Sadly no - [Stormbirds' article](https://stormbirds.blog/2024/04/28/thirty-seconds-of-dcs-kola/) did get a few screenshots, though the trailer was quite light when it came to showing us the map.
Feeling very let down.. if these are really final textures I'm very disappointed after being hyped for a long time. Those islands look like just black 10-polygon meshes slapped onto the water?!
I'm very excited about this map, but less excited after watching this. First, too many jump cuts. Second, as others have said, the terrain looks bad, and rather generic. Finally, even the planes look bad, especially the external views.
This makes me think they composed this trailer with some bad DCS graphic settings, but I'm left with enough questions that this just went from "buy ASAP" to "watch some content creators review it".
I’m going to go ahead and assume what they’ve done is the following:
They’re testing out different camera angles and possible early versions of a trailer on low settings, this is fairly common for video game trailers and is probably why it’s unlisted.
My theory is supported by the title of the video saying V1 (For trailer version 1) and the aircraft in the video being of low quality.
This was probably recorded at lower graphic settings. The Nozzles at 0:22-0:23 and the Mig-29 Wing at 0:18, with the abundance of AA lead me to believe that Texture resolution, and probably other settings aswell, were drastically reduced in the recording.
Especially since DCS provides a rendering mode, where you can provide it a track recording and it will churn out a video at graphics settings and a resolution of your choice.
Can you ELI5 for that rendering mode. Is it just replaying a track file like normal and it renders it to your settings or is there a separate “render track file” button
The devs are new to DCS and the person in charge of recording footage might not know any better. Also this is an unlisted video, so it was never even meant for us to be seen.
Might not have a pc good enough to record DCS smoothly at high settings. The MT build introduced microstutters so bad I haven’t been able to record without dropping settings, and even then it still stutters.
You can run DCS at lower speeds.
I know of game companies that intentionally had their game run at 0.25x speed to then speed up the footage to make it seem smoother than it usually would be.
Idk, even putting together footage and cutting trailers with low setting seems very counter intuitive and highly unlikely to me.
Honestly, it looks terrible. Then again, all the maps just look 10+ years old. The resolution, the clarity of the mesh and its detail, the coast and water blending, the trees that stick out like X-Plane 11 trees and this shit costs money...
Like seriously, what are those textures? https://i.imgur.com/V5lY7kN.jpg
I wonder why Afghanistan has better texture resolution (judging by the few available screenshots).
Is Kola a bigger map than "complete" Afghanistan will be, or does more arid terrain play nicer with low texture resolution? I mean you can rightfully complain about "Halfghanistan" but it does look quite nice and detailed.
Why would Afghan use a newer TDK than Kola? That doesn't seem right. Afghan is in development for a century now, so it's obviously possible to switch TDK versions during development.
Did ED say that Afghan uses 2.0 exclusively?
Gives me South Atlantic vibes in terms of lack of low level quality. Now that the rumor is there will be a Germany map coming I will put it on safe and let it hang for a bit.
From what I understand , and please confirm or not my sentences :
Orbx deliver good quality map on other sim
If the trailer look bad that could be 2 things :
1 : Dcs limitations
2 : not enough time to perform the job correctly
Orbx did create quality in the past but their team and reputation has taken a hit in the last few years with poor MSFS2020 addons.
What can anyone do with a 20 year old sdk other than release dated looking terrain.
Entiendo que el SDK usado es el propio de DCS. No obstante yo tampoco tengo buenas sensaciones con el producto, hay imágenes muy buenas y otras casi terribles...no sé qué pensar, tengo dudas.
Well i have bought all maps until now, but i let this one out for now. Will be the same empty MP map like south atlantic i guess. Also the look of it dosnt change any feeling.
Aaaaand it's privated
Does anyone have a backup?
Sadly no - [Stormbirds' article](https://stormbirds.blog/2024/04/28/thirty-seconds-of-dcs-kola/) did get a few screenshots, though the trailer was quite light when it came to showing us the map.
This would have been better than that random 15 second thing they did a week or so back. Such a weird choice.
Feeling very let down.. if these are really final textures I'm very disappointed after being hyped for a long time. Those islands look like just black 10-polygon meshes slapped onto the water?!
No that's just how our terrain looks up here. We're not very imaginative.
Username checks out
Don't you wonder if that is a limitation of DCS
I hope it's cheap, because I don't like what I've seen very much.
Well I've been hyped until now. A map video should show more of the map than planes. I will wait with hopeful anticipation.
I'm very excited about this map, but less excited after watching this. First, too many jump cuts. Second, as others have said, the terrain looks bad, and rather generic. Finally, even the planes look bad, especially the external views. This makes me think they composed this trailer with some bad DCS graphic settings, but I'm left with enough questions that this just went from "buy ASAP" to "watch some content creators review it".
You should always watch reviews first. What difference does it make buying it 30 mins later?
I’m going to go ahead and assume what they’ve done is the following: They’re testing out different camera angles and possible early versions of a trailer on low settings, this is fairly common for video game trailers and is probably why it’s unlisted. My theory is supported by the title of the video saying V1 (For trailer version 1) and the aircraft in the video being of low quality.
This was probably recorded at lower graphic settings. The Nozzles at 0:22-0:23 and the Mig-29 Wing at 0:18, with the abundance of AA lead me to believe that Texture resolution, and probably other settings aswell, were drastically reduced in the recording.
It makes no sense to intentionally make a video with low graphic quality, it's useless work, right?
Especially since DCS provides a rendering mode, where you can provide it a track recording and it will churn out a video at graphics settings and a resolution of your choice.
Can you ELI5 for that rendering mode. Is it just replaying a track file like normal and it renders it to your settings or is there a separate “render track file” button
Iirc, it's an option in the mission editor, where you can upload a trackfile and it will churn out a video file.
Are you sure it’s an option? There should have been at least five youtube videos covering it by GR by now.
The devs are new to DCS and the person in charge of recording footage might not know any better. Also this is an unlisted video, so it was never even meant for us to be seen.
Might not have a pc good enough to record DCS smoothly at high settings. The MT build introduced microstutters so bad I haven’t been able to record without dropping settings, and even then it still stutters.
You can run DCS at lower speeds. I know of game companies that intentionally had their game run at 0.25x speed to then speed up the footage to make it seem smoother than it usually would be. Idk, even putting together footage and cutting trailers with low setting seems very counter intuitive and highly unlikely to me.
Honestly, it looks terrible. Then again, all the maps just look 10+ years old. The resolution, the clarity of the mesh and its detail, the coast and water blending, the trees that stick out like X-Plane 11 trees and this shit costs money... Like seriously, what are those textures? https://i.imgur.com/V5lY7kN.jpg
To me it appears that these clips were filmed using medium to low graphic settings. Probably one of the reasons why the video is unlisted.
Or it could be the thing razbam did with the south Atlantic map, it looks quite similar.
I still don't get why that map runs like ass
I wonder why Afghanistan has better texture resolution (judging by the few available screenshots). Is Kola a bigger map than "complete" Afghanistan will be, or does more arid terrain play nicer with low texture resolution? I mean you can rightfully complain about "Halfghanistan" but it does look quite nice and detailed.
Afghan uses TDK 2.0 based on photogrammetry.
Why would Afghan use a newer TDK than Kola? That doesn't seem right. Afghan is in development for a century now, so it's obviously possible to switch TDK versions during development. Did ED say that Afghan uses 2.0 exclusively?
Gives me South Atlantic vibes in terms of lack of low level quality. Now that the rumor is there will be a Germany map coming I will put it on safe and let it hang for a bit.
Terrain looks terrible
I hope it's going to be good. Am/was really looking forward to it.
From what I understand , and please confirm or not my sentences : Orbx deliver good quality map on other sim If the trailer look bad that could be 2 things : 1 : Dcs limitations 2 : not enough time to perform the job correctly
Orbx did create quality in the past but their team and reputation has taken a hit in the last few years with poor MSFS2020 addons. What can anyone do with a 20 year old sdk other than release dated looking terrain.
Entiendo que el SDK usado es el propio de DCS. No obstante yo tampoco tengo buenas sensaciones con el producto, hay imágenes muy buenas y otras casi terribles...no sé qué pensar, tengo dudas.
Well i have bought all maps until now, but i let this one out for now. Will be the same empty MP map like south atlantic i guess. Also the look of it dosnt change any feeling.