It was datamine text
The text has nothing to do with maps, it’s for the Fahris.
I also hope for much larger maps. Denmaork Afgnaistan are way to tiny for BR 11 and above.
The map sizes really need to increased. 126x126 is ok for WW2 but Korea to now its to tiny we need minimum 500x500 or 1000x1000 maps. Anti air systems with long range, aam will make the 126 maps unplayble. just think about the range of said wepons and the you have to take off, you shoot in to the enemy airfield on taking off airplanes.
It would open more space for future naval units to be added just think about all the anti air ships and tehre outrages ranges. Finaly fuel managment would also play a role. all you do now is fly in full afterbruner. teh airplanes could get there real speeds added and not be nerfed artifcaly.
We have mach 2 airplanes but you cant fly that even out or use it.
Any new map added to air sim should be at least 128x128 like Afghanistan, Denmark, Sinai, Spain, English Channel, Vietnam.
Few years ago there was one (1) dedicated developer for EC maps at GJ, who regularly contacted community and was directly responding to our feedback and bugs we found. Unfortunately I think he does not work there anymore, therefore all EC maps are in exactly the same shape and form as when he last updated them.
We have another big map (128km) - Israel, with a bit of Syria in North-East corner which is not included in EC rotation. The EC logic would need to be transferred there from other EC maps, however since this map is already 3 years old and EC still hasn’t been applied there, it tells us there is no development resource at Gaijin working on adding this.
A pity.
1 Like
Dover Strait is the only Sim EC map with 86x86cm. There’s also Rocky Canyon with 128x128, all others are then 64x64.
Oh Dover is 86km? I didn’t know, however I think the physical size of this map might be 128x128km and just EC area is limited. Have you noticed, when joining the game, the map on aircraft selection screen zooms in at the beginning of the game from bigger size.
Not sure. Only played Dover a handful of times with the F-84F, never above. And that was long ago…
I’d say anything larger than Dover is ok for say 10.0 to 12.7, anything smaller than it ok for 10.3 and below.
In my opinion, 128x128 is too small for BR from 11.7 and onward. We need now bigger maps in general for those BR. About maps with the current size, I would LOVE to see israel added at the very least, and in general I would love to see the new maps added in these years coming to EC. Like the kachtka map for example, or the one in china with the rocky pillars.
About size:
-everything with fox3 needs bigger maps in general
-164x164 are good for planes between 11.0 and 12.0, with good radars and fox1 but no fox3
-smaller maps are playable and fun with ww2 era stuff and jets that do not feature good radars and advanced missiles
Sure, however bigger maps, like 256x256 means more work, time, money. Will Gaijin be willing to create such a big maps just for sim? I doubt.
Another curious question is: what is the game engine limitation? Are 256km+ maps even possible? What is the biggest map size the game engine can support with good multiplayer performance?
I don’t like idea of any big map just being added to E. Those have to be real life locations and not some fantasy crap they serve to AB/RB.
I think there is a huge Norway Fiords old map there right? The only issue is the west bit of it is just water so no option for realistic scenarios. Maybe the map should be altered to include bits of Scotland on the west part of map, artificially reducing distance over sea, but at least allowing British Lancasters to bomb Tirpitz in the fiords?
I dont care too much about maps being 1 to 1 realistic representations of places, it s ok for me if they look generally like the location they’re trying to represent. Realism is not important on this, as long as we dont get sci fi stuff with flying islands, and also, who is able to tell if a place is real or not? Let s say they come out with a new alpine valley map, are you really going on google earth to check if every mountain and every village actually exists and is placed exactly where it should be? Imho this is not important at all, as long as the map looks realistic and is pretty to look at.
I do agree about the performance side, however, they updated the engine in the past so they might be able to update it again in the future. And of course, if they would ever add bigger maps, they should be available for the other modes as well. Hopefully they will, because new aircraft technology really needs these larger spaces
Maybe not that drastic, but in general yes, I’d rather have correct maps with cities, villages and general terrain looking like real places. It adds immersion.
For example Catania tank map totally sucks, the biggest waterfall in the world is in Italy?
Or Vietnam - a mix of features from multiple locations separated by hundreds of km in real life.
No I don’t like that. For tanks maybe okay but not for air SB.
I’d rather fly over Sedan, look down on the river and think - hmm yes I see what a brilliant move it was in 1940 by Guderian, how the terrain affected the battle and what was the movement of the forces.
Or fly over Sinai and see - ok here the Egyptians crossed the Suez Canal.
When flying together we often report our positions and navigate by using town/city names, like “lets meet over Essen” or “I see contact high over Dover”. I really am not interested in flying over some fantasy places…
Only realistic maps give us opportunity to create historical scenarios in custom battles.
I would, but then I grew up in the Alps and knowing and flying in the Alps was always a big part in my flight sim history.
My impossible dream would be a MSFS/WT crossover: Imagine using WT vehicles and gameplay in MSFS…
1 Like