Marianas islands Map

The fact that a DCS user talks about "waste of resources" sounds legit to me. There are people who are waiting for bug fixing and for the completion of EA modules and so one could think that maybe creating a map whose utility is questionable is a wrong way of managing ED's resources.

Very true. But it's not his opinion, it's his arguments. Well, in fact "never heard of this island", "no historical background" and "holiday island" aren't arguments at all. It's just a sign of lacking historical and geographical education and/or frustration. That's the point. Anything else is debatable.

I don't think the new map will need much space on the SSD.

It is mainly water, the islands are small and some even don't have towns/buildings.

I expect it to be less than 10GB.

LOL

Just couple weeks ago I was browsing the Google Maps on the area of the North of this new map. Someone mentioned in YouTube (totally another topic than flight simulation, WW2 or anything like that) about the Kuril Islands, something that I never would remembered.

And then I got idea how that area could be a new map. But this time it was even better.

Now looking the oceanic floor depth map, it looks very very interesting for a naval warfare as there should be many places where submarines could hide and how big navy situations would escalate.

Great surprise ED!

They have yet to share any news, updates, nothing other than its confirmed

The Syrian Map has been shown in couple ED videos, the landscape, buildings, terrain type etc etc.

They are silent, but they are not working on unseen product.

...

 

However, I would also like to give a little support to flanker1's opinion because I think he has a point and that you have answered his comment with too much negativity.

 

The fact that a DCS user talks about "waste of resources" sounds legit to me. There are people who are waiting for bug fixing and for the completion of EA modules and so one could think that maybe creating a map whose utility is questionable is a wrong way of managing ED's resources.

 

I, myself, don't feel able to judge that and if ED has chosen to develop this map for free instead of doing something else I guess that they have their reasons and that they surely don't have to explain those reasons to the users.

 

I just wanted to say that you can disagree with the opinion quoted above, but it makes some sense.

If the "map team" at ED were not working on a "map" how would making them work on something outside their role be better resource management? That's does not make sense. I guess you didn't know there was a map team and their expertise is in modelling and art and placing millions of objects over months comparing to satellite imagery. Not avionics, bug fixing or programming or fluid dynamics.

Let's consider some alternatives that fit in the "free" category, which so far, no one offered, from those that registered disinterest. I'd be open to agree with a better choice, but none at all are presented.

ED key modules: A-10C, F-18, F-16 and upcoming SuperCarrier.

Current map: Caucasus. A Georgian and RF conflict in 2008 and other years invariously and also not accessible by Nimitz class carriers or indeed any carrier.

1. They need a map where their main modules can be flown for free, especially a carrier, but including a US overseas base for F-16.
   
2. It needs to be cheap(ish) in man-hours to develop (read sparse population, and sea)
   
3. It should have a large amount of open ocean to cut down effort and include carriers and current DLC
   
4. Would be nice to dual purpose WW2 if possible
   
5. Would be nice if close and of interest to Asian markets
   

The risk of both ignoring a US base and interests and open ocean together would garner much more negativity despite lacking land to work in. Sadly we cannot fight the main markets that are buying these products, even if my personal wish would be to simulate non US conflicts in Russian era tech. Something was always going to be sacrificed. The short list of overseas garrisons of relevance with mostly ocean are the Phillipines and Guam. The remainder like Italy, Djibouti, Japan, South Korea are much more complex maps as to put them into the realms of paid DLC. The rest are simply either inland or in progress. Korea is a good place but modelling an enitre country that size needs to have some cuts to make it work. Similarly the Balkans have Italy and huge areas populated. Yemen is probably the best next current hotspot with the Iranian proxy war, but i think it's a little too low tech and low involvement to be worth modelling (but better than the pit that is Afghanistan).

Guam is still more relevant than the Caucasus for a US Carrier, you just need to use fictional scenarios, like most of the sandbox play in DCS. Ficticious scenarious are most of what you find simulated in DCS. No one is doing the 2008 Georgian conflict with a Blackshark. A-10C's are embarrassing there. Carriers are ridiculous. It needs a US base.

DCS suffers from a displacement of time eras in it's assets generally, despite the massive choice. Everything after WW2 and before the 80's is off the cards due to lack of assets (if you discount some SAM systems). Not enough people want to fly 60's-70's era planes. Everything current day is a bit meh to fit all the modules. Still looking to Iraq, Balkans and Korea for accurate depictions using the current assets, but they are huge huge maps that apparently aren't able to be done in the current engine. Free was cheap, cheap was ocean.

TLDR; having the map team work on a more basic water map was what many of us asked for, and I rather they gave us this than the next DLC map for a cost. Anything else would have never been free. If you aren't interested in carriers and F-18 however, then you will need to pay money to see what you want with the favourite minority module of your choice.

Am I the only one excited about this new map? I spent a lot of time in Saipan and Guan during my last job. I loved both islands and I can't tell you how thrilled I am that I get to visit these islands again!

Am I the only one excited about this new map? I spent a lot of time in Saipan and Guan during my last job. I loved both islands and I can't tell you how thrilled I am that I get to visit these islands again!

Do you own a mountain bike ??

:D

Being totally new to DCS, so spending a lot of time reading posts and learning. I watched the youtube videos about the Marianas map last night. I liked it, and will be looking forward to free flight if possible. One thing that really strikes me about this forum, and DCS in general is the people, there are so many willing to spent there time giving advice, making maps, missions, tutorials, and videos etc.., without them it would be overwhelming for me. Free is always nice.

Am I the only one excited about this new map? I spent a lot of time in Saipan and Guan during my last job. I loved both islands and I can't tell you how thrilled I am that I get to visit these islands again!

I’m really looking forward to it.

I really do struggle with the logic of some.

It’s free and it’s what some of us have wanted for a long time, ie a big space to naval operations.

The argument about bug fixes is an interesting one.

If you were to take it to the extreme, ED would still be only selling the KA50 and would have spent the last 10 years just honing that, as anything else would have introduced bugs. It’s just a ridiculous train of thought once you really analyse it.

So please, less of the negativity for something that will cost us nothing.

If you really can’t be at least a little constructive, just go play the game.

I’m really looking forward to it.

I really do struggle with the logic of some.

It’s free and it’s what some of us have wanted for a long time, ie a big space to naval operations.

 

The argument about bug fixes is an interesting one.

If you were to take it to the extreme, ED would still be only selling the KA50 and would have spent the last 10 years just honing that, as anything else would have introduced bugs. It’s just a ridiculous train of thought once you really analyse it.

So please, less of the negativity for something that will cost us nothing.

 

If you really can’t be at least a little constructive, just go play the game.

*This*

Guam is still more relevant than the Caucasus for a US Carrier, you just need to use fictional scenarios, like most of the sandbox play in DCS.

Its not that its "Fictional" scenarios...after all UAE/US vs Iran is a Fictional Scenario...NATO involvement in Causacus conflicts is a "Fictional Scenario"

Its just that its "Far-fetched" Fictional Scenarios isn't it? USN/USMC vs a Marianas occupied by the Chinese? How did that happen? A Chinese task force attacking US bases in the Marianas? Where are the Naval/Amphibious assets available to make that work...ignoring the fact that there's no "Redfor" plane to fly and the idea that a Chinese Task Force could even get to the Marianas without being destroyed...

Yes, a predominantly Ocean map can be used for Carrier Ops and for Single Player there are enough Assets to support a Russia vs US scenario...but you'd essentially be ignoring the Islands in that Scenario...so why not make an all-water map in 5 minutes and release it free with the F/A18 months ago?

Re-skinned its usable for WW2 Scenarios - but there isn't a single plane or asset available to fit that scenario yet...(I know F4U is under development) but you're essentially talking about starting from scratch - currently there is no opposition, no ground assets and no playable planes to support that.

Far more realistic Conflict Scenarios with mainly water maps could have included (as mentioned above) Kurils, Sakhalin/Kamchatka (A Great choice...1980's Lehman doctrine USN & USMC vs Full strength Russian land-based Aviation), Indian Ocean Fifth Fleet US vs Russia or US vs India Scenarios (perhaps based around the Chagos Islands) Iceland & North Cape as outside choices (maybe more relevent for paid DLC because of Terrain complexity)

Syria map has building by Ugra Media 3rd party. The Afganistan map appears on a Wags comunicate some years ago, but actually has in "shadows".

Its just that its "Far-fetched" Fictional Scenarios isn't it? USN/USMC vs a Marianas occupied by the Chinese? How did that happen? A Chinese task force attacking US bases in the Marianas? Where are the Naval/Amphibious assets available to make that work...ignoring the fact that there's no "Redfor" plane to fly and the idea that a Chinese Task Force could even get to the Marianas without being destroyed...

Red Storm Rising for the PI :)

Its not that its "Fictional" scenarios...after all UAE/US vs Iran is a Fictional Scenario...NATO involvement in Causacus conflicts is a "Fictional Scenario"

 

 

Its just that its "Far-fetched" Fictional Scenarios isn't it? USN/USMC vs a Marianas occupied by the Chinese? How did that happen? A Chinese task force attacking US bases in the Marianas? Where are the Naval/Amphibious assets available to make that work...ignoring the fact that there's no "Redfor" plane to fly and the idea that a Chinese Task Force could even get to the Marianas without being destroyed...

Yes, a predominantly Ocean map can be used for Carrier Ops and for Single Player there are enough Assets to support a Russia vs US scenario...but you'd essentially be ignoring the Islands in that Scenario...so why not make an all-water map in 5 minutes and release it free with the F/A18 months ago?

Re-skinned its usable for WW2 Scenarios - but there isn't a single plane or asset available to fit that scenario yet...(I know F4U is under development) but you're essentially talking about starting from scratch - currently there is no opposition, no ground assets and no playable planes to support that.

 

 

Far more realistic Conflict Scenarios with mainly water maps could have included (as mentioned above) Kurils, Sakhalin/Kamchatka (A Great choice...1980's Lehman doctrine USN & USMC vs Full strength Russian land-based Aviation), Indian Ocean Fifth Fleet US vs Russia or US vs India Scenarios (perhaps based around the Chagos Islands) Iceland & North Cape as outside choices (maybe more relevent for paid DLC because of Terrain complexity)

this!! exactly. at least one has understood my point. . . thanks.

Free map. Unexpected! Thanks ED. Very nice surprise. :thumbup:

Would be great if, as several have suggested, we could have a 1940's configuration as well as the current day (80's - 2010's) map.

If the "map team" at ED were not working on a "map" how would making them work on something outside their role be better resource management? That's does not make sense. I guess you didn't know there was a map team and their expertise is in modelling and art and placing millions of objects over months comparing to satellite imagery. Not avionics, bug fixing or programming or fluid dynamics.

These threads gets lots of people who has no idea about management (in any business than running business by alone), nor any idea about the development (and in this case especially software development that is more rapid compared to traditional development).

For ED a free map, and especially this new Marianas Islands map, is great for developing new terrain engine (that is coming....) and design new map elements and functions for new graphics engine (that is coming...). The new free map has very limited amount of ground, making it far more easy to model it by hand for small details, as it is completely different to make a terrain that has 50'000 square kilometers than what has 500 square kilometers. It makes possible to redo fairly quickly new objects, new roads, new electricity systems, new buildings etc if something major changes middle of the project.

Now having a very wide oceanic floor terrain opens up a great possibilities for the maritime warfare where one can now really focus for the ships, boats, submarines and everything that takes-off or lands on those (helicopters, VTOL, carriers etc etc).

Once the new technology (new physics, animations etc) is tested on this new map, lots of things can be later be done to redo the Caucasus etc (yes, it just received a facelift two years ago, but this time this would be even bigger change) that is more solid framework to build on by third parties as well (Syria, Sweden etc).

The one of the most wanted things for new maps has been a pure ocean map, a really simple one to do as there wouldn't have been any single ground to find, but this time we get something that has some small islands on it (I am not grand happy for that, as I would have happily taken just pure ocean map as well) but it is otherwise just ocean, and so on so many current modules (Harrier, Hornet, Tomcat, Flanker) gets gets to be used on their one main purpose task, fleet defense without any tasking for ground attack. So pure fleet defense and strike missions (as well bomber escorts etc).

There as well be always those who want something more "cold war", like I would love to see a Fulda Cap kind terrain (doesn't mean it specifically needs to be Fulda Cap) that is without any water, high hills, lots of forest islands, lots of open long fields, lots of rivers, ridges etc where to hide with helicopter, where to hide ground units etc and trap everything that is flying at altitude, and making place for strike aircrafts like MiG-27, F-111 etc etc to fly low and fast.

But DCS is not about 1-2 maps and that's it. It is about multitude of maps, a big collection of maps.

For years we had just one, Caucasus. We looked the mission editor with the one map on empty list of maps. Until NTTR came (late by years, yeah), then Normandy, then Persian Gulf... And now we have a second free map and people hate it? LOL. Maybe all the other map projects should be halted and scratched as no one wants to get Syria, Sweden, Falklands.... Three new maps as addition of this new great ocean map!

That makes our map selection then to at least eight different maps. And that is very respectful collection for a cold war era and some WW2 time!

THAT IS COOL!

This is a free map, don't get angsted by not required to pay for it!

A map developer, object modeler, texture artists etc can't do what physicists, engineers, mathematicians, historians, pilots, programmers etc are doing! You can't slap a coffee maker secretary to do a project management or start cleaning the floors! Everyone has their places in the business!

Be happy, be positive, don't be teen!

I do aknowledge that, when I said that the developers could have for xample fixed some bugs instead of releasing this map, I picked the wrong example.

The principle of misusing resources, IMO, still holds good. Do you want a better example? Ok, so they could have expanded/improved/completed the Caucasus map instead of making this one.

We already have plenty of water in the Caucasus map and in the Persian Gulf.

Although there is a difference in salinity, temperature and maybe color, from the point of view of a virtual pilot, there is basically no difference between the sea of the Tropics and the Black sea.

Really, I don't want to be negative, but considering all the amount of water available in those two already existing maps, I really can't see why some people think that it will be a great improvement.

And now we have a second free map and people hate it?

I DO NOT hate this map and I will probably download it and enjoy it, even considering that, from the screenshots, it looks to me that it's in an advanced state of progress by now, so not using it would really be a waste.

this!! exactly. at least one has understood my point. . . thanks.

No, I get the point, that's why I called out lack of assets in DCS. It's in fact worse than that because there is no way to actually land troops in the DCS ENGINE itself. I worked on an Aligator landing ship for that exact reason and its free to download but you cannot get them to beach properly.

...so why not make an all-water map in 5 minutes and release it free with the F/A18 months ago?

If this is the main point, then it's woefully short of answering the question;

"Why can't I fly my F-16 on this map? Or my A-10C or Cessna or anything needing a runway"

Why did you in fact exclude all the modules for the new map that cannot use carriers?

That is what cost the time, creating not just a water map predominantly but actually finding a relevant piece of land to go with it. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this point, folks are being woefully short sighted of the big picture.

So, a Single island with sea? A sort of practice test map like NTTR?

OK, that would indeed be possible, but then you have the same argument from another segment of the community:

"Why did you exclude multiplayer from your test map in the sea? We can't use it for Air Quake. Just two islands would be great!"

Nope, why not a string of islands so at least then people could make some multiplayer quick airquake games on the practice map.

OK, it's grown more complex now, the requirement to satisfy seperate communities at once with their individual needs.

The last requirements happened to all fit with a minimum land set - A US Air base for the majority of well sold ED modules, close to Asia for potential marketable interest.

However, the market segment this cannot satisfy cheaply is, "I want a place to excercise my XYZ fairly realistic scenario for an immersive experience/campaign".

And sorry, this is where the more important requirement of "cheap" is eroded. In fact, this requirement is the most complex of all that also erodes at module compatibility. The intersection of "Give me an authentic battleground, cheap, where I can fly my A-10C where it operationally flew and a place for a carrier" is mutually exclusive of a cheap map.

This is what folks that are saying they would have rather had something 'else' for, and it does not work.

Still waiting for a better suggestion, but heaven help if you guys were programme managers for ED, the question on "What would you have the map team work on instead" remains unanswered by the part of the community that want an authentic battlespace of relevance.

FWIW: I too want that to design on. All the inadequacies cited above ARE relevant and correct. It's just we are not getting it for free guys, you need to be a lot more circumspect than your own small view of the way DCS is used.

...

Ok, so they could have expanded/improved/completed the Caucasus map instead of making this one.

...

Sure lets talk about that.

Caucasus is already the largest map of them all and with the largest object count. I would love to have seen the Ukraine peninsula or Tbilisi Marneuli which is the active military airport used. Does expanding old faithful really give us:

1. A US Base so there is a realistic home for US assets

2. An open Ocean where a Nimitz can reside outside of the Montruex convention

3. Good Performance <-- dont ignore this factor, as a test map this is very compelling versus the FPS you can get in central Georgia, which on the ground can be pretty harsh in VR.

So, why not a simple to play area everyone can jump into quick, do their testing on with good performance, have a few ranges and practice areas and when they are ready to lose 50 FPS, hit the PG map?

At least you provided and example, but on the basis of the question:

"Would you prefer Caucasus expanded with the same land mass as 5 islands around Guam or have Guam and five islands?" I'd still firmly press the button that said, 'New map please!'. And I think it would resoundingly be the winner in that competition. But please, try that as a poll to really know.

Well pickey, I respect your opinion, which definitely makes sense.

I am also glad that you haven't called me a teen or a whiner :lol:.

I personally don't find the points # 1 and # 2 interesting for me, although they are valid, while # 3 is something that I didn't consider and that could really be appealing for me, owner of a low performance PC.

One extremely important principle that holds good in business and in life is that, often, there is not a right choice and a wrong choice: every choice is a compromise with pros and cons. Stating that there is a perfect map choice is basically impossible: we can only write considerations.

Free map. Unexpected! Thanks ED. Very nice surprise. :thumbup:

 

Would be great if, as several have suggested, we could have a 1940's configuration as well as the current day (80's - 2010's) map.

That'd be perfect, honestly.

I think its great to get a new map. And one for free.

When I checked the area I right away thought lots of ocean and little landmass. But as stated before, this für ED is a perfect map to test new things, probably easy to build and to service. And those new things will also benefit the exiting maps in the future.

And its something different too. Then we have NTTR with only land and Marianas with mostly ocean.

About realistic scenarios: since Im often taking off a US-carrier in the black sea, I actually dont bother about this anymore. And I also almost exclusivly fly in the Normandy-map with jets. All of that does not take away the fun (and frustrations) DCS has to offer.

as i said, wasting resources - why not put them in creating another payable map with background. and landscape. and environment. i am convinced that would be the better option, for us an for ED too.

Probably a test bed for newer map technology.

Surely additional maps will come.

Don’t understand why people second guess ED.

Gnashing their teeth over a free map.

Don’t like it, don’t use it.

Now wouldn’t it be hypocritical if you do.

Looking forward to skimming the sea in a new WWII bird later this year. Also forgot how much i love the look of the J11, it's been so long since i flew it. Just need a FF module of it and i am right there cash in hand ready to rock

Probably a test bed for newer map technology.

Surely additional maps will come.

 

Don’t understand why people second guess ED.

Gnashing their teeth over a free map.

Don’t like it, don’t use it.

 

Now wouldn’t it be hypocritical if you do.

I'm interested in what that tech is also and wether we'll ever get the tools released.

The real limit on maps is the size and objects right now. Theatres of war can be absolutley massive, possibly some of the issues with trying to get an Iraq or Balkans map done. What I would like to see is if the "new tech" helps grow maps larger and tackles some of the limitations. There's also curved world and things to build into joining up large areas.