Should DCS World.. Have a world map?

[Marioshata]

Maybe in 2024. :lol:

[McBlemmen]

no

[felthat]

With time we waited for EDGE and NTTR i expect whole world and modules of every vehicle ever existed in -+ one year. Personally cant wait for DCS: Titanic

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

I think it should, if not for other obvious reasons, at least because I know of a few developers on other platforms that would probably embrace DCS if it included full World coverage - PMDG i.e. - imagine a starlifter or a tanker by PMDG in DCS WOrld :-)

[AceRevo]

Yes. But i think it should only been made by someone who would have it in their heart to make the best of it. A high detailed world.. Someone who wouldn't do it for the money (mainly) but more for the share love of having a detailed world map ingame.. And Im talking HIGH quality map (don't worry you 90´s hackers worrying about your weak computers, as as you should know, the whole world won't be rendered while playing (obvious)........................

 

Ive seen the environment of the maps in other games (do I really need to say who??) and it just looks bad, like really really bad like grandma on acid bad... smh

 

I won't leave a vote though because YES can mean so many things.. I would only see a world map if it were done right, to the highest level of detail as possible!

[Sabre-TLA]

I think it would be cool to simulate the 4 or 5 refuelings necessary for the A-10 to cross the Atlantic to get to the middle east.

 

Doing the whole world - no - DCS Antarctica anyone?

 

But doing the major combat areas - yes!

[Vampyre]

People are f*cking stupid.. no matter what the question is they always say yes. It's not possible to feature a detailed world map

 

Funniest statement I've read today. You do realize that another simulator modeled the entire world about 17 years ago... It is entirely possible to model the entire world and DCS:World would be the better for it. You are correct that people are stupid though... especially when they make blanket statements with an absolute term such as the word "always" inserted into them.

 

I voted yes because I want the most authentic flight simulator available. Some would say go play FSX or X-plane if you just want to fly around. The truth is that those other two do not have exactly what I want in a simulator. DCS World comes the closest as far as the flight models and systems are concerned and the piece that will really bring in more aircraft and terrain developers will be the modeling of the entire world... even if it is mostly barren nothingness on most of the surface of the globe in the beginning. My hope is that if this is the case then the rest can be filled in by third parties further in the future as newer aircraft, ships and vehicles become available so the canvas will be there to add the detailed terrains to. Right now, the big question mark is the implementation of EDGE and the ambition of Eagle Dynamics to truly mold this simulator to their vision. See below for the ED vision:

 

DCS stands for “Digital Combat Simulator”. DCS is a world simulation engine permitting the user to operate or direct a growing number of combat and civilian aircraft, ground vehicles and ships, from different historical eras, in different geographical locations and at different levels of fidelity. It is a true "sand box" simulation.

 

The overall "simulation operating system" is termed DCS World and is a free program that includes a free Su-25T for the player to fly. All DCS products will plug into DCS World as unique modules within the same software installation. DCS products will not be limited to aircraft, but will include maps, missions, campaigns, environment objects, weapons, vehicles and ships. We even hope to look into a train simulation component in the future!

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89885

[Exorcet]

It is also crucial when finding oponents. I could just imagine how 20 people on the server are trying to find each other above connected territory of Spain France and Germany for 5 hours and they can't find anyone, so they leave... fun right?

 

What does that have to do with the map? SAM's in Paris. Red force flies there to destroy them. Blue force flies their to defend them. If the mission builder can't figure out how to make each team go to the same spot, that's on them. Also, it's not like you need to use the entire planet for every mission.

 

World map is one of the most useless things I've ever heard. Its costs and inconveniences are too high when compared to advantages in mission building it gives.

 

Disagree. Ultimate variety, replayability, and scope. Maybe it's very, very difficult to have the entire Earth modeled to the level of detail of Las Vegas in NTTR, but that's not a problem because the entire map doesn't need to be that detailed. There are various ways to approach the issue.

 

Maps should concentrate on major air offensives or parts of the globe that are interesting as a setting.

Why are these places the only valid ones for a map? Major air conflicts aren't any more of a war than minor conflicts between small, underarmed nations. They're just more popular.

 

For WW2 that would be Libya, Northern France+ England, Germany+ a little bit of Belgium and a little bit of Poland, Kursk-Orel area, New Guinea, a single island with water for Pacific fights eg. Okinawa etc.

Well if you wanted to capture the whole thing, you'd basically need the whole planet. DCS isn't limited to WWII either so there are still a ton of interesting places left to list even if you included every major WWII battle.

 

For modern combat I would see possible aeras of air conflict as the most appealing. So Poland and its neighbours, parts of Scandinavia, Middle east (Israel and its neighbours), Korea etc.

 

Should we even get a B-2 module, even if it takes 50 years, authentic missions will require both halves of the planet. Even for the planes we have now, there is use for the oceans. Ferry flights from one continent to another, or Cold War gone hot with naval engagements.

 

World maps make complete sense for airliners simulations like FSX and X-plane but not for military simulations where the area of operation is very limited in space and where precision mesh, quality textures and detail are of importance. We often need to be able to recognize a precise spot somewhere when doing air to ground missions. A world map would run on very generalized textures and low precision overall, so no thanks...

 

Size is hugely important for military flying. Aircraft range determines if it is even useable in the first place. This is why the P-51 was such an asset in WWII. It was the fighter best suited to long range escort. If you only have a 200 mile wide map vs 600 miles, then any old fighter will do and the P-51's traits don't stand out.

 

For campaigns and such it's also interesting to have moving front lines, with exposure to new territory to adapt to and fight over.

 

I think it would be cool to simulate the 4 or 5 refuelings necessary for the A-10 to cross the Atlantic to get to the middle east.

Indeed I was thinking the same with the F-15.

 

Doing the whole world - no - DCS Antarctica anyone?

 

Don't be ridiculous, Antarctica has seen some of the most important combat in history

 

Third Reich UFOs' are super weapons whose existence is highly speculative. The UFO's are advanced airplanes, which also have the ability to move though space. They were supposedly produced during the Second World War by National Socialist Germany, but too late to influence the outcome of the war. But it is hypothesized that the national socialists used these UFO's to be the first to go to the moon. It is also hypothesized that these UFO's played a crucial role in the Allied invasion of Antarctica in 1947.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Third_Reich_UFOs

 

A truly reliable source

 

 

Now the way the question is phrased, I myself hesitate a bit. DCSW doesn't need a world map, but it doesn't need the F/A-18 either. Doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of a reason to want either of those or validity in discussing how they can be achieved.

Edited March 13, 2015 by NineLine
Removed offending quote

[Teapot]

I said yes .. I already fly X-Plane and P3D ... and would also prefer to fly those missions in DCS World.

 

For those who are second guessing *technical reasons* as to why it's not a good idea; you should stop because solving those problems isn't part of your remit as a consumer ... you aren't knowledgeable in this field (whole world is used in other sims now) and you aren't on DCS's payroll.

 

http://www.vatsim.net (has a tactical component as well)

https://ivao.aero

http://controllers.pilotedge.net/page/compare

Edited March 14, 2015 by Teapot

[Auger73]

This is a critical feature for DCS: Rutan Voyager. Also map rotation times in excess of 9 days.

 

A vote for the world map is a vote for the Rutan Voyager!

[KillarZ]

I said yes .. I already fly X-Plane and P3D ... and would also prefer to fly those missions in DCS World.

 

For those who are second guessing *technical reasons* as to why it's not a good idea; you should stop because solving those problems isn't part of your remit as a consumer ... you aren't knowledgeable in this field (whole world is used in other sims now) and you aren't on DCS's payroll.

 

Thank you.

 

With that being said, I have strong faith that it can be done and within 10-15 years, someone will have it done and it may not be ED.

 

I know ED is a small company and they are busy and wrapped up in getting their sim together, but I strongly believe that ED should start making moves to somehow develop or get someone else to develop a new game, sound, and World Engine that will use future computing technologies.

 

Then again, I don't know all the technological and financial barriers ED would need to surpass to pull something like this off.

But like I said, if ED doesn't do it, someone will.

 

Now with all that said, it would be wonderful to fly around above the World's most beautiful cities and locations. Along with this, it'll be interesting to see the infinite amount of hypothetical and historical missions that can come along with something like this.

 

A World terrain Engine would probably also take FSX and X-plane out the market making DCS the primary go-to flight simulator.

 

Kind of an off topic subject, but why would it be a technical challenge to integrate DCS World into Outerra?

[DataHawk]

A World terrain Engine would probably also take FSX and X-plane out the market making DCS the primary go-to flight simulator.

 

Agree, With the stability, level of detail and growth potential of DCS World, having a World map would definitely attract new customers and developers

Edited March 14, 2015 by DataHawk

[_Randolph93]

Would be great but realistically no.I would rather fly on few detailed maps than have whole world map.

[CASoldier2014]

Funniest statement I've read today. You do realize that another simulator modeled the entire world about 17 years ago... It is entirely possible to model the entire world and DCS:World would be the better for it. You are correct that people are stupid though... especially when they make blanket statements with an absolute term such as the word "always" inserted into them.

 

I voted yes because I want the most authentic flight simulator available. Some would say go play FSX or X-plane if you just want to fly around. The truth is that those other two do not have exactly what I want in a simulator. DCS World comes the closest as far as the flight models and systems are concerned and the piece that will really bring in more aircraft and terrain developers will be the modeling of the entire world... even if it is mostly barren nothingness on most of the surface of the globe in the beginning. My hope is that if this is the case then the rest can be filled in by third parties further in the future as newer aircraft, ships and vehicles become available so the canvas will be there to add the detailed terrains to. Right now, the big question mark is the implementation of EDGE and the ambition of Eagle Dynamics to truly mold this simulator to their vision.

 

I agree with you on this one. However, I had been flying in FSX for many, many years (until I found DCS, of course) and I didn't want to see a semi-decently modeled world in DCS. I feel like having a world modeled would be awesome, but impossible because it would never be detailed. And I want detail.

 

About the voting part, I got a little bit pissed off because it seems to me as if people always vote YES, no matter what's the question.. 'Do we need *insert a random aircraft that is out of context* ? - YES, YES!' Whatever..

[Iberian]

Small thinking...I want DCS Milky Way.

[statrekmike]

I voted no. I can see the novelty of such a thing and I can understand the surface level appeal but I can't really say I would want a poorly rendered world map over a more detailed map of a specific region.

 

The ONLY way I would want a world map in DCS is if they could do EVERY area with the level of detail that we currently see with the Nevada map. since this is not going to happen in many, many years, I see no real purpose in wishing for it.

 

My other consideration is just how useful a world map would be in terms of missions. A world map would be great for ferry flights, U2 spy flights and maybe for (modern) tactical and strategic bombing but when you think about it, that is really about all you would get out of it. Those are not elements that will sell a sim like DCS, it's the smaller dogfight and mission scale stuff that does.

 

Think about it, I know that flying a SR-71 over the Soviet Union in the 70's would be cool but it would ultimately be something that only appeals to a niche of a niche. The same niche that fly's FSX airliners from New York to London. It is a valid niche but not one that would justify the massive resources needed for a planet scale DCS map of any meaningful detail.

 

Honestly, if anything, I would like to see larger DCS maps. Perhaps a map that covers Russia or the Middle East. These are more feasible and also would allow for the level of detail required for a combat sim that something like FSX does not really need.

[cichlidfan]

I voted no. I can see the novelty of such a thing and I can understand the surface level appeal but I can't really say I would want a poorly rendered world map over a more detailed map of a specific region.

 

The ONLY way I would want a world map in DCS is if they could do EVERY area with the level of detail that we currently see with the Nevada map. since this is not going to happen in many, many years, I see no real purpose in wishing for it.

 

My other consideration is just how useful a world map would be in terms of missions. A world map would be great for ferry flights, U2 spy flights and maybe for (modern) tactical and strategic bombing but when you think about it, that is really about all you would get out of it. Those are not elements that will sell a sim like DCS, it's the smaller dogfight and mission scale stuff that does.

 

Think about it, I know that flying a SR-71 over the Soviet Union in the 70's would be cool but it would ultimately be something that only appeals to a niche of a niche. The same niche that fly's FSX airliners from New York to London. It is a valid niche but not one that would justify the massive resources needed for a planet scale DCS map of any meaningful detail.

 

Honestly, if anything, I would like to see larger DCS maps. Perhaps a map that covers Russia or the Middle East. These are more feasible and also would allow for the level of detail required for a combat sim that something like FSX does not really need.

 

Well said. :thumbup:

[WinterH]

Also voted no, when it comes to dreaming of features, not even the sky is limit, and that's the way it should be alright. On the other hand, if I look at the matter under a more practical light, DCS world is about having all the units battling on it's world. I am not saying civilian modules are precluded, I'd personally like to have an aerobatic plane or two. And perhaps for some people (well may be even for me after trying it), some short range delivery / fire fighting, bush piloting, etc can be exciting too, and are feasible even with current map. But what sets DCS apart from FSX / X-Plane etc. is the fact it will have lots of air - ground - naval units on it's map, detecting and fighting each other, against terrain features. This is different from having ability to "lazy load" the terrain as you near borders of a part.

 

This can be a massive effort to pull of even remotely good : you have to handle rendering of ginormous terrain, in multiple clients, while somehow keeping them in syncronization, also keeping other AI threats in syncronization, figure out a balance between quality vs quantity (terrain detail vs size). Not to mention modeling the whole Earth with a decent amount detail. And how would it be sold? You buy the whole Earth? Or seperate map modules can be connected together in a sort of lazy loading system? How will then people (and AI) interact with one another from maps only one of them own? You people do realize that by current leads provided by ED even relatively moderate size maps take at least a year to develop right?

[Exorcet]

Would be great but realistically no.I would rather fly on few detailed maps than have whole world map.

 

It's not necessarily a choice between the two. You can have both.

 

I agree with you on this one. However, I had been flying in FSX for many, many years (until I found DCS, of course) and I didn't want to see a semi-decently modeled world in DCS. I feel like having a world modeled would be awesome, but impossible because it would never be detailed. And I want detail.

 

You can have detail. A map doesn't need to be the same resolution anywhere, and you even not use the world map at all if you prefer the focused maps.

 

I think people might be looking into the idea a little too deeply. There isn't anything really specific being presented here. A world map could mean the entire Earth in EDGE quality or it could me a blank sphere that can have other maps plopped on to it. In the latter case, there isn't really much to lose even if you wouldn't use the world map.

 

About the voting part, I got a little bit pissed off because it seems to me as if people always vote YES, no matter what's the question.. 'Do we need *insert a random aircraft that is out of context* ? - YES, YES!' Whatever..

In the absence of a downside, why vote no? You're also not doing much better inserting your bias about "random" aircraft. If people would rather fly a Spruce Goose than take a fully modeled Vietnam theater, that's just their choice.

 

I voted no. I can see the novelty of such a thing and I can understand the surface level appeal but I can't really say I would want a poorly rendered world map over a more detailed map of a specific region.

What if the world map contained the detailed map within it?

 

The ONLY way I would want a world map in DCS is if they could do EVERY area with the level of detail that we currently see with the Nevada map. since this is not going to happen in many, many years, I see no real purpose in wishing for it.

Well for one thing, the maps are far smaller than the ranges of some of the larger aircraft in the game. It doesn't make sense to have AWACS floating around 100 miles from the front lines. Just having airbases further off for them to operate from would add a bit of realism. And if it was the AI mainly making use of these far off bases, what they looked like graphically wouldn't really matter.

 

I'd personally love to be able to put airbases in the middle of nowhere just to extend mission length/size. If graphics really bothered people, then you could just use strategic positioning. Water is easy to make, place an airbase on a small coastal region and fly across water to the detailed target area and you could get a big bump in map size for very little effort and still not lose much when it comes to visuals.

 

My other consideration is just how useful a world map would be in terms of missions. A world map would be great for ferry flights, U2 spy flights and maybe for (modern) tactical and strategic bombing but when you think about it, that is really about all you would get out of it. Those are not elements that will sell a sim like DCS, it's the smaller dogfight and mission scale stuff that does.

The size scale we have in DCS right now is about 15000 miles for a bomber with cruise missiles. Technically you could just have an escort mission that has you fly up to that range. But even if we cut that down to a 10th, which is about the range of a cruise missile itself, you still have a 1500 mile radius that is very significant in something like a campaign. Advance air superiority far enough for the 1500 mile circle to be drawn away from your airbases and command centers, and you're suddenly free from the cruise missile threat. For this to work though, you need a map larger than 1500 miles. That of course doesn't mean size stops mattering at that scale. If you want to go crazy and have a really large scale campaign, you can have the cruise missile radius issue along multiple fronts. Barring all of that, huge maps simply equate to huge variety.

 

Think about it, I know that flying a SR-71 over the Soviet Union in the 70's would be cool but it would ultimately be something that only appeals to a niche of a niche. The same niche that fly's FSX airliners from New York to London. It is a valid niche but not one that would justify the massive resources needed for a planet scale DCS map of any meaningful detail.

We don't know what the cost of resources would be. For your supposed NTTR detail world map it could be large. For the barren world map, it would probably be a lot smaller.

 

A world map also isn't so niche that we need additional modules to make use of it. What we have now is capable enough. It would make a very good partner to the ever in demand dynamic campaign generator and existing missions designers could certainly make good use of it when it comes to mission design or just variety.

 

Then you can also factor in time. If the world map is able to allow other maps to plug into it, it's going to grow on its own as high detail maps come.

 

Honestly, if anything, I would like to see larger DCS maps. Perhaps a map that covers Russia or the Middle East. These are more feasible and also would allow for the level of detail required for a combat sim that something like FSX does not really need.

This is kind of an arbitrary point to sit on. From what ED has said, it would seem that maps much larger than what we're expecting now, at EDGE detail, are off the table. That's about all we have to go on. There isn't any way to justify the idea that ED could "just do all of Russia" but then turn around and say a world map won't be detailed enough.

 

All of that said though, if/when ED does reach the point of making 1000x1000 mile maps, the advantages of a world map would start to taper off a little.

 

 

 

Also voted no, when it comes to dreaming of features, not even the sky is limit, and that's the way it should be alright. On the other hand, if I look at the matter under a more practical light, DCS world is about having all the units battling on it's world. I am not saying civilian modules are precluded, I'd personally like to have an aerobatic plane or two. And perhaps for some people (well may be even for me after trying it), some short range delivery / fire fighting, bush piloting, etc can be exciting too, and are feasible even with current map. But what sets DCS apart from FSX / X-Plane etc. is the fact it will have lots of air - ground - naval units on it's map, detecting and fighting each other, against terrain features. This is different from having ability to "lazy load" the terrain as you near borders of a part.

 

This can be a massive effort to pull of even remotely good : you have to handle rendering of ginormous terrain, in multiple clients, while somehow keeping them in syncronization, also keeping other AI threats in syncronization, figure out a balance between quality vs quantity (terrain detail vs size). Not to mention modeling the whole Earth with a decent amount detail. And how would it be sold? You buy the whole Earth? Or seperate map modules can be connected together in a sort of lazy loading system? How will then people (and AI) interact with one another from maps only one of them own? You people do realize that by current leads provided by ED even relatively moderate size maps take at least a year to develop right?

 

 

Multiplayer is not the be all, end all. For one thing, the world map could just be SP only. On the mission making side of things, it will be up to what the mission maker wants, how much effort they want to put in, and the pros and cons of each map.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Exorcet

[SUBS17]

IIRC, Edge already supports a global map. If so, just a matter of choice for the developers to allow individual terrains to be attached to the correct part of the globe.

 

Well hopefully one day we'll see some one put together a Global map for DCS if EDGE can support it then when the SDK is out someone will do a Global map for it.

[Belgeode]

Nah. Anything less than "DCS: Solar System" isn't worth the hazzle. I need some ... space to take out my ... DCS: X-Wing for a ride.

 

I am ALL for this suggestion here LOL!

 

But yeah I think if there is a "world map" with maybe icons to denote what theaters are currently available in larger maps, that might work... maybe. Then as theaters get added, add more icons (or in some cases consolidate, if a theater gets enlarged to encompass two or something).

[CASoldier2014]

or it could me a blank sphere that can have other maps plopped on to it. In the latter case, there isn't really much to lose even if you wouldn't use the world map.

Now that's a great idea! :D I haven't thought of that :))

[skendzie]

I see no point. I don't need a larger map just so I can fly longer to my object and have a longer RTB trip. Just gimme some maps from different famous theathers and it's enough. I'd rather have quality over quantity. A deep lake rather than a shallow ocean if you will.

[mytai01]

Have the Chinese do it! They have so many computer people they could have it done in a few weeks...:thumbup:

[DayGlow]

I rather have quality over quantity

 

One of the best features of the new Edge engine is real time terrain lighting. To realistically create a world map you would have to use textures built off of satellite images that have the lighting already baked in.

 

It would be a step backwards.

Edited March 16, 2015 by DayGlow