Can we please get a Vietnam era map?

[philstyle]

Here's what i envision (not to say it will happen or as i write it or whatever):

1. Server with a Vietnam map covering N and S Vietnam, maybe cambodia and northern Thailand

2. S Vietnam has major (and minor) US bases (Army/USMC/Navy) bases

3. hopefully we can have auto generated missions to deliver supplies, troops, etc

4. day/night

5. night - you could have large scale NVA/VC attacks on certain bases, thereby requiring helo support (gunships, hueys for medevac, troop deployment, ammo resup, etc)

.

 

 

 

I'd love a Vietnam map and the genre is crying out for it.

However, Vietnam is such an annoying shape for games, which almost always use square-shaped maps oriented with sides parallel to NESW.

 

 

I think the best compromise is something that has a little bit of everything.

A bit of the delta, some coastline, the central area (Hue, Da Nang etc..) and up to Hanoi. But even this would be a MASSIVE land area to map (~1300 x 600km), which I think is far bigger than any eixsting DCS map.

 

 

To get a map size that is consitent with current DCS maps, one would be looking at something more similar to Central/ north Vietnam including Da-nag, Hue and Hanoi. This could be done in around 700km x 500km land area.

I made this little image recently to show some options, after seeing this thread:

[Stratos]

Desert Storm

 

ODS and Afghanistan are the maps that have more planes fitting it.

 

ODS:

Iraq: MiG-21Bis, Su-25A, Mi-8, L-39, MiG-29A, Mi-24P

Coallition: F/A-18C, F-15C, A-10A, Uh-1H, Av8B Night Attack, Mirage 2000

 

Afghanistan:

For Soviet-Mujahideen war: MiG-21Bis, Su-25A, Mi-8, L-39, MiG-29A, Mi-24P

For post 9/11 war: F/A-18C, F-15C, A-10A, A10C, Uh-1H, Av8B Night Attack

 

And a pletora of AI aircraft for both wars. Tornados, MiG-23's, Kc-10, E3, Su-24, the A-50...

[Mr_sukebe]

Have to say that I don't understand the issue here.

If you're happy to fly "not quite authentic" scenarios, then buy it.

If you're not, don't. No one can be forced to buy it.

 

Might be better to just try to judge the % of respondents who would want a Vietnam map. Please do count me in.

[Reflected]

Everybody's coming with the "But our planes are not Vietnam war-era" argument.

 

No offence, but who cares? Flying a non-Vietnam era MIG-21/ F4/ F5E or Huey over a Vietnam map in DCS is as close as we'll ever get to flying a Vietnam war era plane over a Vietnam map in ANY sim. period.

 

The Mustang we have is not the one that was flown over the beaches of Normandy, nor is our 109 K-4 or our 190 D. Does it completely ruin the DCS WWII scenario? NO! We play with what we have.

 

I'm sure there would be some amazing mssions/ campaigns/ servers running the Vietnam map with our current planeset, and I, for one, wouldn't mind one bit that it's a MIG-21bis.

[Stratos]

 

No offence, but who cares? Flying a non-Vietnam era MIG-21/ F4/ F5E or Huey over a Vietnam map in DCS is as close as we'll ever get to flying a Vietnam war era plane over a Vietnam map in ANY sim. period.

 

 

Sorry?

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, I care, many people don't want FC3 level airplanes cause they're not realist enough, and we're talking about using totally incorrect airplanes. Pretty funny.

[Mr_sukebe]

Sorry?

 

And yes, I care, many people don't want FC3 level airplanes cause they're not realist enough, and we're talking about using totally incorrect airplanes. Pretty funny.

 

 

Just so we understand your position on this. Are you saying:

1. You want to have Vietnam era aircraft and map?

2. If the map is introduced without Vietnam era aircraft, that you demand that we don't buy and play it?

 

If it's 1, then I agree that this is a great goal. However, could take years to get the aircraft delivered.

Personally I'd rather have the map, with the hope that the aircraft will be delivered at a later date.

[mvsgas]

To me the equipment of that time period is far more interesting than the map. Having the different AAA of that era, The SAMs, the weapons and the aircraft would have far more entertaining value to me spcificaly than the map. To each his own.

[firmek]

To me the equipment of that time period is far more interesting than the map. Having the different AAA of that era, The SAMs, the weapons and the aircraft would have far more entertaining value to me spcificaly than the map. To each his own.

+1. The map itself will not bring much if it can't be populated. Flayable modules are also not the most important. The starting point are the AI units, ground forces, air defences, air units. Only when having them mission designers will be able to create immersive scenarios respective to the timeline, even without a map in place.

[Reflected]

@Stratos: I would not compare a 15 year old game with what we could possibly have in DCS. Those graphics, the simplicity of the FM and systems would instantly spoil my fun, but that's only my 2 cents. Since I got used to the level of realism in DCS I find it challenging to truly enjoy many other sims.

[Stratos]

I prefer a map we can use the planes we have, not to get a irrelevant map for the current planes. And how old is DCS By the way?

[Kev2go]

ODS and Afghanistan are the maps that have more planes fitting it.

 

ODS:

Iraq: MiG-21Bis, Su-25A, Mi-8, L-39, MiG-29A, Mi-24P

Coallition: F/A-18C, F-15C, A-10A, Uh-1H, Av8B Night Attack, Mirage 2000

 

Afghanistan:

For Soviet-Mujahideen war: MiG-21Bis, Su-25A, Mi-8, L-39, MiG-29A, Mi-24P

For post 9/11 war: F/A-18C, F-15C, A-10A, A10C, Uh-1H, Av8B Night Attack

 

And a pletora of AI aircraft for both wars. Tornados, MiG-23's, Kc-10, E3, Su-24, the A-50...

 

 

Actually fa18c being developed is easily post ODS version. The LOT 20 were produced in 1998. Plus the one ed is modelling is representative of a 2000s hornet. The fa18c will have aim9x and jhmcs, link 16. Plus an/apg73 phase 2 radar and a newer ecm/ cm dispenser system as well as a new LCD display for the lower MUlti function screen used primarily for mapping (ampcd) as well as using the modern Atflir tgp.

 

F18C within the gulf war didn't have any of these features. They had the older an/apG 65 radar and the earlier nitehawk TGP at that time, as well as at the time Production Hornet using weaker F 404 GE- 400 engines instead of the 402's which did not come around until 1992+ batches IIRC.

 

Even the f15c is basically more of a late 90s early 2000s eagle not an ods. I guess due to simplified systems it may as well be lumped in a it's scenario waking with limiting to aim7m.

 

. Even a10a is arguably also post ods version because while largely the same looking at the pit it has egi GPS panel, instead of the earlier ins/ils avionics panel

 

Within the DCS A10c included In the manual there is a summary of upgrades of the A10A HAD before A10c . That mentions such an upgrade. So WE really we don't have any true Gulf war era planes

Edited January 11, 2018 by Kev2go

[Stratos]

Thanks for the historical info!

 

Then, no map on earth makes sense on DCS lol

[Kev2go]

Thanks for the historical info!

 

Then, no map on earth makes sense on DCS lol

 

thats the thing. Unless devs start including multiple variations of aircraft series from different eras, then we hav no choice but to allow some flexibility of what era our aircraft get put into.

 

However currently Nevada and upcoming Straiht of Hormuz are sent in the Present times, So A10C- Av8b NA ( also 2000s era as its refitted with LCD AMPCD displays and has Lightening 2 TGP) , F/A18C etc will actually fit into those maps.

 

In the eventuality that Afghanistan and IRaq OIF - Present become available they would also fit in there.

[Kang]

Here's the thing: if we want to be all proper about the exact subversions, building blocks and lot numbers of the planes we do have as modules in DCS, a general problem of DCS just gets worse: all modules are a bit of patchwork and very little 'planning' has ever taken place in the direction of their interaction. Case in point: we do have a F-86 and a MiG-15, the two most iconic aircraft of the Korean conflict, both made by the same developer, still don't fit the timeframe together really.

It's a fine line between proper realism and just being outright pedantic. And most of the time which side you are on depends on the point of view.

What I'm getting at is: if we all insist on the scenarios in DCS being properly realistic about these things, well, then we better stop buying modules all over the place and instead steer the development towards some focus instead.

[Kev2go]

Here's the thing: if we want to be all proper about the exact subversions, building blocks and lot numbers of the planes we do have as modules in DCS, a general problem of DCS just gets worse: all modules are a bit of patchwork and very little 'planning' has ever taken place in the direction of their interaction. Case in point: we do have a F-86 and a MiG-15, the two most iconic aircraft of the Korean conflict, both made by the same developer, still don't fit the timeframe together really.

It's a fine line between proper realism and just being outright pedantic. And most of the time which side you are on depends on the point of view.

What I'm getting at is: if we all insist on the scenarios in DCS being properly realistic about these things, well, then we better stop buying modules all over the place and instead steer the development towards some focus instead.

 

 

IKR

 

Its wierd why the Developers did not got with F86F30 and instead Opted for F86F35 With a Post Korean (obviously) Mod given that it has avinics and wiring to Arm aim9B sidewinders

 

performance and Airframe wise thier the same. Same Engine Same Airframe. so Same Dogfight performance, but yeah its weird.

 

Theres arguably more information other F86F30 as it actually partook in Korea and far more were produced.

 

Maybe They were intentionally looking for a later Sabre for More flexibility?

 

When armed with missiles this could be made to partake in Post Korean Scenarios. Like if we get Mig17's you've got a Taiwan Straight Crisis.

 

OR pit it against Migs and itls be 1965 Indo Pakistani War. ( although the Mig21Bis variant there is still wrong for that conflict.)

 

I honestly don't know for sure. BST never went on record to explain why they chose that particular model of the saber.

[Kang]

I'm sure they just wanted to include that missile capability and that's nice, but I'm not quite sure if it's true that the dogfight performance is really the same.

 

Either way, it showcases that we aren't even talking variants of types, but sub-variants a lot here.

[Kev2go]

I'm sure they just wanted to include that missile capability and that's nice, but I'm not quite sure if it's true that the dogfight performance is really the same.

 

Either way, it showcases that we aren't even talking variants of types, but sub-variants a lot here.

 

 

its not different. Or at least shouldn't have any noticeable difference.

 

Airframe is the same. F86F35 has the same 6/3 wings of Late korean era models without leading edge slats like the F86F30. ( or Earlier F blocks retrofitted with 6/3 mod)

 

Just like all F series the F86F Block 35 is fitted with the J47 GE 27 engine producing 5,910 lbs of thrust.

 

SInce the airframe and Engine are the same The Dogfight performance would be the same. The only difference in performance is for when you arm with with Missiles. Then yes weight of Pylons & missiles degrades performance.

 

otherwise in a GUnS only config its suppsoed to be the same.

 

 

The only difference then is a new Instrument Panel compared to earlier blocks and unique to the F series is the the BLock 35 introduced the LABS system added for Toss bombing Tactical Nukes ( "Special Stores"Not in DCS for the sabre however) . I don't think the addition of a few extra Analog Instruments like LABS would really add any weight that we would really notice to degrade performance.

 

It would be cool however if BSt were to develop and represent a F86F series post korea that were retrofired with the F40 Type slatted Wing. That on one hand would be a pretty good add on to include ( kinda like BSt's idea with the NS430 nav system)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by Kev2go

[Hawkeye60]

We could use this for Vietnam and/or Korea!

 

WIP........

 

Vietnam, Here I come!

 

[some1]

Thanks for the historical info!

 

Then, no map on earth makes sense on DCS lol

 

You are correct, the planeset in DCS does not make sense from historical point of view. Even Normandy'44 is SF.

 

But hey, it's a sandbox. :)

[Hueyman]

To all the people strongly whishing a Vietnam theatre to happen, I invite you to come and vote on this thread :-)

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116871&page=19