Why Do The Preview Screenshots Look Nothing Like The Actual Released Map?

[CommandT]

I just wanted to ask - why do the Russian airbases which look pretty decent and realistic in the preview development screenshots look nothing like the released product? I'm just curious as the authenticity of the Russian bases was one of the key selling points of the map to me. The released version is pretty shameful compared to what was "advertised".

Preview screenshot here: 

Edited June 29 by CommandT

[Pizzicato]

Yeah, I have to agree. That was a selling point for me, too.

[Rudel_chw]

31 minutes ago, CommandT said:

The released version is pretty shameful compared to what was "advertised".

 

Do you realize that this is an early access product?  

[flanker1]

. . . I have little to no hope that we will see the preview quality ingame. . . unfortunately. But yes, this was the USP for me too. . .

[CommandT]

10 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

Do you realize that this is an early access product?  

That's not a valid argument. By that logic they may have as well just given us a 10km x 10km patch of low res forest as a starting point for "Early Access" and then it would be ok... because it's "Early Access". They advertised and released a product for people to buy. At the very least we would expect to see what was advertised on the development screenshots that were used for promoting the map and hence for people to buy it.

I think it's a very valid question. Things generally improve after initial development screenshots, not get significantly worse like in the released version. So I would like to know why the later build looks worse than an earlier build. Early Access or not. 

It's fair enough that there are shortcomings for early access release obviously but not for areas which are already advertised beforehand and form a marketing foundation for the product and expectations by the consumer. You can't advertise one thing and sell another just because you stuck an "Early Access" at the end of the title. 

Edited June 30 by CommandT

[buceador]

1 hour ago, CommandT said:

You can't advertise one thing and sell another just because you stuck an "Early Access" at the end of the title.

I think the "Early Access" mantra, a universal get-out-of-jail-free-card doesn't apply in this case, if, in this case the airbases, shown in the promotional, marketing photos / videos  do not look like the released version the buyer will feel deceived and rightly so...

[Wingmate]

They did answer this on the discord a long time ago, (sadly everything seems to have a discord these days rather than one area for centralized information). This is what they said in relation to that airport. 

Quote

]Holger Sandmann: I remember thinking, when I selected that preview screenshot of Olenya Airbase six months ago, that it looked so cool – it certainly reflected my mental image of a hard-worn Russian airbase.
However, if you spend more time with it, you’ll notice the issues compared to the real thing https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZELTNvTUr94b39C76 : 
The tarmac concrete is brown instead of grey; the gaps between the plates would have to be the width of a tyre to stand out like this; some of the tyre marks are light grey instead of dark; some odd edges of the dirt textures, etc. There would have been quite a few complaints if we had released Olenya like that.
What does bother me with the new screenshot ⁠dcs⁠ though is the loss of detail in the dirt and grass areas, for example the tracks and the smaller features connecting the buildings; looks like our optimisation pass – DCS has a strict limit on VRAM budget – did a number on those. I’ll discuss with the team how we can return that detail. Also perhaps make our concrete tiles even lighter plus reduce the glossiness of some of the sealed surfaces.
What I really like about Olenya is its bowl-shaped runway profile, which we managed to represent well. If you own the Kola map you should check it out.

 

[CommandT]

2 hours ago, Wingmate said:

They did answer this on the discord a long time ago, (sadly everything seems to have a discord these days rather than one area for centralized information). This is what they said in relation to that airport. 

 

Thanks for posting this here. I can see their logic at least but the implementation of the "more realistic" lighter grey tiles is absolutely terrible unfortunately. I hope they can improve on it going forward and make it worn and torn and "rough" like in reality. 

[Goetsch]

July 3 game update maybe update with some kola fixes?

[skywalker22]

Orbx is not looking here at this forum, for contacting them about anything, or you use their Discord (as mentioned), or their forum (website). Here is the converstion about this topic: https://kola.orbxdirect.com/posts/27/official-screenshot-s-vs-reality

[fjacobsen]

Regardless if its Early Access or not, what is shown in previews for the Early Access, should also be what we see in an Early Access release, otherwise I would call it false advertisement.

Even for a Early Access module, we should clearly be shown and informed on what we will get the day of an Early Access release.

Personally I have not a problem with Early Access. Most DCS modules have been bought this way, but some are simply too early, like the Kola Map. When shown screenshots like the one above, one would expect this to be what You will get when released.

[Wingmate]

1 hour ago, fjacobsen said:

Regardless if its Early Access or not, what is shown in previews for the Early Access, should also be what we see in an Early Access release, otherwise I would call it false advertisement.

Even for a Early Access module, we should clearly be shown and informed on what we will get the day of an Early Access release.

Personally I have not a problem with Early Access. Most DCS modules have been bought this way, but some are simply too early, like the Kola Map. When shown screenshots like the one above, one would expect this to be what You will get when released.

Personally I think that is a bit silly. If they show something during development that is wrong, they would then be unable to correct it without it being false advertising. As I quoted from their discord, they noticed that the runways were off from reality and made changes accordingly (as well as admit that there is still room for improvement in the concrete). It was also noted by them that there was a loss of grass and dirt detail in the area and they would look into restoring that.

There is another screenshot they posted that is noticeably different from what it looked like in release but no one has any issues (or is hinting at it being false advertising) with the changes to the terminal at Bodø it similarly had incorrect colours (and model I think?) but was corrected before release. 

 

Early image of the terminal at Bodø.

Bodø as it is now,

Edited July 4 by Wingmate
Fixed Embed Link

[CommandT]

21 hours ago, Wingmate said:

Personally I think that is a bit silly. If they show something during development that is wrong, they would then be unable to correct it without it being false advertising. As I quoted from their discord, they noticed that the runways were off from reality and made changes accordingly (as well as admit that there is still room for improvement in the concrete). It was also noted by them that there was a loss of grass and dirt detail in the area and they would look into restoring that.

There is another screenshot they posted that is noticeably different from what it looked like in release but no one has any issues (or is hinting at it being false advertising) with the changes to the terminal at Bodø it similarly had incorrect colours (and model I think?) but was corrected before release. 

 

Early image of the terminal at Bodø.

Bodø as it is now,

 

I think the point being made by a number of us is not that things shouldn't be changed between development screenshots and EA release but rather that things should look at least as good as they do in the development screenshots by the time the map is released. In the case of the Bodo terminal they improved it and made it more realistic, and that's exactly what one would expect - things to either change to look better or more realistic. 

With the images of the Russian bases it went the other way. I know they claim they changed the concrete textures because in real life the colour is lighter grey but the reality is a) it still looks nothing like reality, and b) it is just very very poor quality/ implementation compared to what they "advertised" with their development screenshots. I mean not even the concrete but just in general the quality and resolution of the ground textures around the runways and taxiways - the development screenshots sold one thing for us to buy but reality is just very poor. We are not complaining that it's different, we are complaining that it's worse. MUCH worse.

[Wingmate]

I do agree that that particular preview screenshot the area around the runways and taxiways looks much better, as did the developer hence why they said 

Quote

What does bother me with the new screenshot ⁠dcs⁠ though is the loss of detail in the dirt and grass areas, for example the tracks and the smaller features connecting the buildings; looks like our optimisation pass – DCS has a strict limit on VRAM budget – did a number on those. I’ll discuss with the team how we can return that detail. Also perhaps make our concrete tiles even lighter plus reduce the glossiness of some of the sealed surfaces.

in the text I quoted. With that said it still only seems to be the one screenshot of Olenya with notable differences that people have complained about (possibly I am missing something here but as I was very much looking forward to this map I followed it closely). If there were several airbases that had that happen from development screenshots to release I would be more concerned, but with it only being Olenya and one of the developers acknowledging the issues and looking to fix them I can hardly call it false advertising for trying to make it more realistic even if didn't necessarily turn out that way.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

On 6/29/2024 at 7:50 PM, Rudel_chw said:

 

Do you realize that this is an early access product?  

Valid point! I pre ordered a cyber truck from Tesla. Just received a Chrysler minivan but hey, early access right???  
Gotta love the cut and paste crowd. You do realize it’s ok for people to call out a content provider for “lack of perceived value “ without the constant need of the “perma, apologist crowd “  always defending

 

[Gunfreak]

1 hour ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

Valid point! I pre ordered a cyber truck from Tesla. Just received a Chrysler minivan but hey, early access right???  
Gotta love the cut and paste crowd. You do realize it’s ok for people to call out a content provider for “lack of perceived value “ without the constant need of the “perma, apologist crowd “  always defending

 

But the chrysler minivan is better then a tesla cyber truck.(literally anything with 4 wheels are better than the cyber truck) so I say you dodged a bullet.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

Can’t argue with that statement

[Goetsch]

After many updates, this airport still looks unchanged now from when it was originally released...

[DD_Fenrir]

19 minutes ago, Goetsch said:

After many updates, this airport still looks unchanged now from when it was originally released...

One would suspect that they have a schedule of planned additions and amendments that has been laid out well before we even knew the map was even a twinkle in Orbx's eye.

This project plan will have been laid out to provide as efficient and economical workflows as possible to ensure best use of the teams time; it is likely that they will be adhering to this, expanding the airfield provision and adding scenery detail to meet this timeline, before revisiting the areas of concern for revision, like your aforementioned original airfield textures.

They have said they would, just be patient.

Edited August 15 by DD_Fenrir

[Goetsch]

19 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

One would suspect that they have a schedule of planned additions and amendments that has been laid out well before we even knew the map was even a twinkle in Orbx's eye.

This project plan will have been laid out to provide as efficient and economical workflows as possible to ensure best use of the teams time; it is likely that they will be adhering to this, expanding the airfield provision and adding scenery detail to meet this timeline, before revisiting the areas of concern for revision, like your aforementioned original airfield textures.

They have said they would, just be patient.

 

I haven't seen any official description so far, and for those early screenshots, it was a big reason why I bought the Kola, so it's a big concern for me

[NIAGARA MOHAWK]

On 6/30/2024 at 6:22 AM, CommandT said:

 

It's fair enough that there are shortcomings for early access release obviously but not for areas which are already advertised beforehand and form a marketing foundation for the product and expectations by the consumer. You can't advertise one thing and sell another just because you stuck an "Early Access" at the end of the title. 

 

===its called Bait and Switch ===

[Lusik]

I've just bought the map and I cannot agree more. I don't mind lower resolution texturs in sparsely populated areas, particularly that these are often covered with forests but airfields are a completely different story. Paved surfaces are worse than default Caucaus and should not be present in a released version of the map. I expect early access to have some parts of the maps missing, just like e.g. Afghanistan but these done should not be of such poor quality. 

Compary it to early access Syria or aforementioned Afghanistan both of whiich had arifields abundand in detal. 

I bought the map only to have access to to upcoming Arctic Thunder Campaigs. 

Edited October 6 by Lusik

[CommandT]

And to add - the new retextured summer on the Kola map is terrible. No better than before. To say this has been the biggest disappointment in my DCS history is an understatement. 

[Gierasimov]

So I asked in the other thread to post some screens of high detail, low level, summer DCS Kola and Boosterdog was kind to post it, but oh my goodness, how big is the difference between what Orbx is showing on their website versus what is in the sim. I really wanted this terrain to shift from Syria and get this campaign from Baltic / Reflected but now I doubt I will spend money on the map that looks like a fraud. 

Now, people will say: "it is in EA" yes it is, but if the detail was there for the marketing shots and was pulled from the product (most likely due to performance) then t will not come back. Just like the "newest tech" was implemented in DCS Afghanistan, it looks like this "quality" is going to be the new norm for now at least. 

Once we move to Vulkan and implement its rendering capabilities in DCS, perhaps we will see better visuals, until then though we will have to just suck it up as the new norm. 

[Boosterdog]

3 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

So I asked in the other thread to post some screens of high detail, low level, summer DCS Kola and Boosterdog was kind to post it, but oh my goodness, how big is the difference between what Orbx is showing on their website versus what is in the sim. I really wanted this terrain to shift from Syria and get this campaign from Baltic / Reflected but now I doubt I will spend money on the map that looks like a fraud. 

Now, people will say: "it is in EA" yes it is, but if the detail was there for the marketing shots and was pulled from the product (most likely due to performance) then t will not come back. Just like the "newest tech" was implemented in DCS Afghanistan, it looks like this "quality" is going to be the new norm for now at least. 

Once we move to Vulkan and implement its rendering capabilities in DCS, perhaps we will see better visuals, until then though we will have to just suck it up as the new norm. 

Just to add to the above.  I didnt pick 4 or 5 of the worst sceenies I could find. I literally F7'd and captured what was there. The issue is that this is supposedly a hi-rez area yet, within a minute in a helo you will invariably be faced low rez textures even if you set off from the centre of it. Unlike some, I dont see any golden hozizon. The map is a pup at anything below 5000ft.