Jump to content

ED NTTR is such a great map, Why not add Fallon and Lemoore?


Legendofdino

Recommended Posts

I am fully aware that NTTR is considered feature complete as it is, but the question exists, why don't you capitalize on the fact that you have a map that could easily incorporate huge U.S. Naval air Stations such as Fallon, Lemoore, China Lake, etc. With the huge U.S. Navy virtual squadron presence here in the game, I don't understand why this isn't even considered.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that adding anything else to this map breaches the 8GB Min Ram Spec. Its a limitation of the engine atm which I am hoping ED address in the future.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

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

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Hey everyone

 

Having flown in Syria, which is a huge AO, I’m wondering if China Lake and NAS Fallon could be incorporated now? It seems the 8GB limit is not a predominant worry anymore...

I get the feeling around the comunity that purchasing the NTTR is a waste of money, but IMHO it is a great, but incomplete AO. I’m sure many of us would like to see that change!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

No reason why we shouldn't model China Lake and Fallon, Bicycle Lake (for A-10's) and Kingman in Arizona for casual flying. I love this map. Edwards Air Force Base is also there and waiting to be created! What a map it would be! Never knew what a Joshua tree was till I flew this map, go figure!!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never knew what a Joshua tree was till I flew this map, go figure!!!

 

 

Lol. Somebody must be flying really low. Or slow. Or both. :pilotfly:

My Hangar: | A-10A | A-10C | AJS-37 | AV-8B II NA | F-14B | BF-109 K4 | C-101 | F-15C | F-5E II |F-86F | F/A-18C | FW-190 D-9 | KA-50 | L-39 | M-2000C | MI-8MTV2 | MiG-15bis | MiG-21bis | P-51D | SA342 | Spitfire IX | SU-25 | SU-25T | SU-27 | SU-33 | UH-1H |

 

My Playgrounds: | Caucasus | Nevada | Persian Gulf | Normandy |

 

Cockpit: | i7-4790K | EVGA Z97 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB | Samsung EVO SSD | Saitek Pro Flight X-55 Rhino H.O.T.A.S. System | TrackIR 5 |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but IMHO it is a great, but incomplete AO.

I disagree with this.

I think a lot of people try to make NTTR what it isn't, and get disappointed when their expectations aren't met.

It's designed around Nellis operations into the NTTR. Not Fallon, not Lemoore, not China Lake, not Edwards.

 

If you use the intended airports, and use the depicted airspace as the map is designed, you will have an excellent experience, and feel the AO is complete.

The Red Flag campaigns highlight this point well. I really wish we had more users that wanted an authentic Nevada training experience, especially when NATO aircraft are so heavily represented.

 

I fired my first Viper Maverick and HARM on the one dedicated testing and training map we have, using actual target ranges. Because why would I conduct testing and training anywhere else?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its interesting that Ive seen a few statements that further expansion of NTTR would push it over the 8GB minimum spec, but at the same time Syria has so much more content so I dont know quite how that issue comes about. At this point though I am more looking forward to marinaras. though if they ever get a multi map transition occurring, I would rather see IRAQ and Turkey modelled to allow a transition between Syria, Caucasus and PG

  • Like 1

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

  • 1 month later...

The reason, presumably, is that Syria is new, and probably much better designed, optimization-wise. You can squeeze out more detail for a given memory load if you're smart with texture sizes, shared UV maps, and the like. NTTR, if it was to be redone with this in mind, could probably be made larger (or kept as-is, but use less memory) if proper optimization was done for it. ED is notably sloppy about this kind of thing, go look up threads about 4k normal maps if you don't believe it. NTTR in particular has a lot of unique buildings, more than Syria, I think, and I wouldn't be surprised to find similar inefficiencies in their textures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No reason why we shouldn't model China Lake and Fallon, Bicycle Lake (for A-10's) and Kingman in Arizona for casual flying. I love this map. Edwards Air Force Base is also there and waiting to be created! What a map it would be! Never knew what a Joshua tree was till I flew this map, go figure!!!

 

+1

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I disagree with this.

I think a lot of people try to make NTTR what it isn't, and get disappointed when their expectations aren't met.

It's designed around Nellis operations into the NTTR. Not Fallon, not Lemoore, not China Lake, not Edwards.

 

If you use the intended airports, and use the depicted airspace as the map is designed, you will have an excellent experience, and feel the AO is complete.

The Red Flag campaigns highlight this point well. I really wish we had more users that wanted an authentic Nevada training experience, especially when NATO aircraft are so heavily represented.

 

I fired my first Viper Maverick and HARM on the one dedicated testing and training map we have, using actual target ranges. Because why would I conduct testing and training anywhere else?

 

Cool. My boys and me also use NTTR quite extensively. It's a very nice map as its is.

I am still one of the guys who dream of an extended NTTR++ map.

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am fully aware that NTTR is considered feature complete as it is, but the question exists, why don't you capitalize on the fact that you have a map that could easily incorporate huge U.S. Naval air Stations such as Fallon, Lemoore, China Lake, etc. With the huge U.S. Navy virtual squadron presence here in the game, I don't understand why this isn't even considered.

 

NAS Lemoore's over 250 miles away from Nellis AFB. Furthermore, Lemoore isn't like Nellis nor Fallon. It's not much of a training site and pilots have to fly out west over the Pacific Fleet or east to the desert to conduct training, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it needs more airfields.  It's been pointed out that no one plays this map in MP, but I think that it's because all of the airfields are bunched up together around Vegas.  If some of the other bases in the area were added, such as Fallon (which is on the map's ground texture), then you would have more distance between bases and potential safe havens where planes could take off without immediately being shot down by the CAP over Nellis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, 9thHunt said:

I think that it's because all of the airfields are bunched up together around Vegas.

I don't think this is true.

The current popular air quake server is "Growling Sidewinder Open Conflict 1 of 4 Caucasus." It's current mission (Server_1_Operation_Urban_Thunder_V5_2_2.miz) involves a conflict mainly between Kutaisi (Blue - UGKO) and Tbilisi (Red - UGTB+UG27). Fighting distance is 115nm. I count about 15 players at each of these fields.

 

Compare to Tonopah Test Range Airfield (KTNX) vs Nellis AFB (KLSV). Fighting distance is 128nm. That's more than the current most popular "Air Quake" scenario.

 

22 hours ago, 9thHunt said:

you would have more distance between bases and potential safe havens where planes could take off without immediately being shot down by the CAP over Nellis

Players don't want this. They specifically choose servers where your "bad" conditions happen. Anybody can make a server that fights Anapa-Vityazevo (URKA) vs Tbilisi (UGTB). Fight distance will be 388nm. Compare to Fallon (KNFL) vs Nellis (KLSV) 258nm. But nobody makes a PvP 390nm server. Because the people that fly those kind of missions don't want to fly that kind of distance. And they don't want to fly 260nm either.

 

They don't want to even spend time on the ground turning the aircraft on. Many of the server slots are hot starts on the ramp. Nobody waits 8 minutes for INS alignment. They turn on the master arm switch while they are still on the ramp. "Fence checks?" LOL

 

22 hours ago, 9thHunt said:

It's been pointed out that no one plays this map in MP,

And I don't think that has anything to do with map size or airfield availability. I think my criticisms deserve merit. Here is my opinion why this map is not so popular.

 

1. It's not a combat map.

2. It has to be purchased.

 

Players want to fight simulated wars. They don't want simulated training. They don't care about training airspace, especially when they have to buy it, especially if they're not American or their country doesn't often participate in Red Flag. Adding Fallon or China Lake... while nice... isn't going to fix these "issues."

 

You can fly NTTR procedures and add probably 40% to the flight distance for each faction. But the combat airspace shrinks considerably. And enforcement becomes required (or player discipline). People just don't know how to use it (thank you 476th, public documents, and the Red Flag campaigns) or else don't care.

 

But that would be a training scenario. And who wants to fly training scenarios on a training map in Vipers vs Hornets? I mean that's just silly...


Edited by randomTOTEN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, randomTOTEN said:

And I don't think that has anything to do with map size or airfield availability. I think my criticisms deserve merit. Here is my opinion why this map is not so popular.

 

1. It's not a combat map.

2. It has to be purchased.

 

Players want to fight simulated wars. They don't want simulated training. They don't care about training airspace, especially when they have to buy it, especially if they're not American or their country doesn't often participate in Red Flag. Adding Fallon or China Lake... while nice... isn't going to fix these "issues."

 

You can fly NTTR procedures and add probably 40% to the flight distance for each faction. But the combat airspace shrinks considerably. And enforcement becomes required (or player discipline). People just don't know how to use it (thank you 476th, public documents, and the Red Flag campaigns) or else don't care.

 

But that would be a training scenario. And who wants to fly training scenarios on a training map in Vipers vs Hornets? I mean that's just silly...

 

Friend of mine and me are flying very often in NTTR on a user made training mission with some gimmicks, using Hornet and Viper.

But if somebody says it is silly, I will find a way to accept this opinion. On the other hand it seems to me there is just a lack of imagination, or you just want to say something else?

 

I still would love to have some extension of the map by bringing in some airfields, and I don't think flying in NTTR for fun is silly.

If that was true, we must then agree that flying DCS is silly. And if that was true, what are you doing here?

 

I would kindly ask you for a little more respect for other users - like me - my friend. You think you can?

 

Kind regards,

TOViper

 

Visit https://www.viggen.training
...Viggen... what more can you ask for?

my computer:
AMD Ryzen 5600G | NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti OC 11GB | 32 GB 3200 MHz DDR4 DUAL | SSD 980 256 GB SYS + SSD 2TB DCS | TM Warthog Stick + Throttle + TPR | Rift CV1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TOViper said:

You think you can?

The "silly" comment was my (failed) attempt at sarcasm. Sorry.

I meant to imply that fighting Hornets vs Vipers (USN vs USAF) in a training scenario, on a USA training map, is probably the best and most immersive scenario for anybody that wants to partake in that kind of action. Considering the large portion of the study level modules (fixed wing) we have are NATO aircraft, and all likely participate in Red Flag, I would imagine that NTTR would be one of the most popular maps for missions and MP. But it isn't.

The addition of Tonopah Test Range gives an immersive home for any Russian/CIS aircraft as well, using the same map and the same airspace. Plenty of Hornets operate out of Nellis while you guys wait for NAS Fallon.

 

About the only modules that don't really "fit" are the Russian helicopters. So with such a relevant theater I don't think the geography is really limiting the popularity.


Edited by randomTOTEN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came across this post, because I had just watched the video by Air Warfare Group on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifObJSD6hPA

 

I know that Fallon has been discussed (countless) times before, but one thing that occurred to me was that the scenario they are discussing is a distant spawn point for RedFor units. Fallon Naval Air Station, Fallon Municipal, and St.George Utah. While modelling the towns would definitely be a lot of work... would it be possible to have just the runway/taxiway and spawn points?

 

As a precedent, in the DCS Normandy Map, there are a few airfields in the UK. These are not modelled in detail, but they do provide and cross-channel landing point for outbound fighter escorts, returning bombers, etc.. There is no need for the extreme detail, but it does provide for a lot of options.

 

Given the massive improvements to the NTTR textures in the Fallon region, I think the addition of at least the runway/spawn points would be a low-cost option, but with a significant increase in the value of this map. Or, if there were mission-editor-placeable runways, then we could place our own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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