I was exploring the NTTR map yesterday, seeing what all was outside of the range.
I was able to find Rainbow Canyon (aka Star Wars Canyon/Jedi Transition) but it's not detailed modeled as expected and very shallow.

So, I'm curious to know if there have been any news on whether or not ED has plans to expand the map into California and north to include Fallon. It sure would add more dimension and depth to missions and allow for larger engagements.

But I'm enjoying it and look forward to future updates.

-Jeff

Well, Wags made a community request lately for any detailed photos of Tonopah AFB people can find. So, adding some infrastructure to current map seems to be the plan for near future. There's no info on any planned terrain expansion though and I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. Once the NTTR is optimized, I'd guess SoH map will become a priority.

Thanks Art. It's a start and good to at least hear that they'd go north.

Cheers!

I bought nttr at the same time as I bought orbx southern California. For the same price I can fly from a very detailed las Vegas to a very detailed los Angeles and everything in between in p3d. I find nttr very poor value for money. I would say $10 at most would be a fair price. I was hoping nttr would bring me back to DCS but it hasn't. The map is so barren even Vegas is poorly modeled and lacking certain buildings. I hope the other 3rd parties put more effort into their maps if they're going to all be in the $50 range

Seriously, the sim isn't any good, I don't know why you bother with it.

Sarcasm aside, I just watched a video of that scenery. The idea that it's better than NTTR is laughable, at least.

That's not what I asked. So you coming in here and b*tching about how much you hate DCS, just drags down another thread.

I'm sick of FSX/P3D modules that are $60 and you cant shoot anything. You dont hear me hijacking every thread. I simply have stopped buying them.

Just saying you can get a very well detailed southern California and Nevada which includes the nttr region for the same price as the nttr map. You were asking about expansion of the nttr map. Hardly #%&*$# old boy. Have yourself a nice cup of tea and calm down. You seem overly angry.

It's such a beautiful map that is missing a lot of civil stuff and a bit of military stuff in the area, It seems ripe for additions (so it can be even more beautiful). Buuuut, I understand the purpose of the map, a military training area and it's got just about everything it needs to accomplish that. There is no comparison to any other map in other sims IMHO. It's is already huge GB wise for the area it covers.

As usual price is all relative. I didn't have to pay for it after the fact since I was a beta owner, so if you price it by landmass and you just want to cruise a bug smasher down to San Diego and aren't really keen on high fidelity red flag scenarios then the price is probably too high. Even with out all the little details that we are used to in ORBX scenery missing, i think that the NTTR map has gone beyond what we have ever seen in a combat sim. I plan on paying full price for it as a gift once my dad gets a decent comp to run the sim.

Nice post.

As I don't spend any money on FSX addons despite having the base game and the addon for years, it doesn't matter to me what is available for that sim. My reference is the last sim to actually have Nevada out of the box: Jane's USAF. Prior to the release of SFP1, I spent nearly all my time flying F-4s and F-105s in Jane's USAF. The basic training mission in the F-4 was to take off and fly low as directed before returning home to land. I flew that mission almost as much as Vietnam dogfights against MiG-21s. To me, the Nevada terrain in Jane's USAF actually looked better than the somewhat newer SFP1's fictional desert terrain.

The only other Nevada terrain I have flown over was in a USAF Thunderbirds simulator based on the Xtreme Air Racing flight sim that was released a few years ago (and is unplayable because the online licensing server for installation is long gone). In general, it looked more dated than Jane's USAF and SFP1.

So fast forward to now. I still haven't installed DCS 2.0. As with DCS 1.5, I will wait until it becomes the full release branch. But I have most certainly followed the videos. It may not look as good as I might want (fully photo-realistic), but it from the videos and screenshots, it looks orders of magnitude better than any terrain I have seen in a combat flight sim. I might be wrong, but I think I will thoroughly enjoy flying/training/dogfighting over this terrain despite any flaws.

Streakeagle, thank you for taking me back to the wonderful days of flying around in USAF with the Thunderchief's tail end aglow. Back then, that was just magical to me. I can still remember that terrain.
I looked for something in FSX/P3D that I could never find. Got Weapons for FSX and hated it. I bought quite a few FSX/P3D planes. When they got up in price I had to stop. Especially when I saw the price for Tac Pack. Now FSX aircraft go for 50/60 bucks. DCS is giving me so much more. And that was BEFORE NTTR.
One day as I was taxing around McCarran international, I said to myself, "They have finally outdone FSX". IMO, it is more beautiful, more immersive than anything I have ever experienced in FSX/P3D. Nowhere near the beauty and smoothness. Damage modeling and real combat, don't even get me started. The fact that you need about six programs running in order to shoot anything in FSX is absolutely ridiculous. Then there is mission planning ect. ect. My FSX/P3D days are behind me. By the time you get a missile off an FSX planes rails, you got a few hundred in the game and too many hours of research to count. There is a few hundred bucks I will never see again...
If you don't have NTTR on your PC, you don't know what you are missing. Youtube does it no justice. I often play in NTTR then go to Black Sea. Black Sea feel now dated in comparison. The aircraft look awesome in NTTR. I like the Desert but most of all I like its "new" feel. Not to say BS is finished, no. Its just not as pretty.
Now to be on topic, Stuka from the 476th Squadron has released a populated NTTR mission. It will wake up the NTTR map. See link http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=154593
If ED was going to extend the map, it will not happen anytime soon. They are busy with Straights of Hormuz and other projects. But then again, you never know if someone will come out of nowhere with a 3rd party/user made expansion. Hope so. It sure would be nice to fly to the West Coast. But FSX/P3D, DCS will never be.

Maico and Streak,

Since we've gone down this path, I've kept P3D 2.5 and ORBX on my comp to purely fly around to where I cant in DCS or when I dont feel like blowing stuff up. But the price tag of that install greatly outweighs what I've got in DCS. ORBX plus RealWx and other peripheral to make it look real, came at a large cost. I'm thinking at least $350, not including the aircraft. And as was said, FSX/P3D aircraft going for $50-60 without TacPack is insane.

Anyhow, thanks for your constructive comments. I keep the two separate for different reasons and for what I want to do. Trying to pit them against each other is silly.

Lets hope for an expansion or enhancement, as the NTTR map does have that potential.

Thanks!
Jeff

Expansion? Didn't they just release it?

I know...

I just see it has the potential to overflow into the other areas. I like it and am pleased with the purchase.

-Jeff

I only have FSX, but may get TacPack soon. There is only one thing that could get me to do that: a decent F-4 Phantom that is DCS/A2A systems level and combat capable. F-4s don't seem to be coming to DCS anytime soon. I crave an F-4 that has a fully clickable cockpit, fully functioning radar, and can shoot missiles at other aircraft. Preferably with the highest fidelity flight model possible. The Milviz F-4E just doesn't float my boat and nothing before it is nearly as good. It doesn't help that it has yet to support TacPack. On the other hand, Simworks Studios has an F-4B/N that should be available for purchase as an open beta by the end of this month. Based on what I have read and seen, I believe this will be the best F-4 ever released in a consumer grade flight sim. It is being released as fully supported by TacPack, but not officially supported for P3D. It is VERY tempting. But I may pass on the beta and wait for user feedback before I waste my money buying both the plane and TacPack. For me, an exceptional flight model might compensate for the lack of stellar support for combat capabilities with FSX/TacPack. But at some point, I would get bored with no provision for flying intercetp/dogfight missions against decent AI. How well does TacPack run in multiplayer? For that matter, how well does FSX run in multiplayer?

How I wish ED/Belsimtek was doing a slatted F-4E for DCS as the most appropriate contemporary matchup for the MiG-21bis. That would fit in with the already exising classic matcups: P-51D vs Bf109K, F-86F vs MiG-15bis, and F-15C vs Su-27S. Of course, as a Vietnam Phanatic, I would prefer F-4B/C/F-8E/F-105D vs MiG-17F/MiG-21F or F-4D/E/J vs MiG-17F/MiG-19S/MiG-21MF.

Of course, F-4Es and F-15As vs F-5Es are what belongs in a 1970s NTTR Red Flag scheme.

Eh, DCS is screwed as far as a common picture goes. It's about time that ED just decides on an era to go with and tells the 3rd party devs to go with it or scram. It's just ridiculous trying to make any decent scenarios when you're stuck with only modern ground units and settings but only one single modern plane. There's no F-4, F-16, MiG-29, Su-27 module, etc. on the table anytime soon, but Polychop are actually going to make a fairy tale plane, the Ho229. The module development is clearly out of control at this stage.

DCS has a common picture: the most legendary dueling pairs in all of air combat history. Add in a Camel/Dr.I, a Spad/D.VII, and F4U1/A6M, and an F-4E for the MiG-21bis, and there wouldn't be too many of my favorite aircraft missing. The UH-1H and Mi-8 are a notch above any other helo sim ever released. Those two helos alone would make flying DCS my principal hobby. As it stands now, LNS plans to deliver the F4U1 with a terrain and most likely an appropriate AI A6M. The Belsimtek F-5E is perfect for NTTR and as an almost perfect, balanced opponent for the MiG-21bis. The LNS Viggen and F-14A are also great contemporary opponents for the MiG-21bis. To say the least, the only things that could make me happier are an F-4E and Vietnam and Israel maps to go with it. I am absolutely loving DCS World and its broad survey of some of the greatest fighter planes (and helicopters) in history. I never get bored.

It's still just going to provide a skeleton setting even if all of that comes out this year. And for all the love I have for the MiG-21, there are no proper adversaries planned for it either. The Tomcat will kill it before it even knows it's targeted, and the people over at the ED forums acting like the AJS-37 will have reason to fear it makes me double over laughing (a superior A-A radar + all aspect missiles + supposed to be flown at NoE altitudes (try that with the Fishbed. You'll spend more time ensuring that you don't over speed it than looking out the cockpit, but at least it won't be for long because you can only do that for ~5 minutes before you've got an emergency situation in how to make it home on the remaining fuel) + -21s intercepting = Very confused MiG pilots either having to RTB shortly due to fuel, crashing into the ground or being shot down by their intended targets).

If they'd focused on say the 1970s and released the same number of modules currently available for that era, then they'd had a solid thing to base their product on, and still had plenty more to do before they'd be done. All we'll have by next year if things come along as planned (that'd be a first one for DCS) are a few wildly incompatible starters for different eras, and not one main course as far as the eye can see.

Just because DCS is not solely focused on the needs of people who prefer competitive online gaming does not mean that it has no focus at all. DCS has its modern 1980s/90s+ setting and they are slowly building stuff for late WW2-Korea, which is just one other decade of aviation.

If they had made a Vietnam era MiG-21 the lack of focus argument would have some weight, but the MiG-21bis was still the backbone of major Warsaw Pact air forces at the end of the Cold War and for many smaller ones also well into the 1990s. In any major conflict its pilots would have to face western 4th gen fighters in battle. A historically accurate setting is not the same as fair setting.

The same can be said for the AJS-37, F-14A/B. F-5E etc. appropriate versions for the appropriate time frame.

I have said this before and I hope some of you agree here. In order to cover more time periods, DCS is in desperate need of MiG-17, MiG-19 and MiG-23. Ok, '19 is just because I like that aircraft but the other two for sure. The '17 covers a lot of the 50's and Vietnam era. The MiG-23 is used from the 70's until recently. F-4 would plug a BIG GAP as well.