zerO_crash

Yeah, still, I guess the protection lies in the software more than anything. Even in the rare instance that there could be a wrong signal sent to the base, making it move one way or another, it's enough the exit the mission/active environment. Sure, it doesn't hurt to have a good old red button. It is, however, funny how the lack of it can trigger the sense of security. Let me put it this way; I wouldn't worry about it not being present. The base looks solid, and specifications-wise, better than VPforce. For anyone considering VPforce, for some $100 extra, this is a solid upgrade

Carefull, it bites. In rare instances, it might rip an arm off. Every leap year, there is even a death caused by the immense force exertion, alas that of 'zilla. If I were you, I'd keep my distance... As someone who has Brunner CLS-E ($1700) for over four years (pioneer) and CLS-E Mk.II pedals, shortly going to CLS-P ($10.000 excluding shipping and import tax -> $12.900 total expected), I still live with neither having any "emergency button". You'll live too! To this day, I have absolutely no idea what that button has to do on a FFB-base. A motion platform, yes (potential illness, feeling unwell - having to dismount the platform quickly), but not individual equipment. There is no technical malfunction to worry about here. If I didn't know better, I'd have suspected those using VPforce of having a serious tactical advantage by being able to deploy countermeasures from the base... (a button is a button).

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

Ok, let's put everything into context, so as to resolve any possible misunderstandings. Regarding South Atlantic-map, which gets thrown around as a comparison and prediction for what some fear is the likely course of Kola. Some six months ago, a dev from Razbam reached out to the community to ask what "the masses" preferred - the current based-on-satellite-imagery map, or a change of course closer to that of the other maps (that we have), meaning handcraft and aerial adjustments. Check the thread below, and turn your attention to two things; a) the poll showing a approximately split community (neither is in favour), and b) reading the comments (first couple of pages). You'll notice that some of the people complaining here about South Atlantic (and what might happen with Kola (unfounded worry btw.)), are the same people who wanted to stay with the photogrammetry. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and appears as if the individuals are confused, not knowing what they actually want. My recommendation - make up your mind before voicing it publicly. Also, two former Razbam devs, now working for Orbx (it seems), are used as a leverage for one argument or the other. Let me put it this way; In formula one, just because drivers rotate every season between different teams (a driver can work next season for a team, that was considered a competitior in this season). Yet, the teams remain loyal to their core values. Just because employees change a company they work for, does not mean that they bring their former values with them. Deciding on a subject such as how to make a map, is not the choice of two co-workers (artists if you will). It is a choice typically made higher up. Since the map is the product itself, there are definitely more people that participated in the planning and decision phase. This means, that even though the map resembles certain choices made by Razbam, the goal might be something completely different for Orbx (handcraft). There are already areas which point to the latter. That's also not to say that South Atlantic is of bad quality. It has its strengths and weaknesses.

I'm using Brunner CLS-E with CLS-E MK. II rudder pedals. Splendid quality and build. Getting the CLS-P soon (want realistic loads). *Brunner CLS-E - 4.2NM Brunner CLS-P - 50NM Interesting about the FFBeast, though. Never heard of it. Looks pretty neat too, esp. considering it's a DIY-build. Is this your initative, Shwed? Это отправлено ЕД?

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

That is definitely flyable. As to the textures, they are mixed. Some are better, others are worse. I have noticed a problem with texture load-in, which might be what is causing the sometimes "rough" templates. Still, it doesn't happen often. I made photos earlier in this thread, where you can see "rough" textures on the coast of Bodø airport. When the textures load in, they are some of the better that you see in DCS. Actually, people tend to forget that bright colors (i.e. green), are worse at "hiding" imperfection, than darker, such as those on the desert maps. If you'd fly close to the ground on those maps, make a picture and study it, you'd notice the same. Just look at how well the buildings look, when textures load in! Fantastic, high-poly models. Again, there is something causing textures to not load high-definition versions at times. Noticed it once today.

Flying helo without issues. What exactly isn't working?

Fantastic

This has to get pushed through at accelerated rate! While few have FFB-stick, and even fewer have FFB-pedals, it is quintessential for flying. It's also such a basic functionality, core to any simulation being serious about its objective, that its importance cannot be overstated! ED, please do get on point here.

"Early Access". The map is far from complete. Those shorelines don't even look like they have been touched yet. Patience.

I believe it was mentioned. Amen, brother!

Searching the deep web, I stumbled across videos that should be pretty interesting to any virtual pilot ambitious about his knowledge/performance of the AH-64. Since old/new videos will pop up, just as I've made a educational/informational thread on Ka-50, I'm intending this to be one on all three versions of the AH-64. In other words, if you have good videos on the AH-64, post them. First up, a 20+ minute looking at AH-64A, with a cockpit view of gun/rocket employment. Flying technique and tactics (mostly in the offensive/defensive) are the main take-away from it: Next up, something I'm surprised is online at all, though probably because of age. AH-64A ACM in four parts. This video, while of the more performing AH-64A, does indeed show what one can do with the airframe, if you're clever how you go about it. Procedures and communications (coordination) are also very interesting: Another interesting video, is a short one of the AH-64A cockpit, giving you a good idea of just what the A was capable of vs. incapable of. It will make you respect the capabilities of D more. Enjoy!

Likewise

It's good that you are pedantic, I'm saying that as a natural. It's even better that you are demanding. However, when it comes to expectations, one has to be realistic. DCS being as complex of a ecosystem as it is (in every possible aspect, starting from physics), means that we will not be able to have the focus on graphics that e.g. MS2020 has (that's by the way the only thing it does well). We have to be realistic about current hardware, and the implications concerning its limitations. It ought to be pointed out, that our maps have destruction modelled, something the aforementioned doesn't. One also has to understand why the evolution in graphics, is exactly that, and evolution, not a leap. While we have hardware to run DCS maxed at acceptable framerate, you don't want to go much lower due to the need of such performance for combat. More importantly, we are not the mainstream. If ED/3rd parties focused only on us, they would be out of business long ago. Notice how much compaint the current map generated already, based on lower average performance. Even the introduction of new and supposedly more efficient technologies, is a stress-upper for ED, as it risks established customers leaving the shebang alltogether due to frustrations. Finally, onto a topic touched indirectly by the first paragraph, the graphics engine. The current engine is not a photrealistic one. It is really good, in many ways, but it isn't natural in its output. Before we see photorealism, we'll hear of a) either a new engine in making, or b) the global map being a completely new construct (this has been hinted as, most of all due to performance concerns). Fact of the matter remains; we are limited on hardware most of all, followed by poorly optimized software, finishing with customer pockets. You can imagine how detached the expectations are on visuals, when looking at how serious the discussions regarding storage are on this forum... Essentially, there are complaints on DCS taking up too much storage. This, due to e.g. Mi-8MTV2 having too many liveries (yeah...), maps being too big and ultimately individuals being poor. ED gets requests to put time and money into "chose-what's-in-the-basket"-solutions, such that individuals flying with cardboard-VR on graphic calculators, don't have to purchase a new 2TB NVME for a miserable 100 quid. This should give you an idea of just how astronomical the expectations here are, compared to... Sadly, in a business, ED has to respect even the above-mentioned requests... Therefore, trust me, for now, Kola is more than good enough. Should we be demanding? Absolutely! Having realistic expectations however, is preferred.

Here is a good example showing the map at maximum settings in VR (basically what I see). If anyone claims that this doesn't look good, then I suppose the problem is with them. Granted, everything mentioned above needs to be fixed, but you'll see in the video that it doesn't stand out as much in flight, as it does on a still image. To me it seems that most who complain, are people having to run it on very low settings. Yes, it does look worse then, no doubt. Notice that it looks pretty good down low as well.

No worries. A purchase, is s personal choice. South Atlantic has glitches in the satellite imagery that never got touched. That was, and is a problem. Besides, what I still report about it, is that some rivers are pure textures, no physical water is flowing through them whatsoever. On Kola, all rivers are physical ones. Besides that, on South Atlantic, you can be flying out of a valley, and suddenly see a zig-zag with purple/pink glitches for a couple of miles. That's the problem of building a map purely on overlaid satellite imagery, with little handcraft to adjust the terrain. I have seen streched textures here, albeit few. It also does look a lot better down low, than what you'll find in the best modelled parts of South Atlantic. What I'm saying is; time will show what this evolves into, however the starting point is much better than other maps. Now, it's up to Orbx to keep the pace, and work on further modelling and handcraft. The one thing I am generally not a fan of, is the proprietary bug tracker. It should be a demand of ED to have 3rd parties use ED forums for clarity and transparency. Also, access to everything from one source. Turning a customer to separate systems/websites, is really not the way, to be honest. We'll see if it works better than Mantis though...

Check Polyarny and Gadzhievo. You'll find Delta 4s at the piers and in dry docks (maintenance). You'll also find Akulas. I barely skimmed that area, but there is a lot there.

The similarities come in the form of satellite imaging being overlaid over the terrain. With that said, there are more differences than similarities. This map is being hand-craft (as opposed to South Atlantic). There are some bug reports in their tracker which target some of the things you mention, chief amongst "chopped" coasts in many places (I saw you commented on the post in question on Orbx's bug tracker). I will tell you, though, that it doesn't stand out like that when you are flying yourself. Much does look incredibly natural. With that said, it will have to get fixed. Another bug is that buildings load high-textures only when you are relatively close to them (100m or so). There is s glitch with shadows in certain places (relatively few, but still). Overall though, you can see on the rest of my images how it looks - it does look great, esp. in VR. Much depends on how high settings you can run it. There is much that needs to be done, don't get me wrong, but the places which have higher detail, already represent a equal level to other current maps (released way back). Yes, it has it's own icon, theme (wallpaper) and is treated like a separate module.

I see. I'll notify them

Posting some screenshots from a simple show-off mission made in approx. 10 minutes. It shows just a few simple scenarios. The gamma is set up for VR, so don't worry about the impression of colors:

Orbx uses their own proprietary system (I generally am not a fan of those, but if it makes them more effective, so be it). Report it here:

Haven't done any combat yet, pure familiarization flights. I cannot imagine it being any different than the other maps. I'll see about dropping a MOAB and inspect what it does.

For those wondering what will be modelled further on: Basically, features like military bases, EWR-/Radar- sites and the likes, will come past early access. This isn't an exhaustive list either, as e.g. expasion of the map further, has been mentioned (all depending on whether ED can alleviate the bottleneck with maximum map size (storage)). This should answer most of the questions.