PDA

View Full Version : New Map? Up the Slot to Rabaul



t0n.
11-21-2004, 03:40 AM
Would it be at all posssible to get a map that covers the area from Guadalcanal all the way up to Rabaul? I know that it would be impossible if it were made to scale, but how about quarter or eighth or sixteenth scale?

Nobody wants to fly those distances anyway, and all we really need is the geography represented in such a way that we can campaign historically. As things stand now the major focus of the air war in the South Pacific is completely lost.

Pretty please?

PS. Port Moresby through Wewak on a scaled down map would be nice too.

Stiglr
11-21-2004, 08:22 PM
Well, you're not going to be "campaigning historically" if you compress the map. That's ludicrous.

Only a few planes, including the A6M2-21 Zero, Betty and perhaps Val and Kate had the range to get from Rabaul to Henderson and back again.

The terrain, the geography were large parts of why the campaign was fought the way it was. A "teeny map" for the attention deficit is not the way to go.

Korolov
11-21-2004, 08:38 PM
A smaller map would be a great way for those with medicore systems and would be excellent given the PF style of map loading and mission design.

BTW Stiglr, you forgot to mention "Target: Rabaul" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LEXX_Luthor
11-21-2004, 09:03 PM
With the new static Test Runways (found under Static Ships at bottom of scroll box) we can place functioning airfields on any flat open ground, so we can use hysterical correct maps but just move opposing airfields closer together for modern flight simmer enjoyment.

For example, we can place static Test Runways on the islands to the northeast of New Guinea and use it in place of Rabaul. Silly perhaps, perhaps not if more people will fly the shorter distances than a real Rabaul modded in the map...although we do need a full Guadacanal to Celebes map. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif -- with a blank map with NO BUILDING OBJECTS and NO PALM TREES, we can load and run a Guadacanal-Celebes map faster and more smooth than the current Gulf of Finland map which has 500,000 Building Objects.

Pacific is perfect area for Mission Builders to add only the Building Objects and Palm Tree Objects needed for a series of missions taking place over a small part of the New Guinea map. There are so few buildings in Pacific compared to Lenningrad that Mission Builders can place their own buildings on blank maps. There are so many palm trees in the Pacific that the few put into the map make no realistic sense. If a Mission Builder likes palm trees, and the people who download the mission to play can take the fps hits, we can place our own Palm Tree Objects.

chris455
11-21-2004, 09:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
A smaller map would be a great way for those with medicore systems and would be excellent given the PF style of map loading and mission design.

BTW Stiglr, you forgot to mention "Target: Rabaul" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Tater-SW-
11-21-2004, 09:13 PM
Vals couldn't make it back, when they attacked from rabaul the first time, they were to meet a ship to pick them up when they ditched. Later, they used Buin as a layover, both ways.

Assuming the current map size is the limit (odd, since the water goes on infinitely anyway...), you are stuck with a few smaller maps.

http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/SWPA_revised.jpg

Assuming they can run a map of the same area vertically as well...

tater

A.K.Davis
11-21-2004, 09:59 PM
I really wish we had the Lae - Pt. Moresby and Guadacanal - New Georgia maps. Almost criminal that these were left out in favor of maps like Tarawa and Palau were there were no significant air battles whatsoever.

Tater-SW-
11-21-2004, 10:16 PM
Yeah, I should tweak that file so that guadalcanal is totally on the map. Seems like with all the water, a little extra size wouldnb't hurt given almost no objects on the map.

Heck, you could even have the textures on ground, but place no buildings at all on the map. Mission builders could add in any villages needed only based upon planes flying close to them. Whatever it takes!

tater

Stiglr
11-21-2004, 11:40 PM
By special request:

a mention of Target:Rabaul.

That whole map you see up there? That's the Target:Rabaul map.

No shortcuts. No "can't get there from here". No limits to the historical scenarios you can build.

Look at all the historical HOLES these maplets cause:

You can't have action between Rabaul and Bougainville.

You can't fly a Black Sheep Corsair from Munda to Ballale.

You can't trace Sakai's harrowing journey from Guadalcanal back to Rabual with an eye shot out.

You can't fly from Moreseby's complex of airfields to deep into the Solomon Sea to sink the big Japanese convoy of '43.

You can't fly from Lae to Milne Bay.

In short, you can't experience well over half the war the maps are supposed to cover. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Korolov
11-22-2004, 01:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
You can't trace Sakai's harrowing journey from Guadalcanal back to Rabual with an eye shot out.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All flight simmers who wish to retrace Sakai's epic journey should immediately download Target: Rabaul and ask a assistant to remove one eye from their heads before starting their simulation.

ucanfly
11-22-2004, 01:57 AM
I know it may be annoying to some , but Stigler's right. These maplets severely limit you especially in the Pacific. I never liked them, and hope they don't continue in BOB.

Stiglr
11-22-2004, 03:45 PM
Well, ucanfly, there is a large contingent of people in here who just don't care. They don't know the history, can't be bothered to go out of their way to READ up on the subject, and who just want to "jump in a cockpit and dominate the game".

They're the ones really missing out, by not using the sim as a learning tool and study guide, as well as a game, and as well as a fun diversion. The good thing about a well-done sim is, you get all three.

And Korolov, is that the best you can do? The old "shoot yourself for realism" boondoggle? Weak. Pathetically weak, even for you.

Tater-SW-
11-22-2004, 03:50 PM
There is another reason for better maps that relates just to gameplay. You can't have online play with both sides flying from a home base unless both home bases are on the map. You cannot have an offline campaign with a variety of offensive and defensive missions with a map that only includes your own airfield.

Small map size is a killer in the PTO. In Il-2, there are planety of places where the front moved back and forth within the map over a decent time period, with boths sides getting a period of advancing offensive action, and retreating defensive action. This is only the case for a day or two on most maps in PF.

tater

Stiglr
11-22-2004, 03:55 PM
You'd think the design team might have realized that a looooong time ago, huh?

dragonhart38
11-23-2004, 10:23 AM
Tater I like you suggested Maps however, I would like point out one thing. The area comprising your Bouganville Map is somewhat incorrect from an operational standpoint. Specifically, the south-east border section shows it cutting through the island of Kolombongara. It should actually extend to cut through half of New Georgia. By doing this you would include the airfields at Munda (i.e VMF214 Flew from this strip and other squadrons) and Piva Yoke (home to VF17 during the Bouganville Campaign. With these airfields included you could have planes take off and fly up to Buka. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Better yet if it the limits of map making could account for it, I would extend the northwest section of this map all the way to Rabaul. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Tater-SW-
11-23-2004, 10:33 AM
Good point, obviously they could be tweaked. Frankly, given the tiny land area, I'd think you could just expand them a little to cut as few islands as possible. It seems like they could choose to make maps without palm trees or villages too, if that would help make them bigger.

One thing I would like to see is fot the big forest objects (the stacked polygons that only really look OK from the air) should extend all the way to the water more places than not.

tater

13sqGambler
11-23-2004, 12:07 PM
Is the new Marianas map a bit bit bigger than the pre-patch ones?

If so, using it's size as a template, would it better represent some of these areas?

A.K.Davis
11-23-2004, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 13sqGambler:
Is the new Marianas map a bit bit bigger than the pre-patch ones?

If so, using it's size as a template, would it better represent some of these areas? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think the island maps should be used as a basis for map size limits. The Marianas map has A LOT of water. Tater's choice of the New Guinea map is best indication of potential size.

13sqGambler
11-23-2004, 12:45 PM
Rgr...I was using the Coral Sea map that is all water and the Marianas map that has islands in it and is bigger as a comparison.

Was thinking Oleg and Co.'s tweaking had allowed for bigger maps or something.

Tater-SW-
11-23-2004, 02:40 PM
Current NG is 440km x 240km.

Marianas is 1000x700
Japan is 300x330
Early Guadalcanal is 500x500
Hawaii is 1000x1000
Okinawa is 300x300
Iwo is 800x800

I imagine land area is the critical factor.

tater

Korolov
11-23-2004, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And Korolov, is that the best you can do? The old "shoot yourself for realism" boondoggle? Weak. Pathetically weak, even for you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like it or not, that's what "Full Realism" is. You can't make it full real unless when you die, someone whacks you on the head or blows your brains out, and vice versa. So in essence, all computer simulations can never be full real unless you're willing to take the same risks that they did in history.

If the point went well over your head, then what I'm poking at is how uptight you can be, especially when it comes to Targetware and FB.

It's not the fact that you support Targetware and dislike FB, it's the fact that you're constantly advertising it around these forums. And then you call folks on this forum "fanbois" - were you expecting anything less? I know I'd expect "fanbois" to jump on me if I went to the Targetware forums and griped about the features I don't like about their game; but you come over here and expect everyone to agree with your point of view, and when they don't, you start name calling and insulting them based purely on one issue alone.

If you could be a little bit more subjective, then perhaps you'd get along better with the rest of the community.

Stiglr
11-23-2004, 08:04 PM
Well, let's take it point by point.

First, realism in a sim doesn't have to do with actual "real phenomenon", like pain, actual death etc. That's why we have sim-YOO-lay-shuns (say it with me, so I can be sure you understand), so that we can experience some elements of a subject (the flying and fighting) without the risks and unpleasantries associated with the real thing.

That all has NOTHING to do with how accurate a sim is or isn't.

As for Targetware, comparison to other sims is fair game, good and bad. Fact is, all these games and sims borrow ideas from each other, and the end result is, we all get better product. And, TW gets its share of detractors at their forums too, and of course, being in beta, people are always complaining why this doesn't work or that isn't right. I also pick my share of nits.

The big difference is: over there, people are even more concerned with getting it as close as possible, and are less likely to take it personal if something is discovered to be wrong. They simply look into it, and if it's off, they fix it. If it's not, they give you a good reason why they think it IS right (much better than, "You is wrong, be sure" or "Our data comes from secret source, which we cannot quote" [and yet they 'quote' it in the sim data!]) I find MUCH, MUCH less bias over there. Few people have an axe to grind or an interest in any one plane or air force doing better or having better planes. The idea is to get it as close to correct as possible, then explore it, and let the chips fall where they may.

Copperhead310th
11-24-2004, 01:18 AM
I'm still looking for the Philipeans maps that Luthier personally assured me would be in PF.
A air war in the Pacific with out the Luzon? or Leyte? what's up with that? Too much attention is being made to the naval airway in PF. BS.

by the way that's a good point Korolov.

Stiglr....Why don't you take Targetwear & SHOVE IT UP YOUR RABAUL!
I mean really get a life. go troll TW's baords for a while. better yet i'm sure ther'll be a truck passing by some time soon. why don't you just go play targetware in the street.
jeez. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

TheGozr
11-24-2004, 02:35 AM
Pomp up the relief as well.
It's sad to see those flat islands on some cases.