Is anyone else not feeling this map at low level?

[swartbyron]

From a low level helicopter perspective the textures look pixilated and low in resolution in comparison to its counterpart, Afghanistan which is being developed along side Iraq. The field textures in particular look just like blurry satellite imagery with a lot of excessive noise thrown in to try and disguise the low detail textures.

Flying fast through the mountains of North-Eastern Iraq, or tanking at high altitude this map is absolute superb. 

On rout to target with a helicopter on the other hand just makes me want to end the mission and fly anther map.

Despite being developed at the same time and also by Eagle Dynamics, the Afghanistan map is far more detailed and seems in much higher resolution at low level compared to Iraq to me. The fields are especially convincing, lush with deep colours and definition but still blend in beautifully with the photo real look at altitude.

There were a lot of complaints bout the state of Afghanistan at low level on first release and the developers absolute pulled it out all the stops to improve things and it is now for me at least the most convincing map ED has released not using all synthetic textures.

Can we expect the Iraq map to receive the same level of detail at low level in the future for Iraq or is this the best detail achievable for this area for other reasons?

I realise peoples perspectives differ, artistic styles differ between developers and that products will differ according to the technology available to the developers at the time.

With both these maps being developed side by side and both by Eagle Dynamics, I hope we will see both maps up to the same standards. 

[EricJ]

I can agree with you that the Iraq map doesn't have that sort of polished feel that Afghanistan is at currently. I mean then again I haven't been on the Iraq map in a long time (a few weeks), but I also look at it that it's still work in progress textures, which the finished product (or out of Early Access feel) or whatnot will yield better results. I don't set my expectations high when it's Early Access, because it's at the beta stage, and through experience and prior work, it's just how the company rolls as far as quality. I mean if it were a finished product I would complain more, but not so much when it's still being developed.

[Czar]

It is not textures the issue. It is the lack of autogen (3d stuff) around. A map shouldn't need to weight 500gb of satellite imagery while neglecting 3d objects.

Syria has lower definition textures but the 3d assets are the ones who bring life into the scene. That's the type of work that makes a difference.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Syria from above:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Iraq from above:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Iraq has good parts near bases, but lacks objects in rural areas:

(This last one is pre patch. I don't know how it is this area today. It is to illustrate the point. All others from Iraq are after the patch)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Syria map autogen clutter, which is superior overall:

 

Forget pushing higher and higher textures. DCS is constantly heavy in VRam. Ask for a proper autogen and manually placed objects that brings richness to the experience.
Maps are already massively big with the satellite textures.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Czar