NTTR Fecelift

[twistking]

when comparing nevada to the newer map, you cannot help but notice, that it does look significantly worse.

 

since older aircraft modules, are getting reworks to keep up with the raising expecatations, i was wondering if nevada will at some point receive some updates.

i don't feel entitled to get updates for older modules (as long as they did not get broken in the first place) and i understand, that a rework like the new caucasus is not economical feasable for NTTR, however unlike an aircraft module, a map module is "mostly graphics" and with the the new caucasus and PG maps, i feel the only reasons to buy NTTR today would be to play a specific campaign only avaialble there.

 

so if ED want to keep selling NTTR, it would probably be helpful to put at least some work into NTTR.

i see three areas of possible improvments:

 

1. working on the little bugs and complaints that have accumulated over the years...

2. improvments on DCS world in general that would pay off big time for NTTR (for example improved night lighting with higher light draw distances, better civilian autogen, super high fidelity freight train models etc.) i hope these improvments will find its way to NTTR anyway...

3. the main problem for me and possibly the hardest to fix is the lack of low level detail in the desert, which makes it visually boring and even difficult to fly low level, since there is no reference to judge height and speed. maybe some ground clutter could help (rocks, shrubs etc.) or some other autogen texture wizardry... also COWS and cowboys obviously (not a joke:))...

Edited September 24, 2018 by twistking

[Gierasimov]

DCS: NTTR has got a specific history and story behind it, ED worked hard to deliver something that was offered to early access/beta A-10C buyers for free by a team that left without completing it. So then it was re-worked from scratch and used as a testbed for the new engine. Then ED spent the time to update the Caucasus and create PG.

Not so long after PG early access/beta release, Wags posted that the terrain team moved on to the new map they will be announcing later this year.

As much as I would love to see NTTR with better quality and detail, I still think that "mostly graphics" is a huge task if you want to achieve the believable outcome - i.e. real life Nevada resemblance. For the reasons you have mentioned, I moved on to the PG terrain.

[cercata]

I'm surprised, I was thinking on buying it since it looks gorgeous on videos, Las Vegas, Hover Damm, Grand Canyon ...

 

DCS: NTTR has got a specific history and story behind it, ED worked hard to deliver something that was offered to early access/beta A-10C buyers for free by a team that left without completing it.

 

They have very bad luck with their partners, the same happened with Normandie, isn't it ?

Edited September 26, 2018 by cercata

[Gierasimov]

I don't think this is true

 

I'm surprised, I was thinking on buying it since it looks gorgeous on videos, Las Vegas, Hover Damm, Grand Canyon ...

 

 

 

They have very bad luck with their partners, the same happened with Normandie, isn't it ?

 

Normandy 44 terrain was created by a third party Urga-Media and once mentioned in the newsletter:

 

"Since the map’s release, there have been several improvements like new period objects (windmills, water towers, farm houses, etc.), better beach lines, corrected mesh errors, cleaned up textures, and more detail in the England portion of the map. Currently, Urga Media (the developer) is occupied with their Syria map. However, once the Syria map is complete, we will discuss with them further improvements to the Normandy map like use of speedtrees."

[Gierasimov]

I still think buying NTTR is a good thing to do. Terrain near major places (let's call it the centre of the map" is really well done with lots of detail. It does look good from down low as well as high up. There are very good campaigns available and in my personal aesthetic opinion, it looks better than the Caucasus.

[twistking]

I'm surprised, I was thinking on buying it since it looks gorgeous on videos, Las Vegas, Hover Damm, Grand Canyon ...

 

It's not terribly bad, but from what i've seen the new PG map (of similar style a.k.a. desert) looks way better.

 

NTTR is a decent map still and it may be well worth your money. It's just that its (relative) age starts to show. You should just not expect any upgrade in visual fidelity from the free caucasus map.

But maybe you still like it better, like Gierasimov. As mentioned multiple times, the maps main problem is it's sole reliance on fotographic ground textures, which makes it look great from altitude, but very bland when down low.

 

Also my concerns with the map were really about the future with more and more (and better) maps coming and technology evolving. At some point, it would just not be justified to sell NTTR at a regular price.

Compare that to the aircraft modules, which are supposed to get updated graphically at some point to keep them "competitive" (f.e. cockpit overhauls for black shark, a-10c and p-51 in development)

[rrohde]

As the gravity inspector/validator of NTTR, I've been a long time proponent of having support columns for all road bridges on that map. Since its release, these columns are sorely missing from each road bridge, and I have to wonder if we will ever see them. Railroad bridges, on the other hand, do have these supporting columns. NTTR road bridges are clearly held up by magic or alien tech. ;)

 

As a side note, the old Caucasus map has these columns for road bridges for the suspension (no pun intended) of disbelief (so do the Normandy new Persian Gulf maps).

 

So yeah, a little tongue-in-cheek here, but still... That would be another thing to wish for for any proposed NTTR facelift.