Afghanistan Statement | Syria and Normandy Development Progress | AH-64D Outpost Campaign

[Tango3B]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

Well, the two teams have a vast distance between them for starters. Also, you can't always have more than what is required on one aspect of a project, it won't make it faster it will make the risk of repeated work or stepping on toes. Throwing more money or more people isn't always the answer. I hope the upcoming development report on Afghanistan will help explain this more as well. Thanks. 

Hey, it's all good 9L. And ultimately we all want the Iraq map. Of course, and I'd be lying if I said otherwise, some people have concerns, including me. But the Afghanistan map shows a new technology that makes the map different from all other maps. I think we're on a damn good path with this technology. I just wish you guys at ED would achieve the same quality of video promo that UGRA Media does. They show every new airbase, everything new on the Syria or Normandy map in a short video. Please do that too. I would really like to see the new airbases on the Iraq map, or any relevant point of interest...that would make my purchase decision much easier. Hey, I would volunteer! ;-D Regardless, UGRA is the rock star today...These guys really know how to deliver good quality and take people along in a positive way. 10/10 for UGRA. Especially the Syria map is a piece of art. Thank you for that...

[Hotdognz]

While I purchased Afghanistan, I was very disappointed in it that I have skipped Iraq for now and will wait for proper reports from the people I trust here to give good objective info and reviews, im hoping this update will fix my disappointment in ED latest maps tech, so looking forward to finally seeing if they have listened to the feed back on Afghanistan and hopefully it will start to look good down low.

I'm also hoping this new map development approach will fix the absolutely awful pop up of bushes and ground clutter 10-15m out in front of a low flying helo, this occurs on all the EDs maps.

Ugra Media's continual updates to both Syria and Normandy 2 have made it easier to skip on pre ordering Iraq to as they have shown continued support for the maps they have built and they are just so good now.

I haven't see ED update or expand either Caucus, PG, Marianas, The Channel or Nevada at all in all the time I have owned them (right from release) the same way as both Syria and Normandy have been updated by Ugra,  considering Caucus being free and is the most used map online and the first map a new user see, I'm quite surprised it hasn't received a refresh as its actually a really good map.
 

 

Edited Saturday at 12:30 PM by Hotdognz

[Gierasimov]

Quote

The next big update to the Southwest portion and the Eastern region has been delayed due to developing a new approach that will improve this and all maps; we believe it will be worth it.

Sice you gave estimates for Afghanistan updates, it would be nice if you at least pointed out the revised timeline here, that's the newsletter item after all. 

There are two delays -

• next big update to the Southwest; Still coming in 2024? 
• Update with Eastern region; 2025?

Will improve this and all future maps? Unless you specifically wanted newsletter readers to believe that old maps such as Caucasus and NTTR were going to be refreshed with the newest TDK "tech". 

The last time I said "I found a new approach to data migration; hence the project is delayed" I was challenged by my stakeholders to reveal what it was and why I hadn't thought of it from a get go. 

I would like to know what is this new approach about and what maps specifically going to be affected please. 

[YoYo]

1 hour ago, Gierasimov said:

• next big update to the Southwest; Still coming in 2024? 
• Update with Eastern region; 2025?

+1. It would be nice to have some date range, especially since it seems to be understandable that East is ready (?)  but needs some quality updates. Personally, I don't mind releasing East in its current phase withe the stage of West quality, and then only then updating to some new standard next year. I'm used to Afghanistan the way it looks now, so I generally wouldn't wait :). 

[pjbunnyru]

I'm glad u paid attention to criticism from players regarding latest maps.

correcting focus of work as result of criticism (you can call it feedback) adds pluses to ur karma.

[Boosterdog]

15 minutes ago, YoYo said:

+1. It would be nice to have some date range, especially since it seems to be understandable that East is ready (?)  but needs some quality updates. Personally, I don't mind releasing East in its current phase withe the stage of West quality, and then only then updating to some new standard next year. I'm used to Afghanistan the way it looks now, so I generally wouldn't wait :). 

Im hoping the delay addresses at least one of the gripes with either desert maps (popping bushes and silly short clutter view distances) and/or better general textures. If its just the former I'll consider it a win for Syria and PG i nothing else. Its it more then I'll see how much more it is before considering any more maps. Im hopng its the latter as, despite my critisism of recent maps, Im still invested in the title. The announcement however is far too vague to tell if this is resultant from "feedback" - lets call it what it was - backlash in some quarters, a serendipitous conincidence of two things coming together by chance, or more Newspeak. 

[Blackfyre]

11 hours ago, Mainstay said:

Well I hope the next Afghanistan patch/update makes the ridiculous grass popping go away. I mean it feels like a freaking bad LSD trip where i am Alice in wonderland riding in the Apache with the White rabbit in the gunner seat flying over poppy fields…. 

The grass and other stuff grow like mushrooms 10 meters in front of you.

Seriously disappointed with this… I don’t have an expensive computer and everything on max in the graphical settings to be welcomed by 90’s game texture rendering technology 

 

 

Popping small bushes is an issue for every map, unfortunately. I wish ED could get rid of it. I prefer to have an option to remove such vegetation completely, if it is hard to make it permanent performance wise.

[Boosterdog]

1 hour ago, Blackfyre said:

Popping small bushes is an issue for every map, unfortunately. I wish ED could get rid of it. I prefer to have an option to remove such vegetation completely, if it is hard to make it permanent performance wise.

You can edit the terrain folder simply enough but Im assuming you aready knew that and the point is we should have to tinker in anythng but the settings.  

[Blackfyre]

25 minutes ago, Boosterdog said:

You can edit the terrain folder simply enough but Im assuming you aready knew that and the point is we should have to tinker in anythng but the settings.  

I didn't know that is possible, what could I modify?
I guess, it won't pass online integrity check, but still would be nice to know.

Edited Saturday at 11:10 AM by Blackfyre

[YoYo]

2 hours ago, Blackfyre said:

Popping small bushes is an issue for every map, unfortunately

It doesn't bother me in general, but I fly in VR, there may be a different reception. Additionally, it saves the loss of FPS (remember it! ), so I'm not of the opinion that everything has to be visible 120 km ahead. Only as an option, e.g. "ultra distance" new setting, the current settings are perfectly fine for me and I don't want to change it.

[Blackfyre]

2 minutes ago, YoYo said:

It doesn't bother me in general, but I fly in VR, there may be a different reception. Additionally, it saves the loss of FPS (remember it! ), so I'm not of the opinion that everything has to be visible 120 km ahead. Only as an option, e.g. "ultra distance" new setting, the current settings are perfectly fine for me and I don't want to change it.

It looks terrible on a flat screen. Ruins the helicopter experience.

[YoYo]

8 minutes ago, Blackfyre said:

It looks terrible on a flat screen. Ruins the helicopter experience.

I also fly a lot of helicopters and I understand the problem of flying at a low altitude, but I'm more concerned about it not being at the expense of the current settings, but rather, let's say, another option in the settings tab.

[Boosterdog]

2 hours ago, YoYo said:

It doesn't bother me in general, but I fly in VR, there may be a different reception. Additionally, it saves the loss of FPS (remember it! ), so I'm not of the opinion that everything has to be visible 120 km ahead. Only as an option, e.g. "ultra distance" new setting, the current settings are perfectly fine for me and I don't want to change it.

Lets not get carreid away - those bushes dont current appear more than 1500m away (likely less and certainly less in detail) let alone 120kms.  

3 hours ago, Blackfyre said:

I didn't know that is possible, what could I modify?
I guess, it won't pass online integrity check, but still would be nice to know.

 

PM'd you

 

[shagrat]

Am 25.10.2024 um 17:46 schrieb Red_Dragon:

Do you see the bottom in at least one photo in real life near Eiffel Tower?

River Seine sure got way more polluted and dirty in the last 80 years. And more ship traffic on top...

Do you have any photo from 1944?

[Weta43]

19 hours ago, Lionel Mandrake said:

Don't expect anything resembling common sense from ED here, everyone including ED know that more people working on a map would make it go faster (a map for goodness sake, it's so easy to divide up geographically and spread the work around). They simply won't do it because as someone else said it allows them to pump out more EA content.

Now there’s the state of the world wrapped up in a single post. 
Fact free, grievance filled, and opinion stated as fact. 

Edit: This sounds harsh Lionel, & it is disapproving, but it’s not specifically at you, it is at the world - from time to time me included.
 

Edited Saturday at 06:17 PM by Weta43

[thermalguy]

On 10/25/2024 at 8:46 AM, Red_Dragon said:

 

Please, ED. Look at the color of the water in the river Seine. Do you see the bottom in at least one photo in real life near Eiffel Tower? And the second thing. Please compare the color of the trees. The team has made fantastic progress working on this map. Ugra Media did a fantastic job..  they continue to do a lot of necessary and important things for this map and the community. I appreciate it. But still, I hope there will be improvements the trees's rendering and water, at least on this map.

 

But what was the water like in the 1940's

[Weta43]

3 minutes ago, thermalguy said:

But what was the water like in the 1940's

Ironically, probably even dirtier. 
 

Trouble is, 99% of rivers do have transparent water, and making it opaque across the entire map for the sake Paris would be a step backwards. 
Simplest fix would be to make the river deep enough that you can’t see the bottom. 
(Same for all Hydro dams)

[Red_Dragon]

1 час назад, thermalguy сказал:

But what was the water like in the 1940's

I do not think that river silt or soil particles in the river are an invention of the present day. In addition, fortunately, there were already photographs and films in the 40s. I did not see any that showed the bottom of a large or medium-sized river. In my opinion, this is simply absurd.

PS Lol besides, I think I've heard of many cases where traces of crimes were hidden in rivers. On the other hand, if the big rivers were so transparent, how much easier would life be for fishermen? 

Edited Saturday at 07:44 PM by Red_Dragon

[NineLine]

12 hours ago, YoYo said:

+1. It would be nice to have some date range, especially since it seems to be understandable that East is ready (?)  but needs some quality updates. Personally, I don't mind releasing East in its current phase withe the stage of West quality, and then only then updating to some new standard next year. I'm used to Afghanistan the way it looks now, so I generally wouldn't wait :). 

Some of the delays were application of normal maps in a new way so it might have slowed things like the East, hence the delay.

[Boosterdog]

15 hours ago, NineLine said:

Some of the delays were application of normal maps in a new way so it might have slowed things like the East, hence the delay.

So delays are nothing to do with sorting out the popping bushes that plague arid maps? Just for clarification.

 

Edited Sunday at 11:50 AM by Boosterdog

[Rikus]

DCS needs larger maps to be able to make big wars, with meaning for tankers, carriers and others.

Right now they are like small battles in which all the units are a little tight...

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Rikus said:

DCS needs larger maps to be able to make big wars, with meaning for tankers, carriers and others.

Right now they are like small battles in which all the units are a little tight...

You can already use all those assets - get creative because it's on the mission designer. If you mean full simulation of 100 thousand soldiers and thousands of units all fighting - the time has not come yet for our PCs nor is DCS goal.

As for the water it's been reported many times that it's too transparent in DCS. You can see ship keels and screws, rivers look weird, ports look unrealistic...

[MAXsenna]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

If you mean full simulation of 100 thousand soldiers and thousands of units all fighting - the time has not come yet for our PCs nor is DCS goal.

And yet this solved in the last century!

[NineLine]

9 hours ago, Boosterdog said:

So delays are nothing to do with sorting out the popping bushes that plague arid maps? Just for clarification.

 

 

That is a core issue that is becoming more apparent with newer more detailed maps. That would not delay any one map. Thanks. 

[Boosterdog]

3 minutes ago, NineLine said:

That is a core issue that is becoming more apparent with newer more detailed maps. That would not delay any one map. Thanks. 

I asked because "due to developing a new approach that will improve this and all maps" indicates it isnt just a one map thing.  Obviously it could be lots of things but I perhaps though that the popping veg in arid maps and the strict draw distance of grass and clutter, that has been a very obvious nuisance since PG, might have finally got some attention.

Thanks for replying.