DCS Korea Theater

This is roughly in the same scale as the Caucasus map:

I would rather see more of Korea and less of China if we are going to be restricted to that size map.

This is roughly in the same scale as the Caucasus map:

I prefer large enough to have some base on Japan

I prefer large enough to have some base on Japan

Well I used the same scale as we have in the Caucasus, I'm not sure that a map that big can be realistically made.

I prefer to have a smaller map with more detail than a larger one with less detail ;)

But anyway, I think we are just doing "whishful thinking".

Well I used the same scale as we have in the Caucasus, I'm not sure that a map that big can be realistically made.

I prefer to have a smaller map with more detail than a larger one with less detail ;)

But anyway, I think we are just doing "whishful thinking".

Well south korea is full of detail, the north not so much but the good thing is that we will also have the mig 23. In general DCS is good for being able to think of doing the theater korea.

I prefer large enough to have some base on Japan

While I agree, the issue isn't really what "you prefer" its what is feasible to make.

For the simple reason that any war on the peninsula would need both north and south I'd like to see something with a bit more of the south as well. Most of the major US airbases aren't in the first "caucus" scale map.

The other issue is whether or not its a modern map, or a 50's era map. The size difference and infrastructure differences between the two are huge. For example Suwon in the 1950's was a separate city area, its own thing. Today its a suburb. I actually wonder if DCS could even render a big city like Seoul.

Well south korea is full of detail, the north not so much but the good thing is that we will also have the mig 23. In general DCS is good for being able to think of doing the theater korea.

Korea is literally the perfect theater for DCS.

1. Actual war in the 1950's

2. Credible military threat for the entire cold war

3. Major threat in post cold war era even up to the current day.

4. Hypothetical WW2 theater (ok, unlikely but if japan didn't surrender the Russians could have rolled in, or the US)

And NK generally speaking had near-peer hardware for at least most of the cold war and into the 90's.

I am curious, is it the area covered by the map, or the detail that is put down on it that is the limiting factor? I mean, if you look at the Persian Gulf map, they have included a tremendous amount of detail for the majority of the cities in the middle of the map, but absolutely nothing has been placed in areas such as Qatar, Kuwait, Bassra, Iran, or along the boarder between Iran and Pakistan. There is a lot of map there that is just flat land - or some that even has terrain relief - but no human infrastructure on it.

I would be in favor of a map such as has been posted by The Falcon and do with less detail but still have the land mass and ocean around it for carrier operations. That is basically what ED has done in the Caucus and Normandy as well. We have plenty of static objects with which to build suitable targets wherever we wish.:thumbup:

I would be in favor of a map such as has been posted by The Falcon and do with less detail but still have the land mass and ocean around it for carrier operations. That is basically what ED has done in the Caucus and Normandy as well. We have plenty of static objects with which to build suitable targets wherever we wish.:thumbup:

If we some day get the Korea map (said to be planned by Belsimtek time ago) with current technology it'd be a bit big following devs words, but I guess it could perhaps be a mix between high and lower detailed areas so we don't loose any of the historical map areas.

Somebody said before it should have less China than depicted in the previous map, but during Korea war also targets in China were attacked IIRC, some of them beyond MiG alley, so that should be depicted either.

S!

Thanks for the response Ala13_ManOWar, I probably should have worded my statement better. I meant that ED made their Caucus map the same way they made Normandy, NTTR and the PG map. As you said, with great detail in some places and not so much elsewhere. The point of my question was, which was the determining factor for deciding on the size of a map, the X-Y dimensions of it or the amount of detail they placed in it? I'm not sure you answered the question but I appreciate the response.

Thanks for the response Ala13_ManOWar, I probably should have worded my statement better. I meant that ED made their Caucus map the same way they made Normandy, NTTR and the PG map. As you said, with great detail in some places and not so much elsewhere. The point of my question was, which was the determining factor for deciding on the size of a map, the X-Y dimensions of it or the amount of detail they placed in it? I'm not sure you answered the question but I appreciate the response.

I don't know if it's like that or not, but some people say the thing is currently maps are loaded almost entirely in memory so you don't see stutters which means loading, and that can be from very different rigs, from the oldest of mechanical devices to the most recent fastest m.3 SSD. That way only changes loading time from one rig to another but not the experience once loaded.

That's why also minimum requirements are raised from time to time, 8Gb is the minimum recommended right now, but for a bigger map it might be possible to raise the minimum to 16Gb and many problems would be solved. But then you have to compulsorily buy more memory in some cases while in others a whole new rig, which you can figure out what kind of nice words would get out of many users.

S!

With a map like that we would need a f-8 crusader too. :)

I am curious, is it the area covered by the map, or the detail that is put down on it that is the limiting factor? I mean, if you look at the Persian Gulf map, they have included a tremendous amount of detail for the majority of the cities in the middle of the map, but absolutely nothing has been placed in areas such as Qatar, Kuwait, Bassra, Iran, or along the boarder between Iran and Pakistan. There is a lot of map there that is just flat land - or some that even has terrain relief - but no human infrastructure on it.

 

I would be in favor of a map such as has been posted by The Falcon and do with less detail but still have the land mass and ocean around it for carrier operations. That is basically what ED has done in the Caucus and Normandy as well. We have plenty of static objects with which to build suitable targets wherever we wish.:thumbup:

Well go look at google earth, the Iran Paki border as an example is pretty desolate, as are large parts of the country. Korea, not so much as its one of the most densely populated places on earth with tons and tons of infrastructure. Yes it has some ag areas and definately hilly areas, but its got about an order of magnitude more people/sq mile (1302) there than Iran (132), and out of interest NK is 552/sqmi. Also most of the populated areas of iran aren't on the map (the north) which also skews things so I'd say its maybe half that number in the map region we have, mostly concentrated in coastal settlements.

+1 for Korean Map/Theater.

Another good reason is it would attract more (South) Korean gamers too. I heard Korean youngsters love gaming. Hope they also like simulation.

From wiki :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_gaming_in_South_Korea

+1

I believe the Limit is RAM, and alocation space. The more Objects, altitudes, roads, etc the more ram you need to have and alocate (move), the more ram, the les FPS, becuase of more load on the core, the bus etc... So of course the area of the map is not the limit, it is what is inisde the are that makes a map feasble or not. one with lots of stuff wil kil the PC we run DCS on... so it is not posible.

Specialy Not with DCS polici of making everything very detailed and realistic And accurate. Meaning landmarks, and recognizable features, special objects, ect...

Korean Map

There are several GREAT reasons to have the Korean Map. The scale is perfect for the game play. The fighting is linear, defined more or less north south. The map is useful for 1950's era AC campaigns just as well as cold war or current Aircraft sets. One thing that people dont think of is that on the Korean map navigation is relatively east so people can actually find where they want to go and therefore find other people to fight.

I would like a Korea map/s more than any other, actually a 1950 & modern Map.

For 1950 we have or are about to have.

F-86f

Corsair

P-51

Mig 15

C-47

There are mods for

B-29

Bell 47

with Meteor being worked on.

I'm not aware of any others ?

If we had some ground assets and a couple more NK and American aircraft it would be well represented

I would really appreciate a Korea map, most likely in the scale the map in Falcon 4.0 Allied Force was.

+1 for Korean Map/Theater.

Another good reason is it would attract more (South) Korean gamers too. I heard Korean youngsters love gaming. Hope they also like simulation.

 

From wiki :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_gaming_in_South_Korea

I can confirm this is true, especially after I've done two tours in the ROK. Young South Koreans are HUGE into gaming:joystick:

It boggles the mind that DCS World does not already have a Korea Map. You've got two of the best modules for DCS World already in the stable, F-86F Sabre and the Mig-15bis and no place for them to fly in.

well the problem is that you can not have the entire península on DCS engine . so you should have arround 4 Korean maps or teh whole Theater o Operations...

And that is quite an investment.. ED said that they have omproved the SDK to build maps, lets hope that more people want to create them at a faster pace.

korean map has been on my wishlist for a long time and for reasons predating the f-16. The f86 and mig15 are such great modules that hasent had a home in dcs at all. Fictional airwar has also a lot of possibilities here from the 1950s to present day jets.

It would be really nice to not have to patiently explain to some pilots why our Korean War public server uses the Caucasus map... :D

It would be really nice to not have to patiently explain to some pilots why our Korean War public server uses the Caucasus map... :D

Maybe slap some Turkish and Soviet skins on the aircraft and call it Flaming Cliffs 1955? :-)

Seriously, a Korean map seems like a no brainer given all the possiblities but I guess there are technical and economic issues as usual.