opinion Afghanistan user feedback

[Maverick Su-35S]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU ED for this unique map finally arriving!

I don't care about what most dissatisfied may find to complain about a rather huge map in comparison to others with things like: resolution, not enough details, etc.! Kiddish complaints from my point of view! I'm only happy that finally..., this map is available in DCS and it resembles the real landscape of Afghanistan. NOW I can truly simulate what I want regarding the Soviet-Afghan war against the Mujahideen, especially in 1987 when the soviets have learned more about defeating Stinger missiles and found new ways of hunting the extremist Mujahideen down.

Can't wait to make a realistic conditions mission reflecting that year!

17 hours ago, Schlingel mit Kringel said:

                                  

The issue with these satellite imagery is that, even in 8k resolution, a photo of a three-dimensional object glued to a flat surface looks like a photo of a three-dimensional object glued to a flat surface. Nothing is going to change that. If you stand still at the exact location the photo was taken from, with the correct lighting that it was taken with and everything, it might look good and convincing. But once environmental values change or you start moving, this illusion starts to look ugly instantly.

When you fly in a circle around this,

even in 8k it will not change perspective and by this, destroy any illusion of this having any depth. It is and stays a photograph you rotate around.

These "hills" will never ever look like actual hills. Maybe if you stand still and squint your eyes hard. But moving over or around this, it just looks like an unrestful mishmash of different colors and is very uneasy to the eye imho. It reminds me of games from the early to mid 90s when this terrible technology was used first. I was happy when it went away.

Same "hills" from further up: still looks pretty flat to me. You need to get REALLY high up to not notice that anymore.

I hope ED find a way to get rid of this. I can not look at things like this for an extended period of time, my brain starts to feel insulted by this really, really quick.

Flying some more on this map, i realized smaller features are not that much of an issue for me if they were (and if i understand correctly, they will be in the future) of higher resolution.

This dried out riverbed and also these relatively flat bumps in the lower and left image for example. Once they are of better resolution and the missing terrain (fields, trees etc.) has been placed, this can look great i think.

 

                                  

 

Better to be happy of this map already as it is rather than waiting more years to be able to fly on it. Can't you guys have any bit of appreciation other than immediate critics (some being careless) for something which was waited for so long and which of course is a WIP? Cmon! Be reasonable.

[draconus]

10 minutes ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

NOW I can truly simulate what I want regarding the Soviet-Afghan war against the Mujahideen

Without Soviet bases?

[Hiob]

32 minutes ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

Better to be happy of this map already as it is rather than waiting more years to be able to fly on it. Can't you guys have any bit of appreciation other than immediate critics (some being careless) for something which was waited for so long and which of course is a WIP? Cmon! Be reasonable.

We couldn't see how the new map turns out, before it was released obviously*. As I said, it is perfectly ok to find the map appealing as it is if that's your drift. But it is equally legit and reasonable to voice my disappointment about the route they are taking.

(*not even mentioning, that the promo material convieniently misses the rough spots.)

And what even is "careless" critics?

Edited July 24, 2024 by Hiob

[freehand]

Personally I am happy with the map thought I would not be but for 19 squid was worth a punt. 

[Ironhand]

3 hours ago, Hiob said:

…(Afghanistan) should have been crafted with especially Helicopters in mind - and that means everything* has to look good from close proximity, but sadly it doesn't…

I had, so far, only viewed this map from jets at low altitude and enjoyed every flight. The SW portion is fairly stark and devoid of much detail. It’s definitely not the place to make your first flight but the rest of the map is fun. Last night, I took up my only helo for a spin. I still enjoyed the flight, though not as much, and agree that there is far more time to spot things and think: “Wait! What?” And, then, focus on them for far longer after that. Fewer glaring “eyesores” and more detail would have been preferable.

That being said, however, I’m aware that the Afghanistan map will be roughly 3 times bigger than the map so many point to as the gold standard, Syria. So I’m wondering if Afghanistan’s sheer size will limit how much detail can be included for the “rotor heads” and that’s not even taking the Combined Arms crowd into consideration. Afghanistan may end up not being a map for everyone, though ED would like it to be.

[=DROOPY=]

2 hours ago, Schlingel mit Kringel said:

Some people just don't understand that criticism is vital for things to develop. They see it as something bad and hurtful. What they can not see is, that without criticism we all would still sleep in dirty holes because it is good enough, right? Isnt't it? Why be so ungrateful for a hole in the ground where you can take some rest. Those that built houses, discovered electricty, went to the moon, those were no clappers. It were folks that were not satisfied with how things were and wanted more.

I believe the line between good constructive criticism and downright trash talking, for some forum members has gotten extremely blurred. 

I'm absolutely interested in hearing/reading good, well informed, well stated constructive criticism. 

The best criticism comments, should have you questioning your position, even if all is well on your end. 

Unfortunately though, a majority of those sharing their issues, for some reason, feel that it's necessary to include completely disrespectful and disparaging statements/remarks towards ED, and their staff, as well as anyone that has a different opinion. 

*That*... I'll never understand, nor do I feel inclined to do so. 

 

Edited July 24, 2024 by =DROOPY=

[Schmidtfire]

Disappointments and trash talk could have been avoided 100% by showing exactly what state the map was in before Early Access launch.

ED selected not to show off the map properly during pre-order. They also decided not to give content creators preview copies this time around.
That's ok, some players are very happy with the quality. But there are many players that got disappointed and burned this time. Not a good thing
for future DCS Pre-Orders.

[freehand]

44 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

Disappointments and trash talk could have been avoided 100% by showing exactly what state the map was in before Early Access launch.

ED selected not to show off the map properly during pre-order. They also decided not to give content creators preview copies this time around.
That's ok, some players are very happy with the quality. But there are many players that got disappointed and burned this time. Not a good thing
for future DCS Pre-Orders.

No one needed to be burned just wait for reviews.

[Ironhand]

1 hour ago, Schmidtfire said:

Disappointments and trash talk could have been avoided 100% by showing exactly what state the map was in before Early Access launch.

ED selected not to show off the map properly during pre-order. They also decided not to give content creators preview copies this time around.
That's ok, some players are very happy with the quality. But there are many players that got disappointed and burned this time. Not a good thing
for future DCS Pre-Orders.

I still don’t understand how anyone could think that an ED early access map could be anything other than what was released. Early access could not possibly be “feature complete” in the sense that most users interpreted it. That alone should have been a clue. Plus, as you stated, the fact that it wasn’t given to content creators to preview, should have been yet another clue. All in all, what people are most upset about is that their enthusiasm got the better of them.

In life, I’ve found that it’s best to tone down your expectations and be pleasantly surprised, when they’re exceeded. Reality normally glitters much less than the hype. This map has great potential. We’ll just have to wait and see what comes. Personally, I think ED will eventually make this map enjoyable for most, but not all, of us. For now, anyone who bought it in early access, got a nice price break…which is why I bought it in the first place.

Edited July 24, 2024 by Ironhand
Punctuation.

[Ironhand]

1 hour ago, Schlingel mit Kringel said:

Pretty easy: the whole map comes in three parts. The Southwest part in the FAQ was described as "the most complete of these three", the map would "receive some updates post-release" and it was described as "for all intents and purposes feature complete"…

“Most complete of the three”. True. Will “receive some updates post-release”. Also true. “For all intents and purposes feature complete”. Ditto. I doubt they’ll be adding a tremendous amount of new features.

Quote

…I bet you they (the customers) won't be that "stupid" next time...

I should hope not. ED is no different from any other company that owns a niche. They put out a decent product overall. Not a great one. Their strength lies in mimicking systems in the cockpit. They are hard to beat in that regard. Elsewhere, not so much.

[markturner1960]

On the last page, there was talk of the satellite textures and not looking great. I believe ( and do correct me if wrong) that the South Atlantic map has been made using similar technology? 

When that was released, again, I was pretty dissapointed, for all the same reasons I have been similarlky dissapointed by Afghanistan. However, the SA map has been significantly updated recently, to the extent that its literally almost unrecognizable.....stunningly detailed mountains and hills, glaciers, see below:

Now if this can be achieved using the same technology, then it should be possible for Afghanistan to look as good as this ......Lets hope it does not take as long as Razbam took to get the map to what I call an acceptable standard......

 

I have been exploring it more, in particular the "high detail" areas round the main bases and cities and di notice one thing that also irked quite a lot....again,. I hope its going to be updated, but there is very very high number of houses / compounds with what looks like Nissan huts in a kind of blueish colour.....( dont have a picture to hand but can post one..) These dont look like any kind of Afghani houses I have seen and there is literally hundreds of them.......what are they supposed to be and why so many? In general, I think the houses and compounds look pretty good, but these really spoil it....A comment or explanation from someone at ED would be great....

Edited July 24, 2024 by markturner1960

[Ironhand]

38 minutes ago, Schlingel mit Kringel said:

Wish you had considered the rest too, you would not have missed the point completely.

I did consider the rest. I chose to ignore it because what you’re really saying is that people made an assumption. Yes, it sucks that people didn’t get what they assumed they were getting. Did ED purposely invite that assumption? I don’t know. But, like you suggested, perhaps people won’t make that mistake again.

[Nightstalker]

14 hours ago, markturner1960 said:

On the last page, there was talk of the satellite textures and not looking great. I believe ( and do correct me if wrong) that the South Atlantic map has been made using similar technology? 

When that was released, again, I was pretty dissapointed, for all the same reasons I have been similarlky dissapointed by Afghanistan. However, the SA map has been significantly updated recently, to the extent that its literally almost unrecognizable.....stunningly detailed mountains and hills, glaciers, see below:

Now if this can be achieved using the same technology, then it should be possible for Afghanistan to look as good as this ......Lets hope it does not take as long as Razbam took to get the map to what I call an acceptable standard......

 

I have been exploring it more, in particular the "high detail" areas round the main bases and cities and di notice one thing that also irked quite a lot....again,. I hope its going to be updated, but there is very very high number of houses / compounds with what looks like Nissan huts in a kind of blueish colour.....( dont have a picture to hand but can post one..) These dont look like any kind of Afghani houses I have seen and there is literally hundreds of them.......what are they supposed to be and why so many? In general, I think the houses and compounds look pretty good, but these really spoil it....A comment or explanation from someone at ED would be great....

 

It got to that level BECAUSE of the backlash at release.  It should be noted that it’s not Razbam actually making this map, it’s the same guys who are doing the Kola for Orbx.

[Gunfreak]

1 hour ago, Nightstalker said:

It got to that level BECAUSE of the backlash at release.  It should be noted that it’s not Razbam actually making this map, it’s the same guys who are doing the Kola for Orbx.

Which is good news for Kola. Hope to see the same level of quality there after a while 

 

[freehand]

Improvements was coming in the south Atlantic anyway like most things in DCS but they looked at the sales figures & gave them a little shove lol.

[Gierasimov]

I am super happy that ED explained what does feature complete means for the terrain. 

It was with the relief that I read they said the SW is in the EA phase and needs a tone of development effort stills coz it means that it will only improve. South West region is 25% done and needs a lot of work.

Shame, that the complete region will be there only after all three regions hit EA phase, kind of defeats the purpose of selling it as regions, but OK. 

I see the great potential for the Afghanistan map, let's wait and see, expecting some great battles in August 2025. 

With the tools they announced as the new map techonology I think it means they can deliver them quicker to the shop, this generate ever so needed $$$ to continue the efforts. 

Iraq will be the same I think. 

 

[dryheat94]

1 hour ago, Gierasimov said:

I am super happy that ED explained what does feature complete means for the terrain. 

It was with the relief that I read they said the SW is in the EA phase and needs a tone of development effort stills coz it means that it will only improve. South West region is 25% done and needs a lot of work.

Could you direct me to where they said SW is 25% done?

[Blackhawk163]

Folks, when you’re posting pictures of terrain that is taken from 10k+ feet know that you’re proving the very same point us rotor heads are making about this map. The detail up high has, for the most part, looked great, and yeah Afghanistan looks gorgeous in some spots when up high. But it’s an illusion that’s broken up once you’re down low. 
 

from the very description on the product marketing page that despite acknowledgments to the contrary, remain:

 

Key Features at Early Access Release

• The entirety of Afghanistan with the southwestern portion available in high detail at Early Access release.
• High resolution terrain mesh, textures and objects provide a realistic map from low to high altitude.
• Numerous, authentically modelled airbases like Kandahar and Herat.
• Diverse terrain ranging from towering mountains to vast deserts.
• Recreate battles spanning the last 40 years.

Personally I think full fidelity maps are a trap at this scale, but man do I appreciate the effort, however, that appreciation can be had with a healthy dose of criticism. It’s the only way this game ever really improves. 
 

Some of you enjoy the map as is with the promise of improvement in the future. That’s great, you do you and enjoy. Your enjoyment of this map shouldn’t be impacted by any dissent.

In the end ED released a paid product that’s in EA, and as such we’re all paying beta testers, so criticize away at the product you received now and don’t hold back just because you’re promised something in the future. My family back in England would always tell me that tomorrow never comes.

Check six and all that jazz, have fun in whatever sandbox you choose to play in. 

Edited July 25, 2024 by Blackhawk163
Stuff

[Gierasimov]

@dryheat94

Discussion in one of the social media - Discord I think if I remember correctly

Edited July 25, 2024 by Gierasimov

[T.Power]

I've been enjoying the map immensely at low altitude in the Hind, Kiowa and Gazelle, there are plenty of fully finished areas and it looks great, not denying there's some eye gougingly bad guide textures and even faceted airfields, but what has been buffed and polished is top drawer, I'm already well into developing an insurgent mission up in the hills, performance has been great in all air platforms thus far.  I followed Jon Anders' routes in his Kiowa videos, link below.

 

https://www.youtube.com/@AiuRkx

Edited July 25, 2024 by T.Power

[markturner1960]

20 hours ago, Schlingel mit Kringel said:

Do you mean these? From above i thought these are greenhouses (which i have never really seen in any Afghanistan footage) like those on Syria. But they indeed look like Nissen Huts. I'll drop a bug report for those. Can imagine they are autogenerated from a pool of available buildings. They are literally everywhere.

Yeah thats what I am talking about....

[Romandv]

I tried to fly a helicopter and I think I understand what the problem is - it's the same place, just the distance of detail gives such a picture - close up everything is fine, but it's worth to be at least a little higher and everything turns into muddy spots. I don't know what it is caused by, maybe by the load on the system, so the detail deteriorates so much. Although, if it works in Syria and Sinai, it's strange why it's required here to reduce the clarity of the loaded landscape at altitude so much.

Edited July 26, 2024 by Romandv

[Zimmerdylan]

"So, in tandem to the other thread, I cant say enough how dissapointed I am to have shelled out more money for the supposed "cutting edge" tech and latest improvements in DCS terrain rendering....to get what is simply put yet another example of blurry textures laid over terrain mesh with -really, definition points measured in the hundreds of metres rather than the centimetres that I was getting in FSX 15 years ago......mountain ranges with dead straight ridgelines hundreds of metres apart....mountain sides comprising flat planes with low res testures pasted over. Repetitive low res textures with detailed areas plonked over the top with no blending. Its really, really dissappointing after the same crap in Kola and SA. Check out these screen shots. Honestly, there are areas of the Caucusus and NTTR that look better than this. Is this really 15 years progress in scenery development in DCS?"

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I would have to agree with this guy. Doesn't look like they put a whole lot of work into this map. I flew it last night for the first time......I may as well go back to pretending that the deserts around Las Vegas are Afghanistan. They sure look as good if not better than this new map. Seems like every time I let my guard down and fork over cash to help the cause....I get what I pay for. Sorry ED......That's just the plain truth.  

[Weta43]

13 hours ago, Zimmerdylan said:

"(...)I get what I pay for. Sorry ED......That's just the plain truth.  

It's true - you paid a discount rate for an unfinished product, and that's exactly what you got.

[BIGNEWY]

Folks please keep the thread for feedback on the terrain. 

If you do not like early access that is fine, please do not use it if it something you do not support. 

If you have given feedback thank you, there is no need to keep repeating the same thing in the thread. 

We want issues you are seeing to be posted in the bugs section, if possible include a unit placed at the location so we can report the issue easier. 

thank you