NTTR Multiplayer Servers

[jcbak]

I'm seeing less and less MP servers for NTTR. Are people tired of that map already? The graphics are fantastic.....I'm surprised.

[HiJack]

I see that as well on our servers. Maybe the map is to small. I hope Hormus and other new maps will be bigger and have more airports.

[=DECOY=]

don't forget not everyone will have NTTR. so will be less .

 

when both maps are ready on dcs 2.0 we will have every multilayer server :thumbup:

 

p's ....same as not all servers allow for the m2000. not everyone has it :(

[Kayos]

I think it's because there are no airports far away enough for an opposition force.

[NeilWillis]

Don't overlook the current issue with not displaying all the available servers. It is a known bug.

[QuiGon]

I see that as well on our servers. Maybe the map is to small. I hope Hormus and other new maps will be bigger and have more airports.

 

IIRC Hormuz will be smaller than NTTR.

[jcbak]

don't forget not everyone will have NTTR. so will be less .

 

when both maps are ready on dcs 2.0 we will have every multilayer server :thumbup:

 

p's ....same as not all servers allow for the m2000. not everyone has it :(

True, but there are now a third of the servers up that used to be. As mentioned, the SOH map will be smaller. That's concerning. 1.5 improved the BS map but I have so many hours on that map, I'm just tired of it......plus the older graphics just can't match the newer NTTR. As far as Red vs Blue, I agree NTTR isn't a great set up for that. However, there's plenty of space for ground pounding missions vs AI. Hopefully the F18 and SOH will inject some long term enthusiasm into the community.

[Blooze]

I think it would be safe to say that the majority of the community is, and always has been involved with DCS World because it has always been a DIGITAL COMBAT SIMULATOR. For me, flying a map with the COMBAT component removed, regardless of how awesome the new graphics are, has been about as exciting as watching grass grow. I can't seem to stretch the limits of my imagination enough to see it as any other piece of geography so I wait patiently for SoH.:yawn:

[HiJack]

IIRC Hormuz will be smaller than NTTR.

That will be a nobuy then :(

[=DECOY=]

this is potentially going to cause issues with MP..not everyone will have all the maps others do (when we have more maps)

 

what do you think is the best option..

[King_Hrothgar]

I was surprised to see the NTTR server list suddenly shrink to almost nothing a couple days ago. I had been playing those primarily COOP missions on F99th but they've disappeared. Could be a bug though, didn't try connected by IP.

 

As for NTTR, I agree it has a problem regarding red vs blue. The map itself is big enough but it only has a few airfields crammed into the center of the map. It's fine for subsonic aircraft, but much too close for supersonic ones. There are other airfields you can see on it thanks to satellite textures, but they aren't programmed as airfields. And in regards to combat maps, sand is sand to me. NTTR = Iran/Iraq/Syria/Israel/Egypt as far as I'm concerned. We just need a few more active airfields so that there can be ground starts for both sides.

[Isegrim]

A thing that has not been mentioned is the over all Map performance (FPS) of the NTTR Map.

You need a good PC to run it well whilst the Caucasus is more forgiving.

[Johnny Dioxin]

I have no issues running NTTR - but that mission editor gets my teeth grinding! I've been concerned about the lack of airfields from the off. Or as you say, the proximity of what is there.

[Blooze]

I was surprised to see the NTTR server list suddenly shrink to almost nothing a couple days ago. I had been playing those primarily COOP missions on F99th but they've disappeared. Could be a bug though, didn't try connected by IP.

 

As for NTTR, I agree it has a problem regarding red vs blue. The map itself is big enough but it only has a few airfields crammed into the center of the map. It's fine for subsonic aircraft, but much too close for supersonic ones. There are other airfields you can see on it thanks to satellite textures, but they aren't programmed as airfields. And in regards to combat maps, sand is sand to me. NTTR = Iran/Iraq/Syria/Israel/Egypt as far as I'm concerned. We just need a few more active airfields so that there can be ground starts for both sides.

 

I know what I'll do, I'll create missions with mid-air starts and limited fuel with no tanker making crash landing in the desert inevitable. Throw in a little mid-eastern music and, voila I'm in Syria. :joystick:

[QuiGon]

I think it would be safe to say that the majority of the community is, and always has been involved with DCS World because it has always been a DIGITAL COMBAT SIMULATOR. For me, flying a map with the COMBAT component removed, regardless of how awesome the new graphics are, has been about as exciting as watching grass grow. I can't seem to stretch the limits of my imagination enough to see it as any other piece of geography so I wait patiently for SoH.:yawn:

 

Same here

[ttaylor0024]

this is potentially going to cause issues with MP..not everyone will have all the maps others do (when we have more maps)

 

what do you think is the best option..

 

Easiest option would be to not show servers that run on maps you don't have installed.

[Shmick]

Easiest option would be to not show servers that run on maps you don't have installed.

 

I suspect he's worried about fragmentation of the relatively small pool of online players

[NeilWillis]

All it needs is very simple. A column in the server listing showing which map is being run. It is very straightforward in the meantime to add either NTTR or Caucasus to the server name when you start the new server.

 

As far as the facilities at NTTR are concerned, it is a place for conducting Red Flag exercises, and was promised very early on in the development of the A-10C. I don't think it was ever intended to be a war zone like the Caucasus. I take the approach that you train in Nevada, and fight in the Caucasus until some more maps come along.

 

As for the fragmentation of the community, more choice will always lead to diversification, but it will also increase the customer base. There are more maps available in other communities with other sims, but they still exist, and thrive, so I wouldn't worry about it. I am sure the community will expand as well as fragment, so you'll still be able to get into multiplayer servers doing what you want to do. After all, we didn't hear any complaints or concerns when the WW2 stuff made an appearance. Nor the Korean war. What is the big deal with a different map?

[Shmick]

All it needs is very simple. A column in the server listing showing which map is being run. It is very straightforward in the meantime to add either NTTR or Caucasus to the server name when you start the new server.

 

I think that'd be better than not showing servers, as then folk could see that there's a lot more going on and make their own choices about purchasing

[NeilWillis]

Yep, it does seem to be the simplest solution - but of course there are 2 separate sets of servers right now, so it's either one or the other, and that won't be the case in the longer term.

 

Also, bear in mind that we are in an Alpha install of 2.0, and it could well change a great deal before it reaches the final iteration.

[Celestiale]

I think in terms of realism, plausibility of war zones,and pure potential all the new maps are a pretty bad choice:

 

NTTR - training map over the US. No war zone - civil map. Beside the city of Las Vegas nothing interesting to watch. They could at least have included the grand canyon, to make it more interesting, and airfields further away from the center, to make it suitable for a desert war scenario. The way it is right now, the only interesting thing i can see is taking the Huey out over the city, but that doesn't justify 50 bucks for me.

 

Hormuz - some 700km to the west, and it would have been the perfect spot. With planes like the Mig21, 29, the confirmed Mirage F1, AI Migs and Su's, we would pretty much cover the whole Iraqi air force for both gulf wars, and the same goes for Iran with the F5 Tiger, Tomcat, F4. We could use the US stuff for Operation desert storm. The biggest aerial battle after second world war (1. gulf war) All of this on a small 300x300km map including Iran, Iraq, and Quwait..but no...we got straight of Hormuz..where probably never happenend anything. Pretty much carbon copy of the NTTR, civil map with one nice city to fly around....so much potential wasted

 

Normandy - why? just why? The area around Normandy was one of the least significant in terms of air war in the whole second world war. The German planes we have like the Dora and the 109K never fought there..why not go 500km east, include Belgium and the Ruhr district, and have a map for both the Ardennenoffensive and the perfect spot for Reichsverteidigung, because till the end the Ruhr district was the main target of US bomber raids..109 K4 and Dora also have both been used in the Ardennes attack, and in Reichsverteidigung. Perfectly historical, plausible, and also a more interesting map with the Ardennes itself, and the huge urban area around the Ruhr.

 

I really don't get it...

Edited January 8, 2016 by Celestiale

[VTJS17_Fire]

A thing that has not been mentioned is the over all Map performance (FPS) of the NTTR Map.

You need a good PC to run it well whilst the Caucasus is more forgiving.

 

This. And there have to be training missions for the training map - no combat-like missions.

 

Scenarios for training combat are:

+ aerial refuelling (I know, it isn't working right now, but you can practise to catch the basket)

+ intercepts on different aircraft with different speeds at different heights

+ ILS/ TACAN approaches

+ BFM/ BVR in one of the zones (FAOR)

> let one team spawn at Creech, the other at Nellis > give them standby waypoints (IP) and set the combat area to some of the zones (FAOR)

+ CAMAO/ Co-op missions with A/G Part and CAPs, for instance

 

Best regards,

Fire

[King_Hrothgar]

Yep, nothing draws in the MP crowd like ILS practice.:megalol:

 

Seriously though, it just needs a couple more airfields added (that aren't in Vegas), then I think it will pick up some in popularity. But until that happens, we'll just have to be content with COOP type missions like F99th is running. Those can be fun too. :thumbup:

 

Edit: It also has a lot of potential for a subsonic fight. Something like L-39/Mi-8/Su-25A vs Hawk/A-10A/UH-1H would work pretty well.

[7rooper]

it's a sad panoram for future scenarios. I agree that NTTR is a little boring if you fly away from Las Vegas

[Scooternutz]

Bought it, fly it, love it! The Red Flag scenarios are endless. Real life tactical no kidding, stuff the Air Force really uses, to train in this realistic theater is amazing! Dawgs, you must be crazy! :)

 

Would love to see NTTR expanded to cover the Grand Canyon my old duty station NAS Fallon with B-17, B-19, and B-20 and prime rib at The Depot . Those that have been there know what I am writing about.