opinion Afghanistan user feedback

[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

[ruxtmp]

Is the low detail and less than low detail area at least equivalent to MSFS 10 satellite terrain texture from 25K feet and up? For carrier ops I won't be flying below 25K but would like the view to be better than a blurry brown texture until I get to the detailed areas.

[Ironhand]

On 2/22/2025 at 8:09 AM, ouky1991 said:

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

Well…mine weighs in at 75.5GB. I’m in the process of updating. It’ll be another day or two before it’s done.

EDIT: Ahh… Were you asking what would happen if you purchase them separately after the current update?

Edited February 23 by Ironhand

[virgo47]

Yesterday I tried (trialled) the map for the second time and I was a bit underwhelmed and the result was mixed. I tried F-5 free flight, checked the area around me - and while I have just RTX 3060, it looked nothing like in the videos, neither it was close to something like Syria. Up there, good. Down there, blur.

Another thing I'm afraid of is just the sheer size. It's 140 GB already. How big will it be when fully detailed and finished with the third area? I may buy another bigger SSD, sure. But it seems a bit over the top. The map is different from other maps - in a good way, perhaps just Iraq is similar - but the mountains were still edgy, the terrain was even more blurry than the Caucasus and with the potential size on my disk, I'm just not sure about this. DCS is currently giving us too many space-heavy maps to even consider having them all. It seems we're heading to an age where players may be even more fragmented over various maps. This may not necessarily be bad, but it doesn't make meeting other guys online easier.

On the other hand, I appreciate the diversity and details on this map (where details are). I guess sometimes when you want something new and progressive it may not be better than old fine-tuned stuff at first, so I'll be watching this later again. But right now Syria is much more bang for the buck, less space on the drive (and also more established, obviously, but that's not the point). Perhaps ED will find a way to make AF better and smaller at the same time eventually?

For now, I uninstalled it completely, because I had to wait hours after the latest update. Obviously, I'm not saying it's a bad product, but it's definitely not for me with so little texture detail even in finished areas (I know, EA) and taking so much storage. It is an ambitious project, the map is huge, and the price is not necessarily a problem, but I do not feel like an "early adopter". Perhaps a laggard.

Edited February 23 by virgo47

[Japo32]

well.. that is what satellite images has as a problem. Lots of GB. That is the reason I preffer great hand made textures. 
I think still Syria is the best map. It has a mixture between satellite images and handcrafted ones, so it is 50-60gb with lot of details everywhere. 
Iraq is pretty good in mountain areas with such vegetation  of bushes, something I would like to see in Afghanistan. 

The map is better now becuase the new method to have better normal maps, but still has lot of area to improvement. I don't think there is much area to do it with polygonal mountains. It has a limitation of polygons per map, and Afghanistan has lot of mountains.

But the big issue is still for me the ammount of GB used. I wish they could offer an option to install custom land handcrafted textures, but that would mean more work and time consuming (of course there are handcraft textures distributed in those "patches" areas like urban, agriculture, etc...)

[Minsky]

1 hour ago, virgo47 said:

DCS is currently giving us too many space-heavy maps to even consider having them all.

Well, I have them all, and simply symlinked those I don't regularly use to a slower disk. No point in having older maps like Caucasus, PG and Nevada on a fancy M.2.

There is another problem with these "new-gen" maps tho: they're quite RAM-hungry.

With Syria you can almost get away with 32 Gb. Afghanistan and Iraq simply demand 64 Gb.

[Tek_TierZer0]

It'd be helpfull if you gave us an idea what you're aiming for..... Because while some of it looks good, there are a LOT of bits that just look painted on. When these 2D blurry building and field textures are next to villages with 3d buildings it really shows up. I understand this map is still early access but i'm hoping these textures are on a todo list to build up, rather than the end goal.
These might look OK at 18K ft but down low it'd be better if the texture was just plain compared to this.
Like is say, hopefully this is a work in progess but the messaging has been confusing tbh and these patches were here before and after the rework.

[Nealius]

Disk space is a growing concern. I had to uninstall South Atlantic and Sinai to save space, but with the rest of the terrains on DCS and Dedicated server I'm looking at 1.27TB. At this point I may move the dedicated server to a different drive.

[virgo47]

12 hours ago, Minsky said:

Well, I have them all, and simply symlinked those I don't regularly use to a slower disk. No point in having older maps like Caucasus, PG and Nevada on a fancy M.2.

There is another problem with these "new-gen" maps tho: they're quite RAM-hungry.

With Syria you can almost get away with 32 Gb. Afghanistan and Iraq simply demand 64 Gb.

I don't have DCS on M.2, but I do have it on SSD. I'm less concerned about Caucasus, PG or Nevada as they are "just" 100GB total, so I can keep them just fine. But your idea of symlinks is interesting.

I have just 32GB RAM, so perhaps that's why I always see barebone map after I switch from F10 map back to cockpit and it takes a second or two before it loads back again - for AF only.

But the maps SHOULD perform reasonably even at 32G RAM. After all, they claim 16G is minimum, recommended is 32+ - which includes also 32GB, I believe.

[Minsky]

48 minutes ago, virgo47 said:

But the maps SHOULD perform reasonably even at 32G RAM. After all, they claim 16G is minimum, recommended is 32+ - which includes also 32GB, I believe.

They claim this for an empty map. Any decent mission and a full fidelity aircraft will require more for a smooth gameplay. And God forbid if you're running anything else in the background (like a browser).

[Esac_mirmidon]

I have 32GB Ram and dont have a single problem to play on those maps at max graphics online with my squad mates on busy missions.

Steady rock 60 FPS on every situation.

[ouky1991]

20 hours ago, Japo32 said:

well.. that is what satellite images has as a problem. Lots of GB. That is the reason I preffer great hand made textures. 
I think still Syria is the best map. It has a mixture between satellite images and handcrafted ones, so it is 50-60gb with lot of details everywhere. 
Iraq is pretty good in mountain areas with such vegetation  of bushes, something I would like to see in Afghanistan. 

The map is better now becuase the new method to have better normal maps, but still has lot of area to improvement. I don't think there is much area to do it with polygonal mountains. It has a limitation of polygons per map, and Afghanistan has lot of mountains.

But the big issue is still for me the ammount of GB used. I wish they could offer an option to install custom land handcrafted textures, but that would mean more work and time consuming (of course there are handcraft textures distributed in those "patches" areas like urban, agriculture, etc...)

Syria might look good down low, but I up high it's one of the worst IMO. It's good we have these other maps as options, Afghanistan looks absolutely stunning at altitude and pretty great at those handcrafted areas when flying low. I'm not trying to <profanity> on Syria BTW, Ugra has added a lot of content for free, but I wish they would revise the color palette, it's so cartoonish looking, it hurts my eyes. 

The size is just a price we must pay for realistic textures without repetitive tiling

[Weta43]

19 hours ago, Tek_TierZer0 said:

It'd be helpfull if you gave us an idea what you're aiming for..... Because while some of it looks good, there are a LOT of bits that just look painted on. When these 2D blurry building and field textures are next to villages with 3d buildings it really shows up. I understand this map is still early access but i'm hoping these textures are on a todo list to build up, rather than the end goal.
These might look OK at 18K ft but down low it'd be better if the texture was just plain compared to this.
Like is say, hopefully this is a work in progess but the messaging has been confusing tbh and these patches were here before and after the rework.

Disagree - flying around in the Mi-24, I think it looks amazingly good - having flown around the ranges in the SI here at low altitudes, flying in the mountains it looks pretty convincing.

[Hotdognz]

I don't have DCS on M.2, but I do have it on SSD. I'm less concerned about Caucasus, PG or Nevada as they are "just" 100GB total, so I can keep them just fine. But your idea of symlinks is interesting.
I have just 32GB RAM, so perhaps that's why I always see barebone map after I switch from F10 map back to cockpit and it takes a second or two before it loads back again - for AF only.
But the maps SHOULD perform reasonably even at 32G RAM. After all, they claim 16G is minimum, recommended is 32+ - which includes also 32GB, I believe.

It does it with 64gb ram also, switch to F10 and back to the cockpit and the ground textures load in over a 20 sec period

Sent from my CPH2333 using Tapatalk

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

3 hours ago, Hotdognz said:

It does it with 64gb ram also, switch to F10 and back to the cockpit and the ground textures load in over a 20 sec period
 

Indeed. On my end it takes around 10 seconds for the full textures to load in after exiting the F10 map.

[Ala12Rv-Tundra]

In all honestly, RAM and SDD space are the cheapest upgrades to run DCS.

[TBarina]

On 7/13/2024 at 12:38 AM, Weta43 said:

I tried to find lots of ways to phrase this that were more polite, but it boils down to - why the F*** do people keep buying early access products - that are clearly labelled as unfinished - then go into emotional meltdowns and paroxysms of forum post rage when they discover the unfinished product they bought is ... unfinished?

All the maps were of poorer quality when released than they are now - ALL OF THEM.

Frame rates on the Mariannas map were so poor when it was released that after trying the day I downloaded I didn't even bother looking at it again for months & until it had been patched a few times. It's a nice map now, but wasn't when released. 

Afghanistan is in its first day of Early Access & people are complaining that it's not as polished as maps that have been being patched and de-bugged for years - in some cases a decade or more.

After the tsunami of whingeing that appeared on the map's release, I downloaded & started it with a heavy heart, but I'm pleasantly surprised.

There are some rough bits but on the whole - it looks an interesting map & geographically varied (even the north-east part of the initial release is far from being 'another desert map'), the frame rates are good, bits of the map are beautiful, and at 0m to 50m altitude, and from a couple of thousand m AGL it looks very nice. In between there are a few things to work on - but that's why they repeatedly, all over the forum, all over the download page and all over every social media channel and internet site it's mentioned on, say 'IT'S NOT FINISHED"

If, when they say it's 'finished', you think its's not up to scratch - complain then.

If it takes too long to get to 'finished' complain about that (but please wait at least a week from today)

But for God's sake please stop complaining that the product you consciously bought in the full knowledge that it is unfinished, is unfinished, & do the rest of us a favour by not buying any more early access products.

Please.

We'll all be happier

You are right. In fact I never buy unfinished without testing before. I love all my modules (and I have about 70% of released products). It is difficult to judge the commercial policy of continuously releasing new Early Access products: on the one hand it allows ED to increase revenues and available funds but on the other it risks delaying the completion of the products already released. For now, overall, it has gone well. Let's hope for the future. For the moment I am slowing down the purchases also because before I become really good at managing A10, F14, F16, F18, Huey, Gazelle, AH-64D, Sabre and all the WWII birds I think years will pass.

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, TBarina said:

It is difficult to judge the commercial policy of continuously releasing new Early Access products

Hi, 

without early access many of these modules and terrains would simply not be possible. We give a hefty discount for access to our in progress projects, the public get to give us feedback early in development and that helps us make the product better. 

Early access is however completely optional, and some people may find it better to wait for a finished product, and that is fine. But early access is very popular and it is something that will continue. 

thank you 

[TBarina]

3 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, 

without early access many of these modules and terrains would simply not be possible. We give a hefty discount for access to our in progress projects, the public get to give us feedback early in development and that helps us make the product better. 

Early access is however completely optional, and some people may find it better to wait for a finished product, and that is fine. But early access is very popular and it is something that will continue. 

thank you 

Thanks, I appreciate your answer.

Please let me make a puntalization because, maybe, what I wrote could be misunderstood!

EA is a good thing. IMHO it is so especially for complex aircrafts and helos: it takes months to be proficient in mastering them and being able to start making practice in EA while you can complete the module can be very satisfactory. Also not having some advanced functionality at the beginning doesn't break immersion at all.

I bought many EA aircrafts and I've always been very happy doing that  also because you made a great job in the following months (thanks ED for you passion  !)

As to terrains and their impact on the FPS I'm a little skeptic though.

I don't like very much having to tweak DCS settings depending on the mission. I would rather have a decent consistent configuration that can cope with all missions.

Also, having maps that offers 27 fps at parking ramp, 35 when approaching runway for landing and 75 or even more when flying at 2.000/3.000 feet is not satisfactory.

It breaks immersion a lot.
I'd like that you could tackle fps performance at the new maps/airports with the greatest priority.

Finally, when I said that "EA allows ED to increase revenues and available funds I meant to say that it is beneficial to all of us because I would like you to have plenty of money to finance the projects.

In conclusion, tanks a lot ED for your great products, work and dedication. And long life to Eagle Dynamics.

[draconus]

40 minutes ago, TBarina said:

I don't like very much having to tweak DCS settings depending on the mission. I would rather have a decent consistent configuration that can cope with all missions.

Also, having maps that offers 27 fps at parking ramp, 35 when approaching runway for landing and 75 or even more when flying at 2.000/3.000 feet is not satisfactory.

This is completely normal. It's not a console game developed with guaranteed 60fps in all situations.

When you're down low at the airbase you see many high LOD objects and while you're up there you only see low LOD objects from afar.

There are graphic options for a reason. Choose the settings that give you acceptable fps in the worst case scenario and keep it. You'll be satisfied most of the time but some missions can turn out to be even heavier on the performance. It's always a hard decision between eye-candy and fps.

I'm of course all in for optimisations but you have to manage your expectations.

[TBarina]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

This is completely normal. It's not a console game developed with guaranteed 60fps in all situations.

When you're down low at the airbase you see many high LOD objects and while you're up there you only see low LOD objects from afar.

There are graphic options for a reason. Choose the settings that give you acceptable fps in the worst case scenario and keep it. You'll be satisfied most of the time but some missions can turn out to be even heavier on the performance. It's always a hard decision between eye-candy and fps.

I'm of course all in for optimisations but you have to manage your expectations.

I know. I've already a very optimized settings that guarantees optimal and stable performance in all situations even in the most complex missions of many campaigns.
It's only that Cold and Dark F14 instant action mission at Kandahar airport that, according to me, deviates from the normal (513 static objects populate the airport!)
Have you ever tried that, by chance?

I'll take some time to install Moose an create a lua script to automatically saturate some other airports in Caucasus and check if the behave the same.
Thanks a lot.

Ciao

[Nealius]

Is Bagram 21R/03L supposed to be closed? There's a black X painted on on 21R in DCS. In Google Earth there are multiple Xs painted on it. It seems like the AI use it, though.

Also some Bagram parking issues. Historical satellite photos show Chinooks on Romeo ramp yet we can't place any there. C-130s also shown on Delta Ramp and all over Charlie ramp, yet we can only place them on 5 of Charlie and none of Delta. The decorative shelving and cargo at almost all the ramps is right in the middle of jet/prop wash and would get blown to oblivion in actual operations.

Edited Sunday at 05:45 AM by Nealius

[aceviper]

 

On 3/7/2025 at 3:23 PM, TBarina said:

I know. I've already a very optimized settings that guarantees optimal and stable performance in all situations even in the most complex missions of many campaigns.
It's only that Cold and Dark F14 instant action mission at Kandahar airport that, according to me, deviates from the normal (513 static objects populate the airport!)
Have you ever tried that, by chance?

I'll take some time to install Moose an create a lua script to automatically saturate some other airports in Caucasus and check if the behave the same.
Thanks a lot.

Ciao

I just tried this mission and agree with TBarina.

Heatblur made mission probably with a "fantasy" amount of air assets.

My fps on a 3090 drops from capped 90 to 49 looking west from the cockpit.

I love the immersive alive airbase but lets keep the missions realistic to a point.

Edited Sunday at 11:33 AM by aceviper

[draconus]

So it's not a map problem. You should report it here: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/535-bugs-and-problems/

[TBarina]

27 minutes ago, draconus said:

So it's not a map problem. You should report it here: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/535-bugs-and-problems/

I'll do but I don't know whether mission installed with the map come from ED or Heatblur. Who is responsible for the creation? Certanly putting that missing as first mission for F14 when you try/buy Afghanistan map is bad advertising for the moduel, in my opinion.

Edited Sunday at 02:21 PM by TBarina