Jump to content

General Thoughts


Howzzat

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

Large? Mostly water. Similar experience to free Marianas - better price / quality and still islands + water. 

 

So SA and Marianas are comparable because they have a lot of water?

I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I feel like this devalues any kind of map review you would give if a landmass difference of 10000x doesn't mean anything to you.

Anyway, I like the SA map. The size is great and well worth the trade for less detail than other maps, although really with how good the satellite textures look at altitude, I don't even think it looks worse. It would be nice to see the older maps upgrade to textures like this in the outer most regions.

The map is also unique in giving us large bodies of water divided by a landmass. Other maps are the opposite, or just continuous land. This potentially allows SA to provide for some very unique mission options. It also of course has its historical side as well with the Falklands Islands conflict.

With DCS expanding as it has, I think people need to realize that some offerings might aim for different goals than others. We have quite a few maps to choose from at this point and if one doesn't satisfy you there are others to pick from. I don't think the SA map even has to compete with the other maps if it does what it's supposed to do well.

  • Like 3

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'll wait quite for some time. I'm not a developer and can't tell you if this map is well made or not. But I'm a good customer. And I wont pay this price for such a low effort/work done per square km compared to other maps (and a double the price).

Big problem here. Price. I'd pay 20 bucks no problem. But you guys are asking quite  a big chunk for literaly nothing in most places. Please check out UK Ortho from ORBX. (North,Central,South) That's what 3years of work looks like.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just loaded up an F-16 with two wing tanks and nothing else to just take a little tour of the new map.

Fresh install of Windows 10 and DCS, memory usage is right around 20GB out of 32.  I'm flying from Rio Gallegos west to the mountains, then flying straight north along the mountains.

I have an i7 8700k, 32GB RAM, 6800XT.  FPS are in the 120s-150s on default "HIGH" settings.

Definitely some texture wonkiness and some edge aliasing with clouds and the like, but for an EA map, I think it looks pretty great.  Can't wait to see where they go from here!

SA-1.jpg

SA-2.jpg

SA-3.jpg

SA-4.jpg

SA-5.jpg

SA-6.jpg

SA-7.jpg

SA-8.jpg


Edited by CybrSlydr
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People got to be paid , be on payroll to improve everything about this sim, nobody works for free either it be E D or there partners. At least we don’t have to pay for updates.


Edited by Burt
  • Like 1

ALIENWARE R11 - I9 10900KF @ 5.1 GHz - M.2 NVMe 2TB - RTX3090  - XFURY 64GB -3400 MHz RAM

Monitor AW3420DW @ 120Hz - Virpil CM3 Throttle - TM TPR Rudder pedals - Virpil CM2 w/TM Hornet Stick Center - Monstertech Deck Mounts 

RealSimulator FSSB-R3 Lightning Base w/ F16SRGRH SideStick - VR user / Varjo Aero - Big Thx to mbucchia

Start Date April 2020 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets be clear, I defintely think the map is good value at the price, and I totally understand we are being given a chance to use it before its finished. The people who dont see value in that wont buy it until finished and most of the people who do, accept it needs completing and polishing. I think we should also take heart from the very positive responses so far to several areas of "criticism" or suggestions for improvement that the Razbam guys on here have responded with. In particular the concept of different size versions, for those who have the machines and space to take advantage of higher res textures and mesh. That way its not a compromise for everyone.....like it is now

It is "new" tech for DCS, BUT, there is lots of precedent that Razbam can study, to get this approach working very well. Just look at FSX, Prepar3D, Orbyx etc......When I was flying FSX for example, I had a 2TB drive, nealry full with mesh and photoscenery, that I could simply activate as needed whenever I wanted to flay that area. I think many people would be very happy taking that approach with DCS, in exchange for great looking detailed scenery. 

Thank you Razbam and looking forwards to the updates! 


Edited by markturner1960
  • Like 3

System specs: PC1 :Scan 3XS Ryzen 5900X, 64GB Corsair veng DDR4 3600, EVGA GTX 3090 Win 10, Quest Pro, Samsung Odyssey G9 Neo monitor. Tir5. PC2 ( Helo) Scan 3XS Intel 9900 K, 32 GB Ram, 2080Ti, 50 inch Phillips monitor

 F/A-18C: Rhino FFB base TianHang F16 grip, Winwing MP 1, F-18 throttle, TO & Combat panels, MFG crosswind & DFB Aces  seat :cool:                       

Viper: WinWing MFSSB base with F-16 grip, Winwing F-16 throttle, plus Vipergear ICP. MFG crosswind rudders. 

Helo ( Apache) set up: Virpil collective with AH64D grip, Cyclic : Virpil CM3 base & TM F18 grip, MFG crosswind rudders, Total controls AH64 MFD's,  TEDAC Unit. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, markturner1960 said:

... In particular the concept of different size versions, for those who have the machines and space to take advantage of higher res textures and mesh. That way its not a compromise for everyone.....like it is now

I...

 

That would be a nightmare for Multiplayer. You can't have people with different mesh versions play together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2022 at 6:44 AM, Gierasimov said:

Many here say it is good from the altitude and because it is large. 

Well, if one likes to fly airliner, cargo, tanker, bomber (if we even had it in DCS), then maybe yes.

Or missions based on Argentine missions in the Falklands War.

On 6/12/2022 at 6:44 AM, Gierasimov said:

Large? Mostly water. Similar experience to free Marianas - better price / quality and still islands + water.

The land mass on the Marianas is miniscule (in total, less than Qeshm island on the SoH/PG map), you can't do any land warfare at all on the Marianas and performance is awful within the vicinity of the islands.

The South Atlantic has tonnes of landmass, landmass historically used in real life conflicts - so plenty of inspiration for missions (unlike the Marianas map).

On 6/12/2022 at 6:44 AM, Gierasimov said:

Water in DCS, BTW still needs a lot of touch to make it look and behave as real water.

It's getting there, but agreed, especially in coastal areas (though the coastlines in the South Atlantic map definitely don't help).

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Jarlerus said:

That would be a nightmare for Multiplayer. You can't have people with different mesh versions play together.

Well no more of a nightmare than having to have a certain set of mods etc to play on a server, which is very common? 

  • Like 1

System specs: PC1 :Scan 3XS Ryzen 5900X, 64GB Corsair veng DDR4 3600, EVGA GTX 3090 Win 10, Quest Pro, Samsung Odyssey G9 Neo monitor. Tir5. PC2 ( Helo) Scan 3XS Intel 9900 K, 32 GB Ram, 2080Ti, 50 inch Phillips monitor

 F/A-18C: Rhino FFB base TianHang F16 grip, Winwing MP 1, F-18 throttle, TO & Combat panels, MFG crosswind & DFB Aces  seat :cool:                       

Viper: WinWing MFSSB base with F-16 grip, Winwing F-16 throttle, plus Vipergear ICP. MFG crosswind rudders. 

Helo ( Apache) set up: Virpil collective with AH64D grip, Cyclic : Virpil CM3 base & TM F18 grip, MFG crosswind rudders, Total controls AH64 MFD's,  TEDAC Unit. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ECTAE said:

I think I'll wait quite for some time. I'm not a developer and can't tell you if this map is well made or not. But I'm a good customer. And I wont pay this price for such a low effort/work done per square km compared to other maps (and a double the price).

 

The SA map is not double the price of the other maps. It's not even the most expensive map. On Steam Canada right now:

 

South Atlantic - $71.99

Syria - $76.99

Nevada - $63.99

Persian Gulf - $63.99

The Channel - $51.99

 

And like you I am a good customer as well, and I think the value at EA release, combined with with Razbam stated intent to update it, makes it a solid purchase.

 

 

10 hours ago, ECTAE said:

Big problem here. Price. I'd pay 20 bucks no problem. But you guys are asking quite  a big chunk for literaly nothing in most places. Please check out UK Ortho from ORBX. (North,Central,South) That's what 3years of work looks like.

 

I don't think $20 represents the truth of the matter. Obviously the SA map could use some love, and Razbam has said the love is on the way, but the SA map is not car with three wheels and no engine. It's a solid early release effort and in places the map is stunning. 

  • Like 3

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jarlerus said:

That would be a nightmare for Multiplayer. You can't have people with different mesh versions play together.

 

If people flying MP can't figure out what mesh to use so they can all fly together, that is 100% their problem, and should have absolutely positively nothing to do with any thought Razbam has regarding the release of a higher texture package for the SA map. 

 

 

The MP guys can have servers for low-res mesh and other servers for hi-res mesh. That's how easy it is. To put restrictions on Razbam and the SP flyers just for the sake of helping the MP crowd figure out how long it takes to boil a three-minute egg would be monumentally ridiculous.

  • Like 2

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Or missions based on Argentine missions in the Falklands War.

 

What with? Or at least what against? LVTP7 in US camo and LARC V...

Not to mention other non existing assets.


Edited by Gierasimov

Intel i7-13700KF :: ROG STRIX Z790-A GAMING WIFI D4 :: Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB ::  MSI RTX 4080  Gaming X Trio  :: VKB Gunfighter MK.III MCG Ultimate :: VPC MongoosT-50 CM3 :: non-VR :: single player :: open beta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

What with? Or at least what against? LVTP7 in US camo and LARC V...

?

Quote

Or missions based on Argentine missions in the Falklands War.

Meaning, inspired by.

Like anti-ship strikes from the mainland, striking targets in San Carlos water or close to the islands.

13 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

Not to mention other non existing assets.

Well, we're certainly getting some of the targets...


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Beirut said:

 

If people flying MP can't figure out what mesh to use so they can all fly together, that is 100% their problem, and should have absolutely positively nothing to do with any thought Razbam has regarding the release of a higher texture package for the SA map. 

 

 

The MP guys can have servers for low-res mesh and other servers for hi-res mesh. That's how easy it is. To put restrictions on Razbam and the SP flyers just for the sake of helping the MP crowd figure out how long it takes to boil a three-minute egg would be monumentally ridiculous.

It's not about "figuring out" anything - it would boil down to MP servers that don't want to split the community, having to settle for the lowest quality. And some players would have to install both versions. How nice is that? xD

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2022 at 4:27 PM, MadKreator said:

Been flying on this map for several hours now and personally really like it. Yeah down low the textures aren’t as great as they could be, but what I notice is when I’m actually flying a mission   , like in any other map, most of my time is focused on sensors and spotting targets, and using terrain for cover ( I mostly  fly the a-10). Its easy to nitpick every little detail of weird texture overlays, lower quality texture maps etc, when just flying around looking at the map. When in combat the reality is all of that goes right out of the window. I personally don’t notice any of the “ faults” the map has one bit. The biggest faults for me are the man made ones like tree groups just sharply ending in a perfect line without getting more sparse at the transitions to areas without trees, such as near mountain peaks. Water lines on lakes and ponds seem a little too distinct( I know nothing about coding so I haven’t the slightest clue how a water line could blend in better). And the general game engine issues such as the extremely close bubble for full texture pop-in on buildings and trees and other objects( not raz-bams fault at all). I get good performance on the map, but due to the massive scale I think it will be tough to populate densely and in very high res without the DCS game engine/ multithreading overhaul. 

I do appreciate that raz-bam was VERY clear and forthcoming on the state of the map. Recognizing and stating things like the textures at low altitudes, odd terrain maps from the satellite overlay etc. There were no secrets held back before release. I personally feel the playability the map brings is far more important. From carrier ops/ naval operations, to wide open areas with no cover, to very mountainous terrain with lots of hiding spots for enemies, I think it brings a lot to the table. My favorite part, is its not 2million square kilometers of sand lol I think its a great layout for mission designers and eventually dynamic campaigns, for all eras of fighters to enjoy. Yes there is work to be done for sure but I think its off to a very good start. 

As of now my only complaint would be severe lack of air fields. I understand that In real life there’s probably not that many air-bases and airports in some areas but also this IS still a game, not real life. For the a-10/su-25/harrier/ heli guys/gals, It would be nice to see many more airfields around the mainland. Taking off and flying 150NM to the nearest target in an a-10 pretty much sucks lol Its even pushing things if you want to fly CAS in a well equipped f-16. Spending 2 hours flying in straight lines for 15 minutes of actual interaction is as real enjoyment killer for someone like me. Don’t get me wrong, I love the intricate detail and SIM aspect to DCS, I definitely don’t want it to ever be “arcade-ish” but maps still need good flow. AAR aside, if I fly to a target 100+nm away out in the middle of the mountains, and lose an engine, or sustain enough damage to need repaired, the mission is pretty much over, nowhere to divert and repair, or re-arm, just call it quits and start over again. I don’t fly helis, but I could see their experience being even worse. All the airports are in the flat-ish open areas, no great way for them to experience the real terrain of the mainland without flying for a massive amount of time, and maybe having enough fuel to make it back across the map to base. Or if damaged, no way to divert somewhere closer to repair. I know there is a lot of people that like these theaters to be as true to life as possible, but IMO without more airbases , the majority of this map is a huge waste. I’d bet the majority of players don’t like to fly from a carrier or base, AAR , and carry on a mission for 4 hours just to drop a single bomb then AAR again just to make it home 😂(Obviously I exaggerated).

All in all I things it’s a great start and if kept up will be an amazing theater all around. 

I am planning to adjust this eventually, but its way down my list as the moment

Custom built W10 Pro 64Bit, Intel Core i9 9900k, Asus ROG Maximus Code XI Z390, 64GB DDR4 3200 RGB, Samsung 1TB NVme M.2 Drive, Gigabyte AORUS 2080TI, 40" Iiyama Display. Wacom Cintiq Pro 24, HOTAS Virpil T50 Stick / FA-18C TM Stick and Virpil T50 Throttle, MFG Crosswind Graphite Pedals. HP Reverb

 

SPECTER



[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Lead Terrain Developer / Texture Artist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jarlerus said:

MP servers that don't want to split the community, having to settle for the lowest quality

 

🙂 I'm so glad to not be doing MP anymore, as I'm now too used to flying DCS my way, rather than the Server minimum denominator way  😇

  • Like 4

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was initially a little disappointed, but I could see its potential. Over the weekend I've flown in it a lot more, and even had a medium-sized multiplayer mission over the Falklands, and not only am I even more thrilled with its potential, but I'm happier with its current state. They clearly have a lot of work to do, and it's not ready for, say, building a commercial campaign in it yet. I'm seeing lots of ways to use the map for multiplayer missions with my squadron right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jarlerus said:

It's not about "figuring out" anything - it would boil down to MP servers that don't want to split the community, having to settle for the lowest quality. And some players would have to install both versions. How nice is that? xD

 

At this point I think it's the banana split community. 🍌

 

It's binary - fly on the lo-res server or fly on the hi-res server. If making a choice between all of two options causes fear and loathing in the community, and risk splitting them like an aberrant atom, then the community has far deeper issues to deal with. 

 

No decision by any developer should ever, ever, ever put "will it split the MP community" ahead of "will paying customers enjoy this premium product".

  • Like 2

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

At this point I think it's the banana split community. 🍌

 

It's binary - fly on the lo-res server or fly on the hi-res server. If making a choice between all of two options causes fear and loathing in the community, and risk splitting them like an aberrant atom, then the community has far deeper issues to deal with. 

 

No decision by any developer should ever, ever, ever put "will it split the MP community" ahead of "will paying customers enjoy this premium product".

If its down to textures only Then As far as I know using the require_pure_textures set to false, allows custom textures to be installed so there must be a way to check texture sets for say high def and std def and allow both to run on the same mission somehow. Unless other changes were made between the HD version and SD Version

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Howzzat said:

If its down to textures only Then As far as I know using the require_pure_textures set to false, allows custom textures to be installed so there must be a way to check texture sets for say high def and std def and allow both to run on the same mission somehow. Unless other changes were made between the HD version and SD Version

 

 

You might be right, you're past my brain pan on that one. I leave the MP science to the MP-ers.

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Raz_Specter said:

I am planning to adjust this eventually, but its way down my list as the moment

 

6 hours ago, Raz_Specter said:

I am planning to adjust this eventually, but its way down my list as the moment

I think you guys are doing/ have done great! I’m sure there is a lot of limitations of what can and can’t be done with the current game engine. Everyone and their dog will want something different, something changed, something added but you can only do what you can do. I’m happy with the purchase and excited for its future!

  • Like 1

Intel i7 13700k, ASUS  rog strix z790A, 64gigs G.Skill Trident DDR5 @6400Mhz, Nvidia  RTX 4080FE, 2x 2TB Samsung M.2 NVME, 2x 1TB Samsung SSD,  Corsair RM1000x, Corsair h100i 240mm cooler, Lian Li LanCool 3, VKB Gunfighter Ultimate, VKB STECS , MFG Crosswinds, Track IR5, 48” LG UltraGear OLED & HP 24” touchscreen for Helios, Streamdeck XL, DCS-UFC App, Corsair Virtuoso RGB Headphones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an hour of work I've made a mission that has  a carrier with CAP harriers, AI and player A4s making attacks on the  landing force  at San Carlos Bay. A whole battle at Goose Green with Super Tucanos attacking the brits. All in less than ideal weather conditions. Our group had a wonderful time playing on this map,  with an excellent feel for the Falkland's and the missions. On the Royal Navy side we had Harriers scrambled and looking for an incoming raid, had a dogfight, then  flew as ARA on a hair-raising low-level attack on the bay. No one complained of performance issues.   Well done Razbam!

 

Los


Edited by Los
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Los said:

....  landing force  at San Carlos Bay....

To be clear and honest. So you started from the ocean, next you flew to bomb near empty place, you talk about no performance issue on near empty area but nobody said there was a problem with the empty places on this map :angel: (those places work perferct!). Yes, here no urban / big forest area (just small helipods on San Carlos Bay), no FPS problem here for me too because not many objects here (like in Goose Green too). Try to attack Rio Gallegos for example (or better Ushuaia city) and you will change your mind very quickly. 😄

rpKIkfCl.jpg


Edited by YoYo

Webmaster of http://www.yoyosims.pl

Yoyosimsbanner.gif

Win 10 64, i9-13900 KF, RTX  4090 24Gb OC, RAM 64Gb Corsair Vengeance LED OC@3600MHz,, 3xSSD+3xSSD M.2 NVMe, Predator XB271HU res.2560x1440 27'' G-sync, Sound Blaster Z + 5.1, TiR5, [MSFS, P3Dv5, DCS, RoF, Condor2, IL-2 CoD/BoX] VR fly only: Meta Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This video is making it very clear - 

Good potential for people intereted only in as realistic scenarios as they can get, 

bad for aesthetics, as once Wags commented about MSFS that - it looks great from up high but bit so much down low - I wonder what promoted ED to allow this map to base it's terrain on satellite imaginery only. Well, you hate it or you love it seems like it by the community feedback. 

Video is very good for those who want to make informed decision on development effort support: 

 

  • Like 2

Intel i7-13700KF :: ROG STRIX Z790-A GAMING WIFI D4 :: Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB ::  MSI RTX 4080  Gaming X Trio  :: VKB Gunfighter MK.III MCG Ultimate :: VPC MongoosT-50 CM3 :: non-VR :: single player :: open beta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

This video is making it very clear - 

Good potential for people intereted only in as realistic scenarios as they can get, 

bad for aesthetics, as once Wags commented about MSFS that - it looks great from up high but bit so much down low - I wonder what promoted ED to allow this map to base it's terrain on satellite imaginery only. Well, you hate it or you love it seems like it by the community feedback. 

Video is very good for those who want to make informed decision on development effort support: 

 

TP pretty much nailed it on the head, very close to my original post, the opportunities are endless. Have been hunting round for mods and skins for some mini campaign /  missions problem is trying to use existing Modules in them for example you would have to use the AV8B for harriers (Love the module warts and all) We dont have a Tornado, phantom or Typhoon for more recent scenarios. There are some awesome community Mods out there for it, its just a case of trying to balance it all out which is fun in itself. Despite my misgivings on some of the issues i still think this map had awesome opportunities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...