Jump to content

FALKLANDS MAP https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/230167-falklands-map-updates/?do=getNewComment UPDATES


Raz_Specter

Recommended Posts

No, unfortunately there is not. At least I haven't seen the devs mentioning that they will provide us with it. We don't even have any (fixed wing) aircraft that can operate from it.
Recommend check my "unofficial road map", can be some surprise.

 

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong, QuiGon consider yourself relegated back to a padawan.

Recommend check my "unofficial road map", can be some surprise.

Thanks, that piece of information did really slip by me. Great to see the Veinticinco de Mayo in the works! :thumbup:

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + 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 comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Thx for update but for me it looks a little ... strange. Not too long horizontally without the appropriate scale of maps vertically? Its only something like 200-250km in vertical with Google scale. For example DCS Syria has 500 km with much more land inside (total 500x600 km + incoming Cyprus ect, so the final version will be bigger). For jets it isnt good idea I suppose. Its 10-20 flight minutes depending on the plane from north to south. It doesnt look good.

 

StOR9swh.jpg

 

According me better to do something like this with more land verticaly (yellow line) with land strip something about 500-600 km.

 

xMfsOx0h.jpg

 

The ocean is free ;) so no any kind of problem to increase this but pls double (or three times) the size of the land to do something between 500-600km. Is it possible?

 

The ocean is not free my friend :) believe me I already asked the question to ED in early development

Custom built W10 Pro 64Bit, Intel Core i9 9900k, Asus ROG Maximus Code XI Z390, 64GB DDR4 3200 RGB, Samsung 1TB NVme M.2 Drive, Gigabyte AORUS 2080TI, 40" Iiyama Display. Wacom Cintiq Pro 24, HOTAS Virpil T50 Stick / FA-18C TM Stick and Virpil T50 Throttle, MFG Crosswind Graphite Pedals. HP Reverb

 

SPECTER



[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Lead Terrain Developer / Texture Artist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would have been a dream, Spectre But We know what we got is the best you guys can do with todays rig specs and DCS engine. I for one am very gratefull that at least you include part of the contient.

 

Hopefully one day ED will give us the hability to place Bases on the ME too and be able to use de low deatield areas.

 

Thanks for the Updates by the way! Grate Job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Updated main post with addition images

  • Like 2

Custom built W10 Pro 64Bit, Intel Core i9 9900k, Asus ROG Maximus Code XI Z390, 64GB DDR4 3200 RGB, Samsung 1TB NVme M.2 Drive, Gigabyte AORUS 2080TI, 40" Iiyama Display. Wacom Cintiq Pro 24, HOTAS Virpil T50 Stick / FA-18C TM Stick and Virpil T50 Throttle, MFG Crosswind Graphite Pedals. HP Reverb

 

SPECTER



[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Lead Terrain Developer / Texture Artist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update Specter. I wouldn't have known to check the original post for the photos.

 

Also, back in October, you mentioned that "the ocean is not free." Can you elaborate on what about the ocean is consuming resources? Moreso than topography, vegetation, cities, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Updated main post with addition images

 

Coming along nicely. :)

 

As for "ocean not free" I guess you refer to the new transparent water simulation where you have the ocean floor?

So you would "need" a depth/ocean floor height map?

 

If that's the reason, have you considered to simply add a flat ocean floor "plane" at 10.000 feet depth to minimize the height map data required?

In theory this could give us a very large area of open water and deep enough to not cause visual problems with the transparent water effects.

 

 


Edited by shagrat
  • Like 1

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 32GB | GeForce RTX 2080S - Acer XB280HK 28" 4k | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | TM Cougar MFDs | a hand made UFC | AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

Coming along nicely. :)

 

As for "ocean not free" I guess you refer to the new transparent water simulation where you have the ocean floor?

So you would "need" a depth/ocean floor height map?

 

If that's the reason, have you considered to simply add a flat ocean floor "plane" at 10.000 feet depth to minimize the height map data required?

In theory this could give us a very large area of open water and deep enough to not cause visual problems with the transparent water effects.

 

 

I wish someone with the knowledge could expound upon what limits the size of a DCS "map".

--Is it the coordinate system used in DCS? Or is that not an issue?

--Is it the memory required to depict the terrain and features?

--Wouldn't a stretch of 500km x 500km open, deep blue Pacific...no land or shoals or rises or sea mounts...in excess of 2 km depth. So say a simulated flat bottom at 300m depth. Wouldn't that essentially be zero memory?

--All depths beyond about 40m would be essentially black and so the sea color would be the same. Surely wouldn't see the bottom from any depth. WWII submarines could only go to about 550' or about 170m, I believe. I suppose modern subs might go to no more than 300m, if that.

 

The Falkland Islands appear to sit on the South American continental shelf, so about 200-300m depth, at most, as far as I can tell by maps I can find. It's not the deep. But since this is primarily a flight simulator, do 99.9% of us care how deep the ocean is where it is deeper than 20 or 30m? Now, if we are going to be able to command submarines and conduct anti-submarine warfare from the surface and air...then bottom contour might be important. But it doesn't have to be very highly detailed all over, even at that. And while flying, does bottom contour even need to be rendered?

 

I'd sure like to know more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just from a logical standpoint if a big tile could be defined which would included Mount Pleasant AB and the area surrounding it which had post '82 buildings. Then you could use the definition of this tile as the basis for pre- and post-82. Both would have the exact same landscape edges, so one or the other could be dropped in seamlessly without issue, and the devs could put on whatever they wished each tile; the pre- having maybe just a road and a sheep pen or whatever, with post- have the airfield and it's buildings. This would prevent having to have two complete maps to install, but I don't think ED has the technology to do something like this at this time, nor if they are working on or planning to work on this or something similar.

 

I wrote in some thread earlier that I wished for a big static object, just ground textured with grass or whatever was there before Mount Pleasant AB was built that could be put on the place in the ME. It could be done so that if you put the center of the object at exactly these and these coordinates and with rotation 000 it gets oriented as it should. Or actually, just provide a static template for it that you just load in the ME so it pops in. The mission designer should also remove static objects and trees at the location with a trigger at mission start in the ME.

 

I saw somewhere a user made big piece of terrain, made as a gigantic static object, so this has already been made. Surely this would work in a much smaller space as over just one airbase. I would not mind if the ground elevation in the ME would differ some feet due to the static object being a little higher to cover the actual topography of the base on the real map. The ATC would still function in DCS, I would not mind that either, just dont contact them if your flying in 1982. You would also be able to spawn aircraft there, perhaps they would blow up at mission start or end up on top of the static object piece of terrain. Thats no problem either, just dont do it. If an argument is made that people could use this to cheat in multiplayer or something, i dont think its fair that that should affect all singleplayers who just want do fly historic missions.

 

This could be included in the asset pack which from what I understand is 1982-oriented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Falklands map would be great, as you have it, with that span from mainland Argentina to the "Falkland" Islands. But try to make sure there is ample open ocean space around the Islands...like a 250 nm radius around the islands. (I really don't see how stark, flat-bottomed at 300m, open ocean can cost file size significantly. "Ocean isn't free?")

 

I will buy this map, for sure. But I wish there would be an array of appropriate modules to go with it. Hence...

 

I think this map would make for a lot of awesome air-sea-land battles using 1960's-70's "Cold War" hardware. For Example:

 

Falklands Conflict of 1982:

 

UK:

 

In addition to the two carriers that were historically present, I like this hypothetical idea: What if the last 3 British CATOBAR carriers were still in service in 1982? Never mind the financial/political arguments against, just what if?

In other words, we don't stick strictly to history, but bend it a little...realistically.

 

CATOBAR carriers:

HMS Victorious R38 - Sea Vixens - 35,500 tons, 778 ft, 30.5 knots (not sure of displacement tonnage)

HMS Eagle (R05) - Phantom IIs - 55,000 tons, 804 ft, 31 knots

HMS Ark Royal (R09) - Phantom IIs - 54,000 tons, 804 ft, 31 knots

 

Phantom FG1 (F-4K)

Buccaneer S2

Sea Vixen FAW2

Gannet AEW3 (AI)

Gannet COD4 (AI)

Wessex HAS.1 & HAS.3 (AI) (until it could be made a flyable module)

 

V/STOL carriers:

 

HMS Hermes (R12) - 28,000 tons, 744 ft, 28 knots

Sea Harrier FRS1

Harrier GR3 (AV-8B N/A's could probably be substituted--but if making the FRS1, I think that makes the basis for the GR3.)

Sea King HAS5 & HC4

 

HMS Invincible (R05) - 22,000 tons, 689 ft, 28 knots

(maybe renumbered R13, because Eagle would still have R05?)

Sea Harrier FRS1

Sea King

 

...and the various UK escort destroyers and frigates and task force ships.

 

Hypothetical Addition:

US assistance with...

 

USS Coral Sea (CV-43) - 67,000 tons, 973 ft, 33 knots

F-4B/N

A-7E - already being made a module

A-6E

KA-6D (AI) - but when an A-6E module is made, this needs to be an included variant as a tanker.

EKA-3B (AI) - Tanker

E-2B (AI)

SH-3 Sea King

...and an accompanying escort group of Spruance-class, Perry-class and Leahy-class ships?

 

 

Argentina:

 

Aircraft:

A-4B/Q & A-4C Skyhawks -- could modify the A-4E-C -- mainly the different engine, J65

IAI Dagger & Mirage IIIEA

MB.339 - already being made a module

Super Etendard (and why not add Etendard IV)

S-2E Tracker (AI)

SP-2H Neptune (AI)

 

ex-HMS Venerable (R63) - Veinticinco de Mayo - 14,700 tons, 695 ft, 25 knots (is that tonnage right? Seems like it should be more like 20,000 tons)

 

Hypothetical:

 

What if these Essex-class carriers were not scrapped but sold to Argentina in the 70's, along with these aircraft? Never mind the prohibitive expense and politics, just what if? I mean, I think it's plausible enough.

 

ex-USS Hancock and ex-USS Ticonderoga - 36,000 tons, 888 feet, 33 knots...with these aircraft...

-- F-8J Crusader -- already being made a module

-- A-4Q Skyhawk -- modify A-4E-C, or just use it as an A-4E. Could A-4Q's be made as AI Tankers?

-- S-2E Tracker -- AI

-- E-1 Tracer -- AI

-- H-3 Sea King -- AI (until it can be made a module)

-- KA-3B Skywarrior -- AI (until it can be made a module) - Tankers

-- A-7E Corsair II -- already being made a module

-- A-1J Skyraider -- AI (until it can be made a module)

-- as well, or alternatively, Super Etendards/Etendard IV's should be able to be used.

 

And what if some of these escort ships were sold to Argentina? The guided missile cruisers might never have been sold to any country, but what if Argentina had some of them...or a lot of them? And then having fairly modern anti-submarine destroyers, helicopters and the S-2 Trackers, might they not have been able to operate a substantial carrier battle group out to sea? Which is why I then supposed some hypothetical US assistance to the British with the Coral Sea battle group. Of course, anyone could use a Supercarrier to assist either side, but that might tip the balance too far one way or the other.

 

ex-US Forrest Sherman class destroyer, modified as guided missile DDG (Tartar missile)

ex-US Gearing-class, FRAM I, destroyer

ex-US Allen M Sumner-class, FRAM II, destroyer

ex-US Boston-class guided missile heavy cruiser - Terrier and 6 8-inch guns

ex-US Galveston-class guided missile light cruiser - Talos and 6 or 3 6-inch guns

ex-US Providence-class guided missile light cruiser - Terrier and 6 or 3 6-inch guns

ex-US Albany-class guided missile cruiser - Talos and Tartar, ASROC, 2 5-inch guns

 

With all of these aircraft modules...and ships...some of which are already in works...wouldn't this make the Falklands map quite interesting? Provided the DCS AI can receive a major overhaul. Could probably set up "Argentina" with some land-based Su-17's and MiG-23's, too? This whole idea requires quite a number of ships to be made...someone must have fun doing that, right? And it requires about 8 or 9 major aircraft modules. I think the end result would be quite worth it, though, for some "Cold War Era" battles. There just has to be some way to increase the rate of production of these aircraft modules for DCS! We can't wait until 2028 for this all to come to be. :)

 

And all of these modules would fit right in with use in a Vietnam map, as well. And in the Marianna's map, too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Raz_Specter changed the title to FALKLANDS MAPhttps://forums.eagle.ru/topic/230167-falklands-map-updates/?do=getNewComment UPDATES
On 11/25/2020 at 7:11 PM, Andrew8604 said:

This Falklands map would be great, as you have it, with that span from mainland Argentina to the "Falkland" Islands. But try to make sure there is ample open ocean space around the Islands...like a 250 nm radius around the islands. (I really don't see how stark, flat-bottomed at 300m, open ocean can cost file size significantly. "Ocean isn't free?")

 

I will buy this map, for sure. But I wish there would be an array of appropriate modules to go with it. Hence...

 

I think this map would make for a lot of awesome air-sea-land battles using 1960's-70's "Cold War" hardware. For Example:

 

Falklands Conflict of 1982:

 

UK:

 

In addition to the two carriers that were historically present, I like this hypothetical idea: What if the last 3 British CATOBAR carriers were still in service in 1982? Never mind the financial/political arguments against, just what if?

In other words, we don't stick strictly to history, but bend it a little...realistically.

 

CATOBAR carriers:

HMS Victorious R38 - Sea Vixens - 35,500 tons, 778 ft, 30.5 knots (not sure of displacement tonnage)

HMS Eagle (R05) - Phantom IIs - 55,000 tons, 804 ft, 31 knots

HMS Ark Royal (R09) - Phantom IIs - 54,000 tons, 804 ft, 31 knots

 

Phantom FG1 (F-4K)

Buccaneer S2

Sea Vixen FAW2

Gannet AEW3 (AI)

Gannet COD4 (AI)

Wessex HAS.1 & HAS.3 (AI) (until it could be made a flyable module)

 

V/STOL carriers:

 

HMS Hermes (R12) - 28,000 tons, 744 ft, 28 knots

Sea Harrier FRS1

Harrier GR3 (AV-8B N/A's could probably be substituted--but if making the FRS1, I think that makes the basis for the GR3.)

Sea King HAS5 & HC4

 

HMS Invincible (R05) - 22,000 tons, 689 ft, 28 knots

(maybe renumbered R13, because Eagle would still have R05?)

Sea Harrier FRS1

Sea King

 

...and the various UK escort destroyers and frigates and task force ships.

 

Hypothetical Addition:

US assistance with...

 

USS Coral Sea (CV-43) - 67,000 tons, 973 ft, 33 knots

F-4B/N

A-7E - already being made a module

A-6E

KA-6D (AI) - but when an A-6E module is made, this needs to be an included variant as a tanker.

EKA-3B (AI) - Tanker

E-2B (AI)

SH-3 Sea King

...and an accompanying escort group of Spruance-class, Perry-class and Leahy-class ships?

 

 

Argentina:

 

Aircraft:

A-4B/Q & A-4C Skyhawks -- could modify the A-4E-C -- mainly the different engine, J65

IAI Dagger & Mirage IIIEA

MB.339 - already being made a module

Super Etendard (and why not add Etendard IV)

S-2E Tracker (AI)

SP-2H Neptune (AI)

 

ex-HMS Venerable (R63) - Veinticinco de Mayo - 14,700 tons, 695 ft, 25 knots (is that tonnage right? Seems like it should be more like 20,000 tons)

 

Hypothetical:

 

What if these Essex-class carriers were not scrapped but sold to Argentina in the 70's, along with these aircraft? Never mind the prohibitive expense and politics, just what if? I mean, I think it's plausible enough.

 

ex-USS Hancock and ex-USS Ticonderoga - 36,000 tons, 888 feet, 33 knots...with these aircraft...

-- F-8J Crusader -- already being made a module

-- A-4Q Skyhawk -- modify A-4E-C, or just use it as an A-4E. Could A-4Q's be made as AI Tankers?

-- S-2E Tracker -- AI

-- E-1 Tracer -- AI

-- H-3 Sea King -- AI (until it can be made a module)

-- KA-3B Skywarrior -- AI (until it can be made a module) - Tankers

-- A-7E Corsair II -- already being made a module

-- A-1J Skyraider -- AI (until it can be made a module)

-- as well, or alternatively, Super Etendards/Etendard IV's should be able to be used.

 

And what if some of these escort ships were sold to Argentina? The guided missile cruisers might never have been sold to any country, but what if Argentina had some of them...or a lot of them? And then having fairly modern anti-submarine destroyers, helicopters and the S-2 Trackers, might they not have been able to operate a substantial carrier battle group out to sea? Which is why I then supposed some hypothetical US assistance to the British with the Coral Sea battle group. Of course, anyone could use a Supercarrier to assist either side, but that might tip the balance too far one way or the other.

 

ex-US Forrest Sherman class destroyer, modified as guided missile DDG (Tartar missile)

ex-US Gearing-class, FRAM I, destroyer

ex-US Allen M Sumner-class, FRAM II, destroyer

ex-US Boston-class guided missile heavy cruiser - Terrier and 6 8-inch guns

ex-US Galveston-class guided missile light cruiser - Talos and 6 or 3 6-inch guns

ex-US Providence-class guided missile light cruiser - Terrier and 6 or 3 6-inch guns

ex-US Albany-class guided missile cruiser - Talos and Tartar, ASROC, 2 5-inch guns

 

With all of these aircraft modules...and ships...some of which are already in works...wouldn't this make the Falklands map quite interesting? Provided the DCS AI can receive a major overhaul. Could probably set up "Argentina" with some land-based Su-17's and MiG-23's, too? This whole idea requires quite a number of ships to be made...someone must have fun doing that, right? And it requires about 8 or 9 major aircraft modules. I think the end result would be quite worth it, though, for some "Cold War Era" battles. There just has to be some way to increase the rate of production of these aircraft modules for DCS! We can't wait until 2028 for this all to come to be. :)

 

And all of these modules would fit right in with use in a Vietnam map, as well. And in the Marianna's map, too.

 

Totally agree, I have tried a few times to extend the map but am getting errors with the Elevation spatial generation.  Ill give it another crack and see if I can get more real-estate :)

 

Custom built W10 Pro 64Bit, Intel Core i9 9900k, Asus ROG Maximus Code XI Z390, 64GB DDR4 3200 RGB, Samsung 1TB NVme M.2 Drive, Gigabyte AORUS 2080TI, 40" Iiyama Display. Wacom Cintiq Pro 24, HOTAS Virpil T50 Stick / FA-18C TM Stick and Virpil T50 Throttle, MFG Crosswind Graphite Pedals. HP Reverb

 

SPECTER



[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Lead Terrain Developer / Texture Artist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2020 at 10:54 AM, Fisherman82 said:

 

I wrote in some thread earlier that I wished for a big static object, just ground textured with grass or whatever was there before Mount Pleasant AB was built that could be put on the place in the ME. It could be done so that if you put the center of the object at exactly these and these coordinates and with rotation 000 it gets oriented as it should. Or actually, just provide a static template for it that you just load in the ME so it pops in. The mission designer should also remove static objects and trees at the location with a trigger at mission start in the ME.

 

I saw somewhere a user made big piece of terrain, made as a gigantic static object, so this has already been made. Surely this would work in a much smaller space as over just one airbase. I would not mind if the ground elevation in the ME would differ some feet due to the static object being a little higher to cover the actual topography of the base on the real map. The ATC would still function in DCS, I would not mind that either, just dont contact them if your flying in 1982. You would also be able to spawn aircraft there, perhaps they would blow up at mission start or end up on top of the static object piece of terrain. Thats no problem either, just dont do it. If an argument is made that people could use this to cheat in multiplayer or something, i dont think its fair that that should affect all singleplayers who just want do fly historic missions.

 

This could be included in the asset pack which from what I understand is 1982-oriented.

you could do this, although it wouldn't look very nice.  1982 buildings lol, in 1982 there was next to nothing in the rural areas

 

I still think the best option would be to have 2 maps, one without MPA and one with.  This will allow people to choose which one they use.  Although this will come after the release of the map to be honest as I dont have much time to spend on that atm.

  • Like 1

Custom built W10 Pro 64Bit, Intel Core i9 9900k, Asus ROG Maximus Code XI Z390, 64GB DDR4 3200 RGB, Samsung 1TB NVme M.2 Drive, Gigabyte AORUS 2080TI, 40" Iiyama Display. Wacom Cintiq Pro 24, HOTAS Virpil T50 Stick / FA-18C TM Stick and Virpil T50 Throttle, MFG Crosswind Graphite Pedals. HP Reverb

 

SPECTER



[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Lead Terrain Developer / Texture Artist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Raz_Specter said:

you could do this, although it wouldn't look very nice.  1982 buildings lol, in 1982 there was next to nothing in the rural areas

 

I still think the best option would be to have 2 maps, one without MPA and one with.  This will allow people to choose which one they use.  Although this will come after the release of the map to be honest as I dont have much time to spend on that atm.

 

How about this:

 

On 11/25/2020 at 2:13 PM, Minsky said:

Post from a few weeks ago, but I haven't seen it mentioned here:

 

According to Chizh, ED is working on a technology that will allow users to select different time periods for a map. This will allow to remove (or add) some objects (like aerodromes) that weren't there in a chosen period.

 

  • Like 1

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + 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 comment
Share on other sites

This is, obviously, an excellent idea from ED.

 

The "problem" from my point of view is the fact that the team is working on it and we have no timeline for this new technology. We know how slow they can be regarding major upgrades to their engine, it could be a few years away or a decade away ; we don't even know if the maps we actually have will be compatible with this new tech.

 

Razbam is probably right about going for a single map right now. I'm not sure it's a viable choice to wait for this new tech in development.

3rd Wing | 55th Black Alligators * BA-33

Εις ανηρ ουδεις ανηρ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2020 at 9:02 AM, QuiGon said:

 

How about this:

 

 

yep that was a feature request i put in about 1 year ago 🙂 good to know 🙂

  • Like 1

Custom built W10 Pro 64Bit, Intel Core i9 9900k, Asus ROG Maximus Code XI Z390, 64GB DDR4 3200 RGB, Samsung 1TB NVme M.2 Drive, Gigabyte AORUS 2080TI, 40" Iiyama Display. Wacom Cintiq Pro 24, HOTAS Virpil T50 Stick / FA-18C TM Stick and Virpil T50 Throttle, MFG Crosswind Graphite Pedals. HP Reverb

 

SPECTER



[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Lead Terrain Developer / Texture Artist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, МаксиM said:

wait wait, are you the one making the map?

Yeah, he is. That's why his profile says "3rd Party Dev" and his signature says "Lead Terrain Developer" 😉

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + 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 comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2020 at 3:12 AM, Raz_Specter said:

 

Totally agree, I have tried a few times to extend the map but am getting errors with the Elevation spatial generation.  Ill give it another crack and see if I can get more real-estate 🙂

 

I wish I understood what this meant. 🤓  I really, really, appreciate your reply AND your maximum effort!!  Whatever "Elevation spatial generation" means, it must be a limiting factor in map size?  You mean it's not possible to create a map of nothing but sea water, with a flat bottom deeper than 500 feet, to an extent of 1,000 x 1,000 nautical miles?  No land, just ocean...what is the maximum dimensions?  How does curvature of the Earth fit in...or does it?  Is it a "flat world" in DCS?  Is there an x, y, z coordinate system in DCS?  Does it translate this to lat-long for matching to real world charts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argentina navy buy the the Super Etendard to replace the a4 squadron do to age of the a4 and cracked frames, the total buy was around 15 SE and 30 or more Exocets to be delivered that year,  I can provide details numbers and dates if interested since that will be a nice scenario, also have details of the camberra chaff implementation, the use of h130 radar to search for the fleet, the use of thermal cameras (first use on a war) to detect argentine position and laser bombs usage by the British. (all well documented)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The actual "Malvinas/Falklands" map does not have any sense since Argentine Armed Forces don't have any modern combat plane, the Air Force just have a few A-4AR (no more five or six, armed with AIM-9L and dumb bombs) and the Navy right now don't have anything except a few inoperative SUE/SEM; and this two models of aircraft not exist on the DCS world. Besides, these aircraft can do absolutely nothing against the EF-2000 Thypoon based on the islands.

 

It would be different if they first published a version of the map from 1982, and include at least two Argentine aircraft models (IA-58 and MB-339 on the way) and later some Mirage III and / or A-4 Skyhawk.


Edited by SkorpioN1606689188

AD ASTRA PER ASPERA

DCS: Flaming Cliffs 3 - DCS: Yak-52 - DCS: M-2000C - DCS: A-10C II Tank Killer - DCS: F/A-18C Hornet - DCS: AV-8B Night Attack V/STOL - DCS: Supercarrier -

DCS: Mi-24P Hind - DCS: AH-64D Apache - DCS: Syria - DCS: Persian Gulf - DCS: Caucasus - DCS: Marianas

Wishlist #1: Ground crew, vehicles and support equipment on busy Air Base platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SkorpioN1606689188 said:

It would be different if they first published a version of the map from 1982

That's actually their plan, to release two versions of the map. A modern one (with Mount Pleasant airbase) and an old one (without the airbase).

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + 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 comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2020 at 11:15 AM, Raz_Specter said:

you could do this, although it wouldn't look very nice.  1982 buildings lol, in 1982 there was next to nothing in the rural areas

 

I still think the best option would be to have 2 maps, one without MPA and one with.  This will allow people to choose which one they use.  Although this will come after the release of the map to be honest as I dont have much time to spend on that atm.

The notion that trees might be there to be removed is funny.  The only ones I saw were in the grounds of buildings.

In 1982 I was flown past what is now RAF Mount Pleasant, It was just a farm then, although I didn't see any buildings myself. The  aircrew pointed out the semi flat area of heath, surrounded by what looked like bogs and lakes, & said that is where they were planning to build a base. There were no roads, except at Port Stanley, just the odd muddy farm track around settlements. 

 

But there you go, they now have roads and a big RAF base in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by nothing but gorse bushes, tussock grass and rocks., but trees? I don't think they will be an issue. 😉

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2020 at 10:18 PM, QuiGon said:

That's actually their plan, to release two versions of the map. A modern one (with Mount Pleasant airbase) and an old one (without the airbase).

Yes, I have read about it, but I understand that the first to be published will be the current version, leaving the 1982 version for later, maybe years later ..

AD ASTRA PER ASPERA

DCS: Flaming Cliffs 3 - DCS: Yak-52 - DCS: M-2000C - DCS: A-10C II Tank Killer - DCS: F/A-18C Hornet - DCS: AV-8B Night Attack V/STOL - DCS: Supercarrier -

DCS: Mi-24P Hind - DCS: AH-64D Apache - DCS: Syria - DCS: Persian Gulf - DCS: Caucasus - DCS: Marianas

Wishlist #1: Ground crew, vehicles and support equipment on busy Air Base platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SkorpioN1606689188 said:

Yes, I have read about it, but I understand that the first to be published will be the current version, leaving the 1982 version for later, maybe years later ..

They just need to remove the Mount Pleasent Air Base for the 1982 version. That should go rather quickly.

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + 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 comment
Share on other sites

  • BIGNEWY changed the title to FALKLANDS MAP https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/230167-falklands-map-updates/?do=getNewComment UPDATES
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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