An update on DCS: Kola Map would be appreciated!

[Otulf]

On 9/18/2023 at 6:39 PM, MAXsenna said:

There's no such thing as bad weather. Only bad clothes...

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

Hello Maxsenna!

You have just quoted my old gymnastics teacher from school when I was young!!!

The Swedish version: "Det finns inget dåligt väder, bara dåliga kläder"!

I have also taught my own kids that old rule...

 

Best regards:

Otulf

[MAXsenna]

Hello Maxsenna!
You have just quoted my old gymnastics teacher from school when I was young!!!
The Swedish version: "Det finns inget dåligt väder, bara dåliga kläder"!
I have also taught my own kids that old rule...
 
Best regards:
Otulf

"Det finnes ikke dårlig vær, bare dårlige klær"!

Funny it rimes in both Norwegian and Swedish!

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[MIghtymoo]

12 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

"Det finnes ikke dårlig vær, bare dårlige klær"!

Funny it rimes in both Norwegian and Swedish!

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

Or as Ylvis said: «There is no bad weather, only bad cleather»

[QuiGon]

I'm really looking forward for some carrier ops in rough seas!

[Stratos]

On 9/13/2023 at 11:32 PM, Northstar98 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does the runway look wet? Or I'm seeing things?

[Northstar98]

17 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Does the runway look wet? Or I'm seeing things?

Personally I'm not too sure. It looks dark but I can't see any obvious reflections.

[Eaglewings]

Does the runway look wet? Or I'm seeing things?

Hard to tell, but the dull white patches on the runway and the background are deceptively looking like small pool of water gatherings.



Sent from my XQ-AT52 using Tapatalk

[Cougar29]

8 hours ago, QuiGon said:

I'm really looking forward for some carrier ops in rough seas!

LOL, as long as your pilot is doin' the "pilot shidd" perfectly fine and you have exactly NOTHING to do back there, everything is fine.

KOLA is highestly appreciated to become available very soon. Better today than tomorrow!

[tripod3]

I suspect you don't approve of this, but let's go to the developers' discord and create some public pressure to get a better idea of the pre-release timing and other details

[BIGNEWY]

19 minutes ago, tripod3 said:

I suspect you don't approve of this, but let's go to the developers' discord and create some public pressure to get a better idea of the pre-release timing and other details

Devs will release information when they are ready to, I know it does not suit everyone but that is the way it is. Whatever you do be nice, they are working hard currently.

thank you 

[Captain Orso]

There is a saying,

Slow is Smooth and Smooth is Fast

Unnecessary deadlines only make pressure for no good outcome. In the end, everything takes longer. You might get a product into customer hands quicker, but it will be at a cost to quality. You can have quick or good, but never both.

It's difficult to wait, when you don't know for how long - it really is. But think of all the times things got "rushed". Think of how many people constantly complain, they will never buy an early-access module again - that's fast, but not good. it's not bad either, it's just not finished, and their might be bugs in their too. When I learned IT, my boss and mentor taught me, 'if you do work, you make mistakes, if you don't do work, you can't even manage making the mistakes'.

Let's let ED do their work and not try to put pressure on them. Firstly, they won't let you - you'll be sitting on the curb so fast your eyes will spin, but secondly it can only do more harm than good. Good things take time. I bet there are other things to do in DCS than the Kola map. I bet there are.

[AirWolf D]

Heya,

I don't think you can put pressure on them, maybe it's enough to describe the state of affairs and post a few pictures,

Kola Map with Eurofighter is hot !!

[Seaeagle]

On 9/18/2023 at 1:11 PM, Northstar98 said:

There's a lot of submarine classes that were or still are stationed around the area (in the process of making my .kmz I've come across a lot of them).

Exactly. This is really the only concern I have with this map - the Kola peninsula is all about the Northern Fleet(both Soviet era and prensent Russia) and everything else there(such as airbases and other installations) is just there to support it. The problem being that the current selection of Soviet/Russian ships(and naval aircraft for that matter) in DCS is far too limited to depict this.....not much point in having the myriad of naval and airbases correctly positioned on the map if they are all empty and deserted. 

 

On 9/18/2023 at 1:11 PM, Northstar98 said:

Though less related to the map itself, going with a ballistic missile submarine is probably a poor choice given the total lack of ASW and the fact DCS is staying away from nuclear weapons. A better candidate would probably be SSGs and SSGNs - Juliet, Echo I/II, Charlie I/II and Oscar I/II (all of which were/are stationed in the region) as they will be more relevant to the kind of warfare DCS can currently simulate (even if there's still massive limitations there).

Agree - one solution could be to add them(SSBNs) as stationary map objects at their appropriate locaions, while perhaps making a few active types for which there is some combat potential like the Oscar class SSGNs as you suggested as well as SSNs like the Akula-, Sierra- and Victor classes.

On 9/18/2023 at 1:11 PM, Northstar98 said:

Personally though, I'd prefer more Soviet/Russian surface combatants, such as the Sovremenny guided missile destroyer.

Yup plus the Udaloy class antisubmarine destroyer - and preferably those over any newer post soviet types, since they have been in service for 3 decades and thus would provide a much wider mission potential. In addition to combat units, it would also be good with some support ships for a more realistic scenario.

[Northstar98]

On 10/22/2023 at 5:52 PM, Seaeagle said:

The problem being that the current selection of Soviet/Russian ships(and naval aircraft for that matter) in DCS is far too limited to depict this.....not much point in having the myriad of naval and airbases correctly positioned on the map if they are all empty and deserted.

Don't get me wrong - I absolutely see where you're coming from and I'm sorta with you. But I'd argue they'd still have a point even if means pretending it's currently stationing whatever non-present asset.

Though I would absolutely love for the map to be appropriately filled out with assets and modules appropriate for it, for me preferably centering around the 80s, where I think this map really shines.

On 10/22/2023 at 5:52 PM, Seaeagle said:

Agree - one solution could be to add them(SSBNs) as stationary map objects at their appropriate locaions, while perhaps making a few active types for which there is some combat potential like the Oscar class SSGNs as you suggested as well as SSNs like the Akula-, Sierra- and Victor classes.

I mean, you could still do an AI SSB/SSBN unit and omit the ballistic missile part (after all, Cold Waters and the upcoming Sea Power: Naval Combat in the Missile Age do exactly that), but then they have a degree of ASW modelled, giving you the capability to shadow or hunt them down - in DCS though, unless they're on the surface that capability doesn't exist and you've essentially just got an attack boat with a different model (probably firing torpedoes where WWI-style straight running gyro-angle guidance is the only thing modelled) and in that case, you're probably better off with a cruise missile boat or an attack boat.

But yes, I'd absolutely include the boats you've named, particularly the Victor, where if we had all 3 variants (and there isn't too much difference to them externally - main one is that the I has a 5-bladed screw, II has 2 4-bladed screws arranged in tandem and III is essentially the II but adding the pod for the MG-541 towed-array sonar) we'd have something covering from the late 60s to almost present-day. Though I'll maintain that the priority should be combat surface vessels, auxilliary surface vessels, civilian surface vessels, attack/guided missile submarines then ballistic missile submarines as far as naval assets go.

On 10/22/2023 at 5:52 PM, Seaeagle said:

Yup plus the Udaloy class antisubmarine destroyer - and preferably those over any newer post soviet types, since they have been in service for 3 decades and thus would provide a much wider mission potential. In addition to combat units, it would also be good with some support ships for a more realistic scenario.

Absolutely - I'd say the Sovremenny, Udaloy I and Kresta II are probably top of my list (with the Sovremenny and Kresta II having greater AAW capability and so probably more releavant to something more aircraft focused). Though I'd take just about anything, though yes, that absolutely should include support units such as the Boris Chilikin (though at least we have an Altay, though a legacy model).

Edited October 24, 2023 by Northstar98

[Gunfreak]

In an ideal world, we would get Russian, Norwegian, Finnish and Swedish ground, and sea units. As well as British (at least those few British naval assets from SA map, come in handy for cold war stuff)  but we're not gonna get stuff like that.

[Seaeagle]

On 10/22/2023 at 7:34 PM, Northstar98 said:

Don't get me wrong - I absolutely see where you're coming from and I'm sorta with you. But I'd argue they'd still have a point even if means pretending it's currently stationing whatever non-present asset.

Of course, but its wouldn't just be one or two such bases, but every one of them in the case of submarines, while the main naval base for surface ships at Severomorsk will look either quite deserted or totally off(if "populated" only with the types currently existing in DCS). Now if it had been some simplistic map for a sim focusing on commercial airliners, you could probably get away with it, but for an extremely high detailed map, for which exactly the military importance in general and the naval installations of the area  in particular is what makes it interesting for a combat flight simulator, I would say that it is a big problem.

 

On 10/22/2023 at 7:34 PM, Northstar98 said:

Though I would absolutely love for the map to be appropriately filled out with assets and modules appropriate for it, for me preferably centering around the 80s, where I think this map really shines.

Yes 80'ies and 90'ies, but then that also has a lot to do with the origins of the sim - i.e. that the vast majority of assets(air, sea and land) available in DCS belong to that era, which in turn also means that its the most feasible in terms of expanding with appropriate extra naval assets.

On 10/22/2023 at 7:34 PM, Northstar98 said:

I mean, you could still do an AI SSB/SSBN unit and omit the ballistic missile part (after all, Cold Waters and the upcoming Sea Power: Naval Combat in the Missile Age do exactly that), but then they have a degree of ASW modelled, giving you the capability to shadow or hunt them down - in DCS though, unless they're on the surface that capability doesn't exist and you've essentially just got an attack boat with a different model (probably firing torpedoes where WWI-style straight running gyro-angle guidance is modelled) and in that case, you're probably better off with a cruise missile boat or an attack boat.

Yes I agree - thats why I suggested SSBNs just as static map objects, because I think that with the current submarine "routine"(or rather lack thereof) it would be a waste of ressouces to implement them as active objects. But then In the case of SSGNs and SSNs the problem is that if they can dive below the surface and launch torpedos and SSMs against surface ships, while those have no means of locating them(no sonar) and defend themselves(no appropriate armament), then we would just have swapped an omission in the naval warfare aspect with an unrealistic/dysfunctional one.

So I don't know.....maybe it would be better to include all appropriate submarine types as static obects(for the sake of map realism) for the time being and...

On 10/22/2023 at 7:34 PM, Northstar98 said:

But yes, I'd absolutely include the boats you've named, particularly the Victor, where if we had all 3 variants (and there isn't too much difference to them externally - main one is that the I has a 5-bladed screw, II has 2 4-bladed screws arranged in tandem and III is essentially the II but adding the pod for the MG-541 towed-array sonar) we'd having something covering from the late 60s to almost present-day. Though I'll maintain that the priority should be combat surface vessels, auxilliary surface vessels, attack/guided missile submarines then ballistic missile submarines as far as naval assets go.

...then concentrate efforts on additional active surface vessels with a focus on the 80'ies/90'ies - i.e. as a more moderate expansion to the existing units. 

On 10/22/2023 at 7:34 PM, Northstar98 said:

Absolutely - I'd say the Sovremenny, Udaloy I and Kresta II are probably top of my list (with the Sovremenny and Kresta II have greater AAW capability). Though I'd take just about anything, though yes, that absolutely should include support units such as the Boris Chilikin (though at least we have an Altay, though a legacy model).

 

Indeed. 

[bmbpdk]

On 9/20/2023 at 6:21 PM, MAXsenna said:

"Det finnes ikke dårlig vær, bare dårlige klær"!

Funny it rimes in both Norwegian and Swedish!

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

It also works in Danish:

"Der findes ikke dårligt vejr, kun dårlig påklædning."

[Northstar98]

On 10/24/2023 at 2:37 PM, Seaeagle said:

Yes I agree - thats why I suggested SSBNs just as static map objects, because I think that with the current submarine "routine"(or rather lack thereof) it would be a waste of ressouces to implement them as active objects.

Maybe, but I would've thought 95% of the effort in making a new asset is the 3D model, once you've done that it shouldn't be much to make them "active units" beyond animating them and making a .lua definition for them. As far as I'm concerned if you're going to be spending that effort, I think I'd much rather that effort be spent on something that functions in some respect.

If I want to attack submarines in port or naval bases hosting submarines, then for the time being I'll make do with the Kilos currently in DCS. Yes, it's far from ideal (being based only at Polyarnny AFAIK, and only 1 during pre-perestroyka, they also should be the original Pr. 877, not 877V or 636), but I'd rather do that than not do those kind of missions at all.

On 10/24/2023 at 2:37 PM, Seaeagle said:

But then In the case of SSGNs and SSNs the problem is that if they can dive below the surface and launch torpedos and SSMs against surface ships, while those have no means of locating them(no sonar) and defend themselves(no appropriate armament), then we would just have swapped an omission in the naval warfare aspect with an unrealistic/dysfunctional one.

Yes, which is why submarines are a poor choice to begin with without ASW (which could be a game's worth of content by itself, especially when naval warfare wholly confined to surface units already has a massive list of things missing, simplified or otherwise wrong with it, without touching ASW) which is why surface units (preferably IMO, those from the late 70s to the early 90s) make far more sense practically, in DCS, by an overwhelming margin.

But semi-functional attack and guided missile submarines is at least something rather than nothing, even if yes, you're absolutely correct, that it's not much of step up at all and would be a broken and incomplete implementation (though the Type 093 is already able to launch torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles, albeit said torpedoes only have WWI-style gyroangle guidance modeled, when they should be wire-guided + active/passive acoustic homing, so it wouldn't be totally unprecedented).

Edited October 25, 2023 by Northstar98

[Seaeagle]

6 hours ago, bmbpdk said:

It also works in Danish:

"Der findes ikke dårligt vejr, kun dårlig påklædning."

Well isn't the Danish version more like; "Der er ikke noget der hedder dårligt vejr, kun dårlig beklædning"

I guess we could have used the Norwegian version by applying a little artistic freedom; "Der findes ikke dårligt vejr, kun dårlige klær'(klæder)", which would have sounded better and less annoying

 

[Seaeagle]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Maybe, but I wouldn't thought 95% of the effort in making a new asset is the 3D model, once you've done that it shouldn't be much to make them "active units" beyond animating them and making a .lua definition for them. As far as I'm concerned if you're going to be spending that effort, I think I'd much rather that effort be spent on something that functions in some respect.

Well yes the 3D modelling is the largest part by far, but for a map object I would also expect a much lower fidelity than for an active object - if for no other reason due to performance considerations. I have a pair of very old submarine models(Akula and Typhoon class - not my own work), which are around 10K faces each. They are not the pinnacle of fidelity in this day and age, but they are quite accurate and the geometry is smooth even at close up, so something like that would do the job fine.

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

If I want to attack submarines in port or naval bases hosting submarines, then for the time being I'll make do with the Kilos currently in DCS. Yes, it's far from ideal (being based only at Polyarnny AFAIK, and only 1 during pre-perestroyka, they also should be the original Pr. 877, not 877V or 636), but I'd rather do that than not do those kind of missions at all.

Well missions involving attacking submarines at pier side don't really require those to be active objects - only if you want them to be on the move, which(hunting surfaced subs) in turn probably isn't the most realistic scenario

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Yes, which is why submarines are a poor choice to begin with without ASW (which could be a game's worth of content by itself, especially when naval warfare wholly confined to surface units already has a massive list of things missing, simplified or otherwise wrong with it, without touching ASW) which is why surface units (preferably IMO, those from the late 70s to the early 90s) make far more sense practically, in DCS, by an overwhelming margin.

Fully agree.

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

But semi-functional attack and guided missile submarines is at least something rather than nothing, even if yes, you're absolutely correct, that it's not much of step up at all and would be a broken and incomplete implementation (though the Type 093 is already able to launch torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles, albeit said torpedoes only have WWI-style gyroangle guidance modeled, when they should be wire-guided + active/passive acoustic homing, so it wouldn't be totally unprecedented).

Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one  . IMHO submarines that  can attack surface combatants with complete impunity is not better than nothing. In my opinion "abstract" detection means as well as some ASW armament(ASW mortars and torpedos) for surface ships would be the minimal requirement for implementation of active submarines.

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

Well yes the 3D modelling is the largest part by far, but for a map object I would also expect a much lower fidelity than for an active object - if for no other reason due to performance considerations. I have a pair of very old submarine models(Akula and Typhoon class - not my own work), which are around 10K faces each. They are not the pinnacle of fidelity in this day and age, but they are quite accurate and the geometry is smooth even at close up, so something like that would do the job fine.

Fair enough, though ED seem to like making models that are future proofed (at least as far as animations are concerned). I'm not too sure on performance as there should be systems in place to deal with high-poly assets such that they're not hogging resources when its unnecessary.

3 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

Well missions involving attacking submarines at pier side don't really require those to be active objects - only if you want them to be on the move, which(hunting surfaced subs) in turn probably isn't the most realistic scenario

Yeah, that's a point I completely glossed over As for the latter, yes.

3 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one  . IMHO submarines that  can attack surface combatants with complete impunity is not better than nothing.

Fair enough.

[bmbpdk]

21 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

Well isn't the Danish version more like; "Der er ikke noget der hedder dårligt vejr, kun dårlig beklædning"

I guess we could have used the Norwegian version by applying a little artistic freedom; "Der findes ikke dårligt vejr, kun dårlige klær'(klæder)", which would have sounded better and less annoying

 

I do not know the original sentence, but yours sound very precise.
The word "Klær" is the "lazy" edition of "klæder" in Danish also, with "Tøj" (Clothes) being the everyday word for it.
Now that i remember; i was once in Norway, and a elderly Norwegian lady asked me if i understood "norsk", i said "En lille smule" (A little bit), but apparently the word "lille" means something very different in Norway, because she took that as an insult.
Luckily my buddy could translate for her and me and the situation was de-fused.
We both learned something new that day

Edited October 26, 2023 by bmbpdk
Typo

[Seaeagle]

On 10/26/2023 at 3:19 PM, bmbpdk said:

I do not know the original sentence, but yours sound very precise.
The word "Klær" is the "lazy" edition of "klæder" in Danish also, with "Tøj" (Clothes) being the everyday word for it.
Now that i remember; i was once in Norway, and a elderly Norwegian lady asked me if i understood "norsk", i said "En lille smule" (A little bit), but apparently the word "lille" means something very different in Norway, because she took that as an insult.
Luckily my buddy could translate for her and me and the situation was de-fused.
We both learned something new that day

 

Yean it can be quite treacherous - its like 80% the same and then you have those words that are the same, but mean something completely different - in some cases the exact opposite, which can lead to some awkward or amusing misunderstandings. 

[Braunn]

No Norwegians, Russians, Finns or Swedes will buy the Kola map. 

Change my mind. 

[MAXsenna]

I do not know the original sentence, but yours sound very precise.
The word "Klær" is the "lazy" edition of "klæder" in Danish also, with "Tøj" (Clothes) being the everyday word for it.
Now that i remember; i was once in Norway, and a elderly Norwegian lady asked me if i understood "norsk", i said "En lille smule" (A little bit), but apparently the word "lille" means something very different in Norway, because she took that as an insult.
Luckily my buddy could translate for her and me and the situation was de-fused.
We both learned something new that day

Nah, it means the same, but the way you guys say it compared to Norwegians might have made her think about something else. Where in Norway was this? Our dialects vary a lot.
The other day I'd been "pole hunting" and came down from the hills/forest of the North-Eastern side of Oslo and I just had to grab a burger in a Halal burger joint. These two guys entered, a Trønder, (Norwegian from Trondheim), and a Dane. And the Dane ordered pommes frites, but the guy behind the counter goes "Huh"? And the Dane repeats it to my amusement, so I just turn around and say: "You're East of the river now, so you have to say påmfri!", and the Trønder just cracks up. You see, things can easily get "lost in translation" between Norwegians too.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk