ocean map only

[diveplane]

water world no islands or land masses, place carrier either end ...

 

should be quite quick to make.

[Andurula]

You know, this isn't a bad idea. I don't think I would pay much for it but I would definitely use it.

[3WA]

Hah!  Yeah, I was thinking about this the other day.  How easy a map would that be?

[G.J.S]

Going to be one of the few here, but I think that although it may be an easy map to generate (?), personally I think it may be boring as hell.

Admittedly it may be great for ship to ship warfare, but air units? Unless you are near the surface, you will have no real sense of moving anywhere, no variation, just endless miles of trying to see which wave is the highest in a several square mile grid box to pass the transit times.

I understand it may have those who relish that sort of environment - but it wouldn’t be me.

[3WA]

Well, no one has to download it.  It would take ED what?, about 5 minutes to make?

 

Let those who want sea battles have it.

[xvii-Dietrich]

And, where to put it (I mean, it will need a latitude/longitude so it can have correct rise/set times for sun, moon, etc.)...

 

Well, the Oceanic Pole of Inaccessibility will give you the biggest map:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_of_inaccessibility#Oceanic_pole_of_inaccessibility

 

However, doesn't DCS model the sea bed?

[draconus]

On 2/21/2021 at 10:23 AM, xvii-Dietrich said:

However, doesn't DCS model the sea bed?

It does but for the sake of simplicity of such map a few hundreds meters of depth can be fixed just to acomodate future sub warfare.

[4H_Ccrashh]

+1 

 

I would love to have true "blue water" ops.

[Fri13]

On 2/24/2021 at 11:52 PM, draconus said:

It does but for the sake of simplicity of such map a few hundreds meters of depth can be fixed just to acomodate future sub warfare.

 

Just placing a sea floor to vary from 2000 meters to 200 meters would open up submarine warfare where submarines couldn't always stay at maximum depth but required to move through different thermal layers. As well open up the tactical positioning to various depths. Considering that submarines can go below 400 meters depth so there needs to be little space to get the different sonar returns as well.

 

It would still be easy to do, as the texturing would be just generic one under surface. The hard part is actually just importing the ocean floors depth maps and use that at acceptable level (IMHO a 500m resolution would be enough). 

 

In a 3700 x 3500 km area there is plenty of options to make any large scale strategic missions where different fleets moves and submarines can patrol etc. There would be space for the carrier connection flights as well. 

 

 

 

What happens when those are combined properly in scale?

 

There would be plenty of ASW places, at the norther side and somewhat at the west. 

[Fri13]

On 2/21/2021 at 6:35 AM, G.J.S said:

Going to be one of the few here, but I think that although it may be an easy map to generate (?), personally I think it may be boring as hell.

Admittedly it may be great for ship to ship warfare, but air units? Unless you are near the surface, you will have no real sense of moving anywhere, no variation, just endless miles of trying to see which wave is the highest in a several square mile grid box to pass the transit times.

I understand it may have those who relish that sort of environment - but it wouldn’t be me.

 

I say you should take your eyes off from the ground and look up in the skies...

 

A new weather engine will generate plenty of variations to ocean surface, and the new clouds will be something amazing at the sea.

"The sea never looks same, it is different on every day"

 

 

© Will Eades 

 

 

 

 

© Dale Sharpe and Karlie Russell

 

 

 

Yes, some of those are stacked photos etc, but flying at sea would not be boring.

Just little more imagination please

 

 

[draconus]

We're getting new clouds indeed, but not that @Fri13

[Fri13]

Just now, draconus said:

We're getting new clouds indeed, but not that @Fri13

 

We are getting new weather engine + few pre-made templates

But later we get the weather editor to Mission Editor so we can make own templates, and likely even before that we get more templates as well. (and if we are lucky, we get some feature to share the weather templates with single files).

 

So there is a hope

 

 

[Wdigman]

Seems like a good Idea, however what assets do we have other then carriers and a couple of escorts to do anything on this map?

 

It would be great for long range modern day carrier missions USA vs Russia. However thats it.

 

So much is needed on the naval side for it to be a playable. There are hardly any ships to begin with let alone submarines.

 

Also... Am I missing something? Submarine warfare? How do we do that in DCS? The last time I played Submarine warfare on a computer was HARPOON. Can I send out helicopters to deploy Sona-Buoys? How about controlling other subs? How do I in the mission editor turn on active or passive sonar to detect ships or other subs? Honestly a HARPOON like interface for DCS would be a priority buy for me.

 

Lets not forget WWII assets. The map above was a historic theater in the Second World war, German Subs Vs American Shipping. Unfortunately none are modeled.

 

For this to be viable There may need to be a massive amount of assets created let alone an interface to make it work.

 

 

 

[Mr_sukebe]

This has been requested a number of times and is I believe the reason why we’re getting the marianas map

[G.J.S]

@Fri13

Yes, the clouds are going to be a nice improvement, of that I have no doubt.

But believe me, the trails crossing the Atlantic - the times spent out over the North Sea, were very boring indeed.
Yes the clouds could differ a little, but that’s it!

There’s only so many times you could engage the autopilot and read whatever you bought with you.

Gauge watching was the norm, because there was nothing outside to look at, save for the rest in your formation.

 

Also, the regions you outlined have a slight issue - the edges are not orientated NSEW, like every other map is.

Edited March 23, 2021 by G.J.S

[draconus]

17 minutes ago, Wdigman said:

German Subs Vs American Shipping. Unfortunately none are modeled.

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, G.J.S said:

@Fri13

Yes, the clouds are going to be a nice improvement, of that I have no doubt.

But believe me, the trails crossing the Atlantic - the times spent out over the North Sea, were very boring indeed.
Yes the clouds could differ a little, but that’s it!

 

DCS World maps are boring as well on the current default weather. Sure it is always nice to look outside something, but after while it becomes boring to even look the ground as well. 

The weather is that makes things different. Why the new weather engine has been really waited to come at least since 2015.

The boring part wouldn't be visuals but actually that do you find the ships or fighters etc in the area when you don't have any landmarks to visually position yourself but only your instruments?

 

2 hours ago, G.J.S said:

There’s only so many times you could engage the autopilot and read whatever you bought with you.

Gauge watching was the norm, because there was nothing outside to look at, save for the rest in your formation.

 

I feel that, and people want to bring a large long range aircraft to DCS World, to perform a thousands of kilometers flights etc. Nope, doesn't really be so interesting no matter are you flying over water or ground. 

 

2 hours ago, G.J.S said:

Also, the regions you outlined have a slight issue - the edges are not orientated NSEW, like every other map is.

 

Does it need to be? Visually it is after all just water everywhere

And as such map would have no land at all, you could fly it to infinite but the ocean floor height map would just be inside the map itself, outside of it just flat and let's say made to be a 500 meter deep. Of course people would eventually come to say "I did fly past the coordinates where England should be, and I found nothing!" but isn't that just....

[3WA]

7 hours ago, Fri13 said:

I feel that, and people want to bring a large long range aircraft to DCS World, to perform a thousands of kilometers flights etc. Nope, doesn't really be so interesting no matter are you flying over water or ground. 

 

Ctrl-Z about 8 times till you get to the good part.

Edited March 23, 2021 by 3WA

[shu77]

I do wonder about the difference between an all water map and putting a carrier at the top and the bottom of Caucaus or the left and right of the Gulf.  In reality the radars on the aircraft and the Fleets will mean they find each other very quickly regardless, and Im not that sure I see the appeal of flying for an hour at Angels 30 over empty terrain. just my 2c.

[Qiou87]

16 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

DCS World maps are boring as well on the current default weather. Sure it is always nice to look outside something, but after while it becomes boring to even look the ground as well. 

Stop flying at Angels 30 and suddenly it's not boring. Last night I spent 2h under 100m altitude in a Viggen with 4 mates, just to shoot a couple Mavs each time before RTB, it was not boring at all. But who flies just above the waves when there is no land for hundreds of miles? No terrain to hide you and fuel consumption is a huge issue in blue water ops. If your map doesn't have islands, only carrier planes can be used. Right now in DCS that means Tomcat, Hornet, Harrier and Su-33, all of which will prefer to fly high - above any nice-looking clouds - if you want to fly more than 30min. All those beautiful pictures apply if you are below the cloud layer, as soon as you are over it it is a much more boring sight.

 

And don't get me started on the current state of anti-ship warfare in DCS, with the "health bar" damage model it is very depressing to go hunting for ships with harpoons. Sure, we have SEA radars and all, but when you need 50 harpoons to destroy a ship it is just not fun. The only plane that can really damage ships now is the Viggen because HB "cheated" with its missile damage but it couldn't be used on a blue map.

 

I think the reality is, DCS is no where near where it needs to be to make such a map fun to play for more than a very limited number of people. We need more carriers, more boats that can also be controlled by humans, more carrier planes and helicopters with more varied capabilities...

Since Marianas is basically going to be that (a large chunk of water + a few small islands), it can be a transition. It doesn't restrict the map to carrier planes, yet it has so much water that carrier ops are basically a must for any scenario. It should give DCS time to grow and add a lot of what is currently missing (damage modeling of ships, assets & flyable modules) to make a blue water map viable.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Qiou87

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, Qiou87 said:

Stop flying at Angels 30 and suddenly it's not boring. 

My average flight altitude is 500-800 meters on fighters, low is 5-20 meters. I fly higher even on helicopters, but in combat it can be 2-3 meters.

 

Quote

Right now in DCS that means Tomcat, Hornet, Harrier and Su-33, all of which will prefer to fly high - above any nice-looking clouds - if you want to fly more than 30min. 

 

Tomcat and Flanker will fly a lot longer than 30 min at sea level. Unless you go full afterburner.

 

Quote

All those beautiful pictures apply if you are below the cloud layer, as soon as you are over it it is a much more boring sight.

 

How much beautiful things you can see through the cloud cover from above if you can't see ground either?

 

How much more beautiful you can see ground when you fly below trees?

 

Clouds are beautiful from both sides.... And as much ground can be beautiful under clouds, so can the sea.

 

Quote

Sure, we have SEA radars and all, but when you need 50 harpoons to destroy a ship it is just not fun. 

 

It is not about damage modeling, it is easy now as the ships don't have proper defense systems. And don't start about missions where ships are unprotected unrealistic manners and sea radars are too effective.

And even all our anti-ship weapons don't have proper guidance modeling to impact below waterline.

 

Quote

It should give DCS time to grow and add a lot of what is currently missing (damage modeling of ships, assets & flyable modules) to make a blue water map viable.

 

No need for that. We already have enough to start various missions between fleets. It can be done in new map, but we still should get ASAP (years ago really) a water only map.

There is no need to delay that free map to get everything perfect in units.

 

It literally can be done in days for simplest form without ocean floor height map with flat 800 m deep. It is likely a map editor default starting map as empty and water everywhere.

 

 

[Qiou87]

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

My average flight altitude is 500-800 meters on fighters, low is 5-20 meters. I fly higher even on helicopters, but in combat it can be 2-3 meters.

 

 

Tomcat and Flanker will fly a lot longer than 30 min at sea level. Unless you go full afterburner.

 

 

How much beautiful things you can see through the cloud cover from above if you can't see ground either?

 

How much more beautiful you can see ground when you fly below trees?

 

Clouds are beautiful from both sides.... And as much ground can be beautiful under clouds, so can the sea.

 

 

It is not about damage modeling, it is easy now as the ships don't have proper defense systems. And don't start about missions where ships are unprotected unrealistic manners and sea radars are too effective.

And even all our anti-ship weapons don't have proper guidance modeling to impact below waterline.

 

 

No need for that. We already have enough to start various missions between fleets. It can be done in new map, but we still should get ASAP (years ago really) a water only map.

There is no need to delay that free map to get everything perfect in units.

 

It literally can be done in days for simplest form without ocean floor height map with flat 800 m deep. It is likely a map editor default starting map as empty and water everywhere.

 

 

You find terrain/ground boring even at 500m, or 5m altitude? And in helicopters? Even Caucasus, once in the mountains, is fun to fly. And the cities of PG, and the hills of Syria, all of this is a lot more fun than the sea.

 

Tomcat and Flanker in blue water ops don't just need to fly in a straight line, they need to return and have fuel for multiple trap attempts and emergency refueling because there is no divert airfield. You cannot consider only straight-line endurance. I am not here to argue about exact numbers, I just know that airplane endurance is always a big issue for blue water ops.

 

I respectfully disagree with you on ship defence: if you are speaking about ship fleets fighting each other, and given the fact we are in DCS, you are using at least one carrier on each side with their battlegroup. I don't think any ship-born plane (again, since you want a map without land, you cannot get land-based planes to help) can come in sufficient numbers to defeat a supercarrier + 1 Ticonderoga + 4 or 5 Burke destroyers, as it is the typical battlegroup, in battle formation. And even if one missile is coming through, which is possible in a great planned saturation attack, the current damage model will give 2% damage per missile to the carrier and nothing will happen. I don't consider this to be "enough to start missions between fleets".

 

I don't really understand why the Marianas map is not satisfactory for you though ; it is coming out soon, it will have a very large water area... The only thing it has, that this idea doesn't have, is a few specks of land just so land-based aircraft and helos can join, making this a much more usable map (in terms of the quantity of scenarios you can run on it). But nothing prevents you from only using the sea portion if you want that for your scenario.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Qiou87

[Bananabrai]

I, for myself, consider Mrianas a 'ocean only map'. And we will get it for free. Sounds great to me.

I think it only is not released as fast as all of us want it to have, as they really do roll out stuff at moment.

I mean, come on. Look at how the game was at 2.5, or before that. I find the current time in DCS a blast, and I've played the game since 2011 oder 2010 (can't remember).

And look at the roadmap for 2021. If they do half of that it will be awesome already.

 

For the wishlist here, I would really enjoy 2 things not related to aircraft in DCS.

A Combined Arms simulation like ArmA, hell even OFP style vehicle and Infantry boarding and simulation would suffice for me.

And, to come back to the topic, the Sub- and Sea-warfare stuff. Low-res sea bed, should be doable... And the warfare in style of Cold waters to begin with, maybe get it more like Silent Hunter later on?

Mybe even not, I mean the focus should stay on aircraft if on anything, but we need our toys to play with...

[Aphrodite51503]

I don't need a map I just want to go back to the water that was in version 2.5.6

 

The ocean is much much much much better in that person than the other latest versions

[upyr1]

I'd love to see a mid-atlantic gap map. If there is some way for ED to automate the ocean floor so they can just load some GIS data then it could be used to test the DCS world map technology. If we get one, ED would really need to do some overhaul of their naval units.

Ideally, I would like some naval modules, as I have said before my top contenders for the first naval mods would be one focused on the Iowa-class battleships, or a carrier module. I don't know how long that will take but other wishes to go along would be the following.

For World War II 

• TBF and F4F module
• Escort carriers (RN and USN)
• Some destroyers and Friggets/ Destroyer escorts 
• Cruisers and battleships for both sides. I don't care when she was actually sunk- I want to sink the Bismark in my F4U. 

 

 For the cold war and Modern era- my list would be 

• Super Entendard
• US and Royal Navy Phantoms
• If practical a French Crusader
• Bucanier 
• AI J-15- I get it we won't ever have a J-15 module but if we can at least have an AI one I would be happy
• overhaul existing modules
• add Russian destroyers
• add the Chinese carriers
• destroyers and frigates (Spruance, kid, knox)
• Des moines class cruisers
• 1980s Iowa-class battleships
• French carrier battle group
• Galveston class cruisers
• The American nuclear cruisers
• Royal Navy CATOBAR carrier battlegroups 
• Soviet surface ships and submarines