New DCS maps guess

[Revelation]

40 mins is 250-300 NM in most aircraft, altitude dependant of course. You wouldn't want to park a carrier much closer than 100NM from hostile shores, especially if they have aircraft/land based anti ship missiles etc.

 

And that makes sense. Even thinking about the current Georgia map, you'd realistically park the Carrirer Group off the tip of Crimea and the pilots would fly into Georgia to conduct strikes.

 

There's a lot of the current map that is never used....

[BeachAV8R]

 

Biggest roadblock - will Canada allow overflight through their airspace from the carrier?

 

BeachAV8R

[NineLine]

detroit1.jpg

 

Biggest roadblock - will Canada allow overflight through their airspace from the carrier?

 

BeachAV8R

 

Hmmm, Detroit would be too dangerous to send F/A-18s into :P

[SkateZilla]

while we're at it, add florida keys, cuba, and atlantic ocean :)

[Raven Morpheus]

I'd love to see a south east asia map, if only for the UH-1H...

[NRG-Vampire]

while we're at it, add florida keys, cuba, and atlantic ocean :)

 

as i see the most likely scenery will be: Korea

both for the 50's (F-86, MiG-15, F-51, La-9) and for a fictional/future conflict

 

otherwise we will able to put an aircraft carrier to lake Mead :D

[sorcer3r]

Not just the 3d geometry of the map,

But the supplemental layers that go with it:

Defining roads, rivers/bodies of water for AI objects,

Building Each Airfield, Defining Runways/Taxi-Ways/Roads, Setting up their transmitters/receivers for navigation and communications.

Building scenery objects to be placed on the terrain,

 

I can go on and on.....

 

Take's A LOT of time/work.

 

Sometimes less is more. I have no problems with less detail in fast mover campaigns. IMO the immersion and the whole sim / mission experience in a large theater can not be surpassed by a small more detailed map.

[cichlidfan]

Sometimes less is more. I have no problems with less detail in fast mover campaigns. IMO the immersion and the whole sim / mission experience in a large theater can not be surpassed by a small more detailed map.

 

That would be fine, perhaps, if all of the available aircraft were fast jets. However, they aren't and @100 knots in a helo, the detail matters.

[RNeves]

Not just the 3d geometry of the map,

But the supplemental layers that go with it:

Defining roads, rivers/bodies of water for AI objects,

Building Each Airfield, Defining Runways/Taxi-Ways/Roads, Setting up their transmitters/receivers for navigation and communications.

Building scenery objects to be placed on the terrain,

 

I can go on and on.....

 

Take's A LOT of time/work.

 

If the map is from some place where most of the terrain is desert, you won't need much detail on these zones.... So, the map detail can be reduced to increase its size, the same with water....

So i thing the most important question is "where is it?"...

And then we'll see its size...

:smilewink:

[Exorcet]

That would be fine, perhaps, if all of the available aircraft were fast jets. However, they aren't and @100 knots in a helo, the detail matters.

I honestly don't mind flying the Ka-50 over the current map. My biggest complaint would be repetitive buildings.

 

I think map size is a bit underrated in importance, but at the same time people have different preferences. Everyone benefits from a large map though. The jets get room to use their full potential, and you also get more diversity no matter what you fly. For a helicopter campaign for example, you'd be able to simulate the moving front lines of the war with time if you have enough space. You can probably do that with the current map when it comes to choppers, but it doesn't really work for fighters. Also, Deep Strike is kind of non existent. The current map is such that it doesn't really allow you to go too deeply in any direction except maybe east/west, but half of the map is very thing from north to south.

 

My solution to the whole map issue would be releasing a blank globe and projecting maps onto that. The globe would have airports and possibly water, but nothing else. However users would be able to place airports, cities, etc. Hypothetically, you could simulate whatever you wanted based on your needs.

 

Not just the 3d geometry of the map,

But the supplemental layers that go with it:

Defining roads, rivers/bodies of water for AI objects,

Building Each Airfield, Defining Runways/Taxi-Ways/Roads, Setting up their transmitters/receivers for navigation and communications.

Building scenery objects to be placed on the terrain,

 

I can go on and on.....

 

Take's A LOT of time/work.

 

I would very much accept a map that 70+% water (well, that's the whole Earth). I think we really need at least one big map. If the problem is detail, I'm OK with reducing detail or going step by step, which ED has alluded to. If ED or whoever does not want to reduce detail, then pick an easy map. With F-18 and carriers, water becomes a very useable thing. You can take a map of the current size and model and area with an ocean coast and suddenly you have a map 5 times as big for free.

 

Also, speaking of EDGE's and F-15's I very often do find myself hitting the limits of the map on missions. You can make missions fully within the confines of the map or a specific area, but if you restrict yourself to that you give up a bit of variety.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Exorcet

[Robin_Hood]

Also, speaking of EDGE's and F-15's I very often do find myself hitting the limits of the map on missions. You can make missions fully within the confines of the map or a specific area, but if you restrict yourself to that you give up a bit of variety.

 

I agree, and there are some airports very close from the edge of the map. If you takeokk from Mineralne Vody or Krmysk (to take two examples far apart), for example, take care not to fly North or you soon be out of the map.

[SDsc0rch]

i laid down a tanker track 100nm long - basically takes the fighters right into injun country!

 

there's really not much need for tankers with the current map size

 

so yeah.. bigger maps please

: )

[The_Pharoah]

Definitely need a persian gulf map. Thats where most of the action is unfortunately.

[BeachAV8R]

I agree, and there are some airports very close from the edge of the map. If you takeokk from Mineralne Vody or Krmysk (to take two examples far apart), for example, take care not to fly North or you soon be out of the map.

Isn't it true, however, that no matter what the size of the map, you will always have airfields that are close to the boundaries?

 

BeachAV8R

[Cedaway]

Coasts of somalia,

You can strike land targets and hunt pirates. But on the counter part, you would have no air resistance.

 

Korea,

Kim jong is going fubar and I let you imagine the escalation... (à la Falcon 4...)

 

Syria/Irak,

the IS/ISIS has empowered during the time and has a little army at disposal... that must be wiped.

 

A USSR/Europa theater (back in the cold war)

Carrier ops from the baltic sea or from the white sea...

 

Taiwan vs China.

 

So many possibilities...

[Agg]

Hmmm, Detroit would be too dangerous to send F/A-18s into :P

You'll end up seeing them on "Hardcore Pawn" being sold for nickles and dimes ;)

 

Seriously though, I think the new map will probably be an island and a lot of water...

[JackDant]

Since Wags already said the Nevada map (which is 360x360km, or 130,000 km2) has different resolutions in different spots, we know the minimum of what's possible for ED and EDGE. I would also assume adding more ocean would be essentially "free" in performance and development time.

 

So, for example, the whole of North Korea is just 120,000 km2, leaving some room in a map for the South, and parts of China and Russia, along with a lot of sea area (this is my bet, especially because it's a map with Russia on it).

 

Or, for another example, Israel is just some 27,000 km2, and Lebanon 10,000 km2. Put in maybe another 30,000 each of Syria, Jordan and Egypt, and a lot of Mediterranean, and you have a decent map. Hopefully, you could make low-res desert similar to water and extend the map east. Especially because the non-desert areas of Iraq are not that big.

[Phantom453]

 

I'd like to see this one, probably the southern box if we had to choose, but the whole lot would be nice.

 

Its a sad fact of history that this region gives us almost constant real world scenarios from 1948 through to a few weeks ago, from both an air and land perspective, with limited naval options available too, not to mention the much broader scope if we go hypothetical as well.

 

We could weave scenarios for pretty much every current and future DCS (and partner) aircraft into this area at one time or another. Significant desert/ arid and more sparsely populated areas will help reduce map detail & complexity, hopefully allowing for a larger map to be developed.

[Suchacz]

Once upon a time in the early days of DCS World...

 

In one of the first versions of dcsw there was a commented line in \TheatresOfWar\aliases.cfg:

--Myanmar = "U:/MYANMAR/TerrainMyanmar/terrain.cfg.lua"

 

so there u go

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

^^interesting, never heard of that before.would be a really interesting map!

[REDEYE_CVW-66]

Wagz said something about how the Sabra/Mig 17 maps would really come to its own with upcoming maps...

 

Maybe it is indeed korea...

[Pilotasso]

Cyprus and middle east was discussed in forums years ago. Even if they changed plans my bet is somewhere in the Mediterranean.

[tomcatter]

Maybe with the NTTR map coming soon we can say that we already have a hometown base, I know it is not a NAS, but it is a really good base to do certification/training for every type of aircraft.

Then we can train tactics, DACT, procedures, etc in Red Flag type exercises on that base. And this is valid for jets, choppers and land units(CA).

 

With that, maybe we don´t need a very big map, just two or three, we have the Georgia one already and is a good example, deployment maps with a typical combat radius size and a big part of sea for the Hornet and a friendly land base for the rest.

 

In this way we can simulate all the phases of a pilot´s combat life quiet well and save some work and time, maybe, with the development of bigger maps.

 

Ex Yugoslavia and the Persian Gulf will be perfect for me with this idea on mind. No Fly Zones with some air to air combat and lots of ground attacks/SEAD missions and MEDEVAC/CAS for the choppers.

 

Obviously this is a valid approach for the modern western aviation.

 

The only thing I will miss is the ferry flight from Nellis to the carrier with the Hornet.

Edited September 7, 2014 by tomcatter

[Vespa]

Would be great to get some tools and the possibility to build other terrain areas

[Abburo]

 

 

DCS: Fishing