How many years will it take?

[Lao Fei Mao]

DCS series provide us mil-sim jets....

ArmA series provide us mil-sim infantries.

 

DCS map is over one million sq.km, but poor textured ground.

ARMA3's island is onley several sq.km, but detailed ground.

 

Here is my question,

 

According to current computer hardware developing speed, how many years will it take to allow us fly a million sq.km terrain as detailed as Arma3's terrain? 10years?:smartass:

[cichlidfan]

Game coding hasn't caught up to the hardware we have now.

[Flagrum]

That is easy.

x = over one million sq. km

y = only several sq. km

z = ARMA development time in years

 

Answer: ( z / y * x )

[26-J39]

That is easy.

x = over one million sq. km

y = only several sq. km

z = ARMA development time in years

 

Answer: ( z / y * x )

 

Lol..

 

Forgot one... Zx = DCS level development Multipule (random number from 1000-10000)

 

Answer: Zx * ( z/y * x ) :smartass:

[CypherGrunyev]

... I failed Algebra 2 my first try

 

Please no more

[Faith]

According to current computer hardware developing speed, how many years will it take to allow us fly a million sq.km terrain as detailed as Arma3's terrain? 10years?:smartass:

 

The better question is how many years will it take and how many environmental artists will it take to create a million square kilometers of terrain to the detail seen in Arma 3. The tech is there, it just depends on the LoD values and the draw distance you want vs. your computer hardware. Put the battlefield 3-4 money into DCS and the engine if you want to see something like that. Though the sheer amount of manpower required to create that terrain would be insane.

 

P.S. you would think the ED forums wouldn't say "DCS" was a spelling error...

[Bourrinopathe]

Those guys are trying to do something pretty much insane:

 

I can only have gigantic doubts about the project.

 

(but let ED use those eBee drones ;) )

Edited February 6, 2014 by Bourrinopathe

[RagnarDa]

I couldn't find the size of Everon, and not a reliable source for Sahrani.

 

~200 km2 2006

225 km2 2009

270 km² 2013

 

((270-225)+(225-200))/2=35 km2 increase per game

((2013-2009)+(2009-2006))/2=3,5 years between games

 

That is 10 km2 increase for each year.

 

Nevada will be 360km2 so it will take 9 years from today for ARMA devs to cover that terrain size.

 

Even though I agree that manpower is the biggest obstacle here, because a lot of ARMA maps are made by hand, new technology with automatic map generation might counteract this issue.

[RagnarDa]

Those guys are trying to do something pretty much insane:

 

I can only have gigantic doubts about the project.

 

(but let ED use those eBee drones ;) )

 

 

For a minute there I thought it was the game they talk about in r/outside

[Lao Fei Mao]

Those guys are trying to do something pretty much insane:

 

I can only have gigantic doubts about the project.

 

(but let ED use those eBee drones ;) )

 

How a terrific and ambitious tech - ReRoll :thumbup:.

Large terrain must depend on such a new technology, otherwise numerous devs has to be employed.

I hope those guys could achieve scanning the whole planet in five years.

And them DCS's modules could be integrated into the ReRoll, that would be awesome.

I would pay even if they sell it at 1000USD/Copy.

[TAW_Blaze]

Thing is even if that happened you would literally need some kind of nuclear plant to run it at any options :D

[B25Mitch]

 

Nevada will be 360km2 so it will take 9 years from today for ARMA devs to cover that terrain size.

 

 

 

False. Nevada will be 129,600 square kilometres.

[lucien]

How a terrific and ambitious tech - ReRoll :thumbup:.

Large terrain must depend on such a new technology, otherwise numerous devs has to be employed.

I hope those guys could achieve scanning the whole planet in five years.

And them DCS's modules could be integrated into the ReRoll, that would be awesome.

I would pay even if they sell it at 1000USD/Copy.

 

A little gimmicky I think. What would you do with an entire world, really? There's potential in it, no doubt, but with modern tech the idea is pretty limited.

[Kaktus29]

i think the idea to take pictures with drones and map the world is very very limited.. by the time they finish with this the first pictures they took of a city will be changed so much that fans will scream-why is this building NOT in the game..

 

also agree with some commentators that next generation in gaming will only happen when bio-technologies make it possible to connect to our perception and brain area thus creating the world and interpreting it from internet-pictures, videos etc.. and share your experiences with other people..

 

it will be the ultimate experience.. hardware has seen its limits, we need much more.. and oculus rift is only a very small modest beginning to what is coming..

[danilop]

Not going to happen until governments of this World decide that virtual global battlefield is future main training domain for their armies and air forces. Usually such military technologies after a decade or two become wildly available to public.

 

This is impossible to develop and release commercially, return of huge investment (in man hours) necessary is just not there.

[Bushmanni]

National land survey of Finland is currently laser scanning the whole country from air and it's planned to finish 2019. Besides very accurate terrain model it will provide shape and location of buildings and size and position of trees and height of smaller vegetation. Forestry companies are already using the data to automatically estimate tree trunk volume in forests by determining the size of individual trees from the data using neural network algorithms. There's also a company that produces orienteering maps that show locations of individual trees as green dots on the map. There's already maps that show the type of vegetation so besides the tree size and location also its species can be obtained automatically. The basic technology is already there to digitize terrain for flight simulator purposes, someone just needs to put all these technologies together.

[RagnarDa]

Impressive!

[Bushmanni]

Forgot to mention that all the data is publicly available free of charge, also for commercial use. (Take a hint, mapmakers.) Don't expect to find any national secrets from it as it will be checked by humans for errors and certainly for other stuff like secrets.

[XCAviation]

Yea 360km squared would be under 19km square each side, a tiny size.

 

This guy made an overlay of NTTR size over the current Caucasian region:

 

 

 

All ArmA's territory is very small compared to this.

And it is a FAKE territory, NOT from REAL LIFE.

And whether on tanks or aircraft, you never engage anything beyond about 5km.

And the view distance is a small fraction of what we have in DCS and other simulators.

 

Please, lets stop comparing DCS to anything but real simulators.

ArmA is not a simulator, it is a game.

Maybe hand weapons simulator, but excluding rockets and missiles like RPGs and Javelins, those are definitely arcade in ArmA.

Please, leave ArmA to the children.

 

FSX has already the whole Earth globe in it, why reinvent the wheel?

The ambitious ReRoll project would succeed if it was done by Google with the funds.

It would take decades if not longer to map the planet with those plastic little drones lol

 

They can already use the Google Earth data, both textures and elevation, and spend the time working on the actual engine for the game/simulator.

 

Remember how HAWX videos were full of claimed realism when it came to terrain?

That didn't help it to be a sim, it's an arcade flying game, where one type of missile kills all!

 

Here's a great Space Engine Simulator already, where you can fly ANYWHERE in the known UNIVERSE:

 

http://en.spaceengine.org/

 

 

 

ARMA 3 is actually based on an island off of Greece. It's a real place

[Faith]

ARMA 3 is actually based on an island off of Greece. It's a real place

 

It is a real place where two of the developers were arrested and charged for spying by the Greek government when they visited the island and took pictures. So if you really want to use that example I would suggest you ask yourself if that had been DCS instead of BI employees being detained for months on ridiculous charges. BI also changed the name of the island and stopped discussing its origins because of the mistreatment of their developers by that country.

[karambiatos]

It may be a real place, but the actual island is much bigger, almost 2x bigger (island is called Lemnos).

Edited February 6, 2014 by karambiatos

[lmp]

Please, lets stop comparing DCS to anything but real simulators.

ArmA is not a simulator, it is a game.

(...)

Please, leave ArmA to the children.

 

Why are some people in the sim community so elitist? DCS has its share of simplifications and broad abstractions, just like ArmA... or FSX, or Steel Beasts or whatever else you consider a "true" sim, because the world is just too complex to simulate without taking some shortcuts. And all four games have areas where they shine. Do you know how detailed and damn awesome is ArmA's ballistic and bullet penetration model?

 

As a matter of fact, all four games I mentioned are used as professional military training aids in some shape or form.

 

And even if DCS was so far beyond ArmA when it comes to realism... do you really think playing it makes you more "mature"? Because statements like the one above sure don't make you look that way.

[PFunk1606688187]

The only reason the ArmA2 became a success was due to the DayZ.

Most ArmA2 players never played through the campaign or spent any time with regular game modes, but went straight to zombie shooting.

This is a fact.

 

Please, forget about ArmA if you are about simulators and realism in general.

 

Thats pretty narrow minded.

 

Most Arma players up to the DayZ period were committed to playing generally online coop and many being interested in realism via heavily modding the game.

 

Its not perfect, but DayZ is not the core identity of the typical Arma player. Also, realism is in the eye of the beholder. For infantry there really is no better sandbox for realism gameplay, not in the civilian market anyway. For flying... meh yea its pretty much a joke. However, you'll find it much more realistic to provide CAS in an A-10 in Arma than you will in DCS.

 

Realism isn't just about systems fidelity, its also about human interaction and when it comes to that Arma is miles ahead of DCS on certain levels. For all the ground attack aircraft you have in DCS, none of them gets to do their jobs like they can in Arma.

[SUBS17]

"based on" and "is" are two completely different things.

As different as an arcade game to a simulator.

 

That was used more for marketing the title than anything else realistic.

 

And Everon was mapped back in the original Operation Flashpoint Cold War Crisis 1985.

That had better ballistics and physics and damage of tanks than ArmA does currently.

 

For anything to be deserving of the simulator title, it has to be located in a real life place (Earth of Moon or elsewhere) and at 1:1 scale.

Hence it is a simulation of the real thing that does exist and can be compared to.

ArmA does not meet this requirement.

 

The only reason that ArmA2 became a success was due to the DayZ.

Most ArmA2 players never played through the campaign or spent any time with regular game modes, but went straight to zombie shooting.

This is a fact.

 

Please, forget about ArmA if you are about simulators and realism in general.

 

VBS is a simulator done by BI and that has actual Afghanistan/Iraq maps. In Arma2 you can also get such maps and mods. I do not use DAYZ I use ACE mod which is the most realistic mod for an FPS aside VBS. Arma is a simulator not an arcade game IMO as it realistically shows what its like to be a soldier on a battlefield. Arma also features a mod that allows Take on Helicopters aircraft to be used in Arma2 so its getting better and better and more realistic in a lot of areas. Arma2 OA features buddy lasing as well as use of UAVs and in MP it is ahead of DCS in that the AH64 can be flown with a gunner and pilot. After doing this in mp I have to say you are totally wrong in your opinion of Arma and I have beaten all missions and campaigns aside the last one for A2.:thumbup:

 

There are a lot of features in Arma that would go very well in DCS and the MP interface for players to allow a person on the ground to man a door gun on a helo is very good. The helicopters I have seen have improved a lot over the years and although the FM is simple it is still good enough to represent a helicopter in this environment. What Arma lacks though we take for granted in DCS features that if both Arma and DCS were combined would make a very awesome sim.:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

It is a real place where two of the developers were arrested and charged for spying by the Greek government when they visited the island and took pictures. So if you really want to use that example I would suggest you ask yourself if that had been DCS instead of BI employees being detained for months on ridiculous charges. BI also changed the name of the island and stopped discussing its origins because of the mistreatment of their developers by that country.

 

The fact some devs got arrested has nothing to do with this topic, IMO Arma3s island is actually very detailed and well modelled.