DCS: Kola Discussion

[MIghtymoo]

All in all I am happy with the looks of the map.

It is hard on the PC hardware, because of huge number of trees on large parts of the map.

VR Performance is not very good, due to the huge amounts of trees. Combined with shadows, this is a fps-killer (even on a top system).

I decided to turn on reprojection to solve this, as I want shadows and trees.

Bodø looks stunning in sunset.

 

Hope performance will be optimized over time. Already better than South Atlantic, imho.

Edited May 3, 2024 by MIghtymoo

[shrimpy_dikdik]

Mixed feelings after an hour or two scooting about.

The Norwegian mountains look amazing from a slight distance or altitude and a sunrise flight over them was breath taking. Up close the textures are not so good however. 

The rest of the map is mostly forest and there lies the problem, performance. Using a Reverb G2 ( only ever play vr) on a 5950x and 3090 I was getting sub 40 rps in the dense forest areas at around 3000ft. Compare that to a similar scenario on the Caucasus or Syria where I get around 54 fps (would usually lock at 45 but left unlocked for comparison). Sameish altitude in forest areas. 

Murmansk looked pretty good but also sent my FPS down to around 37.

Turning off terrain shadows helped and also reducing forest detail and draw distance to around 70%.

I am sure we will see some texture and performance improvements in due course, but in hindsight I think I would have been better off delaying my purchase until this happens.  

Edited May 3, 2024 by shrimpy_dikdik

[flanker1]

I am very disappointed, far away from this WIP screen see below . Hopefully we will get these amazing runway and ground textures back. . . with high resolution and more details   

[bfr]

Yes, definitely demanding. I said the other day I reckoned it'd be 'South Atlantic and Caucasus had a baby' and it does really feel like that.  I've been basically doing sightseeing tours at between 5000ft and 100ft and the only real negative i've had thus far is the occasional bit of a slideshow for about 3 or 4 seconds (presumably loading another section). Even hammering around the Norwegian coast ( Bodo to Lakselv, which is well outside the higher detail area) was fun to just stare out the window as the world went by. The earlier flight from the Kemi Tornio all the way to Murmansk was good fun going quite low level at times. When the game isn't catching up on itself then the world was really flying by outside (and the flatter bits aren't that flat when you go properly low).

Conclusion: Definitely things that can be worked on but a really solid starting point. When you do occasionally hit a population centre then it does actually look like a functional town rather than just 'here are some random buildings'. I think we'll all have a lot of fun with this in time and there are definitely things to like it about it already.  Even the lower definition areas of the map I genuinely enjoyed. It is absolutely pushing DCS to the limit though, even with the already acknowledged compromises about choice of trees etc.

Edited May 4, 2024 by bfr

[MIghtymoo]

3 minutes ago, flanker1 said:

I am very disappointed, far away from this WIP screen see below . Hopefully we will get these amazing runway and ground textures back. . . with high resolution and more details   

Wow, like the Pyramids on Sinai map

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

21 minutes ago, MIghtymoo said:

VR Performance is not very good

It's a mixed bag for me. Framerate on the ground is VERY low (sub-30) which gives me a headache very quickly.
In the southern Finland area I have to climb to above 6000ft before the framerate goes over 30.
At higher altitude the framerates are fine (mind you all that is while doing a free flight with 1 aircraft and 0 other units).

Overall I'd say the map looks (generally) better than the SA map, and performs about the same.

[Jester986]

To those flying on it If I enjoyed South Atlantic at launch would I be happy with the state of this?

[Rudel_chw]

Just now, Jester986 said:

To those flying on it If I enjoyed South Atlantic at launch would I be happy with the state of this?

i have SA and I’d say that Kola performs better and its mountains have a crisper mesh … but on SA the airbases have better textures and more detail, like Sa at start it has only a dozen airbases, hopefully they will add more quickly, just as razbam did with SA

[bfr]

21 minutes ago, Jester986 said:

To those flying on it If I enjoyed South Atlantic at launch would I be happy with the state of this?

Yes, definitely so.

[Raisuli]

10 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

i have SA and I’d say that Kola performs better and its mountains have a crisper mesh … but on SA the airbases have better textures and more detail, like Sa at start it has only a dozen airbases, hopefully they will add more quickly, just as razbam did with SA

I did notice the airbases have been freshly paved; not so much as a muddy tire on them.  I expect that will go away with a bit of attention.  Overall everything is a lot too clean, particularly flying up around Murmansk, which is normal for a DCS map.  This isn't where you go for video game tourism, but there are some industrial installations I specifically looked for near there are are, more or less, modeled.  Saw some odd rectangular areas that I'll never be able to find again; looked like fencing out in the middle of nowhere...

Airbases are a little sparse; right now my biggest problem, if you want to call it that, is where I make my 'home' airbase around which all the training areas will go.  First thought is Bodo (I need to copy/paste the correct spelling for that somewhere) just so I can train in and around all those mountains and keep a couple CVBGs out on the water nearby.  Maybe a satellite airbase out on the flat areas to the northeast for flat plate SEAD, without much to hide behind.

The map is 400+ nm across.  No shortage of room for ranges, missions, training, and whatever else might lift your airframe.  Like SA I expect it to fill in, get a little wear, and improve as we go.  I do prefer the land/sea ratio better than SA.

[Flogger23m]

What is performance like, and what resolution are you running at along with system specs?

Any good videos showing off how it looks yet?

[bfr]

7 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

I did notice the airbases have been freshly paved; not so much as a muddy tire on them.  I expect that will go away with a bit of attention.  Overall everything is a lot too clean, particularly flying up around Murmansk, which is normal for a DCS map.  This isn't where you go for video game tourism, but there are some industrial installations I specifically looked for near there are are, more or less, modeled.  Saw some odd rectangular areas that I'll never be able to find again; looked like fencing out in the middle of nowhere...

Airbases are a little sparse; right now my biggest problem, if you want to call it that, is where I make my 'home' airbase around which all the training areas will go.  First thought is Bodo (I need to copy/paste the correct spelling for that somewhere) just so I can train in and around all those mountains and keep a couple CVBGs out on the water nearby.  Maybe a satellite airbase out on the flat areas to the northeast for flat plate SEAD, without much to hide behind.

The map is 400+ nm across.  No shortage of room for ranges, missions, training, and whatever else might lift your airframe.  Like SA I expect it to fill in, get a little wear, and improve as we go.  I do prefer the land/sea ratio better than SA.

Yes, there can be a lot of not a lot depending on where you go, but it doesn't quite feel as utterly desolate as a lot of SA does. Seeing it in the depths of winter will be quite entertaining too I suspect.

[Raven434th]

are you able to destroy subs at the sub bases or are they just eye candy??

 

[Rudel_chw]

40 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

Airbases are a little sparse; right now my biggest problem, if you want to call it that, is where I make my 'home' airbase around which all the training areas will go.  First thought is Bodo

 

Bodo its on the sparse detail area, on this first EA Stage Rovaniemi, in Finland, seems better as home base.

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, waterman said:

Hi can someone check -

Do the DCS trains work ok on the Kola Map Railway Network ?

Someone please give the WW2 addon class 86 steam Locomotive a Run.

Is it on correct track height and does it smoke and do the wheels turn and animate ok

 

Hi,

Unfortunately, the train is sunk into the trackway and the wheels dont turn

 

 

Will report it as bug.

[waterman]

Thanks for checking -

I thought they would have noticed !

Sad situation

[zerO_crash]

After spending around 6 hours:

 

The area that the map covers is fantastic, both IRL and in DCS. From middle Finland/Sweden and east through the whole Kola peninsula, it's somewhat flat. Westwards from Finland/Sweden and to Norwegian cost, it's all mountians. They are generally in the range of 50m - 600m. In other words, this isn't Caucasus. Still, quite unique to the scenery, are fjords with sea entering every valley there is. The type of nature, and formation of mountains is very different indeed. If one observes closely, the main difference between e.g. Scandinavia and Caucasus, is that while the Scandinavian Peninsula has relatively low mountains, they are incredibly steep. That makes the whole terrain look just completely different to what other regions have. The topographics are splendid, and geography, really good. The coastlines themselves are amazing, and infrastructure (air ports, cities, etc..) technically very well made. Fascinating thing about this map is that the architecture seems different between what's found in Russia, vs. what's found in Finland/Sweden/Norway. Even the cities look different, with different models/size of populaton/etc... This is similar to (Israel vs. surrounding arab countries on Syria/Sinai maps). It's really fantastic, and one notices it. Visually, the map is stunning, albeit many areas aren't finished nor even begun. East of Murmansk is mostly clean (not started yet). However, those areas that are even semi-finished... oh dear... Piece of art! I can honestly say that flying with e.g. the Ka-50 from "Kola bay" (in the north) and following it south all the way through river "Reka Tuloma" to "Verkhnetulomsky", is the most beautiful place on any map in DCS. It's stunning. This, especially in VR. There is something about a wide bay/river which has infrastructure ftom tip to toe along it's length. Shipyards, cities, bridges, generally low terrain (grants view to the horizon)... It's amazing. Also, the map is huge, as in enormous. Comparison-wise, while South Atlantic is some 3100km from east to west, Kola is approximately 1420km. With that said, Kola is 1420km of pure land, and incredibly long from north to south, whilst South Atlantic, great as it is, is rather small in land (in comparison). 

 

Performance-wise, the map runs great for what it is. It's complicated in many technical aspects, thus it's not surprising that it takes some power to run. I am nowhere near maxed out, graphics-wise (closer to medium - VR), and it runs pretty well. With that said, having tried it maxed (lower fps), it is breathtaking in VR (G2). Personally, I truly enjoy all the terrains in DCS, they are all unique in visuals/conditions/architecture/etc... However Kola, has literally become my number one along with Caucasus. The areas are interesting, the mission scenarios are endless, and the quality is overall up top. With issues/requests adressed over time, this will remain among the top maps.

 

I can also mention, that this map is different in person, than watching a video of it. I can not recommend it enough. That, with the understanding that it's a early access release, a very early access release.

Edited May 4, 2024 by zerO_crash

[rob10]

4 hours ago, PLUTON said:

In 2 hours I only downloaded 7 Giga out of 153
at this rate I would take advantage of the card from Monday
(I download at 0.7 mega/s) and even at times I go down to 400 kb/s Great

I feel your pain.  Running 1-1.3 MB/sec for me.  24 hour download.  Glad I managed to be home to get it going this morning so I can play this weekend.

[mikko.1842]

5 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

After spending around 6 hours:

The area that the map covers is fantastic, both IRL and in DCS.

[...]

I can also mention, that this map is different in person, than watching a video of it. I can not recommend it enough. That, with the understanding that it's a early access release, a very early access release.

You are selling it very well, Sir. I was planning on not buying it, but you are making me reconsider things. Thank you for your review.

[zerO_crash]

33 minutes ago, mikko.1842 said:

You are selling it very well, Sir. I was planning on not buying it, but you are making me reconsider things. Thank you for your review.

My pleasure

I can understand that some people might have slightly lower performance than with other maps, or that they were unfortunate to spawn in an area that is literally only topography and standard ground-layer with a couple of trees. With that said, giving it an objective look, go to the areas which have been worked (at least a little) - you will be blown away. What's doing the knack on this map, is the impression/feeling you get. Coastal cities actually look like coastal cities, esp. in VR, you can almost feel that fresh, cold air from the sea. It just gives you that impression. The flatter areas filled with forests, are in many ways featureless, which also gives you that void feeling of "where am I?!". Western Sweden and Norway, mountains and fjords. Lots of smaller islands, interesting terrain, new places to visit. It just pulls you to see more end on end.

 

I gotta say, if money isn't an issue, and you have the hardware to do it, then waiting is criminal. I cannot enjoy it enough.

Edited May 4, 2024 by zerO_crash

[freehand]

7 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

My pleasure

I can understand that some people might have slightly lower performance than with other maps, or that they were unfortunate to spawn in an area that is literally only topography and standard ground-layer with a couple of trees. With that said, giving it an objective look, go to the areas which have been worked (at least a little) - you will be blown away. What's doing the knack on this map, is the impression/feeling you get. Coastal cities actually look like coastal cities, esp. in VR, you can almost feel that fresh, cold air from the sea. It just gives you that impression. The flatter areas filled with forests, are in many ways featureless, which also gives you that void feeling of "where am I?!". Western Sweden and Norway, mountains and fjords. Lots of smaller islands, interesting terrain, new places to visit. It just pulls you to see more end on end.

 

I gotta say, if money isn't an issue, and you have the hardware to do it, then waiting is criminal. I cannot enjoy it enough.

 

I just bought the map on your recommendation I hope you do not have another account under the name wags.... 

[zerO_crash]

1 minute ago, freehand said:

I just bought the map on your recommendation I hope you do not have another account under the name wags.... 

Maybe I do

 

It's good stuff

[norman99]

How do the old Cold War SAM sites look?

I'm particularly interested in the SA-5 sites, but 2/3's were common in the area too. Almost all of these have been abandoned and are completely overgrown now, but I was hoping Orbx would model them in a usable state.

[Czar66]

5 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Winter textures are planned for June. So not a long wait.

Any news on how that will increase the maps footprint on our limited fast storage resources, at least limited to some of us.

[zerO_crash]

Honestly, not sure. I imagine that the spots are left open, such that you can insert them into the mission as active SAMs. Either SA-5s, or other types. 
 

I've noticed a few good places for strategic units (EWR/SAM (division-level)). I'd have to check if those were actually used IRL.