Jump to content

A Further Caucasus Update


Recommended Posts

@Desert FoxYeah, along those lines are probably my main gripe. The fact that when you compare the map IRL and the map in DCS, the main layout is okay, as is the mesh (mostly), even the detail is decent enough for a free map, but it just doesn't look like the real thing, it looks very generic; particular the single green texture that is completely map wide, and makes the map seem kinda barren, whereas its pretty lush IRL.

 

It gets even weirder too, when you zoom out in SAT mode, you can see more detail, and more photorealistic textures - which seems very counter intuitive (you'd expect more detail close in, and there to be less further out) you can even see missing airfields, missing rivers (including major ones), even towns and villages - and this is in the detailed areas.

 

What's worse, is plenty of missing features can be seen in the included chart under MAP view, but if you look there in SAT or ALT, you lose the detail.

 

There's other gripes like the rivers not looking as they do IRL, they're typically the wrong colour/size and some are even missing all together, generally rivers in the Caucasus map, look a lot drier and are more silty, at least on Google Earth. The river near Gaduata that comes out south, from the mountains and then tracks south-west, is larger and more visible in real life; there's a further river to the west, that tracks more to the west that is much the same. The Enguri reservoir behind the large dam is more turquoise in real life, as is the nearby Gali reservoir, which should also have a dam on its western side, exiting onto what looks to be an artificial river/canal tracking to the west, with a few bridges/sluice gates along its length.

 

There's also the fact that bridges typically have these large inclines on either end which doesn't look right at all, especially for railways. These are especially noticeable when flying a helicopter or playing CA directly. This issue plagues most maps, but on the Caucasus it's especially prevalent.

 

The same can be said for tunnels, especially rail tunnels, that instead of being flat have some pretty mad inclines in them. 

 

 


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2021 at 7:36 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

Crimea was deleted on FC-1 by map limitations on object count technology previously to EDGE engine.

Yes thats true, but it became a necessity in order to expand the map further east into the Caucasus, the reason for which was because it seemed a more realistic area for combat scenarios than Crimea.

 

 

On 1/22/2021 at 7:36 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

 

On moscow, Crimea (russian annexion) and Ucrania (Separatist Dombas region), has a very sensible political theme. ED team has on Moscow, and they has talked in the past about them, they dont go to add that regions by the actual Russian / Ucrania conflict. Has the same situations with Chechenia / and some central and south caucasus republics.


I put the same answer some time ago


ED team members has talked the same on the russian forum, none plans to build Crimea or other "sensible" region. Kate (COO) and Chizh has talk the same.

 

...so Syria by contrast isn't a politically "sensible" region? :) .

 

I am sure you are right about ED's considerations, but the fact remains that for a map to have a realistic combat potential, it must necessarily have contested areas, which in turn inevitably comes with some degree of "political sensitivity"......just picking one that is sufficiently far from your own backyard isn't really a good argument.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2021 at 9:46 AM, Northstar98 said:

the main layout is okay, as is the mesh

The mesh is fine for fixed wing flying at higher altitude and airspeeds yes, but doing helicopter operations in those mountainous areas rubs the limitations of the map right in your face. When you're dropping off troops in a clearing at high altitude it feels like you're landing on the side of a huge triangle...

 

The region that's portrayed in the Caucasus map lends itself absolutely superbly for a combat flight sim, but to make helicopter operations more immersive it could use a substantial overhaul (with at the very least MUCH higher resolution ground textures and a MUCH higher resolution terrain mesh), or preferably starting from scratch since a overhaul is just what ED did 3 years ago.

  • Like 2
Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600MHz CL16 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 960Pro NVMe 1TB | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | TM Warthog (with custom spring, 10 cm extension, custom TDC, replacement pinky switch) on Wheelstand Pro | TPR rudder pedals

My in-game DCS settings (PD 1.0 SteamSS 76%):

EduSYaK.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

The mesh is fine for fixed wing flying at higher altitude and airspeeds yes, but doing helicopter operations in those mountainous areas rubs the limitations of the map right in your face. When you're dropping off troops in a clearing at high altitude it feels like you're landing on the side of a huge triangle...

 

Very true, I absolutely agree (and it's even worse when direct CA comes in) but I'd still say the mesh is 'good-enough', though it's still far from somewhere close to ideal.

 

Just now, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

The region that's portrayed in the Caucasus map lends itself absolutely superbly for a combat flight sim, but to make helicopter operations more immersive it could use a substantial overhaul (with at the very least MUCH higher resolution ground textures and a MUCH higher resolution terrain mesh), or preferably starting from scratch since a overhaul is just what ED did 3 years ago.

 

Absolutely, though given the size and detail of the place IRL, it would be a phenomenal amount of work and probably take up a phenomenal amount of space.

 

For me, I just want it to be more true to reality, as the real place is much more interesting and colourful, with even more potential.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2021 at 6:13 PM, Northstar98 said:

 

Same, all the buildings save for a couple are completely generic; my main gripe is that the map isn't that accurate (again, Poti is a prime example of this, having the wrong layout, missing an airfield, a river, as well as the main strategic target - a port, and Paliastomi lake has a few inaccuracies too) and is missing a fair number of things, even within the detail area.

 

The generic green texture is also completely map wide, and comparing against IRL, the DCS Caucasus is a lot more barren than it actually is, especially in the western half.

 

Spot on💯

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Yes thats true, but it became a necessity in order to expand the map further east into the Caucasus, the reason for which was because it seemed a more realistic area for combat scenarios than Crimea.

 

 

...so Syria by contrast isn't a politically "sensible" region? 🙂 .

 

I am sure you are right about ED's considerations, but the fact remains that for a map to have a realistic combat potential, it must necessarily have contested areas, which in turn inevitably comes with some degree of "political sensitivity"......just picking one that is sufficiently far from your own backyard isn't really a good argument.

I'm glad I'm not the only one with this thought. Syria has been contested a few years before the "situation" happened in the Crimea, and still is now.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dragon89 said:

I'm glad I'm not the only one with this thought. Syria has been contested a few years before the "situation" happened in the Crimea, and still is now.

 

Hell even the Caucasus area we have should be pretty politically sensitive, at least back in 2008... :music_whistling:

  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Yes thats true, but it became a necessity in order to expand the map further east into the Caucasus, the reason for which was because it seemed a more realistic area for combat scenarios than Crimea.

 

 

...so Syria by contrast isn't a politically "sensible" region? 🙂 .

 

I am sure you are right about ED's considerations, but the fact remains that for a map to have a realistic combat potential, it must necessarily have contested areas, which in turn inevitably comes with some degree of "political sensitivity"......just picking one that is sufficiently far from your own backyard isn't really a good argument.

 

 

 

Syria map has build by Ugra-Media, not ED. 3rd parties has not that "problem". "political sensitivity" coming by russian military / political stament, and you get to go to Jail......... Remember, ED dont can build none russian aircraft after 2000 (and now "depleted" Black Shark 3 expansion) by your main office has on moscow and the actual russian secret law.


Edited by Silver_Dragon

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

Syria map has build by Ugra-Media, not ED. 3rd parties has not that "problem". "political sensitivity" coming by russian military / political stament, and you get to go to Jail......... Remember, ED dont can build none russian aircraft after 2000 (and now "depleted" Black Shark 3 expansion) by your main office has on moscow and the actual russian secret law.

 

I am not Russian so it remains a bit unclear to me, but how does making a map in DCS relate to rubbing the government in the wrong way? No one is asking to have borders drawn on the map, because yes, borders are contentious. But just providing the map, with accurate placement of cities and airfields that are, from scratch, neutral and can be attributed to either side in the mission editor is not a political statement. It just means the area is interesting as a theater. No one is asking ED to publish a campaign where you play as Ukraine to defend against invaders or anything like that ; just the map. I do not understand why this argument is valid for Crimea but not for Georgia. I would be happy to learn more about the difference between the two situations.

 

Not that I want this expansion, I am just curious. The Caucasus map is fine right now, it just needs higher density mesh in the mountains, textures, and more representative cities. The great thing is that it would make all the existing content in single player so much better, even if it might require some small rework like unit placement and such. But this could probably be faster than starting from scratch, which is what creators have to do on new maps like Syria.


Edited by Qiou87
  • Like 3

AMD R5 5600X | 32GB DDR4 3000MHz | RTX 2070 SUPER | HP Reverb G2 | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk3 | Thrustmaster TCWS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only need make a search about Crimea in the forum. The situations has always the same.

 

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to post
Share on other sites

After what happened in Crimea, Chechnya, Donbas and considering ED is based in Moscow we should somehow give up on this map, ED has it's hands tied in this matter. Even if some guys pressing ED it's going to be beating a dead horse. Silverdragon is right.

 

Even if they would try to navigate through this minefield the whole region has such potential becoming "delicate" for Russian government any day they would be forced to remove some another part let's say next yeah. Because who knows. 

 

I like Caucasus region but i think they should focus elsewhere, i.e. central Europe/Fulda Gap, Baltics region, GIUK Gap, Vietnam, Korea etc.


Edited by bies
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Silver_Dragon: Ok, I think I understand the point. I don't totally agree with the post you quoted (imho no map in DCS has borders or is depicted as being that or this country), however I also understand that I am not Russian, so maybe I cannot understand all that this topic means. I respect that ED might not risk their own liberty for this.

 

@bies: whilst I do love the idea of more maps (personally, outside of historical Vietnam/Kora, I'll love to see something around China to have a different opposition than typical NATO/Russia we have in DCS), I think the topic here is just to refresh the main DCS free map. I would assume that the amount of work needed would be less than creating a full new map. Of course, if that is not the case (for example, porting the Caucasus map to the new map creation tools like those used for Syria/Channel doesn't work), then ED might as well try a new region. But if a refresh really is possible, and only takes 10-20-30% of the man-hours needed for a new map, it could be considered in a few years. It is a beautiful region and I don't think the current map does it justice.


Edited by Qiou87

AMD R5 5600X | 32GB DDR4 3000MHz | RTX 2070 SUPER | HP Reverb G2 | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk3 | Thrustmaster TCWS

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Syria map has build by Ugra-Media, not ED. 3rd parties has not that "problem".

Ok fair enough, but the Syrian map FAQs you quoted was posted by Wags.

Quote

"political sensitivity" coming by russian military / political stament, and you get to go to Jail.

Sorry but thats just nonsense - you only need to read the Russian section of this forum to realise that. Besides, as others have mentioned, we are talking about a map.......no one is asking ED to make a campaign replicating particular events and supporting particular views on it.

 

Personally I think its just down to ED not wanting to deal with any political BS that might appear on the forums in connection with it - which is understandable. But the "government" bogey-man as an argument for all sorts of decisions regarding Russian contents in the sim is starting to become silly.

Quote

........ Remember, ED dont can build none russian aircraft after 2000 (and now "depleted" Black Shark 3 expansion) by your main office has on moscow and the actual russian secret law.

What has that got to do with game maps and politics?. If ED cannot build modern Russian aircraft modules due to military secrecy, its because they cannot obtain the necessary level of documentation for the purpose. Russia is not the only country being tied-lipped about this sort of thing.


Edited by Seaeagle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...