NTTR Wishlist Thread

[Zeagle]

No reason why we shouldn't model China Lake and Fallon, Bicycle Lake (for A-10's) and Kingman in Arizona for casual flying. I love this map. Edwards Air Force Base is also there and waiting to be created! What a map it would be! Never knew what a Joshua tree was till I flew this map, go figure!!!

 

+1

[FETUS]

Add more Airfields to NTTR please!

[mongo52]

Would love to have NAS Fallon

[Bananabrai]

I disagree with this.

I think a lot of people try to make NTTR what it isn't, and get disappointed when their expectations aren't met.

It's designed around Nellis operations into the NTTR. Not Fallon, not Lemoore, not China Lake, not Edwards.

 

If you use the intended airports, and use the depicted airspace as the map is designed, you will have an excellent experience, and feel the AO is complete.

The Red Flag campaigns highlight this point well. I really wish we had more users that wanted an authentic Nevada training experience, especially when NATO aircraft are so heavily represented.

 

I fired my first Viper Maverick and HARM on the one dedicated testing and training map we have, using actual target ranges. Because why would I conduct testing and training anywhere else?

 

Cool. My boys and me also use NTTR quite extensively. It's a very nice map as its is.

I am still one of the guys who dream of an extended NTTR++ map.

[CheckGear]

I am fully aware that NTTR is considered feature complete as it is, but the question exists, why don't you capitalize on the fact that you have a map that could easily incorporate huge U.S. Naval air Stations such as Fallon, Lemoore, China Lake, etc. With the huge U.S. Navy virtual squadron presence here in the game, I don't understand why this isn't even considered.

 

NAS Lemoore's over 250 miles away from Nellis AFB. Furthermore, Lemoore isn't like Nellis nor Fallon. It's not much of a training site and pilots have to fly out west over the Pacific Fleet or east to the desert to conduct training, anyway.

[ST0RM]

Simply put, it wasn't in the contract.

Wags at one point said they would expand to include the NTC. But that quickly died off and nothing more was added or fixed.

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by ST0RM
Removed mil

[Snoopy]

3 minutes ago, ST0RM said:

Simply put, it wasn't in the mil contract.

Wags at one point said they would expand to include the NTC. But that quickly died off and nothing more was added or fixed.

 

NTTR wasn’t part of a military contract.  

[ST0RM]

4 minutes ago, Snoopy said:

NTTR wasn’t part of a military contract.  

Okay. 

 

[9thHunt]

I agree that it needs more airfields.  It's been pointed out that no one plays this map in MP, but I think that it's because all of the airfields are bunched up together around Vegas.  If some of the other bases in the area were added, such as Fallon (which is on the map's ground texture), then you would have more distance between bases and potential safe havens where planes could take off without immediately being shot down by the CAP over Nellis

[randomTOTEN]

22 hours ago, 9thHunt said:

I think that it's because all of the airfields are bunched up together around Vegas.

I don't think this is true.

The current popular air quake server is "Growling Sidewinder Open Conflict 1 of 4 Caucasus." It's current mission (Server_1_Operation_Urban_Thunder_V5_2_2.miz) involves a conflict mainly between Kutaisi (Blue - UGKO) and Tbilisi (Red - UGTB+UG27). Fighting distance is 115nm. I count about 15 players at each of these fields.

 

Compare to Tonopah Test Range Airfield (KTNX) vs Nellis AFB (KLSV). Fighting distance is 128nm. That's more than the current most popular "Air Quake" scenario.

 

22 hours ago, 9thHunt said:

you would have more distance between bases and potential safe havens where planes could take off without immediately being shot down by the CAP over Nellis

Players don't want this. They specifically choose servers where your "bad" conditions happen. Anybody can make a server that fights Anapa-Vityazevo (URKA) vs Tbilisi (UGTB). Fight distance will be 388nm. Compare to Fallon (KNFL) vs Nellis (KLSV) 258nm. But nobody makes a PvP 390nm server. Because the people that fly those kind of missions don't want to fly that kind of distance. And they don't want to fly 260nm either.

 

They don't want to even spend time on the ground turning the aircraft on. Many of the server slots are hot starts on the ramp. Nobody waits 8 minutes for INS alignment. They turn on the master arm switch while they are still on the ramp. "Fence checks?" LOL

 

22 hours ago, 9thHunt said:

It's been pointed out that no one plays this map in MP,

And I don't think that has anything to do with map size or airfield availability. I think my criticisms deserve merit. Here is my opinion why this map is not so popular.

 

1. It's not a combat map.

2. It has to be purchased.

 

Players want to fight simulated wars. They don't want simulated training. They don't care about training airspace, especially when they have to buy it, especially if they're not American or their country doesn't often participate in Red Flag. Adding Fallon or China Lake... while nice... isn't going to fix these "issues."

 

You can fly NTTR procedures and add probably 40% to the flight distance for each faction. But the combat airspace shrinks considerably. And enforcement becomes required (or player discipline). People just don't know how to use it (thank you 476th, public documents, and the Red Flag campaigns) or else don't care.

 

But that would be a training scenario. And who wants to fly training scenarios on a training map in Vipers vs Hornets? I mean that's just silly...

Edited December 5, 2020 by randomTOTEN

[TOViper]

8 hours ago, randomTOTEN said:

And I don't think that has anything to do with map size or airfield availability. I think my criticisms deserve merit. Here is my opinion why this map is not so popular.

 

1. It's not a combat map.

2. It has to be purchased.

 

Players want to fight simulated wars. They don't want simulated training. They don't care about training airspace, especially when they have to buy it, especially if they're not American or their country doesn't often participate in Red Flag. Adding Fallon or China Lake... while nice... isn't going to fix these "issues."

 

You can fly NTTR procedures and add probably 40% to the flight distance for each faction. But the combat airspace shrinks considerably. And enforcement becomes required (or player discipline). People just don't know how to use it (thank you 476th, public documents, and the Red Flag campaigns) or else don't care.

 

But that would be a training scenario. And who wants to fly training scenarios on a training map in Vipers vs Hornets? I mean that's just silly...

 

Friend of mine and me are flying very often in NTTR on a user made training mission with some gimmicks, using Hornet and Viper.

But if somebody says it is silly, I will find a way to accept this opinion. On the other hand it seems to me there is just a lack of imagination, or you just want to say something else?

 

I still would love to have some extension of the map by bringing in some airfields, and I don't think flying in NTTR for fun is silly.

If that was true, we must then agree that flying DCS is silly. And if that was true, what are you doing here?

 

I would kindly ask you for a little more respect for other users - like me - my friend. You think you can?

 

Kind regards,

TOViper

 

[randomTOTEN]

6 hours ago, TOViper said:

You think you can?

The "silly" comment was my (failed) attempt at sarcasm. Sorry.

I meant to imply that fighting Hornets vs Vipers (USN vs USAF) in a training scenario, on a USA training map, is probably the best and most immersive scenario for anybody that wants to partake in that kind of action. Considering the large portion of the study level modules (fixed wing) we have are NATO aircraft, and all likely participate in Red Flag, I would imagine that NTTR would be one of the most popular maps for missions and MP. But it isn't.

The addition of Tonopah Test Range gives an immersive home for any Russian/CIS aircraft as well, using the same map and the same airspace. Plenty of Hornets operate out of Nellis while you guys wait for NAS Fallon.

 

About the only modules that don't really "fit" are the Russian helicopters. So with such a relevant theater I don't think the geography is really limiting the popularity.

Edited December 5, 2020 by randomTOTEN

[xvii-Dietrich]

I came across this post, because I had just watched the video by Air Warfare Group on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifObJSD6hPA

 

I know that Fallon has been discussed (countless) times before, but one thing that occurred to me was that the scenario they are discussing is a distant spawn point for RedFor units. Fallon Naval Air Station, Fallon Municipal, and St.George Utah. While modelling the towns would definitely be a lot of work... would it be possible to have just the runway/taxiway and spawn points?

 

As a precedent, in the DCS Normandy Map, there are a few airfields in the UK. These are not modelled in detail, but they do provide and cross-channel landing point for outbound fighter escorts, returning bombers, etc.. There is no need for the extreme detail, but it does provide for a lot of options.

 

Given the massive improvements to the NTTR textures in the Fallon region, I think the addition of at least the runway/spawn points would be a low-cost option, but with a significant increase in the value of this map. Or, if there were mission-editor-placeable runways, then we could place our own.

[vision45]

On 9/25/2020 at 10:12 PM, randomTOTEN said:

I disagree with this.

I think a lot of people try to make NTTR what it isn't, and get disappointed when their expectations aren't met.

It's designed around Nellis operations into the NTTR. Not Fallon, not Lemoore, not China Lake, not Edwards.

 

If you use the intended airports, and use the depicted airspace as the map is designed, you will have an excellent experience, and feel the AO is complete.

The Red Flag campaigns highlight this point well. I really wish we had more users that wanted an authentic Nevada training experience, especially when NATO aircraft are so heavily represented.

 

I fired my first Viper Maverick and HARM on the one dedicated testing and training map we have, using actual target ranges. Because why would I conduct testing and training anywhere else?

I operate in and out of the NTTR in real world. I don't think anyone that has good knowledge of the area, thinks that the map is bad, but they can see that there is more room to invite more users to the NTTR map. Almost daily we work side by side with the US Navy out of NAS Fallon. Yes, this is a complete map to a degree, but the Air Force is on a kick right now for total force integration both with the Air Force as a whole, and US air assets DoD wide. So to incorporate both Naval and Air Force services to one map to test and train as you said would only make this map that much better. You brought up Red Flag, testing, and training for this map which is in the name, NTTR. So break it down and then you can understand why DCS pilots want more.

Red Flag- Training that encompasses both US and NATO countries. (WA Aggressor paints and tail flash)

Testing- HQ for the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron (OT tail flash)

Training- Home of the US Air Forces Weapon School, used to be Fighter Weapon School prior to Total Force Integration (WA tail flash)

Perfection- Home of the United States Air Force Thunderbirds Air Demonstration Team

 

With the NTTR uses pointed out, why not add the airports that are already in the graphics that you can make out at high altitudes, like China Lake and NAS Fallon. NAS Fallon is the home of the world famous Top Gun School house. NAS Lemoore is the home of "B Course" school house for the Hornet, (Yes, Super Hornet I know), but still an important base. With the DCS Hornet and Tomcat having such a large following, it would only but make sense to have some Navy bases in the map since there is no place to put a carrier. Also, what a lot of people don't know is planes don't always takeoff from Nellis AFB to conduct a training mission in the NTTR.

 

So with all this said, I would strongly agree that the NTTR Map should be updated with further airfields, Military and civilian: NAS Fallon, NAS Lemoore, Edwards AFB, China Lake, Kingman Airport, and St. George Airports.

[randomTOTEN]

Vision I think you make a good case. Yeah that could be a nice expansion... I would be even fine with Lemoore being a highly detailed airfield surrounded by a couple miles of nice scenery, then the most basic mesh and textures to transit to NTTR and back. If that's really such a frequent thing that's done. Yeah including NFL and China Lake would be nice expansions if they really are used that much.

Wouldn't that also suggest including their relevant airspace (and ground) as well?

[Andartu]

+1K

 

Take my money!

 

Seriously, make it a 10 bugs add on like with the Hog if you own it already and a lot would be happy to buy it. And yes this would take development time for sure but on the other hand it would not be that intense like the A-10C II add on. Buildings, functioning run- and taxiways plus parking spots.

 

As the most here know NAS Fallon is the home of Top Gun. I mean really c´mon.. how could it be that the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School is not part of the map?!

 

Also NAS Lemoore is the home of FIVE carrier air wings! 

 

Also I think nobody would expect a Syria map level of quality and detail on this. Just on par with the existing map would be totally fine.

[Chipensaw]

On 12/13/2020 at 2:39 PM, vision45 said:

I operate in and out of the NTTR in real world. I don't think anyone that has good knowledge of the area, thinks that the map is bad, but they can see that there is more room to invite more users to the NTTR map. Almost daily we work side by side with the US Navy out of NAS Fallon. Yes, this is a complete map to a degree, but the Air Force is on a kick right now for total force integration both with the Air Force as a whole, and US air assets DoD wide. So to incorporate both Naval and Air Force services to one map to test and train as you said would only make this map that much better. You brought up Red Flag, testing, and training for this map which is in the name, NTTR. So break it down and then you can understand why DCS pilots want more.

Red Flag- Training that encompasses both US and NATO countries. (WA Aggressor paints and tail flash)

Testing- HQ for the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron (OT tail flash)

Training- Home of the US Air Forces Weapon School, used to be Fighter Weapon School prior to Total Force Integration (WA tail flash)

Perfection- Home of the United States Air Force Thunderbirds Air Demonstration Team

 

With the NTTR uses pointed out, why not add the airports that are already in the graphics that you can make out at high altitudes, like China Lake and NAS Fallon. NAS Fallon is the home of the world famous Top Gun School house. NAS Lemoore is the home of "B Course" school house for the Hornet, (Yes, Super Hornet I know), but still an important base. With the DCS Hornet and Tomcat having such a large following, it would only but make sense to have some Navy bases in the map since there is no place to put a carrier. Also, what a lot of people don't know is planes don't always takeoff from Nellis AFB to conduct a training mission in the NTTR.

 

So with all this said, I would strongly agree that the NTTR Map should be updated with further airfields, Military and civilian: NAS Fallon, NAS Lemoore, Edwards AFB, China Lake, Kingman Airport, and St. George Airports.

 

+1 for what vision45 says.  Here is a user with real world experience justifying additions to NTTR.  @BIGNEWY @NineLine please consider expanding NTTR.  I would gladly pay for an upgrade.

 

Thank you!

Edited January 9, 2021 by Chipensaw

[RaisedByWolves]

Id pay too. I think alot of folks would.

[Rongor]

What about Vandenberg? The left edge of the map looks like it would just fit.

[OnionSpider13]

I support this (if for no other reason) in order to get more of the Sierra Nevada modeled 

Edited January 19, 2021 by OnionSpider13

[G.J.S]

Why not just add Hawaii? Seriously - it’s called NTTR as that is the main cantered area. If we keep asking for areas further and further out, kinda defeats the object. Where would the limit be? Let’s say they give in and add Vandenburg AFB, guaranteed there will be someone who says that the map still isn’t big enough, and could they add maybe Klamath Falls so they can commute from the other direction.
Where would it stop?

For those that wish to commute large distances to the NTTR, there are several civilian sims that can give you the whole world.

If you wish to emulate a flag, then there is Nellis - in the NTTR.

[Minsky]

3 hours ago, garyscott said:

Where would it stop?

...

If you wish to emulate a flag, then there is Nellis - in the NTTR.

 

I suggest you to read vision45' post just above. Nobody (in their sane mind) is asking for both Californias, UT, AZ and whatnot, despite the fact that Nevada is the smallest and oldest payware terrain in DCS (priced equally to the much larger and newer PG & Syria). We can have Fallon and China Lake without even expanding the map. And Luke, Lemoore and Edwards with just a slight expansion. What we have instead are miles and miles of empty space, and a whole lot of wasted opportunities.

 

Multiple other DCS modules got their quality of life updates (either free or fairly priced). Why can't we do the same thing for maps?

[G.J.S]

4 hours ago, Minsky said:

 

I suggest you to read vision45' post just above. Nobody (in their sane mind) is asking for both Californias, UT, AZ and whatnot, despite the fact that Nevada is the smallest and oldest payware terrain in DCS (priced equally to the much larger and newer PG & Syria). We can have Fallon and China Lake without even expanding the map. And Luke, Lemoore and Edwards with just a slight expansion. What we have instead are miles and miles of empty space, and a whole lot of wasted opportunities.

 

Multiple other DCS modules got their quality of life updates (either free or fairly priced). Why can't we do the same thing for maps?

Would you, and others, truly be happy with maybe a low detail rendition of the bases you state, with no terrain change between there and NTTR, or conversely a higher detail (but still lacking) airbase and lightly populated (dressed up) terrain between there and NTTR? I guarantee you would not - there would be cries of not enough detail (never mind it’s OUT of the area of the map) in the base renditions, or not enough terrain detail ‘out there’. Again, what pleases one will annoy another, so where would it stop? Just how far should it go?

It still won’t happen. 
Unless as a private mod you can extend the terrain to your hearts content.

[Minsky]

6 hours ago, garyscott said:

Would you, and others, truly be happy with maybe a low detail rendition of the bases you state, with no terrain change between there and NTTR, or conversely a higher detail (but still lacking) airbase and lightly populated (dressed up) terrain between there and NTTR? I guarantee you would not - there would be cries of not enough detail (never mind it’s OUT of the area of the map) in the base renditions, or not enough terrain detail ‘out there’. Again, what pleases one will annoy another, so where would it stop? Just how far should it go?

It still won’t happen. 

 

The current NTTR is not the prettiest thing in the world. It's not up-to-date and not 100% accurate. And yet it's one of my favorite maps.

 

Why must it be low-res this or lightly populated that? Can't speak for others, but I will be quite happy with an expanded version of the same quality. Expanded in the terms of content - not necessarily the scale. It's not about outmatching the Syrian map. It's about fully realizing the potential of the existing area.

 

On a second thought, forget it. The NTTR terrain is quite old, and will probably require ED to upgrade it to their "new mapping technology" or whatever, before adding anything meaningful to it. And then they will be forced to either recreate an outdated versions of Fallon and China Lake, or fix the numerous inaccuracies in the current scenery. Unlike the "several civilian sims" you mentioned, ED can't just slap a couple new airfields over the existing DCS terrain and call it a day.

 

So yeah, while this task is doable and not overly complex, it goes well beyond the free update. And we don't need a paid one, not for the terrains.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Minsky

[REDEYE_CVW-66]

..and maybe get around to fixing the night lighting..