TFC/DCS OCT 28th Newsletter

[Psyrixx]

you are a tester, so does you first image show the actual in-sim map ? (if yes, that's nice) :D

 

The first image I posted is from Wags' post in the Official Updates section, and based on the current mission editor layout it looks like the light blue "border" of the map is simply covering up the "editor tools" portions of the screen while the map is fully zoomed out in the editor itself.

 

And he states as much in his post (that it is a screenshot from the mission editor).

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2216669&postcount=2

 

We often get the question of how big the NTTR map is and the area covered. We hope this image from the mission editor will help.

 

So, yes, I would assume this is the actual in-sim map.

 

:pilotfly:

[Psyrixx]

Again, the map was picked for Red Flag type training missions (not to mention its EDs first go at new maps so 3 airfields and such is perfect for getting the hang of building new maps), Hormuz will be the first full combat map.

 

Also, I believe in a previous post somewhere they said they were starting with 3 airfields but the possibility existed to add more from there in the future. I don't have a link, so it's speculation at this point.

 

And there's always this:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2045930&postcount=16

 

;)

[NineLine]

Red Flag would be great to have on here. Along with what Beach said, hopefully there will be some other airfields pop up. Especially Edwards, It would look great on this map.

 

I hope that upgrades to the maps will be able to be done in the future, airports added, etc, but its unknown right now if that will be feasible...

[Aeons]

so going by the newsletter it really sounded like ED wanted to release DCS 2.0 in November along with all the new modules.

 

either that or the fact the newsletter isn't oxford english grammar :smartass:

[upupandaway]

And there's always this:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2045930&postcount=16

 

;)

 

As long as the actual "NAS-cars" will be added, I´ll gladly take it. :D

[NRG-Vampire]

The first image I posted is from Wags' post in the Official Updates section, and based on the current mission editor layout it looks like the light blue "border" of the map is simply covering up the "editor tools" portions of the screen while the map is fully zoomed out in the editor itself.

 

And he states as much in his post (that it is a screenshot from the mission editor).

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2216669&postcount=2

 

 

 

So, yes, I would assume this is the actual in-sim map.

 

:pilotfly:

 

 

great, so the white parts on the left side of the map is the Sierra Nevada ? fine !

then i hope we will see the Mt Whitney as well

[Wolf Rider]

That is a bit of wasted potential, since all those 3 bases so close to each other makes red vs blue multiplayer very tricky - this way it is going to be mostly limited to training, as you said.

~

 

Dunno... they seem to have been doing just fine with it for a while now

 

 

http://www.nellis.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=19160

 

 

?

[Psyrixx]

great, so the white parts on the left side of the map is the Sierra Nevada ? fine !

then i hope we will see the Mt Whitney as well

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2216769&postcount=153

 

Looks like they are indeed the southernmost peaks of the Sierra Nevada mountain range.

 

:joystick:

:pilotfly:

[Viersbovsky]

Dunno... they seem to have been doing just fine with it for a while now

 

 

http://www.nellis.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=19160

 

 

?

 

I mean regular multiplayer where each side has their own airbase(s). They are now pretty close, so if one side has Groom Lake and the other has Nellis then most of the action will take place above Creech - you would have to first divert the planes a bit outside to get to use some other parts of the map. This will work for organised squads with specified rules of engagement, but will be problematic for weekend flyers like me.

 

Otherwise, the potential for training and sightseeing is endless.

[Archer7]

I've been anticipating 2.0 in November ever since we first started hearing several modules coming then. It seems they've attempted to co-ordinate everything but it may not work out.

Should be a good winter and new year for DCS though.

[NRG-Vampire]

They are now pretty close...

 

hopefully modders will be able to add some more airfields/airstrips on the corners of the map

[Buckeye]

TFC/DCS OCT 28th Newsletter

 

Really curious to see if this map proves to have any real value or not. My excitement went from 9 to 1 when I realized that there isn't much relevance in the map for MP combat (yes I realize it was designed with training in mind). Seems like with three clustered airfields and the infrequency of coordinated multiplayer Red Flag type missions (difficult to schedule and put together consistently), there isn't going to be much playability or replayability for me with NTTR.

 

When Red Flag events pop up I am sure they will be a blast, but those will very likely be few and far between.

[blkspade]

Dunno... they seem to have been doing just fine with it for a while now

 

 

http://www.nellis.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=19160

 

 

?

 

See the problem with that is the concept of "Red Flag" only makes sense in real life, where I hear there are no respawns IRL. There are a set of rules and conditions to setup their simulated combat/training scenarios. Something ultimately redundant in a consumer level combat simulator. Other than having some new dirt to look at, Nevada is not particularly functional in the common multi-player server environment.

[SilentGun]

I wish it covered Utah... Hill afb and salt lake international...

[Pepec9124]

When we had the beta A-10 Nevada it's the only terrain I flew. It's a great part of the world for combat missions.

 

It worked in 1.2.6 last time I tried. It may still work.

[Fakum]

Who told you that engine coders are working on modules ? Quote from dev or tester please.

Cool update.

No one told me engine coders were working on modules. My point is, if your running a production then you staff as required, if your priority is widget A and your not meeting your target date, and you wish to, why would you then ramp up a new production line for a totally separate widget B, completely irrelevant to the production of widget A when that is not your top priority, why would you not add more resources to finish widget A 1st, then move onto widget B?

Just a point, thats all,,, we all have one dont we,,,

[NineLine]

No one told me engine coders were working on modules. My point is, if your running a production then you staff as required, if your priority is widget A and your not meeting your target date, and you wish to, why would you then ramp up a new production line for a totally separate widget B, completely irrelevant to the production of widget A when that is not your top priority, why would you not add more resources to finish widget A 1st, then move onto widget B?

Just a point, thats all,,, we all have one dont we,,,

 

Because some people might not be qualified for different aspects of the sim...

[Snoopy]

I wish it covered Utah... Hill afb and salt lake international...

 

I'll be at Hill all next week.

[SilentGun]

I'll be at Hill all next week.

 

 

Don't forget to stop by the Krispy Kreme in Layton, the one of two in Utah...

[NineLine]

Post updated:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2216669&postcount=2

 

Addressing the level of detail so people dont get too excited about the stuff farther out near the edges.

[sobek]

No one told me engine coders were working on modules. My point is, if your running a production then you staff as required, if your priority is widget A and your not meeting your target date, and you wish to, why would you then ramp up a new production line for a totally separate widget B, completely irrelevant to the production of widget A when that is not your top priority, why would you not add more resources to finish widget A 1st, then move onto widget B?

 

Because "production line B" might hold experience not found in any run off the mill coder, so you'd rather try to make him earn his pay instead of giving him the boot.

 

Also because production line B pays for production line A and production line A in itself is not going to recoup the investment made on it.

 

The two are only irrelevant with regard to each other insofar as you don't seeing the bigger picture.

Edited October 30, 2014 by sobek

[SkateZilla]

Scanning the recent comments about distance between bases and stuff.

 

There's obviously 2 genres of pilots.

The "Weekend" Pilots and the "Die hard".

 

So there's two options here.

A. Set waypoints to achieve distance between Simulated Red/Blue flights.

B. Air start the Red/Blue forces on opposite sides of the map.

 

Option A will be for virtual squads and such that like to do stuff realistically.

(take off waypoints etc)

 

Option B will be for the guys that simply want an Arena style setup.

(Spawn, fly, fight)

Edited October 30, 2014 by SkateZilla

[NineLine]

I was really concerned about tesselation. It seems its an issue, but I understand...work in progress, right?

 

I dont know what you are referencing, sorry... in what he updated has that caused you concern?

[Aeons]

tesselation

 

love that word:megalol:

[joey45]

I was really concerned about tesselation. It seems its an issue, but I understand...work in progress, right?

 

Some shots are in the Terrain Viewer and some are ingame...