Another map wish list

[Celestiale]

 

My personal wish for DCS, is the ability to get into map-making and more consistent "realism-themed" developing instead of random this and that. (Yes I know, different developers..)

 

This, 1000 times. I am still waiting for a complete proper war scenario in DCS, with respective aircraft, ground stuff, and map. Black Sea map did a pretty neat job, i quite like to fly my FC3 stuff there, feels immersive. But that's it, so far.

IL2 Bo-X does this superbly well, with 1 complete scenario a year. I am still hoping, that we get there somewhere in the future. Just imagine a fleshed out Korean, Vietnam or Gulf war in DCS standards..

[NineLine]

What some people forget is that NTTR was to fulfill an add-on to the A-10C, the project was started by a 3rd party and later picked up by ED when that 3rd Party 'broke'. NTTR is an epic area for the A-10C, the Red Flag campaigns coming are just incredible.

 

I wont even touch the "I cant combat there' comments, its been addressed so many times its nauseating... I'll just pose this, when was the last time A-10Cs attacked Russian equipment on Russian soil? How plausible is that compared to Russian aircraft attacking US equipment on US soil... its no different.

 

As for the choice of maps for WWII kickstarter... I'm sorry, but that is what RRG picked to start with, ED picked up the project and has maintained that, they tried their best to maintain the original promises of that project. I would love a ton of other areas, heck I would love the entire European Theatre, but these maps are new tech, so they need to take baby steps till they get more proficient with tools that are ever evolving...

 

SO you see most initial map choices are made with the idea that they will be a little easier, and have better info and data for them so they dont have to stress that as much as just learning and making quality maps. I fully expect the map flood gates to open soon.

 

It was right to move this post here, its chit chat as this topic has been discussed many many many many many times before.

Edited January 8, 2016 by NineLine

[LuSi_6]

NTTR critics (that even get deleted here) is morstly because all airfields we have now(!) are so close all around the center. ED should have spend their time on maken more Airfileds instead of placing a million easter eggs all aroud the map.

 

And no, it's not about RU attacking the US on US soil, it's the posibilities outside of red flag that are very limited.

 

Take the (user made) guardians of the caucasus dynamic campaign, it fits so perfectly to the caucasus map. You just can't do this on the Navada map with currend airfields.

 

A closed scenario (we hopefully get "someday", like WWII) would offer so much more than sandboxing all day long, esp for MP gameplay. But then, all you hear is "it's up to the mission maker"... how many servers do we have with a closed scenario? Basicly all we have is FC3 free for all deathmath aka 104th and only god knows what will happen if you try to do a 80's or 90's scenario with no AIM-120. Shitstorm and empty servers.

 

ED should focus on rounding up the DCS:W contend and group equipment to at least decades-> I create a mission, I select "80's" and all units past 1990 will not be avaible and so on. Nobody needs smal restaurands modeled in the middle of the desert

[NineLine]

NTTR critics (that even get deleted here) is morstly because all airfields we have now(!) are so close all around the center. ED should have spend their time on maken more Airfileds instead of placing a million easter eggs all aroud the map.

 

The focus has and was always Red Flag and A-10C training, you can (and will see) that Red Flag campaigns and training missions can be done quite well there. Its ridiculous that the map gets judged on any more than that.

 

As for you comment about things that get deleted here, the only negative comments that get deleted here are ones that break forum rules for mature and constructive delivery. Otherwise this entire thread would have been deleted if we are such harsh moderators. (FYI, no posts have been deleted in this thread)

 

And on that:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en

 

1.3 Administrative actions against forum members are not subject to public discussion. If you feel an action against you was unjust or otherwise inappropriate, please use the Private Messaging (PM) system to appeal the action to other forum staff members or the forum administrator.

 

1.4 Posts/threads that undermine the actions of the forum staff, such as opening threads that are redundant, disruptive or deal with topics that have been previously locked, will result in administrative actions against the user.

Edited January 8, 2016 by NineLine

[Exorcet]

I don't see any problem with NTTR. It's a logical choice for a combat flight sim as it turns out training is as big a part of combat as combat. Yes, the airfields are close, but that is not a huge deal. Set some waypoints and it's fixed, reasonable for a training situation. ED has also stated that adding airfields is possible and they're even looking into it.

 

I don't really see any issue with Hormuz except for size, but again this can be addressed in the future. Also given the carrier/F-18 focus, that module could get a lot of room to roam given how the map edges and water work. I've flown to the California coast in NTTR. Sadly there was no water, but most of it didn't look that bad. It is certainly better than the edge of the Black Sea.

[Slipp]

Hormuz is a great choice for a map! :)

 

I can't wait for it myself.

 

 

Sithspawn even hinted that it's quite close to being released, a month or so ago.

[Fer_Fer]

Hormuz would be pretty interesting actually as it would offer a lot of interesting missions to make for single and multiplayer

[rrohde]

I don't see any problem with NTTR. It's a logical choice for a combat flight sim as it turns out training is as big a part of combat as combat.

 

ED could capitalize on that idea if they were to include "laser tagging" to indicate kills rather than being shot down all the time. Staying in the air and allowing for multiple merges would certainly improve the training effect.

[NeilWillis]

In as far as your argument goes, you are perfectly correct. There are much better regions that can be represented.

 

We have also seen why ED have stuck to the NTTR project, and are continuing with Normandy. They are fulfilling obligations that they inherited from 3rd party developers, and that should be cause for compliments, not criticism - or would you prefer them to just forget about the investors and early buyers who were told they'd get them?

 

The straits of Hormuz is probably THE most important strategic real estate on the planet right now given the importance of oil. Why can't it be a flashpoint in ANY WW3 hypothetical war, and also be a valid point for simulated Middle East conflict?

 

Perhaps historically, yes, we could do with other areas modelled, but given that DCS World is a sandbox, and doesn't claim to replicate any real war zones, why do we have to pick map a over map b except through personal preference?

 

My last comment is this. We have only just seen the roll out of EDGE, and post-Edge will be the time that there could and probably will be a proliferation of map making among 3rd parties. I am sure we will see more and more regions and periods covered if there is a demand for them. But of course if we're not willing to pay for maps...

 

So yes, you have a point, but it isn't quite as simple as that, and we have what we have for many reasons outside historical accuracy, which as far as I know, was never promised to us anyway.

[Art-J]

ED could capitalize on that idea if they were to include "laser tagging" to indicate kills rather than being shot down all the time. Staying in the air and allowing for multiple merges would certainly improve the training effect.

 

^ Not a bad idea to put in the "Wishlist" thread.

[Charly_Owl]

Personally I think NTTR has grown on me. McCarran International Airport and Nellis AFB are huge airfields in comparison to the airfields we get in Georgia. I think it's a very good training map/tool. Some people don't like training (some people don't like trainers too), but some virtual squadrons do. I like training: it's just so easy to lose what you learned. I practice regularly on NTTR bomb and rocket strikes with different aircraft and I enjoy it every time.

[hannibal]

complainers and whiners, go back to the Black Sea Map.

 

I say rejoice to the fact that other theaters are going to be out.

 

appreciate what we have, cause if not, what are you going to do, play FSX with tac-pack?

 

what ever floats your boat.

 

i thank ED and the 3rd parties even taking the feat of making a map, with resources that they have to go by.

[Grizzly1606688174]

The straits of Hormuz is probably THE most important strategic real estate on the planet right now given the importance of oil. Why can't it be a flashpoint in ANY WW3 hypothetical war, and also be a valid point for simulated Middle East conflict?

 

I see your point, but I think its important to acknowledge that gamers/simmers are different.

 

While some wants a plausible "what if in the future, event" requiring all sorts of fantasy I don't seem to have anymore :P - some gamers wants to re-live the past wars that actually happened, just as it has been done through gaming with WW2 for a long time now. And then theres a whole other group of people who doesnt care, buys everything and just flies the things until a new plane comes along they can jump into, join a PVP server, shoot at other players and etc.

 

I want the real thing, that happened. Fly the real places, with the planes that where there in real life not to long ago. Be a part of a war that has taken place.

 

Thats why Hormuz, NTTR etc wont get my money and thats not anyones fault but my own. Im just saying, I personally wished for a more directional approach. Because I fear that with the year(s) each module takes, DCS is over before it's "done".

 

As to Sithspawns "A-10c's against RU equipment on RU soil".. - Never. Thats exactly why I cant stick to the A-10c. I like destroying RU equipment, but the sim doesnt allow me to destroy RU equipment on IRAQI soil.

 

At least in the original Georgia map an actual georgia/russian war requires least amount of what little fantasy I have left and is also the same reason why I cant seem to leave the SU-25 alone even though I have most other plane modules.

[NeilWillis]

I absolutely agree Grizzly, there is definitely a need for historic situations and maps. I am sure that gap will be filled once the 3rd party map makers get to work. I think however that DCS World has always been a sandbox, and it'll be a while before we get all the necessary elements to be able to reproduce a historic scenario.

 

The developers make their choices for their own reasons, and obviously they don't always mesh with all customer expectations. I think DCS World is gathering momentum, and has pushed well ahead in the field of simulation. It is just a matter of time before the gaps start to get filled.

[King_Hrothgar]

I agree that the current list of maps is a bit underwhelming. NTTR is fairly pointless as is but with a few additional well picked airfields, it could be a decent "generic desert map #1." This map is forgivable though as it was basically forced on them. And I do have it, it makes a pretty good chopper map if nothing else. Normandy is the same way, the entire WW2 nonsense was forced on them by a 3rd party that took pre-orders before work began and then immediately collapsed. ED got left holding the bags from that one and I can't help but feel a little sorry for them about that. It definitely sucks being left having to fulfill other people's promises.

 

SoH is the only map they really chose and its choice is perplexing to me. It's a solid map from a MP standpoint since the classic channel setup has always been a popular choice for MP team death match. But that's what throws me, why bother doing a real place instead of a fictional one if your map's main draw is as an entirely fictional team death match MP map? It certainly isn't any good as a carrier showcase map, the waters are far too constricted for that. It's of no value from an aviation history standpoint, the only air battle ever fought there to my knowledge is a USN destroyer shooting down a commercial airliner. And this map choice was done in preference to the northern Persian Gulf which has seen about 35 years of continuous air combat involving hardware from every major arms producer in the world. And that area has more room for a carrier battle group as well. Excluding the WW2 stuff, there are very few aircraft either in DCS or planned for it that don't belong in that particular area. So doing SoH instead just doesn't make any sense to me regardless of the rational. I guess ED has their reasons but I have no clue what they are. I am curious though, seems like the answer would be interesting.:)

[NineLine]

Guess nobody watches the news...

 

Just a sample:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/iranian-rocket-splashes-down-near-us-aircraft-carrier-i-1750216671

All could lead to interesting scenarios, especially when the Hornet arrives.

 

Again... show me all the real life A-10 action over Russia... it could happen if all the pieces fall right, but it never has. Its the same for many locations on the planet.

 

As for your comments on WWII... we get it already, you dont like WWII in DCS, I am not sure why you need to go on about it in any thread that mentions DCS WWII...

Edited January 8, 2016 by NineLine

[Pikey]

In the vein of "chit-chat" i've found it harder to create content in Nevada compared to Georgia due to the lack of airfields and their proximity to each other. Georgia has some lovely natural boundaries, alright a lot of the airfields aren't in use as military or some dont even exist for years, but it's a nice place you can come up with a variety of scenarios.

[Grizzly1606688174]

Again... show me all the real life A-10 action over Russia... it could happen if all the pieces fall right, but it never has. Its the same for many locations on the planet.

 

Not sure if that was for me or some other post I missed.. The reason why I dont like NTTR or Hormuz is exactly the reason why I dont like A-10 in Georgia!

So I feel no need for showing A-10 action over russia since the point is exactly that.

 

As for your comments on WWII... we get it already, you dont like WWII in DCS, I am not sure why you need to go on about it in any thread that mentions DCS WWII...

 

Im not sure you get it. People love WWII in DCS, but they hate that its a map which didnt see much dogfight in real life. WWII doesnt fit in right now or in the planned map.

 

I get that you are a community manager an all, I wouldnt want to have your job. But if you think there is to much talk of different stuff like WWII, it probably wont help if you continue to bring up the subject by mentioning it. :helpsmilie:

 

I like this chit-chat. :thumbup:

Edited January 8, 2016 by <Grizzly>
Typos

[NineLine]

Not sure if that was for me or some other post I missed.

 

It was for the post above the one I made.

 

I get that you are a community manager an all, I wouldnt want to have your job. But if you think there is to much talk of different stuff like WWII, it probably wont help if you continue to bring up the subject by mentioning it. :helpsmilie:

 

I like this chit-chat. :thumbup:

 

I didn't mention it, I responded to the negative posts about it, as well as explained why we are getting Normandy. Its very simple.

Edited January 8, 2016 by NineLine

[King_Hrothgar]

Guess nobody watches the news...

 

Just a sample:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/iranian-rocket-splashes-down-near-us-aircraft-carrier-i-1750216671

All could lead to interesting scenarios, especially when the Hornet arrives.

 

Again... show me all the real life A-10 action over Russia... it could happen if all the pieces fall right, but it never has. Its the same for many locations on the planet.

 

As for your comments on WWII... we get it already, you dont like WWII in DCS, I am not sure why you need to go on about it in any thread that mentions DCS WWII...

 

Aimed at me? My post had two parts, the first part explaining that ED had to takeover two of the maps in question from third parties and expressing sympathy for that. The second part was about favoring actual wars over hypothetical ones.

[NineLine]

I agree that the current list of maps is a bit underwhelming. NTTR is fairly pointless as is but with a few additional well picked airfields, it could be a decent "generic desert map #1." This map is forgivable though as it was basically forced on them. And I do have it, it makes a pretty good chopper map if nothing else. Normandy is the same way, the entire WW2 nonsense was forced on them by a 3rd party that took pre-orders before work began and then immediately collapsed. ED got left holding the bags from that one and I can't help but feel a little sorry for them about that. It definitely sucks being left having to fulfill other people's promises.

 

SoH is the only map they really chose and its choice is perplexing to me. It's a solid map from a MP standpoint since the classic channel setup has always been a popular choice for MP team death match. But that's what throws me, why bother doing a real place instead of a fictional one if your map's main draw is as an entirely fictional team death match MP map? It certainly isn't any good as a carrier showcase map, the waters are far too constricted for that. It's of no value from an aviation history standpoint, the only air battle ever fought there to my knowledge is a USN destroyer shooting down a commercial airliner. And this map choice was done in preference to the northern Persian Gulf which has seen about 35 years of continuous air combat involving hardware from every major arms producer in the world. And that area has more room for a carrier battle group as well. Excluding the WW2 stuff, there are very few aircraft either in DCS or planned for it that don't belong in that particular area. So doing SoH instead just doesn't make any sense to me regardless of the rational. I guess ED has their reasons but I have no clue what they are. I am curious though, seems like the answer would be interesting.:)

 

 

Sorry, I guess I must have read more negativity into your post than what was meant....

[msalama]

right now given the importance of oil

 

+1

 

Spot on, which is why I'll buy Hormuz straightaway. Whereas Nevada is a pass for me, at least for the time being - nothing there that interests me at least yet...

[msalama]

it could happen if all the pieces fall right

 

& thank Lady Fortuna they haven't. Do you know what might've happened if they HAD?

 

OK, no politics and/or what-ifs, understood ;) Still, the SOH map is a great choice given the importance of oil & the volatility of the region - could think up several scenarios to do there straightaway. Yah!

[msalama]

Sorry, I guess I must have read more negativity into your post than what was meant....

 

No, the man has a point, regardless of how much I personally may welcome the SOH map myself. Not a bad choice from ED IMO...

[tombeckett2285]

What could bring some more variety without too much effort on the part of ED would be to offer a 'terrain change' option for the existing maps; for example being able to select the Black Sea map as 'desert terrain'. This would enable it to be used as a basis for warfare more commonly seen in the last 30 years without the effort of an entire new map.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk