Jump to content

What next after Syria map?


YoYo

Recommended Posts

I mean...perhaps this is a little too "on the nose" but a 38th Parallel map would be great! not to try and make DCS compare even closer to any other particular flight sim :lol: But a none discriminant 38th parallel map would be great.

 

My question would be what would people prefer? A 1980s-Modern Day Korean 38th Parallel map or a 1950-54 map?

 

TL : DR, whos more happy to compromise here? I would prefer a more modern map and compromise when flying Korean war jets because I fly more modern planes...but who knows...if we got a accurate 1950s Korean map perhaps I'd be willing to compromise Modern missions for more 1950s accuracy when I want to fly my Sabre or the Mig.

 

Why compromise? In a different thread, I suggested 3 versions (how unreasonable of me!),

 

1) Korea 1950's, 1980, 2020 (pick one for more roads more buildings more and paved airfields). Mustangs, Migs, Corsairs, Sabres, Vipers, Hornets and Carriers, Cobras and Hips, Hueys.

 

Also:

 

2) Norway Sweden Finland Russia region (think EF2000 map) because mountains, Fjords, glaciers, for Viggen era, F-16 era, and maybe paint up some JF-17's to look like Grippens or Eurofighters. Serious problem though: this is about 8 times more terrain data than the largest DCS map today, so it'll have to wait for new/better hardware, and/or better software

 

3) Vietnam. for Huey's, A-6's, F-5 Tigers, Mig-19's and 21's, eventual F-4's and A-7's. possible Cobra (if they ever get here)

 

4) Central America. Or South America, a sliver of it anyway. Because trees and rivers, hills and mountains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO Korea is a much more likely candidate than Taiwan. Here's why:

 

1. Adding the Republic of China as a playable nation is bound to stir huge controversy in the PRC. ED understandably doesn't want to upset the massive Chinese market and lose their support for new and existing Chinese modules.

 

2. Any number of conflicts could play out in Korea, from an alt history ending of WW2 to the present day. Because the Korean Peninsula is region of significant strategic importance, any such conflict would practically guarantee some degree of participation of at least two, potentially three superpowers through geographic proximity and/or vested interests in the area.

 

3. It seems to me that Russia would be far less likely to join a conflict across the Taiwan strait than a second Korean War. The majority of REDFOR hardware in DCS is of Russian origin, so keeping Russia as a potential actor on a given map seems like the sensible thing to do.

 

As a side note, both areas seem equally well-suited to carrier operations and benefit from being located in South-East Asia, a region woefully underexplored by combat simulators in general.

 

I'm not convinced that a map of the Fulda Gap would be feasible given the density of population centres in Western Europe, it might take up A LOT of drive space. Both the Balkans and the Aegean seem like very interesting ideas though. We have enough Middle Eastern maps as is, so any region with plenty of green (or white, depending on the season) would be a welcome change. Maybe Kaliningrad could be an option?

  • Like 1

DCS module wishlist: F-104S ASA-M Starfighter / F-111F Aardvark / F-4E Phantom II / J 35F2 Draken / J-7M AirGuard / Kfir C.2 / MiG-17F / MiG-21 Bison / Mirage F1 / Su-17M4 / Su-24M / Yak-9U

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, UGRA, finish 100% your current products before starting another project. Some of us are tired of half-finished products and eternal betas in DCS World. Please, don't be as other developers (won't say names) that don't actually finish the products because they are always jumping from a project to another.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why compromise? In a different thread, I suggested 3 versions (how unreasonable of me!),

 

 

 

Also:

 

Tbh yes, thats why I didn't use that as an option. We have yet to have a developer make a "map pack" and even Heatblur currently is the only developer thats giving us anything more then 1 playable product from 2 seperate dates for the same price as others. Even people like TrueGrit are just going to add something like the AIM-132 on the end of the EF-2000's development cycle rather then making a fresh dedicated aircraft for British players.

 

So until I'm proved otherwise in the map department I'm assuming that the $40-60 price gap only allows for 1 map without the risk of loosing profits.

 

for a Korea map this would be extremely evident too (even more then most) as since the 1950s to present South Korea and at some extent even North Korea have exploded industrial wise. Its not something you could overlook as easily as say the Channel map (when doing Cold War missions on that map vs WW2 stuff)

 

kLLu96ep6qd_nscwWsuBebepC2M_tffKhM7AM966RFa8u0OTu6Ni7HRKf7p7_fYAQs7L9FTCqMh7FaHSeCJnkGaOVa6yfNuByRVH8cdATRZityl7wbB0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Middle Earth. Who wants to buzz the shire in a Huey?
Better not. It would be so disappointing knowing you could make the Shire-Mount Doom travel in just minutes instead of 2 years… :lol::lol::lol:

 

 

S!

  • Like 1

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Balkans, Fulda gap, GIUK, Baltic Sea are the ones I am hoping for as well!

I really wait for the Falklands so I can start getting further away form the warmer maps and have snowy missions. (except Caucasus)

 

My strongest wish though is an improved map system in general so the map size can steadily grow. (or engine, I dont know what is needed for that)

I would really love to have Germany (Fulda Gap) and Balkans on one map for example, or have the GIUK Line together with the Baltics and Norway.

 

That's what I hope for before they make more maps. Finished products are obvious for me, I think UGRA knows that, so no need to mention it that often.

 

 

  • Like 1

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
...

 

So until I'm proved otherwise in the map department I'm assuming that the $40-60 price gap only allows for 1 map without the risk of loosing profits.

 

for a Korea map this would be extremely evident too (even more then most) as since the 1950s to present South Korea and at some extent even North Korea have exploded industrial wise. Its not something you could overlook as easily as say the Channel map (when doing Cold War missions on that map vs WW2

 

Modern day, assets for both now and the 50s, and suspend disbelief for 50s scenarios. I know, even two eras of assets might be pushing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Korea

2. Korea

3. Korea

 

If you'd make Korea with a low detail Shandong peninsula, Liaoning peninsula and MCAS Iwakuni I'd be set for life.

  • Like 1

-Col. Russ Everts opinion on surface-to-air missiles: "It makes you feel a little better if it's coming for one of your buddies. However, if it's coming for you, it doesn't make you feel too good, but it does rearrange your priorities."

 

DCS Wishlist:

MC-130E Combat Talon   |   F/A-18F Lot 26   |   HH-60G Pave Hawk   |   E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound   |   EA-6A/B Prowler   |   J-35F2/J Draken   |   RA-5C Vigilante

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

As we are on the subject of possible border clashs .....I thought Id throw on my oar.

 

(1) Cold war front .....German-Czech-Poland area.....I think it would be one of everybodys favourites to be honest.

(2)India-Pakistan-China border region.....An interesting area for of potential clashs.

(2)Greece-Turkey.....Another favourite in my opinion.

(4)North and South Korea..... Terrain much like Caucaus I expect.

(5) Expand on the Channel map for future British/European wars ..... lmfao

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly Ugra has a lot of awesome stuff planned for this map, perhaps more than any other in DCS, the rest of the world will need more devs I reckon.

  • Like 3

Hornet, Super Carrier, Warthog & (II), Mustang, Spitfire, Albatross, Sabre, Combined Arms, FC3, Nevada, Gulf, Normandy, Syria AH-6J

i9 10900K @ 5.0GHz, Gigabyte Z490 Vision G, Cooler Master ML120L, Gigabyte RTX3080 OC Gaming 10Gb, 64GB RAM, Reverb G2 @ 2480x2428, TM Warthog, Saitek pedals & throttle, DIY collective, TrackIR4, Cougar MFDs, vx3276-2k

Combat Wombat's Airfield & Enroute Maps and Planning Tools

 

cw1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I  will be ambitious.

 

With the development of new tech we will someday soon have the whole world. You will have to stream it , too big to download. You will have Terrain, Weather, Trees, Weeds, Oceans, Baymethry, um... ocean floor. May have roads in some limited fashion it is part of all the GIS data that creates the former.

 

No cities, no airbases those you download or pay for since someone will have to model and place each building bridge and create all the damage models that go with it. Said buildings are placed on the map as you fly over it just as it does now on current maps. Road are refined and you can program those tanks and supply trains to drive from Warsaw to Berlin.

 

So kind of like a hybrid of what we have now and the streaming model of another sim. So yea, you could fly from Nellis on the Nevada map to your favorite base in the Caucus map but don't land in Hethrow for a refuel because London isn't modeled yet or you didn't buy the British Pac. The scenery is there, like Reno is in the Nevada map but only as a satellite texture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Wdigman said:

I  will be ambitious.

 

With the development of new tech we will someday soon have the whole world. You will have to stream it , too big to download. You will have Terrain, Weather, Trees, Weeds, Oceans, Baymethry, um... ocean floor. May have roads in some limited fashion it is part of all the GIS data that creates the former.

We have a very different definition of what the word "soon" means. Also: DCS seems to be going in the direction of higher ground detail (see The Channel and Syria), not larger maps.

 

Finally: this is a combat flight sim, not a "fly for 10 hours at Angels 38 in a straight line on autopilot" sim. I think people would much rather have combat theaters, past or present, than a low-detail full planet kind of thing. Let's be honest: with the power the Redmond giant put behind their flight sim, there is no way for a game dev studio like ED to compete. Only a handful of giant companies in the world have the power to do what they did, and that's fine, that's not what DCS is about. I'll take accurate flight models, VR at more than 40fps even with other aircraft and ground troops around, and full combat system simulation any day of the week.

 

But if you are looking for those long haul flights and tourism VFR flights, I think DCS will never be the right sim for that.

 

Also: this topic is for Ugra Media's next map, and what they should consider after Normandy and Syria (once Syria is feature complete, which it isn't).

  • Like 3

AMD R7 5800X3D | 64GB DDR4 3200MHz | RTX 4080S 16GB | Varjo Aero | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk3 + STECS + pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree that DCS shouldn't be trying to model the whole world at this time, "area" maps may be best for now.  

 

HOWEVER... I do see a need to have maps significantly larger than current. Why? Because of campaigns. And many of the areas of hotspots that we'd want to fly in, are two to four times the size of the largest DCS maps.  Sure, the current maps are large enough for a typical fighter mission.  But this doesn't account for campaigns advancing to take more terrain. Nor does it account for the long range missions, special missions using multiple air tanking rendevous and external tanks, to hit targets well behind enemy lines, that the other side/squadron isn't expecting. 

 

Several nice map options are not very practical due to the smaller map size restrictions that we currently have. Korea and Vietnam, for instance, are not exactly huge compared to the world, but with current map sizes, we'd only get a modest portion of them. And similarly, the map that EF2000 used to ship with, is about 8 times the area that we currently have in a DCS map.  

 

I think to the Grim Reaper's "Coffee Campaign", where they started off at the west end of the map, and slowly advanced toward the east... and then faced a near stalemate brick wall. They had many members who would play bluefor for two days, then redfor for 3 days and sometimes bounce back. But it was mostly human vs humans, and the campaign gains or losses from one mission could affect not only the next mission, but even the shape of the campaign a week later.  Yea, I know that's not what everyone will be doing, just saying that it's nice to have options.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 2/5/2021 at 9:27 PM, Arendellecita said:

I've browsed across the forum regarding Taiwan(ROC) being added as a faction or adding a Taiwan-Strait map, as a Chinese myself, although I am greatly in favour of adding Taiwan, it is foreseeable that adding Taiwan would result in DCS be immediately banned by CPC in China mainland, which would be a remarkable customer loss for ED. You can judge by ED's recent behaviour that they did not want that to happen.

Let's hope this will happen in the future, after China get a better government/policy.

It seems to me that having a map of Taiwan should not in itself lead to problems. As for the names and emblems of the warring parties, in the game ED can call Taiwanese as "Taiwanese illegal armed groups" and draw question marks on the fuselages. I hope Taiwanese will not be offended by this. They, too, may be interested in playing over their territory, as we are over our own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2021 at 11:40 AM, vvm13 said:

... in the game ED can call Taiwanese as "Taiwanese illegal armed groups" and draw question marks on the fuselages. I hope Taiwanese will not be offended by this. They, too, may be interested in playing over their territory, as we are over our own.

 

I hear you.

 

But.

 

Consider if YOU and your nation were declared "illegal group"... you might not be offended, but I bet many of your neighbors would be. "Hope" is not a great strategy for any endevour.

 

And even if we overlook naming issues, I'll put money on such a map upsetting Taiwanese military and civilian leadership, as well as many at the Pentagon and possibly even in Langley and the White House too. Gamers and simmers don't always see what the real world political and military sees. There may even be significant pushback from other Asian nations worried about an emboldened middle kingdom, such as possibly Japan, Indonesia and Phillipines. 

 

 

Then again, I'm a strong advocate for a Korea map module, and that might also run into similar issues as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...