever survive prior to 2.7 open beta? Truly a mystery, lost in time. 

 

 

1 hour ago, wernst said:

Can that be in the sense of ED? Make beta testing impossible? To frustrate their valuable testers?
Forcing all pilots to go stable so that no one wants to be a beta tester anymore?

Or even worse, they don't play DCS and don't buy modules anymore. 

I am curious what you think about this argument

 

Seriously? Can you perhaps be slightly less self-centered? You do realize that not everyone is experiencing your issues? Has it occurred to you that yours is not the reference experience? That perhaps yours might be (gasp!) the minority report? That not 'all pilots' are forced 'to  go stable'? That not everyone throws a temper tantrum when the warning that you are playing an unstable version turns out to contain some pointed teeth? That not all testers are frustrated when they actually test? That they don't get this flustered when they run into a show-stopping bug? From what read, you really should not, and should never, run a beta. Yours are avoidable issues.

 

I know that I'm not the center of the world, and that my experiences surely aren't everyone's. I would not presume that I speak for anyone except myself - my 2.7 experience so far has been quite pleasant, without big issues (so far). But I'm not extrapolating from my experience to everyone's so I will not make sweeping assertions of overdue praise for ED's stellar work on this beta. I also know that I should not complain if something that I was warned might happen actually does happen but simply file a bug report. I did have to wait six weeks last year when there was an odd bug in DCS that broke my version, so it's not as if I don't know the experience. Since I've invested more than USD 1500 into modules (plus controllers and VR hardware running up far more than thrice that) that was quite vexing. But, unfortunately, it comes with the territory. 

 

And yes, I agree that ED is behaving somewhat foolish allowing everyone to run the beta. Personally, since you asked, I think that if you quit your patronage simply because the presumably unstable version turns out to actually be unstable, you are behaving irrationally. 

 

[BIGNEWY]

Lets keep the bug section for bug reports. 

 

If you are seeing crashes add your dcs log, follow the advice and general troubleshooting. 

 

ensure all drivers and operating system is up to date. 

 

Thanks