Fictitious map

[JamesRothwell]

Would you play a fictitious map, yes/no and why?

[Seaside]

Would you play a fictitious map, yes/no and why?

 

I would not. Why do all the work for a place that doesn't exist interrupting normal development ?

Same thing for fictitious aircraft / ground units /Countries etc.

There are so many unique locations around the world that have never been done in a Sim .

I play DCS to be as realistic as possible. - Maybe that's just me but I would not buy or use one.

 

Correction : If it was a 3rd party free map that was close to looking like an area that we have no even close representation of now I might.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Seaside

[Holton181]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200337

[JamesRothwell]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200337

 

I did search for fictional/fictitious and I couldn't find that thread somehow. Interesting to read though it.

[JamesRothwell]

I would not. Why do all the work for a place that doesn't exist interrupting normal development ?

Same thing for fictitious aircraft / ground units /Countries etc.

There are so many unique locations around the world that have never been done in a Sim .

I play DCS to be as realistic as possible. - Maybe that's just me but I would not buy or use one.

 

Correction : If it was a 3rd party free map that was close to looking like an area that we have no even close representation of now I might.

 

Yes there are a lot of places that would be interesting to fly in, I certainly agree with that.

 

I wonder how much time is spent making sure existing maps match up with their real world counterparts.

 

What about if the Falkland Islands map included the Ascension Islands but instead of making it true to life and 6,000km away, they adjust the position and made it 800km away or something? Would that not be welcome because it's not accurate or a good change to make the map more interesting?

[Seaside]

I think something like that would still be considered "real world" in my view.

Just adjusted for gameplay purposes as it's an open water flight it shouldn't matter too much.

Planes could start with a reduced fuel load to simulate a longer flight.

Probably lots of different opinions on that.

 

As far as which would be quicker to make I have no idea but I suspect there wouldn't be too much difference once the scale and geographical boundaries are set. The maps we have now don't have every detail I believe.

[ac5]

Would you play a fictitious map, yes/no and why?

 

Definitely NOT.

 

Don't you think that ED and the other devs have enough to do as it is?

[QuiGon]

Would you play a fictitious map, yes/no and why?

No, because I play DCS, because it tries to simulate real stuff. Real stuff that I can't do in the real world.

[Baco]

YES because everything in DCS except for training in Nevada IS ficticiouse.

No real aircrafts assets or terrein match any historical conflict EVER.

 

So all the purists, are just deluting themselves..

 

I woudl like a map that could be South East Asia or Central América,

Or a generic African map...

 

not having to make belive..that Georgia gets NATO help to stop a Rusian invasion, or that Iran fights the world alone... AND the only real conflcicts on the PG map happend way way north. not even modeled. (Iran vs Iraq, 1991, Desert storm, ad the lates invasion of Iraq and iran...

 

 

So hell yeah! bring on generic maps.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Baco

[Mfezi]

It is very difficult for me to see any way in which I would ever put down money for a fictitious map. In fact, even if it is made available as a free map, I probably wouldn't download it.

 

 

It is pretty clear that we all have different tolerances on what we will and won't accept in a simulator. I'm an aeronautical engineer, so there are a lot of little details (especially in the physics modelling) that I notice that others possibly miss. On the other hand, I'm not too concerned about certain graphical or sound aspects that may be critical for immersion for other players.

 

 

However, that being said, I always thought that the distinction in being a simulator is that you at least strive towards accuracy. You play out imaginary missions and wars, but in a setting that is as close as possible to the real world. We make compromises sometimes - for example, before the Persian Gulf map, Nevada was often used to simulate the Middle East. We also sometimes use versions of aircraft that may not quite be historically accurate for the map/period that we are trying to model. But I always saw these things as temporary solutions to play out scenarios until the necessary assets/terrains/aircraft become available - accepting that with limited resources we can't have everything immediately.

 

 

 

However, to put in effort to create a map that is deliberately fictitious, seems like a waste of resources, which are clearly already in short supply. There are so many real world areas that I would like to see in DCS: Vietnam, Korea, the area covered by the 1991 Gulf War, the Balkans - that I would be dismayed to see resources being spent on creating a fictitious map.