opinion Afghanistan user feedback

[Beirut]

I'm happy to have bought the map and happy to wait for some updates.

 

But what we see now cannot be the final quality of a hi-def area. It can't be. It's not nearly good enough.

 

I'm hopeful and waiting for updates. 

[toubey]

I am fairly new here. But to me it seems that there are a handfull of people who are always upset. Like in every community. Leave them alone. Fly, have fun. Don't buy if you don't want it. Leave dcs if it just ruins your day, day in and day out... 

[LuseKofte]

Comparing Kola and this map I can see the Color of the textures is the main problem for Afghanistan mountains. Kola got the same kind of texture but somehow green works at its favour. 
 

43 minutes ago, Beirut said:

But what we see now cannot be the final quality of a hi-def area. It can't be. It's not nearly

I think this will be fixed. 

Edited July 14, 2024 by LuseKofte

[Beirut]

2 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I think this will be fixed. 

 

Agreed. It will see some texture updates for sure.

 

Hope we get some night lighting on the big airbases. At least as an option. Need that eye candy.

[T.Power]

8 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

Comparing Kola and this map I can see the Colorado of the textures is the main problem for Afghanistan mountains. Kola got the same kind of texture but somehow green works at its favour. 
 

I think this will be fixed. 

+1 - To use the South Atlantic map as an example which was lets face it a dog's dinner of a map at launch, now look at it, it's literally jaw dropping.  Kola got shredded at launch and is now undeniably a new benchmark.  I honestly believe that Afghanistan has the potential to be on par with both of those maps, sub par textures and mountain rendering issues aside, I'm not seeing anything that can't be fixed, but that's just my personal choice to be positive about a game that I love in a world that I increasingly despair for, other opinions are available.

[Beirut]

20 minutes ago, T.Power said:

+1 - To use the South Atlantic map as an example which was lets face it a dog's dinner of a map at launch, now look at it, it's literally jaw dropping.  Kola got shredded at launch and is now undeniably a new benchmark.  I honestly believe that Afghanistan has the potential to be on par with both of those maps, sub par textures and mountain rendering issues aside, I'm not seeing anything that can't be fixed, but that's just my personal choice to be positive about a game that I love in a world that I increasingly despair for, other opinions are available.

 

Egg-xactly!

 

With the quality of maps like the SA and Kola maps, not to mention Syria, the bar has been set pretty high. And that's great. That's why I can't see the Afghan map, specifically the first HD section, staying as it is. It's unthinkable that it will not be improved.

 

I'm sure it will be brought up to standard.

[LuseKofte]

I am not quite happy with sub arctic winter textures. I live in it , but I can live with it. 
My fatigue is the constant bitching on everything new coming lately. 
There is a lot of talk before thinking going on. 

[Moxica]

Are there any helo-friendly, high rez mountain areas at all?
If so; Where?
Because I've tried to make some missions, but those sharp edged triangles and modern art textures makes me scrap the missions.
I tried many locations, but I haven't found them yet. Just a lot of "WTF" moments.

Edited July 14, 2024 by Moxica

[LuseKofte]

4 minutes ago, Moxica said:

Are there any helo-friendly, high rez mountain areas at all?
If so; Where?

This is my issue as well 

I flew a F 4 full throttle at low alt to see if that improved the styrofoam effect. But it did not. 
But land on one of the ridges and the textures is nice. It’s like thin hair if you look sideways it’s fine but from above not so much

[Moxica]

Next mission: "Willy Wonka goes to Afghanistan"

That could work.

[Slippa]

17 minutes ago, Moxica said:

Next mission: "Willy Wonka goes to Afghanistan"

That could work.

Now I’m paying attention.

[Silvester.E]

The problem i am having with this new technology is that there is no depth low level. Maps like Syria, Sinai, Mriannas, etc with the old technology have their own terrain elevations and less based on “google earth” image.
 

Been to Iraq and Afghanistan myself during deployments and i can tell you there is hardly flat terrain even if it’s just a difference between 1/2 meter. 
 

Yes, from high up it all looks great, but low level this scenery becomes flat terrain and there is no depth anymore. 
 

Amazing

10 seconds later.. ..no elevations. 

Edited July 14, 2024 by Silvester.E

[Glide]

6 minutes ago, Silvester.E said:

there is no depth anymore

You are correct, there are limits to how far you can go with terrain detail before impacting performance too much.  The map is hardly finished yet as well.  Check out Nanite Landscapes in the latest Unreal Engine 5.4 for the future of terrain simulation.  This map is clearly not "more of the same" because ED has been announcing improvements to terrain for months now. 

I think this map has a lot of character and potential for historical and fictional mission building.  Give it time.

[Silvester.E]

 

[Jackjack171]

On 7/13/2024 at 6:03 AM, T.Power said:

 

ED should ban whingers from purchasing EA.  It's the equivalent of being allergic to peanuts, eating peanuts and then blaming the manufacturer for making you sick.

 

Spot on! Ban is a bit extreme. People are free to use their funds on anything they like, even if it is a regretful purchase. Now, getting emotional when you KNEW it was EA is something else. ED gives ample warnings about EA, always has! I feel ya with everything else said though. The map will get better with time.

[Gunfreak]

36 minutes ago, Jackjack171 said:

Spot on! Ban is a bit extreme. People are free to use their funds on anything they like, even if it is a regretful purchase. Now, getting emotional when you KNEW it was EA is something else. ED gives ample warnings about EA, always has! I feel ya with everything else said though. The map will get better with time.

Except they stated the South Afghanistan is feature complete. These aren't just bugs. These are either unfinished (i hope) or the best we can expect from EDs terrain engine ( at least for the foreseeable future.

Unlike SA map and Kola. ED showed just the most perfect glamour shots that gave no hint that we could expect the standard low quality satellite stuff we got on south Atlantic map.

They released a map were a river is the main feature, and where the majority of the fighting happen in that part of Afghanistan and most of the river and area just around it has just low quality textures and graphical artifacts.

These things should have been fixed(if they can be fixed) before it was released. Because right now only a small part of the 3rd of the map released has any quality. I was looking forward doing Apache CAS and escorting Chinnocks in my Apache down Helmand river. 

But as it is now. If you move slightly down river from Lashkargah. All you see is low quality textures like someone use some spray cans on cardboard. And terrain geometry problems.

[markturner1960]

I would really like ED to give some context to the way the terrain engine works and specifically what affects performance the most. Obviously high res textures will test your GPU, but a huge part of why the map looks so bad close up is the mesh definition. I cannot believe that it would be that much of a drain on modern PC resources to have more detailed mesh, after all, I was running 50cm terrain mesh in FSX 15 years ago and a PC that no one would even use today and it looked and ran fine. I know the core engine is old in DCS but come on, it must be able to do now what my PC from 15 years ago did? 

Loading the map with objects also hits the performance I understand, they dont all have to be destructable, it just needs some clever thinking ......

And would it not be easy surely to ramp up the mesh detail the closer you get, rather like a lod for objects in the game? 

Or how about simply making the map smaller - just the SW part we have currently would be great for Helo ops in high detail, it simply does not need to be so huge. I would far rathe rhave smaller done better than bigger done worse.....

[Jackjack171]

8 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Except they stated the South Afghanistan is feature complete. These aren't just bugs. These are either unfinished (i hope) or the best we can expect from EDs terrain engine ( at least for the foreseeable future.

Unlike SA map and Kola. ED showed just the most perfect glamour shots that gave no hint that we could expect the standard low quality satellite stuff we got on south Atlantic map.

They released a map were a river is the main feature, and where the majority of the fighting happen in that part of Afghanistan and most of the river and area just around it has just low quality textures and graphical artifacts.

These things should have been fixed(if they can be fixed) before it was released. Because right now only a small part of the 3rd of the map released has any quality. I was looking forward doing Apache CAS and escorting Chinnocks in my Apache down Helmand river. 

But as it is now. If you move slightly down river from Lashkargah. All you see is low quality textures like someone use some spray cans on cardboard. And terrain geometry problems.

I have no doubt these things will get fixed. Updates come in time. EA is always EA. It took me up until late last year into now to take the Viper seriously. It had a not-so-great start in 2019, but I waited. Along with my Winwing F-16EX setup, she's awesome now IMHO, but I digress. I expect the same for this Terrain. 

 DCS is always changing, and it is software. ED fixes and changes things as time goes on. It's never going to be perfect and for sure, right out of the gate and nor do I expect it to be. I weighed the pros and cons before I purchased the map. YouTube vids and these forums helped. I'm a glass half full dude, I'll watch the map mature with time. The way the rage fest was hooting and hollering on some channels, you'd think the map cost millions and is an utter disappointment. I was surprised it was only $55 US!

[Gunfreak]

4 minutes ago, markturner1960 said:

I would really like ED to give some context to the way the terrain engine works and specifically what affects performance the most. Obviously high res textures will test your GPU, but a huge part of why the map looks so bad close up is the mesh definition. I cannot believe that it would be that much of a drain on modern PC resources to have more detailed mesh, after all, I was running 50cm terrain mesh in FSX 15 years ago and a PC that no one would even use today and it looked and ran fine. I know the core engine is old in DCS but come on, it must be able to do now what my PC from 15 years ago did? 

Loading the map with objects also hits the performance I understand, they dont all have to be destructable, it just needs some clever thinking ......

And would it not be easy surely to ramp up the mesh detail the closer you get, rather like a lod for objects in the game? 

Or how about simply making the map smaller - just the SW part we have currently would be great for Helo ops in high detail, it simply does not need to be so huge. I would far rathe rhave smaller done better than bigger done worse.....

They not gonna do any major changes to their plans now. They planned on the whole of Afghanistan and that's what will get.

I get no performance issues in the areas that are hand made. So I would have them remove the low texture satellite stuff and replace as much of it as possible with hand made stuff.

[stburr91]

I understand the point about this map being in EA, and that people shouldn't get too worked up right now, but it's important to speak up about unsatisfactory quality while there is still time to fix it. 

To be very frank, people coming in just to say it's in EA, stop complaining, aren't adding anything useful, or helpful to the discussion. 

[Blackhawk163]

32 minutes ago, stburr91 said:

I understand the point about this map being in EA, and that people shouldn't get too worked up right now, but it's important to speak up about unsatisfactory quality while there is still time to fix it. 

To be very frank, people coming in just to say it's in EA, stop complaining, aren't adding anything useful, or helpful to the discussion. 

And funnily enough complaining about “complaining.”

 

A message board I used to moderate had a simple rule, you were thread banned for whining/whinging about the contents of the thread as no one forces you to read or post in it. But FOMO and all . . .

Anyone know where those down low beauty shots were taken in the trailers? I wanna go there and check it out.

[rob10]

I do hope it has some improvements to come or ED goes back to the drawing boards for how they make new maps.  It's great that they can make them quicker, but the apparent lack of any mesh in the non-detailed areas (looks like a picture slapped on a flat surface on most of it) is very disappointing.  And that's running it in 2D.  It's even more noticeable where you have a more detailed square that actually has topography right next to the flat area with a picture of topography.  Framerates are much better than initial Kola release, but I'll take the hit on that for a better map at 6-10K.

[Migparts]

I would like to add my photos over Afghanistan, using my vintage old 2021 laptop. Overall I am impressed - it is a vast area and - at least for me - its the closest I will ever get to visiting Afghanistan. 

Edited July 14, 2024 by Migparts

[Ala12Rv-Tundra]

3 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Except they stated the South Afghanistan is feature complete. These aren't just bugs. These are either unfinished (i hope) or the best we can expect from EDs terrain engine ( at least for the foreseeable future.

Unlike SA map and Kola. ED showed just the most perfect glamour shots that gave no hint that we could expect the standard low quality satellite stuff we got on south Atlantic map.

They released a map were a river is the main feature, and where the majority of the fighting happen in that part of Afghanistan and most of the river and area just around it has just low quality textures and graphical artifacts.

These things should have been fixed(if they can be fixed) before it was released. Because right now only a small part of the 3rd of the map released has any quality. I was looking forward doing Apache CAS and escorting Chinnocks in my Apache down Helmand river. 

But as it is now. If you move slightly down river from Lashkargah. All you see is low quality textures like someone use some spray cans on cardboard. And terrain geometry problems.

Maybe "feature" complete is a matter of wording. For example, no cities or airports are missing. Re-working a texture, on the other hand, doesn´t sound like a feature to me, more like something able to be improved on further iterations.
Let´s see.

[Gunfreak]

4 minutes ago, Ala12Rv-Tundra said:

Maybe "feature" complete is a matter of wording. For example, no cities or airports are missing. Re-working a texture, on the other hand, doesn´t sound like a feature to me, more like something able to be improved on further iterations.
Let´s see.

I would say ground textures on a map is just as much a feature as a weapons system is on an aircraft.

I do hope it's just standard bad communication from ED's part. They are very good at not communicating good. And that they can fix it. 

The reason I'm so miffed as I am is I genuinely thought something wrong had happened to my download. It looks so bad I didn't think that it was supposed to look like that (and I wouldn't have thought so even if ED has clearly stated that also South West Afghanistan is far from finished and very early access.) 

It did ruin my day.

I refunded the full Afghanistan map and bought just the South West. I'm willing to risk 25 bucks to see if it does get better.

And tomorrow I'll try another flight in just the limited hand made parts around Lashkargah.