Would you buy fictional maps?

I think some people get the wrong idea..

A Fictional map would be a piece of desert, tundra, jungle, (insert desired terrain here) with towns, roads, bases and generic features like rivers, cosat or whatever, not neceserily depicting a specific place, so many palces can be simulates.

It is faster and cheaper because you don not have to create any specific landmark, building or special ground object, you can use the ones allready in game.

Also you don´t need to use DEM´s or accurate hight files.

I believe it would be awesom if ED could give us basic tools to create generic maps, without having to have an uber team with proven skills...

I am willing to spend countless hours placing objetcs, bases, roads and features. I just cant put toguether a team nor have enaough knoledge on 3d studio to create my own specific objects, to comply with EDs requirements to qualifie as a developer to get the SDKs.

I am sure that like me there are meny more pople out there willing to create generic maps, and stuff, that do not compeate with real places full fledge maps sold as modules... still we could have a lot more playing places if Map Modding was encouraged.

Just a thought tho.

Problem with post title was the name "fictional", the word he should have used was GENERIC, as Baco explained above.

Yes.

I've seen enough good fictional maps in my time.

If it makes the terrain more interesting, sure.

Regardless of "fictional" or "generic" - I still have absolutely zero interest in it and don't see why any resources should be wasted on it while we are waiting for so many interesting real world maps.

I would buy a fictional map. However, that would very much depend on what fictional map it would be.

A save bet would be maps which are "historical" so a real map in terms of topography but with fictional cities, airfields etc. or with infrastructure from different time periods. Persian Gulf map 1980, 1990, 2010 stuff like that.

Another fairly interesting things would be maps with features for fun flying like labyrinths and other stuff to just challenge the manoeuvring skills.

Not interested I would be in fictional islands, continents etc. Our world is big enough to offer all we need and want for quite some time.

Regardless of "fictional" or "generic" - I still have absolutely zero interest in it and don't see why any resources should be wasted on it while we are waiting for so many interesting real world maps.

because its those landmarks and specifics that take 3 to 4 years to compleate.

Generic maps with a topografic file and generic buildingsd and objects allready modeled would take 1/3rd of the time to make...

And or if ED would release a toolkit to populate maps, with existing objects from the allready made maps, that tho fictional since not a real place, would take very littel time to make.

But be my guest wait another 5 years for a tini island in the midle of the pacific... but realistic ... wow...

I would take a pice of land that looks like Central Europe but is No specific real place any day of the week and twice on mondays...

I think some people get the wrong idea..

 

A Fictional map would be a piece of desert, tundra, jungle, (insert desired terrain here) with towns, roads, bases and generic features like rivers, cosat or whatever, not neceserily depicting a specific place, so many palces can be simulates..

Yeah, add an alp-like mountain range and I would buy that. It would be like a huge training range, but more diverse than the NTTR.

Not all of us want to re-create glorious historical events.

I can always pretend that it's an actual location-how many historical movies are shot at the actual location?

Would you buy fictional planes?

Good question. If the choice of planes was very limited, then maybe. For instance, if there were only 4 or 5 plane modules available, I would probably buy a F-22 module or a F-35 module or a Rafale or a Typhoon, even though I would know that half of the stuff or more is made up. But if ED made fictional planes now, no I wouldn't buy them because I already have too many planes to choose from. But with maps that's the opposite: there aren't enough of them, for me. If it takes ED less time to make a large beautiful fictional map than a smaller 100% realistic one, then I'd prefer the fictional one.

Like this guy said;

Why not? For me Caucasus may be fictional. I don't know this region.

Would you buy fictional planes?

Fictional? Nah.

Cancelled prototypes though? Maybe, obviously data providing.

Vehicles might be a better bet such as:

• MBT/KPz-70
  
• M247
  
• Object 120
  
• Object 279
  

Obviously so long as accurate data can be obtained.

That being said, I'd only consider it once we have a comprehensive asset pool spanning the 1940s to early 2000s. As well as higher fidelity vehicles such as damage modelling, proper physics, (including proper suspension), stabilisers, smoke grenades, proper sights etc, before adding prototype vehicles.

Nothing wrong with a fictional map as long as it looks good, performs well, and isn't of such a stupid design as to bring outright ridicule.

Like... Dr. Suess trees, going up the slopes of Mount Doom with buildings from The Jetsons in the distance.

But then, who wouldn't want to fly over that?

like an Endor map?

nope like a place that Could be a real place on earth but without names on cities, just a military grid.

So if jungle it could be Vietnam, Myanmar, Bangladesh or Nicaragua, Colombia, etc.. you get the point

A pice of Tundrsa could be Siberiae, Greenland, or the Bearing Straits...

kind of thing..

Pandora with the flying Mountains !!! sooo YES !

Not until they made enough real world maps to satiate my desires

fictional maps whilst sounding cool...

I mean look -

They still need Korea. SE Asia.

Australia NZ ( y not)

US East or west coast

central or south america, or caribbean

Scandianvia

european russia

Far east russia

Africa

Falklands

Any number of PTO locales

South China Sea especially

Thats A LOT of maps. And all those are REAL

remember fictitious maps are probably way mkore labor intensive, real life theres alrdy maps and pics etc

No way. But i would pay alot for a giant map of the real world.

thatd be ****ing amazing

especially if they figured a way to segment it, without giant load times. you know what I mean?

Absolutely not!

This is not a fantasy game. Rather why not ask such a question: Would you pay for a photorelistic map or a map that contains the whole world with AI-created and procedurally generated buildings and roads? (which is also very possible for developers)

Why don't we stop ruining the community/simulator with questions that are cancer?

Pls, do the right things.

Yes, when it is in the scope of the realism.

Like go and take a look at a Center-Europe or East-Europe landscape and use it to make a similar landscape.

Wouldn't matter when it is not a fantasy (flying in a Mars, having a Mt.Everest size mountains etc) and just looks real.

One could very well forget that it is nothing like real location on the earth when it looks real.

Some people demands that every chair, table and shovels are located in exact correct position on the maps. That every street, building etc are realistic.

No... We can't have that really. Otherwise it looks as bad as Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 looks because it is using Here maps data for it.

Caucasus is very much empty compared to real one, and very very flat compared to real one. Yet people are happy to think "it is realistic" because they don't know better.

Yes, when it is in the scope of the realism.

 

Like go and take a look at a Center-Europe or East-Europe landscape and use it to make a similar landscape.

Wouldn't matter when it is not a fantasy (flying in a Mars, having a Mt.Everest size mountains etc) and just looks real.

One could very well forget that it is nothing like real location on the earth when it looks real.

 

Some people demands that every chair, table and shovels are located in exact correct position on the maps. That every street, building etc are realistic.

No... We can't have that really. Otherwise it looks as bad as Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 looks because it is using Here maps data for it.

Caucasus is very much empty compared to real one, and very very flat compared to real one. Yet people are happy to think "it is realistic" because they don't know better.

I will admit the caucauses map.. leaving half blank esp crimea was near criminal

this is the spiritual descendent of the su27 flanker company

and sry but kuban is not as excting as crimea

same with syria

I love it..and got PUMPED seeing Cyprus on maps

Its not there!

Nor is most western Iraq!

again with pg, Southeast Iraq is just a hole

not like a huge part of the player base would be ALL OVER that area if it had anything

Yes, when it is in the scope of the realism.

Like go and take a look at a Center-Europe or East-Europe landscape and use it to make a similar landscape.

Wouldn't matter when it is not a fantasy (flying in a Mars, having a Mt.Everest size mountains etc) and just looks real.

One could very well forget that it is nothing like real location on the earth when it looks real.

Some people demands that every chair, table and shovels are located in exact correct position on the maps. That every street, building etc are realistic.

No... We can't have that really. Otherwise it looks as bad as Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 looks because it is using Here maps data for it.

Caucasus is very much empty compared to real one, and very very flat compared to real one. Yet people are happy to think "it is realistic" because they don't know better.

The purpose of a simulator is to be realistic and this is not acecombat :wallbash:

There is no need to create an imaginary map to help the developers(great developers, since they can make a realistic flight model i consider them fully capable of creating maps), it looks like you are taking them for children. They just need to:

Have the metric data of the territory in question.

The ability to have satellite images on it.

Creating roads, bridges, houses etc with AI or procedurally generating them and that is so easy that it is embarrassing not to understand it.

So I ask myself once again: why are you all asking these questions?

Caucasus is very much empty compared to real one, and very very flat compared to real one. Yet people are happy to think "it is realistic" because they don't know better.

Agreed, if you use the mission editor and switch between MAP and SAT and Google Earth you can definitely see the difference, especially around places like Poti and the nearby Paliastomi Lake. Poti has a completely different layout than RL, it's missing its port, a river and an entire airfield. The lake is largely the wrong shape and should have an opening on the coast with a bridge - there isn't.

The Caucasus map is also weird in that detail gets progressively lost the further you zoom in on the satellite map. You go from photorealistic textures to the same generic green the further you go.

If you zoom out in SAT mode and you look ~50km east of Maykop, you see a few towns (Labinsk, Mostovskoy and Kurganisnk) as well as the major river (Bolshaya Lada) that they're situated on. But if you zoom in, all detail is lost, the towns are absent as is the river (despite it being a fairly big one). All you can see are the roads and transmission lines.

You can also make out Marnueli airbase, which again, is absent despite it being the primary airbase of the Georgian air force, and detail is lost when zooming in, being replaced by the generic green.

Well, no, but yes.

I could buy for example, a fictional map based on the real thing, like a cold war european theater that is based on germany, or a desert map based on kuwait/iraq.

But completely fictional, no, leave that to war thunder kids.

I bought my first module back in May and was curious why certain geo-political areas of our globe were NOT part of DCS.  I mean, this is a combat simulator that is extremely realistic, so why not have realistic geo-political hot spots available to campaign in?  I flew Falcon GOLD and still have every map that came with it: Kashmir, Korea, Kurile Islands, Israel and several others.  Most of those areas of the globe are still hot spots today!  So I was caught off-guard when they were not included or even up for discussion as being added in the future.  
Over the past few months I've heard several interviews with some of the decision makers at ED. And in those interviews through 'innuendos' and things 'not said' I figured out that they CAN'T make some of those areas available. I'm sure they have contracts with Governments and Militaries and with those contracts come certain 'suggestions' about what products they should leave alone.

So, with that being said, here's a different viewpoint about fictional maps.
Why not create a geographical representation of an area on our globe and provide fictional names for everything: Oceans, lakes, rivers, mountain ranges, cities, towns, air ports and such.  Everything gets a fictional name but the maps stay the same.

I know this will never happen but it's an idea and the world is full of powerful items that began as ideas......................

Keep level and keep it straight.

OZ

If the fictional map gave more than other maps had to offer then yes.

If the fictional map only complemented current maps and didn't have anything extra to add - no.