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

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

 

@wombat778You can't possibly argue against optimisation of the game where more users with lesser computers deserve to enjoy it as much as you do, no matter their opinions regarding the aesthetics?

I'm not arguing for or against anything.  I'm simply stating MY personal preferences.  On my computer, the Kiowa runs great.  Performance is on par with other modules, and is generally stable at my FPS limit.  Optimization is nice I guess, but I don't really care since it already runs fine.  It's like if someone asked me to spend money/time/energy to increase my car's top speed from 125 to 130.  I'm not driving at those speeds so I really don't care.

I'm all for more people with lesser computers being able to run it.  But those folks are perfectly capable of advocating for themselves, and don't need me to talk to Polychop on their behalf. At the risk of sounding like my 16 year old son, that sounds like a them problem and not a me problem…

Edited August 30, 2024 by wombat778

[ThorBrasil]

45 minutes ago, wombat778 said:

I'm not arguing for or against anything.  I'm simply stating MY personal preferences.  On my computer, the Kiowa runs great.  Performance is on par with other modules, and is generally stable at my FPS limit.  Optimization is nice I guess, but I don't really care since it already runs fine.  It's like if someone asked me to spend money/time/energy to increase my car's top speed from 125 to 130.  I'm not driving at those speeds so I really don't care.

I'm all for more people with lesser computers being able to run it.  But those folks are perfectly capable of advocating for themselves, and don't need me to talk to Polychop on their behalf. At the risk of sounding like my 16 year old son, that sounds like a them problem and not a me problem…

 

As you can see, F-4E and Apache has practically the same performance and it is infinitely superior to Kiowa in Textures and 3D model.

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2024 by ThorBrasil

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, ThorBrasil said:

As you can see, F-4E and Apache has practically the same performance and it is infinitely superior to Kiowa in Textures and 3D model.

What’s your point? I never claimed that the graphics can’t be made better or that performance can’t be improved.  My point is that I don’t care bc those things do not matter  at all to me.  If Polychop wants to do those things, then good for them — those things are simply useless TO ME.  

[NeedzWD40]

As we've all gathered, the nature of the PC's 58D as it stands is very much subject to opinion. I can see both sides of the issue, especially when we come off of modules like the AH-64D and the CH-47F. For me, personally, the detail is "good enough," though for the resources utilized (as noted several pages back regarding the UV maps) it is lackluster. The small things like poorly mapped parts, lack of detail where we might expect it, some variable color palettes that don't make much sense, the lack of damage modeling, and other issues add up. I can't blame anyone for feeling underwhelmed due to these issues. Likewise, from a playability standpoint, they don't impact my experience much when the rubber meets the road.

Number 1 issue: Aircrew. I feel that these are the most lackluster part of the module and could really use a second pass, at least on the faces. This is even more important for an aircraft like the OH-58D, because they're incredibly visible from a variety of angles. A comparison with the AH-64D aircrew makes them look poor, to say the least. At a minimum, the faces could definitely use a lift.

Number 2 issue: Damage model. We have a generic bullet hole texture for most of the aircraft, but we're missing things like panels blown off, rotor blades fragmented, tail boom twisted away, and so on. I'm assuming this has been a priority since release as it's the most incomplete part of the module. Compared to many other helicopter modules with items like slumped pilots, twisted and destroyed rotor blades, tailbooms that pop off, etc. it is incredibly lackluster. The UH-1H has all of these and it's more than 10 years old, plus things like panels that hang on by a thread after damage, etc.

After being hit by 23mm fire, I'd expect a bit more than small arms bullet holes, since my tail rotor is out, a weapon pylon has been blasted off, and the crew is dead!

Number 3, all the other small details. Things like avionics wiring, panel coloring, flare launcher being a black hole, etc. add up, and while not totally immersion breaking, I do understand why those adjusted to the flare packs having actual flares that get expended in other modules to be an annoyance.

Of these issues, I'd say the dash colors being too dark is probably the largest one, as all the ones I remember seeing were more of a gray color with dust and abuse. The wiring could be improved by darkening and adding various amounts of shade as well as grime (I've worked with the stuff before, it attracts grime like nobody's business). Not functional issues, more aesthetic, but they do add up. The AH-64D's colors are about right for a service aircraft.

It's important to note that I don't consider these functional issues, merely as examples of understanding why some folks are disappointed with the detail level as a whole. The flare launcher, for example: I actually use the pre-CMWS aircraft quite often, as the sweet spot for my scenarios is prior to mass integration of that system.

From a purely functional standpoint, I find the PC 58D pretty dang good. It offers a lot of flexibility in a small package and the handling is one of the best and easiest for new players who may want to dive into helicopters with a bit more flexibility than existing modules without getting into the complexity of the AH-64D (and associated functional issues like the FM + SAS). The only minor changes I'd like to see in that regard is introduction of the M296 gunpod and an aesthetic removal of the toilet seat intakes, but the lack of such don't detract from the module as it is.

I can understand that for the price point, a few buyers might feel a bit jaded by what they received, even if others are absolutely overjoyed with what they got. You can't please everyone and since most of the real Kiowa guys are pretty satisfied, I'd say that speaks volumes. There's enough info out there for everyone to make an educated choice by now to decide if the module is worth their time and money.

[RealDCSpilot]

@NeedzWD40 Thanks for going into detail.

The crew is actually the best example for "how going bonkers with textures". They really don't make any sense.

This is the pilot's face - a 4K texture - taking up around the same amount of pixels as the whole tail section of the OH-58D.

The jacket got also a ridiculous single high resolution texture with finest uv packing art:

Why didn't they combine this with the protection vest? I have no idea... (again a 4K texture, check how much you can see of it in game):

let's have a look at the patches (4K texture space):

Alright, i think i got it. The module is a OH-58D crew simulation! It's not about the airframe!

(If you don't have a 4090, it might be best to disable the crew models. May help with performance.)

Edited August 31, 2024 by RealDCSpilot

[Mainstay]

17 hours ago, wombat778 said:

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? 

 

You know what he means. F-4, F-14, F-16, Apache etc etc... the whole bunch are better in the visual department. 

Also your point and preference is clear. You want systems and physics and you dont care about looks, graphical beauty et cetera we get it.

But whats unacceptable for me is that, like Thor said earlier the person that does the graphics, textures and those sort of things is a different person.

And right now the "Base" level of aesthetics are not being reached compared to other products with the KIOWA.

I for one, dont understand why poly doesnt say "okay we get the point we will hire another dude and improve" this simple reaction would bring them A more customers and B they focus on the whole range of the product (physics, systems, flightmodel, graphics etc).

But the reaction showed earlier on discord by one of the team really set me off, i hope they will reconsider within the team.

Edited August 31, 2024 by Mainstay

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Mainstay said:

I for one, dont understand why poly doesnt say "okay we get the point we will hire another dude and improve" this simple reaction would bring them A more customers and B they focus on the whole range of the product (physics, systems, flightmodel, graphics etc).

But it’s not “simple”. Hiring people costs money, takes time to integrate into the team etc.  All of which diverts time and resources from things that are more important to me.  And they have access to sales data that we do not, so presumably they are in a better position than we are to know whether the costs of hiring someone will be outweighed by the benefits that more eye candy would bring in terms of sales.

As to you being triggered by what the Polychop rep said, I get it — it’s always disappointing when you learn that a product isn’t the right fit for you.  But surely you should be grateful that they set the record straight so you can stop wasting energy trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. You apparently aren’t their target audience, and one of the other modules you mentioned is probably more to your liking. And that’s ok, not every product needs to appeal to every consumer…

Edited August 31, 2024 by wombat778

[RealDCSpilot]

2 hours ago, wombat778 said:

it’s always disappointing when you learn that a product isn’t the right fit for you.

That "logic" doesn't work well for DCS. We won't get any other 3rd party developer doing another Kiowa, this slot is taken. And for me the OH-58D is the right fit. That's why quality standards needs to be kept (and controlled beforehand).

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, RealDCSpilot said:

That "logic" doesn't work well for DCS. We won't get any other 3rd party developer doing another Kiowa, this slot is taken. And for me the OH-58D is the right fit. That's why quality standards needs to be kept (and controlled beforehand).

Ding ding, now you see the point I’ve been trying to make!

There is no competition for this module because there is no other simulation of the OH-58 and likely will never be. So all the talk about how Polychop “needs” to keep up with its “competition” like the F-4e doesn’t make much sense. Like I said before, the F-4e is a terrible simulation of the OH-58, and so really isnt competition for the Kiowa. If we had 50 other Kiowa simulations then sure we could compare them and pick the one with the feature set we like best.  But that’s not the world we live in. I’m all for y’all advocating with Polychop to improve whatever aspects you like, but the claim that they “need” to do it because other modules of other aircraft have done it is kinda silly.  

[RealDCSpilot]

2 hours ago, wombat778 said:

Ding ding, now you see the point I’ve been trying to make!

Actually no. I can't follow you since a couple of posts. It's getting really weird. You seem to get a bit entangled in strange thoughts.

Edited August 31, 2024 by RealDCSpilot

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, RealDCSpilot said:

Actually no. I can't follow you since a couple of posts. It's getting really weird. You seem to get a bit entangled in strange thoughts.

lol, ok. I am a lawyer so I tend to use very precise language that sometimes might not be easily understood by some people.  But it’s really not complicated — there are only two points:

1) not everyone prioritizes graphics like you (and others) do, and Polychop catering to people like me doesn’t mean they are wrong and that the product is bad/broken/needs to be fixed — just that it’s development priorities don’t match yours  

2) claiming that Polychop “needs” to include more eye candy in order to compete with other modules is silly, because other modules don’t simulate the OH-58.  For people like me who are specifically interested in the OH-58, talking about how much better the F-4e etc are is kinda pointless because those other modules don’t do the one thing I want most — simulate the OH-58!  

Let me know which of those points you are having difficulty understanding and I’ll be happy to clarify.  
 

[Hiob]

Expecting a developer to a „cater“ to a function >> form crowd is equally narrow minded as expecting them to cater to a form >> function crowd.

And the notion that the visual standards set by modern DCS modules (ED and 3rd) party doesn’t matter as a reference is somewhat silly tbh.

I assume that a lot of (probably most) people are interested in both.

It is also valid to point out some obvious shortcomings of the module in the current state. Visual and otherwise. The fuzz some people make out of it is just completely out of proportion imho.

If people would just state their feedback in a factual way and stay away from attacking the developers or assume careless or malicious intend, I‘m sure the developers would happily improve their product as suggested and as resources allow……

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Hiob said:

Expecting a developer to a „cater“ to a function >> form crowd is equally narrow minded as expecting them to cater to a form >> function crowd.

...

And the notion that the visual standards set by modern DCS modules (ED and 3rd) party doesn’t matter as a reference is somewhat silly tbh.

Who is this directed at?  I haven't seen anyone "expect" the developers to do anything.  I've only seen people (including me) being happy that the developers seem to have chosen that direction and not form >> function.  I don't quite understand why some get upset when folks like me just say that they are happy with the product and the direction Polychop is going.

I'm sorry you think that it's silly that I and others don't care about visual standards.  I am who I am and certain things don't matter to ME.  I'm not sure why that preference seems to upset others.  I have absolutely no problem with folks who prioritize visuals and very happy for them to post feedback about it, boycott the product, or do whatever they want.  No concerns with that whatsoever, and I don't think their priorities are silly at all. You do you.  But please let me do me.  Thanks.

Edited August 31, 2024 by wombat778

[Hiob]

9 minutes ago, wombat778 said:

Who is this directed at?  I haven't seen anyone "expect" the developers to do anything.  I've only seen people (including me) being happy that the developers seem to have chosen that direction and not form >> function.  I don't quite understand why some get upset when folks like me just say that they are happy with the product and the direction Polychop is going.

I'm sorry you think that it's silly that I and others don't care about visual standards.  I am who I am and certain things don't matter to ME.  I'm not sure why that preference seems to upset others.  I have absolutely no problem with folks who prioritize visuals and very happy for them to post feedback about it, boycott the product, or do whatever they want.  No concerns with that whatsoever.  

 

For a lawyer you don’t read very carefully. I didn’t say that not caring about visual is silly, but that it is silly to suggest that it is a good idea for a developer to do only one thing without caring about the other*….and in the same sense that a lot of (I assume most) care about both. 

*And for the record, I don’t think that Polychop did that or that the visuals are particular bad.

I can however see some spots where they don’t meet the current standards and could use some polishing. I don’t think though that they limit in any way, shape or form the overall appeal of the module.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Hiob said:

For a lawyer you don’t read very carefully. I didn’t say that not caring about visual is silly, but that it is silly to suggest that it is a good idea for a developer to do only one thing without caring about the other*….and in the same sense that a lot of (I assume most) care about both. 

I'm not sure why you feel the need to resort to personal attacks to make your point.  It's not a good look.  

What you said is: "And the notion that the visual standards set by modern DCS modules (ED and 3rd) party doesn’t matter as a reference is somewhat silly tbh." 

The only point I have made in this thread is that I PERSONALLY do not care about visuals. I have never suggested that it is a "good idea" for a developer to do only one thing, just that I PERSONALLY am happy with the direction they have chosen.  So, assuming your original comment was directed to me, and not at a straw man argument that no one has made in this thread - your statement was indeed saying that its silly that I don't care about visuals.  

Anyhow, I enjoy a good intellectual debate and have had fun in this thread.  But now that you have taken this to personal attacks I'm out.  Feel free to have the last word if you want it.

[Jenrick]

On 8/30/2024 at 3:49 AM, ThorBrasil said:

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. 

Are any of those flyable right now?  I'm not being flippant, the ability to actually use a module is a big issue.  Screenshots can look amazing if they don't have to do anything besides look pretty. 

[ThorBrasil]

2 hours ago, Jenrick said:

Are any of those flyable right now?  I'm not being flippant, the ability to actually use a module is a big issue.  Screenshots can look amazing if they don't have to do anything besides look pretty. 

You can see this same level of detail in the Apache, Mi-24, Ka-50v3, F-14, F-18, F-16, A-10Cv2 and F-4E modules. And yes! The level of detail in the Kiowa in 2024 is shameful! Amateur stuff!

Edited September 1, 2024 by ThorBrasil

[LorenLuke]

[Branli]

On 8/31/2024 at 2:22 PM, wombat778 said:

But it’s not “simple”. Hiring people costs money, takes time to integrate into the team etc.  All of which diverts time and resources from things that are more important to me.  And they have access to sales data that we do not, so presumably they are in a better position than we are to know whether the costs of hiring someone will be outweighed by the benefits that more eye candy would bring in terms of sales.

As to you being triggered by what the Polychop rep said, I get it — it’s always disappointing when you learn that a product isn’t the right fit for you.  But surely you should be grateful that they set the record straight so you can stop wasting energy trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. You apparently aren’t their target audience, and one of the other modules you mentioned is probably more to your liking. And that’s ok, not every product needs to appeal to every consumer…

 

I would do it for free to fix the textures if i had the time. Its really a mess and a low effort to make it right. I've got some experience with texturing and UV Mapping and i bet other people in the DCS Community would join / help to fix this if they are invited. There is some amazing talent within the community and in the end its a matter of willing and caring about every aspect of your product.

Edited September 1, 2024 by Branli

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, Branli said:

I would do it for free to fix the textures if i had the time. Its really a mess and a low effort to make it right. I've got some experience with texturing and UV Mapping and i bet other people in the DCS Community would join / help to fix this if they are invited. There is some amazing talent within the community and in the end its a matter of willing and caring about every aspect of your product.

 

I support that completely. If folks are willing to help the developers improve things that they care about, then it’s a win win IMO.

[Esac_mirmidon]

5 hours ago, LorenLuke said:

And you and i know he is going to do the same another 19.

[ThorBrasil]

39 minutes ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

And you and i know he is going to do the same another 19.

If a company wants to make big profits, it must make a product that is equal to or better than its competitors. It's not my fault that Polychop launched something at this level at a full price with the intention of selling it like an "F-4E". I did give my feedback, as did many others, and if in the future another module has its problems, I will come here and create a topic. Even a simple animation on the ammunition belt does not exist on the aircraft, which has practically no weapons. The 3D and textures are ugly, yes. The sound is ugly and unrealistic, and the physics have their problems. The Kiowa taking off and hovering with 100% fuel and 4 Hellfires is not possible on the real aircraft, and even the developers stated that it does not do this on their discord. Anyway! I hope it receives all the improvements and shines, but the more time passes and new modules are released, the Kiowa will fall into oblivion and sales will be lower and lower.

 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, ThorBrasil said:

The Kiowa taking off and hovering with 100% fuel and 4 Hellfires is not possible on the real aircraft, and even the developers stated that it does not do this on their discord.

On this specific issue, I don't personally see it as a problem.  To my understanding that is not a load-out that the real aircraft uses -- I don't think developer energy should be spent making realistic physics for an unrealistic loadout (any more than I want them tuning the flight model to accurately simulate what would happen if you duct taped AIM-54s to a Kiowa).  IMO it's only a problem to the extent that it reveals larger problems in the flight model with realistic load oats.  Which it may or may not, but I don't have evidence of that at this time. And if there are larger problems I'm reasonably confident that the developers will fix them

[ThorBrasil]

3 minutes ago, wombat778 said:

On this specific issue, I don't personally see it as a problem.  To my understanding that is not a load-out that the real aircraft uses -- I don't think developer energy should be spent making realistic physics for an unrealistic loadout (any more than I want them tuning the flight model to accurately simulate what would happen if you duct taped AIM-54s to a Kiowa).  IMO it's only a problem to the extent that it reveals larger problems in the flight model with realistic load oats.  Which it may or may not, but I don't have evidence of that at this time. And if there are larger problems I'm reasonably confident that the developers will fix them

Funny! I thought the DCS was all about realism! What a thing!

[Guest]

Just now, ThorBrasil said:

Funny! I thought the DCS was all about realism! What a thing!

It generally is.  How does it improve realism to tweak physics to realistically represent a completely fantasy loadout?