World Map

Why should i fly with a military jet with weapons at the peaceful area like NEVADA Test and

Training Range Map?

I was like that too but it comes from lack of knowledge. This area and what happens there is more real and accurate than any of the campaigns and maps currently can show you. Maybe some WW2 are close. I bought the terrain because of Red Flag and Aggressors campaigns and it grew on me. I learned a lot about NTTR and now I know what it's for.

 

You also say you don't need much terrain/objects detail because you fly up high. You forget completely about rotorheads and Combined Arms. Even in a fast fighter I appreciate every bit of detail I can see because every threat react brings you back to Earth very quickly.

 

You seem like a GA guy and for the terrains nothing will really satisfy you since you didn't find any interest in the existing DCS maps.

 

 

Back on topic: What is currently possible though is a huge Ocean map containing some islands and maybe shore part of one (or 2) of the continents. That would give mission designers some freedom and long distances to cover for every aircraft. Naval operations would especially benefit from this.

Back on topic: What is currently possible though is a huge Ocean map containing some islands and maybe shore part of one (or 2) of the continents. That would give mission designers some freedom and long distances to cover for every aircraft. Naval operations would especially benefit from this.

You think that would be doable ? How HUGE ?

Pacific Theater would bring life to WWII on DCS

 

PD: NTTR rocks !!!!

And if they enlarge the map to include NAS FAllon, Edwards AFB and NAS Miramar, many more campaings could be done, including a realistic Top Gun School !!!!

Edited March 18, 2019 by cercata

You think that would be doable ? How HUGE ?

Pacific Theater would bring life to WWII on DCS

I'm 99% sure it's doable with current engine. I don't know map dev kit limitations though. It could cover distances between airports (islands) in thousands of miles while still being very lite on cpu and ram/vram usage (pretty much ocean everywhere). We only need confirmation from map devs on possibility and a will to produce one.

 

 

NTTR dev is closed - so they say.

NTTR dev is closed - so they say.

 

I know, but they can allways change their mind ;)

{...} Pacific Theater would bring life to WWII on DCS

 

We'd need some aircraft though. Yes, the F4U Corsair is on the way and we could use the Spitfire and P-51D... but there is nothing for the Japanese side. Not even AI.

 

 

 

 

 

PD: NTTR rocks !!!!

 

 

 

Agreed... NTTR is a great map.

About thinking about build extensive maps with ocean has been any "easy"...... someone missing a little point, the maps has batimetry, and that need building and rendering. Other point, the actual Persian gulf has the more great map builder and of course can get a size on Gb about them.

 

About NTTR, ED has talk some times has no plans to expand that map.

About thinking about build extensive maps with ocean has been any "easy"...... someone missing a little point, the maps has batimetry, and that need building and rendering.

 

Never said it would be easy although certainly easier and faster than all terrain map. But good point about bathymetry - didn't think of that. I think most will agree we don't need much of quality of underwaters - depth could be even considered flat for a free ocean map with maybe exceptions for islands. Just a thought.

 

 

 

Never said it would be easy although certainly easier and faster than all terrain map. But good point about bathymetry - didn't think of that. I think most will agree we don't need much of quality of underwaters - depth could be even considered flat for a free ocean map with maybe exceptions for islands. Just a thought.

 

No, if submarines and underwaters weapons can coming on a (far) future.

Why waste precious man hours now because something might or might not happen in the distant future? They can always upgrade the map if DCS 688(i) will ever be a thing. That would be the smallest amount of work if they want to turn DCS into a submarine sim.

 

Detailed bathymetry for a flightsim map would just increase development time and decrease performance with no benefit at all.

Has a waste of resources build the same land detail on a flysym to put "tanks"?

We'd need some aircraft though. Yes, the F4U Corsair is on the way and we could use the Spitfire and P-51D... but there is nothing for the Japanese side. Not even AI.

 

The Pacific Theater should bring at least a Zero, yes !!!!

Edited March 21, 2019 by cercata

Has a waste of resources build the same land detail on a flysym to put "tanks"?

 

 

That additional level of detail on land benefits anything flying low and slow, but not some underwater mountains.

Comparing apples to oranges.

 

Has a waste of resources build the same land detail on a flysym to put "tanks"?

 

Underwater is simply not a thing in DCS yet. We don't know when it will be and, with all other things happening, dare I say IF.

 

Then again you have got all this effort put towards detailed terrain which is justified. Not only it serves rotors but overall, supports DCS World immersion and creates an environment that makes DCS stand out as a product.

Why waste precious man hours now because something might or might not happen in the distant future? They can always upgrade the map if DCS 688(i) will ever be a thing. That would be the smallest amount of work if they want to turn DCS into a submarine sim.

 

Detailed bathymetry for a flightsim map would just increase development time and decrease performance with no benefit at all.

 

Except we already have great looking Kilo class submarines, fully animated, and even a submarine launched cruise missile to go with it. Plus y'know pretty much every naval helicopter ever, what are most of them specifically designed to do? Anti-submarine warfare, at the very least be capable of it. Plus the Hornet is getting underwater weaponry at some point in it's life.

 

As for detailed bathymetry, not really necessary, something like the pre-2.5 Caucasus map (minus the trees and buildings) would be more than necessary.

 

Okay back on topic.

A submarine can't go too deep, even light doesn't reach beyond some depth, so no sense to make anything beyond 300m

+1 for the world map. It'd make a lot of sense to have highly detailed areas that have already been created included in a global map. ESPECIALLY if they go on to make an Iraq and Afghanistan map. Flying sorties out of the PG map and seamlessly transition to the another high detailed/developed Map while (maybe) flying over generic photo generated Terrain would be great.

 

 

We spend a lot of money on modules for realism. I think ED should continue to strive to maintain a level of realism in their world creation as well.

 

I think it's feasible for online Navy squadrons to do work ups on the Stennis on the East Coast and then make their way to the PG all the while doing cyclic ops.

 

Or for online Airforce squadrons to make the flight over to the theater getting "drug" by a tanker, stopping along the way as needed. This would create a whole new world for DCS and the Online squadron communities. To actually do "deployments" to specific theaters of combat.

 

Might be a little pie in the sky too, I imagine.

 

At the very least, it'd be nice to tie these maps together somehow... While the longer flights (and tanker hook ups) may not be for everyone - I do think this niche would be big enough in the community to justify it. And the guys that want instant action would certainly still have that option, obviously.

 

As far as the underwater stuff.... it seems interesting.