DCS: Kola Discussion

[Razorback]

I agree, urban areas are well modelized.

For the rest of the map, everybody has his own view on it but when you read the feedback coming from most of the RW pilots, the actual version of the map (we are in 2024) is a real deception!

My conclusion : forget the orthophoto technique for DCS. This kind of ground layer is not working for the actual DCS graphic system.
ED has more and more developped the helos during the last decade and « de facto » new maps have to be improved as well.

Today I enjoy flying on the syrian or on the modded Caucasus maps. It’s not the case with the current Kola map.
I hope to see some improvements during the following months but I don’t expect any major changes on the ground quality which should say that the ground layer should be deeply improved. So Kola will for sure become a nice map for fighters but most of the RW lovers will sadly by-pass the map (which is already the case for most of the 40 members of my virtual helicopter squadron).

I hope that I am wrong because the map area is really nice and give a lot of new mission possibilities in DCS.

 

[zerO_crash]

15 hours ago, Razorback said:

I agree, urban areas are well modelized.

For the rest of the map, everybody has his own view on it but when you read the feedback coming from most of the RW pilots, the actual version of the map (we are in 2024) is a real deception!

My conclusion : forget the orthophoto technique for DCS. This kind of ground layer is not working for the actual DCS graphic system.
ED has more and more developped the helos during the last decade and « de facto » new maps have to be improved as well.

Today I enjoy flying on the syrian or on the modded Caucasus maps. It’s not the case with the current Kola map.
I hope to see some improvements during the following months but I don’t expect any major changes on the ground quality which should say that the ground layer should be deeply improved. So Kola will for sure become a nice map for fighters but most of the RW lovers will sadly by-pass the map (which is already the case for most of the 40 members of my virtual helicopter squadron).

I hope that I am wrong because the map area is really nice and give a lot of new mission possibilities in DCS.

 

Well, living in Norway, and having been to St. Petersburg (similar nature to Murmansk, otherwise I got family in Moscow, my heritage), while not being on point (skip the notion of photrealism - we are not there yet), it gives the "feeling" of familiarity in both cases. Again, there is much good, but also much that needs to be worked on - notably, coastal rocks/mountains, textures, etc.. The point is, Orbx did release pictures with even more derailed ground. If I'm not wrong, those were tuned down for performance reasons, much like the case with birch-trees and tree density. It's hard to blame Orbx for taking a practical approach to balance between fidelity/performance. If anything, this points to a situation where Orbx is likely sitting eith better viduals, but waiting with the release until ED/Orbx perform their performance-centered optimizations. In other words - higher quality craft could be a matter of a single patch when all relevant factors are st place. This is a pure speculation though.

 

As to orthophoto, it's hard to say. MSFS2020 manages to automatically errect buildings and model terrain, based on whatever automation software that they have. In any case, it requires hand-craft to finalize the product. I won't really compare the two in visuals, because the aforementioned has a completely different sales model. Hail to ED for not allowing anything remotely resembling the PR-model such as individual objects (airports/smaller areas/whatever else) as individual modules. I'll also adress the common misconception spread around the forums, regarding the price of this map. Mainly those who haven't even purchased it, complain (typical...) that it costs too much for what it is. Whoever thought of that, as a argument, was not quite healthy up top. By purchasing a map/module/whatever, you purchase the support and a finalized product down the road. No, you didn't purchase a "early access" for the price of a full release. You purchased a full release at the stage and availability of "early access". Goes to show much university material there is around the internet... The term "sewing club", doesn't even begin to cover it...

 

In any case, yes, constant visual improvements are, and will be a thing. There is no doubt that Kola will only get better. Orbx will have the chance to show how serious they are about supporting the map in the long run. If I recall right, the first update to Kola, is scheduled for June (#subject2change). While our reception might differ in certain details, the potential is there without a doubt 

Edited May 6, 2024 by zerO_crash

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Flying in the evening setting, with NVG, in case anyone interested...

 

[skywalker22]

33 minutes ago, VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants said:

Flying in the evening setting, with NVG, in case anyone interested...

 

How come that the sound of F-16 engine inside the cockpit ios differen then mine? Do you have any mod?

[Mainstay]

After reading all the information about the low quality ground textures of this map. Especially when flying helicopters I’m not gonna buy this. 
 

I rather have a 600GB Ultra HD option version than this. There’s a reason I bought a 4TB Nvme because I know this hobby and passion is huge on diskspace. I think we can all agree that it’s impossible to keep dreaming that we can install quality textures in small sizes. People have to be wiling to invest for what they like. 
 

So ORBX this is also a request to you guys for making a UHD version as a separate download if you guys have chosen to go down the dumbed down road for whatever reason. 

[YoYo]

1 hour ago, Mainstay said:

After reading all the information about the low quality ground textures of this map. Especially when flying helicopters I’m not gonna buy this. 
 

I rather have a 600GB Ultra HD option version than this. There’s a reason I bought a 4TB Nvme because I know this hobby and passion is huge on diskspace. I think we can all agree that it’s impossible to keep dreaming that we can install quality textures in small sizes. People have to be wiling to invest for what they like. 

I fly on helicopters 50% of time, textures are ok or very ok, however, you definitely can't have them on Medium setting in DCS. I will buy 4TB too in this week, for the future. 

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

2 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

How come that the sound of F-16 engine inside the cockpit ios differen then mine? Do you have any mod?

Yes.

https://echo19audio.gumroad.com/l/e19viper?layout=profile

[Hotdognz]

Well got it downloaded today and took a flight around Murmansk, got to say its way too green the ground textures textures in a helo are truly horrible, why didn't they use the same textures from the Falklands around this area it would have suited it so much more and been a lot easier on the eye, also the textures are all over the place they are not even consistent.

Also have to say if that's a high detailed airport at Murmansk, its a pretty poor effort from Orbx, they need to really look at Sinia and Syria and how well they are modeled even the building textures are bland and unaspiring, most of the buildings in the airport don't have roads or footpaths going to them ??, there are left over concrete areas that seem to have been placed and then have no purpose, it feels like a half hearted effort really.

I was so looking forward to this map, I know its EA but even the high detailed areas shouldn't have got through like this, SA is way nicer with the texture palate, I cant believe this even got passed through with ED as a EA beta, feels very much like a alpha.

[skypickle]

Agree, much of the ground is just vomit without the chunks. Ok iget it, it’s flat. But how bout some things on the ground? Cars on a road? Military vehicles? Smoke from a campfire? An animal here and there?

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, Hotdognz said:

why didn't they use the same textures from the Falklands around this area it would have suited it so much more and been a lot easier on the eye

 

Probably because the Falklands Map is the work of a different third party?

[Hoirtel]

Anyone know if there are any air to ground training ranges located on this map? 

[Ironhand]

1 hour ago, Hoirtel said:

Anyone know if there are any air to ground training ranges located on this map? 

There should be a large one in Vidsel, Sweden. But I'm still many hours away from the map finishing its download. So I don't know if it's on the map yet.

[XCNuse]

1 hour ago, Rudel_chw said:

Probably because the Falklands Map is the work of a different third party?

You sure about that?

 

Look closer at who makes the Kola map... ie: credits.

I'm willing to give a hint though; it isn't anyone at Orbx.

Edited May 6, 2024 by XCNuse

[bfr]

20 minutes ago, Ironhand said:

There should be a large one in Vidsel, Sweden. But I'm still many hours away from the map finishing its download. So I don't know if it's on the map yet.

Its on the 'coming later' list, or at least the airbase associated with the range is. And you can already clearly see where the airbase will go if you overfly its location.

[Rudel_chw]

9 minutes ago, XCNuse said:

You sure about that?

 

Look closer at who makes the Kola map... ie: credits.

I'm willing to give a hint though; it isn't anyone at Orbx.

 

 

You are right, I stand corrected 

[AdrianL]

1 hour ago, XCNuse said:

I'm willing to give a hint though; it isn't anyone at Orbx.

Your hint is be very wrong. Verify facts before you spread incorrect information.

Specter and Ripper work for Orbx. They are doing the SA map in their own time. They have also stated that the credits file is missing people and will be updated
 

1 hour ago, Rudel_chw said:

I stand corrected

See my post above

Edited May 6, 2024 by AdrianL

[XCNuse]

TIL

I can't say most of us generally know or should even want to know what some of our third party devs do as a day job.

 

Point stands; it's still "the same people" that made Falklands map; who we DO know as working for Razbam; hence the similarities.

[zerO_crash]

Ok, let's put everything into context, so as to resolve any possible misunderstandings. Regarding South Atlantic-map, which gets thrown around as a comparison and prediction for what some fear is the likely course of Kola. Some six months ago, a dev from Razbam reached out to the community to ask what "the masses" preferred - the current based-on-satellite-imagery map, or a change of course closer to that of the other maps (that we have), meaning handcraft and aerial adjustments. Check the thread below, and turn your attention to two things; a) the poll showing a approximately split community (neither is in favour), and b) reading the comments (first couple of pages). You'll notice that some of the people complaining here about South Atlantic (and what might happen with Kola (unfounded worry btw.)), are the same people who wanted to stay with the photogrammetry. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and appears as if the individuals are confused, not knowing what they actually want. My recommendation - make up your mind before voicing it publicly.

 

 

Also, two former Razbam devs, now working for Orbx (it seems), are used as a leverage for one argument or the other. Let me put it this way; In formula one, just because drivers rotate every season between different teams (a driver can work next season for a team, that was considered a competitior in this season). Yet, the teams remain loyal to their core values. Just because employees change a company they work for, does not mean that they bring their former values with them. Deciding on a subject such as how to make a map, is not the choice of two co-workers (artists if you will). It is a choice typically made higher up. Since the map is the product itself, there are definitely more people that participated in the planning and decision phase. This means, that even though the map resembles certain choices made by Razbam, the goal might be something completely different for Orbx (handcraft). There are already areas which point to the latter. That's also not to say that South Atlantic is of bad quality. It has its strengths and weaknesses.

Edited May 6, 2024 by zerO_crash

[Rudel_chw]

4 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

That's also not to say that South Atlantic is of bad quality. It has its strengths and weaknesses.

 

I love the SA map, and have flown on it a lot ... the only thing that worries me about it, is if it will ever be finished   ... but as of now, it is totally usable on DCS missions.

[zerO_crash]

4 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

I love the SA map, and have flown on it a lot ... the only thing that worries me about it, is if it will ever be finished   ... but as of now, it is totally usable on DCS missions.

That is a different discussion though, and I'm sure we'll hear news about the conflict in question soon. I see your point, though.

 

While Kola seems is a very early release, it should be remembered that sheer size of the landmass is enormous. By the metrics of land, it is by far the biggest map. With/without AI-tools and automatisation, this map will take years to finish. Everyone ought to remember that.

 

I have made a specific request to Orbx, that they should consider dropping the idea of making only select parts of high-quality, and instead, make the whole map of such. The area is too good IRL, to not represent it as such digitally. You have just about everything on this map, other than desert. It's a fantastic environment, especially in the realm of combat/conflict. 
 

I'll also mention that it makes sense that winter isn't properly simulated yet. Rightfully so, the current textures for winter (season) are not satisfactory for this region. Notice btw. how Orbx is actually pushing at expanding some of the limitations of DCS (file size, varied models (trees), etc...). It's good

Edited May 6, 2024 by zerO_crash

[MBot]

Thought you might find this interesting. From https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA231546.pdf

This is from 1989. AMF is the Allied Mobile Force, a NATO quick reaction force to reinforce its flanks (either Norway or Mediterranean). MAB is a Marine Amphibious Brigade.

[Qcumber]

39 minutes ago, MBot said:

Thought you might find this interesting. From https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA231546.pdf

This is from 1989. AMF is the Allied Mobile Force, a NATO quick reaction force to reinforce its flanks (either Norway or Mediterranean). MAB is a Marine Amphibious Brigade.

This looks great. F-16s all the way.

However, it also clearly shows that we must have a Jaguar module in DCS 

[Eponsky_bot]

And I liked it

 

[zerO_crash]

19 minutes ago, Eponsky_bot said:

And I liked it

 

Хорошо, братан!

 

Murmansk is beautiful! It also shows what I've been mentioning. Mostly, it's visually stunning (this with civilian traffic in VR is great). Occasionally you come across rough ground/cut terrain, like you did some three minutes into the video. 
 

Overall, it's a good starting point!

[freehand]

Had a quick play & like it worth the purchase for me for sure.