22.03.2024 - MiG-29A Announcement | Afghanistan Development Report | Spring Sale Final Hours

[SlipHavoc]

6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

You're comparing apples with oranges here - on the one hand you're comparing the total map area (at least at release) with just the area of the highly detailed area.

Everything of interest? Do you mean all of the usable areas? Because there's plenty of areas of interest on the PG map that isn't usable, despite them fitting within the total area of the map. Personally, it should've kept the Straits of Hormuz name it had initially, because for a Persain Gulf theatre, it's rather lacking.

That remark was referring to the historical context of the areas we're getting (GWOT) - not the size of the map (or rather, not directly).

So no, they wouldn't, because the historical context of Afghanistan doesn't apply to the PG map.

I love comparing apples and oranges.  They're both fruit, they both grow on trees, they are both sold in grocery stores, you can squeeze them both for juice, etc....

The highly detailed area is the only area I ever fly in, and the only area I've ever seen missions online set in.  If all the area outside the high-detail area on the PG map went away, I'm not sure I would even notice, although it's good for flavor.  Same goes with Syria and Caucasus maps.

I agree that Strait of Hormuz would have been a better name for the PG map.

[skywalker22]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

It will be all of Afghanistan, the newsletter just goes into more detail about the portion for early access.

So it will be the whole country, but only west side will be made with all the details, while east side will no not, terrain texture will be there, but that about it? East side will come later on.

[BIGNEWY]

6 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

So it will be the whole country, but only west side will be made with all the details, while east side will no not, terrain texture will be there, but that about it? East side will come later on.

As mentioned it will be the whole of Afghanistan, the area in the box is the focus of the Early access and we will share more details of everything outside of that as early access progresses. 

thank you 

[Northstar98]

2 minutes ago, SlipHavoc said:

The highly detailed area is the only area I ever fly in, and the only area I've ever seen missions online set in.

I don't doubt it, but it is at least possible to set starting locations or have flights over areas of low detail. Especially when it comes to carrier operations.

5 minutes ago, SlipHavoc said:

If all the area outside the high-detail area on the PG map went away, I'm not sure I would even notice, although it's good for flavor.  Same goes with Syria and Caucasus maps.

Well, I have my doubts that it would sit well that a map called the Persian Gulf has less than half of the Persian Gulf actually present, I think we've seen evidence of that already.

Caucasus I can probably agree with, from a purely historical perspective, it's only really the 2008 Russo-Georgia War that's catered for (and even that's missing strategic targets, and AFAIK the map is based on 90s data).

Syria though? Not sure I can agree with that, it's low-detail areas are at least relatively usable compared to Caucasus. The western end of low detail is invaluable for carrier operations and IMO the eastern end is still fairly interesting, not to mention the sliver of Iraq, which includes a historically important group of airbases (even if the wider area isn't there and probably won't be until the world map is developed).

[Gunfreak]

I see that Helmand Province will be in the initial EA.

Will Jugroom Fort be modeled?

 

[VanekK30]

Does this mean that there will soon be early access to the MiG-29A?

[Qcumber]

37 minutes ago, SlipHavoc said:

They're both fruit, they both grow on trees, they are both sold in grocery stores, you can squeeze them both for juice, etc....

Yes but try eating an orange without peeling it first. The sweet spot might be a little bitter. 

[Hotdognz]

My question would be how long until the second part is added to Afghanistan once it's gone EA, 1 year or it could be up to 5 years.

Don't forget some ED modules are still in EA 6 years later (Yak52)

Sent from my CPH2333 using Tapatalk

[Gunfreak]

29 minutes ago, Hotdognz said:

My question would be how long until the second part is added to Afghanistan once it's gone EA, 1 year or it could be up to 5 years.

Don't forget some ED modules are still in EA 6 years later (Yak52)

Sent from my CPH2333 using Tapatalk
 

Yak low priority. (Nothing happens) 

Afghanistan is high priority so will get timely updates.

[SlipHavoc]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

I don't doubt it, but it is at least possible to set starting locations or have flights over areas of low detail. Especially when it comes to carrier operations.

Well, I have my doubts that it would sit well that a map called the Persian Gulf has less than half of the Persian Gulf actually present, I think we've seen evidence of that already.

Caucasus I can probably agree with, from a purely historical perspective, it's only really the 2008 Russo-Georgia War that's catered for (and even that's missing strategic targets, and AFAIK the map is based on 90s data).

Syria though? Not sure I can agree with that, it's low-detail areas are at least relatively usable compared to Caucasus. The western end of low detail is invaluable for carrier operations and IMO the eastern end is still fairly interesting, not to mention the sliver of Iraq, which includes a historically important group of airbases (even if the wider area isn't there and probably won't be until the world map is developed).

It is possible to start flights over low detail, I've just never seen it actually done in any of the MP servers I'm in, and I never do it myself in SP.  And when it comes to carrier operations, Afghanistan is going to be a miserable map even if it included ocean, which it doesn't.  The closest water to Afghanistan is about 250 nmi, and that's just to the shoreline.  Carrier flights during the early GWOT were on the order of 700 nmi and up to 10 hours in the air, with who knows how many trips to the tanker.  I'm personally here to blow stuff up and have fun, not numb my butt for a full shift while I fly over yet another brown desert (and I bet that goes for most of their customers), but either way, this map is not small.

As for Syria, you don't have to take my word for it, just open it up in the mission editor.  The western-most point of Cyprus all the way to Deir ez-Zor in the far wastes of eastern Syria is 390 nmi.  And Incirlik to King Abdullah II is 305 nmi.  That's a hell of a lot of space to play around in, even when 1/3rd of it is ocean, which it won't be in Afghanistan.

[bies]

Fulcrum looks awesome, i like the pilot model, GCI integration, new cockpit model. GCI API may be a gamechanger. Thanks!

[statrekmike]

3 hours ago, SlipHavoc said:

Sorry, the yellow box.  And that covers basically everything of interest in the PG map: all the airfields, and all the detailed terrain.  And people are talking about only being able to fly helicopters on the Afghanistan map... I bet they don't only fly helicopters on PG.

 

  The Persian Gulf map is set up in such a way that one can (with some minor bending of reality) create Coalition/NATO focused missions based off either an appropriately placed carrier or an airbase that such forces could actually work out of. The early access portion of the Afghanistan map allows for neither and is more suited for helicopter operations as a result. There is a specific subset of DCS players that won't care either way but considering the realism that Eagle Dynamics is going for with the modules, it makes sense to also want maps that allow those modules to operate in at least mostly realistic contexts.

 

  Both Syria and the Persian Gulf maps are very well designed in this regard. They allow for quite a bit of versatility when it comes to realistic mission design. In contrast. The early access portion of the Afghanistan map will be similar to the Caucasus map in that it is basically impossible to make even a semi-convincing/plausible mission that isn't entirely devoted to either helicopters, Russian made aircraft, or perhaps L-39s.

[SlipHavoc]

11 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

 The Persian Gulf map is set up in such a way that one can (with some minor bending of reality) create Coalition/NATO focused missions based off either an appropriately placed carrier or an airbase that such forces could actually work out of. The early access portion of the Afghanistan map allows for neither and is more suited for helicopter operations as a result. There is a specific subset of DCS players that won't care either way but considering the realism that Eagle Dynamics is going for with the modules, it makes sense to also want maps that allow those modules to operate in at least mostly realistic contexts.

The reality of what?  Any NATO battles around the Strait of Hormuz are completely fictional (unless you're making an Operation Praying Mantis scenario or something I guess).  So if you're happy to pretend that US forces operated out of certain bases in the region, I'm not sure why you couldn't be happy to pretend that US forces couldn't operate out of Kandahar, which is in the EA map area for Afghanistan.  Granted that Bagram was the biggest base, but that should be coming later, and Kandahar is big enough to operate any kind of plane.  Camp Bastion also has an 11k ft runway and operated at least USMC Harriers as well.

That said, operating fixed-wing planes over Afghanistan in a "mostly realistic context" is going to mainly be orbiting for hours waiting for coordinates to drop a JDAM, with periodic trips to the tanker to top up.  In which case I welcome the helicopters.  On the other hand, in either case, about 90% of the fancy avionics, weapons, and capabilities of all the planes during those operations were completely unused.  You don't need terrain following radar, ECM pods, AMRAAMs, MMW Hellfires, JSOWs, SLAMs, or a bunch of other stuff to fight goat herders.

All of this is why I'm personally looking forward to Kola Peninsula more, or better yet, Central Germany, but that's another topic...

Quote

Both Syria and the Persian Gulf maps are very well designed in this regard. They allow for quite a bit of versatility when it comes to realistic mission design. In contrast. The early access portion of the Afghanistan map will be similar to the Caucasus map in that it is basically impossible to make even a semi-convincing/plausible mission that isn't entirely devoted to either helicopters, Russian made aircraft, or perhaps L-39s.

Since the US did operate out of at least Kandahar and Camp Bastion, it seems like it should be extremely easy to make a plausible mission that isn't entirely devoted to helicopters.  The Caucasus map is hard to make a plausible mission with US planes because it's right in Russia's back yard, and Georgia wasn't exactly a US ally at the time either.

[NineLine]

47 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

 

  The Persian Gulf map is set up in such a way that one can (with some minor bending of reality) create Coalition/NATO focused missions based off either an appropriately placed carrier or an airbase that such forces could actually work out of. The early access portion of the Afghanistan map allows for neither and is more suited for helicopter operations as a result. There is a specific subset of DCS players that won't care either way but considering the realism that Eagle Dynamics is going for with the modules, it makes sense to also want maps that allow those modules to operate in at least mostly realistic contexts.

 

  Both Syria and the Persian Gulf maps are very well designed in this regard. They allow for quite a bit of versatility when it comes to realistic mission design. In contrast. The early access portion of the Afghanistan map will be similar to the Caucasus map in that it is basically impossible to make even a semi-convincing/plausible mission that isn't entirely devoted to either helicopters, Russian made aircraft, or perhaps L-39s.

Sadly it seems you are trying to find negativity in this announcement, I do not understand the point you are trying to make here.

First I have played hundreds upon hundreds of missions on the Caucasus map with Blue and Red aircraft and enjoyed my time there. I am not sure what your rules are towards "semi-convincing/plausible mission" but I have never flown one and said, boy this is unrealistic and I am not having fun aside from the fact I am sitting in my house on a computer. So if you are saying you cannot make mission on a map that are not fun based on them having to be plausible then I think you not letting your imagination flow.

The same goes with the Early Access portion of Afghanistan, you will be able to see up what I consider to be at the very least "semi-convincing/plausible mission" such as COIN but why limit yourself... draw a line in the sand, put red on one side and blue on the other and create a story and just have fun, like every other map in DCS. I think some are just overthinking this waaaaay too much, but also this is not a mandatory purchase if it isn't your thing then we understand like any of our modules while we appreciate every purchase we understand not every one is for everyone. 

[statrekmike]

47 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Sadly it seems you are trying to find negativity in this announcement, I do not understand the point you are trying to make here.

First I have played hundreds upon hundreds of missions on the Caucasus map with Blue and Red aircraft and enjoyed my time there. I am not sure what your rules are towards "semi-convincing/plausible mission" but I have never flown one and said, boy this is unrealistic and I am not having fun aside from the fact I am sitting in my house on a computer. So if you are saying you cannot make mission on a map that are not fun based on them having to be plausible then I think you not letting your imagination flow.

The same goes with the Early Access portion of Afghanistan, you will be able to see up what I consider to be at the very least "semi-convincing/plausible mission" such as COIN but why limit yourself... draw a line in the sand, put red on one side and blue on the other and create a story and just have fun, like every other map in DCS. I think some are just overthinking this waaaaay too much, but also this is not a mandatory purchase if it isn't your thing then we understand like any of our modules while we appreciate every purchase we understand not every one is for everyone. 

 

 I was clarifying my original position because there seemed to be some confusion as to why someone might want access to parts of the map that cover specific bases and such. Obviously this isn't a long-term issue since it has since been clarified that the limited scope of the map is an early access thing and will not reflect the final product (the entirety of Afghanistan). Still. I wanted to answer that specific comment since it missed the point I was making originally.

  Again. I want to make it very clear that the post that the other user was trying to mischaracterize was made before there was clarification of what would be early access and what would be in the final product. It would perhaps have been a good idea to include something to the effect of "After early access, the map will be expanded to encompass the whole of Afghanistan". I am not going out of my way to find negativity here. I just politely wanted to give my opinion and when another user decided to characterize that opinion as something else, I clarified.

[SlipHavoc]

1 hour ago, statrekmike said:

 

 I was clarifying my original position because there seemed to be some confusion as to why someone might want access to parts of the map that cover specific bases and such.

For the record, I was never confused about why people would want access to the other part of Afghanistan, and particularly Bagram. My confusion was only about why people think the EA portion of the map is "small", when in fact it's essentially the same size as the high-detail area of the other maps.

[Viper33]

Is it clear whether the 29 will receive a new/improved external model and textures, given that we've only seen the current FC3 model being used in promos so far?

[ngreenaway]

8 hours ago, SlipHavoc said:

 

I agree that Strait of Hormuz would have been a better name for the PG map.

I generally only refer to it as the Hormuz Map

[Bimbac]

17 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Didn't the 9.12A have a chaff dispenser? The newsletter only mentions flares... 

That's correct. The export version 9.12A only had flare dispensers. Chaff was only used on Su-27 at that time. Soviet aircraft relied on EW pods to defend against radars and radar-guided missiles.

[skywalker22]

10 hours ago, statrekmike said:

 

 I was clarifying my original position because there seemed to be some confusion as to why someone might want access to parts of the map that cover specific bases and such. Obviously this isn't a long-term issue since it has since been clarified that the limited scope of the map is an early access thing and will not reflect the final product (the entirety of Afghanistan). Still. I wanted to answer that specific comment since it missed the point I was making originally.

  Again. I want to make it very clear that the post that the other user was trying to mischaracterize was made before there was clarification of what would be early access and what would be in the final product. It would perhaps have been a good idea to include something to the effect of "After early access, the map will be expanded to encompass the whole of Afghanistan". I am not going out of my way to find negativity here. I just politely wanted to give my opinion and when another user decided to characterize that opinion as something else, I clarified.

I don't get it why even releasing the map on the half way. Personally I would wait to when the whole map is complete and then go with EA (and after release do some bug fixing and upgrading things; same way as Razbam did with South Atlanitc map). I don't find any positivinty in releasing the map on 50%. It only confuses people, and brings us to discussons like that.

[Stratos]

I will not purchase that part of the map, when ED decides to build and populate the other half I will check it, but not now as the 90% the interesting operations for both Soviet war and US war were placed on the part ED decided to do later.

Oh, and same for Iraq map. It really makes no sense how ED chooses their map areas and module marks. And before critizing my negativeness (that is not, is just a fact), try to run a poll on the forums.

[BIGNEWY]

4 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

I don't get it why even releasing the map on the half way. Personally I would wait to when the whole map is complete and then go with EA (and after release do some bug fixing and upgrading things; same way as Razbam did with South Atlanitc map). I don't find any positivinty in releasing the map on 50%. It only confuses people, and brings us to discussons like that.

Because most prefer to have something early to play with. If early access is not for you please wait, if you support us in early access or wait for full release we are grateful for the support. 

 

[Beirut]

23 hours ago, Stratos said:

And before critizing my negativeness (that is not, is just a fact), try to run a poll on the forums.

 

Count me in for a big hot smoking "yes". 

 

Love me some new maps. No problem with EA. Day one purchase for me.

[corbu1]

I‘m very excited about Afghanistan map!!! Will be day one purchase for me no doubt!!!

[Indyplumber]

I'm not excited about the Afghanistan map. Another desolate desert map. Boring. Why not modern day Europe, USA, Russia, China. Etc.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk