released DCS: Iraq - Coming 2024

[exhausted]

On 4/16/2024 at 6:24 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Anybody with basic knowledge of game engines knows that it's not. The technology to render something like a terrain is typically based on some assumptions about size and shape of detailed area, which can mean that you can't have a flat, untextured area on the map, or that it provides little in terms of performance benefit. Remember, an 8K texture with half of it filled with white is still an 8K texture, even if a large part of it is filled in with one color. While this example applies mostly to the old terrain system, it doesn't mean the new one is free of such limitations, though it does seem to be more modular, at least.

see the PG map, which as the exact areas in the detail we are asking for -- completely without the downfalls people keep repeating

[Dragon1-1]

2 minutes ago, exhausted said:

completely without the downfalls people keep repeating

Except that isn't true. PG is not a large map, relatively speaking, and the flat areas are ugly, but they could have been more detailed, without much performance loss, had the map not been declared completed. What I said remains true, the map is simply not exhausting its potential under the old system, and the only thing the "blank" areas on the texture save is developer effort. It's quite possible the highly detailed Dubai is bumping into some other limits regarding map objects, too, but that's beside the point.

[exhausted]

11 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Except that isn't true. PG is not a large map, relatively speaking, and the flat areas are ugly, but they could have been more detailed, without much performance loss, had the map not been declared completed. What I said remains true, the map is simply not exhausting its potential under the old system, and the only thing the "blank" areas on the texture save is developer effort. It's quite possible the highly detailed Dubai is bumping into some other limits regarding map objects, too, but that's beside the point.

How is it besides the point? Putting a coastline on the Afghanistan map isn't going to be a huge drain on anything whatsoever. I get the reason for denying the map a coastline is they want the DCS: Afghanistan to be a playground for the Apache, Kiowa and Chinook, but if you don't do Army aviation then you have think bigger: where can you make interesting scenarios that don't involve being a fobbit ferry?

[Rudel_chw]

12 minutes ago, exhausted said:

How is it besides the point? Putting a coastline on the Afghanistan map isn't going to be a huge drain on anything whatsoever.

 

The coast is over 400 Km away from Afghanistan IRL.

[Dragon1-1]

32 minutes ago, exhausted said:

How is it besides the point? Putting a coastline on the Afghanistan map isn't going to be a huge drain on anything whatsoever. 

Yes it is. That's the point. Read my post again. The "beside the point" part referred to map objects that, in a detailed area, would have to populate it. However, we're not talking objects, we're talking extending the map area itself. Even a perfectly flat plane going to the coast line would possibly have a big performance impact. In fact, it would have the same impact as if this area was fully detailed, but missing objects such as buildings and trees. That's how textures work (DDS ones, at least, which is what matters), the memory footprint only cares for how big a texture is, not what's on it.

[exhausted]

45 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Yes it is. That's the point. Read my post again. The "beside the point" part referred to map objects that, in a detailed area, would have to populate it. However, we're not talking objects, we're talking extending the map area itself. Even a perfectly flat plane going to the coast line would possibly have a big performance impact. In fact, it would have the same impact as if this area was fully detailed, but missing objects such as buildings and trees. That's how textures work (DDS ones, at least, which is what matters), the memory footprint only cares for how big a texture is, not what's on it.

Hedging around "quite possibly maybe could have a pretty big impact" hasn't been persuasive, given that we have large maps with literally the exact same area. If they can't do areas without detail, what makes you think they won't kill performance with the level of detail they are making for the planned areas?

 

And 400km is 248 miles, or less than 30 minutes flight time even with an aerial refueling. These excuses still aren't adding up.

[Dragon1-1]

35 minutes ago, exhausted said:

If they can't do areas without detail, what makes you think they won't kill performance with the level of detail they are making for the planned areas?

They likely will. Do not expect Afghanistan to be light on computer resources. Unless they have some spiffy new way to optimize it, expect it to be heavy even as it is. It really doesn't need to get any bigger for a marginal benefit.

Performance doesn't care about flight time, BTW. Performance cares about number of pixels per meter. At the pixel density that this map uses, that'd be a lot of pixels. On a map that's already going to be pushing it. Do the friggin' maths already, it adds up, all right. Stop thinking in real world terms and start thinking in computer graphics terms, because the latter is what determines performance.

[draconus]

3 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Performance cares about number of pixels per meter.

Only your assumption with second assumption on performance hit.

[Dragon1-1]

No, cold hard facts about how computer graphics work. The more pixels per meter you have, and the more meters you have, the more pixels there are to be processed (illuminated, rendered and displayed) by the GPU. That number is what's important for GPU performance. Look, it's going to be taxing no matter how hard you wish it won't be so. Big map, lots of details, complex terrain. Yes, your 3060 will cry. ED will hopefully make an effort not to make it cry too loudly, part of which is not adding pointless low detail extensions.

[draconus]

20 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

cold hard facts about how computer graphics work

Fact is we have multiple ways of how to make it and then another ways of how to display it. You think flying around the globe in the sim means you have to keep 510M square km in one texture, lol?

[exhausted]

42 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

No, cold hard facts about how computer graphics work. The more pixels per meter you have, and the more meters you have, the more pixels there are to be processed (illuminated, rendered and displayed) by the GPU. That number is what's important for GPU performance. Look, it's going to be taxing no matter how hard you wish it won't be so. Big map, lots of details, complex terrain. Yes, your 3060 will cry. ED will hopefully make an effort not to make it cry too loudly, part of which is not adding pointless low detail extensions.

This is speculation and conjecture, not fact. Actually, a hypothetical performance hit on a flat area is a complete red herring issue. There is a much easier way of saying that the sole issue is ED wants a Kiowa playground and they aren't interested in having an Afghanistan map that is capable of doing what is wanted.

Edited July 3, 2024 by exhausted

[MAXsenna]

Guys! I've checked the dates. You've been going about this now for months. In the wrong room!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Fact is we have multiple ways of how to make it and then another ways of how to display it. You think flying around the globe in the sim means you have to keep 510M square km in one texture, lol?

No, which is why we can't fly around the globe in DCS. Yet. DCS works in a specific way, it's not the only way to accomplish what it does, but it's the only way DCS can do it. How it works has been explained on the forums in the past. The system, as it was written, has certain limitations. To get around those limitations, a new system needs to be written. This is not a trivial task, but the idea that you'll one day be able to fly to Afghanistan from mainland US is being worked on.

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

There is a much easier way of saying that the sole issue is ED wants a Kiowa playground and they aren't interested in having an Afghanistan map that is capable of doing what is wanted.

Every complex issue has an answer that is short, simple, and wrong. In this case, this would be that answer. ED would have added the coastline if it was worth the effort and (considerable) resources to do so, especially since a big selling point of many modules is carrier operations. If they are not included, there is probably a good reason, and that reason is, is the coastline is not feasible.

[rob10]

2 hours ago, exhausted said:

There is a much easier way of saying that the sole issue is ED wants a Kiowa playground and they aren't interested in having an Afghanistan map that is capable of doing what is wanted.

Please give me one good argument for WHY ED would want to keep Afghanistan as a Kiowa playground incapable of "... doing what is wanted"?  What benefit is there to ED to limit a map to a small segment (helo ops) of a niche hobby (combat flight simulators)?  Clearly they want to maximize sales of the map.  There is absolutely no reason naval aircraft can't be used on it.  I'm a Hornet guy and I love staging off the carrier.  Did that stop me from buying Afghanistan?  Nope!  'Cause the Hornet is more than capable of operating from a land base.

Just because you think it's "simple" and "can't have any performance impact" doesn't mean that's the case, unless you're a map dev and directly working with it to prove that wrong.  I believe it was Nineline (but maybe someone else ED related) that already explained in a fair bit of detail why adding the extra land to get you to the sea isn't feasible technically currently with this map.

[79Au]

No carrier ops on Afghan map sucks man. What are ED's plans for the Iraq map? (part 1) Will it come with low detail terrain leading to a chunk of Persian Gulf?

Edited July 4, 2024 by 79Au

[exhausted]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

No, which is why we can't fly around the globe in DCS. Yet. DCS works in a specific way, it's not the only way to accomplish what it does, but it's the only way DCS can do it. How it works has been explained on the forums in the past. The system, as it was written, has certain limitations. To get around those limitations, a new system needs to be written. This is not a trivial task, but the idea that you'll one day be able to fly to Afghanistan from mainland US is being worked on.

Every complex issue has an answer that is short, simple, and wrong. In this case, this would be that answer. ED would have added the coastline if it was worth the effort and (considerable) resources to do so, especially since a big selling point of many modules is carrier operations. If they are not included, there is probably a good reason, and that reason is, is the coastline is not feasible.

The gaslighting and ridiculous excuses are making the whole thing stink so much worse. Over 70% of the strike missions flown to collapse the Taliban originated from the US Navy's aircraft carriers. The 250 miles of nearly featureless desert, that would be overflown at 20,000+ feet, cannot be the drain it is being claimed. Such claims are infeasible. 

2 hours ago, rob10 said:

Please give me one good argument for WHY ED would want to keep Afghanistan as a Kiowa playground incapable of "... doing what is wanted"?  What benefit is there to ED to limit a map to a small segment (helo ops) of a niche hobby (combat flight simulators)?  Clearly they want to maximize sales of the map.  There is absolutely no reason naval aircraft can't be used on it.  I'm a Hornet guy and I love staging off the carrier.  Did that stop me from buying Afghanistan?  Nope!  'Cause the Hornet is more than capable of operating from a land base.

Just because you think it's "simple" and "can't have any performance impact" doesn't mean that's the case, unless you're a map dev and directly working with it to prove that wrong.  I believe it was Nineline (but maybe someone else ED related) that already explained in a fair bit of detail why adding the extra land to get you to the sea isn't feasible technically currently with this map.

He often speaks for the company and could have just been saying what he was told by the real map makers. ED wanted a high yield development with limited scope with the Afghanistan map, and they did not expect people to care about the coastline when they really just wanted people to plan around using the Army helos. They designed the map to take advantage of a recent conflict to give these helicopters more appeal. Simple as that. 

The plan backfires when it turns out the map is not interesting without a coastline. People bring it up, ED does not really address it but rather claims it's not possible to add the coast. Okay, not true but let it be noted.

Edited July 4, 2024 by exhausted

[draconus]

5 hours ago, exhausted said:

He often speaks for the company and could have just been saying what he was told by the real map makers. ED wanted a high yield development with limited scope with the Afghanistan map, and they did not expect people to care about the coastline when they really just wanted people to plan around using the Army helos. They designed the map to take advantage of a recent conflict to give these helicopters more appeal. Simple as that. 

The plan backfires when it turns out the map is not interesting without a coastline. People bring it up, ED does not really address it but rather claims it's not possible to add the coast. Okay, not true but let it be noted.

I don't buy the excuses either but I moved on already. It's their map - their decision. Their chosings are not always very logical or popular. Why make Channel overlying Normandy map? Why PG is named Persian Gulf while it's only Strait of Hormuz, and why modern at that? We're in Iraq thread and people are really worried if they get any water at all on the map. Maybe some small chunk near Kuwait? Not yet confirmed - but there are already requests for a much bigger gulf chunk and even part of Red Sea to put carriers there. Seems very unlikely.

Truth is we get the whole Afghanistan, which is pretty big already and this surpasses any earlier wishes and projections. Not at all "limited scope". Look at this poll:

No one thought of the whole country then much less about even more land outside of it.

So while the Afghanistan map without any "outside" airbases or water is a bit limited in fully recreating historic operations you can't say it's mainly for helicopters and it's not something users and mission makers can't deal with. Many helicopters would probably feel at home here.

Edited July 4, 2024 by draconus

[Dragon1-1]

41 minutes ago, draconus said:

Why PG is named Persian Gulf while it's only Strait of Hormuz, and why modern at that?

It was actually called that in development, you can still see it in some of the internal names. Someone in marketing likely thought it'd sell better under the current name, but it is very much a Hormuz map.

As for why modern, they presumably didn't think a Gulf War version would be popular. In fact, I suspect they simply looked at Google Maps for references, and modeled it more or less as it looked when they started development. It's one of the older maps, back then it probably didn't seem to matter, and we had much fewer vintage aircraft, anyway.

[draconus]

4 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It was actually called that in development, you can still see it in some of the internal names. Someone in marketing likely thought it'd sell better under the current name, but it is very much a Hormuz map.

As for why modern, they presumably didn't think a Gulf War version would be popular. In fact, I suspect they simply looked at Google Maps for references, and modeled it more or less as it looked when they started development. It's one of the older maps, back then it probably didn't seem to matter, and we had much fewer vintage aircraft, anyway.

I know, those were rhetorical questions

[shagrat]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb draconus:

I don't buy the excuses either but I moved on already. It's their map - their decision. Their chosings are not always very logical or popular. Why make Channel overlying Normandy map? Why PG is named Persian Gulf while it's only Strait of Hormuz, and why modern at that? We're in Iraq thread and people are really worried if they get any water at all on the map. Maybe some small chunk near Kuwait? Not yet confirmed - but there are already requests for a much bigger gulf chunk and even part of Red Sea to put carriers there. Seems very unlikely.

Truth is we get the whole Afghanistan, which is pretty big already and this surpasses any earlier wishes and projections. Not at all "limited scope". Look at this poll:

No one thought of the whole country then much less about even more land outside of it.

So while the Afghanistan map without any "outside" airbases or water is a bit limited in fully recreating historic operations you can't say it's mainly for helicopters and it's not something users and mission makers can't deal with. Many helicopters would probably feel at home here.

 

I'd like to add, that Kandahar (KAF) was home to a constant detachment of US and UK aircraft, during the depicted timeframe (2008-2011). Well, actually since December 2001, both FOB Rhino (later renamed Camp Dwyer) and Kandahar Airport (KAF) were established and under coalition control, so landbased operations for aircraft in Helmand is a reality for anything, shortly after December 2001(!), let alone 8-10 years later.

[exhausted]

14 hours ago, draconus said:

I don't buy the excuses either but I moved on already. It's their map - their decision. Their chosings are not always very logical or popular. Why make Channel overlying Normandy map? Why PG is named Persian Gulf while it's only Strait of Hormuz, and why modern at that? We're in Iraq thread and people are really worried if they get any water at all on the map. Maybe some small chunk near Kuwait? Not yet confirmed - but there are already requests for a much bigger gulf chunk and even part of Red Sea to put carriers there. Seems very unlikely.

Truth is we get the whole Afghanistan, which is pretty big already and this surpasses any earlier wishes and projections. Not at all "limited scope". Look at this poll:

No one thought of the whole country then much less about even more land outside of it.

So while the Afghanistan map without any "outside" airbases or water is a bit limited in fully recreating historic operations you can't say it's mainly for helicopters and it's not something users and mission makers can't deal with. Many helicopters would probably feel at home here.

 

The Iraq map NEEDS water. If not, then it's another swing and a miss. How many of these can they make? The answer is that critical mass has not been met, but we may only know once it is. 

[C3PO]

Instant purchase just now. Superb news. If only Persian, Syria, Sinai and Iraq maps could be merged as one ... mmm ...

[admiki]

I hope it will be a better release than Afghanistan.

[MAXsenna]

14 minutes ago, C3PO said:

Instant purchase just now. Superb news. If only Persian, Syria, Sinai and Iraq maps could be merged as one ... mmm ...

We're allowed to dream!  

Edited October 18, 2024 by MAXsenna

[Ebphoto]

On 1/6/2024 at 6:51 PM, NineLine said:

DCS: Iraq
We are also excited to announce an Iraq map coming to DCS. From Operation Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom to the War on Terror, Iraq has been one of the most significant flash points of the late-20th and early 21st centuries. The Iraq map will initially be centred on Baghdad to best provide War-on-Terror and War on Isis scenarios. Later, the map will be expanded south to provide older scenarios like Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.

I am looking forward to flying in Iraq! The missions that we can make will be fantastic! Maybe we’ll see some Shock and Awe from Cinematic's and ME missions people will create. Very cool. Can’t wait!