Boosterdog

Strawman arguments. I completley understand EA. You buy the module in a basic state and a, b,and c (which are clearly defined as outstanding at the outset) are added later. I have many modules in EA but do you see me whining in the F18,F16, Hind, Apache threads? Not really. I suspect the same goes for other here. This is not that. I am fine that certain aspects of the maps are not present but are defined and outstanding items to be added later (area expansions, airfields and cities for instance). No issue with that at all. But the general texture of the map is not a defined item. Its a "wait and see, perhaps, maybe, never" at best. And its a wait and see that came as a surprise to many of us given there was no mention of it in the preorder hype or the images shown. Its a wait and see that only came about several days or weeks after there was a firm "this is all you're getting" from ED and in a form of words that smacked of back tracking can kicking in face of a potential sales hit. Theres an argument we should have expected it but equally ED made much of their "new terrain tech" to a point it mostly reassurred us it wouldnt be a dogs dinner. No ED map has ever been released in such an incomplete state with no little effort to mask the fact. Why should we have expected this not to meet those previous standards? This leaves a map where large swathes of it are unresolved with no guarantees or ever sorting the frankly unacceptable textures. I'll say that again NO GUARANTEES. Just Newspeak and vague statement. Not a "to be added" feature, not a later phase item. Its not a bit of the map that needs a bit of TLC. It IS the map. I dont think we are missing the point of EA or acting "weird" as you put it. We are not blaming ED without good reason. In fact Im not sure we are blaming anyone as much as seeking some definative answers to some very wooly statements so far. The truth is, I want to support EA. I have done so for years. But its getting hard not to feel a bit "used". Harder still to trust I'll end up with something worthwhile before Alzheimer's or Cancer or both get me. And that does affect ED because, as you point out, EA keeps things ticking. Sales were good based on trust. Im sure I dont need to point out just how much of that seems to have erorded of late. You have this thread for that.

Thats not a plan - its an aspiration. Not even that. Its Newspeak. Its How long as ED been working with this Engine? How much experience from other maps are there in the database? Alpha branches? If they dont know its limits by now there's something wrong. Even if you are right then what we've paid for is for ED to experiment with no guarantees the map will ever be anything but high fidelity islands surrounded by mush. Lets not forget the marketing - The south is feature complete. And all those images that came with it - no mush there. Yet plenty of mush there was and ED damn well knew it. ED can mealy mouth all they want about what was meant but many of us took that as meaning what you see is what you get. Now the position has changed to the one you quote now. Something dragged out of ED after many of us were left feeling ripped off or mislead. If that stands as a plan for you - great. For me thats just kicking the can down the road after pushing a product out as fast as possible with everything crossed than noone would bat an eyelid. Now, despite ED seemingly being unsure of their new tech's potential limitations, they've gone and launched another in exactly the same vein. That might be fine in the eyes of some. Each to their own. But for others, its a bridge too far. It potentially leads to using what you have and not paying for anything new and it piles onto the concerns about the RAZBAM situation, the woefully slow progress of the incomplete SC, and the kicked into a corner WW2 effort. Im not a naysayer (though I come across as one). I want DCS to succeed because Ive got £1500 sat in it that I can never get back. But right now ED has a trust and reputation issue. In the grand scheme of things it might be a small one, but its festering. The discontent with the direction taken is apparent across social media various including EDs own. Even in this thread, replies expressing concern are garnering more likes and reactions than the OP launch post. That just doesnt normally happen. The comments on EDs You-Tube launch are almost exclusviely negative. I just think its time ED stopped covering their ears and chanting "la la la" and did something affirmative to address it other than "we will bring you news when we have more to say". Sorry draconus, its a rant and its not directed at you nor anyone else who feels fine with it. We all see things differently.

Threads are threads and can never really be viewed as true indicators but I've not seen such a clear indication of general discontent expressed for some time if ever in one. Perhaps ED should really consider addressing these concerns over and above sending in their CMs to placate and pacify. The tech used for Afghan and Kola (and SA) doesnt play well with the current limitations of the game. OrbX as much as said that whlst defending their misleading marketing images of the airfields (like it came as a surprise to them). None of the maps really lend themselves to helos or low/slow GA (that now form a sizable segment of the newer and redux'd modules) with vast areas poorly realised to the point of being derisable. For all the talk of exciting new terrain tech, all many of us see are products that appear to have shortcut the efforts required to produce the "handmade" maps of old and failed. Miserably. And this really hasnt been addressed in any meanigful way. Firstly South Afghan was supposedly feature complete. Then it wasnt. But there is still no firm indication of what further work will result or how, especially to the incredibly poor texturing outside of points of interest. Morever, despite bold promises of a release schedule for other areas, that hasnt happned either. Kola is a not disimilar case. There have been serveral "enhancements" that really have changed very little. An indicator I take to mean there is little that can be done. Aside of all that, DCS has has desert maps for years where the same pop up bushes continue to be sprinkeld liberally with each successive generation and without the eye jarring low lod and render distances that existed in LOMAC ever being looked at. All in all 2024 has, so far, been something of a step backwards in terms of enviroments for many customers. A step backward that many of us funded in good faith and with good will. Good will and trust that largely kept the maps on our drives in the hope of improvements and at the expense of immediately obtaining refunds. There is nothing to indicate Iraq will improve on any of this. There is nothing to give hope that these maps are awaiting their true realisation in some future DCS 3.0. If there is a plan or roadmap where these maps will see a meaningful improvement to their textures (and by that I mean looking as good as Syria in their base textures as a minimum), then I think ED needs to spell it out offically. If there isnt then ED also needs to be upfront about that too. Helos are my thing. This sim's saving grace in that respect is Syria, a 4 year old map. Nothing produced since has improved on it and more worryingly, everything produced since has failed to match it and by some degree. Many of us have poured £100s and £1000s into DCS over time. Bought EA to help keep funds in EDs accounts. Bought modules we perhaps have little interest in to do the same. YadeYa, you know the rant. Now, whlst doesnt give us any right to demand explanations I think ED should seriously consider the disconnect that some of us now feel at being treated as cash cows and address it in a sincere manner.

After Kola and Afghanistan I'll need more assurance Im not buying a map full of airfields surrounded low res tundras and jelly mould hills I'm afraid. Sales patter such as "A new level of terrain detail and accuracy" only serve to make me think "snake oil" after the last £100 I dropped on DCS map pre-orders. I sorry I cannot be more positive about what should be exciting news. Im afraid the last 2 maps have left a sour taste.

I tried it using the method suggested for the windows (non steam shortcut). It mysteriously activiated the Launcher (that I had de-selected) and asked me to log im. I did. Then on evey attempt to launch the game, its activated the Launcher again.

I would try it but....I just got what I think is FSE back so I aint poking that partticular bear any further at this point..

Its nothing that hasnt been put in this thread before disable_write_track = true (not part of the "hack" but put in here as every little helps) dx11backend = { flipMode = false, } Vsync on in DCS Full Screen on in DCS Vsync = application controlled in the Nvidia Control panel Disable full screen optimisations ticked in the Compatability Tab of the DCS launch icon Shortcut (desktop) Added voodoo (out of habit) - click on the DCS 15years window to ensure its focussed in windows on launch (probably not needed) Note - You CANNOT Alt-Tab as you'll just end up on the desktop with no mouse or keyboard control. So its fine if you just wanna play with DCS in focus all the time but far the useful feature that was taken away.

I thinks he's just got it a bit mixed up. Which TBF is pretty understandable given how similar the units are denoted. I would imagine the 9.8 figure he quoted is taken from the download progress bar (so MB/s). In fact Im pretty certain as 9.8MB/s was around the median I got on my 70-85Mbps line (time of day dependent). So he is downloading at just about the full rate his line is capable of.

I think you may be getting your bits and bytes mixed up. The DCS updater shows speed in MB/s (megabytes/second). Your download speed is shown in Mbps (Megabits/second). There's 8 bits in a byte. So what you are seeing (9.8 MB/s) is about right. Your download/upload was broadly similar to mine (70 down, 17 up). I swiitched to gig fibre and the download speed increased accordingly (around 117 MB/s).

Hmm- So whilst theres no Alt-Enter or Alt tab without locks and crashes (never was with the autoexec hack) at least I have what I take to be Full Screen Exclusive working again (by token that the windoes volume bar does not appear when changing levels). In game = Vysync In game - Full screen NCP - Vsync = application controlled Windows DCS shortcut - disable full screen optimisations (this was the item missing previously) in the compatability tab. Autoexec "hack" enabled What Im not grasping is the bit about recent(ish) Windows updates doing away with the need for FSE. Im sure I saw mention of it somewhere.

Hmm. All very confusing. My Windows is locked down since the intital install so has not benefitted from any updates (I saw mention of changes in windows somewhere). I dont feel like undoing it all but I'll kill the autoexe since it seems those halcion days of good stuff working are now long gone. I think when I get to play DCS proper again it'll be on a new PC with Win 11 so I'll save any machinations for then.

I meant killed the autoexec fix. I had this working reliably for quite some time (in terms of it use EFS) but, after disabling it and full screen mode to play with the 3D mission editor app, it seems to have kaput. Was it one of the recent updates or have I missed something?

Which patch killed the work around?

Oh - rephase that. Does it look like its made of fuzzy felt at 200ft in the way PG and Syria doesnt.

Does it look gorgeous at 200ft?

Oh man. Just listen to yourself.

I dont know if we do have an undertanding. Im all for encouraging but, frankly, the gushing praise being spewed out by some (including ED in their newsletter) is completely disproprotionate to what has actually being acheived. Caucause is free. Kola isnt. Moreover Caucauses dosent represent itself with images of fidelity that just are not there. Images, by the way, that are still being punted about by OrbX. OrbX and ED will have to do considerably more than sharpen some poor texture to less (but still) poor textures to pull this dog around. And I think its beyond the capability and care of the pair of them.

Just to add to the above. I didnt pick 4 or 5 of the worst sceenies I could find. I literally F7'd and captured what was there. The issue is that this is supposedly a hi-rez area yet, within a minute in a helo you will invariably be faced low rez textures even if you set off from the centre of it. Unlike some, I dont see any golden hozizon. The map is a pup at anything below 5000ft.

I went in the ME and placed some units randomly around Murmansk. I've done nothing in terms of Gamma or filters and its at 1080P. Judge for yourself. Takeaway for me is that the word "lie" sits slap in the centre of the word "believe".

I dont do "Tops" as such. Each map has it good and bad points. I also prefer helos so my needs may differ from others. Syria offers the best overall experience with a varied environment and good detail, Normandy2 offers similar in a temperate flavour IF you can get past the 1940s settings and cars driving on the wrong side of the road in the UK. The Channel map can be good for Helos as well as warbirds but has some faults that can get on your nerves if you let them though I think it has the some of the best countryside scenes. The Marianas has good coastal details that dont fall apart too much as you get closer albeit real estate is limitied. PG is good albeit a little bland and under developed. Caucauses is not bad for a free map and, if you choose your play area well, holds up reasonably well. NTTR is only installed because of the Mig Killer's campaign. YMMV. The irony of the images used to support the argument did make me smile. Ultimately there are those who are happy with the map and those who are not. Im obviously in the latter group. The EA argument both frustrates and annoys me. Im well aware of what EA is. I have enough modules under that banner to understand. This isnt about EA. Its about stuff that isnt up to par and never will be. I dont personally think OrbX and ED were as up front as they should have been been about the state of it on release and I continue to think the updates and improvements are over hyped for the overall effect to give an impression things are on the up. I almost didnt pre-order Kola but the images of the airfields pulled me in. Now to have OrbX shrugging their shoulders and blaming the engine for not delivering what was promised leaves a nasty taste. Like others, I've spent a lot with OrbX over the years in other sims. I expected a little more competency and honesty. Equally ED made all the right noises about their new map tech (albeit without actually saying anything of substance on reflection) which also fooled me into thinking that, given Afghanistan is a pretty rocky place, they had a plan for it. They didnt and dont. Ultimately, the map making tech being used isnt suited to producing rocky features in large scale right now (if at all). That is clear. And it should (and likely was) have been clear from the get go.

@Gunfreak Clearly we disagree. Im afraid I cant be as kind to either the map or OrbX as your good self. Different strokes.

Thats the thing - its a new map. It shouldnt be 3rd. Syria was certainly an outlyer in terms of execution and developer commitment though. Looking at the Kola map from the Sinai is proabably about the best distance to view it from.

It really didnt. It may have shapened stuff up for the average jet jock perhaps so they no longer have to QRF vertically out of the airfield but the fact remains that the illusion falls apart too quickly and in too many places. In short the tech doesnt cut the mustard and, for the area selected, probably never will. At this point it feels very much like a folly and race to the bottom in terms of enviromental creation. At least in the DCS engine.

I have bought and tried to like both Kola and Afghanistan. Both seem utterly unsuited for the tech being used to produce them given the prevelance of rocky, mountainous areas and the inabilty of the imagery to render them as anything but to fuzzy felt blobs. Moreover, the pre-release images of the airfields from OrbX do not, on any level, represent what we ended up with. I cant celebrate either at this point.

Yup