Pilot909

BMS does it just fine on a rusty old frame. How does the "fun" get omitted if you fly as 'a large multi-flight coordinated attack' playing with people (or AI) and accomplishing a team objective? That sounds fun to me and plenty of others. Especially considering we're getting in-game comms at some point in the future. Let's not forget that I clearly stated on multiple occasions that this Tactical Terrain series wouldn't be for EVERYONE, some people will be into it, some wont and that it wouldnt replace the current style of terrain. The Tactical Terrains would be based on Satellite imagery and auto-gen and made to effectively create as realistic of an AO as possible for those that want that experience, considering no real art has to go into the ground models and the ground doesnt have to created from nothing it would be an easier workflow than the smaller more traditional maps anyway. So I don't see it detracting from the traditional terrains that people know and love. That's what SEAD/DEAD are for, which is fun and a great place for the F-16, F-18, SU-25T, F-4E and others. How does that make sense, in order to just survive, you have to hope that SEAD/DEAD and BARCAP did their job so that you can make it to an enemy airbase for the OCA strike for example. It REQUIRES a team effort when you have a larger map with realistic AD and air interdiction threats. That one man army stuff you can do in DCS would be impossible and with it the ability to win the war virtually all on your own (people have been wanting to be a 'cog in the machine' for a while). Sure, I'm not saying you can't design mission scenarios that may reflect reality, however a true tactically authentic campaign or dynamic campaign in itself would not be feasible under the current map size. But again, even if you made a mission with the right spacing and AD threats, it would be over the same little square of territory every time as opposed to different parts of the area allowing for different landscape and tactical opportunities as a result of shift in terrain and weather.

lol. I'm not saying you'd totally back me up if you understood. I'm saying you have yet to provide any logical reasoning as to why it shouldn't be in the sim. Uhh, that's largely due to the limitations of small map design. Map is too small to create a realistic and dynamic air defence environment. Anyway, lets play a game. Tell me. What you tell someone who wanted smaller sized, more detailed terrains compared to the ones we have now. Now consider those same arguments in this context.

That's the thing, you don't HAVE to fly several hours to fight on massive maps. Just fly out of an airbase near the front lines of the conflict. Fly into enemy held territory, do your thing and come back. Only this time units are spread as they should be and there is a more accurate set of air defence threats, refuelers and AWACS aren't flying right next to the enemy etc.

This in itself illustrates that you clearly did not understand the point or large map design. That "space" is needed for the sake of a realistic tactical environment, more dynamic battlespace, more airbases, more tactical ambiguity, more tactical opportunity and consequently a more accurate set of campaigns and dynamic campaigns. People wanted a dynamic campaign experience akin to BMS with a terrain a mere fraction of the size and asked to "just be a cog in the machine". That's not gonna happen when your missile can reach a quarter of the way across the entire map (AIM-54)...

As I had said in my last post, large terrains that could encompass entire AO's (Afghanistan Tactical, Iraq Tactical, Vietnam Tactical, etc.) would allow for a far more enjoyable and in depth series of campaigns (and Dynamic Campaign) experiences within DCS and would bring forward much of the "life" and game experiences needed in singleplayer. You can have a Vietnam Campaign where you're flying F-4E's with the 557th TFS 12th TFW, or you could be flying UH-1's as a pilot in the 20th SOS "Green Hornets" dropping SEALs off and flying nap of the earth in the most hostile environments imaginable. Large maps give you realism, flexibility and tactical uncertainties thus improving the digital combat simulation experience. I personally think the game would be far more enjoyable and far more dynamic with larger maps and briefing rooms involved (esp with ED adding in in-game comms).

Bump. To the top you go.

I'd be happy with getting a CH-47 and a UH-60L. Instabuy

And you've come to this conclusion... how exactly? Talking to people I've found that quite a few people would be interested in larger maps, especially if they are large enough to simulate entire military campaigns (like the different parts of the Vietnam war for example). In the event of a DCS: Vietnam Tactical terrain, you'd be able to make a campaign based on the full operational history of a fighter squadron in Vietnam for example. Or in the event of a Dynamic Campaign, you'd be able to fight and alter the event of the Vietnam war your own way as opposed to what occurred in history. A traditional (current style of terrain) Vietnam map would feature a 400x400 plot of land and would greatly reduce the amount of options you have for replicating different parts of the conflict and would inhibit the "campaign" in Dynamic Campaign IMO. Justify what exactly? Making large low-detail maps out of satellite images and autogen? I stated many times that something like this would be released in parallel to the traditional style of terrain. Large low detail terrains would not replace small high detail terrains. In theory the map should be relatively easy to make, use of autogen scenery and satellite image terrain should drastically reduce workload for the devs and thus they would still have lots of time to make the traditional style maps we all know and love. Please read the initial post if you haven't already.

Haha exactly, or perhaps it can be hidden in the mission editor somewhere. Would be funny to have someone find a UFO under the Venezuelan Helicopters vehicle slot lol. Then you can make missions with it.

Thinking about it, another good way to have those large maps come to fruition would be for ED to release the map tools, allowing FINALLY for user created terrains. Perhaps if or when that happens we could see something like this.

LOL still want a UFO tho

Aside from terrain lighting. Airport lighting needs to be improved as well. With hangar bay lighting and better parking spot lighting. I don't think illumination is modeled in the parking spot lights either because the cockpits and the jets are still pitch black as if no light was shining on them. Example 1: https://media.defense.gov/2015/Feb/11/2001014132/-1/-1/0/150204-F-MF020-364.JPG Example 2: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQX_1uO96vaISUv-cOKDG1CV1UJLaTcSvAqZ5ZtlOrqNAVUaVM5 and lastly Example 3 (aircraft carrier): http://media.techeblog.com/images/jet-landing-on-aircraft-carrier-night.jpg inversely, when you are taxiing at night and another jet taxiis behind you with a landing light it lights up the cockpit extremely brightly, with no shadows and no collision caused by the walls or frame or seat in the cockpit. Which essentaily means that at night, a cockpit is either EXTREMELY bright from an outside source or extremely dark while under an outside source with no in-between. Couple that with bad storm lighting (often a blue hue in DCS regardless of the hour) and some other lighting artifacts and what you get is a pretty poor overall night flight experience. I have faith DCS will eventually have great lighting (not just night) but I think in order for that to happen it needs to be brought up in the first place.

+1 Night lighting and lighting in general need to be improved 100%. The picture from your post shows exactly what I mean. If you look at pictures of Vegas at night compared to DCS Vegas at night its completely different. Night lights tend to have more of an orange hue (at least in the US) and so far in the sim community nobody does night light lighting better than Xplane. Here's a cool comparison of Vegas in DCS: https://www.helisimmer.com/wp-content-protected/uploads/2016/05/dcs-nevada-desert-night-2.jpg vs IRL: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OMw7Yx1Wl1k/maxresdefault.jpg

:huh: Yup haha, thats exactly what I'm talking about. BMS did the same thing pretty much. You can load up single player and see a briefing menu where you could set up your loadout, set waypoints and plan your mission based on known threat positions, set frequencies and so on. Not to mention if you did multiplayer you could do all that while discussing it with your "squadmates" or wingmen or whatver. And as you said, many of the functionalities are there, startup data is modified in LUA IIRC, custom kneeboards can be accepted, mission editor and in-game allow you to view maps with threat information and so on. The trick is to get everything tied together and working within one easy to use "page" or "menu" or whatever prior to hopping in and flying a jet. Hell, maybe when you finish getting briefed you "walk out" (spawn outside) of a building and get driven to your plane! ED and HB mentioned carrier interiors too, I suppose the carrier alternative would be walking out of the readyroom and going upstairs to the jet, they're gonna model it anyway so why not? Hahah, nah maybe that's just pushin it lol.

Oh yeah, forgot about ortho. Yeah using something like satellite images + procedural generation to make and run the map would be a damn good idea for something like this! Very interesting.

+10000 I would LOVE to have something like a UFO/UAP in the sim.

I'm not here to "make friends". People that respond with off-topic stuff or reply to the title rather than the actual post aren't going to be greeted with some cake and a pat on the back... The only one "judging" here is you. You come in, skim through my post and try to teach me English like I was born 14 minutes ago and use an ellipses while doing so to imply it's a derogatory remark. Then have the nerve to come back and tell me I have an attitude problem. So please, tell me oh wise one. What have I said that is 'judgemental'? Did I ever tell Jimmy over there that his pants are on too tight? Or Bob that his head's shaped weird? Nope, I did no such thing, but I can tell you who did... Anyway, those that have provided fair points have been left alone or responded to, those that have replied to the title have been met with a fair response and a secondary or tertiary explanation followed by an implication that the next readers/responders shouldn't reply based on purely the title. I'm simply responding to belligerence with semi-belligerence. If you use an ellipses in a manner that can be construed as derogatory, I will respond at that level. If you respond based on reading nothing but the title and giving 20% effort and/or adding a sarcastic connotation, I'll give a response and make sure I address that sarcastic/derogatory implication with the same treatment somewhere within my response.

Cool...? 1. Not everyone is in a squadron 2. That's not really gonna work for SP 3. That's not really gonna work for joining a random MP server 4. Discord doesn't let you load waypoints, freqs and other data onto data cartridges 5. Discord doesn't let you make custom kneeboards 6. The last thing people want is to do is have 4 programs running just to have a semi-smooth experience in DCS (this is why stuff like in-game comms are being worked on and in game dynamic campaign).. I could go on, but it's clear that you didn't read the post just like the other guy and decided to respond to the title instead...

I don't think you understand just how short a true dynamic campaign would be in a map the size of PG or Black Sea. As another user mentioned, placement for many units is already tight and unrealistic, having refueling aircraft and AWACS congested into a small map with a dynamic campaign going on would be a real mess and even moreso when you begin to factor in longer range SAM's that take up damn near the whole map. A larger map would offer larger variety of threats, more ambiguity when it comes to the location of those threats, increased sensation of weariness and loneliness when away from friendlies en-route to a strike (like IRL), realistic fog of war, different ROE's (think going from a civil air traffic system to a warzone) and others. It's not just about having empty space to do nonsense, it has a clear application. The 400x400 box we have is simply not enough to house an ultra-accurate depiction of a 3rd or 4th gen combat environment (esp w/ dynamic campaign). It's not for everybody, hence why I mentioned that this would be an alternative style terrain to what is normally given. Did you even read what I had to say or did you just comment based on the title?

You wouldn't have to give anything up. I stated multiple times in this thread/in the post, the idea is that this "Tactical" terrain series would be released separately and marketed separately from the traditional style of map and would not replace it. If you don't want that sort of experience, stick to purchasing the smaller, more detailed version (IE the type of maps we have now). Hope that makes sense. :thumbup:

Don't be such a party pooper

Hmmm. I hope so. But they have so much on their plate now idk if they would ever get to it. First thing that comes to mind is completion of the AV-8B NA

Well... Good :thumbup: Its something people agree on and make heard (as they should, its a wishlist). It'll stop when a UH-60 (pref. UH-60L) gets announced. Hopefully this activity and strong vocal desire from the community reaches BST/ED

+1 for UH-60L

Yeah, I started one November 2017 as well. The more people asking and talking about the UH-60 the better. Making a post about it gets the UH-60 supporters out of the woodwork and talking about it more often than not. Thus showing a good level of interest in said hypothetical product. So I figured wth and gave it a shot. Thx though.