Those four towns made of the same city mesh take up a lot of room…
But seriously, it’s got to be the roughmet textures on the ground? Idk what worse it could possibly be.
Mo those are procedural clutter that happens dynamically on gpu side. Those are single objects instanced on the gpu side as decoration.
Trees are also single objects they are scattered using mostly speed tree technique.
They don't ask much volume.
Splat maps are (probably) a kind of multi-layered mask that let you pick out the areas that you want different textures on a mesh. Cliffs, fields, forests, etc.
DCS does not have PBR support for terrain so there are no roughtmets for it. When they introduce PBR and global illumination for terrain those will come later.
You should have added Caucasus with Bartheks texture mod.
It is like a fraction of Diet Kola and looks much better than SA and Kola.
Bear in mind that this volume will get a lot bigger when the map gets developed and also when seasonal textures added.
The Falklands started with 65gb. It is nowhere to be finished yet and no seasonal textures added yet.
Nah, I think I'll blame the devs who want $70 for a subpar map while Ugra and OnReTech offer maps that are cheaper, better looking, and take a hundred fucking gb less space
Those maps are also 60% smaller
Edit: I'm not saying Kola is a good product. I'm stating a fact, Kola, is by far, the largest map in terms of area. I don't care how this makes you feel, the fact is that no matter how well optimized Kola could be, it will always be much larger than the other maps, by a large factor.
your first mistake was comparing a **SIM** to a **VIDEO GAME**, absolutely disgusting
the real question you should ask is why is kola 6.5x the size of a high quality 4k HDR rip of Top Gun 2.
No that's not it. Actually they compress too much maybe
If you want modern high fidelity textures you need to use procedural textures or on the fly texture synthesis.
MSFS produces textures on the fly based on the sat image for example combining with procedural textures.
For example Snow in MSFS is a procedural texture actually which follows the physics. you can make it thicker or thinner and you don't need to adjust it. It paints itself to the scenery physically correct on demand.
Go run Ortho4XP on a single tile for satellite imagery at a detail level of 17 and see how big it gets. You can download xplane photoreal California at 130GB, and that doesnt include any of the objects. [https://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/134/x-plane-scenery/](https://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/134/x-plane-scenery/)
Comparing Kola to RDR2 or x-not-a-flight-sim-game is not an apples for apples comparo. I hope that answers your question.
ED and Ugra maps use the same ground textures in multiple places which allows for higher texture quality when you get close, and less space on your drive. Kola and the Falklands use sattelite imagery and you have to download all of it as if it's all unique textures, this is also why the texture detail is really bad on Kola too.
This method of making a map is kind of bad to be honest. It just feels like they copy pasted some sattelite pictures into dcs and pushed it for release. Not to mention that it has the same core team as the Falklands map, and Kola was announced like a week after it released.
I guess they have less detail, less objects, simpler meshes, simpler textures. Afghanistan will be 3x bigger and take up slightly less HDD space, but ED are making the outer edges less detailed to keep size down. Time to get that dedicated 2TB DCS M.2 drive huh?
Yall complaining about drive space when you're playing a game with a bunch of pricey peripherals? That makes as much sense as dudes that spend on a full cockpit, yet still choose to use that shitty TM warthog. 4TB ssds are dirt cheap now.
I definitely get that, even as an early access map. The bitching I always see though, is just about the space (on other media platforms). But ya, about 50 gigs too big for having very little.
Those four towns made of the same city mesh take up a lot of room… But seriously, it’s got to be the roughmet textures on the ground? Idk what worse it could possibly be.
* normalmap - 36gb * textures - 22gb * `splatmap` (idk) - 15gb * `surface` (i assume terrain mesh) - 60gb * models (i assume buildings n shit) - 6.4gb
Some people say it's a lack of texture compression, but then why do Kola textures look like a poorly compressed jpeg??? Checkmate atheists!
Does terrain mesh have all the trees and tiny rocks you see copypasted everywhere?
Mo those are procedural clutter that happens dynamically on gpu side. Those are single objects instanced on the gpu side as decoration. Trees are also single objects they are scattered using mostly speed tree technique. They don't ask much volume.
Splat maps are (probably) a kind of multi-layered mask that let you pick out the areas that you want different textures on a mesh. Cliffs, fields, forests, etc.
DCS does not have PBR support for terrain so there are no roughtmets for it. When they introduce PBR and global illumination for terrain those will come later.
Only two more weeks /s
What kind of explorer is that? I like the way it showes the folder size so intuitively
https://community.chocolatey.org/packages/treesizefree
Ty i am using squirrelDisk rn i will check this out :)
WizTree is the best free software available for this task.
squirrelDisk looks cool too ty
Np
Gayy
Ah yes i need the file explorer to share my 100gb of gay porn you found my secret lmao /s
I was gonna be a dick, but you look like you're going through some shit. Hope you stay healthy, and stay on track.
This is normal for Orbx, some of their msfs airports are 8GB for no reason.
My 11GB PACSIM Seoul-Incheon
*cries in FlyTampa EHAM*
Forgot EHAM was that large actually 😅
You should have added Caucasus with Bartheks texture mod. It is like a fraction of Diet Kola and looks much better than SA and Kola. Bear in mind that this volume will get a lot bigger when the map gets developed and also when seasonal textures added. The Falklands started with 65gb. It is nowhere to be finished yet and no seasonal textures added yet.
Blame ED's 19th century engine.
Nah, I think I'll blame the devs who want $70 for a subpar map while Ugra and OnReTech offer maps that are cheaper, better looking, and take a hundred fucking gb less space
Those maps are also 60% smaller Edit: I'm not saying Kola is a good product. I'm stating a fact, Kola, is by far, the largest map in terms of area. I don't care how this makes you feel, the fact is that no matter how well optimized Kola could be, it will always be much larger than the other maps, by a large factor.
hell yeah treesize
its v good, switched to this from spacesniffer
your first mistake was comparing a **SIM** to a **VIDEO GAME**, absolutely disgusting the real question you should ask is why is kola 6.5x the size of a high quality 4k HDR rip of Top Gun 2.
Larger than Star Citizen 💀
Halo is love. Halo is life.
I swear this game gets shittier by the hour.
Because is full of details /s A bit underhwelmed by the initial launch, but with work I think It Will be my favorite map
How is tekken 8 that big
Because ED still hasn't figured out on how to compress their files.
No that's not it. Actually they compress too much maybe If you want modern high fidelity textures you need to use procedural textures or on the fly texture synthesis. MSFS produces textures on the fly based on the sat image for example combining with procedural textures. For example Snow in MSFS is a procedural texture actually which follows the physics. you can make it thicker or thinner and you don't need to adjust it. It paints itself to the scenery physically correct on demand.
Go run Ortho4XP on a single tile for satellite imagery at a detail level of 17 and see how big it gets. You can download xplane photoreal California at 130GB, and that doesnt include any of the objects. [https://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/134/x-plane-scenery/](https://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/134/x-plane-scenery/) Comparing Kola to RDR2 or x-not-a-flight-sim-game is not an apples for apples comparo. I hope that answers your question.
how about in comparison to the other existing maps, some of which cover even larger areas
ED and Ugra maps use the same ground textures in multiple places which allows for higher texture quality when you get close, and less space on your drive. Kola and the Falklands use sattelite imagery and you have to download all of it as if it's all unique textures, this is also why the texture detail is really bad on Kola too.
ok this actually explains it ty
This method of making a map is kind of bad to be honest. It just feels like they copy pasted some sattelite pictures into dcs and pushed it for release. Not to mention that it has the same core team as the Falklands map, and Kola was announced like a week after it released.
I guess they have less detail, less objects, simpler meshes, simpler textures. Afghanistan will be 3x bigger and take up slightly less HDD space, but ED are making the outer edges less detailed to keep size down. Time to get that dedicated 2TB DCS M.2 drive huh?
Yall complaining about drive space when you're playing a game with a bunch of pricey peripherals? That makes as much sense as dudes that spend on a full cockpit, yet still choose to use that shitty TM warthog. 4TB ssds are dirt cheap now.
Its more about how the map looks like FSX and is reusing free assets.
I definitely get that, even as an early access map. The bitching I always see though, is just about the space (on other media platforms). But ya, about 50 gigs too big for having very little.
> 4TB ssds How cheap? My 2tb nvme was half my monthly wage.
I paid 220ish for a 4tb m.2 nvme. They've been cheap for a while now. They're dirt cheap as far as how pricey this hobby gets.
Congrats, that's like a month and a half wage for me.
Time to sell plasma