DCS: Iwo Jima Map

[kontiuka]

i hope to see more crashing waves, like a flex of the weather engine... i see too many dcs world videos with clear skies lol..

That would be in EDs scope, not LN.

[NineLine]

That would be in EDs scope, not LN.

 

Actually based on how the map tools develop, I would expect the 3rd Party teams that are involved in map making to push the tools even farther, so maybe not so much out of their scope :)

[Hiromachi]

Well, I hope that LN have made the decision to go all the way with creating a dedicated PTO theater. It's much less resource intensive than ETO and the planeset required to recreate historical scenarios is not extensive.

 

Early war battles only need 4-5 aircraft to become a reality : F4F, SBD, A6M2 and D3A - B5N. With these aircraft you can do Midway, Coral Sea, Aleutians, Solomons, etc. If you add an F6F and A6M5 or Ki-43 you can recreate most late war battles.

 

Good times ahead.

 

Actually no, its a lot more than this. For an early war that would be also Tojo I (Ki-44-I), Oscar I (Ki-43-I), Nate (Ki-27b) and of course bombers. For a mid war you'd need Oscar II (Ki-43-II), Tony (Ki-61), Tojo II (Ki-44-II), Nick (Ki-45), Sonia (Ki-51), Jill (B6N), Judy (D4Y) and for the late war you'd have to add even more - Frank, Jack, George, Grace ...

 

But its a nice thing that you mentioned machines like SBD or B5N, it would really be cool if we would see in future not only fighters but also some ground attackers, torpedo planes or dive bombers as a modules :)

[airdoc]

Actually no, its a lot more than this. For an early war that would be also Tojo I (Ki-44-I), Oscar I (Ki-43-I), Nate (Ki-27b) and of course bombers. For a mid war you'd need Oscar II (Ki-43-II), Tony (Ki-61), Tojo II (Ki-44-II), Nick (Ki-45), Sonia (Ki-51), Jill (B6N), Judy (D4Y) and for the late war you'd have to add even more - Frank, Jack, George, Grace ...

 

But its a nice thing that you mentioned machines like SBD or B5N, it would really be cool if we would see in future not only fighters but also some ground attackers, torpedo planes or dive bombers as a modules :)

 

 

Sure, there were a lot of planes involved, i 'm not arguing. I 'm just saying that the most iconic historical scenarios (plus other early war battles) only require 4-5 planes : Midway and Coral sea.

 

As for bombers, yes, there can be no theater without them. PTO here again is much easier then ETO : SBD and D3As should be much, much easier to model than any twin engine bomber.

[spacenavy90]

Some extracts from Reddit:

 

 

[–]Wissam24Tanker pilot confirmed dick 3 points 4 days ago

Poor choice of words I guess - I meant it'd be difficult to make it interesting or full of content, because of the tiny amount of land. I'd have thought Okinawa would've been a better choice because it's much bigger - but even then...

 

 

[–]Cobra8472Leatherneck Simulations 12 points 4 days ago

Okinawa on roadmap.

 

...

 

Iwo Jima is just the first of many and represents a good, easy, first Pacific map. More info soon.

 

 

 

 

[–]Teeter477Aviation Slut,Module Whore | Hoggit CSS | TCMC | 6 points 4 days ago

I have the feeling that LN is working on an AI zero to go with the Corsair. Remember so long ago that they posted that shot of the landing gear modeling and it was a big thing to figure out which Japanese plane it belonged to?

 

 

[–]Cobra8472Leatherneck Simulations 37 points 4 days ago

We're working on a lot of AI and theatre content. More soon.

 

 

 

Sounds like a 'semi-official' confirmation...

 

Does that refer to enhanced dogfighting AI?

[Hiromachi]

Sure, there were a lot of planes involved, i 'm not arguing. I 'm just saying that the most iconic historical scenarios (plus other early war battles) only require 4-5 planes : Midway and Coral sea.

 

As for bombers, yes, there can be no theater without them. PTO here again is much easier then ETO : SBD and D3As should be much, much easier to model than any twin engine bomber.

 

I hope that one very very nice day I'd get B5N with radar :pilotfly:

[Phantom88]

I think as long as we are talking about Pacific Theater and Battles.... Guadalcanal and F4F are a "High" on my wish list:)

[Hiromachi]

Ha, we had that discussion many months ago in some other subforum. The distances from Rabaul or even Buin to Guadalcanal were too great for anyone to actually play a full scale mission. In reality pilots sometimes lost consciousness or fell asleep after multiple hours in the air.

 

Much more reasonable would be New Guinea with Lae, Buna and Port Moresby or 1943-1944 Burma :)

[Mudcat]

I think as long as we are talking about Pacific Theater and Battles.... Guadalcanal and F4F are a "High" on my wish list:)

 

+1

 

both are high on my wish list as well. F4F is on VEAO's roadmap, so there is a chance there. Guadalcanal is probably one of the more interesting in terms of what was there and at least a bigger area than say midway for example. Plus the Corsairs were there... well a few weeks after it ended, but flew out of there for other missions afterwards.

[spacenavy90]

Ha, we had that discussion many months ago in some other subforum. The distances from Rabaul or even Buin to Guadalcanal were too great for anyone to actually play a full scale mission. In reality pilots sometimes lost consciousness or fell asleep after multiple hours in the air.

 

Much more reasonable would be New Guinea with Lae, Buna and Port Moresby or 1943-1944 Burma :)

 

This. I'm convinced some huge announcement dealing with naval battles is creeping up on us.

Otherwise, an Iwo Jima and possibly other Pacific maps are going to be very empty and boring.

[Phantom88]

Ha, we had that discussion many months ago in some other subforum. The distances from Rabaul or even Buin to Guadalcanal were too great for anyone to actually play a full scale mission. In reality pilots sometimes lost consciousness or fell asleep after multiple hours in the air.

 

Much more reasonable would be New Guinea with Lae, Buna and Port Moresby or 1943-1944 Burma :)

 

:DI fall asleep now if it's after 11PM and I've had a 3 finger glass of Bourbon :D

[Hiromachi]

:DI fall asleep now if it's after 11PM and I've had a 3 finger glass of Bourbon :D

 

Have a good one than ^^

 

Here is an interview with Japanese Ace, Mr Honda Minoru. In 5:55 he speaks of his experiences from the battle :

[ame]

[/ame]

 

I dont think anybody would even have time or energy to spend about 8 hours running 1 mission :(

[VincentLaw]

Does that refer to enhanced dogfighting AI?

I doubt it. I'm almost certain Cobra is referring to new unplayable units being added to DCS by Leatherneck (e.g. an A6M Zero). Advancements to dogfighting AI would be done by ED.

[Cunctator]

Ha, we had that discussion many months ago in some other subforum. The distances from Rabaul or even Buin to Guadalcanal were too great for anyone to actually play a full scale mission. In reality pilots sometimes lost consciousness or fell asleep after multiple hours in the air.

 

Much more reasonable would be New Guinea with Lae, Buna and Port Moresby or 1943-1944 Burma :)

 

The post Guadalcanal stages of the Salomons campaign offer lots of opportunities for shorter missions. Russell Islands and New Georgia or Vella Lavella and Bougainville are very conveniently distanced from each other.

[Hiromachi]

Being honest everything on the Pacific is just bigger, making a proper Burma map would require area even bigger than Georgia map.

 

I'm more interested in Okinawa map to be honest, a map covering whole Okinawa Islands would be insufficient itself to create a decent area of operations and bases. However extending it to the Kyushu (with some major cities) would grant an opportunity to play a lot more scenarios from whole Okinawa campaign up to the American raids from Ie Shima on southern Kyushu. The area would be roughly equal to Black Sea map, but large part of it would be sea.

 

Okinawa also grants a massive opportunity for join operations of Japanese Army and Navy as well as US Navy and Army.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Hiromachi

[scotchegg]

Being honest everything on the Pacific is just bigger, making a proper Burma map would require area even bigger than Georgia map.

 

I'm more interested in Okinawa map to be honest, a map covering whole Okinawa Islands would be insufficient itself to create a decent area of operations and bases. However extending it to the Kyushu (with some major cities) would grant an opportunity to play a lot more scenarios from whole Okinawa campaign up to the American raids from Ie Shima on southern Kyushu. The area would be roughly equal to Black Sea map, but large part of it would be sea.

 

Okinawa also grants a massive opportunity for join operations of Japanese Army and Navy as well as US Navy and Army.

 

Yep, Okinawa would be cool and easily modernisable for Senkaku defence.

[HeadHunter52]

... Tinian and B-29s.....

[MicroShket]

...the most iconic historical scenarios (plus other early war battles) only require 4-5 planes : Midway and Coral sea.

 

For Midway, for example, we need more than 4-5 aircrafts: D4Y, D3A, B5N, A6M vs B-26, SBD, TBF, SB2U, TBD, F4F, F2A. Not to mention AIs like B-17, etc.

Without accurate reproduction it will not be better than "old" Il-2. CBI and PTO are my love, don't break it. :b

I really hope that one day I'll see Ki-44 or B-26 in DCS.

Edited January 20, 2016 by MicroShket
grammar mistake

[BlackLion213]

Being honest everything on the Pacific is just bigger, making a proper Burma map would require area even bigger than Georgia map.

 

I think that incorporating realistic transit times for DCS missions will be one of the challenges for users and developers in the future. Most of us want the most realistic and broadest set of experiences possible..., but I can't spend 4 hours on each campaign mission in the PTO, Hornet module, or Tomcat module (maybe if I schedule it in, so possible 1-2 times/month).

 

One of the awesome things about the Strait of Hormuz theater is that it is one of the few areas where modern combat took place with short transit times. Back in the 1980s, when the USN conducted strikes against the Iranian Navy, the Enterprise was stationed just south of Jask for combat ops. Flying at cruise speeds from the Gulf of Oman to the Isthmus of the Strait takes 10-20 minutes. Also, flying into the combat zone from bases in UAE would be similarly short - this offers an excellent balance between realism and accessible game play.

 

I suspect that both Iwo Jima and Okinawa would offer the same experience. Reaching the combat zones very shortly after launching from a CV. Many of us want huge theaters to have more options, but smaller theaters have significant gameplay benefits that should be considered.

 

Certainly some of the Solomon campaign would fit the bill, but not all of it. I remember that a game that a fried played (back in the mid-90s - Pacific fighters?) had a feature to accelerate transit times. This probably sounds like heresy for many DCS users, but could be handy if we ever want to simulate something like classic P-38 long-range PTO missions or any missions from the Gulf War, OEF, OIF, etc. Those missions regularly lasted 6 hours, mostly flying straight and level at max conserve with some tanking thrown in.

 

We don't want this to get too close to the virtual version of standing in line at the DMV...;)

 

Anyway, that's my very long way of saying that Iwo Jima sounds like a great option for both a realism and practical gameplay standpoint. Smart move!

 

-Nick

[Hiromachi]

Certainly some of the Solomon campaign would fit the bill, but not all of it. I remember that a game that a fried played (back in the mid-90s - Pacific fighters?) had a feature to accelerate transit times. This probably sounds like heresy for many DCS users, but could be handy if we ever want to simulate something like classic P-38 long-range PTO missions or any missions from the Gulf War, OEF, OIF, etc. Those missions regularly lasted 6 hours, mostly flying straight and level at max conserve with some tanking thrown in.

 

We don't want this to get too close to the virtual version of standing in line at the DMV...;)

 

Anyway, that's my very long way of saying that Iwo Jima sounds like a great option for both a realism and practical gameplay standpoint. Smart move!

 

-Nick

 

What you mentioned is a standard in Il-2 series and I dont think many complained on it, if one did not like it than he simply would not use it.

[RoflSeal]

DCS also has a time accelerate, much harder to use though as DCS doesn't have a autolevel/autopilot mode.

[Sokol1_br]

MS Combat Flight Simulator had "skip for next waypoint" - with game in autopilot - that automatically disengages WHEN are enemy near.

 

IL-2'6 has time compression, above 16X without 3D, just a black screen.

 

But this "aids" work only for SP missions...

 

Thus, in il-2'46 in some MP maps, e.g. Malta, the mission makers place steel runway over sea ~20 KM away from the island because the online crowd in no way will fly from Sicily at ~120 KM of distance. :music_whistling:

 

Big, realistic maps regions is nice in theory...

[BlackLion213]

DCS also has a time accelerate, much harder to use though as DCS doesn't have a autolevel/autopilot mode.

 

Yes, I feel like it would have to be a bit more than just time compression. It would have to get the aircraft to the next waypoint, just to spare transit times. I didn't know that DCS had this feature, good to know in any case. :)

 

MS Combat Flight Simulator had "skip for next waypoint" - with game in autopilot - that automatically disengages WHEN are enemy near.

 

IL-2'6 has time compression, above 16X without 3D, just a black screen.

 

But this "aids" work only for SP missions...

 

Thus, in il-2'46 in some MP maps, e.g. Malta, the mission makers place steel runway over sea ~20 KM away from the island because the online crowd in no way will fly from Sicily at ~120 KM of distance. :music_whistling:

 

Big, realistic maps regions is nice in theory...

 

I think a skip to next waypoint feature would be great for certain gameplay situations, perhaps DCS will have something like that one day.

 

I still want big maps and such....

 

I'm just glad that some of the first maps are very accessible from a gameplay standpoint. It's clear that the developers thought about it, not to mention the developer's benefit of starting with smaller maps. I think it works in everyone's favor for now.

 

-Nick

[SilentGun]

Thinking about the upcoming Viggen release, i remembered the F4U and this thread! thought i might resurrect it :thumbup:

 

i found myself researching about the battle of Iwo Jima and found this website with maps showing the U.S. Marine progress by day (the actual website i dont think has anything to do with the battle of Iwo Jima but it does have the maps showing the U.S. marine advance)

here are some of the maps from the website:

 

overview

 

Each sector named by a city

 

The advance on the northwest part of the island

 

The advance on the center of the island

 

The advance on the north end of the island

 

 

How amazing would it be to have a Combined Arms/F4U day by day campaign for this map! i'm still trying to find the air operations so i can get an idea of what that was like.

[Hiromachi]

You can start with Pacific Wrecks website: http://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/japan/iwo_jima/missions-iwo-jima.html

 

There were some aerial battles over the island between June 15 - July 4, but unless LN says something about any potential opponent for Corsair you are left with ground support missions.

 

Personally it is somewhat annoying to see complete lack of news about F4U. Update was intended for September but back then it was said that nothing new is on the topic, same story at the end of 2016. So since December 2015 there were absolutely no news on Corsair.