DCS: Afghanistan FAQ

[DisplayName]

14 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

This would bump up the mission-building value way more than covering the same area in the west.

Strongly disagree. 

Mission development would be significantly enhanced with the development of the Western side of the map to include Mary (1521st Centre for Combat Employment) - This is especially important with both the MiG-23 and full-fidelity MiG-29 on its way to us within DCS.

Developing the Western side of the map (Mary) would result in a map that is capable of hosting historically feasible missions for both RedFor and BlueFor. It would also enable the long military history of Afghanistan to be rightfully and correctly represented instead of having the Afghanistan map simply be nothing too much more than a virtual bombing range for BlueFor.

Whether Mary is to be added exclusively to the full Afghanistan map (if at all), or a future sub-map for people that just want a cost effective alternative to fly their MiG-23 and MiG-29 within a community of like minded enthusiasts, I do believe that Mary is an absolute must have - noting as well that the FC3 MiG-29 already has the liveries of Mary.

I have attached two pictures showing the MiG-23 and MiG-29 with their unique nose art that was found on aircraft posted to Mary. 

 

[NineLine]

4 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

@NineLine  @BIGNEWY
 

Will Afghanistan have climate-respective conditions? (Sand storms, etc...)

We already have the ability to add sand storms in the Mission Editor, we are working on new fog and I hope we will see new dust effects as well for things like storms. 

11 hours ago, ouky1991 said:

@NineLine  

What is the target performance for this map? Can you compare it to any existing map (FPS wise)?

Little too early to say, active development maps can float around as things are added and optimized. We want it to run similarly to maps like Syria and the like. With improvements we have made for maps recently we hope it will run well for most as most maps do now. Thanks. 

[Hotdognz]

With this hobby, storage space is one of the cheapest parts, I have loads more invested in button boxes and other addons to make this a near as I can to a flying experience in what module of choice I fly. a 4TB fast MVM drive is damm cheap compared to other items I have purchased.

Also if you want carrier ops and live by them then the Afghanistan is not your gig its pretty simple choice really, you have about 6 other maps you can fly CV ops from, me ill be having fun with ground based units and fly from the CV on other maps.

As far as knowing if its a map you want, well you wont know until you see reviews, so dont pre purchase just wait it out, you will lose about $20 while you wait (2 Bigmac and chips)

[buceador]

16 hours ago, NineLine said:

analogous (similar)

[Bremspropeller]

5 hours ago, DisplayName said:

Strongly disagree. 

Mission development would be significantly enhanced with the development of the Western side of the map to include Mary (1521st Centre for Combat Employment) - This is especially important with both the MiG-23 and full-fidelity MiG-29 on its way to us within DCS.

Developing the Western side of the map (Mary) would result in a map that is capable of hosting historically feasible missions for both RedFor and BlueFor. It would also enable the long military history of Afghanistan to be rightfully and correctly represented instead of having the Afghanistan map simply be nothing too much more than a virtual bombing range for BlueFor.

Whether Mary is to be added exclusively to the full Afghanistan map (if at all), or a future sub-map for people that just want a cost effective alternative to fly their MiG-23 and MiG-29 within a community of like minded enthusiasts, I do believe that Mary is an absolute must have - noting as well that the FC3 MiG-29 already has the liveries of Mary.

I have attached two pictures showing the MiG-23 and MiG-29 with their unique nose art that was found on aircraft posted to Mary. 

 

You're not strongly disagreeing with me. In fact, you're rather strongly agreeing. I want additional airfields, including Mary in the northwest.

I want the western border of the map be shifted east a couple of miles, closer to the western airfields, so that more airfields in the neighbouring contries to the east can be created in order to bumping up the overall value of the map.

 

[DisplayName]

Just now, Bremspropeller said:

You're not strongly disagreeing with me. In fact, you're rather strongly agreeing.

Good rebuttal! I agree!!

Slight changes to existing plans in order to make any map more playable and host more historical scenarios is great for us end-users. However, it is even better for ED because they will have a product that is in higher demand and thus will surely become a greater success financially. 

 

 

Now for a tangent! Just to emphasis the importance of the Soviet influence within Afghanistan and the surrounding region, I found this picture in the Australian War Memorial online archive with a description of the image:

"Dilapidated Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 interceptor aircraft numbers 321 and 314 in a hangar at Bagram air base. They had been supplied to the Afghan Air Force by the Soviet Union. The Soviets made extensive use of Bagram airbase during their occupation of Afghanistan. It was contested by the Taliban and the opposition Northern Alliance from 1999 to October 2001. During the United States led invasion of Iraq, following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, it was secured by members of the British Special Boat Service. It was then used as a base by Australian special forces and by American army units."

Now, we know that the Bagram airbase is going to be included (right?), but, no one wants half of a scenario by neglecting historically significant locations that are within the boundaries of the map already.

[Hiob]

40 minutes ago, Hotdognz said:

With this hobby, storage space is one of the cheapest parts, I have loads more invested in button boxes and other addons to make this a near as I can to a flying experience in what module of choice I fly. a 4TB fast MVM drive is damm cheap compared to other items I have purchased.

Also if you want carrier ops and live by them then the Afghanistan is not your gig its pretty simple choice really, you have about 6 other maps you can fly CV ops from, me ill be having fun with ground based units and fly from the CV on other maps.

As far as knowing if its a map you want, well you wont know until you see reviews, so dont pre purchase just wait it out, you will lose about $20 while you wait (2 Bigmac and chips)

Just when I was loosing hope, finally some voices of reason. 

 

[Grundar]

20 hours ago, Don Rudi said:

Normandy 2.0 is by Ugra, do you have a source to share that Afghanistan is based on it?

I was incorrect, I read an earlier post saying it was like Normandy 2.0 in how it would manage it.  That has been rementioned by NIneline as similar to how Normandy 1.0 -> 2.0 occurs, but not the same.  I'm guessing that refers to maybe if you only buy one high resolution area and then purchase a seperate one.

 

19 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The tech has based on TDK (Terrain Develop Kit) by ED. 3rd parties only building maps (expand, rebuild, etc) but not have capabilities to redone technology, that has on the ED side, with control the features on the core.

Thank you for the clarification. 

[pegasus1]

On 3/29/2024 at 2:15 AM, qacarxan said:

I'd really appreciate clarification from ED about this, as well as the mentions of the Dasht e Kavir and Dasht e Lut, both of which are outside the boundary provided by the announcement map (being deep in Iranian territory) but are mentioned in the press releases.

Its a computer game, whats the big issue?

[zerO_crash]

8 hours ago, NineLine said:

We already have the ability to add sand storms in the Mission Editor, we are working on new fog and I hope we will see new dust effects as well for things like storms. 

Yeah ok, an update will definitely go in pair with a visually new map Thanks!

[BaikaL_RUS]

Для Ми-8 на этой карте есть чем заняться? Или она только для пиндосовской техники?

[Japo32]

1 hour ago, BaikaL_RUS said:

Для Ми-8 на этой карте есть чем заняться? Или она только для пиндосовской техники?

 

[Gambit21]

Can't wait to explore in a helo and get going on mission builds...bring it on.

 

 

[zerO_crash]

On 3/31/2024 at 1:32 PM, pegasus1 said:

Its a computer game, whats the big issue?

It's a simulator. As a simulator, factuality is a major factor in determining its credibility as such. I don't see the point at all for such response to an otherwise good and justified question!

Edited April 1 by zerO_crash

[Beirut]

15 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

It's a simulator. As a simulator, factuality is a major factor in determining its credibility as such. I don't see the point at all for this response, to an otherwise good and justified question!

 

I'm 99% sure I heard Nick Grey refer to it as a game in an interview.

 

Or as my girlfriend years ago asked to me on the phone one night, "Are you flying your little airplanes?"

[zerO_crash]

19 hours ago, Beirut said:

 

I'm 99% sure I heard Nick Grey refer to it as a game in an interview.

 

Or as my girlfriend years ago asked to me on the phone one night, "Are you flying your little airplanes?"

I am fairly sure that both terms get used inbetween, however the product PR's itself as "the most authentic and realistic military aviation simulation possible". I also happen to notice that simulators are increasingly being used as a substitute to actual flight hours (that is much of the agenda with F-35 and its elaborate simulator in order to alleviate evergrowing operational costs), and not only training. It is also my understanding, that many other professions use simulators to practice handcraft and especially procedures.

 

I can speak on that, as a certified train engineer (driver) and instructor. We use simulators regularly, it is however, for annual competence checks. Trust me, there is VERY little "fun" in this environment. Most are stressed and worried when 3-5 pairs of eyes observe their performance.

 

Don't get me wrong, if you wish to goof around, you can do so. It all depends on how you treat it. If you treat it seriously, you will get real value out of it. If you treat it like a toy, you can get entertainment in return. (Just because a plane can land/drive on water, doesn't make it a boat. Purpose defines function. We have a consumer version of a simulator used by militaries/professionals. Treat that as you wish.)

 

 

I will also point to rules regarding constructive feedback, which the previous comment I refered to, was far from. Let's get back on track and not derail the thread.

 

(I wonder if that girlfriend visited a UAV control station, she would think it's an amusement park? - Joysticks, keyboards and screens, game stuff, you know.)

Edited April 1 by zerO_crash

[YhandisH]

2 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

I am fairly sure that both terms get used inbetween, however that the product PRs itself as "the most authentic and realistic military aviation simulation possible". I also happen to notice that simulators are increasingly being used as a substitute to actual flight hours (that is much of the agenda with F-35 and its elaborate simulator in order to alleviate evergrowing operational costs), and not only training. It is also my understanding, that many other professions use simulators to practice handcraft and especially procedures.

 

I can speak on that, as a certified train engineer (driver) and instructor. We use simulators regularly, it is however, for annual competence checks. Trust me, there is VERY little "fun" in this environment. Most are stressed and worried when 3-5 pairs of eyes observe their performance.

 

Don't get me wrong, if you wish to goof around, you can do so. It all depends on how you treat it. If you treat it seriously, you will get real value out of it. If you treat it like a toy, you can get entertainment in return. (Just because a plane can land/drive on water, doesn't make it a boat. Purpose defines function. We have a consumer version of a simulator used by militaries/professionals. Treat that as you wish.)

 

 

I will also point to rules regarding constructive feedback, which the previous comment I refered to, was far from. Let's get back on track and not derail the thread.

 

(I wonder if that girlfriend visited a UAV control station, she would think it's an amusement park? - Joysticks, keyboards and screens, game stuff, you know.)

 

Pay no mind to Beirut. He’s just here to be as unproductive as possible, while showing us how “chill” he is about everything. Lighting up cigs, then flicking them at kids once he’s done…. Calling up his “GF” after a hard day of sitting around the house in his PJs…

“What did you do to day babe?”

”Ah, you know, messed around on a forum with a few players that took issue with certain aspects of a new map. Because I’m a contributing member of society and quite the intellect…” 

Edited April 1 by YhandisH

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, Beirut said:

 

I'm 99% sure I heard Nick Grey refer to it as a game in an interview.

 

Or as my girlfriend years ago asked to me on the phone one night, "Are you flying your little airplanes?"

Guys stay on topic please, if you want to make each other mad you can take it to DMs, or maybe just ignore each other and move on. 

[Atari800XL]

Bought it, full version. Point! We need maps for DCS according to the many cool existing and upcoming machines. Afghanistan in a Fulcrum? Or in an Apache? Noice!

[Ronin_Gaijin]

I just wanted to expand on the Soviet airbases that took part in the USSR-Afghanistan conflict.
Five Soviet air bases took part in the Afghanistan conflict.
Three of them are included in the general area of the map.
This post will focus on Kokaydi, Uzbekistan else known as Termez (40km NorthEast of it) 
Kokaydi was base of the Soviet 115th Guard Fighter Regiment's Airport in 1979.
Aircraft type MiG-21bis Fishbed-L.
Attached photos for reference. 
00. ED map
01-02. Actual location, current state
03. Late 70s photo of base
04. Operations
05. Special camouflage MiG-21Bis

This airbase is missing from current plans and would be important to be included in order to re-create the conflict.
 

Edited April 1 by Ronin_Gaijin

[Bremspropeller]

There even used to be a standard skin for the 'Fulcrum C' from Termez airbase in game. Maybe it's still in the game, haven't flown that one in a hot minute or two.

[Ronin_Gaijin]

1 minute ago, Bremspropeller said:

There even used to be a standard skin for the 'Fulcrum C' from Termez airbase in game. Maybe it's still in the game, haven't flown that one in a hot minute or two.

Correct! It still is there.

[Furiz]

 

[BeerNfrites]

How long is the early access planned to be for this? 

[Stratos]

23 hours ago, Ronin_Gaijin said:

I just wanted to expand on the Soviet airbases that took part in the USSR-Afghanistan conflict.
Five Soviet air bases took part in the Afghanistan conflict.
Three of them are included in the general area of the map.
This post will focus on Kokaydi, Uzbekistan else known as Termez (40km NorthEast of it) 
Kokaydi was base of the Soviet 115th Guard Fighter Regiment's Airport in 1979.
Aircraft type MiG-21bis Fishbed-L.
Attached photos for reference. 
00. ED map
01-02. Actual location, current state
03. Late 70s photo of base
04. Operations
05. Special camouflage MiG-21Bis

This airbase is missing from current plans and would be important to be included in order to re-create the conflict.
 

 

Thanks for sharing these! I really hope ED reconsider to add some bases outside Afghanistan, even If is after the full map is released, Termez and Mary in the old USSR borders, Peshawar in Pakistan (base for the current JF-17, and the F-6 for Soviet-Pakistani clashes) and finally Mashhad air base for Iran to represent the war against drug smugglers. That's "just" 4 air bases but that would bring a LOT of value to the map.