Open Map Tools

[Automan]

I know that surely this subject has been addressed before, but really some things should change in DCS.

i know that ED wants to maintain control over what is inside DCS, and so only official thirdy party developers have access on SDK to create new content. Obviously this is an advantage to certify that what is in DCS have acceptable quality standards, but in the same time the chance to get new material is very low.

Now, assuming that develop a new Aircraft for DCS is really difficult I'm quite confident instead that create a new map doesn't require the same skill, and should be open to everyone.

Really DCS World should cover the whole planet earth like x-plane, and prepar3d do. DEM data is accessible to everyone, at least a basic terrain coverage should be included, and this is not possible in short time mantaining the closed source system. The tools to create maps for DCS should be available to everyone.

It's not acceptable for me waiting DCS world 10.0 to see Balkans or Lybia maps....:megalol:

[Gladman]

I wonder what ever happened to the days when people were just happy to have a flight sim to play?

[Jowen G. Bruère-Dawson]

I don't share your point of view. I prefere Maps like Black Sea or NTTR but with nice detail level rather than the all planet with high detailled... Pixels.. That's allow us to have nice graphics without a competition computer. Seriously, P3D is ugly ! X-Plane 10 is lifeless and empty, you need 700Gb of files to make it looks good with scenery (but X-Plane is still a fantastic work tool !)... My favorite sim is DCS, nice graphics (for an old engine) High level flight models. And campaign. I prefere a lot of campaign rather than the planet. Maybe in the future we could have the entire planet surface with nice graphics and a good optimisation. But not for the moment.

 

Concerning the fact that ED does not share some of their files you're maybe right in some point of view. But seriously look how many time they need to do NTTR.. So according to that, I'm not sure that it's so easy to create a good map.

 

But it's sure, there is some things to do in collaboration with the flight sim's community to make DCS greater.. :thumbup:

 

Sory if my english is bad, i don't use translator. :music_whistling:

[whitehot]

I wonder what ever happened to the days when people were just happy to have a flight sim to play?

 

Although I agree with you, I also must admit that the OP has some kind of point - it's been several months since we had an update (without considering the magnitude of it). Since many modules are early access / beta versions, one wouldn't despise some advancement, once in a while. I know, I know, "Until DCS 2.0/1.5 is out there ain't gonna be nothing new" , yet imho it's becoming a very long stretch of an argument.

 

After all, I don't think that the new engine is gonna revolutionize the simulator dynamics to the point that all the work done on the existing modules will be totally useless - in which case they would have to rewrite all the aircraft from scrap.

 

Since we know that it's not the case, then one doesn't get what keeps the devs to upgrade some of the mods - I ain't saying like "before the 2.0 announcement", but at least to a degree in which users who invested in said mods have some kind of reassurement that the "work in progress" is still in progress.

 

Not at all I intend to rant or whine - just saying that sometimes the stillness around DCS World almost makes me worry about the future of this simulator. As I said in another post, I rly hope that what is slowing development, at all levels, is just something technical and that our favorite sim progress isn't suffering from other angles, in particular the complex geopolitical situation spurred by the events in Crimea and Ukraine.

 

Anyway, we have a sort of release date for the 1.5 version, so let's keep our finger crossed that this time it will finally get to us users; so that also the mods developers would get to update their works again.

[00Donkey]

Although i see the point of the original poster, But your wish is to be able to do something yourself that has taken Eagle Dynamics YEARS to get right! How many times over and over again have we heard that "we're working on Nevada and it's JUSt not ready yet,... there's a reason they keep saying that, and it's mostly been due to the detail not being what it should be! I myself have never bought X-plane OR Microsoft Flight 10 Strictly because i didn't think the maps were of high enough quality as well as the graphics fidelity, And even after how nice "Prepar3d" has made things, i STILL think DCS looks better overall if you focus on overall quality. Also we can only assume since it was never released for the current version of DCS that the Nevada map was glitchy and poorly rendered on even high end machines which is their reason for waiting to release it on the comming release of DCS 1.5! so for them to with-hold the release of an entire theater of gameplay, JUST because of the quality for MULTIPLE YEARS, then that should tell you that if users were to create their own maps for DCS we might get one in 20 of them that actually LOOKS NICE! And if you've been around the forums you'll notice that there ARE Reskins of the Caucuses map you can download for "VIETNAM" era engagements etc, and even those by the map-authors own admissions aren't as good as they should be.

So i think we should chalk this up to,...

 

A): DCS map making is HARD and should be left to the Professionals

 

B): If you want to re-skin the Caucuses-Map for your own enjoyment go for it!

 

C); Those who go through the whole process of submitting their work to eagle dynamics for approval so that they get the opportunity to be on the 3rd party development team DESERVE to be where they are, and if you submit a map idea to Eagle dynamics and are chosen to work on it, And provided it is of high enough quality that you make it onto the 3rd-party-team, then THAT is going to be the only way players are going to even want to access your creations in large enough numbers for it to really affect the community of DCS-World as a whole!

 

D): In other words: If you want to make maps for DCS GO FOR IT! Submit an idea to Eagle Dynamics and if it is good enough, and they like it, then being added to the list of 3rd party devlopers is what is GOING to make people WANT to try your creation(s)...Not a forum post about wishful thinking.

 

 

(NOTE): i'm all for DCs players getting to make maps of their own, But just follow the right steps towards getting it done so that it is of sufficient quality and i will PERSONALLY BUY the right to download and play that map in my squadrons missions! There's a reason Eagle dynamics only lets the 3rd party developers have that access to the code. And that is so that players like us, Can get theBEST PRODUCT POSSIBLE! it's not a get rich quick scheme in which they put up pay-wall's so that we don't get the best product's unless we pay through the nose... It's set up so this way, so that only the BEST products get made, and so that when we trade our hard earned dollars for one of Eagle-Dynamics products whether it's a map or a Plane or even a Tank we are PROUD to have spent those dollars because we feel we are getting something of the UTMOST QUALITY! THAT,... in my humble opinion is worth waiting YEARS for if necessary, and it is why i so WILLINGLY pay money that i don't have much of for products that Eagle dynamics and it's 3rd-party-partners make! I live on "Disability" as far as income goes, and to me, having the ability to let any old person make maps would only hurt the AMAZING high fidelity quality that makes SO MANY people love playing THIS, instead of like X-plane or Microsoft flight+ the tactical pack... It is just THAT GOOD, so let's trust the developer's judgment when it comes to keeping things that good!

[J7G]

Yeah but the point is you *could be* a professional if the SDK were released so you had time to learn it. After all, you could create the map but not might necessarily be able to distribute it without ED.

[LNR212]

Hmm, well... a "basic World" with about 55gb like in x-Plane and our maps like black seas and nttr as a add-on would be cool... I guess.

I think it's important that the "add-on-free" region is able to place ground-stuff. So with the sdk released, some people and 3rd parties could do some nice add-ons.

Just my opinion but I think the basic idea would be good...

[boedha68]

Guys, i believe that, cause ED wants to make it perfect, this cost a huge amount of time. They have not the budget of ea or ubisoft. But they are unique. I have never played a detailed sim like dcs. It's fantastic. Keep up the good work. :pilotfly:

[Rongor]

Just give people the necessary tools to create sceneries. If the quality is good, we will be thankful to enjoy them! DCS could only benefit from that.

 

I also think that the whole globe should in fact be something like in Prepar3d or the former flight simulator. Nobody would expect a high fidelity display of our world. Autogen sceneries and textures would be fine.

 

If you soon sit in your DCS B-52 on a 4 hour flight from Ramstein to Syria, it won't matter if the scenery 38000 ft below isn't accurate. Only necessary accuracy is provided by insular sceneries at your departing base and the target area.

 

If you ask me, we already would be fine with a full globe and coastlines, a terrain model and some handy tool for mission designers to add in scenery objects from a defined library of nav aids and facilities or even selfmade 3D objects,.

This would multiply our possibilities, compared to the very limited theaters we have now and in the near future.

[Solty]

I wonder what ever happened to the days when people were just happy to have a flight sim to play?

What doest that have to do with anything? Many games support mods and community created content. Why shouldn't map builder be open to people, so that they can maintain longevity of the sim via their own creative content? Look at il2 46 where you have tons of maps that were created by moders.

[SkateZilla]

I know that surely this subject has been addressed before, but really some things should change in DCS.

i know that ED wants to maintain control over what is inside DCS, and so only official thirdy party developers have access on SDK to create new content. Obviously this is an advantage to certify that what is in DCS have acceptable quality standards, but in the same time the chance to get new material is very low.

Now, assuming that develop a new Aircraft for DCS is really difficult I'm quite confident instead that create a new map doesn't require the same skill, and should be open to everyone.

Really DCS World should cover the whole planet earth like x-plane, and prepar3d do. DEM data is accessible to everyone, at least a basic terrain coverage should be included, and this is not possible in short time mantaining the closed source system. The tools to create maps for DCS should be available to everyone.

It's not acceptable for me waiting DCS world 10.0 to see Balkans or Lybia maps....:megalol:

 

\

Most of the items in you're list have been previously discussed, and ED explained their position on them as well.

 

That being said,

 

This isnt XPlane, P3D or FSX,

 

Comparing them on a feature level isnt relevant.

 

Users dont Buy FSX for a Combat Environment, and Users dont buy DCS for FreeFlight/Airliner Environments.

[Rongor]

Users dont buy DCS for FreeFlight/Airliner Environments.

Obviously they don't, because these features are missing. The interesting question is, would people develop/buy modules which in some way need environments like these.

[whitehot]

\

 

That being said,

 

This isnt XPlane, P3D or FSX,

 

Comparing them on a feature level isnt relevant.

 

Users dont Buy FSX for a Combat Environment, and Users dont buy DCS for FreeFlight/Airliner Environments.

 

jeez.

 

Without considering that DCS is a combat simulator while the other sims mentioned are "only" flight sims, and without considering that the "maps" (actually the map, at present) in DCS have to take account of the destructive effect of ordnance:

 

without considering anything else but the fidelity of the flight dynamics, the phisics:

 

DCS World beats the other sims by a huge margin.

 

Since ED made the Ka-50 and the A-10C, I feel that FSX/P3D and Xplane are like older generation sims. imho ofc.

 

So, yes, you can't compare DCS to the mentioned titles. Yet, If somebody would make a successor to FSX, with a dynamics engine equivalent to DCS, that would be by far the most stupendous civilian flight sim ever made.

 

Whoever flew helicopters in FSX for more than a couple minutes and then tried out the Black Shark, the Huey and the Hip in DCS knows what Im talkin about

[Automan]

My argument is not compare FSX/P3D or Xplane with DCS, but my scope is to put in evidence that the absence of a seamless world preclude the possibility to create campaigns that have theaters interacting between them.

DCS have big potential for sure, but playing in a theater with a square of 500x500km or 1000x1000km is nonsense with an heavy bomber for example.(B2 from Whiteman to Lybia: 12.000 miles trip!)

[cichlidfan]

DCS have big potential for sure, but playing in a theater with a square of 500x500km or 1000x1000km is nonsense with an heavy bomber for example.(B2 from Whiteman to Lybia: 12.000 miles trip!)

 

Since we don't have any flyable aircraft like that, you need better argument. ;)

[Automan]

No, my argument is right. No one will make an aircraft for DCS if he feel that a suitable theater is not present.

So, don't leave for tomorrow what you can do today....

Edited August 30, 2015 by Automan

[xaoslaad]

Every WWII and Korean era aircraft, not to mention the MiG-21Bis and F-14A/B prove that wrong.

[weeb]

Since we don't have any flyable aircraft like that, you need better argument. ;)

Could not have put it better myself. cichlidfan. We don't have B2's and B1's to bomb the shit out of Georgia. Take off from TBlisi, head over the mountains and get painted with radar, you'll sniff a new arsehole. If you manage to make it. instead of thinking about destruction, try thinking skill set, survive.:thumbup:

[Snoopy]

Since we don't have any flyable aircraft like that, you need better argument. ;)

 

Technically with tanker support the A-10 is.

[159th_Falcon]

Don't forget the SU-33 and the upcoming F-18.

 

Without a big map being carrier based is pretty much pointless.

[kaffehtrinkhen]

Hey, some people just love to fly for hours...

Why not a BIG see map? With some nice small Islands.

One russian/chinese aircraft carrier, some more us carries. And a big see battle! :-D

It should be possible to be made by a smaller 3th. Just as a compromise?!? What do you think?

[Punisher74]

I know that surely this subject has been addressed before, but really some things should change in DCS.

i know that ED wants to maintain control over what is inside DCS, and so only official thirdy party developers have access on SDK to create new content. Obviously this is an advantage to certify that what is in DCS have acceptable quality standards, but in the same time the chance to get new material is very low.

Now, assuming that develop a new Aircraft for DCS is really difficult I'm quite confident instead that create a new map doesn't require the same skill, and should be open to everyone.

Really DCS World should cover the whole planet earth like x-plane, and prepar3d do. DEM data is accessible to everyone, at least a basic terrain coverage should be included, and this is not possible in short time mantaining the closed source system. The tools to create maps for DCS should be available to everyone.

It's not acceptable for me waiting DCS world 10.0 to see Balkans or Lybia maps....:megalol:

 

I agree, I'd like to fly missions over areas like Korea(both Current and Past), Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, the Ukraine, Bosnia, etc. And I'd also like to fly planes and Helicopters that are currently in DCS that aren't flyable, as well as that's are not including 5th Generation planes. Classified or not if other sims have them with all the bells and whistles so should DCS. the F-18C is still classified but yet its coming. Look DCS is great, but it could be so much more. Also take off in Germany and fly into Bosnia for a mission and back, or Kuwait into Iraq, etc. Another thing the NTTR in the desert of Vegas isn't the only area training exercises are run, there's California, Hawaii, Off the coast of Florida, Georgia at Fort Benning, I can go on, I know this because I've attended at least one in all those places.

Edited August 30, 2015 by raptorsim

[lazduc]

Errrrrr, I thought that NTTR will not be released until 2.0 comes out....which may be next year....2016. Have I missed something?? :D

 

Donkey says......

 

" Also we can only assume since it was never released for the current version of DCS that the Nevada map was glitchy and poorly rendered on even high end machines which is their reason for waiting to release it on the comming release of DCS 1.5! "

 

laz

[VincentLaw]

ED explained their position on them as well.

This is the valid point. ED owns DCS, so they can do or not do whatever they want. I can't argue with that.

This isnt XPlane, P3D or FSX,

 

Comparing them on a feature level isnt relevant.

 

Users dont Buy FSX for a Combat Environment, and Users dont buy DCS for FreeFlight/Airliner Environments.

I personally spend more time doing free flight in DCS than combat missions, and I think the significant effort that has gone into TacPack and associated mods proves your other statement false. Many people other than me would like the wall between "combat" and "flight simulator" to be broken down. I would strongly enjoy a civil aviation component for DCS.

DCS stands for “Digital Combat Simulator”. DCS is a world simulation engine permitting the user to operate or direct a growing number of combat and civilian aircraft, ground vehicles and ships, from different historical eras, in different geographical locations and at different levels of fidelity. It is a true "sand box" simulation.

You are right. DCS is not just XPlane, P3D, or FSX. It is more than that.

[SMan]

I prefer quality over quantity.