A 'Sandbox' map

[Tank50us]

So, a while back I read somewhere (or heard), that one of the reasons ED won't touch (or, re-touch in the case of Caucuses) certain regions of the world, is due to political issues with those regions. This got me thinking, and after a while I just thought "Why not have a large 'sand-box' style map where we the players get to decide what's on it?"

 

The idea is simple: build a large land-mass, or group of land-masses, that has realistic terrain features, cities, towns, etc, but exists only in the heads of the people working on the map. While yes, this is essentially what PA did with Strangereal, this idea takes it a few steps further. For starters, when we're in the editor for this map, we get two modes: Map editing, and Mission editing. Mission editing is what we already have, place units down, and give'em way-points and triggers.

Map editing mode allows the player to make some changes to the map itself. Adding or removing buildings, roads, bridges, runways, etc. Allowing them to create an entire mission area of their choosing, without ever having to worry about touching on someones sensitivities. Want to fire-up the warbirds and re-enact the air battle over the Bulge? Go for it. Want to re-create downtown Hanoi and fly an A6 right into "SAM City" (Flight of the Intruder), go for it. Want to recreate the landings on Inchon? If you can find a spot on the map that looks right (terrain wise), and can place the right buildings and units, go nuts.

 

The idea isn't to replace the existing maps, or make all maps a thing of the past, or allow people to go Ace Combat (although if they want to recreate the some of the battles using this map, have at it). Like I said, it's a sandbox styled map. We get to set it up however we want, and ED would technically never have to worry about the political fallout since they can basically go "Hey, it's a fictional map, and the players will do what they do." I mean, seriously, how many people saw the Handy Wind getting abused the way it was a couple weeks ago XD

 

I do wanna hear what you guys think though, but try to keep it civil.

[Death Merchant]

I think that's a great idea. The old Command & Conquer series had an entire collection of maps to use for mission making, as well as an editor. It made for some great terrain or scenario missions like the ones you've listed.

[nztyke]

like arma 3 terrain editor / builder?

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

For OP, Outstanding Idea! When do you plan on releasing it? We appreciate you stepping up!

Edited April 10, 2021 by Mr. Big.Biggs

[Tank50us]

28 minutes ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

For OP, Outstanding Idea! When do you plan on releasing it? We appreciate you stepping up!

 

To be fair, as much as I'd love to do it, I'd have NO idea where to start. I can model, yes, but that's with vehicles. I can make objects for use on a map, but that's about it I'm afraid. So, yeah, it's something I'd like to see, and if I had the resources time, I'd probably go nuts with it. Except, I think the best team for it is the ED themselves.... we certainly can't ask Razbam to make it.... it'll arrive late next millennia

[upyr1]

Community mapping tools would be awesome, as long as Eagle gives us better mod support. Eagle has so many hours in the day and there are some maps the community wants but I don't see us getting 

[Rick50]

I really like the idea... not sure others would feel the same, some seem to not like fictional maps, from what I've seen in other threads. But I do like it!

[Exorcet]

4 hours ago, Rick50 said:

I really like the idea... not sure others would feel the same, some seem to not like fictional maps, from what I've seen in other threads. But I do like it!

I'm not really interested in fictional maps, but a map editor is something else entirely, and I'd welcome it in DCS. ED seems to be keeping the tools for map development under a tight grip though.

 

We also haven't even seem many updates to user placed objects on the map for some time. We've received some static objects that I'm grateful for, but most objects are pretty old at this point. New maps have some interest objects to use, but we can't place them. At one point we had grass fields as placeable airstrips along with FARPS but these have disappeared. Being able to place down full scale runways would add so much to existing maps I wish it was a higher priority.

[Mars Exulte]

12 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I'm not really interested in fictional maps

 

While politics is an annoying reality, it's not a major concern for 99% of places. If they've got time to make Notrealistan, they can just as easily make Korea, Vietnam, etc etc. If they're going to do it, they may as well invest the time in something more pertinent.

[Tank50us]

45 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

 

While politics is an annoying reality, it's not a major concern for 99% of places. If they've got time to make Notrealistan, they can just as easily make Korea, Vietnam, etc etc. If they're going to do it, they may as well invest the time in something more pertinent.

The problem with doing that is that the moment they do, the game will get banned in South Korea, North Korea (what a shock anyway), and China, even if it was set in the actual conflict time period (51-53). Creating such a map that has some of the features somewhere gets around that issue.

[Rudel_chw]

10 hours ago, Tank50us said:

... I do wanna hear what you guys think though, but try to keep it civil.

 

I'd rather fly than start creating Maps, it looks too much like working instead of leisure.

[rkk01]

Too much geo-political risk... I can fully understand why DCS want to keep a tight reign on map tools.  Map of Moscow, Paris, London or DC, anyone...?

 

No - might be tolerable in a civsim, but letting these tools loose in a combat sim is asking for trouble

 

I kind of like the idea of generic map areas, but not sure how workable it would be in practice. I’ve built terrains in othersim map editors - geology, climate and agriculture / vegetation combine to give distinctive landscape character traits. These define the feel of an area and are essential to include and difficult to dial out

[Xilon_x]

 

[upyr1]

8 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

I'd rather fly than start creating Maps, it looks too much like working instead of leisure.

Someone will get their jellies making maps.

[Tank50us]

3 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Someone will get their jellies making maps.

I mean, clearly people do right now for ArmA, and there's people doing it for a paycheck in DCS, so, you're not wrong.

[Mars Exulte]

4 hours ago, Tank50us said:

The problem with doing that is that the moment they do, the game will get banned in South Korea

 I seriously doubt that

4 hours ago, Tank50us said:

North Korea

I think the internet being banned is a bigger issue

 

4 hours ago, Tank50us said:

(what a shock anyway), and China,

If you featured Taiwan, very probably, but unlikely over Korea

 

As I said it's only an issue with a few certain areas. Mostly for the same reason. Taiwan and Crimea, problems depending on what country you depict them as. Possibly the Pakistan/India border (depending on their level of dickishness), but most places? No. There's also the aspect the problem is CURRENT disputes. Nobody cares about the 70yo Korean War or other old history.

 

  By your reasoning we couldn't have real terrain anywhere in any game ever except that is obviously not true. Just because there are A HANDFUL of problematic areas doesn't change the fact that 99.999% of the planet is fair game.

 

[Tank50us]

Just now, Mars Exulte said:

 I seriously doubt that

 

Actually, any video game that's portrayed a re-ignited Korean conflict tends to get banned (Mercenaries Playground of Destruction being a notable example), and some movies as well (Die Another Day being another example).

But ultimately, it's not just governments that get their loins in a knot when these things come up, but people tend to flip out when certain locations or events get portrayed or even talked about. And frankly, the best way to avoid it, is to create that FictionIsStan map, and that avoids the problem (almost) entirely, even in realistic games like ArmA and Operation Flashpoint.

 

Hell, real world militaries tend to do this as well for training purposes. Sure, the trainees know the training ground they're fighting on is supposed to be an allegory for (insert nation here), but it's still something done in the real world.

[Baco]

I would spend my life making maps if I had the tools jajajaja

 

A generic or several generic land mases areas, and objects to place like in the ME, and I would pay up to 300 bucks for that module...

Edited April 11, 2021 by Baco

[upyr1]

13 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

As I said it's only an issue with a few certain areas. Mostly for the same reason. Taiwan and Crimea, problems depending on what country you depict them as. Possibly the Pakistan/India border (depending on their level of dickishness), but most places? No. There's also the aspect the problem is CURRENT disputes. Nobody cares about the 70yo Korean War or other old history.

 

  By your reasoning we couldn't have real terrain anywhere in any game ever except that is obviously not true. Just because there are A HANDFUL of problematic areas doesn't change the fact that 99.999% of the planet is fair game.

 

Would Eagle be able to avoid stepping on political toes if they labeled certain regions as being disputed? This is one of the reasons historical theaters and maps are best IMHO. 

[Eight Ball]

Creating a virtual representation of a geographical area isn't a political statement in and of itself.

I don't remember seeing any drama surrounding Abkhazia or South Ossetia on the Caucasus map or the Golan Heights on the Syria map. So why would the strait of Taiwan (for example) would be an issue?

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Eight Ball

[rayrayblues]

20 hours ago, Xilon_x said:

the best map of the world on a simulator on a home computer pc and that of Microsof flight simulator 2020, who knows how many terabites it takes to make the whole world?

DCS should use the same world that is used in MCFS 2020 but with a different configuration that of inserting configurable and destructible buildings, bridges, highways, railways, ports, airports.

how many TERABITES does it take to accomplish this?

The last I heard, MSFS2020 world map is measured in petabytes.

[maxTRX]

21 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

 

While politics is an annoying reality, it's not a major concern for 99% of places. If they've got time to make Notrealistan, they can just as easily make Korea, Vietnam, etc etc. If they're going to do it, they may as well invest the time in something more pertinent.

 

Agreed.  What's wrong with 'resolving' issues on real maps, might even make some folks feel better...   No need to discuss the outcome of these resolutions on the forums, lol.

On the other hand... if there was some fictional island where all the global reset masters reside...  hoowee!

[Mars Exulte]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Would Eagle be able to avoid stepping on political toes if they labeled certain regions as being disputed? This is one of the reasons historical theaters and maps are best IMHO. 

  It just depends on the area and nations involved. For example, Syria is an ACTIVE combat zone right now, involving the US, Russia, Syrian gov, Syrian militias, etc etc. It's not a problem, cause the main actors have no real skin in the game, Assad has more important things to worry about, and nobody is apt to care what he thinks anyway. The issue with ''disputed'' areas can vary, even, Georgia has South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they're even dilneated on the map.

 

  I keep using the example of Crimea and Taiwan. These are two areas hotly disputed even on ''Google maps'', to the extent even acknowledging the dispute is itself a political issue. It's not a hard ''rule'', ''oh we can't do real stuff cause sensitive''. It just depends on the circumstances of the area and its capacity for being a problem. Crimea? Major hot topic, the Russian government has actively gone after people/companies for incidently commenting on it. ED resides in Russia, so that's a problem.

 

  In other words, like with most things ''political'' in nature, it has to be handled with discretion.

 

15 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

Actually, any video game that's portrayed a re-ignited Korean conflict tends to get banned (Mercenaries Playground of Destruction being a notable example), and some movies as well (Die Another Day being another example).

  1950s Korean War is not reignited anything.

  

Quote

But ultimately, it's not just governments that get their loins in a knot when these things come up, but people tend to flip out when certain locations or events get portrayed or even talked about.

  ''It's ok to pretend to kill people in your video games, but only if you're pretending to kill the right people.'' Those people can get a life.

 

  The revolution in Ukraine in 2014 had a direct impact on me and my future wife. It is a ''hot button'' topic for both of us. When Combat Mission came out with a Black Sea theater directly inspired by the fighting in Donbass (almost immediately), my first thought was ''Woooow, I'm really surprised they did that.'' My second thought was ''Take my money!'' That's because I'm not a hypocrite. Real war is bad, but video games are video games. 

 

Quote

And frankly, the best way to avoid it, is to create that FictionIsStan map, and that avoids the problem (almost) entirely, even in realistic games like ArmA and Operation Flashpoint.

 

Hell, real world militaries tend to do this as well for training purposes. Sure, the trainees know the training ground they're fighting on is supposed to be an allegory for (insert nation here), but it's still something done in the real world.

 

  That's true, and I'm not opposed to it in general principle. My point was merely there are a great many real world locations that CAN be used. Just because there are a few best avoided for practical reasons is irrelevant.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Mars Exulte

[maxTRX]

What the heck are you guys discussing here?  The geographical maps or specific campaigns.. with pre-set or actual historical scenarios?

[Mars Exulte]

1 hour ago, Gripes323 said:

What the heck are you guys discussing here?  The geographical maps or specific campaigns.. with pre-set or actual historical scenarios?

 

  I think we're just bored. I thought we were talking about real vs fictional maps. I'm for both, biased toward real whenever feasible.