New DCS Theater Maps Wish Wish List

[Weta43]

When there was a Crimea, the world stopped about Krasnodar.

With Flaming Cliffs, E.D. upped the resolution and eventually built out the current area down to Turkey & across to Chechnya, but because of (then existing) limits on the number of objects that could be on the map, had to de-populate the Crimea.

 

If you fly over and look at the terrain, you'll see how much better the world looks now...

[Woogey]

As DCS 2.0 will not have these supposed "Object Limits," I surely hope that the Crimea can be brought back into existence. I'd be happy to have it back even if nothing else was upgraded. Just the old existing objects. A complete update of course would be welcome too.

[Flagrum]

As DCS 2.0 will not have these supposed "Object Limits," I surely hope that the Crimea can be brought back into existence. I'd be happy to have it back even if nothing else was upgraded. Just the old existing objects. A complete update of course would be welcome too.

Iirc ED stated that the current map will not be overhauled for DCS2. But while the context was the existing Georgia map and the terrain modelling and the objects, I think this statement also extends to the Crimea area. They could probably just "re-activate" all the old assets and enable them in our current map ... but knowing ED, I assume that they would not really favour such an "half assed" approach. If they would put some effords into the current map, then with all the consequences - and that is, as they said, not planned for the forseeable future.

[Raptor9]

I believe there was also legal reasons for why they de-populated Crimea since the original Lock-On series was published by Ubisoft, and the DCS-series of products was/is not.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Raptor9

[pepin1234]

Will be awesome if ED add Crimea and all East-Ukrania

[Flogger23m]

I believe there was also legal reasons for why they de-populated Crimea since the original Lock-On series was published by Ubisoft, and the DCS-series of products was/is not.

 

Many of areas are still present that were in LOMAC. As mentioned, it was updated with FC which also added multiple seasons. Then DCS KA-50 expanded the terrian, and that is when the older area was removed. This was carried over to FC2, and further expanded in DCS World.

[Woogey]

All I am saying is, add the existing assets of the Crimea back into the Greater "Black Sea" map. No upgrade is needed to either the Crimea, or Georgia areas. Just a simple plug in of of buildings, forests and Aerodromes that are not being utilized.

[BlazexX23Xx]

I'd really like to see Crimea back. :smilewink:

[BlazexX23Xx]

I would like to see a new theater taking in scandinavia, the baltic states etc, basically northern europe.

 

It would be nice:thumbup:

[Fri13]

Couple questions:

 

1) Why does the map need to be anything from reality? Isn't that pretty limiting that all maps needs to be based to real world, instead a creation ones?

I would like to see totally new kind maps where isn't anything related to realworld. Just to avoid all the historical and possible future conflicts.

 

2) Why it needs to be future? The cold war era in europe is very little touched time era in any game. It is WW1, WW2 and then it jumps to USA conquests, Iraq, Vietnam etc.

 

I would take a east europe landscapes if it needs to be from realworld maps. As there would be interesting terrains for helicopters, close air support airplanes and ground units. For fighters it is really pretty much same where ever they are flying as they are not flying same altitudes or playing the same cat and mouse game as units on ground and close air support vehicles.

 

 

I wish that developers would find a way to add randomly painted terrain elements to maps, like trees, bushes, sandpits etc. So they would not need to be placed individually. It would allow to make the terrain far more interesting to those who fly low or operate on ground when there is cover and actual visual elements.

As I am personally bored to two things in current map.

 

1) Billiard board level height differences and non-existing cover system

2) Mountains.

 

It would be nice to see large maps where there is lots of 50m height differences, small hills, ridges, rivers and riverbanks, all kind things that gives possibility to ground troops to get in cover, limit their movement etc.

 

But now you see tens of kilometers distance so easily, maybe there is one 200-300m high hill somewhere but nothing else really.

[Fake]

Couple questions:

 

1) Why does the map need to be anything from reality? Isn't that pretty limiting that all maps needs to be based to real world, instead a creation

It's a simulator :dontgetit:.

It simulates the reality!

[UN9249]

Afghanistan would be best.

[shagrat]

Couple questions:

 

1) Why does the map need to be anything from reality? Isn't that pretty limiting that all maps needs to be based to real world, instead a creation ones?

I would like to see totally new kind maps where isn't anything related to realworld. Just to avoid all the historical and possible future conflicts.

It is a Combat SIMulation! People WANT to recreate real conflicts. Very few Sim addicts want to fight in Middle-earth or Sachrani...

And nope, it is not limiting at all. Actually it is fantastic that real world approach charts, normal maps and real world names and terrain features match with my simulated world. Just flying around and enjoying the sights is pretty cool, if you can plan your flight with google maps.

2) Why it needs to be future? The cold war era in europe is very little touched time era in any game. It is WW1, WW2 and then it jumps to USA conquests, Iraq, Vietnam etc.

Well, it was a COLD war!? Apart from some seriously threatening posture flying not much going on. You could have nice joint forces exercises in Germany and looong patrol flights along eastern borders...

 

I would take a east europe landscapes if it needs to be from realworld maps. As there would be interesting terrains for helicopters, close air support airplanes and ground units. For fighters it is really pretty much same where ever they are flying as they are not flying same altitudes or playing the same cat and mouse game as units on ground and close air support vehicles.

 

 

I wish that developers would find a way to add randomly painted terrain elements to maps, like trees, bushes, sandpits etc. So they would not need to be placed individually. It would allow to make the terrain far more interesting to those who fly low or operate on ground when there is cover and actual visual elements.

As I am personally bored to two things in current map.

 

1) Billiard board level height differences and non-existing cover system

2) Mountains.

 

It would be nice to see large maps where there is lots of 50m height differences, small hills, ridges, rivers and riverbanks, all kind things that gives possibility to ground troops to get in cover, limit their movement etc.

 

But now you see tens of kilometers distance so easily, maybe there is one 200-300m high hill somewhere but nothing else really.

Ahem, you fly in DCS World? Not FC or LOMAC?

Last time we flew from Kaspi to Gori and on to Kashuri and up to Tshkinvali the terrain was "covered" with small hills a gorge near the river and lots of rolling landscape, in fact we used the terrain features all the time... Try to run a Tank or vehicle through that area and don't be surprised, if you pop up a hill crest and an enemy tank is a click in front of you that you couldn't see before, because of the "Billiard board level height differences"

 

Sorry, to be so sarcastic, but to me it sounds like you never had a mission/flight other than in the northern prairie of Russia. Even the area between Anapa and Novorossiysk is covered with ridges, hills, Woods, slopes etc. despite looking pretty flat on the F10 map.

 

Edit: ...and you will be astonished how much current terrain features, even on this old map is actually hampering tanks and vehicle movements. Rivers are obstacles (small creeks are not) as well as steep crevices or hills can block tanks!

Edited March 22, 2015 by shagrat

[SDsc0rch]

now, don't jump on him too harshly

 

i think there is a market for a "notional" terrain

 

however, i think the real world offers plenty of variety and complexity

 

one disadvantage with the real world is.. there IS an objective reality to compare the sim to

 

so in one sense, the devs can never be "completed" because someone could always come around the corner and say "hey, what about..... [X]??" if something looks different in the sim or is simply not included altogether

 

if the terrain is only in the mind of the creator, then they can say this is what it is, love it or leave it

 

i'm not terribly opposed to a non-real-world terrain

[msalama]

i'm not terribly opposed to a non-real-world terrain

Me neither. Nothing wrong with imaginary landscapes per se at all. But all the better still if they do them with navaids & navcharts implemented & included ;)

[ebabil]

Iraq, Syria,Iran, Eastern Turkey

[earlwarren]

I would like to see a European scenario from the cold war e.g. an areal with both East and West Germany or Russia and Norway/Finland.

[ChoSeungWan]

Within reason: Vietnam. Got to happen! Rolling Thunder and Linebacker campaigns combined with our first SAM simulator would be the quintessential DCS experience.

 

Ridiculous: Western Europe stretching all the way to through Russia and onto the Eastern seaboard of the US. 12-hour SIOP marathons with a bottle taped to my peepee. :thumbup:

[FoxHoundELite]

Couple questions:

 

1) Why does the map need to be anything from reality? Isn't that pretty limiting that all maps needs to be based to real world, instead a creation ones?

I would like to see totally new kind maps where isn't anything related to realworld. Just to avoid all the historical and possible future conflicts.

 

 

you dont want to fly over your house in DCS or what? :D

[Angelthunder]

American Military Bases Wishlist.

 

Since were getting close to the release of DCS World 2.0. and NTTR Map.I was wondering what types of american bases like current or historical Air Force, Army,Navy,Marine Corps bases you would like to see in future maps for training and flying purposes.For example i would like to see Lemoore NAS for the upcoming F/A-18C Hornet or an US Army base for Combined Arms training.Here are some of my other suggetions.Tyndall AFB for the F-15C Eagle,Pensacola NAS for Razbams T-2 Buckeye.

[mvsgas]

I say Kunsan AB in the ROK. Not an American base per say, but, many aircraft go there from training. From F/A-18, F-15. ROKAF F-5 use to be station there, F-4, etc. And if you buy the module, it should come with a bottle of Soju :D

Edited May 12, 2015 by mvsgas

[CheckGear]

- NAS/MCAS Miramar

- MCAS Yuma

- CFB Cold Lake

- Bitburg AB

- Spangdahlem AB

[CHRISXTR3M3]

Yes NAS/MCAS Miramar for F-14 Tomcat

[Snoopy]

I say Kunsan AB in the ROK. Not an American base per say, but, many aircraft go there from training. From F/A-18, F-15. ROKAF F-5 use to be station there, F-4, etc. And if you buy the module, it should come with a bottle of Soju :D

 

Osan AB

[rcjonessnp175]

Fort Carson Colorado

 

Yakima training area Washington state.