Leaderboard

folks we know you are all excited, it will be worth the wait, Heatblur have been working incredibly hard. With that said please keep on topic here, treat everyone with respect. thank you

Personally, I'm glad this map appeared. I think that overall it's really good and it's a great choice for both - places and advancement when it comes to EA. Honestly, I expected something much worse due to the big lack of screenshots and videos before the release, but here we have a really pleasant surprise. Of course, like any EA, it requires further development and some corrections and fixes (for me, especially trees optimization), but I'm still satisfied. I've already spent about 8-10 hours on it till now, including flying, and there's definitely a lot to discover, and for now these are just tourist trips only, not combat yet. I also see that sometimes people complain that the objects do not correspond to real ones - it mainly concerns civilian buildings. I would like to remind you that DCS is not MSFS, is not intended to be and never will be. Moreover, one must probably be unaware that, for example, the map of the Caucasus, when it comes to buildings, is 75% fiction. Compare Batumi, for example. Here we have, first of all, a placeholders and this is what it should look like. Its similar with other maps, where this coefficient is smaller or larger, but never falls below 50%. If someone wants to have 1:1 - well, DCS is not for him Im afraid, sorry. I rather advise you to try MSFS 2024 (this year) and the photogeometry function, which is also not perfect and has a lot of drawbacks. Personally, Im of the opinion that DCS should map military facilities (including airports, of course) and strategic facilities - factories, mines, power plants, ports, etc. the rest should only contain characteristic objects (main buildings), of course the traffic mesh, and the rest can be place holders (but of course in the kind of a given region (roofs, type of buildings, colours)), not a big problem. Textures - ORBX - chose the path of photo textures, from the developer's point of view it is a slightly simpler situation than hand-made and pasted textures, it has its advantages and disadvantages. You may like it or not. Someone who had access to photo textures in the DCS: South Atlantic map knows what I mean, or has flown in FSX, P3D, XP or MSFS with photo textures. A photo texture will never have the same resolution as a regular texture made by a map modeler (alternatively, the map would take up 1TB) , it may be a shock for some people, but that's what it looks like (DCS settings also have an impact here). Generally, photo textures work best when viewed from a higher altitude (and screenshots), but again, I've flown here quite a lot on the copters at low alt and it's not bad, and I even consider them one of the better-made photo implementations. There will also be winter textures, although I hope it won't increase the map by another 140Gb ;). Photo textures take up so much, unfortunately, and I have to buy a new disk for DCS (more maps and modules are coming and I'm already running out of space). Personally, I would only consider changing the trees as a priority, because the current ones do not fit this region (too many deciduous trees), the trees from the Caucasus look better, fit better here and generate much more FPS. I consider this the Achilles pie of this map according me. You must also remember that you cannot exaggerate the number of objects and their accuracy (DCS does not have auto gen yet, maybe for whole world map, and there are manually pasted objects). This was done with the SA map (partly, there are other problems), which has more complaints and is the map that is least used by everyone. More objects means less FPS. Not everyone flies in 2D, not everyone has high-end PC. So the map also has to be a compromise between look and performance. You can not have everything, simply, remember this. I'm actually pleasantly surprised and I'm glad that the map looks like this. Some things require corrections and improvements, but overall Im very satisfied. Good work for beginning of this EA stage!

Another sneak peek...

Hello everyone. The RoughMet Material issue has been solved thanks to CH and feedback from EightBall. CH took the time to get on a quick call and show me how it's done. Another task checked off my list of things to learn. I will work on finishing up the Italian ships for DCS. I am keeping the texturing simple concerning rust and weathering. I will create more hull numbers for the ships. I think they're too large. One of the downsides to creating 3d models using SP is creating liveries. So I will create all four versions of the Comandanti Class Frigate. Stay tuned. Thanks for your patience.

A little something to calm the fever, soothe the brow, and ruddy drool over

Меня больше всего бесит - почему меня нагло обманули? Покупал я одно, а получил другое?

Дело не в этом, а в том, что она не переделывалась с нуля. Она морально устарела. И как раз очень наглядно сравнивать игровую карту за пять тысяч рублей со старым материалом, ещё и бесплатным к тому же. Я готов поспорить на вкусный пирожок, что глобальных улучшений в картинке земной поверхности не будет. Бот может защищать карту сколько угодно, но мы уже сейчас видим разницу на примере того аэродрома между промо-картинками и фактическим результатом. Люди видят и покупают, а потом вот-с...

Weapons update and new liveries in testing now for the USS Bowen Here's USS Knox and USS Trippe launching Harpoons from modified ASROC launcher. This update apparently happened during the 1980s and could hold 2 Harpoons and 2 reloads. Since reloads can't be done at sea in DCS I went ahead and added all 4 Harpoons

Guys - come on. In a few weeks everyone is going to feel just a little bit silly after all the statements and jibes that seem to have been the norm lately. Everyone is just making a mountain out of a mole-hill.

Weapons update and new liveries in testing now for the USS Sacramento

I have a feeling "the players (TM)" would then complain that the Instant Action missions are boring and stupid and don't offer any real value and all the developers had to do was to do JUST ONE OR TWO well thought out instant action missions per module, THAT'S ALL IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN!!!!1! Of course as soon as an update drops and new airfields are added, the devs would be criticized for not immediately adding Instant Action missions at those new airfields for the one or two modules a particular player is interested in, conveniently ignoring the fact that there are currently some 50ish modules, meaning we're easily talking more than a hundred IA missions just to cover every module with cold start, sightseeing and a simple targeting range mission. And all of that of course on a map that, as we all know, has just been released into Early Access, meaning the devs might already have some pretty solid ideas where they'd like to put such missions - but if those areas aren't part of the detailed map yet, they'd have to do all those 150+ missions again a couple months or years from now. It's always easy to ask for this kind of content as long as it's someone else who has to do the work. Granted, I'm far from being an expert on the gaming industry as such. But I have a hard time thinking of just one game that allows players free access to the full content for a duration of 2 weeks once every 6 months. I have an even harder time thinking of just one game that would allow this kind of access at release. There are probably examples out there, but I'd say it's far from the norm. I've got a feeling these days you're not particularly fond of ED and all the 3rd parties as developers, and of DCS as a game. That's fine. But when you make it sound as if the DCS ecosystem was literally the most greedy and unreputable thing in the entire gaming industry, that's a pretty big stretch right there.

? Ну и какой смысл использовать 50-60 разных текстур если в результате получаем это?

I'll add your suggestions to the list and we'll see when it's time for the next Russia update.

Well got it downloaded today and took a flight around Murmansk, got to say its way too green the ground textures textures in a helo are truly horrible, why didn't they use the same textures from the Falklands around this area it would have suited it so much more and been a lot easier on the eye, also the textures are all over the place they are not even consistent. Also have to say if that's a high detailed airport at Murmansk, its a pretty poor effort from Orbx, they need to really look at Sinia and Syria and how well they are modeled even the building textures are bland and unaspiring, most of the buildings in the airport don't have roads or footpaths going to them ??, there are left over concrete areas that seem to have been placed and then have no purpose, it feels like a half hearted effort really. I was so looking forward to this map, I know its EA but even the high detailed areas shouldn't have got through like this, SA is way nicer with the texture palate, I cant believe this even got passed through with ED as a EA beta, feels very much like a alpha.

Btw. The size of Kola vs Caucasus with the same scale.

Thought you might find this interesting. From https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA231546.pdf This is from 1989. AMF is the Allied Mobile Force, a NATO quick reaction force to reinforce its flanks (either Norway or Mediterranean). MAB is a Marine Amphibious Brigade.

This has been fixed internally, waiting for the next patch opportunity.

@currenthill, is it possible to make a HD's model for the rest of DCS russian ships : The Grisha class The Krikav II class (Rezky) The Neutrashimy class The Kirov class Thus, with the AKULA & Typhoon mods, and the Sovremeniy & Udaloi mods that can easily be found on the site, we would have enough to populate Severomorsk with both a Russian (Modern) and Soviet (Cold War) navy. Of course, any additional Finnish, Norwegian or Swedish units would be a must to populate this new map!

Apparently some people are still intimidated by the mission creator and even the fast mission generator. So, I'm in the process of populating the airfields in Sweden, Finland and Russia for a border skirmish outside Kovdor. I'm using cold war assets only with one exception, I've put Finland on team blue as opposed to being neutral. Red - Mig-29A, SU-25, Mi-24P. Blue - AJS-37, A-10A, F-15C If anyone has any requests for other airframes that flew during the cold war please let me know and I'll add tasks before I upload it.

0:24 say again?

Hawkeye and I knocked up a couple of civilian ships a few years ago now - I can probably skin a Generic Norwegian Postal ship for you. Updated 8 May 24 - Regretably cant be done, this is very old model and the bow is made up from bits of texture taken randomly from differnt bits of the testure file and I cant line up the red band around the hull, its too broken up. Sorry. We may have found something better, we are investigating.

Well done CH, I personally can't thank you enough for all your amazing work! You Sir have done so much for the DCS World Community!! Timex 3

Здравствуйте уважаемы разработчики DCS. Расскажите пожалуйста, что там случилось с МИГ-23 и в целом с Разбамом? В английской ветке невнятная информация, сложная для понимания, конкретики нет. Стоит ли ожидать этот модуль?

Well, living in Norway, and having been to St. Petersburg (similar nature to Murmansk, otherwise I got family in Moscow, my heritage), while not being on point (skip the notion of photrealism - we are not there yet), it gives the "feeling" of familiarity in both cases. Again, there is much good, but also much that needs to be worked on - notably, coastal rocks/mountains, textures, etc.. The point is, Orbx did release pictures with even more derailed ground. If I'm not wrong, those were tuned down for performance reasons, much like the case with birch-trees and tree density. It's hard to blame Orbx for taking a practical approach to balance between fidelity/performance. If anything, this points to a situation where Orbx is likely sitting eith better viduals, but waiting with the release until ED/Orbx perform their performance-centered optimizations. In other words - higher quality craft could be a matter of a single patch when all relevant factors are st place. This is a pure speculation though. As to orthophoto, it's hard to say. MSFS2020 manages to automatically errect buildings and model terrain, based on whatever automation software that they have. In any case, it requires hand-craft to finalize the product. I won't really compare the two in visuals, because the aforementioned has a completely different sales model. Hail to ED for not allowing anything remotely resembling the PR-model such as individual objects (airports/smaller areas/whatever else) as individual modules. I'll also adress the common misconception spread around the forums, regarding the price of this map. Mainly those who haven't even purchased it, complain (typical...) that it costs too much for what it is. Whoever thought of that, as a argument, was not quite healthy up top. By purchasing a map/module/whatever, you purchase the support and a finalized product down the road. No, you didn't purchase a "early access" for the price of a full release. You purchased a full release at the stage and availability of "early access". Goes to show much university material there is around the internet... The term "sewing club", doesn't even begin to cover it... In any case, yes, constant visual improvements are, and will be a thing. There is no doubt that Kola will only get better. Orbx will have the chance to show how serious they are about supporting the map in the long run. If I recall right, the first update to Kola, is scheduled for June (#subject2change). While our reception might differ in certain details, the potential is there without a doubt

Thanks, good point. We'll look into changing it. Cheers, Holger

+++ SniperStudio +++ Coder & 3D Artists +++ I am currently trying to get together a team for Su-22M4 project. I'm looking for talented 3D Artist(s) and Coder(s) with experience in DCS. If you believe you have the right skillset and want to contribute to the project please get in touch with me. Details gladly via PM.

I think this is precisely part of the scam: We give you a map that is very, very far from being finished (and which is very ugly at helicopter height, even in the "HD" regions), and we give you says: Don't worry, the map is not finished, it will evolve. - Only 1/4 of the map is in "HD" - No winter textures at the moment, that's planned for later - The current textures also need to be reworked, particularly at low altitude. => What I deduce from this is that the card will require more years of work, that what currently exists does not even represent a beta, we are closer to an alpha... It is released " too early". If the map was at least 70% complete, and the textures in the HD areas were correct, I would be confident, but here, I sense the map coming which will be patched 2 or 3 times before becoming abandonware. I feel that the map will never be satisfactory for any aircraft operating below 10,000 feet. When we look at the quality of recent maps like Syria, Sinai or Normandy2, we are clearly a notch below. The fact that the map is in early access cannot be an excuse for the state of the current map. They could have waited another 6 months for the release and it would have been much more worked than that (even if there was always work to come afterwards). This map was released " too early"

We have been stuck with the same outdated special effect for many years, please update the fires and explosions to a 2024 standard. Same goes with the visual and physical damage model for playable modules and ai units. We constantly get new modules new terrains but the world feels lifeless, dcs core really needs to progress faster.

Hi everyone, With the release of the Kola map, there's a particular aircraft that's currently absent from DCS' roster that I feel would really help flesh out the region for the Cold War era (as well as giving us a Cold War era Soviet bomber that would fit well into the mid and late Cold War period). Primarily, the variants I'm interested in are the: Tu-16K-10-26 [Badger-C Mod] / Tu-16K-26P (KSR-2-5-11) [Badger-G Mod] - these are primarily maritime strike aircraft, armed with long-range anti-ship missiles. The main difference is that the former has a large, long-range radar in its nose and can fire the K-10 [AS-2 Kipper] anti-ship missile. The latter has a glazed nose, typical of bombers of its era and while it can't fire the K-10, it can fire the KSR-2 and -11 [AS-5 Kelt]. Both are able to fire the KSR-5 [AS-6 Kingfish] and both (albeit with the Tu-16K-10-26B version for the former) have conventional bombing capability. Tu-16RM-1 [Badger-D] - this is a maritime reconaissance version which is similar in appearance to the Badger-C (if you were to take the Badger-C, add a couple of radomes to the underside and delete the hardpoints for missiles, you'd be pretty much there). It lacks offensive armament. Tu-16P [Badger-J] - this is an electronic warfare aircraft designed to act as a strike escort. Obviously this would mostly just be decoartive without EW improvements to DCS. Externally it's fairly similar to the Badger-G (if you took the G, deleted the missile hardpoints and added a canoe-shaped radome along with 4 small air intakes to the bottom of it, you'd be pretty much there), like the Badger-D, it would lack offensive armament. The units on the Kola map basing the Tu-16 are the following: 5th Maritime Missile Aviation Division (5th MRAD): 924th Guards Maritime Missile Aviation Regiment (924th GvMRAP) - Tu-16K, Tu-16P. Based at Olenegorsk (previously at Severomorsk-1). 987th Maritime Missile Aviation Regiment (987th MRAP) - Tu-16K. Based at Severomorsk-3. 967th Independent Long-Range Reconaissance Aviation Regiment (967th ODRAP) - Tu-16K-10-26, Tu-16RM. Based at Severomorsk-1. Each aviation regiment having something like 30-40 aircraft each (at least circa 1990). For the former, we would be missing appropriate weapons for them, see the spoiler below:

I know for some the wait is unbearable but it will be worth the wait. We will be sharing news soon. thank you

That is a different discussion though, and I'm sure we'll hear news about the conflict in question soon. I see your point, though. While Kola seems is a very early release, it should be remembered that sheer size of the landmass is enormous. By the metrics of land, it is by far the biggest map. With/without AI-tools and automatisation, this map will take years to finish. Everyone ought to remember that. I have made a specific request to Orbx, that they should consider dropping the idea of making only select parts of high-quality, and instead, make the whole map of such. The area is too good IRL, to not represent it as such digitally. You have just about everything on this map, other than desert. It's a fantastic environment, especially in the realm of combat/conflict. I'll also mention that it makes sense that winter isn't properly simulated yet. Rightfully so, the current textures for winter (season) are not satisfactory for this region. Notice btw. how Orbx is actually pushing at expanding some of the limitations of DCS (file size, varied models (trees), etc...). It's good

Thanks, Beldin, I mentioned to him I'm creating a new model of the USS Bowen. Much cleaner version. Thanks for your assistance. Supersylph, I will upload the LCU-1627 to the new site and notify you all once it has been uploaded. Something that caught my attention is the ability for a vehicle to drive into the back of the new CH-47 that will be released next month. I'm hoping they can make that possible for ships as well. It's one reason I have held off on releasing the new LCM-8. I would like to add that feature to the LCU and ships also. I've tried adding a collision model on the ramp but it still doesn't allow vehicles to load. Italian Frigate update. Texturing is complete on the Comandanti. However, I would like to include RoughMet material but I can't find clear guidance on how to create it. If any of you know how to create a roughMet and or know someone that does please PM me. CH sent me a link but it seems it's more to it than that. Otherwise, I will texture, code, and make her sea-bound this week. Thank you all for your support and assistance.

Your hint is be very wrong. Verify facts before you spread incorrect information. Specter and Ripper work for Orbx. They are doing the SA map in their own time. They have also stated that the credits file is missing people and will be updated See my post above

I can't check but you should check your DCS > options > misc > F10 AWACS view. The restriction can also be forced in the mission itself or the mission from the server you're flying on. Last but not least check key binding for F10 map view or if it works on any other map.

Ride of thy Valkyries playing in my head right now.....

Hahahahahaha it's good it makes you laugh and it's good for your health, or I'm French and what I mean is when we press F10 what do we get in the maps view my friends (is it good this time?) and well for me when I press F10 nothing happens anymore no maps so I don't I don't know where I am visually. Otherwise everything is fine thanks guys

Of course, I fully agree, we are talking about combat simulator, military infrastructure is very important here (including bunkers and aircraft shelters).

It's good that you're enjoying the map, I just have a few thoughts to share: Well, for me it's not civilian buildings, rather military points of interest. These I'm more likely to want to visit, pay attention to and make mission objectives. Though for me, getting airfields as 1:1 as possible is important, as this is where it's likely to be most noticeable. Yes, the Caucasus map is also inaccurate - it's been brought up a few times. But then again, the Caucasus is both the oldest map (with a data set tracing back to LOMAC, even when it was redone it mostly only involved improving the resolution of the existing map) and a free map. I'm obviously not expecting 100% accuracy across the whole map, but I am expecting accuracy where it matters - namely aerodromes and military points of interest (especially things SAM sites - stuff that can directly impact gameplay). Yes, I agree. Personally, I lean more on the side of photorealism and colour accuracy, rather than resolution (as is the case with most other maps). Even as someone who likes flying helicopters low, where the resolution is going to be noticeable. Here though it definitely needs work. In some instances what was seen on release is lower in quality than how it appeared half a year ago (Olenegorsk being the chief example - an airbase in the high detail region). Yes, but this is what graphics settings are for. Of course it's difficult to reduce the density of objects in a setting, particularly for multiplayer.

Можете в качестве эксперимента forest_floor и подобные заменить на кавказские. Там открытый архив CloseupTextures.zip. Также, обратите внимание, многие текстуры вырезаны (файл есть, но изображения нет). Возможно появится. В архиве fir есть и такое, но в игре елок не видно) Сейчас заменю деревья на это и посмотрим что будет!

Oh, and did we mention already, that it looks absolutely gorgeous? Especially the outside model! On the inside it still looks very good but is let down a tad by the low poly count here and there (doors).

It took a minute working with many of the settings some have shared here but once you figure out how to fly it this mod is amazing fun. Got a solid hover on lift now and was even able to put it down cleanly on a moving destroyer. Great work and thanks to the developers for this amazing addition.

That depends if I have to change 1 number or 2 on the hull . But yes that'd be a good one to have

Maybe. Time will tell. I sincerely hope that Heatblur can turn their mountain of a roadmap into a more molehill sized pile sooner rather than later. They've got at least a decade if not more of planned projects and that's just what we know about.

Тут некоторые товарищи сетуют на размер карты, мол детализировать ее так же, как Марианы невозможно. Хотя тут вопрос стоит вообще не в детализации. Тут в целом в подходе к концепции дизайна вопросы. - Наш шедевр за 50 баксов и это с учетом скидки (это что-то на уровне дефолтного X-plain 11, может даже выше) Бесплатный Кавказ с модом А теперь внимание вопрос. Почему модер понимает как подбирать размер и тип текстуры так, чтоб радиус лодов деревьев не бросался сильно в глаза и текстуры с любой точки полета выглядели приемлемо, а не как низкополигональная подложка, а парни с большим опытом картостроения не понимают? Такое ощущения что делали на... сами знаете что, тупо по шаблону как привыкли. И это вопрос не детализации, это базовые вещи, которые сразу в глаза бросаются.

My fun/blow money budget isn’t itemized. Hookers/Blow/DCS modules are all in the same pile. I am talking about preorders based on the assumption that no one would be lame enough to whine about release delays if they hadn’t actually parted with some cash. Upon reflection, that is a ridiculous assumption. The most likely scenario is those complaining are just here to complain. They haven’t preordered, won’t be post ordering and will never fly the HB Phantom.

So you don't budget at all for "fun/blow money"? That should be a part of your budget no matter how big, and you keep forgetting to differentiate between major and minor with your generalized "financial decision". Edit: Also, why do you keep making this about preorders? No one but you has been talking about that. We're in here talking about the history of delays Heabtlur has had, given that this topic is about the most recent delay in the first place. I haven't preordered and have said as much previously. Heatblur is also giving out refunds no questions asked. I wouldn't take advice from some random guy on the internet anyways, especially if you think a preorder should be treated as "throwing money away" and not something closer to the truth like "future investment". Because that's what it is. You don't get anything if you throw money away and if you do then it wasn't thrown away in the first place, it was given in exchange for future goods and services.

Nope. Finance is money management. Your household budget is a financial decision. Individual purchases are not. If a DCS module rises to the level of "financial decision", that means it is a major budget item, which would automatically mean it should be stricken from the budget as it is a completely unnecessary item. If you can't throw the price of a module out the window once or twice a year without thought to its impact on your budget, you should not be anywhere near pre-ordering anything.

I'm sorry, but I totally agree - this is very disappointing. It has utterly failed to capture the look of the landscape - if you'd have told me this was the Caucasus map, I would've believed you. And this is supposed to be within the high-detailed area! For our most recent map, for the price, I'm sorry but this is deal-breakingly bad for me. It's such a shame.

OH-58D Kiowa Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

It sounds like there is no correction for relative targeting, and the 30 second figure is a "maximum GPS acquisition time", the bomb attempts to acquire GPS 3 seconds after launch. Please reference these 3 papers and they should be fairly illuminating on the errors that are being discussed here, and the things that the JDAM does to resolve these errors. The third paper also references a 5 meter CEP for JDAM when target location error is removed (if you input perfect coordinates) the 13 meter CEP often referenced includes an arbitrary target location error that is not related to the bombs ability to guide. If the bomb has perfect coordinates and acquires GPS, it should guide to within 5 meters, not 13. All three of these papers are publicly available and approved for public release. https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6123&context=utk_gradthes https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3487&context=utk_gradthes https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA389516.pdf