Jump to content

Massive Low Detail Maps! +Briefing Room!


Pilot909

Recommended Posts

Part 1: In order to really deliver an authentic tactical campaign experience (like a dynamic campaign) there needs to be larger theatres of operation (Think :COUGH: and the Korean Peninsula map). For the sake of creating a more realistic tactical environment and pushing the level of realism forward and to supplement the Dynamic Campaign mechanics that are currently in development, I believe making a sacrifice in ground graphical fidelity in the interest of sheer space/area is absolutely necessary. Bigger map = more realistic mission planning opportunities and a more authentic overall dynamic campaign experience, especially with more powerful SAM sites coming into the mix. It could be marketed as a more realistic "tactical" or "alternative" experience and be sold as (examples) DCS: Vietnam Tactical or DCS: US East Coast Tactical or something along those lines and be targeted to those that are looking for said type of experience. Eventually after accruing such a hefty library of large terrains I would hope that if you were in one terrain and crossed into the next (if you owned it) you would be able to essentially load into it and continue your fight/flight. Thus coming to the "World" in DCS: World. I understand that this may not be possible in the engine right now. But I cant help but ask. Looking at the roadmap in the forums, Radio/Ingame comms (VOIP) are coming, I heard from Wags on a podcast that Dynamic Campaign is in the works and ATC will be overhauled.

 

Part 2: Now all that's really left to make DCS the ULTIMATE tactical aviation sim in my honest opinion is larger theaters of operation as stated above and perhaps a briefing/planning "room". The Briefing/Planning "room" or screen would be used to be briefed on or coordinate and plan strikes, load data cartridges and make custom kneeboards before jumping into an SP or MP mission (or MP dynamic campaign mission). The "briefing room" could take the place of the aircraft selection screen in MP and give the player more situational awareness and a greater understanding of the objective(s) prior to jumping in an aircraft. Thanks for listening. :thumbup:


Edited by Pilot909
Amending a certain sim's name

DCS Modules Owned:A-10C, FC3, Yak-52, F/A-18C, AV-8B, AJS-37, F-5E, M-2000C, L-39, Hawk T.1A, C-101EB/CC, MiG-15bis, MiG-21bis, BF-109K4, FW-190D9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, KA-50, F-86, DCS:CA, WWII assets, F-14A/A+/B

DCS Terrains Owned: All

 

PLEASE MAKE UH-60L and AH-64D!!! :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next time use this "."

 

Please.

 

I used a period 10 times in that paragraph... I don't need you trying to educate me on how to type.

 

Correction, 13* times.


Edited by Pilot909

DCS Modules Owned:A-10C, FC3, Yak-52, F/A-18C, AV-8B, AJS-37, F-5E, M-2000C, L-39, Hawk T.1A, C-101EB/CC, MiG-15bis, MiG-21bis, BF-109K4, FW-190D9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, KA-50, F-86, DCS:CA, WWII assets, F-14A/A+/B

DCS Terrains Owned: All

 

PLEASE MAKE UH-60L and AH-64D!!! :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to help you and help us to read better your posts.

 

Nothing else. Im not educating you. Just If you dont separate your phrases nobody would read you.

 

Dont be so rude mate.

" You must think in russian.."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´

 

Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree to low fidelity large maps. As it currently stands, putting Stennis out in the corner of Arabian Sea for example gives pretty boring transition flight to the area of operations over detailed portion of terrain and you still need your tactics to avoid SAM sites (if those are placed correctly), do mid air refuel, and then bring it back to Stennis in one piece.

 

This would be already 1.5 to 2 hour mission, without save games this is pretty demanding for people who don't have that much of time too often. Surely I would love to simulate 8 hour sortie like they do in RL operations but I just can't afford time wise.

 

 

So the missions I build are something around 45 minutes in total and since I love flying low level, the more detail (eye candy) the better for me.

 

 

Just my opinion.

 

PS - you did ask for comments regarding your "wall of text" yourself, by posting it. Your "wall of text" reads just fine if one is interested to read it and. If not, one should not bother to respond. Don't worry ;) and don't be so trigger happy in response :) .


Edited by Gierasimov

Intel i7-13700KF :: ROG STRIX Z790-A GAMING WIFI D4 :: Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB ::  MSI RTX 4080  Gaming X Trio  :: VKB Gunfighter MK.III MCG Ultimate :: VPC MongoosT-50 CM3 :: non-VR :: single player :: open beta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree to low fidelity large maps. As it currently stands, putting Stennis out in the corner of Arabian Sea for example gives pretty boring transition flight to the area of operations over detailed portion of terrain and you still need your tactics to avoid SAM sites (if those are placed correctly), do mid air refuel, and then bring it back to Stennis in one piece.

 

This would be already 1.5 to 2 hour mission, without save games this is pretty demanding for people who don't have that much of time too often. Surely I would love to simulate 8 hour sortie like they do in RL operations but I just can't afford time wise.

 

 

So the missions I build are something around 45 minutes in total and since I love flying low level, the more detail (eye candy) the better for me.

 

 

Just my opinion.

 

PS - you did ask for comments regarding your "wall of text" yourself, by posting it. Your "wall of text" reads just fine if one is interested to read it and. If not, one should not bother to respond. Don't worry ;) and don't be so trigger happy in response :) .

 

Thanks for the reply, as I said in the post, I'm not saying the map design should shift towards that, I love the map sizes we have now for what they are. I'm saying it would be favorable to (in addition to traditionally sized theatres) create large, simplified ones for those that want that type of hardcore simulation experience, more airbases, more terrain variety, wider scope of threat, change in ROE, civilian and military air traffic, more navaids, more opportunities to work on real world flight procedures like IFR cross country flights etc. These sets of terrains would be sold separately and marketed separately from the more traditional, good looking and user friendly type maps like we have today. For example we have DCS: Persian Gulf. the large scale low detail version would be called something like DCS: Persian Gulf Tactical and would be marketed as a different, more hardcore experience for those that want it. But I see what you're saying and I'm in agreement for the most part.


Edited by Pilot909

DCS Modules Owned:A-10C, FC3, Yak-52, F/A-18C, AV-8B, AJS-37, F-5E, M-2000C, L-39, Hawk T.1A, C-101EB/CC, MiG-15bis, MiG-21bis, BF-109K4, FW-190D9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, KA-50, F-86, DCS:CA, WWII assets, F-14A/A+/B

DCS Terrains Owned: All

 

PLEASE MAKE UH-60L and AH-64D!!! :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the eye candy as well , but the idea of a large-scale , less-detailed map , much better populated with beacons , and dynamic weather appeals to me as well . I know this will be seen as heresy , but i prefer to fly a few aircraft well , rather than many poorly (my limitations-not meant as a criticism) so the only way i can further support ED is through map purchases . This one would be a day-one buy .

9700k @ stock , Aorus Pro Z390 wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Pro throttle and T50CM2/WarBrD base on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , Reverb G2v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't even really need to give up map detail for larger maps. I'd be fine with the ability to add Airbases outside of the defined map zone.

 

 

For example, on the Caucuses map, I'd just add Merzifon in Turkey and fly from there when on the Blue side. I'd also add some Ukrainian airbases and a few of the Russian ones just outside the northern portion of the map like Rostov On Don. It would be completely fine for me even if nothing else was around.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what world is 400x400 (or more) not big enough? The total number of people willing to fly eight hour sorties is probably single digits. Besides 'big amounts of generic crap' is antithema to DCS and has been done before in other games.

 

If you don't mind great wastes of low res terrain, feel free to fly off the edges of the map. There is no hard edge. Then you can have your 8 hour sortie. Since you'll be cruising on autopilot for four hours, it doesn't really matter if the ground is repeating textures, right? @@

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part 1: In order to really deliver an authentic tactical campaign experience (like a dynamic campaign) there needs to be larger theatres of operation (Think :COUGH: and the Korean Peninsula map). For the sake of creating a more realistic tactical environment and pushing the level of realism forward and to supplement the Dynamic Campaign mechanics that are currently in development, I believe making a sacrifice in ground graphical fidelity in the interest of sheer space/area is absolutely necessary. Bigger map = more realistic mission planning opportunities and a more authentic overall dynamic campaign experience, especially with more powerful SAM sites coming into the mix. It could be marketed as a more realistic "tactical" or "alternative" experience and be sold as (examples) DCS: Vietnam Tactical or DCS: US East Coast Tactical or something along those lines and be targeted to those that are looking for said type of experience. Eventually after accruing such a hefty library of large terrains I would hope that if you were in one terrain and crossed into the next (if you owned it) you would be able to essentially load into it and continue your fight/flight. Thus coming to the "World" in DCS: World. I understand that this may not be possible in the engine right now. But I cant help but ask. Looking at the roadmap in the forums, Radio/Ingame comms (VOIP) are coming, I heard from Wags on a podcast that Dynamic Campaign is in the works and ATC will be overhauled. Part 2: Now all that's really left to make DCS the ULTIMATE tactical aviation sim in my honest opinion is larger theaters of operation as stated above and perhaps a briefing/planning "room". The Briefing/Planning "room" or screen would be used to be briefed on or coordinate and plan strikes, load data cartridges and make custom kneeboards before jumping into an SP or MP mission (or MP dynamic campaign mission). The "briefing room" could take the place of the aircraft selection screen in MP and give the player more situational awareness and a greater understanding of the objective(s) prior to jumping in an aircraft. Thanks for listening. :thumbup:

 

I really think that current map size, especially PG and Georgia, if done well, could have just enough size for a very realistic dynamic campaign. It would be a more tactical campaign with smaller PAKS; if we follow the falcon 4.0 style, but big enough for all types of missions.

 

Of course, something a bit bigger would not hurt anyone, but let it not be at the expense of lower detail. The effort could be made in other fronts, like moving AI and campagins resources to other cpu cores, or implementing something similar to Falcon buble system.

 

On the other hand, the briefing room thing would be truly perfect and something lacking now in MP. The possiblity to plan your mission and load this plan before takeoff would add so much to the experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what world is 400x400 (or more) not big enough?

When the planes in the sim can exceed that distance and/or when making campaigns.

 

 

While 400 by 400 is certainly enough for some airframes, it can also force some questionable unit placement, like having valuable and vulnerable tanker/AWACS/bomber aircraft operating right on the front lines.

 

 

It also makes reduces the value of refueling, and limits the variety in flight paths you can take.

 

 

 

The total number of people willing to fly eight hour sorties is probably single digits. Besides 'big amounts of generic crap' is antithema to DCS and has been done before in other games
Even the people that only fly 50 miles from takeoff could appreciate a larger and more diverse map, although detail would also be an issue for them most likely.

 

 

If you don't mind great wastes of low res terrain, feel free to fly off the edges of the map. There is no hard edge. Then you can have your 8 hour sortie. Since you'll be cruising on autopilot for four hours, it doesn't really matter if the ground is repeating textures, right? @@

A terrain that is nothing but low detail is problematic and unrealistic. Larger and less detailed maps are a compromise because the unrealistic ideal is a map of the entire globe at full detail. There needs to be detail map areas for the sake of realism, from things like visual navigation to combat tactics (fighting in a city and picking out friends/foe from the air is very different from fighting on an infinite flat plane).

 

 

Also, regarding there being no hard edge to the map, most aircraft can only takeoff and land from airbases, and the Mission Editor tries its best to force you from putting units too far from the intended map area.

 

 

As I said above, I'd be pretty happy if the rather pointless ME map boundaries were remove and we could add generic airbases. I could get the larger maps I want with minimal input from ED. If they were willing to make 2000x2000 mile or perhaps just 800x800 maps though, I wouldn't complain at all.

 

 

EDIT

 

 

Also to address the "flying on autopilot for hours" thing, that's also missing the point. A larger area covered allows for more interesting events. Say that while you're on egress for that 8 hour mission, an important enemy asset is discovered and you're redirected to attack it. More often though, I'd use it to place more ambiguous front lines. Where along the flight will you encounter SAM's enemy CAP? Who knows, so you had better pay attention. There is nothing saying that a long flight has to be devoid of activity.


Edited by Exorcet

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mixed feelings. On the one hand I really get the point. The end goal is to make larger areas that PC's can handle and work towards the round earth goal. Something that isn't 30GB in size. And the placeable airfields and idea of "DIY" is strongly beckoning to me, because I feel constrained by current maps, no matter how large they are, they are bespoke, built to an exact definition and you can't change them, they are wrapped in security and we can only put those farps and handmade objects of small size on them.

 

On the other hand, flying through PG map recently on Huey (not something I often do) I was gobsmacked by the level of detail. I recall hiding from jets in a carpark and getting the map out. Is that something we all want to give up?

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the idea of being able to place generic bases and maybe interest points or targets outside the detail modeled maps is a win win situation. It gives more flexibility to mission builders. If ED could find the way and resources to give us two generic bases, large and small, a few more generic buildings and maybe roads we could fill the gaps on the low detail zones and expand our universe, also being able to use current maps as a different theater altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that something we all want to give up?

 

You wouldn't have to give anything up. I stated multiple times in this thread/in the post, the idea is that this "Tactical" terrain series would be released separately and marketed separately from the traditional style of map and would not replace it. If you don't want that sort of experience, stick to purchasing the smaller, more detailed version (IE the type of maps we have now). Hope that makes sense. :thumbup:

DCS Modules Owned:A-10C, FC3, Yak-52, F/A-18C, AV-8B, AJS-37, F-5E, M-2000C, L-39, Hawk T.1A, C-101EB/CC, MiG-15bis, MiG-21bis, BF-109K4, FW-190D9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, KA-50, F-86, DCS:CA, WWII assets, F-14A/A+/B

DCS Terrains Owned: All

 

PLEASE MAKE UH-60L and AH-64D!!! :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what world is 400x400 (or more) not big enough? The total number of people willing to fly eight hour sorties is probably single digits. Besides 'big amounts of generic crap' is antithema to DCS and has been done before in other games.

 

If you don't mind great wastes of low res terrain, feel free to fly off the edges of the map. There is no hard edge. Then you can have your 8 hour sortie. Since you'll be cruising on autopilot for four hours, it doesn't really matter if the ground is repeating textures, right? @@

 

I don't think you understand just how short a true dynamic campaign would be in a map the size of PG or Black Sea. As another user mentioned, placement for many units is already tight and unrealistic, having refueling aircraft and AWACS congested into a small map with a dynamic campaign going on would be a real mess and even moreso when you begin to factor in longer range SAM's that take up damn near the whole map. A larger map would offer larger variety of threats, more ambiguity when it comes to the location of those threats, increased sensation of weariness and loneliness when away from friendlies en-route to a strike (like IRL), realistic fog of war, different ROE's (think going from a civil air traffic system to a warzone) and others. It's not just about having empty space to do nonsense, it has a clear application. The 400x400 box we have is simply not enough to house an ultra-accurate depiction of a 3rd or 4th gen combat environment (esp w/ dynamic campaign). It's not for everybody, hence why I mentioned that this would be an alternative style terrain to what is normally given. Did you even read what I had to say or did you just comment based on the title?

DCS Modules Owned:A-10C, FC3, Yak-52, F/A-18C, AV-8B, AJS-37, F-5E, M-2000C, L-39, Hawk T.1A, C-101EB/CC, MiG-15bis, MiG-21bis, BF-109K4, FW-190D9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, KA-50, F-86, DCS:CA, WWII assets, F-14A/A+/B

DCS Terrains Owned: All

 

PLEASE MAKE UH-60L and AH-64D!!! :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the 476th, we do everything you mention (re: Briefiings / Planning) via Discord...

 

Cool...? 1. Not everyone is in a squadron 2. That's not really gonna work for SP 3. That's not really gonna work for joining a random MP server 4. Discord doesn't let you load waypoints, freqs and other data onto data cartridges 5. Discord doesn't let you make custom kneeboards 6. The last thing people want is to do is have 4 programs running just to have a semi-smooth experience in DCS (this is why stuff like in-game comms are being worked on and in game dynamic campaign).. I could go on, but it's clear that you didn't read the post just like the other guy and decided to respond to the title instead...

DCS Modules Owned:A-10C, FC3, Yak-52, F/A-18C, AV-8B, AJS-37, F-5E, M-2000C, L-39, Hawk T.1A, C-101EB/CC, MiG-15bis, MiG-21bis, BF-109K4, FW-190D9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, KA-50, F-86, DCS:CA, WWII assets, F-14A/A+/B

DCS Terrains Owned: All

 

PLEASE MAKE UH-60L and AH-64D!!! :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice attitude judging everyone.

 

You are making friends fast.

 

I'm not here to "make friends". People that respond with off-topic stuff or reply to the title rather than the actual post aren't going to be greeted with some cake and a pat on the back... The only one "judging" here is you. You come in, skim through my post and try to teach me English like I was born 14 minutes ago and use an ellipses while doing so to imply it's a derogatory remark. Then have the nerve to come back and tell me I have an attitude problem. So please, tell me oh wise one. What have I said that is 'judgemental'? Did I ever tell Jimmy over there that his pants are on too tight? Or Bob that his head's shaped weird? Nope, I did no such thing, but I can tell you who did... Anyway, those that have provided fair points have been left alone or responded to, those that have replied to the title have been met with a fair response and a secondary or tertiary explanation followed by an implication that the next readers/responders shouldn't reply based on purely the title.

I'm simply responding to belligerence with semi-belligerence. If you use an ellipses in a manner that can be construed as derogatory, I will respond at that level. If you respond based on reading nothing but the title and giving 20% effort and/or adding a sarcastic connotation, I'll give a response and make sure I address that sarcastic/derogatory implication with the same treatment somewhere within my response.


Edited by Pilot909
Spelling Error

DCS Modules Owned:A-10C, FC3, Yak-52, F/A-18C, AV-8B, AJS-37, F-5E, M-2000C, L-39, Hawk T.1A, C-101EB/CC, MiG-15bis, MiG-21bis, BF-109K4, FW-190D9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, KA-50, F-86, DCS:CA, WWII assets, F-14A/A+/B

DCS Terrains Owned: All

 

PLEASE MAKE UH-60L and AH-64D!!! :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part 1: In order to really deliver an authentic tactical campaign experience (like a dynamic campaign) there needs to be larger theatres of operation (Think :COUGH: and the Korean Peninsula map). For the sake of creating a more realistic tactical environment and pushing the level of realism forward and to supplement the Dynamic Campaign mechanics that are currently in development, I believe making a sacrifice in ground graphical fidelity in the interest of sheer space/area is absolutely necessary. Bigger map = more realistic mission planning opportunities and a more authentic overall dynamic campaign experience, especially with more powerful SAM sites coming into the mix. It could be marketed as a more realistic "tactical" or "alternative" experience and be sold as (examples) DCS: Vietnam Tactical or DCS: US East Coast Tactical or something along those lines and be targeted to those that are looking for said type of experience. Eventually after accruing such a hefty library of large terrains I would hope that if you were in one terrain and crossed into the next (if you owned it) you would be able to essentially load into it and continue your fight/flight. Thus coming to the "World" in DCS: World. I understand that this may not be possible in the engine right now. But I cant help but ask. Looking at the roadmap in the forums, Radio/Ingame comms (VOIP) are coming, I heard from Wags on a podcast that Dynamic Campaign is in the works and ATC will be overhauled. Part 2: Now all that's really left to make DCS the ULTIMATE tactical aviation sim in my honest opinion is larger theaters of operation as stated above and perhaps a briefing/planning "room". The Briefing/Planning "room" or screen would be used to be briefed on or coordinate and plan strikes, load data cartridges and make custom kneeboards before jumping into an SP or MP mission (or MP dynamic campaign mission). The "briefing room" could take the place of the aircraft selection screen in MP and give the player more situational awareness and a greater understanding of the objective(s) prior to jumping in an aircraft. Thanks for listening. :thumbup:

 

anyone remembers at those DID EF2000 sim? decades ago, with the TACTCOM plugin, u had those briefing room where u also had known sam stations etc.

u could plan your attack, flightpath, loadout

 

with the actual mission editor functionalities it shouldn t be too much effort to implement this idea.

and if it is?

ED may considers paying the guy doing COMBATFLITE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said this before somewhere here...

 

When DCS becomes "DCS world", they should use the sat images "Think Ortho4xp" and build a system to auto place the correct bridges, houses on top of the high rez images etc. This would be a quick way to flush out a map.

 

Someone now went and did just that it seems...

 

 

This would be a lot more work "System" for something like DCS of course. As you would need special AI routing, logistics etc. These things would need to be setup by hand I guess.


Edited by David OC

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said this before somewhere here...

 

When DCS becomes "DCS world", they should use the sat images "Think Ortho4xp" and build a system to auto place the correct bridges, houses on top of the high rez images etc. This would be a quick way to flush out a map.

 

Someone now went and did just that it seems...

 

 

This would be a lot more work "System" for something like DCS of course. As you would need special AI routing, logistics etc. These things would need to be setup by hand I guess.

 

Oh yeah, forgot about ortho. Yeah using something like satellite images + procedural generation to make and run the map would be a damn good idea for something like this! Very interesting.

DCS Modules Owned:A-10C, FC3, Yak-52, F/A-18C, AV-8B, AJS-37, F-5E, M-2000C, L-39, Hawk T.1A, C-101EB/CC, MiG-15bis, MiG-21bis, BF-109K4, FW-190D9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, KA-50, F-86, DCS:CA, WWII assets, F-14A/A+/B

DCS Terrains Owned: All

 

PLEASE MAKE UH-60L and AH-64D!!! :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:huh:

anyone remembers at those DID EF2000 sim? decades ago, with the TACTCOM plugin, u had those briefing room where u also had known sam stations etc.

u could plan your attack, flightpath, loadout

 

with the actual mission editor functionalities it shouldn t be too much effort to implement this idea.

and if it is?

ED may considers paying the guy doing COMBATFLITE

 

Yup haha, thats exactly what I'm talking about. BMS did the same thing pretty much. You can load up single player and see a briefing menu where you could set up your loadout, set waypoints and plan your mission based on known threat positions, set frequencies and so on. Not to mention if you did multiplayer you could do all that while discussing it with your "squadmates" or wingmen or whatver. And as you said, many of the functionalities are there, startup data is modified in LUA IIRC, custom kneeboards can be accepted, mission editor and in-game allow you to view maps with threat information and so on. The trick is to get everything tied together and working within one easy to use "page" or "menu" or whatever prior to hopping in and flying a jet. Hell, maybe when you finish getting briefed you "walk out" (spawn outside) of a building and get driven to your plane! ED and HB mentioned carrier interiors too, I suppose the carrier alternative would be walking out of the readyroom and going upstairs to the jet, they're gonna model it anyway so why not? Hahah, nah maybe that's just pushin it lol.


Edited by Pilot909

DCS Modules Owned:A-10C, FC3, Yak-52, F/A-18C, AV-8B, AJS-37, F-5E, M-2000C, L-39, Hawk T.1A, C-101EB/CC, MiG-15bis, MiG-21bis, BF-109K4, FW-190D9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, KA-50, F-86, DCS:CA, WWII assets, F-14A/A+/B

DCS Terrains Owned: All

 

PLEASE MAKE UH-60L and AH-64D!!! :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relax mate.

 

Last suggestion with no bad intentions at all.

 

Could you be so kind to add some separation between your phrases please. Reading your wall text is hard, at least for me.

 

Thanks.

" You must think in russian.."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´

 

Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...