DCS World 2.0 and New Maps Discussion Thread

I for one will be very disappointing if the average map size in the future is limited to what we were told NTTR will be.

 

 

 

Exactly

Larger, more detailed maps also mean much larger file size. I for one don't want a DCS install in the future with several massive maps and it's several hundred gigabytes. If it's going to be that way, I want more medium-sized maps of much greater detail. Just my 0.02c.

Are there less buildings there when you view with your eyes? Optical illusion? Photoshop?

In short, yes. Funny old thing, but tourists only take pictures of the buildings and not the, literally, hundreds of square miles of **** all.

And your answer tells me you haven't

Oh and seriously, please at least try and answer without the passive aggressive tone and sarcasm.

In short, yes. Funny old thing, but tourists only take pictures of the buildings and not the, literally, hundreds of square miles of **** all.

 

And your answer tells me you haven't.

How is that even relevant? The ratio "city area vs. sand area" is not the point. The point is the absolute size of urbanized area. And that is way larger for the proposed big Gulf map than for i.e. the Nevada map.

Larger, more detailed maps also mean much larger file size. I for one don't want a DCS install in the future with several massive maps and it's several hundred gigabytes. If it's going to be that way, I want more medium-sized maps of much greater detail. Just my 0.02c.

Understand completely, My main reason I want larger maps, using the current Georgia theater as an example I can fly the Hawk from one side of the map to the other in less than 2 hours. An F-15 would be even less than that. That's from one corner to the other, not even talking about what is currently modeled as that would be shorter. Yes, Eddie and I are the minority but we can dream.

I also understand ED wants to bring in the tank drivers, fact is for me I'm here for the aircraft, CA has limited use for me. Not a bad product just not one I actively use and don't see myself buying a T-90 tank simulator. I'll happily fly my A-10C to shoot a player controlled T-90 though :D

How is that even relevant? The ratio "city area vs. sand area" is not the point. The point is the absolute size of urbanized area. And that is way larger for the proposed big Gulf map than for i.e. the Nevada map.

Actually very relevant, the point Eddie and I are trying to make is the area is mostly "empty" desert.

How is that even relevant? The ratio "city area vs. sand area" is not the point. The point is the absolute size of urbanized area. And that is way larger for the proposed big Gulf map than for i.e. the Nevada map.

It's relevant because while larger size does indeed bring more urban areas, the percentage area where there are no urban areas, or roads etc. is much higher than in the rest of the world. Therefore for a given number of cities etc. you actually get significantly more terrain area due to the large empty areas surrounding them.

The "empty" areas of course still require textures, elevation maps, clutter etc. so they are not "free" but they are far less work than otherwise.

There is also the fact that as there is "nothing" out there and very few actually know what the areas look like, you can cover those areas with a reasonably generic texture set and procedural clutter etc. and the end result would not suffer for it. The same is not true of other areas of the world.

Understand completely, My main reason I want larger maps, using the current Georgia theater as an example I can fly the Hawk from one side of the map to the other in less than 2 hours. An F-15 would be even less than that. That's from one corner to the other, not even talking about what is currently modeled as that would be shorter. Yes, Eddie and I are the minority but we can dream.

 

I also understand ED wants to bring in the tank drivers, fact is for me I'm here for the aircraft, CA has limited use for me. Not a bad product just not one I actively use and don't see myself buying a T-90 tank simulator. I'll happily fly my A-10C to shoot a player controlled T-90 though :D

 

 

 

Actually very relevant, the point Eddie and I are trying to make is the area is mostly "empty" desert.

Everybody is entitled to have his own dreams ... and nobody here would say, "no! big maps frighten me, i want them small and cozy!". The question here is what is realistic in terms of development time.

And yes, the development time for 100 x 100 km desert is probably not really significantly longer than a 300 x 300 km desert or a 1000 x 1000 km desert. The difference is, though, while you have probably one larger settlement in the 300 x 300 km area, there might be 5, 6 or 7 times more in the 1000 x 1000 km area. This then is the reason why the development time might be 5, 6 or 7 times of the smaller desert map - not the larger area that is covered with sand and rocks.

Ok, you fast movers don't care much about shiney (lol) cities much and probably a reduced level of detail is actually viable. But even you would probably not want all generic cities where Dubai looks like a oversized village, Kuwait looks like Dubai and Baghdad looks like Kuwait - you still want also drop some iron onto someone somewhere, right?

So it might not be 7 times the development time, but only 3-4 ... or whatever. But I bet, the factor would be not insignificant.

I still want a Huge sea map, dotted with a few identical islands, for Multiplayer use.

Nate

ED has to make maps that appeal to all aspects of the different areas their modules cover, that means Jets, choppers, and ground vehicles... its just the way it is.... 2000km of desert isnt gonna be fun for anyone...

if it's full of tanks to drop bombs on, it might be a lil fun.

that being said, Balanced map size makes sense to please all parties/modules involved.

But at some point I'd like a larger area as well, not picky though, it will come when it comes.

Hopefully a Terrain SDK comes about..

I still want a Huge sea map, dotted with a few identical islands, for Multiplayer use.

 

Nate

New Zealand + 1000KMx1000KM of South Pacific East of it

I know a little about map making Eddie, please dont treat me like I dont, I understand the time it takes, the data it takes and the effort it takes. if you want a lock on map, I bet you could have one that big, but we have evolved...

 

No I havent been to those places, but I am capable of looking at a satellite image and counting the buildings, and determining how many duplicates you could get away with... but then thats just buildings... not all the other details that go into a city of any size...

 

So whats your point again? If its so easy, apply to ED to make a map that size.

I'm not treating you like you don't know anything about map making, I'm treating you like you know little of the actual area of the world in question. Or at least you're someone who hasn't spent several years of their life in said empty deserts, so may be unaware of exactly how empty and barren they really are.

My question was a genuine one, as I don't know what you've done throughout your life, clearly I was wrong for thinking you could respond seriously, genuinely and sensibly as part of a discussion. Why become so aggressive and antagonising?

ED has to make maps that appeal to all aspects of the different areas their modules cover, that means Jets, choopers, and ground vehicles... its just the way it is.... 2000km of desert isnt gonna be fun for anyone...

So a realistic Arabian desert theatre, the very desert in which several conflicts of the past 25 years have been fought in, using all type of Western and Russian military hardware, would not appeal to anyone? Seriously, I'm pretty sure the thought is the thing I've talked about with everyone I've ever flown with in multiplayer for the last 15 years? I don't understand how you could think otherwise, so I'd love to hear your reasoning (seriously, I'm not being sarcastic).

You realise that you could still fly a 20NM air quake flight, or run a Combined Arms recreation of a real ground battle over a few miles in such a theatre yes, just because a theatre is a few hundred miles or more across doesn't mean you'd have to fly across the whole thing. It allows for variety and lets everyone play the game they want to. Everyone's a winner. And if we're going to get heavy bombers, transports, tankers, etc. in DCS one day, then we're going to need a theatre to really accommodate them.

Yes it'd be quite a large undertaking to produce, nobody is suggesting it wouldn't, that's you putting words in people's mouths, but I think it'd be well worth the time and effort to do so.

It's relevant because while larger size does indeed bring more urban areas, the percentage area where there are no urban areas, or roads etc. is much higher than in the rest of the world. Therefore for a given number of cities etc. you actually get significantly more terrain area due to the large empty areas surrounding them.

Ok, agreed. The benefit of a big Gulf map in terms of overall map size could be larger compared to a more densely populated area. But the overall development time is still x times compared to a comparably dense populated area, like for example Nevada.

The proposed Gulf map area would be about 16 times larger than the Nevada map, the populated area is, very roughly, maybe 7 times larger than Nevada. So with "only" 7 times the development time of Nevada we could get a 16 times larger map. But it is still 7 times!! Yes, factor out all the delays 'n' crap around the Nevada map in the past, but lets assume, 3 months would be realistic under optimal conditions (I doubt it, but for the sake of the example ...) - we are then still in a range of two years for your Gulf map. Under optimal conditions, no hic-ups and at least remotely correct figures that I have used here.

Ok, agreed. The benefit of a big Gulf map in terms of overall map size could be larger compared to a more densely populated area. But the overall time is still x times compared to a comparably dense populated area, like for example Nevada.

 

The proposed Gulf map would be about 16 times larger than the Nevada map, the populated area is, very roughly, maybe 7 times larger than Nevada. So with "only" 7 times the development time of Nevada we could get a 16 times larger map. But it is still 7 times!! Yes, factor out all the delays 'n' crap around the Nevada map in the past, but lets assume, 3 months would be realistic under optimal conditions (I doubt it, but for the sake of the example ...) - we are then still in a range of two years for your Gulf map. Under optimal conditions, no hic-ups and at least remotely correct figgures that I have used here.

I think the delays were Graphics Engine Related, not Actual Terrain Development Related.

That being said, do you think these large region/world wide terrains / scenery that are developed for FSX are done in a matter of months? Nope, they take years, sometimes for simply terrain tile/textures, and not the actual 3d Scenery objects or landmarks.

Everybody is entitled to have his own dreams ... and nobody here would say, "no! big maps frighten me, i want them small and cozy!". The question here is what is realistic in terms of development time.

 

And yes, the development time for 100 x 100 km desert is probably not really significantly longer than a 300 x 300 km desert or a 1000 x 1000 km desert. The difference is, though, while you have probably one larger settlement in the 300 x 300 km area, there might be 5, 6 or 7 times more in the 1000 x 1000 km area. This then is the reason why the development time might be 5, 6 or 7 times of the smaller desert map - not the larger area that is covered with sand and rocks.

 

Ok, you fast movers don't care much about shiney (lol) cities much and probably a reduced level of detail is actually viable. But even you would probably not want all generic cities where Dubai looks like a oversized village, Kuwait looks like Dubai and Baghdad looks like Kuwait - you still want also drop some iron onto someone somewhere, right?

 

So it might not be 7 times the development time, but only 3-4 ... or whatever. But I bet, the factor would be not insignificant.

Very true, it would add workload in that respect. But hopefully EDGE will allow theatre to be developed over time in stages being expanded on as it goes, in which case there is that option.

We could start with a theatre where a 300x300 area (for example) is highly detailed and other areas less so, or even just elevation maps and textures, and extend the area of high detail over time. You could even have areas of high details separated by lesser detailed areas.

There are plenty of practical solutions that would allow/assist in producing large theatres in a resonable time frame.

At the end of the day, if people can live (quite happily) with fictional aspects of avionics, weapons, and systems in their high fidelity aircraft, I'm sure they can cope with a few little simplifications in a theatre.

Hello, I have a question I am unsure whether it has been answered or not before, and to be honest I don't feel like filtering trough 600+ pages... anyways here's my question: Will EDGE possibly increase FPS? I have a normal gaming PC, I run other games just fine but in DCS sometimes my FPS drops at around 20 and it's kinda annoying. Thanks.

Very true, it would add workload in that respect. But hopefully EDGE will allow theatre to be developed over time in stages being expanded on as it goes, in which case there is that option.

 

We could start with a theatre where a 300x300 area (for example) is highly detailed and other areas less so, or even just elevation maps and textures, and extend the area of high detail over time. You could even have areas of high details separated by lesser detailed areas.

 

There are plenty of practical solutions that would allow/assist in producing large theatres in a resonable time frame.

 

At the end of the day, if people can live (quite happily) with fictional aspects of avionics, weapons, and systems in their high fidelity aircraft, I'm sure they can cope with a few little simplifications in a theatre.

As Skates suggested, if the tools come out, I am sure there will be plenty of maps like that, that appeal to fast movers... etc...

if/when a SDK is released, we just need a large team to work on terrains,

-Team to import elevation data to terrain tiles, and LODs

-Team to draw / produce textures

-Team to build scenery objects etc

-Team to build game specific files and systems (airfields, beacons, roads, waterways, what not)

Pretty sure there's more to it, but you get the idea.

Hello, I have a question I am unsure whether it has been answered or not before, and to be honest I don't feel like filtering trough 600+ pages... anyways here's my question: Will EDGE possibly increase FPS? I have a normal gaming PC, I run other games just fine but in DCS sometimes my FPS drops at around 20 and it's kinda annoying. Thanks.

Yes, possibly. Although there is no official confirmation or data available, yet, it is assumed that alone the change from DirectX9 to DirectX11(?) will have a noticable positive effect on, i.e. the FPS.

but its not realistic with the quality levels ED has right now

But why? That just sounds like giving up before you've even started to me, never a mentality I'll understand or agree with.

Personally I'm going to remain hopeful that we will actually see the dream come true one day, even if it ends up not being ED that realises it.

Yes, possibly. Although there is no official confirmation or data available, yet, it is assumed that alone the change from DirectX9 to DirectX11(?) will have a noticable positive effect on, i.e. the FPS.

Ahh, okay. Thanks!

if/when a SDK is released, we just need a large team to work on terrains,

-Team to import elevation data to terrain tiles, and LODs

-Team to draw / produce textures

-Team to build scenery objects etc

-Team to build game specific files and systems (airfields, beacons, roads, waterways, what not)

 

Pretty sure there's more to it, but you get the idea.

Hopefully it'll happen, there is potentially a very decent amount of revenue in developing theatres. Personally I'd spend more on theatres and other elements of the sim than I ever will on aircraft and I know a not insignificant number who are the same.