Would you buy fictional maps?

[Cunctator]

Not interested in fictional maps either.

[Legioneod]

Wouldn't mind it, it's all fiction at the end of the day anyways.

 

What we really need though is a ma tha is war torn and not pristine like Caucuses, Nevada, or Normandy.

We need something like a Vietnam setting (or modern) with bomb craters, bombed out infrastructure, etc. That way you actually feel like your flying over a warzone and not taking an afternoon joyride.

[MegOhm_SD]

No...would not buy them or use them even if free.

[The_Pharoah]

ED and its third party developers will HAVE to provide more maps in the future. A lot of people are sick of the Caucasus region. Sure 2.5 will look good and all...but its the same map that we've been playing for years.

 

What we need are maps based on real life conflict zones like the middle east (Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc), Afghanistan, parts of Africa, etc and possibly even past combat zones eg. Vietnam, Korea, etc. Yes i know we're getting the gulf map, but i can't for the life of me understand why the focus so much on the friggin buildings (like they did with the NTTR map highlighting all of las vegas) when its a combat sim and we're fighting bad guys with heavy armour, etc.

 

*EDIT* Oh and my answer is YES

[sphinx]

Personally I would prefer realistic maps, but I would also purchase fictional maps. My 2 cents.

[The_Pharoah]

it just depends on how fictional. I would much prefer realistic maps TBH.

[Winterz]

NO thanks, even fictionnal scenarios needs realistic maps to feels accurate.

[VIKBELL]

Sure a map gives options without a historical scenario attached. I ok with it.

[ESAc_matador]

That is the key... while, some are reproducing real places other can make few island, 100kmx100km...lots of water..... put some rocks, some hills, some threes, couple of three villages in each island.... three four roads....and you have a scenary.

 

Regarding the maps, or charts.... if you have a geographic map it's more than enough.... We are talking about combat use, not civilian.

[HiJack]

Fictional maps sounds good and gives freedom to the designers but I agree with others here that argues for real scenes. There are more realism to get if there have been fighting already documented from the designed area.

[ESAc_matador]

Fictional maps sounds good and gives freedom to the designers but I agree with others here that argues for real scenes. There are more realism to get if there have been fighting already documented from the designed area.

 

I agree with you, but, one thing does not exclude the other. The point is, it is much easier to make a fictional, that can of course be based in real life, without demanding so many details.

 

Do you wanna Korea? or vietnam? Because let's face it, not many people know how vietnam is.... you just need to put a big city, few coastal towns and the jungle.... with Some mountains... hell, who has not flyed over vietnam caucasus.with the mod?

 

You can also put some interesting tactical geography, desert and jungle (in south America you can see that, sort of)

Edited January 24, 2018 by ESAc_matador

[HiJack]

I agree with you, but, one thing does not exclude the other. The point is, it is much easier to make a fictional, that can of course be based in real life, without demanding so many details.

 

Do you wanna Korea? or vietnam? Because let's face it, not many people how vietnam is.... you just need to put a big city, few coastal and the jungle.... with Some mountains... hell, who has not flyed over vietnam caucasus.with the mod?

 

Yes totally agree. You can even create a fictional war that have occurred on your fictional map.:lol:

[Seaside]

I would only be interested in buying real maps myself

[jcbak]

Why not have fictional aircraft then as well? I vote NO.

[Emmy]

One of the things I really, really like about NTTR is that I can navigate in the A-10 by looking outside for familiar landmarks, roads, etc.

 

Caucuses frustrates me because I don't know the map very well. Hell, there are areas I've never even explored.

 

So I suppose if the designer were to sweat bullets to create a truly believable environment that didn't have unexpected or unbelievable extremes in terrain, it would be worth considering. But from what I've seen, the bar is going stratospheric with 2.5.

 

So, Good Luck...

[VZ_342]

FJORDS!!!!

 

ETA: I voted yes.

 

Grand Canyon...Real maps would be great as well, but there isn't anything inherently wrong with fictional landscapes.

 

imho

Edited January 24, 2018 by VZ_342

[aileron]

As long as it was huge with a bundle of airports... like more than 12 and lots of navaids... I would be all over it.

 

Of course what we really need is water-world... which one would think would be free as it would have zero everything except the ability to add ships and carriers.

[ESAc_matador]

Why not have fictional aircraft then as well? I vote NO.

 

Why not?.

 

Actually FC3 aircraft is are semi fictional.

Edited January 24, 2018 by ESAc_matador

[Fri13]

As long as it was huge with a bundle of airports... like more than 12 and lots of navaids... I would be all over it.

 

Of course what we really need is water-world... which one would think would be free as it would have zero everything except the ability to add ships and carriers.

 

Two maps.

 

1) Just the ocean, with dynamic weather conditions at different parts of the map.

Because no terrain and only water and weather simulation, the map could very well be size of 2000x2000km. So we could build a large scale fleet combats.

 

2) 800x2000km area where there is an coast of the one end with dozens of islands. This so we could just do operations to the coast or coast defences.

[Fri13]

ED and its third party developers will HAVE to provide more maps in the future. A lot of people are sick of the Caucasus region. Sure 2.5 will look good and all...but its the same map that we've been playing for years.

 

What we need are maps based on real life conflict zones like the middle east (Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc), Afghanistan, parts of Africa, etc and possibly even past combat zones eg. Vietnam, Korea, etc. Yes i know we're getting the gulf map, but i can't for the life of me understand why the focus so much on the friggin buildings (like they did with the NTTR map highlighting all of las vegas) when its a combat sim and we're fighting bad guys with heavy armour, etc.

 

*EDIT* Oh and my answer is YES

 

Yeah... Give us a coast of the New York or Washington so we can start doing fictional attacks to US soil....

 

Oh wait...

[FlankerMan]

Nice idea, good luck, but I don't think I'd pay money for a fictional map. A user-made map of a real place is a different story, though.

[Flappie]

I once asked Wags about the kind of GIS data needed to provide a map for DCS (at that time, I wanted to build a map of some desertic place in Africa). Short answer: very, very precise data. That means one has to pay a lot for this kind of data in order to create a map.

 

That's why I'm afraid we won't see a lot of maps in the next decades unless the community shows some interest for fictional maps (or unless some magic drone allows us to create our very own precise GIS data, you never know...).

 

I voted YES, although I'd rather have lots of maps of real places.

[Spudknocker]

The "maps" from something like the Ace Combat series could be kinda neat... I think there are a lot of cool places in the world we would need first.

 

But I think it could be cool to have a map in a place (real or fictional) with extremely varied environments like desert, forest or rainforest, snow, islands, mountains, jungle, etc... (I guess south America would work for that)

 

Ultimate DCS maps IMHO would be Vietnam and Solomon Islands/New Guinea for WW2

[Magic Zach]

If realism is what bothers you... I wonder, how do you play then in Normandy with our spits or Bf109K... There is a good mixture of airframes, which is really "unrealistic". If think, that if you make a concession, by flying a "fictional" war, why are you so bother by flying a fictional map. IF you bring A10s to Caucasus, it is as much fictional as any new map. A fictional war (which is what all Campaigns are about) in a fictional land, does not affect the realism of an airframe or the simulation. There are other really good simulators (ground) that explored fictional maps, and people are more than happy with that. I am really surprised actually with most of the answers!

 

Even though I said no to this earlier, I must admit, this dude has a point.

If we're going to get a fictional map, I want the weirdest and most fictionally (im)possible map! I'm talking giant stone archways, floating mountains (like the Hallelujah Mountains in Avatar), huge and deep canyons, rocky towers jutting out of the water! And caves and tunnels that go deep underground wide enough to fly into, with split offs so you have to choose right of left, up or down. And then the cave pops back to the surfaces. A hole in a mountainside, perhaps. Physics out the window, I want the craziest airfields. If we had an airfield with a trestle runway, that would be epic shit!

If a map like that was made, I would pay well over $80 for it. The landscape would be the best for choppers, and planes would have fun slaloming around and between obstacles, trying to get a gun solution or a lock while swerving to avoid a rock pillar or something.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Magic Zach

[Magic Zach]

Why not have fictional aircraft then as well? I vote NO.

I want Eagle Dynamics to give me an SA-2 Sampson now!