Blue Water Ops?

[BlackLion213]

I had a thought and was curious what the rest of you think.

 

One of the cool things about the USN is that CV/CVN cruises will range all over the world and crews may operate in several different locales within just a month or two.

 

DCS has several new maps on the way. I am really excited about the Straight of Hormuz map (the biggest USN surface action since WWII happened there in 1988) and it offers a huge range of possible combat scenarios across the two planned eras for the Tomcat. Plus, ED is yet to formally announce the theater for the Hornet, except that they are working on it and it seems separate from the Strait of Hormuz. Here is a link where Jalopnik states that the Hornet will include a Persian Gulf map - perhaps an extension of the Strait map?

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/dcs-world-is-about-to-become-the-air-combat-sim-of-my-d-1685125094

 

Of course, the Tomcat will have an ocean map in a yet to be disclosed location. :D

 

However, all that said, what are your thoughts on a Blue water map - a large map that is simply ocean. The benefit is that it could represent any portion of the globe assuming it is out of the range of land (amusing trivia - the scene in Hunt for Red October on USS Enterprise where the "water is too cold to eject" was filmed off San Diego in June - they call it June gloom for a reason;) ). So the same area of ocean could probably represent any part of the world by varying the weather (hopefully EDGE will allow for some variation in wave height, etc - would be fine without it but is a nice touch).

 

It would also augment existing campaigns by expanding the range of scenarios. For example, most carriers that visited the Persian Gulf or Strait of Hormuz would periodically leave the mission area and conduct blue water ops in the Arabian sea. Things would still happen - the Soviets usually started tailing CVBGs once they were ~500 nm out of port and would not intentionally leave them until they reached another port.

 

Such a map would allow for several different locales during a campaign (primary operations in the GIUK with the carrier heading south to the open Atlantic to intercept a Soviet surface group or primary Bering Sea operations intercepting Soviet aircraft with a part of the cruise also occurring in the Indian ocean intercepting Indian AF aircraft or dealing with a maritime disaster).

 

The utility of the map is much less than any of the other maps pending, but it must be much simpler to develop (no real terrain, buildings, air bases, ATC). Also, it is truly a "blank canvas" for any open ocean naval operations of any scope or variety.

 

Anyway, thought I'd put it out there - it will be great to have more options for operating the Tomcat (and Hornet).

 

-Nick

Edited June 21, 2015 by BlackLion213

[CheckGear]

I honestly can't say I'd be real excited about it. I know where you're coming from, but the whole point of the carrier is to put bombs on target. So even in a map where there is a significant amount of deep blue ocean, it would get awfully boring real quick.

 

If an blue-water map is to be developed, I want to see the North Pacific Ocean. That region fits the description of "blue water" perfectly. Plus, as I've mentioned time and again, it was a strategically crucial area of U.S. naval planning during the Cold War.

[BlackLion213]

If an blue-water map is to be developed, I want to see the North Pacific Ocean. That region fits the description of "blue water" perfectly. Plus, as I've mentioned time and again, it was a strategically crucial area of U.S. naval planning during the Cold War.

 

I'm still hoping the LNS Tomcat map is the Northern Pacific. It is both highly relevant to the F-14 and probably more technically feasible to create than GIUK IMHO.

 

This Blue Water map would not be an alternative to other maps and I wouldn't expect a Blue Water map to be an area of primary interest (there is not that much to do). The real question is: would it be helpful augmenting other coastal maps and expanding the type and number of missions available within a campaign.

 

For example, lets say that LNS decides on GUIK for their cold, oceany map. If there were a blue water map you could still create a few NorPac scenarios, whether it is fleet operations, intercepting Bears/IL-38s, or dealing with the Soviet Navy.

 

It is more helpful/useful for the F-14A since the USN was still planning for serious open water combat against the Soviet Navy.

 

My overall thought is that a Blue Water map would only require a fraction of the effort associated with DCS maps, but would still add real substance to F-14 campaigns and mission sets.

 

-Nick

Edited June 21, 2015 by BlackLion213

[WildBillKelsoe]

Not a bad idea. I like it. Just one question though:

How will newbs be taking off and landing in the blue water scene with violent decks awash?

[BlackLion213]

Not a bad idea. I like it. Just one question though:

How will newbs be taking off and landing in the blue water scene with violent decks awash?

 

Best to practice a bit first. ;)

 

Of course, blue water doesn't necessarily mean big seas and bad weather. :thumbup:

 

-Nick

[captain_dalan]

I like it too. It would only work for navy on navy (unless SP), but i'm fine with that :)

[Cobra847]

We've thought about this. It's a possibility; but our first theatre will include significant chunks of land.

[BlackLion213]

We've thought about this. It's a possibility; but our first theatre will include significant chunks of land.

 

I'm glad its on the radar, could be helpful for some situations.

 

Really looking forward to the map that "will include significant chunks of land."

 

Thanks,

 

Nick

[WildBillKelsoe]

I hope this does not turn DCS into a strategic warfare into the subscale of individual units.

[VIKBELL]

I suggested this to Wags a year ago some thing in a 1200 mile by 1200.

[Aginor]

I like the idea.

Or perhaps a not completely blue map, like Midway, Wake, South Georgia (the island), Diego Garcia or something like that. Lots of water, little island, not that hard to build.

In fact I had planned to build such a map myself, as soon as the terrain tools would be released. It's a pity they won't be released now. :(

Edited June 22, 2015 by Aginor

[CheckGear]

This is what I would like to see, if anyone ends up making a blue-water map:

 

 

This area is as blue-water as it gets. You have the Kamchatka Peninsula, which had a crucial air/naval facility at Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. You also have the Sea of Okhotsk, which was the central component of the Soviet Navy's bastion strategy in the Pacific (and still is, to this day). Then you have the Kuril Islands to the west, another potential hotspot, and the deadly Bering Sea to the northeast. Then you have the North Pacific, which contains some very, very deep blue waters.

 

To me, this map is as blue-water as it gets. There are next to no U.S.-controlled bases in range and the water is very cold and unforgiving. Plus you have the lion's den of the Soviet Union/Russia. A very challenging theater, indeed.

 

The other option is:

 

 

In my mind, this would be more of training/sightseeing map. You have Hawaii, very beautiful to look at, but then you have the Midway Islands to the north, which are routinely used by the Navy for training. I can see simulated strikes being conducted against the island as part of a carrier group's WESTPAC deployment activities.

[SUBS17]

They could go for a global map if they wanted eventually as EDGE could support such a map.

[Frisco1522]

They could go for a global map if they wanted eventually as EDGE could support such a map.

Don't play with my mind. :bomb:

[BlackLion213]

I like the idea.

Or perhaps a not completely blue map, like Midway, Wake, South Georgia (the island), Diego Garcia or something like that. Lots of water, little island, not that hard to build.

In fact I had planned to build such a map myself, as soon as the terrain tools would be released. It's a pity they won't be released now. :(

 

I would also prefer some land or island in the maps, it expands the options for use. However, the purpose the map is to be flexible and allow you to simulate several different parts of the world. With how DCS is precisely replicating locales, its hard to use a map to replicate multiple parts of the world because the maps are so detailed.

 

It was easier in these days:

 

 

The idea is to create a simple map, low effort for the developers. Even a single island with an air base makes the project much bigger. But it does give me an idea for an alternative.

 

A developer could create a set of "blue water" maps that involves a small amount of land, examples such as:

 

1. Indian ocean with Diego Garcia (and the airbase of course)

2. Indian ocean with a small part of the Indian subcontinent (again, really small land area).

3. Pacific Ocean with just Midway

4. South Atlantic with the island of South Georgia

5. Mediterranean with a sliver of Libyan coast line and maybe one airbase

 

The total land area would be really small, but it is still a lot more work. Still, less than all the other maps that are on the table.

 

Is it better to spend ~$40 on a 5-pack of ocean maps that have a few small islands or a small coast line to improve the usability? Or ~$10 on a blue water map that could represent anything, but has no land?

 

I would be interested in both and would buy whatever is available. I think that maps are the biggest benefit of DCS2 and what will allow it to really hit it's potential.

 

-Nick

[BlackLion213]

This is what I would like to see, if anyone ends up making a blue-water map:

 

 

This area is as blue-water as it gets. You have the Kamchatka Peninsula, which had a crucial air/naval facility at Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. You also have the Sea of Okhotsk, which was the central component of the Soviet Navy's bastion strategy in the Pacific (and still is, to this day). Then you have the Kuril Islands to the west, another potential hotspot, and the deadly Bering Sea to the northeast. Then you have the North Pacific, which contains some very, very deep blue waters.

 

This is the map that I want (or smaller if necessary for practical reasons).

 

I would also love the Hawaiian islands, but it's a big project since they are heavily populated. It is a really pretty part of the world.

 

If LNS does create a F4U-1/VMF-214 module with a map, one of the best part will be enjoying the South Pacific views. That part of the world was absolutely hellish to fight in, made the ETO look like a hotel. But the pacific is wonderful to look at.

 

-Nick

[CheckGear]

 

Ah, GraphSim's F/A-18 Hornet series! Very underrated bunch of games.

 

This is the map that I want (or smaller if necessary for practical reasons).

 

I would also love the Hawaiian islands, but it's a big project since they are heavily populated. It is a really pretty part of the world.

 

If LNS does create a F4U-1/VMF-214 module with a map, one of the best part will be enjoying the South Pacific views. That part of the world was absolutely hellish to fight in, made the ETO look like a hotel. But the pacific is wonderful to look at.

 

-Nick

 

Yeah, Hawaii would be a challenge to do. At the same time, I was always impressed at the level of detail the Microsoft Flight Simulator was able to put into nearly every single one of its flying worlds. I always thought DCS could achieve that.

[BlackLion213]

Ah, GraphSim's F/A-18 Hornet series! Very underrated bunch of games.

 

 

 

Yeah, Hawaii would be a challenge to do. At the same time, I was always impressed at the level of detail the Microsoft Flight Simulator was able to put into nearly every single one of its flying worlds. I always thought DCS could achieve that.

 

Yes, the Hornet series was one of my first flight sims, after Chuck Yeager's Air Combat (CYAC). We now have several aircraft from CYAC - the P-51, FW190 (A series in CYAC), F-86, MiG-15, and MiG-21. The only one missing is the F-4.

 

The Microsoft series does have an extensive scenery library, but it definitely uses different techniques (I know nothing about this tech).

 

I played P3D to fly the F-14A tonight and also flew the MiG-21, both at sunset. Both have pros and cons, but I still think that current DCS has more realistic scenery than P3D (Lockheed Martin's follow-on the FSX). The colors are more realistic in DCS and the scenery feels more permanent. P3D uses a lot of autogen, the scenery morphs as you fly, as though it is solidifying, and buildings pop-up and are rather generic. P3D does capture most of the essential and defining features, but the small buildings and surface details are definitely less than DCS.

 

My computer sits in our living room and can be seen clearly from our couch. The first thing that my wife commented on after I started with DCS was how much better the scenery seemed compared to P3D - the colors were better and the low altitude detail seemed better to her too.

 

Of course, P3D have a ton of upgrades available that I don't have. Perhaps with those upgrades it would leave DCS behind.

 

In any case, we need more maps! I think that it will come once ED and the serious 3rd party developers settle into the tech. They will probably develop tools that will allow then to use things like satellite data to create maps more quickly.

 

As long as they keep working on it, things will keep getting better. DCS feels a bit young to me in the moment, with DCS2 it will finally leave it's adolescence and start to really come together. P3D and FSX have been slowly evolving for a long time.

 

-Nick

[Aginor]

Ehmm... CheckGear, that first map is too big. Like in MUCH too big. There's even a big part of Japan on it. That's crazy difficult to model.

 

The Hawaii map is better, but Hawaii is still quite complex to model and it is, as said before, populated which makes it much harder to model.

Also it is huge. we are talking about over 16,000 square kilometers there.

 

A reasonable rule for a map that contains mostly water could be: a rectangle or square, maximum dimensions 1200km x 1200km, with not more than 4000 square kilometers of land. And that only if it isn't populated and or doesn't have much vegetation, because that is hard to model well, too. (like my South Georgia example. That island is quite large but mostly barren rocks and ice)

More fitting would be some really small islands, because those are rather easy to model. Aim for islands with not more than, say, 100 square kilometers of area. That's why I listed Wake, Midway, and Diego Garcia. All of those are very small. A part-time DCS modder could do those.

[captain_dalan]

This just came to my mind....... are the maps in DCS (or in any sim) actually geodesic? Do they follow a curvature or are they flat out...well.... flat? I was flying a blue sea map, doing a CAP at 30000ft, would i look over the horizon (with a radar) when compared to SL or 5000ft?

[Silver_Dragon]

on DCS: W 1.X no. On DCS: W 2 unknown (planned feature, but no confirmed release on initial).

[Aginor]

I may be wrong, but during the live stream it looked like NTTR is on a curved earth.

[CheckGear]

Yes, the Hornet series was one of my first flight sims, after Chuck Yeager's Air Combat (CYAC). We now have several aircraft from CYAC - the P-51, FW190 (A series in CYAC), F-86, MiG-15, and MiG-21. The only one missing is the F-4.

 

The Microsoft series does have an extensive scenery library, but it definitely uses different techniques (I know nothing about this tech).

 

I played P3D to fly the F-14A tonight and also flew the MiG-21, both at sunset. Both have pros and cons, but I still think that current DCS has more realistic scenery than P3D (Lockheed Martin's follow-on the FSX). The colors are more realistic in DCS and the scenery feels more permanent. P3D uses a lot of autogen, the scenery morphs as you fly, as though it is solidifying, and buildings pop-up and are rather generic. P3D does capture most of the essential and defining features, but the small buildings and surface details are definitely less than DCS.

 

My computer sits in our living room and can be seen clearly from our couch. The first thing that my wife commented on after I started with DCS was how much better the scenery seemed compared to P3D - the colors were better and the low altitude detail seemed better to her too.

 

Of course, P3D have a ton of upgrades available that I don't have. Perhaps with those upgrades it would leave DCS behind.

 

In any case, we need more maps! I think that it will come once ED and the serious 3rd party developers settle into the tech. They will probably develop tools that will allow then to use things like satellite data to create maps more quickly.

 

As long as they keep working on it, things will keep getting better. DCS feels a bit young to me in the moment, with DCS2 it will finally leave it's adolescence and start to really come together. P3D and FSX have been slowly evolving for a long time.

 

-Nick

 

Very true. I'm not a fan of auto-gen; I like how LOMAC and DCS painstakingly recreated the actual scenery and geography of their maps. Auto-gen wouldn't work well in a combat flight simulator, either, since everything needs to be destructible and stay destroyed! :pilotfly:

[CheckGear]

Ehmm... CheckGear, that first map is too big. Like in MUCH too big. There's even a big part of Japan on it. That's crazy difficult to model.

 

The Hawaii map is better, but Hawaii is still quite complex to model and it is, as said before, populated which makes it much harder to model.

Also it is huge. we are talking about over 16,000 square kilometers there.

 

A reasonable rule for a map that contains mostly water could be: a rectangle or square, maximum dimensions 1200km x 1200km, with not more than 4000 square kilometers of land. And that only if it isn't populated and or doesn't have much vegetation, because that is hard to model well, too. (like my South Georgia example. That island is quite large but mostly barren rocks and ice)

More fitting would be some really small islands, because those are rather easy to model. Aim for islands with not more than, say, 100 square kilometers of area. That's why I listed Wake, Midway, and Diego Garcia. All of those are very small. A part-time DCS modder could do those.

 

That first map was more of a generalized suggestion. Both of my suggestions, in its entirety, eclipse anything that has ever been done in a combat flight simulator.

 

Of your suggestions, I would prefer Midway, but, unless you're making a World War II in the Pacific mod, it would essentially be like NTTR; a training area.

[SUBS17]

Don't play with my mind. :bomb:

 

Its possible that they could start with one area for a campaign and more areas could be added later. It would make DCS on the same sort of level as FSX in flexibility as for its use in flight sims if one day DCS ever covered the planet. FO was supposed to do the whole planet and that was based on x-planes terrain so it is possible.:thumbup: