The unofficial "2025 and Beyond" video hype / speculation & discussion thread

[Gunfreak]

14 hours ago, Beirut said:

 

Ol' Spudknockers's last survey (3600 responses) had the NTTR map as the third most owned. I'd be delighted to see it get a paint job. And I'd be delighted to pay for it.

 

I think it will be the secret reveal... NTTR 2.0 

I also own the NTTR, doesn't mean i use it. 

I would use the NTTR if ED implemented proper simulated Combat. If i could fling out simulated missiles and get simulated kills like they do in thr real modern Red Flag it would be very cool.

[Beirut]

4 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

I also own the NTTR, doesn't mean i use it. 

 

That's okay. I use it enough for the both of us. 

 

4 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

I would use the NTTR if ED implemented proper simulated Combat. If i could fling out simulated missiles and get simulated kills like they do in thr real modern Red Flag it would be very cool.

 

The little people in the little planes are simulated. You can make them go "Boom!" and have a mostly clear conscience.

 

 

[Gunfreak]

4 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

That's okay. I use it enough for the both of us. 

 

 

The little people in the little planes are simulated. You can make them go "Boom!" and have a mostly clear conscience.

 

 

Yes. But that's not how Red Flags work. If you actually blow up an aircraft. Something very wrong has happened.

I would want a way to simulate the simulated combat used in modern training. This would not only be realistic in top gun campaigns. And red flag campaigns. But major wargames have been done over the exact area we have Kola and will also be on the top end Australia. Having red books by pilots taking part in red flag.  Throwing simulated AMRAAMs would be immersive in those missions. 

[Beirut]

25 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Yes. But that's not how Red Flags work. If you actually blow up an aircraft. Something very wrong has happened.

 

Yes, something very wrong did happen: the other guy let himself get all blowed up. He should try harder in his next virtual life. 

 

25 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

I would want a way to simulate the simulated combat used in modern training. This would not only be realistic in top gun campaigns. And red flag campaigns. But major wargames have been done over the exact area we have Kola and will also be on the top end Australia. Having red books by pilots taking part in red flag.  Throwing simulated AMRAAMs would be immersive in those missions. 

 

Sounds like fun, but that feature lacking in no way detracts from the map. The map is still enjoyable.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 minute ago, Beirut said:

Sounds like fun, but that feature lacking in no way detracts from the map. The map is still enjoyable.

In itself, all maps are fun and would not be less valuable if they were in Antarctica or Botswana. It seems that many forget that the 3rd party map teams have their plans (in fact, the Australian team made their intentions very clear from the beginning), and these continuous attempts to discredit NTTR or the future map of Northern Australia, as if here, if maps of "past wars" were not made, it would be useless. The same thing happens if Aerges creates a map team and makes the Iberian Peninsula and/or the Canary Islands or if a team appears to make the map of Tibet. Isn't it a current / historical war scenery? Ok. Can it be playable or fun? Of course, just as some have used the Normandy map for a hypothetical WW3.

Isn't there a functionality to make simulated combats? It is totally correct and plausible, but it is not something that can be created quickly, it will take a long time to make something simulated, and not only that, that works like reality (you have to look at whether there is data available and open sources).
 

[Beirut]

33 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

In itself, . . . 
 

 

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

If you actually blow up an aircraft. Something very wrong has happened.

Let's just say that should I ever sit in a real fighter plane, something really, really wrong has happened already.

That being said, although I own all maps, I detect a distinct pattern: most played maps for me are Caucasus (performance), Syria and Sinaï (simply great maps, but performance is killing my rig until that dang 5090 finds its way into my home).

And, strangely, I really like South America - something with the light, I suppose. Kola leaves me cold. "Halfghanistan" and "Iraq" are simply more "dust map" to me, with nothing (no personal attachment) to keep me. NTTR bores me to tears, and after I landed my Hind at the alien inn, I got nothing good to do there. Paris and London kill my VR performance, but Normy 2 will come to my "twilight zone helicopter missions" once my new rig is ready. And I hate the primitive SOH "Persia" map ever since I laid eyes on Syria, that "new lighting model" be damned. I'm old, I fly daylight.

Edited January 11 by cfrag

[Beirut]

17 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Let's just say that should I ever sit in a real fighter plane, something really, really wrong has happened already.

That being said, although I own all maps, I detect a distinct pattern: most played maps for me are Caucasus (performance), Syria and Sinaï (simply great maps, but performance is killing my rig until that dang 5090 finds its way into my home).

And, strangely, I really like South America - something with the light, I suppose. Kola leaves me cold. "Halfghanistan" and "Iraq" are simply more "dust map" to me, with nothing (no personal attachment) to keep me. NTTR bores me to tears, and after I landed my Hind at the alien inn, I got nothing good to do there. Paris and London kill my VR performance, but Normy 2 will come to my "twilight zone helicopter missions" once my new rig is ready. And I hate the primitive SOH "Persia" map ever since I laid eyes on Syria, that "new lighting model" be damned. I'm old, I fly daylight.

 

Great post! 

 

I like the Alien Inn. When I get a new module or want to figure out some systems, that's my testing ground. 

[Gunfreak]

18 hours ago, cfrag said:

Let's just say that should I ever sit in a real fighter plane, something really, really wrong has happened already.

That being said, although I own all maps, I detect a distinct pattern: most played maps for me are Caucasus (performance), Syria and Sinaï (simply great maps, but performance is killing my rig until that dang 5090 finds its way into my home).

And, strangely, I really like South America - something with the light, I suppose. Kola leaves me cold. "Halfghanistan" and "Iraq" are simply more "dust map" to me, with nothing (no personal attachment) to keep me. NTTR bores me to tears, and after I landed my Hind at the alien inn, I got nothing good to do there. Paris and London kill my VR performance, but Normy 2 will come to my "twilight zone helicopter missions" once my new rig is ready. And I hate the primitive SOH "Persia" map ever since I laid eyes on Syria, that "new lighting model" be damned. I'm old, I fly daylight.

I never use Caucasus. While the forests now looks good thanks to core upgrades.

The towns and open areas remind me of IL2 ground graphics (though not as bad) but it pulls me out of my immersion in VR. 

I personally love Kola, it gets better and better for each update. 

Syra and Normandy are still the standard all others would measure against. I wish all maps looked like Normandy 2 down low. I can place ground units almost anywhere on the map and it will look good. 

I do hope Fulda gap will look more like Normandy 2 then it will Afghanistan or Iraq. 

 

Edited January 12 by Gunfreak

[MAXsenna]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

I do hope Fulda gap will look more like Normandy 2 then it will Afghanistan or Iraq. 

The rumours are that Ugra is the developer, so you might be in luck.

Edited January 11 by MAXsenna

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

36 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

The rumours are that Ugra is the developer, so you might be in luck.

I really hope that's true: Normandy is the best looking map in DCS down low. There's something about the vegetation and colours that just *clicks* for me.

[Jayhawk1971]

NTTR 2.0 would be fantastic, if it would include detailed Southern California (NAS /MCAS Miramar!!!!!) and more detailed northern Nevada (NAS Fallon). Throw Edwards AFB and Fort Irwin (NTC) in for good measure, and it would be a great map for mission/ campaign creators. Might even be an incentive for module makers to create the X planes from the 40's and 50's, and we could have a historic test pilot campaign. And for the Apache and/or Combined Arms (once that has been reworked), an NTC campaign.

As an extra special bonus, add Yuma Training Range, and we can finally have an on-location cold-war-era TOPGUN campaign (paging Mr. @Reflected  )

(Would "Zone 5 II" be called "Zone 10"? Zone 5: Part Deux? Zone 5 Two: Electric Boogaloo?) 

Edited January 11 by Jayhawk1971

[Gunfreak]

13 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

The rumours are that Ugra is the developer, so you might be in luck.

Really? I thought this was an ED project? Well if it's actually Ugra, that is good news indeed.

[MAXsenna]

Really? I thought this was an ED project? Well if it's actually Ugra, that is good news indeed.

I was under the impression myself, that it was ED, and was brutally shot down in a part of a media that shall not be named. And it was strongly hinted at it was Ugra making it. We'll see.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[JD]

19 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 and these continuous attempts to discredit NTTR or the future map of Northern Australia
 

Nobody is going to discredit them. We're just talking about one of DCS large problems - some modules just exist on their own, with no proppers assets around them. At this moment, I'm talking about about Mig-15, Sabre and I-16. I own both Mig and Sabre, but last time I flew them was, like seven or eight years ago. Those are good modules, but there will never be any immersive to fly above Caucasus or Persian Gulf an imagine it's Korea, shooting B-17s and imagine it's B-29s. At leas they can fight each other, I-16 is all alone though. Same problem we have with NTTR, there are few Red Flag campaigns and that's all. There is nothing else you can do on that map.

[YoYo]

On 1/7/2025 at 7:19 PM, JD said:

not another sand map or Australia map (with all my respect to guys making Australia map, what are we going to do there? Fight emu?)

The map of Australia has been controversial from the start. I hope that the palm tree on the poster does not mean Australia . I bet on Vietnam (most obviously I hope so and fingers crossed!) but as someone here has noticed it could also be a map of WWII Marianas only, so you have to take that into account.

At least for me the map of Australia would make big sense but... as World War II version (with big part of the sea and a fragment or the whole island with Papua New Guinea).

[YoYo]

And I hope that in Q1 we will see at least this for F-16 : 

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, JD said:

Nobody is going to discredit them. We're just talking about one of DCS large problems - some modules just exist on their own, with no proppers assets around them. At this moment, I'm talking about about Mig-15, Sabre and I-16. I own both Mig and Sabre, but last time I flew them was, like seven or eight years ago. Those are good modules, but there will never be any immersive to fly above Caucasus or Persian Gulf an imagine it's Korea, shooting B-17s and imagine it's B-29s. At leas they can fight each other, I-16 is all alone though. Same problem we have with NTTR, there are few Red Flag campaigns and that's all. There is nothing else you can do on that map.

A red flag dont has a problem about assets, on fact, ED has build a training pod (ACMI pod), but lack all the propper funtionality on the ACMI system (no plans yet by ED).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_combat_maneuvering_instrumentation
https://www.dreamlandresort.com/info/acmi.html
https://www.cubic.com/industries/training/air-combat/acmi
https://milavreachout.org/air-combat-maneuvering-instrumentation/

The Mig-15 and Sabre by ED or the I-16 or the future La-7 has only modules, no "planesets". The lack of the propper maps has only matter of time. And about assets has only a resourse, personal and money problem with propper "assets teams".

ED will build propper 50s assets but actualy your plans has redone and remade the old Lomac / FC assets to actual standars on "modern assets team".

Octopus-G has no a propper "Assets team" and / or "map teams" as many 3rd parties, that has no a problem from the "module team". As put previosly, the only teams with have centred on build propper map assets with your "Assets teams" has ED with the WW2 assets team on PTO WW2 (Marianas / F6F Hellcat), Razbam (SA map), M3 with F4U module and your PTO units, Dekka build some Chinesse assets, Check Six with your australian units to North Australia map / PC-6 and HB, with actualy has "plans" to some Sweden / UsNavy but never has confirm a propper assets team.

Edited January 12 by Silver_Dragon

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, YoYo said:

The map of Australia has been controversial from the start. I hope that the palm tree on the poster does not mean Australia . I bet on Vietnam (most obviously I hope so and fingers crossed!) but as someone here has noticed it could also be a map of WWII Marianas only, so you have to take that into account.

At least for me the map of Australia would make big sense but... as World War II version (with big part of the sea and a fragment or the whole island with Papua New Guinea).

By the CSS Discord FaQ:

Quote

Will the Top End Australia Map be expanded now or in the future into East Timor/Indonesia at all?
The area was chosen with great consideration as it allows for unrestricted Air, Land & Sea Ops for the DCS community. Unfortunately we don’t have any plans at the moment to expand this map into those regions due to the magnitude of the area that would be covered.

On fact CSS has no plans yet to a WW2 map
 

Quote

We have no plans to enter the WW2 era.

 

[YoYo]

 

[Bucic]

1 hour ago, YoYo said:

And I hope that in Q1 we will see at least this for F-16 : 

DANGER pod?

[Jayhawk1971]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb JD:

Same problem we have with NTTR, there are few Red Flag campaigns and that's all.

Not true.

Reflected alone made 2.5 campaigns for the map that are not "Red Flag": "Mig Killers" for the F-4, simulating the very first TOPGUN class. "Zone 5" is another TOPGUN campaign for the Tomcat, and the first half of "Speed & Angels" uses NTTR for the RAG part of the campaign.

And those are among the very best campaigns that you can get in DCS!

He's going to make another NTTR campaign for the F-4 that, indeed, will be about Red Flag, but simulating a specific one set in the early 80's.

[Weasel]

Wags said in an interview that they have found a way to develop future maps much faster. I meant he said in about 1 1/2 years.

What worries me are the different maps technologies we have in DCS. The NTTR is in a much older state than the newer maps, same for the Caucasus map. I really hope that ED will update its older maps, even it will cost some bucks.

[Flia]

I still belive in Nevada 2.0

[d0ppler]

What we need is content for the already existing maps, IMO.