opinion Afghanistan user feedback

[draconus]

2 hours ago, DaleRFU said:

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'd like to see more of the map objects available to the user to place as static objects, particularly the objects used at bases like bastian, kandahar, etc. These would be useful to mission builders.

You mean more than we already got?

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/316316-massun92s-asset-pack-official-update-march-2024/

[Hotdognz]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

You mean more than we already got?

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/316316-massun92s-asset-pack-official-update-march-2024/

It was a pretty simple statement that wasn't hard to understand, but ill clarify it for you to make it simple to understand, yes he means more then what was in the Massum92 free objects pack.

The Afghan map and many others introduce new static objects when they release, these should be made available in the mission editor for mission makers to use rather than just being used by the map maker.

[Gambit21]

Map objects and editor objects are not necessarily 1:1 FYI - that said I agree that more objects need to be adapted/available in the editor. 

 

 

[shagrat]

Am 28.8.2024 um 21:46 schrieb draconus:

You mean more than we already got?

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/316316-massun92s-asset-pack-official-update-march-2024/

Yes, and especially more of the map buildings! That would allow to add "specific target buildings" that actually blend in with the environment.

The currently available "static buildings" for any of the middle eastern/afghan environment are absolutely outdated and stick out like a sore thumb.

In addition it would be incredible to have at least a couple of the "AI traffic vehicles" available for mission creators to add deliberate "civilian" traffic or simulate VBIEDs that blend into the traffic, until they behave suspicious, etc.

...and just one(!) insurgent model without a weapon in his hand, that allows mission creators to enforce consequences Rules Of Engagements.

ED, pretty please?

[Goetsch]

We also need more civilian vehicles and aircraft to decorate the mission

Like all kinds of jeeps, trucks and airliners.

I know some people might say there are community modules, but I'd prefer it to be provided by the official
It's better for multiplayer servers

[metzger]

I actually find the map pretty good so far, not sure what people are complaining. And I fly down low with a rw. There are some imperfections with textures I only saw this once and all the maps have them. Overall I find the map amazing and looking forward for ED having it polished.

 

[Joch1955]

Picked this up recently, been flying around, landing at various air bases. The map is very nice, performance is on par with other maps. Terrain is very nice, especially the mountains. The air bases I landed at: Kandahar, Camp Bastion, Shindland all look nicely detailed. No complaints here.

[Joch1955]

I think part of the frustration players have with this map is that FPS seems to vary depending on what plane you fly. FPS in the F/A-18 is high and smooth even landing at Kandahar. I get similar FPS to the Nevada or Persian Gulf map. OTOH trying to land the F-14 at Kandahar is a stutter fest.

[eighteen]

On 7/12/2024 at 6:46 PM, Weta43 said:

These are all the way over in China, never mind the parts of the map that are theoretically more developed.

 

Shoutout to the approximate 500 sq. mi. of Chinese territory that made it in! Although I have my doubts, I wouldn't complain if ED gave us a tiny bit of scenery for this area. (Maybe Kashgar Prefecture if we get lucky)

[Minsky]

As it turns out, alongside the tiny piece of the Gulf of Oman, ED has also sneaked in a bit more of the surrounding terrain in the latest patch.

Sure, these are just blurry photos without any mesh or water, but it's a lot better than The Great Nothingness we had before.

Here's the covered area:

Dubai:

Volgograd:

India:

Mongolia:

 

[draconus]

7 minutes ago, Minsky said:

without any mesh or water

There was supposed to be Arabian Sea south of Pakistan for carrier ops, isn't it there water modeled?

[Minsky]

4 hours ago, draconus said:

There was supposed to be Arabian Sea south of Pakistan for carrier ops, isn't it there water modeled?

That's "the tiny piece of the Gulf of Oman" I mentioned.

The rest was added as a bonus.

Sure, all this low-res terrain is practically useless to us. I'm just surprised there's so much of it.

And the map runs better than ever, further debunking these "our engine can't handle this" claims.

[jnr4817]

I have the opposite opinion, took a flight out of Bagram in the kiowa and apache. Using vid mode in both mfd still causes fps drops of 10-20fps when looking at and or flying in building heavy areas. The map itself is great and I like it, but performance needs to be improved.

[Tomcatter87]

Flew in Bagram yesterday. Great update! Might become my new favourite airbase there. Love the improved textures and mesh, although the mountain shapes still could be smoother for helicopter and low level ops. Looking forward to placing a carrier into the now introduced water patch.

[Nealius]

I messed with a carrier in the Arabian sea to check it out but haven't flown anything yet. Roughly an hour at 480KGS from a carrier group to Helmand which would make for some fun and challenging fuel management/cyclic ops timing. The textures between there and just south of the Afghan/Pakistan border look absolutely awful though. I don't expect high detail, but something better than random airbrushing would be nice.

[BIGNEWY]

We appreciate the feedback we are getting currently and happy to see so many with positive and constructive comments. we will continue to refine and improve during early access with the help of your reports. 

But please note the areas extended which are low detail will remain low detail, these areas were extended to help with the carrier ops request from the community. 

thank you 

 

[ouky1991]

1 hour ago, Nealius said:

I messed with a carrier in the Arabian sea to check it out but haven't flown anything yet. Roughly an hour at 480KGS from a carrier group to Helmand which would make for some fun and challenging fuel management/cyclic ops timing. The textures between there and just south of the Afghan/Pakistan border look absolutely awful though. I don't expect high detail, but something better than random airbrushing would be nice.

It would be cool to have dynamic weather in the similar way to the fog, where you could set up heavy clouds to mask lover quality textures, and then trigger activated different weather preset that could slowly morph into lighter clouds. 

[Nealius]

3 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

But please note the areas extended which are low detail will remain low detail, these areas were extended to help with the carrier ops request from the community. 

Low detail is of course understood, but present state is beneath low detail.

[Ironhand]

32 minutes ago, Nealius said:

Low detail is of course understood, but present state is beneath low detail.

Maybe so. OTOH, they were able to provide the extended area without having to worry about whose computers will have a harder time handling it. I can just hear the uproar if they provided the detail you’d prefer now and had to back it out later, when the rest of the map reached full detail.

[BIGNEWY]

3 minutes ago, Ironhand said:

Maybe so. OTOH, they were able to provide the extended area without having to worry about whose computers will have a harder time handling it. I can just hear the uproar if they provided the detail you’d prefer now and had to back it out later, when the rest of the map reached full detail.

Correct, we needed to be able to extend to the sea to meet our customers needs but not put an undue performance burden on the terrain. 

[ouky1991]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

Correct, we needed to be able to extend to the sea to meet our customers needs but not put an undue performance burden on the terrain. 

Unrelated guestion. If I own only west, after purchasing east, do I have to download more data or the east part will only unlock for me?

[Nealius]

Here's what I mean. There's a major demarcation line between the low detail area of the map and what's essentially a no-detail area of the map. The SAT layer of the F10 map shows higher detail than this, while still being "low detail." This "less-than low detail" area, if brought up to "low detail area" standards shouldn't cause that much of a performance difference, should it?

[Japo32]

well.. if I can safe some GB in my SSD the area that is lower than low resolucion, then is correct for me. Even I would just leave it without satellite texture at all (could be a way to give them better resolution with repeat biome textures. 
But it think already we have a "problem" with the size of maps (my M2 is almost 1TB without Kola and SA maps installed already), to even produce more GB in this extra area. Of course it could be optional to install, that extra portion with higher satellite details or not, to make everybody happy.

Edited February 22 by Japo32

[Ironhand]

21 hours ago, ouky1991 said:

Unrelated guestion. If I own only west, after purchasing east, do I have to download more data or the east part will only unlock for me?

In buying and downloading the “West” you also downloaded the “East” in lower detail. In purchasing the “East”, you’ll have to download the high detail East. For people like myself who purchased the complete map, we now have the high detail “East” to download as well.

[ouky1991]

24 minutes ago, Ironhand said:

In buying and downloading the “West” you also downloaded the “East” in lower detail. In purchasing the “East”, you’ll have to download the high detail East. For people like myself who purchased the complete map, we now have the high detail “East” to download as well.

Not sure that's correct, my map install shows 132gb, just like for people that own both west and east. Purchasing the east shouldn't trigger any other data to download