I think this is the proper move. I enjoy NTTR but am more interested in let’s say a 1950s Korea map for our Korean War Planes modules and something like the Syrian, Lebanon area or South China Sea.
Have to agree. The nttr is a nice map, bur I rather prefer a map that has been the center of some war.
However what I would wholeheartedly prefer and be prepared to pay for, is larger maps. Perhaps extensions to caucuses and PG maps. I think dcs is evolving to the point where larger maps are required
As one who has spent many a cold, cold, cold…really freaking cold, winter day at NAS Fallon (I was never there in the summer), I for one applaud the decision not to include NAS Fallon and its ranges in the NTTR map. It would most assuredly sparked traumatic flash backs for me.
(I could’n find a frozen-to-death Navy Intelligence emoji…If I had, it would have gone here)
It would be worth it for the chance to fly the approach into KSAN alone…
I mean, adding North Island, Montgomery Field, Brown Field, and San Clemente Island as well would just be the icing on the cake.
Ok, now I’m getting really excited by this idea. Start at NASNI, watch your carrier leave the pier there, hit the turning basin, clear the harbor and sail out past Point Loma, fly out and meet her off the channel islands. WAY easier to recreate than NAS Oceana/ VACAPES, as there’s less dry land in between the harbor and the open ocean.
I think that to understand the map selection we have to also think how development went in time.
When DCS started and the A10 was announced having a comprehensive map of Nevada was the “new cool”.
Fighter Ops was supposed to have it, Falcon 3.0 had it… Announcing the Warthog without a map would have looked bad.
Or better, releasing the 'Hawg with Nevada just made sense - also as a way to explain the (back in the day) relatively high price.
All in all it made sense, it’s just that it took a lot of time to reach a releasable state.
Which is also explainable - ED was creating the tech from the ground up.
Or almost.
I get it, I do. I’m not really complaining, just wishing out loud.
I recall the initial NTTR release. Didn’t run very well for me at all. I didn’t touch DCS for a long time afterwards for that. I thought Iraq would’ve been on the short list then.
And as for the “Training Map(s)” comment, not just by WAGS, from others…I scratch my head here, for a couple of reasons:
It’s a simulation - game. You can pretend to do anything on any map, even ‘train’ on it.
The entire SW USA has a long history of military aviation and has been used by many countries in the last, oh, 50+ years, re; NTTR updating, Fallon, Sidewinder Canyon, Edwards, Yuma, White Sands (which is nearly as big as the NTTR - the Army owns the low ground, think choppers, the USAF the high ground).
And I enjoy ‘training’, for various reasons - there’s really not a diff. in a game, except perhaps in my imagination.
I get why they don’t have the resources for a new/improved NTTR themselves - I’d really like to see this one opened up for the users to improve it. Not sure that’s in ED’s playbook for reasons that escape me too.
I’d want everyone adding to my product to increase the appeal - number of users. Has worked for X-Plane and MSFT FS for decades, one VERY large outfit and one very small. X-Plane Ortho download thingy seemed ok on the global terrain front.
Anyway…I still enjoy most of it very much, esp. in VR.
I love that we have the map, and I don’t regret spending money on it.
That said, I’d probably never recommend any of my friends who are asking about what they absolutely need to get online and enjoy the sim to buy it. Particularly if you want WWII servers, there’s just too much other stuff you need to spend money on…
To be fair…We need to remember ED has a Professional side to their Business and The A-10C was Developed for The U.S. ANG first and Foremost;We were The beneficiary’s of this as a decision was made to release it to The Flight Simulation Market…I’m not certain…but maybe NTTR was a bonus of This Professional Product as well?
