Asia-Pacific Wishlist Thread

[Bob1]

Just wanted to share my wish for this map. So much you could do with this map.

[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.

[dooom]

i wonder if geo political concerns preclude ED from offering different product portfolios to different customer regions. I can't imagine this map or the spratleys would be welcome in some sectors.... perhaps it would just not be offered in the server list or DCS store depending on geography?

[tugais]

i wonder if geo political concerns preclude ED from offering different product portfolios to different customer regions. I can't imagine this map or the spratleys would be welcome in some sectors.... perhaps it would just not be offered in the server list or DCS store depending on geography?

 

Well, they said in the past they could not offer the original Crimean region because of politics. I guess this kind of restriction would apply to others markets they value or try to get into.

[dooom]

i guess thats why i am wondering whether they could just restrict product access in the store/server lists based on geography - i.e. they could produce Crimea but it could not be bought or played on in the Russian region... they could produce Taiwan but it could not be purchased/installed in the Chinese market. if China doesnt buy taiwan who cares... unless of course they would lose 100% of DCS access to the market with the offering in external markets. At which point any hope of creating maps that are inconsistent with foreign sensitivities would be moot.:censored::dunno: If i am a betting man then I would venture to guess Taiwan/Spratleys/Tibet etc will never happen. Just too much at stake business wise. The world is a big place and I'm happy flying the sim anywhere...

[treasure]

any thoughts on these areas?  there are so may great battles that could be fought here, battle of midway, list goes on.

i appreciate accusations of racism can be heightened in this area of the world though, so maybe thats why it isnt considered

and what about MIG ally?

Edited January 2, 2021 by treasure

[flyby169]

I think a China map is very appropriate for this time, and has NOTHING to do with racism. When Falcon 4 had battlefields in the Balkans and N. Korea, it was a reflection of the world we live in. It's the elephant in the room, and China, N. Korea, and South China Sea maps are in complete alignment with the realism DCS does so well.

[Dragon89]

15 hours ago, flyby169 said:

I think a China map is very appropriate for this time, and has NOTHING to do with racism. When Falcon 4 had battlefields in the Balkans and N. Korea, it was a reflection of the world we live in. It's the elephant in the room, and China, N. Korea, and South China Sea maps are in complete alignment with the realism DCS does so well.

+1

The Taiwan Strait, partial of the Korean peninsula (due to huge density of the ROK), and the East Sea (Sea of Japan) would also be excellent additions for DCS.

[Matuchkin]

Hello all,

 

First, a question: in general, how does the performance impact of modelled land compare the performance impact of water in DCS?

 

I am asking this because, though I may not be original in this regard, I have briefly been wondering about the feasibility of maps that contain a large amount of airspace for a relatively low actual land area. Specifically, I have been looking at the arctic ocean and its many seas, wondering whether it would be possible to create a map that would cover a decently large portion of this region while - depending on the answer to the above question - maintaining a useable performance on par with (or manageably worse than) other DCS terrains.

 

In my opinion, a map of this nature would offer a multitude of opportunities for DCS and its development. For instance, picture a map that contains coastal regions of northern Canada and Russia, or the northern US and Russia. Such a map would offer scenarios for long-range bombing and reconnaissance, as well as short or midrange interception from both sides.

 

The presence of such a map will also offer scenarios to which the current state of DCS is completely not dedicated. Combat on large scales is different than combat in a restricted AO above a small country. A map based in the Barents sea will contain Severomorsk, the base of the Soviet Northern Fleet. Such an area also has the potential to contain Novaya Zemlya, used for decades for military purposes. Campaigns could easily be built around anti-submarine warfare and carrier operations, which will themselves take on a different flavour - picture taking off in an F-14 on a patrol that takes you hundreds of kilometers into the ocean, or landing on a carrier in bluewater conditions not seen in any other map in DCS. Alternatively, picture having to perform a midair refuel not because you simply have to stay up longer, but because you are aware that the closest airbase (and/or landmass) is more than 1000km away. Not to mention the number of plausible historical fiction scenarios that could be created here. Of course, should a better weather system be implemented, a map such as this could easily display the extremes of such a system.

 

Even helicopters may have a place here, in military or civilian coastal operations alike.

 

Apart from the above poll, I would like to know what it is you find appealing or not about a concept like this. Many people are understandably here to experience pure simulated air combat, and as such are drawn away by long flights, utility operations, and the like. Some may appreciate this idea, but find that the AO should be located elsewhere.

 

I am aware that this post has no actual purpose, as software studios in general listen to only high-profile community members or mass-coordinated community outcries. However, I at least enjoy discussing these kinds of questions. I hope this sentiment is shared here.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Matuchkin

[Qiou87]

Well, ED will release the Marianas map this year, which has basically a few bits of land surrounded by huge swaths of water (I remember something like 1000km x 1000km). So you might get your wish.

 

However, judging by many feedbacks here, many DCS players/simmers do not have 4 hours of time ahead of them. Many actually struggle with A2A refueling, which is needed for these long-haul missions. Also, even if it might be sexy in theory, sitting in front of your computer or with your VR headset for hours just to transit to the AO, then get splashed, then do it all over again... I wouldn't say that it would appeal to many.

 

You are right, missions IRL are longer than what we typically see in DCS, and a larger map could provide opportunities for that. There should be room in DCS for this kind of variety, and more realistic/long haul missions. I believe this will be covered by the Marianas map and scenarios like what you describe will be created for it. However I am sceptical about how popular they are going to be ; not everyone can dedicate an entire afternoon to a single mission, especially if it is as boring as flying 500km in a straight line on autopilot just to reach the AO.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Qiou87

[Exorcet]

Large maps are generally better for DCS since they allow for more variety, both through scenery and mission editing scenarios. The idea of water maps have been brought up before as a way to incorporate larger maps without being too taxing on ED or PC resources, and while they might not offer all the benefits of a large land map, I think DCS needs at least one of these large water maps. Besides all the benefits that you mentioned about flying long distances, large maps can appeal to the more time constrained players by providing more mission variety through increased airbase selection and less repetitive mission areas. The latter might not seem to be achievable on a water map, but that's not really true. The trick would be finding an area of open water where islands are spread out evenly instead of clustered together. The Kuril Islands might be an example, especially if they included the nearest parts of the Japanese and Russian mainlands.

[Northstar98]

I mean, AFAIK, if a map has a sea or ocean in it, then the water is completely map wide (even under the terrain), so it's definitely doable.

 

Though bear in mind that DCS has supported bathymetry since the release of 2.5.

 

Personally, I think the Marianas is a brilliant idea, as it leaves enough land for land-based aircraft, so it isn't exclusive to naval aircraft. The Marianas map can be made to be something like 2000x1000km (if I remember rightly), without increasing the workload significantly (apart from bathymetry). With the total land area being less than Qeshm island on the SoH map (~1300km^2 - tiny in comparison to other maps, even just the detailed areas in other maps are substantially larger).

 

The main thing for me though is transitioning to maps shaped like spherical caps, and away from flat maps, because as maps get larger, having them projected as flat is less and less accurate.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Northstar98

[Matuchkin]

22 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The main thing for me though is transitioning to maps shaped like spherical caps, and away from flat maps, because as maps get larger, having them projected as flat is less and less accurate.

On further thought I think that spherical maps are the next big step for DCS. This is a simulator after all - regardless of what this thread is about, pushing towards larger maps would of course be inevitable at some point. What you're talking about is probably one of the most important steps for physics simulation.

 

Even so, it should still be reapplied somehow to current maps. The Caucasus easily fits in the horizon radius at 10km altitude, this has to be quite important.

 

Perhaps it would be possible to re-map a flat terrain in such a fashion. Place an attractor at coordinate (0, 0, 0). Consider that the flat plane of water used in the map is at a 6371000m radius from the attractor, and thus every terrain point on the map is at a radius of 6371000+h m, where h is the height of the point above said flat plane. Convert horizontal distance into angular distance, then create some sort of algorithm to map every point on the flat projection onto a corresponding point on the spherical projection.

 

Of course, it has to be more difficult than this. The first issue that I can think of is that we do not know how any given map has been distorted in order to accommodate its flatness: if Mt. Erebus, for example, is distorted such that it has its correct real-life dimensions in the current planar Caucasus map, it will be stretched upon projection. This may or may not be a negligible change, but I'm just brainstorming right now.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Matuchkin

[Mr_sukebe]

I believe that the Marianas map is a result of a similar request, i.e. LOTS of water and not much land.

Hopefully means that it's easy/cheap to develop (not much to model) and has low resource requirements.

 

Also means that we get the opportunity to create fleet based actions, which are somewhat difficult now with the limited manoeuvring options.

[Matuchkin]

On 2/5/2021 at 11:58 AM, Mr_sukebe said:

Also means that we get the opportunity to create fleet based actions, which are somewhat difficult now with the limited manoeuvring options.

 

What I'm excited about (with multi-thousand kilometer maps) is the ability to be taken places, to look at a map and feel that you just did something draining. I think those who fly civilian flight sims would appreciate something like a long range bombing mission, or a lengthy intercept.

 

More importantly, relevant to the aforementioned fleet-based actions, imagine a carrier-based campaign in which your carrier group actually moves and dynamic, location-based changes happen along the way. I recall the first ArmA game, and how its significance was that everything that happened in the campaign actually happened in game. If you went to whatever location in the island, you would actually meet a bunch of patrolling Russians. That mechanic (and the potential for unplanned hostile encounters), in a game dedicated to simulation that is currently working on dynamic campaigns, is invaluable.

 

For those who don't play carrier-based fighters (i.e. me), the equivalent would be a campaign in which you need to constantly transfer bases because you are part of a moving frontline. You start the campaign in one place, you end in another - you are part of the operation.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Matuchkin

[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