DCS: Afghanistan FAQ

[hoggles]

1 hour ago, rob10 said:

Not sure exactly where it was said, but was explicitly said by ED in a post that if you DON'T buy the full map straight out there WILL NOT be discounts for buying all or multiple parts individually.  So you either go for the full thing (cheapest option), or you pay more by buying each section individually.

That's why I was confused by Grimes comment that I was quoting.

[rob10]

14 minutes ago, hoggles said:

That's why I was confused by Grimes comment that I was quoting.

I can see where that was confusing.  The key point is in his post was he said IFF at the start of that point.  Not sure if that was a typo (IF) or he did mean IFF (which would just mean "if and only if") but either way it is not what ED is planning.

[Rich-Doe]

Ideally i would like to buy the whole map with option to choose in the editor which areas are in full detail for better frame rates. If this is possible you could have a map of any size with the option to divide it up based on your mission and hardware.

[Dirty Mittens]

On 3/28/2024 at 2:54 PM, NineLine said:

Nope, the coast is too far. It would impact performance not to mention it would be a hella long flight. 

 

Since the map can already be purchased in "segments ", why not offer a bare bones "out of bounds" addition called "South of Afghanistan " so us navy fan boys can get in on this map? 

We don't need any buildings, just baren water and land on the way TO Afghanistan.  Just like how the out of bounds is there in NTTR.

As far as impacting performance are we talking about an extra minute or two loading empty land and water or crash to desktop failure?

As far as the flight length... I mean yeah of course it's not for everyone... but don't shut out your core players(F18/F14/super carrier)because you wouldn't want to fly that long.

Edited March 29, 2024 by Dirty Mittens

[NineLine]

19 minutes ago, Dirty Mittens said:

 

Since the map can already be purchased in "segments ", why not offer a bare bones "out of bounds" addition called "South of Afghanistan " so us navy fan boys can get in on this map? 

We don't need any buildings, just baren water and land on the way TO Afghanistan.  Just like how the out of bounds is there in NTTR.

As far as impacting performance are we talking about an extra minute or two loading empty land and water or crash to desktop failure?

As far as the flight length... I mean yeah of course it's not for everyone... but don't shut out your core players(F18/F14/super carrier)because you wouldn't want to fly that long.

 

When asked about this there was concern that much extra terrain, even in low detail would impact performance to greatly. Sorry. 

30 minutes ago, Rich-Doe said:

Ideally i would like to buy the whole map with option to choose in the editor which areas are in full detail for better frame rates. If this is possible you could have a map of any size with the option to divide it up based on your mission and hardware.

The only way I would image you could do it now would be disabling those zones when you don't need them. I have not heard of any plans for other solutions for this. 

1 hour ago, hoggles said:

That's why I was confused by Grimes comment that I was quoting.

Yes, I have hidden that comment now, I could see how it might confuse people. 

[Minsky]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

When asked about this there was concern that much extra terrain, even in low detail would impact performance to greatly. Sorry. 

Concern =/= proven impact.

We don't ask for a low detail terrain. We will settle for no details at all. Flat surface with a basic shoreline will do. We merely want a patch of ocean to place a carrier and cosplay the OEF.

Do you remember the early days of the Syria map, with all its performance woes?

So how comes the heaviest map in DCS has this 400 (four hundred) miles beyond the detailed area?

If all this empty space is such a burden to DCS engine, then why didn't they start optimizing the map by cutting it?

[zerO_crash]

Not sure if this was answered, and not that it touches me (whole Afghanistan bought), but do we actually get the whole area in high-quality within the orange square? It's bigger than what the individual Afghanistan modules cover...

 

 

I'm curious if that is a fault in the drawing, or if we are actually getting that much of Pakistan and even a little of India?

[YhandisH]

10 minutes ago, Minsky said:

Concern =/= proven impact.

We don't ask for a low detail terrain. We will settle for no details at all. Flat surface with a basic shoreline will do. We merely want a patch of ocean to place a carrier and cosplay the OEF.

Do you remember the early days of the Syria map, with all its performance woes?

So how comes the heaviest map in DCS has this 400 (four hundred) miles beyond the detailed area?

If all this empty space is such a burden to DCS engine, then why didn't they start optimizing the map by cutting it?

I would’ve been happy with half of Afghanistan (maybe even 1/3), flat terrain, then shoreline. But they swiftly decided not to compromise instead. It’s nuts that our requests have gotten as simple as, “can we fly here as well?” 

They finally made a map that’s worth it, but we’re supposed to give up carrier ops to “enjoy” it. Like, I only fly on DCS because of carrier ops. Afghanistan would’ve been a great expansion to the naval aviation experience. 

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, Minsky said:

Concern =/= proven impact.

We don't ask for a low detail terrain. We will settle for no details at all. Flat surface with a basic shoreline will do. We merely want a patch of ocean to place a carrier and cosplay the OEF.

Do you remember the early days of the Syria map, with all its performance woes?

So how comes the heaviest map in DCS has this 400 (four hundred) miles beyond the detailed area?

If all this empty space is such a burden to DCS engine, then why didn't they start optimizing the map by cutting it?

It's not as simple or straightforward as that. This map will most likely be the heaviest most detailed map to date. Add on to that the land needed to bridge that gap, if it was meant to be a playable area at the very least would not be a flat slab, and would not only be 300 miles to the coast (plus ocean) but the width of the the entire map. And the final straw is how many people would utilize this in the long run. Now you say, hey just make it a flat slab of land with 0 detail. Who wants to fly that distance and not have an somewhat decent-looking representation of the terrain, or at night without any city lights, etc? I know some diehards would and that's cool but the greater % of people are not going to want to or be able to commit to that flight time if only to get shot down or crash or what have you over the target. What % of people would fly that distance and does it warrant the development time being added?

Now you might come back and say, well hey if you guys do a world map how is that going to work then? How will worldwide distances work? The answer there is it would be different tech, no doubt like some other flight sims and how they generate terrain and objects. There will be a trade off for a world map vs out more detailed area maps.

I know I answered more than you asked but I hope this covers most of it. 

 

29 minutes ago, YhandisH said:

I would’ve been happy with half of Afghanistan (maybe even 1/3), flat terrain, then shoreline. But they swiftly decided not to compromise instead. It’s nuts that our requests have gotten as simple as, “can we fly here as well?” 

They finally made a map that’s worth it, but we’re supposed to give up carrier ops to “enjoy” it. Like, I only fly on DCS because of carrier ops. Afghanistan would’ve been a great expansion to the naval aviation experience. 

Not every map will make sense for Carrier Ops, in this case, this is one of them. I am not sure you are considering the distance and even if you are you are not considering that most users are not going to be interested in flying those distances for a mission. I get it that some love that sort of thing, but in this case its not possible and we have plenty of maps that carrier ops make total sense. 

There are many people who would not have been happy with a sacrifice of locations to add a carrier location as well, we have to think of all these things. 

 

32 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

Not sure if this was answered, and not that it touches me (whole Afghanistan bought), but do we actually get the whole area in high-quality within the orange square? It's bigger than what the individual Afghanistan modules cover...

 

 

I'm curious if that is a fault in the drawing, or if we are actually getting that much of Pakistan and even a little of India?

The three zones are the High detail areas you will see (depending on what you purchase), and the outline is the map boundaries, these will not be high levels. 

[huchanronaa]

Judging from the quality of channel map produced by ed in the past, I think you can rest assured

[Citizen]

Shindand Airport is within the SW region and should be high quality, right?
The screenshot seems to show relatively low quality terrain.  Does this represent unfinished terrain (demonstrative of low-quality areas) or is this meant to be represent high quality terrain?

[zerO_crash]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

The three zones are the High detail areas you will see (depending on what you purchase), and the outline is the map boundaries, these will not be high levels. 

All clear, NineLine! Thank you!

Edited March 30, 2024 by zerO_crash

[Minsky]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

It's not as simple or straightforward as that. This map will most likely be the heaviest most detailed map to date. Add on to that the land needed to bridge that gap, if it was meant to be a playable area at the very least would not be a flat slab, and would not only be 300 miles to the coast (plus ocean) but the width of the the entire map. And the final straw is how many people would utilize this in the long run. Now you say, hey just make it a flat slab of land with 0 detail. Who wants to fly that distance and not have an somewhat decent-looking representation of the terrain, or at night without any city lights, etc? I know some diehards would and that's cool but the greater % of people are not going to want to or be able to commit to that flight time if only to get shot down or crash or what have you over the target. What % of people would fly that distance and does it warrant the development time being added?

Now you might come back and say, well hey if you guys do a world map how is that going to work then? How will worldwide distances work? The answer there is it would be different tech, no doubt like some other flight sims and how they generate terrain and objects. There will be a trade off for a world map vs out more detailed area maps.

I know I answered more than you asked but I hope this covers most of it. 

It all simmers down to whether this "flat slab" will have a noticeable impact on performance and budget or not. Did the team actually run the tests, or it's all concerns and assumptions?

Simple logic says that we wouldn't have these extra areas on almost every map in DCS if they were expensive, time consuming and performance heavy.

Instead of hundreds of miles covered with mesh and satellite imagery nobody ever begged for, it would have been 50 miles or less, merely to fade out the playable area.

Anyway. It's clear that you guys have your mind set, and my arguments won't change much. Maybe one day we'll see a (fairly priced) Afghanistan 2.0 spanning Pakistan and the Arabian Sea.

[plasma1945]

I am in FULL support of adding MARY AFB there. Absolutely it was a test base and pilot training base! 100% add

however, also i have an OPINION it should be a single solid map. not sub maps and mini maps.. DCS player will buy a single full map (or split half and half) no half loading maps please.

Edited March 30, 2024 by plasma1945

[fow5ll]

Tashkurgan maybe？ A Chinese airport

[C3PO]

Full map instant purchase. Looking forward to it.

[Swson]

Men you are discussing without end about 20 bucks while you are ready investing hundredth or thousands in your rig, setup and controls and wait the release of a new stuff for months ….. stop kidding!  buy the whole map for a very good price and wait the full release …..stop complaining ….full stop

[buceador]

I have (happily) pre-ordered the whole map, I do not need any salt water, the pricing and map segment EA releases are crystal clear, I can live without taking off and landing in Pakistan, getting new map assets are not keeping me awake at night but... can we have an indication of storage space required for the complete map please?

[Hiob]

34 minutes ago, buceador said:

 but... can we have an indication of storage space required for the complete map please?

since it isn't ready yet, I doubt that ED already knows the final size.

I would just derive from the existing maps (Sinai ~55 GB, Syria ~66 GB) and the sheer size of the area, that it could be up to a 100 GB when all parts are ready. Maybe ED can make some progress to file-size efficiency, but planning with 100GB seems like a safe bet for me.

Edited March 30, 2024 by Hiob
typos

[PhiloSaurus]

On 3/29/2024 at 1:59 AM, Ronin_Gaijin said:

Thank you for your reply.

Let me explain why this is a decision that can be improved upon.
Apart from the fact that Mary, Turkmenistan was the home of Авиабаза 1521, Мары - Центр боевого применения | Airbase 1521, Mary - Combat Operations Center or else known as Soviet Top Gun, this is the perfect home for the full fidelity MiG-23 and the MiG-29.

Additionally, together with the Kokaydy airport in Termez, Uzbekistan, they played a very important role for the Soviet Union's operations in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989 for various aircraft that are available already or are coming soon to DCS World.
MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29, Su-17/22, Su-25, Mi-24, Mi-8.
Since you mention "Soviet operations of the 1980s place Afghanistan as one of the most important combat theatres of the past half century." in your product description, it is only reasonable that we have the airports available to historically re-enact those operations and create scenarios that will bring the community together.
If you need more information, please do not hesitate to pm me.

 

I fully Agree With Ronin, not including Mary airbase in an Afghanistan map will be like not including the USS Midway in a Battle of the Midway Mission. Having Mary in the map, will convince many fence sitter Redforce players to buy this map. I urge ED to please consider doing this.

[joker62]

12 hours ago, Dirty Mittens said:

Since the map can already be purchased in "segments ", why not offer a bare bones "out of bounds" addition called "South of Afghanistan " so us navy fan boys can get in on this map? 

We don't need any buildings, just baren water and land on the way TO Afghanistan.  Just like how the out of bounds is there in NTTR.

As far as impacting performance are we talking about an extra minute or two loading empty land and water or crash to desktop failure?

As far as the flight length... I mean yeah of course it's not for everyone... but don't shut out your core players(F18/F14/super carrier)because you wouldn't want to fly that long.

You could ask ED if they include Zaranj airport in the Persian Gulf map, which is already established for the Afghanistan map, so it will also be present in the PG map. The mission could be:

PG map: takeoff from carrier, landing in Zaranj.

Afghanistan map: take off from Zaranj to fly wherever you want.

Honestly, it doesn't make sense and it's not worth it, at least for me (and even if I love carrier based planes): from the carrier to Zaranj about 400 NM of desolate terrain.

[Bremspropeller]

What about Termez? Why not shift the map a couple of miles to the east, which would cover slightly more of Kashmere.

I think there should be more airbases, including a couple in Pakistan, India and China (depending on where the map borders are drawn).

 

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

[Grundar]

The absolute worst thing about this map is that I'm probably going to end up buying even more flight modules than a sane person can reasonably be expected to manage.  I do very much look forward to flying the A-10 around there though.  I will be throwing the F-14 around there as well, and the F/A-18 (albeit not from carriers) and of course the F-16.   What happens when I have to pick up the modules I have been finding reasons to avoid? (like the Harrier, or any of the choppers!).

 

So to sum it up; DCS Afghanistan is much cheaper to buy in the pre-sale, will be less discounted in early access and then heads up to full price on release. Southwest is to be released first in high detail and you can just choose to buy that area as high detail only at a further discounted price (and in the future the other areas will also be offered in a similar fashion).  Regardless everyone gets the full map expanse they may just have differing areas of high detail (the areas they purchased or the full map).   The tech is based on Normandy 2.0 which means terrain will be the same (elevations, distances) between all the versions. The finer detail will be different - ie citys may lack textures and a refined appearance but still have major features/buildings in low resolution areas - can still have a SAM site, depot etcetera.  

[Cab]

10 hours ago, YhandisH said:

They finally made a map that’s worth it, but we’re supposed to give up carrier ops to “enjoy” it. Like, I only fly on DCS because of carrier ops. Afghanistan would’ve been a great expansion to the naval aviation experience. 

Just simulate being a carrier-based pilot on exchange duty with a land-based air force. That’s super realistic. 

[Beirut]

2 minutes ago, Cab said:

Just simulate being a carrier-based pilot on exchange duty with a land-based air force. That’s super realistic. 

 

Or pretend you're a guy sitting at home in his pajamas flying airplanes on his PC and having fun.

 

Works for me.