Partial 80s West vs. East Germany, GUIK or North Atlantic like in Fleet Defender

[Northstar98]

On 6/1/2021 at 4:35 PM, Kazansky222 said:

 

That is really cool, I had no idea there were so many. Heres a cool little resource that shows some maps with SAM placement in East Germany as well.

 

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/08/ddr-air-defense-cold-war-case-study.html

Nice find, it's great that they included a comprehensive .kmz file for Google Earth - very useful.

Only issue is that it's quite difficult to find the layouts of the sites (at least where it isn't obvious, like one of the SA-5 sites).

Edited October 16, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Moriarty]

This is an outstanding idea

[Dom82]

Cold War? In Germany? Yes i totally agree, and of course i would Kill for such a Map.

[Pak1979]

+1

[TheCabal]

Hello folks,

any news reg. the still interesting topic? Any developments? (had a huge break because I can't get myself to start DCS any longer without a dynamic campaign)

Greetings,

Cabal

[MAXsenna]

Well, we're getting Kola, but I guess you new that. 

[bies]

On 10/3/2022 at 9:01 PM, MAXsenna said:

Well, we're getting Kola, but I guess you new that. 

Is Kola Peninsula being modeled as 1980s with numerous Soviet military bases still online?

[MAXsenna]

Is Kola Peninsula being modeled as 1980s with numerous Soviet military bases still online?

Modern, unfortunately.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Northstar98]

Shouldn't matter that much - all of the major airbases are either still operational IRL or already announced.

Only one missing is Severomorsk-2 which was a SAR base right next to Severomorsk-1 hosting the Be-12PS SAR aircraft that shut down in the late 90s. It would be fairly easy to add it in.

 

Personally, I'm more concerned about ground based radars just being non-functional eye-candy, unable to be used - though that goes for everyone in the region - Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia.

[Exorcet]

9 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Personally, I'm more concerned about ground based radars just being non-functional eye-candy, unable to be used - though that goes for everyone in the region - Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia.

Yeah, that would be a really nice feature of the map, but given that I've never seen such a thing in DCS before (native map units) I'm unsure if it's something to expect.

At least if the radars are modeled it would make it easy to hide some kind of EWR unit within them. The Persian Gulf map has some EWR sites populated with buildings, but you'd never know. Some of the radars are represented with oil tanks or something if I remember.

Another option for modeling radar stations is to leave them off the map but mark their locations and include them as units themselves.

[Northstar98]

On 10/8/2022 at 4:45 AM, Exorcet said:

Yeah, that would be a really nice feature of the map, but given that I've never seen such a thing in DCS before (native map units) I'm unsure if it's something to expect.

Well, my expectations are going to be open until the map releases, but yes - for every other map in DCS, EW stations and radars present on maps are simply non-functional eye-candy.

In the case of the Caucasus, it's kinda doubly disappointing because the P-37 and PRV-11 are very common REDFOR radars and the models in game are animated and fairly high quality (along with the DRL-7 and RSP-7).

On 10/8/2022 at 4:45 AM, Exorcet said:

The Persian Gulf map has some EWR sites populated with buildings, but you'd never know. Some of the radars are represented with oil tanks or something if I remember.

Yep, a major EWR/communications station near Bandar Abbas has its 2 radomes replaced with grain silos/fuel tanks (present day imagery has the radomes removed, just leaving the cylindrical stands - which could be mistaken for tanks, but in imagery from January 2003 to June 2022 the radomes are clearly visible).

On 10/8/2022 at 4:45 AM, Exorcet said:

Another option for modeling radar stations is to leave them off the map but mark their locations and include them as units themselves.

That would infinitely be my preferred solution - have the EWR sites just include mounts for the radars, but not the radars themselves.

It might be a bit more difficult with Norway though as there's at least one SINDRE I station in the region covered by the map - these radars can retract into an underground silo when not in use, a simple solution though could be to include a cutout in the terrain mesh for them.

Edited October 16, 2022 by Northstar98

[DmitriKozlowsky]

On 5/15/2020 at 3:53 AM, Northstar98 said:

The good things with the Falklands and Iceland is that they're fairly barren, I'm not sure that the mesh itself is the source of performance issues, more the number of objects.

 

Iceland does have more varied and I would say more complex terrain AFAIK, but that's really it, it's fairly sparse to my knowledge.

 

 

As for red aircraft on a GIUK gap map? No idea, SF2: NA had land based stuff operating out of airfields in the north-east, but to my knowledge they're not suitable for things like bombers.

 

But even so, we don't even have Cold War bombers to begin with, they're all fairly modern (well maybe apart from the Su-24M/MR and Tu-142).

 

But there's so many assets missing for 80s era stuff, both blue and red, especially for naval stuff.

 

I mean look at RAZBAM's lightning.... Yay, great a British jet (even if, erm, yeah) but kind of a misfit at the moment in DCS, because there's nothing it historically intercepts, everything is too modern.

Historical potential targets for BE Lightning in DCS. Redside TU-16 (sub with H-6), TU-95 family, SU-17/22, Mig-25, Mig-23, Mig-27, Mig-19, Mig-21, MI-24, MI-8, Soviet era transports. Blue side plausible targets depending on scenario. F-14A, F-4E, A-4E, C-130, C-2, F-86, KC-135.

[Northstar98]

Barely any of those are historical targets for the Lightning at all - the Lightning was mainly relevant from the 1960s to the mid 70s. While they were in service up to the late 80s, the overwhelming majority of those squadrons had transferred to either the Phantom or the Jaguar during the 70s, leaving just 2 squadrons at RAF Brinbrook in Lincolnshire.

So, going for the early 60s to mid 70s, the main targets the Lightning would've intercepted were the Tu-16 [Badger A], Tu-16KSR-2/2-11/2-5-11 [Badger G/Badger G Mod] and Tu-22R/RD [Blinder C].

Quote

Redside TU-16 (sub with H-6)

The H-6J we have in DCS is not a suitable stand-in for either the Badger A or G - it's way too modern and even if I restrict it to dumb bombs only, it lacks the defensive armamanent (primarly the 6 23 mm NR-23 cannons, in dorsal, ventral and tail turrets), which the Lightning would have to have dealt with during an intercept.

Quote

TU-95 family

Of which we only have the Tu-95MS-6, whose only armament are missiles from the early 90s at the earliest and an unkown version of the Tu-142 [Bear F], which IRL is an MPA practically dedicated to ASW (in DCS, it only has the Kh-35, a missile I'm not convinced it had IRL and a missile from the 2000s).

Quote

SU-17/22

Of which we currently have the M4 version from the 80s - on the theatre the M4 was present, the Lightning had been replaced by the Phantom.

Quote

Mig-25

The MiG-25s we have are again from the 1980s, the RBT I guess could be a suitable target for the Lightning, but the PD is an interceptor - not sure why an interceptor would intercept an interceptor.

Quote

Mig-23

Which we're getting an MLA and currently have an MLD, the MLA is end of the 70s at the absolute earliest and the MLD being early 80s and again, on the theatre this thread is discussing where they would've been present, there were BLUFOR aircraft that were much more relevant (i.e F-4E/F/K/M, F-15A/C and F-16A).

Quote

Mig-27

Of which we have the K, similar story to the MiG-23MLA/MLD.

Quote

Mig-19, Mig-21

These are probably the only 2 on the list, relevant to the Lightning on German theatre (Lightning F.2/F.2A were based at Gütersloh from 1965 - 1977)

Quote

MI-24, MI-8

Not really, again, the versions we have succeed the Lightning in Germany

Quote

Soviet era transports.

Which we only have the An-26 and the Il-76MD, the An-26? Sure, but the Il-76MD is late 70s at the earliest and likely wouldn't be a target in a historical scenario.

 

Now sure, I've gone from a strictly historical perspective if the Cold War had gone hot, you're of course free to make whatever scenarios you see fit, but as it stands, we don't have the targets the Lightning would've intercepted and only a couple of fighters it could've realistically fought.

 

[TheCabal]

Hey there folks,

it's been a while. Any news... changes reg. the suggestions here? 

Greetings,
Cabal

[TheCabal]

It's been 5 years since I posted this. Thank you Ugra-Media for making it true!
Only thing missing is a GUIK map.  

[Dragon1-1]

Kola is fairly close to GIUK gap, but the gap itself is huge and very watery, so it's probably best left for the whole Earth map. After all, it'll mostly be endless ocean bounded by landmasses from which it got its name. Also, air combat there would be mostly the domain of carrier aircraft, with maybe a few land based ones from Iceland and UK if the fighting got close. Kola map has all we need in that region, IMO.

[Jayhawk1971]

I would have absolutely no problem with a "watery" North Atlantic /GIUK map. Recreating the REFORGER part of a Cold War era scenario with the Navy trying to protect convoys headed for Europe from Soviet raids, or liberating Iceland from Soviet occupation would a lot of fun, especially in the form of Reflected/ Baltic Dragon-style SP campaigns.

Basically Red Storm Rising/ Hunt for Red October - the map. 

[Bremspropeller]

GIUK map with the Azores on the southern edge would be awesome.

Especially with airplanes like the P-3 or Atlantic flyable (or even in the game in the first place).

[Dragon1-1]

You know that if you want a huge swatch of water, you can just load up Marianas or SA, right? Or even Kola, it's got quite a bit of water around it. Naval aircraft we have in DCS are quite few in number, and Soviets barely used them, anyway. Ships in DCS are lacking, too. Most aircraft in DCS are land based, so a map that is pretty much only ocean would have limited utility.

Notice how most of Red Storm Rising and Hunt for Red October involved ships and submarines. Realistically, any Soviet aircraft fought would be flying from land bases. The only Soviet planes to fly from a carrier were Su-33 and Yak-38. Nothing else.

[Northstar98]

32 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

You know that if you want a huge swatch of water, you can just load up Marianas or SA, right?

Oh, why do we need a Germany map then? After all if you want huge-ish swathes of green, just load up the Cacausus or Normandy?

33 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Naval aircraft we have in DCS are quite few in number, and Soviets barely used them, anyway.

The same logic applies to just about every theatre in DCS.

Ironically one of the ones you named is one of the worst for being fleshed out. The South Atlantic for instance has exactly 0 British aircraft for any timeframe. Argentina only has the MB-339A and Chile only has the C-101CC and F-5E. And there are no upcoming aircraft that fit either.

For the GIUK gap, we at least have the F-4E (with an appropriate livery to boot), the E-3 (even if its the wrong variant), the Tu-22M3, the Tu-142 and if you're interested in RSR scenarios, the B-52H (albeit a post 1991 one) and the 9.12 MiG-29.

Cold War CVBGs at least have the early F-14A, A-6E and A-7E coming (which represents all of the primary combat aircraft), we are still missing an E-2C, EA-6B, KA-6D and S-3A, but at least for #1 and #4 we have stand-ins. CVBGs for the South Atlantic have 0 aircraft (either present or upcoming).

48 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Ships in DCS are lacking, too.

Yes, but there's enough there to work with.

Another lite simulator, which ironically had Iceland as a map only came w/ 3 Soviet ships (though it did have 6 US ones)

50 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Most aircraft in DCS are land based, so a map that is pretty much only ocean would have limited utility.

Luckily the GIUK has 4 major airbases for them then - unlike the Marianas which only has one.

Another thing is that the GIUK gap is a map that shouldn't take much in the way of resources to develop - the area is less developed than the Kola map and has a fraction of the land mass.

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Oh, why do we need a Germany map then? After all if you want huge-ish swathes of green, just load up the Cacausus or Normandy?

Except no? Germany has cities (bigger than either of those maps, in fact), highways, landmarks, all that stuff. Water is water no matter where it is in the world.

Of all the bad arguments you've made, this is probably the silliest one. Even the endless parade of maps set in the sandbox has something to set them apart. In the GIUK gap, you'll take off from the boat, do your mission feet wet, and get back to the boat. That's pretty much the scenario for it, US CVBG vs. Soviet surface combat battlegroup. Very nice for ship and especially sub sims, but for aircraft, way down the list.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The same logic applies to just about every theatre in DCS.

Only to ones that are almost 100% water.

Just to be clear, I wasn't referring to ahistorical aircraft, I was referring to most modules and AI aircraft, particularly Soviet ones, that we have being physically unable to operate from a carrier or do AAR. This means they wouldn't get very far in, especially without a friendly airbase in the area.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Luckily the GIUK has 4 major airbases for them then - unlike the Marianas which only has one.

You might not have noticed how many miles separate those airbases. GIUK gap is huge. Distance from Falklands to mainland is about 600km. That's the largest DCS map currently available, and it already exceeds combat radius of most of our aircraft. From Iceland to UK? 1000km of nothing but sea. If you take a detour you can glimpse Faroe islands, not that there's a lot to see in there. If you want to fly for three hours with multiple AARs just to see something other than water, well, you can set it up on the South Atlantic map.

In fact, Marianas has already been explicitly designed as the DCS' "mostly water" map. Also, GIUK gap is big enough that it'll be even worse than South Atlantic with regards to being just plain inaccurate. Geography of the SA map is skewed because the map is flat and the Earth is not, contrary to what some people believe. It's not too obvious because of all the water, but this is something you really want a spherical Earth for. Just like with Vietnam, you're thinking too big for this stage of sim development.

Edited March 22 by Dragon1-1

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Except no? Germany has cities (bigger than either of those maps, in fact), highways, landmarks, all that stuff.

Oh, when did London, Paris, Calais, Amiems, Tblisi, Sochi, Krasnodar, blah blah blah, lose their city status?

No highways or landmarks either? Sure about that?

Are you going to tell me there are no forests, bridges or railways next?

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Of all the bad arguments you've made, this is probably the silliest one.

Uh huh.

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Even the endless parade of maps set in the sandbox has something to set them apart.

"There's nothing to set apart the GIUK gap compared to the Marianas or South Atlantic" but sure, I'm the one putting forward bad and silly arguments...

Because large NATO airbases (plural) in one of the most relevant areas for the Cold War apparently isn't a difference?

The only aerodromes on the Falkland Islands suitable for our aircraft are practically right next to each other - at least with Iceland I could stage blue out of Keflavik and red out of Egilsstaðir and/or Akureyri (ironically, something the light-sim I hinted at also did) and the distances are similar as could be expected on Germany. 

This way I'd even have more scope for ground combat between them, something that's straight up impossible on the Marianas, unless the ground combat is all concentrated on Rota or something and pretty dubious between Argentina and I guess, East Falkland - I'd argue that Iceland is the more plausible scenario - it's in the right place for a start - not sure what the Soviets are doing in Argentina/Falklands, not exactly sure it's a location with any overarching strategic benefit for them, unlike Iceland or the rest of the GIUK gap, ditto for the Marianas.

Going further into the realms of fiction though, I could also set up a scenario between the Faroes, the Shetland Islands or the Outer Hebrides - fairly appropriate distances (similar to what can be expected on the Germany map) and as a bonus, the latter 2 are far more suitable for ground combat than the Marianas. I've got options for long duration missions between islands and short ones, unlike the South Atlantic (unless I'm bombing Isla de los Estados with its 0 inhabited areas, let alone military installations, for some reason). I wouldn't have any issues whatsoever basing Soviet aircraft.

I don't think the GIUK gap is as limited as your trying to make out.

 

But hey what about generally? Falklands is fairly similar-ish to Iceland (though less suitable airports), but the season is completely backwards and the main land mass is in the wrong direction.

As for the Marianas, the islands are tiny (seriously, Guam is a little under twice the size of Rota, Tinian and Saipan combined and yet, Guam is barely a third of the Faroes) and the biome is completely wrong (not exactly a lot of tropical forest on Iceland) and I'm not exactly sure what NATO vs Warsaw Pact, Cold War gone hot scenario makes more sense on the Marianas or South Atlantic, than it does in the GIUK gap.

So yeah, nothing to set them apart? Fractal wrongness.

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

In the GIUK gap, you'll take off from the boat, do your mission feet wet, and get back to the boat.

Why, exactly?

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

You might not have noticed how many miles separate those airbases.

Have you?

Because Stornaway to Lossiemouth is only 100 nmi. 160 nmi to Leuchars. That's about the same as the Marianas, only unlike the Marianas - both are proper military airfields that can base a full squadron of aircraft.

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

If you want to fly for three hours with multiple AARs just to see something other than water, well, you can set it up on the South Atlantic map.

I can also set up every other kind of mission on just about every other map - this is such a nonsense argument to anyone who actually cares about where their missions are actually set.

Which is why I want Germany, even if I can bomb a Soviet advance on the Caucasus and why I want the GIUK gap, even if I can do blue water (albeit with a completely fictional order of battle) on the SA map.

If it were the case that there's no point developing any other theatres if the ones you have already support the same kind of general mission, I doubt we would've moved past the Caucasus.

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

In fact, Marianas has already been explicitly designed as the DCS' "mostly water" map.

And?

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

In fact, Marianas has already been explicitly designed as the DCS' "mostly water" map. Also, GIUK gap is big enough that it'll be even worse than South Atlantic with regards to being just plain inaccurate. Geography of the SA map is skewed because the map is flat and the Earth is not, contrary to what some people believe. It's not too obvious because of all the water, but this is something you really want a spherical Earth for.

Finally something in this post I agree with, but this goes for all maps, just large ones (and large ones with lots of land) suffer more so. At least GIUK mostly consists of islands where changes due to a spherical Earth are less noticeable, apart from really their orientation.

Edited March 22 by Northstar98

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

So yeah, nothing to set them apart? Fractal wrongness.

What you are proposing is a map beyond the limits of DCS engine. What I am proposing is to set your mission far enough away from any land that biomes of whatever else is there but water are not going to be possible to get to. Because that's what you'll be flying in the GIUK gap. Naval aviation vs. enemy ships. You won't even get to glimpse any land during a typical scenario. You can easily set such a mission on the South Atlantic map, plenty of water in all directions.

Ground combat is another matter, but honestly, in most Cold War scenarios, everything would hinge on ships, anyway. Even if you could contrive a ground scenario not dominated by naval fire support, this is not a compelling enough argument to make that instead of several other more interesting locations. Tom Clancy naval scenarios that everyone seems to want from that map are doable on the South Atlantic.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Because Stornaway to Lossiemouth is only 100 nmi. 160 nmi to Leuchars. That's about the same as the Marianas, only unlike the Marianas - both are proper military airfields that can base a full squadron of aircraft.

Should have said you want a Scotland map. I could even get behind that, been sailing across the Irish Sea last year. That's not exactly a "GIUK gap" map, though, seeing as it won't even include Iceland, because it's over 1000km away. Or, you could have Iceland, though there's barely enough land for an air conflict within its bounds. Maybe, with enough time, someone would make both. 

You seem to want the whole 1600km long gap in DCS, as a single map. This is not happening. Measure the distance yourself on Google maps, and notice the shape of the line. That rather pronounced curve is called an orthodrome, and this is how you know you would never be able to realistically navigate on a map that size without an actual, spherical map. It's not just about some islands being at the wrong angle, it's about the fundamental difference between navigating on a sphere and on a flat plane. Not to mention, the existence of horizon is kind of important at those distances. Those issues are already bad enough on the SA map.

[MAXsenna]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

What you are proposing is a map beyond the limits of DCS engine.

And you know this how when it's only water? Afghanistan expanded down south, though I don't remember the distance. The textures were kept at lowrez. The "size" obviously didn't matter. 

[Northstar98]

15 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

What you are proposing is a map beyond the limits of DCS engine.

Are you sure about that, because the Caucasus map is over 900 nautical miles across, over 1000 going corner to corner. The Marianas map is over 1100 nmi across, corner to corner and is 700 nmi N-S and >850 nmi E-W. conveniently roughly the same dimensions as a GIUK gap map.

So just what are the limits of the DCS engine exactly?

15 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

What I am proposing is to set your mission far enough away from any land that biomes of whatever else is there but water are not going to be possible to get to. Because that's what you'll be flying in the GIUK gap. Naval aviation vs. enemy ships.

Again, I've no idea why you think this is the only possible scenario.

Is it the primary one I'm most interested, yes (well, if we had a Buccaneer - the only fighter-sized maritime strike platform based in the region for the timeframe). Is it the only one possible? No. Is it the only one realistic? Also no - the 57th FIS is hardly optimised for maritime strike, nor is No. 43 or 111 RAF.

15 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Even if you could contrive a ground scenario not dominated by naval fire support, this is not a compelling enough argument to make that instead of several other more interesting locations. Tom Clancy naval scenarios that everyone seems to want from that map are doable on the South Atlantic.

Even if I could? You only have to have your ground scenario barely past 20 nmi away from the coast - naval artillery present on most surface combatants has a range inside of 15 nmi and even the 16" Mark 7 guns on the Iowas maxes out barely past 20 nmi. The B-38 on the Sverdlov again, tops out at 15 nmi.

For comparison, even if I parked a warship next to Seyðisfjörður (the town the fjord borders), it's already over 10 nmi to the airport at Egilsstaðir - there is tonnes of area for ground combat that's out of reach of even the largest of relevant naval artillery. It's hardly a contrivance.

As for several other more interesting locations, if we're talking about the Cold War gone hot, what locations would those be exactly? We've already got Kola and are getting Germany, so that's the 2 primary flashpoints between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. What else? I guess the Baltic and the Med, though they'd also have to be gigantic (especially the latter) and include way more land area (developed land at that) to include all the major players (even ignoring Finland and Leningrad/St Petersburg). Perhaps Cuba - I'd be down for that, but then just Cuba itself is 600 nmi across - the distance from Keflavik to Stornaway. Maybe Bering strait? Though to include any major military airbases it would probably be just as large as the GIUK gap, certainly all the issues you describe for the GIUK gap would apply there.

And as for "just use another map" we go back to my point you described as bad and silly, because if you don't care where your mission actually is, every scenario (contrived or otherwise) is doable from just about every map, with only really a few exceptions (NTTR and Afghanistan obviously isn't suitable for naval, Marianas isn't really suitable for land warfare). Everything is possible from Syria or PG...

If what your saying held weight, there would be little reason for any other map past the Caucasus.

I mean, you're talking about contrived scenarios (as if merely being 20 nmi inland, which is all that would need to happen to be out of range of naval artillery, is a contrivance), but a Cold War gone hot scenario in the South Atlantic, 4000 nmi away (at best) from any relevant NATO vs Warsaw Pact flashpoint is fine? And even that is a Cuba scenario, the figure changes to 6000 nmi if we're talking principal battle areas in a Cold War gone hot scenario and 7000 nmi away from where it should be.

15 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Should have said you want a Scotland map. I could even get behind that, been sailing across the Irish Sea last year. That's not exactly a "GIUK gap" map, though, seeing as it won't even include Iceland, because it's over 1000km away.

Why wouldn't it include Iceland? DCS maps are already pushing past 2000 km across diagonals.

15 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Or, you could have Iceland, though there's barely enough land for an air conflict within its bounds.

What?

The distance between Keflavik and Egilsstaðir is about 225 nmi. 

To put that into perspective, Iceland isn't far off the entire area of the North German Plain - the distance between Gütersloh and Damgarten is around 200 nmi.

The Falkland Islands are only 140 nmi across and the main air battle area was concentrated in Falkland Sound and East Falkland. Even being generous, this area is only around 20,000 km², by comparison Iceland is 5 times larger. But you're telling me that that's barely enough land for an air conflict?

How about Frankfurt to Berlin? 230 nmi - which covers all the main battle areas for the Fulda Gap/CENTAG area, same for Ramstein to Magdeburg. Laarbuch to Liepzig? Same distance.

What about Senaki to Krymsk? About 240 nmi, barely enough land for air conflict between them? 

I can go on and on. 

Suffice to say we have plenty of maps where likely (let alone realistic) battle areas span similar extents. And we're talking about Cold War gone hot - we're not exactly having AIM-174Bs face off against PL-17s now.

15 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Measure the distance yourself on Google maps, and notice the shape of the line. That rather pronounced curve is called an orthodrome, and this is how you know you would never be able to realistically navigate on a map that size without an actual, spherical map. It's not just about some islands being at the wrong angle, it's about the fundamental difference between navigating on a sphere and on a flat plane.

I think realistic navigation on a game with only flat Earth maps with DCS as it is is neither here nor there - even things as simple as true north are misaligned on every map (they only get around this by rotating landmasses). This a problem with every single map in the game, it's just most exacerbated by larger maps and maps closer to the poles.

But aircraft like the Phantom IRL start computing for great circles past 100 nmi, something that would achieve the opposite of the desired result on a flat map (needlessly extending the track).

Edited March 23 by Northstar98