DCS Newsletter discussion August 26th 2022 - DCS Top end Australia | Open beta updates | Enigma server

[CommandT]

What I find rather peculiar lately about maps is not so much the locations but the absolute god awful texture resolutions in the screenshots we get. Maybe not so much the Sinai map, but Falklands, Koala and now this Australian one all have Microsoft Simulator 1998 level of texture resolution. I totally understand that these are WIP, but I don't get why you would tease or preview a map with screenshots that make you think DCS map tech is going back in time. I find it absolutely incredible that in this day and age we are getting this quality. Obviously we have some decent maps in DCS but these last ones seems like a real step back in quality. 

Before anyone starts debating that it's because in real life these places are barren and have no real features, please don't. As we know from some other sims, barren landscapes can look absolutely sensational at low level even without lots of cities or even trees (and btw, I think trees and forests in DCS need a serious overhaul). 

Sorry about the rant but I'm just dubious how I'm the only one who is concerned about this? 

[Tom Kazansky]

4 minutes ago, CommandT said:

but Falklands, Koala and now this Australian

I love those too, but they are not mentioned in any DCS Newsletter threads.

(edit: it's Kola btw.)

Edited August 29, 2022 by Tom Kazansky

[VIKBELL]

  All modules just wait for release to get.

[rob10]

4 hours ago, Rosebud47 said:

@BIGNEWY What you don´t see, are people, who won´t discuss in the forums or post feedback anymore, because you validating people, who try to expose others in the attempt to ignore the controversy of the announcement.

Everyone appreciate new developer coming to DCS. Not every product made for DCS, needs to be appreciated by everyone.

I think you skipped over the key sentence in Bignewy's message: "If you want to give feedback do it with respect...".  He's not saying you have to appreciate it or can't say anything if you don't, just don't be one of the people who goes over the top trashing something just because they don't like it.

Edited August 29, 2022 by rob10

[MadKreator]

Australia, cool! Kola,cool! Sinai, cool! Bring them on! Why bash a team making maps for us to enjoy different experiences around the world. This coming from a casual, I could care less about recreating real-world scenarios, on realistic timelines. For those that like that stuff, great! Everyone likes what they like and there’s nothing wrong with that. Don’t like it, don’t buy it. Pretty simple. I’ll buy it on day one, because I like having the variety of different terrains regardless of where they are, what actual timeframe/ conflict they’re associated with, and whether or not there’s a realistic selection of aircraft for the particular area/ time. I like the a-10, harrier and f-16 the most. I have the 18, f-5, the fc3 planes, a few helis, and couple of warbirds. 99% of the time I use one of my top 3 Personally I have no interest in some of the modules coming out besides the f-15e at the moment. Guess I’m the odd man out that plays DCS for pure enjoyment 

Vietnam is a map that I would buy to support DCS’ future, but would probably hardly play if its created as dense as its real life counterpart. It’s not going to be fun if all of the enemies are under a thick canopy of trees and shrubs and you cant see where they are to actually destroy them. Also since, currently, a tree leaf will detonate any munitions you launch, that makes dense maps pretty much useless.  Marianas takes my 80-100 fps average down to 35-60 (alt dependent) and thats just a few small islands. I don’t think a dense Korea/Vietnam map would even be playable at this point in time unless it was significantly underpopulated

Point being, am I excited about Australia or the others? No, I’m 100% indifferent. Will I buy it/them, absolutely! If it adds to the freedom to do what you want, where you want, and help expand DCS as a whole, Its a win for everyone in my book

Edited August 30, 2022 by MadKreator

[Rosebud47]

vor 57 Minuten schrieb MadKreator:

Vietnam is a map that I would buy to support DCS’ future, but would probably hardly play if its created as dense as its real life counterpart. It’s not going to be fun if all of the enemies are under a thick canopy of trees and shrubs and you cant see where they are to actually destroy them. Also ,since currently, a tree leaf will detonate any munitions you launch, that makes dense maps pretty much useless.  Marianas takes my 80-100 fps average down to 35-60 (alt dependent) and thats just a few small islands. I don’t think a dense Korea/Vietnan map would even be playable at this point in time unless it was significantly underpopulated

That´s a good point on first sight, but the targets we usually attack with jets are mostly in the air, or SAM sites, camps, factories, convoys on roads, etc .... bridges would be a nice additional target in Vietnam.

I think people are just concerned or confused at some point about the direction DCS is heading with the maps. It´s pretty clear that many want to fly in a scenario with a realistic background of military conflicts of the past to make the aircraft modules we already have or are announced would fit in.

My favorite maps are NTTR and The Channel - both are beautiful and feel just right in tone, lighting, landscape, performance, orientation, but that´s just me. Syria is also great - love the details in it, like on The Channel map!

vor 2 Stunden schrieb rob10:

I think you skipped over the key sentence in Bignewy's message: "If you want to give feedback do it with respect...".  He's not saying you have to appreciate it or can't say anything if you don't, just don't be one of the people who goes over the top trashing something just because they don't like it.

 

... that should be the second rule of only 2 rules the forum needs.

1st rule is a key sentences Voltaire once said: "I don´t share your opinion, but I would risk my life for you to express it." 

   

[MadKreator]

53 minutes ago, Rosebud47 said:

I think people are just concerned or confused at some point about the direction DCS is heading with the maps. It´s pretty clear that many want to fly in a scenario with a realistic background of military conflicts of the past to make the aircraft modules we already have or are announced would fit in.

Definitely a good point. I don’t know a lot about military history so the era/ location/module specific conflicts don’t reach me in any more of a way than a made up battle with an intriguing backstory. I’ve always loved flight/ combat sims, ever since Wings of Fury on the old commodore 5.25floppy. I just like carrying on and blowing stuff up. The detail and fidelity of the modules really keeps me hooked. Keeps that childhood fighter pilot dream alive! 3rd party devs are free to do what they choose. If ED themselves were creating random maps that weren’t inline with modules/ conflict eras ( which as said is a huge part of the player base), that would be more cause to question, I think. But to each his own. I’m sure there’s some method to the madness….right?

Edited August 29, 2022 by MadKreator

[Rosebud47]

vor einer Stunde schrieb MadKreator:

I’m sure there’s some method to the madness….right?

 

I don´t know, but it doesn´t look like, that it will end any time soon. 

[Dragon1-1]

On 8/29/2022 at 7:12 PM, MadKreator said:

Vietnam is a map that I would buy to support DCS’ future, but would probably hardly play if its created as dense as its real life counterpart. It’s not going to be fun if all of the enemies are under a thick canopy of trees and shrubs and you cant see where they are to actually destroy them.

Which is exactly the problem the US had to solve in the Vietnam War. There are many ways of dealing with that, like FACs, ground troops marking things with smoke, or outright removing trees via agent orange. For many of us, blowing stuff up in the middle of the open field is no challenge at all. Bring in the jungle, the Trail, and the bridges.  

[Paladin1cd]

I think it is fine but we  have to have mechanisms that allow for units to become combat ineffective after an effective attack. You NEVER have to kill an entire unit in combat - you attrit it and its equipment and then it withdraws. In here we have to have a catastrophic vehicle kill. That's just now how it really works. 

[MadKreator]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Which is exactly the problem the US had to solve in the Vietnam War. There are many ways of dealing with that, like FACs, ground troops marking things with smoke, or outright removing trees via agent orange. For many of us, blowing stuff up in the middle of the open field is no challenge at all. Bring in the jungle, the Trail, and the bridges.  

I 100% agree that units sitting in an open field isn’t any sort of challenge. I would hope for enough density to make you have to be creative and think a little harder, but not so much that you’re just bombing tree tops, hoping that one might make it through without hitting a branch lol Maybe destructive trees are in need? There definitely needs to be a good plan going into a map like that. I know its high on a lot of peoples lists, so it will need to be very well thought out, when the time is right.  Maybe the future Dynamic Campaign/ Dynamic Missions will allow for more ways to win the war than just blowing up every unit directly. Take out bridges, block units into areas/ immobilize them, cut off supply lines etc. Maybe a group of units is hidden in thick cover with no good way for air support to take them out, but cutting off their fuel/ammo delivery, could render them inoperable. One can only hope

[rob10]

13 minutes ago, MadKreator said:

I 100% agree that units sitting in an open field isn’t any sort of challenge. I would hope for enough density to make you have to be creative and think a little harder, but not so much that you’re just bombing tree tops, hoping that one might make it through without hitting a branch lol Maybe destructive trees are in need? There definitely needs to be a good plan going into a map like that. I know its high on a lot of peoples lists, so it will need to be very well thought out, when the time is right.  Maybe the future Dynamic Campaign/ Dynamic Missions will allow for more ways to win the war than just blowing up every unit directly. Take out bridges, block units into areas/ immobilize them, cut off supply lines etc. Maybe a group of units is hidden in thick cover with no good way for air support to take them out, but cutting off their fuel/ammo delivery, could render them inoperable. One can only hope

While I don't see any of this coming any time soon (we likely need at least another 5 or 6 generations of personal computer computing power increase to have a hope, even discounting the time to program it), I love the idea!

[Dragon1-1]

11 hours ago, Paladin1cd said:

I think it is fine but we  have to have mechanisms that allow for units to become combat ineffective after an effective attack. You NEVER have to kill an entire unit in combat - you attrit it and its equipment and then it withdraws. In here we have to have a catastrophic vehicle kill. That's just now how it really works. 

Some campaigns, particularly old ones by ED, do that. It's already possible, just needs some legwork. I believe you can set the overall damage percentage that a group has to sustain in order for a trigger to trip. It can be spread over all the vehicles, with none of them being dead, or it can mean a few are burnt-out wrecks and the rest are at 100%. Simply set a trigger of this type to make a unit pull back, and if it's an objective, set it to complete it. Of course, only kills (smoking wreck state) will show up in the debriefing.

[draconus]

21 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Of course, only kills (smoking wreck state) will show up in the debriefing.

Every fire and every hit is logged.

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

Every fire and every hit is logged.

I meant that it doesn't contribute to your score, or show up as a kill, even if you immobilize the unit. It's only logged.

[BIGNEWY]

please remember the topic here 

DCS Top end Australia | Open beta updates | Enigma server

thanks

[draconus]

7 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

DCS Top end Australia

Can you tell what tech the new maps will use? Is it the one tested with Marianas?

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, draconus said:

Can you tell what tech the new maps will use? Is it the one tested with Marianas?

It is what we have in the TDK for all third parties, as new technologies or processes develope they are added to the TDK