NTTR Wishlist Thread

[Andartu]

On 1/19/2021 at 10:13 PM, garyscott said:

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.

 

Whataboutism at its finest  Every single word if this is nonsense and adds nothing to this.

 

On 1/20/2021 at 7:05 AM, 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. 
Unless as a private mod you can extend the terrain to your hearts content.

 

I will never get why some fight so hard for not getting nice stuff. There are enough nay sayers to everything, thank you. 

 

To make it a payed add-on is the best way. There are definitely a lot who would love to pay for more airfields on the Nevada map. If you don´t want, then don´t buy it. Simple.

[Minsky]

3 hours ago, Andartu said:

To make it a payed add-on is the best way. There are definitely a lot who would love to pay for more airfields on the Nevada map. If you don´t want, then don´t buy it. Simple.

 

I strongly disagree. We don't need to further segment the DCS audience and limit the content creators by making niche maps even more niche. And making these new areas and airfields visible or landable only to those who bought the expansion (like they did with the Supercarrier) would be just plain ridiculous.

 

The expanded and properly upgraded NTTR could attract a lot of new customers. Will probably be enough for ED to offset their costs, even without increasing the base price (which is also an option, by the way).

 

I don't mind supporting the devs by buying new things. But when it comes to payware expansions, I'm firmly against the fragmentation and complexification they bring. What's good for other games with tens of millions of players is not necessarily good for a niche simulator.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Minsky

[Widsy0]

I also would like to see China Lake and Fallon be added as usable airfields. They are already on the map, they only have to fill in the blanks  ED is spending a lot of time on the Marianas Islands map (free). Perhaps with some community tooling we could complete them ourselves

[JagHond]

Il 17/1/2021 at 04:27, RaisedByWolves ha scritto:

Id pay too. I think alot of folks would.

 

You can bet it well. Please count me in.

 

With best regards.

[Smashy]

New DCS player here and I have the PG, Syrian and NTTR maps.  I've spent most of my time with the NTTR map, setting up test/training missions in the ME.  Count me in as someone highly interested in an NTTR paid update.

[VTJS17_Fire]

Big things will happen ...

[JackCooper]

On 9/12/2019 at 6:03 PM, BIGNEWY said:

 

Hi

 

NTTR is feature complete, apart from a few bug fixes there will be no further work on the terrain at this time.

 

Thanks

That's strange, cause with all this NAVY stuff you proposing now (Supercarrier, F-14, F-16, F/A-18, F-5) it just feels nesessery to have at least one real Naval station, as it so famous and you already have map around. From what I can see it is realy a thing to correct some small features on this map, add one or two bases and Navy part will be happy to get this map, me included. Authentic trainings and fights just that thing people like and came to DCS and buy so much of your products. That could be just me, but I can see more people buying all named modules above including Nevada and new campaigns will follow soon enough, like Zone 5 and Red Flag stuff, combining with new learning process using all this. Good opportunity slips trough ED fingers.

Edited March 18, 2021 by JackCooper
grammatical

[Hoirtel]

Fallon has been asked for so many times. It is strange they don't update it, but I'm sure they have their reasons. 

[resnonverba]

Count me in for a NTTR paid update. I have all other maps and still spent most of the time in Nevada.

[Phantom88]

Maybe we should approach "Ugra Media "3rd party developers about a paid addon project to NTTR?

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all

 

NTTR is feature complete, so no plans to add any new airfields.

 

We are going to be addressing the lighting issues as soon as we get some dev time spare, and any bug fixes as needed continue. 

 

thanks

[FoxOne007]

On 3/27/2021 at 11:52 PM, BIGNEWY said:

Hi all

 

NTTR is feature complete, so no plans to add any new airfields.

 

We are going to be addressing the lighting issues as soon as we get some dev time spare, and any bug fixes as needed continue. 

 

thanks

What about parking that is the wrong way around at Nellis? At the Revampments aircraft should be facing away from the runway towards a sand dune/hill (which isn't present atm) not inwards to a lot of base infrastructure.

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, FoxOne007 said:

What about parking that is the wrong way around at Nellis? At the Revampments aircraft should be facing away from the runway towards a sand dune/hill (which isn't present atm) not inwards to a lot of base infrastructure.

 

is there a forum report somewhere about this I have missed? do you have any references we could look at?

 

thanks

[FoxOne007]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

 

is there a forum report somewhere about this I have missed? do you have any references we could look at?

 

thanks

I don't think a forum post was made about it (or is has been lost among all the other posts) by anyone though it's been discussed a couple times on the ED discord. I've asked Panther to reconfirm this but here's the real life image as proof:

[=Panther=]

7 minutes ago, FoxOne007 said:

I don't think a forum post was made about it (or is has been lost among all the other posts) by anyone though it's been discussed a couple times on the ED discord. I've asked Panther to reconfirm this but here's the real life image as proof:

Correct jets with live munitions face the nose towards the berms. 

[Stuka]

Parking directions at Golf was reported already.

[BIGNEWY]

28 minutes ago, FoxOne007 said:

I don't think a forum post was made about it (or is has been lost among all the other posts) by anyone though it's been discussed a couple times on the ED discord. I've asked Panther to reconfirm this but here's the real life image as proof:

 

I have reported it as a suggestion to the team, I can not promise any change at this time.

 

thank you

[Bonz]

DCS and ED try to make products that sell... presumably.  They have spent boat loads of money making the F-18C and the Supercarrier... It makes sense that Fallon and China lake be fitted out on the NTTR map.  People who say that we should use the NTTR map for what it was intended to be... Two things about that.  1.  It was built to make money!  It would make more money if it was more relevant to the Navy community by adding Fallon and China Lake.  I was stationed at Fallon in the late 80's as an adversary in VFA-127... we flew the F-5E/F and the A-4E and other variants.  Now the adversary unit there flies the F-18.  2.  I do use the NTTR and like it very much... It's a good map.  I'd like to see them make it better. 

Edited May 22, 2022 by Bonz

[fagulha]

On 5/14/2021 at 6:01 PM, Bonz said:

DCS and ED try to make products that sell... presumably.  They have spent boat loads of money making the F-18C and the Supercarrier... It makes sense that Fallon and China lake be fitted out on the NTTR map.  People who say that we should use the NTTR map for what it was intended to be... Two things about that.  1.  It was built to make money!  It would make more money if it was more relevant to the Navy community but adding Fallon and China Lake.  I was stationed at Fallon in the late 80's as an adversary in VFA-127... we flew the F-5E/F and the A-4E and other variants.  Now the adversary unit there flies the F-18.  2.  We do use the NTTR and like it very much... It's a good map.  I'd like to see them make it better. 

+1. Love the map for my training missions and flights. Wish some love to the map.

 

Edited June 13, 2021 by fagulha

[Silver_Dragon]

ED has none plan to expand NTTR, has a complete product.

[Zeagle]

On 9/2/2019 at 4:41 AM, Gierasimov said:

Oh don't worry Baco. Wags already said that another training map is not going to happen anytime soon as they recognize that community does not want that. But the idea of Star Wars canyon is soooooo cool.

You do know that ANY map can be a combat map right? And any of them can be training maps right?

[Gierasimov]

4 hours ago, Zeagle said:

You do know that ANY map can be a combat map right? And any of them can be training maps right?

Right.

[Silver_Dragon]

4 hours ago, Zeagle said:

You do know that ANY map can be a combat map right? And any of them can be training maps right?

ED has none plans about a training map. Only can wait about a 3rd party make them.

[Andartu]

On 5/19/2021 at 9:13 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

ED has none plan to expand NTTR, has a complete product.

Yes we are aware. The whole point of this thread is to may change this approach. Especially by open the mind of earning even more money with this map by adding more texture to certain areas (that have low res texture, even not all of it) and give propper detail to three more airfields (Fallon/China Lake/Lemoore) that fit on the map. There is even no need to expand the maps geographical size. 

Imagine 50% (or even a bit more) of the owners of NTTR would pay 10-15 extra bucks for that add-on. And no need to build an new map for that. It is Dev time for sure, but compared to other things a low effort = profit thing.

I would do that and like this thread shows I am definitely not alone.

 

How about an official poll for this? That simply would be some market research.

[Silver_Dragon]

Yes we are aware. The whole point of this thread is to may change this approach. Especially by open the mind of earning even more money with this map by adding more texture to certain areas (that have low res texture, even not all of it) and give propper detail to three more airfields (Fallon/China Lake/Lemoore) that fit on the map. There is even no need to expand the maps geographical size. 

Imagine 50% (or even a bit more) of the owners of NTTR would pay 10-15 extra bucks for that add-on. And no need to build an new map for that. It is Dev time for sure, but compared to other things a low effort = profit thing.
I would do that and like this thread shows I am definitely not alone.
 
How about an official poll for this? That simply would be some market research.

You can't sell anything if you not have a 3rd party, by EULA, and that add on need approval by ED.

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk