New DCS Theater Maps Wish Wish List

[ericoh]

The A-10C, F-16C, F/A-18C, and others all have a combat radius in the 300 NM range. That is the range from home base they can fly, hit a target, and return to base on internal fuel without in-flight refuelling. That isn't a 5 hour mission on autopilot, it's a 1.5 - 2 hour mission, including time spent on the ground (a bit longer for the Hog).

 

At present the only way to do that in DCS is to take off around Anapa/Krymsk, and fly to the Tbilisi area. In both cases you are at the edge of the available map.

 

When you start thinking about deep strike missions in the F-15E or the Viper/Hornet with drop tanks, you're talking around 3-4 hour duration. With much of that time spent in enemy airspace, avoiding threats, not on autopilot.

 

At present such missions are not possible.

 

And for the record many people, myself included, would rather enjoy 5+ hour combat flights. Just as we did in Falcon and other combat sims, and if you spend it all on autopilot, you're doing it wrong.

 

 

 

 

In theatres of the current size, no. Besides, some people like to replicate real world missions and scenarios and/or realistic and plausible fictional scenarios. And to do that more theatres of a larger size are required.

 

What is the point in pretty trees or nice looking brick textures etc. when you won't even know they are there from 25,000 ft MSL?

 

 

Well, i see your approach. However this is a game be it simulation or not. You have to give up one for another.

 

I dont know about you, but im spending alot time close to that trees in dedicated ground attack aircraft and helicopters.

 

 

P.S.: Please dont nail me at if its 3 or 4.7658434 Hours.... thats not the point...

Edited May 11, 2013 by ericoh

[Cake]

but its hard to do such scenery in DCS..it is too big for such a detail to be implemented.. unless they manage to do a bubble graphic engine..where other parts of the map gets "blurred" by the GPU, CPU and your computer only concentrates on the 4x5 mile patch of land..so you can have your hi-fi scenery.. but even if this works it still means lots of work for DCS to create this..

 

would you guys be happy if we had only small patches of hi-fi scenery like the cities and villages but not the other un-populated areas?.. so when battles would occur in the cities, there would be more action, more CAS(that would be much more difficult to implement with A-10/Su-25 but more with AH?.. and seeing squads, platoons go take cover, fire for cover, flanking the enemy, calling back-up, going into a building..

 

or would this require the newest super-computer to implement? ..

 

I don't know why they should bet their hand on modeling anything less than the entire Earth as a next step. Clearly, it's feasible to bubble graphics and swap scenery in and out of memory. Moreover, It would be totally ok to have areas like Nevada, Hawaii, Vietnam be gradually released in high def while the rest of the world is in low def, someday to be uodated. I think ED needs to take a cue from their own approach to releasing aircraft and take a similar approach with mapping the entire possible battlefield. Perhaps they need to expand their skill set to achieve this and some fresh views on how to approach these challenges are needed - Not simply with just terrain, but also with other models of how to serve up the world as a simulated battlefield that can be run more efficiently in a grander scale.

[Kaktus29]

i think bigger maps are essential since whole Air power is very much dependent on air bases and distance to target.. its very strategic. .like if the distance to target is more than 1000km A-10 is pretty much cut off from action..which means air-refuelling is needed to accomplish the mission.. right now air-refuel is not needed..

 

now, flying for 5 hours is boring i agree, especially since when you enter into combat you can die in 5 seconds and go FFUUUU*K .. but why need to fly those 5 hours, why not go to F10 and speed up the time until you feel like it and jump back into the plane? ..

 

so most of the time you could "guide" your forces in quite a tactical strategic way, and only jump into the seat of the A-10 of F-15 when human touch is needed to accomplish the task..

 

I think the greatest allure lies in using tactically the planes, organization of their sorties .. logistic overview etc.. other players in MP can "wait" until "interesting" stuff happens and "commander" gives you a green light to take over a plane so you still fight and fly in those 10-30 minutes of "fun and action" and avoid the 5-10 hours of flight..

 

but something tells me DCS World is far from stable enough to support such long hours mission where action would be happening for 10-18 hours non-stop..

[Eddie]

If you don't have the time/attention span/interest in simulating air combat to want to fly longer missions, you wouldn't have to.

 

But bigger theatres would give those of you who prefer "straight into the action" airquake a greater variety of locations or missions, while allowing those of us who prefer to simulate all aspects of air warfare as faithfully as possible the ability to do so.

 

FPS levels of terrain, vegetation, and building detail simply is not going to happen in a flight sim that "simulates" anything. At least not until home PCs are vastly more powerful that they are today. Yes the detail can be better than it is now, and hopefully with EDGE it will be, but thousands of square miles with the same detail as in games like ArmA 3 simply isn't possible.

[ericoh]

If you don't have the time/attention span/interest in simulating air combat to want to fly longer missions, you wouldn't have to.

 

But bigger theatres would give those of you who prefer "straight into the action" airquake a greater variety of locations or missions, while allowing those of us who prefer to simulate all aspects of air warfare as faithfully as possible the ability to do so.

 

FPS levels of terrain, vegetation, and building detail simply is not going to happen in a flight sim that "simulates" anything. At least not until home PCs are vastly more powerful that they are today. Yes the detail can be better than it is now, and hopefully with EDGE it will be, but thousands of square miles with the same detail as in games like ArmA 3 simply isn't possible.

 

I think we all agreed on that allready?

 

Stop the airqauker thing, ever played HAWX? lol

[Exorcet]

Well, i see your approach. However this is a game be it simulation or not.

The "it's a game" thing never got through to me. Yes it is, but that's also why I want huge maps. For more fun. Right now, it's basically takeoff and meet the enemy. Large aircraft have no where to go, and refueling is pointless. Long ingress/egress allows more things to happen and allows for more variety.

[ericoh]

The "it's a game" thing never got through to me. Yes it is, but that's also why I want huge maps. For more fun. Right now, it's basically takeoff and meet the enemy. Large aircraft have no where to go, and refueling is pointless. Long ingress/egress allows more things to happen and allows for more variety.

 

Do you realy think i dont want bigger maps? I only know exactly that they will keep looking as inferior as they do or even worse. Be realistic.

[Haukka81]

We all want big maps etc.. But i don't want new big map if it means fake trees , dead horse i know.. Maybe desert is best option , not many trees so no need for new tree technology :P

[ericoh]

We all want big maps etc.. But i don't want new big map if it means fake trees , dead horse i know.. Maybe desert is best option , not many trees so no need for new tree technology :P

 

 

From that standpoint i think your right :D

[Exorcet]

Do you realy think i dont want bigger maps? I only know exactly that they will keep looking as inferior as they do or even worse. Be realistic.

 

I didn't think that you didn't want a bigger map. I was saying that whether you look DCS as a game or a simulator, big maps are still important.

 

I think the level of detail issue is much smaller than the size issue. If there is anything I would change on the current map it would be to add more variety in building types and possibly put some new textures under cities to make them more urban looking. Do that and the maps would be great no matter what you're flying.

 

Admittedly I mostly fly fighters at 30,000 ft, but I've flown quite a bit of A-10 and P-51 along with a little Ka-50. Detail is fine for all them, but only the Ka-50 operates in a map that is the right size. I'd love a super detailed map that's good enough for player controlled FPS infantry, but that to me is more of a nice extra than a necessary update.

[ericoh]

I didn't think that you didn't want a bigger map. I was saying that whether you look DCS as a game or a simulator, big maps are still important.

 

I think the level of detail issue is much smaller than the size issue. If there is anything I would change on the current map it would be to add more variety in building types and possibly put some new textures under cities to make them more urban looking. Do that and the maps would be great no matter what you're flying.

 

Admittedly I mostly fly fighters at 30,000 ft, but I've flown quite a bit of A-10 and P-51 along with a little Ka-50. Detail is fine for all them, but only the Ka-50 operates in a map that is the right size. I'd love a super detailed map that's good enough for player controlled FPS infantry, but that to me is more of a nice extra than a necessary update.

 

there we get the interesst conflict, you fly at 30k. It is not sufficent if you fly at 100feet.

[Noj]

"some people like..."

 

"virtual squadrons ..."

 

these points are moot.

 

Some people like flying for 5 hour missions - really? I bet most don't.

 

Virtual squadrons? How many of ED/DCS customers belong to virtual squadrons? Not many, as a percentage of sales, I would say - and indeed as stated on these forums.

 

So stating that these groups of people would want something a particular way is pretty much irrelevant. Do DCS want to make stuff for the minority of their customers, or potential customers, and therefore minimum sales, or for the 'mainstream' 'average Joe' DCS customer?

 

I think it's the latter.

 

Shame to see these kind of phrases used by ED staff - you surprise me.

[ishtmail]

Actually, a simple solution:

 

A high-resolution zone with lots and lots of details that make low altitude flying look better, and a wider low-resolution area to allow for 5 hour high-altitude flights (and within that low resolution area, you can have high res combat zones, where ground targets can be placed etc.)

[Cookie]

Some people like flying for 5 hour missions - really? I bet most don't.

Dunno... looking over to FSX & Co, there sure are a ton of people who (virtually) fly across the Atlantic once a week or who do a transcon flight in the US.

VATSIM even hosts a yearly "Cross the Pond" event, and it´s by far the most popular event they have.

 

Shame to see these kind of phrases used by ED staff - you surprise me.

There hasn´t been a single post in this thread made by an ED staff member. Moderators and Testers are regular users like you and me, except they moderate these forums and/or test the software before the unwashed masses get it in their hands.

[ishtmail]

Yeah, but those FSX pilots take off, gain the cruise altitude, hit the autopilot switch and go out for lunch, coffee, fitness sessions and whatnot, and return to their PCs 4 hours later, when it's time to descend and land the planes.

 

Not exactly the same as flying a combat mission for 5 hours through enemy territory.

[EtherealN]

Well okay for sure, if people wanna go through the agony of 5 hour autopilot flights.

 

I once flew a Beechcraft Baron around the world in MSFS. (Think it was FS2000, might have been the 2004 version, not sure.) Except for the landings and islandhopping that was necessary, I didn't have to do much. :P

 

We are rare, but we exist. :D

 

A more pertinent point there though is that this is not the only reason to have a big map, and it's not like such maps would automatically and by necessity require such long-endurance flights - that's up to the mission designer, of course. But since this is a hardcore simulator, it would be nice to have the option. :)

 

Whether it'll happen considering possible technical issues of such an implementation... That's for the future to show.

 

For that kind of approach you would need a simplified terrain, such as in the Outerra engine.

 

Not necessarily. What is needed is a solution to the AI issue for such large terrain zones, and possibly also that 32-bit support has to be completely and finally abandoned.

 

Out of couriosity, what are "Airquake" people? I hear people in this forums hitting alot on them and i dont even know what it is lol

 

Airquake is when the simulator is played in a sort of deathmatch (or team deathmatch) manner. You take off, want to have a quick flight to the combat area, do your fighting, and then either win or die. Rinse and repeat.

 

Lol okay thanks, i think nobody who plays any ED product could be called a "airquaker" then. Thats realy far far off....

 

While it might be a bit unfair in the "Quake" sense, you should see the amount of moaning and complaining that happens when servers put up missions that have even 15 minutes one-way transit to the target... There's also a fair few people that go up, AB to the target area, spam their missiles as best they can, and then either get killed or AB back home to rearm...

 

This thing with being unwilling to have even relatively modest range to target, combined with typically a complete lack of co-operation with one's friends, is what is called AirQuake. (And is also why many servers have passwords that are disseminated through the associated TeamSpeak server - if they weren't locked, they'd fill up with "Airquakers" that spoil the fun for those who want to play "seriously".)

 

Obviously, it's not quite as "bad" as Quake (though I love that game), but you get the point I hope. :)

 

Well, i see your approach. However this is a game be it simulation or not. You have to give up one for another.

 

Actually, no, you don't. Just because a map offers the possibility does not mean you have to design every mission like that. Not even if you're in the middle of the pacific ocean with just two widely separated islands on it - since you can always have carriers and stuff in closer proximity.

 

Do you realy think i dont want bigger maps? I only know exactly that they will keep looking as inferior as they do or even worse. Be realistic.

 

Again, not necessarily. If I have understood things right, one of the big hindrances for DCS has been memory - most specifically, the 32-bit memory space having to be supported, which is problematic when combined with combat, since map areas has to be loaded everywhere you have troops (unless you have "bubbles", which is a different discussion with it's own drawbacks).

 

Now, exactly what can be done in this department between 32-bit getting dropped and what's coming from EDGE, I don't know. But as you'll recall, the omission of the Crimea from DCS was caused originally by memory restrictions when Georgia got included - and the current map already is a good bit bigger than what we had back in FC1. So I think it certainly is possible that we'll see bigger things without having to sacrifice detail (at least compared to the current map's level of detail). Just a question of when it'll happen, and exactly how much bigger it is possible to go - there I don't have any answer.

 

Do DCS want to make stuff for the minority of their customers, or potential customers, and therefore minimum sales, or for the 'mainstream' 'average Joe' DCS customer?

 

I think it's the latter.

 

Shame to see these kind of phrases used by ED staff - you surprise me.

 

Thing is - there is no conflict.

 

What does the mainstream user specifically lose from a larger map?

Nothing.

Indeed, he actually gains something, since that map will itself offer more variation in mission location.

 

The way I see it, there is no single correct answer when it comes to the size of new maps, even if large ones mean less detail: we need both smaller but more detailed maps, as well as larger maps that offer greater mission variety. One map might do itself better for CA and Helo use, while another might serve better for A2A gameplay.

 

There hasn´t been a single post in this thread made by an ED staff member. Moderators and Testers are regular users like you and me, except they moderate these forums and/or test the software before the unwashed masses get it in their hands.

 

While I'm not technically on ED payroll as an employee of the company, I am involved in ED Customer Support. You can probably consider me a pseudo-staffer or something there. :P (Incidentally, yes, this does mean you can ask me Customer support questions.)

 

But as far as game design decisions and the general development aspects as relates to this thread, yeah, there I'm just a "regular joe".

Edited May 12, 2013 by EtherealN

[Scogol]

Please don't make the Germans the bad guys again. Can we have 1 (one!!) game where the Germans are the good guys?

[ericoh]

Thanks for clearing some of the things up.

 

For sure there is people that want to have very long flights. I only belive ED should invest in ground details because we mostly have Dedicated Ground Attackers (SU-25T, A-10C, KA-50 + UH-1H now). Argh i would pay alot of money to finaly get Nevada and see what it brings lol.

[EtherealN]

One further advantage, btw, from bigger maps, that I didn't think about until now - single-player campaigns.

 

Let's assume said campaigns maintain the same flight distances that are used in todays campaigns - would it still be valuable? Actually - yes! It opens the campaign up to use a wider array of ground force development during the campaign.

 

As an example, think back to the "classic" IL-2 and it's campaigns where you would a little now and then be given a "new" map to fly on, and the front would move with time etcetera. This sudden map shift would be pretty dramatic.

 

If we have a bigger map, such a large-scale war can be "simulated" more fluidly across the map.

[Kaktus29]

@Scogol ..my scenario envisages Germans as the good guys) .. a War erupting in EU as economic situation deteriorates .. China economy booms, US collapses, EU starts falling apart, US tries to control this mess of an EU, Germany wishes US troops to be gone-after all its been 70 years and still US troops occupy German land.. UK, France and US team up to make sure Germany doesn't break free from the western orbit.. and this is where the interesting game happens, Germany starts siding with Russia, getting into an strategic alliance, Russia obliges since if this war is won it would mean deeper economic partnership between Germany and Russia..something Russia especially desired but never got.. In this scenario China gets in a brawl with Japan so most of US forces are "tied" in the pacific and this would be simulated in such a way that in European theater US would be present mostly as intelligence gathering force, providing logistics, air-refuelling, awacs, ew, and ammo support..

 

Conflict starts as US troops "accidentally" run over a civilian in Germany, protest erupt, US forces decline to have this soldier put on trial in Germany, things escalate, economic sanctions, blockades, US navy puts itself in the path of the "Blue stream" threatening to cut of Russian oil and gas supply to Germany.. A fight erupts in the sea sinking the US ships and we get to the war scenario..

 

The potential is great, Poland teams up with US, Scandinavian nations abstain, Baltics as well, and then we have a mesh of planes having it a go across UK,France,Germany,Poland,Russia..

 

Of course the map would be gigantic compared to Georgia..but in a dream dreamworld of mine this is what would happen in perfect theatre..

 

Just think of flying over Paris, of Frankfurt, or Warszaw, or Moscow, or Kiev..

Edited May 12, 2013 by Kaktus29

[Yellonet]

I'm voting for a India/pakistan or a Korea map. Both would lend themselves to use of many of the aircraft that we have and will have down the road.

 

As tension has risen in Korea, realistic and believable campaigns would be possible, something that might be able to attract the casual gamer too.

 

Think of it, F/A-18C is released along with Nevada map, a Hawaii map including a very large portion of sea, plus a map of the whole of Korea and the ocean around it and also a dynamic campaign generator.

The main campaign would be a "complete" one that starts with your training as a F/A-18C pilot, first stationed at Nellis, later as your education moves on you get training aboard a carrier (using the Hawaii+ocean map).

Soon after you receive your post abord a carrier, the Korean conflict becomes hot, and your carrier is part of the task force sent to the action...

 

This way you'd get both training and combat in one huge campaign, coupled with a good campaign engine that can string the missions together, possibly even with some good acting and storytelling it could be fantastic!

[71st_Mastiff]

@Scogol ..my scenario envisages Germans as the good guys) .. a War erupting in EU as economic situation deteriorates .. China economy booms, US collapses, EU starts falling apart, US tries to control this mess of an EU, Germany wishes US troops to be gone-after all its been 70 years and still US troops occupy German land.. UK, France and US team up to make sure Germany doesn't break free from the western orbit.. and this is where the interesting game happens, Germany starts siding with Russia, getting into an strategic alliance, Russia obliges since if this war is won it would mean deeper economic partnership between Germany and Russia..something Russia especially desired but never got.. In this scenario China gets in a brawl with Japan so most of US forces are "tied" in the pacific and this would be simulated in such a way that in European theater US would be present mostly as intelligence gathering force, providing logistics, air-refuelling, awacs, ew, and ammo support..

 

Conflict starts as US troops "accidentally" run over a civilian in Germany, protest erupt, US forces decline to have this soldier put on trial in Germany, things escalate, economic sanctions, blockades, US navy puts itself in the path of the "Blue stream" threatening to cut of Russian oil and gas supply to Germany.. A fight erupts in the sea sinking the US ships and we get to the war scenario..

 

The potential is great, Poland teams up with US, Scandinavian nations abstain, Baltics as well, and then we have a mesh of planes having it a go across UK,France,Germany,Poland,Russia..

 

Of course the map would be gigantic compared to Georgia..but in a dream dreamworld of mine this is what would happen in perfect theatre..

 

Just think of flying over Paris, of Frankfurt, or Warszaw, or Moscow, or Kiev..

 

your not to far off of what the real scenario is played out at the war games, but

China's economy collapses, and invades Japan, draws Australia, US and other Pacific nation into the war. South Korea abstains as N Korea builds up its pressure, and of course China is helping them. The rest of your scenario is dead on..

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Flying over Moscow should be fun... the airspace is closed even in peace times, getting anywhere near it in a war should be SAMs galore :D

[Exigo]

Western Europe with the Baltic States, Scandinavia and eastern russia.

 

Norway with its fjords and mountain passes would make for some great flying and combat scenarios

[Scogol]

@Kaktus29: Germany isn't really still "occupied" by the US, the USA pay a great amount of money to have some Military Bases in the center of Europe as some kind of a hub from where to start to e.g. the Middle East. Troop transports to Afganisthan go over German airports sometimes, for example.