What did I think of Kiowa? It needs to improve in some areas!

[Esac_mirmidon]

So still moaning about 3D model 3 months later¿

Jesus Christ. Everybody knows already. Move on.

[Guest]

I think we all just have to accept that there are different kinds of people that play DCS.  Speaking for myself, I literally could not possibly care less about the exterior models or textures of any aircraft. I would gladly lose the entire 3D model of any aircraft in exchange for even one more switch or menu being implemented.
 

So from my perspective, I actually prefer for PolyChop not to spend any resources on the visuals. But I also recognize there are people that do care about that stuff and good for them.  It just seems that the Kiowa is more geared to people like me than to those folks, and that’s ok. Not every module is for everyone…

Edited August 29, 2024 by wombat778

[MAXsenna]

I think we all just have to accept that there are different kinds of people that play DCS.  Speaking for myself, I literally could not possibly care less about the exterior models or textures of any aircraft. I would gladly lose the entire 3D model of any aircraft in exchange for even one more switch or menu being implemented.
 
So from my perspective, I actually prefer for PolyChop not to spend any resources on the visuals. But I also recognize there are people that do care about that stuff and good for them.  It just seems that the Kiowa is more geared to people like me than to those folks, and that’s ok. Not every module is for everyone…

I'm in your boat, but as other users have shown. The current textures can be better optimized. And DCS overall is in need of that.
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[ThorBrasil]

1 hour ago, wombat778 said:

I think we all just have to accept that there are different kinds of people that play DCS.  Speaking for myself, I literally could not possibly care less about the exterior models or textures of any aircraft. I would gladly lose the entire 3D model of any aircraft in exchange for even one more switch or menu being implemented.
 

So from my perspective, I actually prefer for PolyChop not to spend any resources on the visuals. But I also recognize there are people that do care about that stuff and good for them.  It just seems that the Kiowa is more geared to people like me than to those folks, and that’s ok. Not every module is for everyone…

 

So with this in mind, the F-4E is not well simulated and lacks resources because it has a 3D model and textures that are close to the real model of the aircraft.

And another thing! The programmer does not interfere in the 3D design or the texture designer. Each one has their role. Now, if Polychop is formed by only one person who did the programming, the 3D model and the textures. This would justify the current state.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, ThorBrasil said:

So with this in mind, the F-4E is not well simulated and lacks resources because it has a 3D model and textures that are close to the real model of the aircraft.

Of course the F-4e is both well simulated and pretty. And that’s great.  But so what? The Kiowa and the F-4e are not the same product and not made by the same company. They simulate completely different aircraft.  It is very clear to me that Polychop is a much smaller shop with fewer resources and less experience than Heatblur.  But they have still done a fantastic job and produced a chopper that isn’t simulated anywhere else.
 

Resources aren’t unlimited for any company though, and choices always need to be made on priorities.  If Heatblur had decided not hire any 3d artists for the exterior and instead and hired more systems coders, would the systems simulation be further along than it is now?  Most likely yes.  Would I personally prefer they have made that choice? Yep.  But they still produced a fantastic product (as did Polychop) that I bought as soon as I could. I don’t require that products I buy and enjoy perfectly match my personal preferences…

 

EDIT: another quick example to illustrate my point. I’m a single player only person.  I have never and will never touch MP.  I would be thrilled if ED decided to make DCS single player only and retask (or let go) everyone working on MP to instead focus on getting an amazing dynamic campaign.  But if they did that lots of other people would be very upset and understandably so.  I still love DCS and think it’s amazing, even though it isn’t perfect or exactly match my desires. 

Edited August 30, 2024 by wombat778

[ThorBrasil]

5 hours ago, wombat778 said:

Of course the F-4e is both well simulated and pretty. And that’s great.  But so what? The Kiowa and the F-4e are not the same product and not made by the same company. They simulate completely different aircraft.  It is very clear to me that Polychop is a much smaller shop with fewer resources and less experience than Heatblur.  But they have still done a fantastic job and produced a chopper that isn’t simulated anywhere else.
 

Resources aren’t unlimited for any company though, and choices always need to be made on priorities.  If Heatblur had decided not hire any 3d artists for the exterior and instead and hired more systems coders, would the systems simulation be further along than it is now?  Most likely yes.  Would I personally prefer they have made that choice? Yep.  But they still produced a fantastic product (as did Polychop) that I bought as soon as I could. I don’t require that products I buy and enjoy perfectly match my personal preferences…

 

EDIT: another quick example to illustrate my point. I’m a single player only person.  I have never and will never touch MP.  I would be thrilled if ED decided to make DCS single player only and retask (or let go) everyone working on MP to instead focus on getting an amazing dynamic campaign.  But if they did that lots of other people would be very upset and understandably so.  I still love DCS and think it’s amazing, even though it isn’t perfect or exactly match my desires. 

 

A small team has nothing to do with the quality of the product. Look at Magnitude 3 with its F-4U-1D, Red Star Simulations with its MiG-17, FlyingIron Simulations with its A-7E, among others that are being developed for DCS. Kiowa is the way it is because Polychop hired the wrong person and did not have high quality control. And flying SP has nothing to do with the quality of the product. I only fly SP and I love looking at the beauty of the Mi-24, Apache and Chinook.

Magnitude 3 F-4U-1D.

 

Red Star Simulations MiG-17.

 

FlyingIron Simulations A-7E

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ThorBrasil said:

A small team has nothing to do with the quality of the product. Look at Magnitude 3 with its F-4U-1D, Red Star Simulations with its MiG-17, FlyingIron Simulations with its A-7E, among others that are being developed for DCS. Kiowa is the way it is because Polychop hired the wrong person and did not have high quality control. And flying SP has nothing to do with the quality of the product. I only fly SP and I love looking at the beauty of the Mi-24, Apache and Chinook.

I believe you completely missed my point on SP.  I was simply using it as an example of how different people have different priorities.  For some people MP is everything. For some people SP is everything.  Even ED - a relatively large company — had to make choices about where to spend effort and they chose to have and MP experience at the expense of the SP experience.  Not what I would have wanted, but I understand why they did what they did.  It was just an example/analogy to illustrate my point. 

All those screenshots are pretty I guess, but I also don’t care AT ALL about them. I don’t believe I have ever looked at my aircraft from outside. None of those pictures make me want those modules. If there was a way that I could delete those models and textures and get the hard drive space and RAM they take up back, I would.    

The point I was trying to make is that EVERY company has to make choices on development priorities.  There is no such thing as unlimited resources.  For the Kiowa, Polychop chose to focus on things that aren’t visual.  To ME I’m very happy they did that - the visuals are perfectly fine to me.  To YOU that was a mistake and makes the Kiowa less enjoyable.   Different products appeal to different people, and that’s ok. 

[RealDCSpilot]

3 hours ago, ThorBrasil said:

Look at Magnitude 3 with its F-4U-1D, Red Star Simulations with its MiG-17, FlyingIron Simulations with its A-7E,

Wow, these guys know what they are doing. That's passion and respect for the product.

[RealDCSpilot]

46 minutes ago, wombat778 said:

The point I was trying to make is that EVERY company has to make choices on development priorities.

You don't really understand what the issue is. This has nothing to do with development priorities, this is about lack of knowledge in the craft. It's not about how much YOU like or don't like how something looks. If you would be a 3D artist and delivering something at this state to your company that works on a product that is going on sale world wide, you would be fired in the most cases. For wasting time (=money), for creating more effort (& costs) that needs to be invested by someone else to redo the same amount of work but the right way. And of course, the company's reputation you would damage if something gets delivered world wide in such a bad state.
The state for textures we are currently seeing is sufficient for preview tests at best. No professional 3D artist would continue to work on final liveries and cockpit textures with such bad UV layouts. It's a natural part of the job to know how these have to look for a final product.

Edited August 30, 2024 by RealDCSpilot

[freehand]

I think people would be more disappointed if the flight model was bad GFX comes second like it or not and as is the fight model is very good compared to others.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, RealDCSpilot said:

You don't really understand what the issue is. This has nothing to do with development priorities, this is about lack of knowledge in the craft. It's not about how much YOU like or don't like how something looks. If you would be a 3D artist and delivering something at this state to your company that works on a product that is going on sale world wide, you would be fired in the most cases.

I very much understand what the "issue" is.  I just disagree with you.  It has everything to do with development priorities. I am certain if Polychop had decided to prioritize visuals they would have spent the money to hire more people with more experience in 3d modeling.  But they didn't.  And to me, I am 100% fine with that, because the visuals are MORE than adequate for what I need. 

Have you ever played the Combat Mission series?  Great games.  But man the visuals could use some work. The engine is slow -- frequently 20fps on a powerful computer -- low resolution everything, ugly UI, generally looks like something from the 1990s, etc etc. And there has been no improvement in any of those areas for years.  It's quite probably true that the guys writing it have a "lack of knowledge in the craft" of engine design, 3d art, UI design etc.  But you know what, I still play and enjoy CM, as do many others, and it is sold worldwide...

Edited August 30, 2024 by wombat778

[Guest]

1 hour ago, RealDCSpilot said:

And of course, the company's reputation you would damage if something gets delivered world wide in such a bad state.
The state for textures we are currently seeing is sufficient for preview tests at best.

Here is another way to illustrate my point.  Here is a shot from the CAE Medallion MR e-Series Visual System, which is used by militaries for pilot training.  I'll leave it up to you to decide, but IMO the model and texture quality is way way below the level of the Kiowa.  Does that mean the CAE software is junk, that the people that made it have no idea what they are doing, and/or that their reputations have been damaged?  No, not at all.  CAE tailored the level of graphics fidelity to the needs of its customers -- militaries -- for whom eye candy is a much lower priority than flight model, avionics accuracy, etc.  The graphics are perfectly sufficient to achieve the goals it was designed for.  In the same way, I think the Kiowa's models and textures are perfectly sufficient to fulfill the needs of customers like me for whom eye candy is not a priority. 

[ThorBrasil]

54 minutes ago, wombat778 said:

Here is another way to illustrate my point.  Here is a shot from the CAE Medallion MR e-Series Visual System, which is used by militaries for pilot training.  I'll leave it up to you to decide, but IMO the model and texture quality is way way below the level of the Kiowa.  Does that mean the CAE software is junk, that the people that made it have no idea what they are doing, and/or that their reputations have been damaged?  No, not at all.  CAE tailored the level of graphics fidelity to the needs of its customers -- militaries -- for whom eye candy is a much lower priority than flight model, avionics accuracy, etc.  The graphics are perfectly sufficient to achieve the goals it was designed for.  In the same way, I think the Kiowa's models and textures are perfectly sufficient to fulfill the needs of customers like me for whom eye candy is not a priority. 

If this is the way of thinking, DCS should never have evolved and continued in LockOn.
 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, ThorBrasil said:

If this is the way of thinking, DCS should never have evolved and continued in LockOn.
 

 

TBH, I would have been perfectly happy if DCS had left graphics at the Flaming Cliffs level, and instead focused exclusively on systems, flight model accuracy, dynamic campaign, and high FPS.  I also am totally fine with Falcon BMS-level graphics.  

Edited August 30, 2024 by wombat778

[ThorBrasil]

8 minutes ago, wombat778 said:

TBH, I would have been perfectly happy if DCS had left graphics at the Flaming Cliffs level, and instead focused exclusively on systems, flight model accuracy, dynamic campaign, and high FPS.  I also am totally fine with Falcon BMS-level graphics.  

 

Then you are the perfect customer for Polychop with their low quality 3D models and textures. Remember that Kiowa's physics are not that accurate. In real life, it cannot take off with 100% fuel and 4 hellfires, much less hover in the air like it does in DCS. The important thing is that you are satisfied.

[RealDCSpilot]

1 hour ago, wombat778 said:

Here is another way to illustrate my point.  Here is a shot from the CAE Medallion MR e-Series Visual System, which is used by militaries for pilot training.  I'll leave it up to you to decide, but IMO the model and texture quality is way way below the level of the Kiowa.  Does that mean the CAE software is junk, that the people that made it have no idea what they are doing, and/or that their reputations have been damaged?  No, not at all.  CAE tailored the level of graphics fidelity to the needs of its customers -- militaries -- for whom eye candy is a much lower priority than flight model, avionics accuracy, etc.  The graphics are perfectly sufficient to achieve the goals it was designed for.  In the same way, I think the Kiowa's models and textures are perfectly sufficient to fulfill the needs of customers like me for whom eye candy is not a priority. 

You got to be kidding bringing that for comparison...

[Guest]

1 minute ago, RealDCSpilot said:

You got to be kidding bringing that for comparison...

Why? Those graphics are perfectly fine for my needs.  Just because my priorities are different from yours does not make mine any less valid. Again, I DO NOT look at my aircraft from the outside, so its model is totally irrelevant to me.  And I'm generally not close enough to other aircraft to notice any details on those models (and if I am, I'm generally focused on flying and fighting not rivet counting).  To the extent I'm viewing a mission and not in the cockpit I'm in Tacview which looks like this. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, ThorBrasil said:

Then you are the perfect customer for Polychop with their low quality 3D models and textures. Remember that Kiowa's physics are not that accurate. In real life, it cannot take off with 100% fuel and 4 hellfires, much less hover in the air like it does in DCS. The important thing is that you are satisfied.

And that is exactly my point -- the Kiowa is a better fit for a customer like me than a customer like you.  And of course it has physics inaccuracies like all modules do. And 1000% I prefer for Polychop to focus on fixing those things instead of spending any effort or money on graphics improvement. 

[ThorBrasil]

Just now, wombat778 said:

And that is exactly my point -- the Kiowa is a better fit for a customer like me than a customer like you.  And of course it has physics inaccuracies like all modules do. And 1000% I prefer for Polychop to focus on fixing those things instead of spending any effort or money on graphics improvement. 

Just remember that the programmer does not interfere with the guy who makes the 3D model and textures. They are different people and you are talking about Polychop having only one employee who does everything. Now, just because you like to play Minecraft doesn't mean you can demand that this not be fixed.

[Guest]

Just now, ThorBrasil said:

Just remember that the programmer does not interfere with the guy who makes the 3D model and textures. They are different people and you are talking about Polychop having only one employee who does everything. Now, just because you like to play Minecraft doesn't mean you can demand that this not be fixed.

I have no idea who does what at Polychop.  But employing people costs money, and if they are paying someone to make 3D models and textures they could instead be paying someone to work on physics or systems.  

I have no idea what your Minecraft comment is about, and I haven't demanded anything.  I've merely expressed my personal preferences, as have you.  Your preferences and my preferences are simply different and you seem to be having trouble accepting that...

[ThorBrasil]

4 minutes ago, wombat778 said:

I have no idea who does what at Polychop.  But employing people costs money, and if they are paying someone to make 3D models and textures they could instead be paying someone to work on physics or systems.  

I have no idea what your Minecraft comment is about, and I haven't demanded anything.  I've merely expressed my personal preferences, as have you.  Your preferences and my preferences are simply different and you seem to be having trouble accepting that...

It's okay! I have nothing against your preferences.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, ThorBrasil said:

It's okay! I have nothing against your preferences.

Great! For reference, when deciding on whether to buy modules I have the following priorities:

Avionics accuracy > interest in specific aircraft > avionics completeness > physics in ordinary flight regimes > interest in mission profile > stability > FPS > physics in edge cases > documentation and training > ancillary features (Jester AI etc) > cockpit textures > completeness of included missions >>>>>>>>  external models and textures.

I'd be curious what your ranking would be?

[Retnek]

Here's a small group of haters blowing up up their personal disfavour about a 3D-models presentation. Over month now there's nothing new- just the repetitive pointing on unbelievable disappointing cosmetics. Others told them they're fine with that level of aesthetics. Positions exchanged about a topic of minor importance. Polychop took notice of the displeasure, they will react according to their priorities. That's it, usually.
But some guys here feel the need to cultivate an obsession. Seen them starting a comparable flame-war against EA because of the outdated and dishonourable impression of the Huey? THE iconic helo-warbird - it's graphics are imperfect, too! How they endure the worst offence against quality-standards in simulator-business ever?
This thread just feeds some trolls who campaign against Polychop over many weeks now.

[ThorBrasil]

16 minutes ago, Retnek said:

Here's a small group of haters blowing up up their personal disfavour about a 3D-models presentation. Over month now there's nothing new- just the repetitive pointing on unbelievable disappointing cosmetics. Others told them they're fine with that level of aesthetics. Positions exchanged about a topic of minor importance. Polychop took notice of the displeasure, they will react according to their priorities. That's it, usually.
But some guys here feel the need to cultivate an obsession. Seen them starting a comparable flame-war against EA because of the outdated and dishonourable impression of the Huey? THE iconic helo-warbird - it's graphics are imperfect, too! How they endure the worst offence against quality-standards in simulator-business ever?
This thread just feeds some trolls who campaign against Polychop over many weeks now.

The difference is that the Huey was released 11 years ago and was way ahead of its time. I'm sure that in the future there will be a Huey 2.0 with an updated model and textures.

Now the Kiowa was released this year with a 3D model and textures that are outdated by 2024 standards.

I have nothing against Polychop, but if the Kiowa had the same level of quality as the current modules, it would have sold much more.

I hope that the Kiowa is updated and that its future modules are not a Kowa 1.0. That way they will always lose sales and as time goes by this will only get worse because new modules will appear that are more interesting than the Kiowa.

Every company aims for profit and to make a profit they have to outdo themselves and their competitors.

 

 

36 minutes ago, wombat778 said:

Great! For reference, when deciding on whether to buy modules I have the following priorities:

Avionics accuracy > interest in specific aircraft > avionics completeness > physics in ordinary flight regimes > interest in mission profile > stability > FPS > physics in edge cases > documentation and training > ancillary features (Jester AI etc) > cockpit textures > completeness of included missions >>>>>>>>  external models and textures.

I'd be curious what your ranking would be?

My preferences are F-4E level.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ThorBrasil said:

My preferences are F-4E level.

Okay, but how is that helpful?  There is only a single module, the F-4e, that is of the quality level of the F-4e.  If every module is only good if it at the level of the F-4e, then there are no good modules other than the F-4e. And while certainly the F-4e is an excellent simulation of the F-4e aircraft, it is an incredibly poor simulation of an OH-58 Kiowa.  Can you suggest other simulations of the OH-58 Kiowa that are better than Polychop's version? 

Edited August 30, 2024 by wombat778