Jump to content

Mount pleasant airbase poll


Mount pleasant airbase poll  

234 members have voted

  1. 1. Mount pleasant airbase poll

    • Yes
      165
    • No
      69


Recommended Posts

Recently Razbam mentioned the possibility of adding Mount pleasant Airbase, since this base came after the conflict they want your input.

 

Now its over to us, simply vote on weather you think the base should or shouldn't be added.



 

Water cooled i9-9900K | Maximus Code XI MB | RTX3090  | 64GB | HP Reverb G2 
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, I think that the map should be as close as possible to the actual era of the conflict. It's a shame there's no way to add or remove an airbase depending on the date used in game.

This! Having the base there would be really awkward when creating historic missions.

+1


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, I think that the map should be as close as possible to the actual era of the conflict. It's a shame there's no way to add or remove an airbase depending on the date used in game.

 

I agree

harrier landing GIFRYZEN 7 3700X Running at 4.35 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080Ti

32gb DDR4 RAM @3200 MHz

Oculus CV1 NvME 970 EVO

TM Warthog Stick & Throttle plus 11" extension. VKB T-Rudder MKIV

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, I think that the map should be as close as possible to the actual era of the conflict. It's a shame there's no way to add or remove an airbase depending on the date used in game.

Not quite what you mean, but you can use "scenery remove objects zone" and "scenery destruction zone" to get rid off any buildings of the airport. As for the runway itself ... no clue how to get rid of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really aplit on this... I'm all about authenticity and I really look forward to the 1982 conflict, but the more utility the map has the better. I voted put it in because I can ignore an airbase, but whatever is chosen I won't be upset.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not quite what you mean, but you can use "scenery remove objects zone" and "scenery destruction zone" to get rid off any buildings of the airport. As for the runway itself ... no clue how to get rid of that.

 

You can place obstacles on it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would much rather have the Island to 1982 spec.

With no Mount Pleasant airbase and with Port Stanley as the only paved runway.

 

 

Preferably with the Port Stanley runway the length it was during the war,

 

 

Though i would be Ok with the port stanley runway being given the extended post war length (it was extended using aluminium planking soon after the war ended to allow F4 Phantoms to be based there) if the alternative is adding Mount Pleasant as that would still make it so there is a runway able to accept most aircraft without changing the map in a more significant way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is that Mount Pleasant allow for more options regarding missions that are not based on the Falklands War.

 

 

You can make a Warsaw Pact vs. NATO in the South Atlantic scenario.

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

"The three most dangerous things in the world are a programmer with a soldering iron, a hardware type with a program patch and a user with an idea."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not quite what you mean, but you can use "scenery remove objects zone" and "scenery destruction zone" to get rid off any buildings of the airport. As for the runway itself ... no clue how to get rid of that.

 

How about Razbam makes a "building" that is nothing more that a grass cover that hides the airfield.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've voted yes but I'd still like to see the temporary airstrips used by the British / Argies on the map. The temp airfield at Goose Green for example is a must.

[spoiler=PC SPECS]

Intel i5-8600k @3.60GHz

EVGA GTX 1070Ti

Windows 10

16GB RAM 3200 MHz

500 GB Samsung 850 SSD

2TB Seagate SSHD

Some cool LED fans that light up

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can make a Warsaw Pact vs. NATO in the South Atlantic scenario.

Even in my wildest dreams I can't really think of a plausible scenario for for Warsaw Pact vs NATO on the Falklands ;)

 

Could you ship very similar 2 maps ... one 82, one later??

They could in theory. Practically this wouldn't really be feasible as maps are pretty huge in file size. Just to have the same map with and without a certain airbase isn't really justifying the doubled amount of disk space needed for two almost identical maps instead of one.


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I start, this is a suggestion and a potential option only.

 

It could be feasible that the map is shipped with MP Airbase integrated and then add a static object, in the form of terrain that would cover it (The runways/Taxiways/parking slots).

 

The buildings could be removed using the remove objects zones. Particularly for those wishing to strictly adhere to a 1982 scenario. You would have the best of both worlds available then. Just a thought. :thumbup:

Callsign: NAKED

My YouTube Channel

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Even in my wildest dreams I can't really think of a plausible scenario for for Warsaw Pact vs NATO on the Falklands ;)

 

in a future war with china the Falkland's are well placed to protect against Chinese ships and subs entering the Atlantic around cape horn.

 

so it could be the little island that defends the entire US east coast :)

My Rig: i7 4930k 4.5Ghz, 16GB DDR3 2400, 2x SSD, EVGA 1080 Superclocked, Warthog Throttle and Stick, MFG Crosswinds, Oculus Rift.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is the best idea honestly. You have an "82 war" map and a modern one to play with. Plus, you could tell customers that: "You get two maps!" :music_whistling:

 

Seriously, it must be minimal work to do that.

 

The British did some serious redevelopment work on the Falklands Islands following the war. It's not quite as simple as adding a runway and a building or two.

 

I liked SUNSATG's solution to include all airfields and then have the mission creator remove individual areas as necessary.

[spoiler=PC SPECS]

Intel i5-8600k @3.60GHz

EVGA GTX 1070Ti

Windows 10

16GB RAM 3200 MHz

500 GB Samsung 850 SSD

2TB Seagate SSHD

Some cool LED fans that light up

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is the best idea honestly. You have an "82 war" map and a modern one to play with. Plus, you could tell customers that: "You get two maps!" :music_whistling:

 

Seriously, it must be minimal work to do that.

The work to do that must indeed be minimal, but the problem is the demand on the customer on disk space, as I explained above.

That's why I think this would be a pretty good solution:

Before I start, this is a suggestion and a potential option only.

 

It could be feasible that the map is shipped with MP Airbase integrated and then add a static object, in the form of terrain that would cover it (The runways/Taxiways/parking slots).

 

The buildings could be removed using the remove objects zones. Particularly for those wishing to strictly adhere to a 1982 scenario. You would have the best of both worlds available then. Just a thought. :thumbup:

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
My opinion is that Mount Pleasant allow for more options regarding missions that are not based on the Falklands War.

 

 

You can make a Warsaw Pact vs. NATO in the South Atlantic scenario.

 

 

My thoughts as well. Ideally it would be optional somehow (maybe two versions of the map to pick in the Mission Editor?) but without Mt. Pleasant it'd be very hard to land high-performance aircraft anywhere outside of mainland Argentina.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How about Razbam makes a "building" that is nothing more that a grass cover that hides the airfield.

 

...

 

It could be feasible that the map is shipped with MP Airbase integrated and then add a static object, in the form of terrain that would cover it (The runways/Taxiways/parking slots).

 

The buildings could be removed using the remove objects zones. Particularly for those wishing to strictly adhere to a 1982 scenario. You would have the best of both worlds available then. Just a thought. :thumbup:

 

Perhaps Mithandra can comment on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How hard would it be to have at the airbase structures, taxiways, parking ramps and runways packaged as a scriptable preset(for lack of a better word)?

 

 

 

It could be added and removed by mission maker by use of a simple trigger.

Flying the Harrier

IYAOYAS



Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree that the airbase should be added, if only to provide more options for the scenery designer in a sandbox environment. Said airbase could be functionally disabled for 1982 scenarios, not to mention we're already taking liberties with the conflict in terms of available airframes. One more airbase won't be a backbreaker, but will give us potentially more flexibility in scenarios.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...