Thank you for Kola Peninsula map

[YoYo]

Personally, I'm glad this map appeared. I think that overall it's really good and it's a great choice for both - places and advancement when it comes to EA. Honestly, I expected something much worse due to the big lack of screenshots and videos before the release, but here we have a really pleasant surprise.

Of course, like any EA, it requires further development and some corrections and fixes (for me, especially trees optimization), but I'm still satisfied. I've already spent about 8-10 hours on it till now, including flying, and there's definitely a lot to discover, and for now these are just tourist trips only, not combat yet.

I also see that sometimes people complain that the objects do not correspond to real ones - it mainly concerns civilian buildings. I would like to remind you that DCS is not MSFS, is not intended to be and never will be. Moreover, one must probably be unaware that, for example, the map of the Caucasus, when it comes to buildings, is 75% fiction. Compare Batumi, for example. Here we have, first of all, a placeholders and this is what it should look like. Its similar with other maps, where this coefficient is smaller or larger, but never falls below 50%. If someone wants to have 1:1 - well, DCS is not for him Im afraid, sorry. I rather advise you to try MSFS 2024 (this year) and the photogeometry function, which is also not perfect and has a lot of drawbacks. 

Personally, Im of the opinion that DCS should map military facilities (including airports, of course) and strategic facilities - factories, mines, power plants, ports, etc. the rest should only contain characteristic objects (main buildings), of course the traffic mesh, and the rest can be place holders (but of course in the kind of a given region (roofs, type of buildings, colours)), not a big problem.

Textures - ORBX - chose the path of photo textures, from the developer's point of view it is a slightly simpler situation than hand-made and pasted textures, it has its advantages and disadvantages. You may like it or not. Someone who had access to photo textures in the DCS: South Atlantic map knows what I mean, or has flown in FSX, P3D, XP or MSFS with photo textures. A photo texture will never have the same resolution as a regular texture made by a map modeler (alternatively, the map would take up 1TB) , it may be a shock for some people, but that's what it looks like (DCS settings also have an impact here). Generally, photo textures work best when viewed from a higher altitude (and screenshots), but again, I've flown here quite a lot on the copters at low alt and it's not bad, and I even consider them one of the better-made photo implementations. There will also be winter textures, although I hope it won't increase the map by another 140Gb ;). Photo textures take up so much, unfortunately, and I have to buy a new disk for DCS (more maps and modules are coming and I'm already running out of space).

Personally, I would only consider changing the trees as a priority, because the current ones do not fit this region (too many deciduous trees), the trees from the Caucasus look better, fit better here and generate much more FPS. I consider this the Achilles pie of this map according me. 

You must also remember that you cannot exaggerate the number of objects and their accuracy (DCS does not have auto gen yet, maybe for whole world map, and there are manually pasted objects). This was done with the SA map (partly, there are other problems), which has more complaints and is the map that is least used by everyone. More objects means less FPS. Not everyone flies in 2D, not everyone has high-end PC. So the map also has to be a compromise between look and performance. You can not have everything, simply, remember this.

I'm actually pleasantly surprised and I'm glad that the map looks like this. Some things require corrections and improvements, but overall Im very satisfied. Good work for beginning of this EA stage! 

[YoYo]

Btw. The size of Kola vs Caucasus with the same scale.

Edited May 6, 2024 by YoYo

[Beirut]

3 hours ago, YoYo said:

 

You can not have everything, simply, remember this.

 

What? 

 

First thing Monday morning and you break my heart. And I thought we were friends. 

 

[Northstar98]

It's good that you're enjoying the map, I just have a few thoughts to share:

3 hours ago, YoYo said:

I also see that sometimes people complain that the objects do not correspond to real ones - it mainly concerns civilian buildings. I would like to remind you that DCS is not MSFS, is not intended to be and never will be.

Well, for me it's not civilian buildings, rather military points of interest. These I'm more likely to want to visit, pay attention to and make mission objectives. Though for me, getting airfields as 1:1 as possible is important, as this is where it's likely to be most noticeable.

3 hours ago, YoYo said:

Moreover, one must probably be unaware that, for example, the map of the Caucasus, when it comes to buildings, is 75% fiction. Compare Batumi, for example. Here we have, first of all, a placeholders and this is what it should look like.

Yes, the Caucasus map is also inaccurate - it's been brought up a few times. But then again, the Caucasus is both the oldest map (with a data set tracing back to LOMAC, even when it was redone it mostly only involved improving the resolution of the existing map) and a free map.

I'm obviously not expecting 100% accuracy across the whole map, but I am expecting accuracy where it matters - namely aerodromes and military points of interest (especially things SAM sites - stuff that can directly impact gameplay).

3 hours ago, YoYo said:

Textures - ORBX - chose the path of photo textures, from the developer's point of view it is a slightly simpler situation than hand-made and pasted textures, it has its advantages and disadvantages. You may like it or not. Someone who had access to photo textures in the DCS: South Atlantic map knows what I mean, or has flown in FSX, P3D, XP or MSFS with photo textures.

Yes, I agree. Personally, I lean more on the side of photorealism and colour accuracy, rather than resolution (as is the case with most other maps). Even as someone who likes flying helicopters low, where the resolution is going to be noticeable. 

Here though it definitely needs work. In some instances what was seen on release is lower in quality than how it appeared half a year ago (Olenegorsk being the chief example - an airbase in the high detail region).

3 hours ago, YoYo said:

More objects means less FPS. Not everyone flies in 2D, not everyone has high-end PC. So the map also has to be a compromise between look and performance. You can not have everything, simply, remember this.

Yes, but this is what graphics settings are for. Of course it's difficult to reduce the density of objects in a setting, particularly for multiplayer.

[YoYo]

21 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

What? 

 

First thing Monday morning and you break my heart. And I thought we were friends. 

 

And we are but Im realist too  ;).

[YoYo]

47 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Well, for me it's not civilian buildings, rather military points of interest. These I'm more likely to want to visit, pay attention to and make mission objectives. Though for me, getting airfields as 1:1 as possible is important, as this is where it's likely to be most noticeable.

Of course, I fully agree, we are talking about combat simulator, military infrastructure is very important here (including bunkers and aircraft shelters).

[ESA_maligno]

I think it's become pretty clear that ORBX (DCS) is quite a bit below the level of ORBX (civilian). 

Polyarny is a disaster...; not because the buildings are invented..., but they cannot enter by navigating units....

Cuts in textures in Murmansk....

 

 

Textures of urbanizations that appear on the coasts and docks.....

 

I have been a user of ORBX for many years..., I did not expect such a bad job, in fact I did not expect early access..., I think it is the first time that has happened and seeing the result..., They have a lot of work ahead of them.

[sorcer3r]

On 5/6/2024 at 5:38 PM, ESA_maligno said:

I have been a user of ORBX for many years..., I did not expect such a bad job, in fact I did not expect early access..., I think it is the first time that has happened and seeing the result..., They have a lot of work ahead of them.

Agree, it feels very early access. I planned to build a mission for my squadron but too many buldings/villages in the finnish-russian border area missing.

[addman]

Released way too early and with Orbx track record of abandoning low profit platforms, I don’t have high hopes for Kola. Please prove me wrong Orbx.

[Rudel_chw]

24 minutes ago, addman said:

with Orbx track record of abandoning low profit platforms, I don’t have high hopes for Kola

 

Well, off-course, with so many users speaking their negative views the units sold may end up turning this Map into a "low profit" venture. Its like those people wish to see this Map fail ... odd.

Even in this early access stage, I'm enjoying this Map a lot, and purchased it right after viewing the first YT reviews on it (the one by @104th_Maverick ) ... and this in spite of having first skipped on the Afghanistan map and on the CH-47 pre-release.

 

[addman]

They have created the ”negativity” themselves by releasing something so unfinished, EVEN for an early access release. I also judge them by their previous work which has been of overall good quality. I’ve bought and used their products for over 11 years so I have a pretty good understanding of their potential. That’s also why I’m so critical.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Rudel_chw said:

Well, off-course, with so many users speaking their negative views the units sold may end up turning this Map into a "low profit" venture.

Luckily there's been plenty of feedback provided to Orbx, so hopefully they can take it to heart and we'll see improvements.

1 hour ago, Rudel_chw said:

Its like those people wish to see this Map fail ... odd.

I imagine it would be odd, considering this is baseless and looks to just be trying to ascribe some alterior motive to those posting criticism.

Why is it that people responding to criticism find it so difficult to just read what the criticism is and respond to that criticism? Instead of trying to make up what their thoughts and motivations are for an easy smear.

You don't have to agree with the criticism - that's perfectly fine. If you enjoy the map, good for you! I'm happy that you do. But just because I find enough turn-offs to hold off my purchasing of the map doesn't mean I want the map to fail.

I'm critical of the map because I'm incredibly interested in the region, far more so than any other released or announced theatre. If you want to know why, I've listed some of the reasons here (though even that list doesn't include facts such as this map fitting with many of our assets and modules). I want the map to do the region justice and I want to see quality and accuracy that commands its price tag as right now I think it's too lacking, even for an early-access product.

[skywalker22]

I am sure the Orbx will make things right sooner or later. I also like the map in the current state, I just miss some more airports in the middle of the map. But they are aware of it, and I believe they will make it right eventually. I just hope it will not take too much time, and that it won't happen like with SA, which went into oblivion (unfortunatelly). The only problem I see here, that SA map and Kola do the same people, I hope they learned something from their mistakes.

[TOViper]

Hello ORBX Kola Team!

Thanks for making this map!
I am super happy to find it on my list of available maps when I enter the mission editor.

Please:
Continue working on it, it is worth every mouse click you set. Never stop improving it!

[Kril_FC]

Filmed small video on Kola!

[Stanlesuper]

Kola map IR (west side) Lofoten islands in F16 footage

 

[freehand]

Personally I love the map sure things will improve but all in all I am a happy chappy.