markturner1960

Dude check out the other thread if you want to see what everyone is talking about......

This ^ I appreciate you work for the company BN and maybe limited to what you can say.......but I can read the papers and watch the news if I want to listen to politician speak..... I got zero answers to any of the questions politely posed....... I just dont understand why you cant do that......? People like me are your good clients...I have spent not far short of £2,000 on modules, campaigns and other DLC, a lot of which I never use....simply to support YOUR business.....its not too much to ask for a straight answer to a straight question is it? Anyway, thanks for the input

Thanks BN, of course - but I think I have been pretty fair in also pointing the bits that are good? Towns & cities and high altitude appearance....( although majoring on the bad, as this a thread discussing these areas, there are others discussing the good points!) As you have chipped in, I would really appreciate some input from you regarding the EA status and the confusion around it and exactly what is scheduled for improvements and what is not? As you yourself clearly stated recently in another post and ED on the website, it would be released "feature complete".....most people , myself included would read that as saying that what was released was pretty much the finished article.......Now you are saying thats not the case. Has the situation changed? And please could you give us, your paying customers, some kind of clear idea what you are not happy with on the release, whats planned for improvement and what is not ? That is not asking too much is it? I am sure you can understand the frustration when older maps by other devs are looking much better....I really WANT this map to be good, and hopefully the constructive critique will help ED focus on improvements. Thank you.

Any change in recommendations following the recent update?

Still crashes, here is latest log dcs.log

Thx for the quick reply....dont have any main folder mods enabled, ( had turned off for the update using OVGME and have not re enabled yet...) but will turn off all saved game mods Interested as to how it runs ST if its not detecting my GPU? Everything else on the PC is good? Will report back after repair

As title, was fine last night....today, wont start in MT, does so in ST. Enclosed the log Any help appreciated...dont know if its relevant, but the auto crash report send process occurs twice if you press OK to send report..... dcs.log

Thanks, turns out mine were already set to zero.....still got a noticeable drop in performance, especially in this map, after the update...... Been doing some more flying and explored several areas. I think basically, it can be summed up as: The map looks good around the urban areas and airfields, but go anywhere else and you get a horrible mess of blurry textures, no blending with detail areas and very low res, polygonal hill rendering and lack of variety. It does however look very nice from altitude (10,000 ft +) Not sure really what yuou can do wit it currently, the "nice"areas are pretty small and it sucks flying over flat featureless areas......the hills and mountains were what I was most excited about. A final note...I also did some back to back exploring of Sinai and Syria and the single biggest thing that stands out is the prevalent desert and outside area textures in these maps are nicely detailed, even up close, they have texture, depth and shadows.......in Afghanistan, these are simply blurry smudges...example: These next two from Sinai and Syria

can you link the forum thread you refer to please?

So I want to check everything is set as it should be - been reading stuff about recent windows updates and the recent DCS update messing with settings causing performance issues....which I have since recent update to both windows and DCS What should these be set to for my CPU and how to adjust if needed oplease? Any other stuff I should check?

Well its a bit of huge gaping hole really, I mean DCS and ED are majoring the helo side - its really the ONLY helo combat sim there is. I think if you are offering at least 8 high fidelity helo modules ( and DCS effectively started as Black Shark, lets not forget...) then really, you should be offering the sandbox environment in which to operate them realistically......? Instead we are having to operate helicopters in what is primarily a sandbox designed for fast jet combat.......just sayin......

Yeah its a shame when money drives everything rather than passion Look at what BMS have done with Falcon over the years and all for the love of the sim.......makes you wonder what DCS COULD be if it went open source

Thanks, pretty much my thinking too......Like Floyd, I really do like Cyprus, pretty much has it all........although I did hope that maybe some of you guys had checked out some of the further flung areas. Posting this has made me realise that on pretty much every map I own, there are probaly maybe only 20% of the areas that I have been to. I think I am going to make it my mission to do some serious sightseeing and see what I can discover. May take a while though!

I would really like ED to give some context to the way the terrain engine works and specifically what affects performance the most. Obviously high res textures will test your GPU, but a huge part of why the map looks so bad close up is the mesh definition. I cannot believe that it would be that much of a drain on modern PC resources to have more detailed mesh, after all, I was running 50cm terrain mesh in FSX 15 years ago and a PC that no one would even use today and it looked and ran fine. I know the core engine is old in DCS but come on, it must be able to do now what my PC from 15 years ago did? Loading the map with objects also hits the performance I understand, they dont all have to be destructable, it just needs some clever thinking ...... And would it not be easy surely to ramp up the mesh detail the closer you get, rather like a lod for objects in the game? Or how about simply making the map smaller - just the SW part we have currently would be great for Helo ops in high detail, it simply does not need to be so huge. I would far rathe rhave smaller done better than bigger done worse.....

As title....... following my recent dissapointment with the Afghanistan map for helo ops ( reasons being: bad textures, poor terrain mesh detail primarily) I wondered what others may have discovered in terms of really nice scenery that looks great close up, has decent hi res textures and nicely rendered mountains and hills. The 'stan looks good from 10.000 ft and higher, even very good, but close up, it falls down. So, what hidden gems in the other theatres have you helo guys discovered?

To all the people angrily pointing out it’s EA and telling me to stop “whining” and suck it down or don’t be such a dick and buy EA products then………can I simply point you to the Big Newey post where he says it’s released “feature complete” and with “new high definition terrain mesh” ………… So it’s not EA and it’s high def mesh is really way less better than what Razbam seem to have achieved on the SA map…….

So what constitutes the “detail” on Mariannas? All the buildings? I ask, as the rest of the terrain is not really any different from anything I see in Syria etc. And areas such as Beiruit in Syria are easily as detailed. I would like to understand more about exactly how the DCS terrain engine works.

Lets hope, but if its a staged release and the rest is not finished, what is the logic of releasing the first segment with low res textures then having to change them all later? Surely you work on the first area to be released, do all the textures to the required standard and then release it? I dont get it.....piss off loads of customers and potential customers down the road who might buy the rest of the map as its released ?

So according to you any product in EA should be exempt from any kind of criticism ? I think it would be REALLY helpful if ED were upfront about EXACTLY what is scheduled to be improved, what wont and why ......then, people will be able to fully judge the product before they buy. As it is, we are being given smoke and mirrors and no definitive information which make quite a few of us paying clients feel like we are being had a little. Whats wrong with presenting the product warts and all, pointing out the warts and saying which ones are going to be operated on and which are going to stay?

Edit, figured it out...thanks!

Good points are: (SW Afghansistan only being talked about here) Areas such as the bases at Kandahar, Bastion etc are pretty nice. The houses and buildings are not bad, however, most lack the traditional compound walls that are ubiquitous throughout the region It does look good from 10,000 ft or so up Bad points: Polygonal mountains and flat sides to hills with no detail - I took a comparison flight in SA & Kola this morning, both of which are rocking much better mountains Very little variety in the desert textures & these are pretty low resolution The colours are quite washed out and very light looking compared to the reality:

Is it possible using the current terrain engine tech in DCS to make much smaller maps, but with much higher detail terrain mesh and better quality textures? For many who fly Helos or enjoy shorter missions with flights of 100 miles or less, it would be good if ED or 3rd devs could offer this option alongside the larger maps. Just a thought..

You are missing the point - the underlying problems that detract so much are NOT going to changed with updates…such as slab sided polygon mountains, rough textures. NONE of the other maps I own have ever had these issues addressed. All I can say is that you must be very easily pleased and if one of your plus points is that “its geographically varied” then your struggling for positives my friend…… It does however, look pretty nice from high up, I think in its current stae, its more suited to jet operations than helos....

So, in tandem to the other thread, I cant say enough how dissapointed I am to have shelled out more money for the supposed "cutting edge" tech and latest improvements in DCS terrain rendering....to get what is simply put yet another example of blurry textures laid over terrain mesh with -really, definition points measured in the hundreds of metres rather than the centimetres that I was getting in FSX 15 years ago......mountain ranges with dead straight ridgelines hundreds of metres apart....mountain sides comprising flat planes with low res testures pasted over. Repetitive low res textures with detailed areas plonked over the top with no blending. Its really, really dissappointing after the same crap in Kola and SA. Check out these screen shots. Honestly, there are areas of the Caucusus and NTTR that look better than this. Is this really 15 years progress in scenery development in DCS? Why oh why oh why are the devs fixated in pumping out low res massive scale maps that are really terrible when they could make the map a quarter of the physical size with the same number of GB and have nice high res textures, more detailed terrain mesh and a lot more happy punters.......

Can someone mirror the fix or ping it to me, I apparently need to get a google workplace subscription in place to download anything from google drive...which I dont have....