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

[vision45]

On 9/25/2020 at 10:12 PM, randomTOTEN said:

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?

I operate in and out of the NTTR in real world. I don't think anyone that has good knowledge of the area, thinks that the map is bad, but they can see that there is more room to invite more users to the NTTR map. Almost daily we work side by side with the US Navy out of NAS Fallon. Yes, this is a complete map to a degree, but the Air Force is on a kick right now for total force integration both with the Air Force as a whole, and US air assets DoD wide. So to incorporate both Naval and Air Force services to one map to test and train as you said would only make this map that much better. You brought up Red Flag, testing, and training for this map which is in the name, NTTR. So break it down and then you can understand why DCS pilots want more.

Red Flag- Training that encompasses both US and NATO countries. (WA Aggressor paints and tail flash)

Testing- HQ for the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron (OT tail flash)

Training- Home of the US Air Forces Weapon School, used to be Fighter Weapon School prior to Total Force Integration (WA tail flash)

Perfection- Home of the United States Air Force Thunderbirds Air Demonstration Team

 

With the NTTR uses pointed out, why not add the airports that are already in the graphics that you can make out at high altitudes, like China Lake and NAS Fallon. NAS Fallon is the home of the world famous Top Gun School house. NAS Lemoore is the home of "B Course" school house for the Hornet, (Yes, Super Hornet I know), but still an important base. With the DCS Hornet and Tomcat having such a large following, it would only but make sense to have some Navy bases in the map since there is no place to put a carrier. Also, what a lot of people don't know is planes don't always takeoff from Nellis AFB to conduct a training mission in the NTTR.

 

So with all this said, I would strongly agree that the NTTR Map should be updated with further airfields, Military and civilian: NAS Fallon, NAS Lemoore, Edwards AFB, China Lake, Kingman Airport, and St. George Airports.

[randomTOTEN]

Vision I think you make a good case. Yeah that could be a nice expansion... I would be even fine with Lemoore being a highly detailed airfield surrounded by a couple miles of nice scenery, then the most basic mesh and textures to transit to NTTR and back. If that's really such a frequent thing that's done. Yeah including NFL and China Lake would be nice expansions if they really are used that much.

Wouldn't that also suggest including their relevant airspace (and ground) as well?

[Andartu]

+1K

 

Take my money!

 

Seriously, make it a 10 bugs add on like with the Hog if you own it already and a lot would be happy to buy it. And yes this would take development time for sure but on the other hand it would not be that intense like the A-10C II add on. Buildings, functioning run- and taxiways plus parking spots.

 

As the most here know NAS Fallon is the home of Top Gun. I mean really c´mon.. how could it be that the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School is not part of the map?!

 

Also NAS Lemoore is the home of FIVE carrier air wings! 

 

Also I think nobody would expect a Syria map level of quality and detail on this. Just on par with the existing map would be totally fine.

[Chipensaw]

On 12/13/2020 at 2:39 PM, vision45 said:

I operate in and out of the NTTR in real world. I don't think anyone that has good knowledge of the area, thinks that the map is bad, but they can see that there is more room to invite more users to the NTTR map. Almost daily we work side by side with the US Navy out of NAS Fallon. Yes, this is a complete map to a degree, but the Air Force is on a kick right now for total force integration both with the Air Force as a whole, and US air assets DoD wide. So to incorporate both Naval and Air Force services to one map to test and train as you said would only make this map that much better. You brought up Red Flag, testing, and training for this map which is in the name, NTTR. So break it down and then you can understand why DCS pilots want more.

Red Flag- Training that encompasses both US and NATO countries. (WA Aggressor paints and tail flash)

Testing- HQ for the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron (OT tail flash)

Training- Home of the US Air Forces Weapon School, used to be Fighter Weapon School prior to Total Force Integration (WA tail flash)

Perfection- Home of the United States Air Force Thunderbirds Air Demonstration Team

 

With the NTTR uses pointed out, why not add the airports that are already in the graphics that you can make out at high altitudes, like China Lake and NAS Fallon. NAS Fallon is the home of the world famous Top Gun School house. NAS Lemoore is the home of "B Course" school house for the Hornet, (Yes, Super Hornet I know), but still an important base. With the DCS Hornet and Tomcat having such a large following, it would only but make sense to have some Navy bases in the map since there is no place to put a carrier. Also, what a lot of people don't know is planes don't always takeoff from Nellis AFB to conduct a training mission in the NTTR.

 

So with all this said, I would strongly agree that the NTTR Map should be updated with further airfields, Military and civilian: NAS Fallon, NAS Lemoore, Edwards AFB, China Lake, Kingman Airport, and St. George Airports.

 

+1 for what vision45 says.  Here is a user with real world experience justifying additions to NTTR.  @BIGNEWY @NineLine please consider expanding NTTR.  I would gladly pay for an upgrade.

 

Thank you!

Edited January 9, 2021 by Chipensaw

[RaisedByWolves]

Id pay too. I think alot of folks would.

[Rongor]

What about Vandenberg? The left edge of the map looks like it would just fit.

[OnionSpider13]

I support this (if for no other reason) in order to get more of the Sierra Nevada modeled 

Edited January 19, 2021 by OnionSpider13

[G.J.S]

Why not just add Hawaii? Seriously - it’s called NTTR as that is the main cantered area. If we keep asking for areas further and further out, kinda defeats the object. Where would the limit be? Let’s say they give in and add Vandenburg AFB, guaranteed there will be someone who says that the map still isn’t big enough, and could they add maybe Klamath Falls so they can commute from the other direction.
Where would it stop?

For those that wish to commute large distances to the NTTR, there are several civilian sims that can give you the whole world.

If you wish to emulate a flag, then there is Nellis - in the NTTR.

[Minsky]

3 hours ago, garyscott said:

Where would it stop?

...

If you wish to emulate a flag, then there is Nellis - in the NTTR.

 

I suggest you to read vision45' post just above. Nobody (in their sane mind) is asking for both Californias, UT, AZ and whatnot, despite the fact that Nevada is the smallest and oldest payware terrain in DCS (priced equally to the much larger and newer PG & Syria). We can have Fallon and China Lake without even expanding the map. And Luke, Lemoore and Edwards with just a slight expansion. What we have instead are miles and miles of empty space, and a whole lot of wasted opportunities.

 

Multiple other DCS modules got their quality of life updates (either free or fairly priced). Why can't we do the same thing for maps?

[G.J.S]

4 hours ago, Minsky said:

 

I suggest you to read vision45' post just above. Nobody (in their sane mind) is asking for both Californias, UT, AZ and whatnot, despite the fact that Nevada is the smallest and oldest payware terrain in DCS (priced equally to the much larger and newer PG & Syria). We can have Fallon and China Lake without even expanding the map. And Luke, Lemoore and Edwards with just a slight expansion. What we have instead are miles and miles of empty space, and a whole lot of wasted opportunities.

 

Multiple other DCS modules got their quality of life updates (either free or fairly priced). Why can't we do the same thing for maps?

Would you, and others, truly be happy with maybe a low detail rendition of the bases you state, with no terrain change between there and NTTR, or conversely a higher detail (but still lacking) airbase and lightly populated (dressed up) terrain between there and NTTR? I guarantee you would not - there would be cries of not enough detail (never mind it’s OUT of the area of the map) in the base renditions, or not enough terrain detail ‘out there’. Again, what pleases one will annoy another, so where would it stop? Just how far should it go?

It still won’t happen. 
Unless as a private mod you can extend the terrain to your hearts content.

[Minsky]

6 hours ago, garyscott said:

Would you, and others, truly be happy with maybe a low detail rendition of the bases you state, with no terrain change between there and NTTR, or conversely a higher detail (but still lacking) airbase and lightly populated (dressed up) terrain between there and NTTR? I guarantee you would not - there would be cries of not enough detail (never mind it’s OUT of the area of the map) in the base renditions, or not enough terrain detail ‘out there’. Again, what pleases one will annoy another, so where would it stop? Just how far should it go?

It still won’t happen. 

 

The current NTTR is not the prettiest thing in the world. It's not up-to-date and not 100% accurate. And yet it's one of my favorite maps.

 

Why must it be low-res this or lightly populated that? Can't speak for others, but I will be quite happy with an expanded version of the same quality. Expanded in the terms of content - not necessarily the scale. It's not about outmatching the Syrian map. It's about fully realizing the potential of the existing area.

 

On a second thought, forget it. The NTTR terrain is quite old, and will probably require ED to upgrade it to their "new mapping technology" or whatever, before adding anything meaningful to it. And then they will be forced to either recreate an outdated versions of Fallon and China Lake, or fix the numerous inaccuracies in the current scenery. Unlike the "several civilian sims" you mentioned, ED can't just slap a couple new airfields over the existing DCS terrain and call it a day.

 

So yeah, while this task is doable and not overly complex, it goes well beyond the free update. And we don't need a paid one, not for the terrains.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Minsky

[REDEYE_CVW-66]

..and maybe get around to fixing the night lighting..

[Andartu]

On 1/19/2021 at 10:13 PM, garyscott said:

Why not just add Hawaii? Seriously - it’s called NTTR as that is the main cantered area. If we keep asking for areas further and further out, kinda defeats the object. Where would the limit be? Let’s say they give in and add Vandenburg AFB, guaranteed there will be someone who says that the map still isn’t big enough, and could they add maybe Klamath Falls so they can commute from the other direction.
Where would it stop?

For those that wish to commute large distances to the NTTR, there are several civilian sims that can give you the whole world.

If you wish to emulate a flag, then there is Nellis - in the NTTR.

 

Whataboutism at its finest  Every single word if this is nonsense and adds nothing to this.

 

On 1/20/2021 at 7:05 AM, garyscott said:

Would you, and others, truly be happy with maybe a low detail rendition of the bases you state, with no terrain change between there and NTTR, or conversely a higher detail (but still lacking) airbase and lightly populated (dressed up) terrain between there and NTTR? I guarantee you would not - there would be cries of not enough detail (never mind it’s OUT of the area of the map) in the base renditions, or not enough terrain detail ‘out there’. Again, what pleases one will annoy another, so where would it stop? Just how far should it go?

It still won’t happen. 
Unless as a private mod you can extend the terrain to your hearts content.

 

I will never get why some fight so hard for not getting nice stuff. There are enough nay sayers to everything, thank you. 

 

To make it a payed add-on is the best way. There are definitely a lot who would love to pay for more airfields on the Nevada map. If you don´t want, then don´t buy it. Simple.

[Minsky]

3 hours ago, Andartu said:

To make it a payed add-on is the best way. There are definitely a lot who would love to pay for more airfields on the Nevada map. If you don´t want, then don´t buy it. Simple.

 

I strongly disagree. We don't need to further segment the DCS audience and limit the content creators by making niche maps even more niche. And making these new areas and airfields visible or landable only to those who bought the expansion (like they did with the Supercarrier) would be just plain ridiculous.

 

The expanded and properly upgraded NTTR could attract a lot of new customers. Will probably be enough for ED to offset their costs, even without increasing the base price (which is also an option, by the way).

 

I don't mind supporting the devs by buying new things. But when it comes to payware expansions, I'm firmly against the fragmentation and complexification they bring. What's good for other games with tens of millions of players is not necessarily good for a niche simulator.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Minsky

[Widsy0]

I also would like to see China Lake and Fallon be added as usable airfields. They are already on the map, they only have to fill in the blanks  ED is spending a lot of time on the Marianas Islands map (free). Perhaps with some community tooling we could complete them ourselves

[JagHond]

Il 17/1/2021 at 04:27, RaisedByWolves ha scritto:

Id pay too. I think alot of folks would.

 

You can bet it well. Please count me in.

 

With best regards.

[Smashy]

New DCS player here and I have the PG, Syrian and NTTR maps.  I've spent most of my time with the NTTR map, setting up test/training missions in the ME.  Count me in as someone highly interested in an NTTR paid update.

[VTJS17_Fire]

Big things will happen ...

[resnonverba]

Count me in for a NTTR paid update. I have all other maps and still spent most of the time in Nevada.

[Phantom88]

Maybe we should approach "Ugra Media "3rd party developers about a paid addon project to NTTR?

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all

 

NTTR is feature complete, so no plans to add any new airfields.

 

We are going to be addressing the lighting issues as soon as we get some dev time spare, and any bug fixes as needed continue. 

 

thanks

[FoxOne007]

On 3/27/2021 at 11:52 PM, BIGNEWY said:

Hi all

 

NTTR is feature complete, so no plans to add any new airfields.

 

We are going to be addressing the lighting issues as soon as we get some dev time spare, and any bug fixes as needed continue. 

 

thanks

What about parking that is the wrong way around at Nellis? At the Revampments aircraft should be facing away from the runway towards a sand dune/hill (which isn't present atm) not inwards to a lot of base infrastructure.

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, FoxOne007 said:

What about parking that is the wrong way around at Nellis? At the Revampments aircraft should be facing away from the runway towards a sand dune/hill (which isn't present atm) not inwards to a lot of base infrastructure.

 

is there a forum report somewhere about this I have missed? do you have any references we could look at?

 

thanks

[FoxOne007]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

 

is there a forum report somewhere about this I have missed? do you have any references we could look at?

 

thanks

I don't think a forum post was made about it (or is has been lost among all the other posts) by anyone though it's been discussed a couple times on the ED discord. I've asked Panther to reconfirm this but here's the real life image as proof:

[=Panther=]

7 minutes ago, FoxOne007 said:

I don't think a forum post was made about it (or is has been lost among all the other posts) by anyone though it's been discussed a couple times on the ED discord. I've asked Panther to reconfirm this but here's the real life image as proof:

Correct jets with live munitions face the nose towards the berms.