Would you buy fictional maps?

[Baco]

It's not about realistic scenarios/conflicts, it's all about realistic places with realistic geography and with real information, of various kinds, from various sources other than the Eagle Dynamics univers. A lot of examples given by many of us so called Naysayers.

And I myself would really like to visit Georgia for its said geography, mountains, valleys, the Black Sea etc, and that is only because I have flown there in DCS.

 

Thanks for letting me see your point of view Holton.

Interesting and very valid.

 

My grate gripe is that there is nowhere to fly "realistic conflicts" or even Fictitious or made up realistic scenarios OTHER than cold war gone Hot at Georgia. Even tho the planes are as real as it gets and the geography too.

 

My grate inconvenience is that being in the wrong place , kills my immersion.

let me rephrase that, only being able to combat in Georgia for over 12 years. So hopefully I wont be stuck at Iran for too long ;)

[sc_neo]

no fictional maps for me neither.

[shimasteama]

No, definitely not.

I want to fly over earth and according to earth history. Why not contacting Orbx in Australia?

Maps like Afghanistan (1), Afghanistan (2) , Vietnam, Korea, New Guinea, Solomons, Marianas should depict our military heritage with that museal dream beasts we can fly now with DCS.

DCS should not become a second Arma 3.

[jim]

No, definitely not.

I want to fly over earth and according to earth history. Why not contacting Orbx in Australia?

Maps like Afghanistan (1), Afghanistan (2) , Vietnam, Korea, New Guinea, Solomons, Marianas should depict our military heritage with that museal dream beasts we can fly now with DCS.

DCS should not become a second Arma 3.

 

Same for me.

[Baco]

Us Military heritage saved by a Russain Company located in Moscow.. if Reagan found out he would die again LOL.

[WelshZeCorgi]

Wait, fictional as in 100% geographically fake? Like took place on the planet... Eris 9, inhabited by the gorgonons? If that's the case I'd have to decline, seems like a strange concession in realism in a simulator.

[CheckGear]

Thanks for letting me see your point of view Holton.

Interesting and very valid.

 

My grate gripe is that there is nowhere to fly "realistic conflicts" or even Fictitious or made up realistic scenarios OTHER than cold war gone Hot at Georgia. Even tho the planes are as real as it gets and the geography too.

 

My grate inconvenience is that being in the wrong place , kills my immersion.

let me rephrase that, only being able to combat in Georgia for over 12 years. So hopefully I wont be stuck at Iran for too long ;)

 

 

I think location is definitely tied into the realism of scenarios. As much of a hotspot the Black Sea/Caucasus region is, it's not a likely area of the world for the U.S. and Western Europe to become militarily involved in and most analysts in the know would tell you the same thing.

 

 

For one, the U.S. doesn't have any sort of mutual defense commitment with any country in the region. Even if they did, an argument can be made it could actually decrease the likelihood of war because of the deterrent effect an American presence would have. That's certainly not a convincing argument for increasing military presence and ties in the area, but it does show a lot more goes into the making of a war than simply hostility.

 

 

 

U.S.-Russia scenarios are among the least realistic in the sense they've never happened and are unlikely to occur, which is precisely their appeal. But I think scenario designers have gotten far too carried away and are reinventing the wheel at this point. This is why having a more diverse array of maps is important - it'll allow for a broader range of scenarios as well. Then again, that assumes they don't resort to U.S.-Russia scenarios in places like Africa as well. :lol:

[Devil 505]

[Magic Zach]

I still want something like this. I would pay a bucketful for a map with an exotic landscape. It would be a dream fulfilled to fly in the floating Hallelujah Mountains from Avatar!

And helicopter pilots would love this map especially

[Rabies]

It’s a no from me. We demand realism from the developers in every aspect of our aircraft modules, to “fly” such technical aircraft in an airy-fairy-world defeats the whole object of having realism in a simulator.

[Magic Zach]

Don't care. It's fun.

[cordite]

[Gierasimov]

Normandy '44 is "fictional" just enough for me. No thanks.

Fairytale maps in a type that for example Magic Zach likes are definitely something that may appeal to some, even in this community. Would a developer risk creating one? I doubt it.

[cercata]

Once the whole earth is mapped for DCS, then yes :megalol:

[ac5]

Definitely NOT buying fictional maps.

Absurd, in a realistic simulation which is DCS.

[Thor_HUN]

What will be the next? Fictional weapons or starships?

[Beltza]

Why not? For me Caucasus may be fictional. I don't know this region.

[Pelican_1955]

Fictional maps are for kids, I'm not a kid anymore, so my vote is NO, I won't waste money for a fictional map, no way this may happen, no way.

[Sephyrius]

Would say no. Most conflict sided and scenarios are pure fiction already, dont need more of it.

[Phantom_Mark]

1:1 maps would be my boner......

[Devil 505]

Let’s go with Middle Earth. I always wanted to strafe the shire in a Huey. No but really, I love Lord of the Rings. Hobbit extracts or maybe picking up hot Elves from Rivendale.

[MacEwan]

I just dont see any point in a fictional map. The same time, money, and resources could be dedicated to a real world map. It's not like a fictional map would take less time and cost less.

[Outlaw24]

No on the fictional maps

[Uxi]

Depends. If it was a good map, possibly though I'd want several historical maps checked off first: 2003 and 1991 Iraq, MiG Alley, Vietnam, Midway, Iwo Jima...

[jross194]

;3364408']No.

 

Give me DCS: Gulf War One so I can live the rest of my life a happy man!

 

^^^

This