Size of the map Combat Sim

[Rikus]

In a combat sim what is needed is a big map, with lot of possibilities.

 

I´m afraid DCS with the new graphic engine DX11, we still keep the same map, the same size map.

 

Ok, Vegas is coming so Hormuz, but they are single maps, again little maps.

[Danzer]

So what are you saying, that you would like to have the possibility for scenery ad-ons?

Like in FSX..?

[King_Hrothgar]

I think he's saying we need continent sized maps or bigger. I am not opposed to bigger maps, but I also don't think they are needed.

[Rangi]

I agree with King_Hrothgar, nice to have, not need to have.

[Vampyre]

I'll agree that it is not required for the content that is currently in the game and I understand that a lot of people are happy with it the way it is.

 

But... The problem is that larger maps will be a requirement when ED attempts to expand to the civil flight sim market and include large strategic airlifters and strategic bombers that people want included as flyable modules. If the maps stay the same size as the current Caucuses map we cannot even simulate Desert Storm with any sort of fidelity as the vast majority of the bases the coalition used will be outside of the map boundaries. For the civil side, the current map sizes are great for simulating the flights of short hop turboprop or regional jet airliners but that is not everyone's cup of tea, so to speak. Having an aircraft like the C-5B, 747 or A-380 on a map the size of the Caucuses would be like trying to put a Blue Whale into a goldfish bowl. I see the issue of the current map sizes as a restriction on the growth potential of DCS which will limit its ability to become the "true sandbox simulation" that ED has stated they want it to be.

 

Link to ED's vision of what DCS is: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89885

[QuiGon]

In a combat sim what is needed is a big map, with lot of possibilities.

[...]

 

I disagree. Combat flight sims do not need big maps opposed to civil flight seems that do need them.

But of course, I would still like to have bigger maps in DCS! I'm just saying they aren't needed as much as they are in civil flight sims.

[Retu81]

Eurofighter 2000 had a nice big operations area. So I have a dream:

 

[NeilWillis]

A large region at hi res? Not possible unless you have mega download speeds, a hard drive the size of Wales, and the developers have a whole hoard of coders!

 

As a low-res bridge between hi-res areas where combat occurs, then not a bad addition at all.

 

But what we really need is hi-res regional maps aimed at specific campaigns and wars. Viet Nam, Korea, More areas of the Gulf region. What we need isn't scale, it is detail and context.

[Solty]

Why everyone wants high res maps? Just make them WT level with colors and lighting doing most of the scenery.

[Eddie]

Physical size/area > detail in my view. High detail is great, don't get me wrong, but if it's a choice of size or detail then size has to win in a flight sim. A combination of small high detail areas within a larger lower detail region is the best solution in my view.

 

It is getting ever more frustrating being penned in such small areas and/or having important areas missing because they are just a few miles outside some arbitrary border line.

 

We're flying a selection of aircraft with a 300nm + combat radius (helicopters excluded). At present that's only possible by flying fron one extreme edge of the theatre to the other.

[Aginor]

I somewhat agree.

On current DCSW maps external tanks and aerial refueling on many planes (on A-10C for example) are... mostly just for fun, you don't need them.

 

Long range bombers and transport planes are pointless as well.

 

I'd like to have a whole world map, just with very low detail (less than FSX), and placeholder airfields, and the real maps we have now would be loaded once you fly near them.

[Enduro14]

I think we need the high detail over a big bland map, i think most of you who are asking for a ginormous map are not the ground or Ag types. Nothing is more yawn inducing than conducting ground or AG operations with low res terrain and and elevation data. Dcs is a becoming a split beast where AA guys want this and AG guys want that. Should be a happy medium but in honesty the ground needs to have a great aspect of detail in order for many realistic tactics to be applicable.

Nevada is great and honestly in my opinion its very big much bigger than people realize and they are not done with it yet. For the future take what Nevada is increase the size while maybe reducing some detail aka Vegas and maintain and or increase the elevation data of terrain. But Again having more maps in many different geographical locations will be the best i think.

[chev255]

Personnally, my main concern with Nevada and Hormuz maps is that I think too much time is devoted to creating a realistic rendition of the large cities and, although it is really nice to have, I would happily trade this against larger maps. The recent screenshots of Hormuz - showing details of Dubai - are don't seem reassuring on that subject... :(

[Aginor]

Personnally, my main concern with Nevada and Hormuz maps is that I think too much time is devoted to creating a realistic rendition of the large cities and, although it is really nice to have, I would happily trade this against larger maps.

For me that is even the case for Nevada. I don't need the casinos in that detail. I don't care since I am not there for sightseeing. And it costs fps.

 

I still have to accept that it is important for many people, and it is something that ED can show for advertising purposes.

 

 

As for the MP "balancing" that people talk about in other topics, it is important for the map size discussion as well: Range is almost a non-issue at the moment.

Take WW2 planes for example: The P-51 has a MUCH higher range than the Bf-109 and thus can do stuff the K-4 can't do. ever. In DCSW that advantage is simply not there.

Or imagine a Mig-25 in DCSW. Compared to an F-15 or F/A-18 it has a high speed, but a poor range. In DCSW it wouldn't matter as much.

 

One cool thing about strategic bombers is that they can take off and launch from far far away, not threatened by enemy fighters and fly unconventional routes to the target to deceive the enemy.

Planes with long loiter time can stay up there all day long and wait for the interceptors to run out of fuel, forcing the defender to use other tactics.

The use of short range interceptors with short loiter time force the defenders to rely on something else for defense when the enemy uses standoff weapons, since the bombers using them will just stay 250km away und run if the interceptors take off.

Those are just short examples that call for strategic decisions, such as forward air strips for interceptors, which in turn asks for other features in planes, such as ruggedized wheels or STOL.

 

As long as we have tiny maps those are not so important, and makes some planes even pointless. That's a pity.

 

 

And yes, of course the targets should be in a high detail area. That's why I would like to have a global low detail map, and the high detail areas could be placed "on top" of that.

Imagine taking off your B-2 from a 50x50km map with just Diego Garcia on it, and then flying over a low-detail ocean and Pakistan toward a 250x250 map of southern Aghanistan, dropping stuff on a bunker in a high-detailed 3rd party map.

 

 

For compatibility purposes the world map contains a number of air ports in very low detail (no ATC, just a runway, a few taxiways, and a ramp to spawn on).

 

If you don't own one of the maps needed for the mission, you can't play the mission.

[Eddie]

I think we need the high detail over a big bland map, i think most of you who are asking for a ginormous map are not the ground or Ag types. Nothing is more yawn inducing than conducting ground or AG operations with low res terrain and and elevation data. Dcs is a becoming a split beast where AA guys want this and AG guys want that. Should be a happy medium but in honesty the ground needs to have a great aspect of detail in order for many realistic tactics to be applicable.

Nevada is great and honestly in my opinion its very big much bigger than people realize and they are not done with it yet. For the future take what Nevada is increase the size while maybe reducing some detail aka Vegas and maintain and or increase the elevation data of terrain. But Again having more maps in many different geographical locations will be the best i think.

 

Speaking as someone who does fly in the air-surface role, I couldn't disagree more. Yes, high terrain detail is great and adds a lot to the experience. But it can't make up for not being able to fly a realistic mission profile or duration due to being stuck in a small area.

 

High detail terrain mesh for example is great for low level ops, high detail 1:1 models of large citites however, while nice to have, are not when the price is reduced area an for longer production times.

 

Nevada is a outlier as the area encompasses the NTTR (mostly) and airspace limitations are a realistic consideration that is dealt with in reality.

 

I don't think we need the "whole world" (although it'd be great), but certainly theatres of more than 1000nm square are needed before it'll be possible to replicate many real world scenarios an historic events. Just take a look at allied airbase locations in desert storm compared to the targets they were hitting.

 

Personnally, my main concern with Nevada and Hormuz maps is that I think too much time is devoted to creating a realistic rendition of the large cities and, although it is really nice to have, I would happily trade this against larger maps. The recent screenshots of Hormuz - showing details of Dubai - are don't seem reassuring on that subject... :(

 

Indeed, that is something many I've spoken to on the subject have also mentioned. Take Nevada as a prime example, a highly detailed representation of Las Vegas which, while great to look at when flying past it, is no more than eye candy and largely irrelevant to mil air ops in the region, but some of the most significant elements of the NTTR are low detail. That's not a good trade off in my opinion.

[NineLine]

ED has said repeatedly that map size is based on performance right now, and that as the tools and such evolved they hoped to push the size farther.

 

That said, people commenting about not wanting the city detail, I disagree, I expect it now, its hard to fly over city areas in the Black Sea map because its just not as immersive and look so dated. And the fact that DCS is trying to evolve into more than just a flight sim means details like this are important, least as I see it. Tanks, helicopters, etc... the detail adds way more than people give it credit.

[Enduro14]

Speaking as someone who does fly in the air-surface role, I couldn't disagree more. Yes, high terrain detail is great and adds a lot to the experience. But it can't make up for not being able to fly a realistic mission profile or duration due to being stuck in a small area.

 

High detail terrain mesh for example is great for low level ops, high detail 1:1 models of large citites however, while nice to have, are not when the price is reduced area an for longer production times.

 

Nevada is a outlier as the area encompasses the NTTR (mostly) and airspace limitations are a realistic consideration that is dealt with in reality.

 

I don't think we need the "whole world" (although it'd be great), but certainly theatres of more than 1000nm square are needed before it'll be possible to replicate many real world scenarios an historic events. Just take a look at allied airbase locations in desert storm compared to the targets they were hitting.

 

 

 

Indeed, that is something many I've spoken to on the subject have also mentioned. Take Nevada as a prime example, a highly detailed representation of Las Vegas which, while great to look at when flying past it, is no more than eye candy and largely irrelevant to mil air ops in the region, but some of the most significant elements of the NTTR are low detail. That's not a good trade off in my opinion.

 

 

I tend to agree with you Eddie but i for one will not sit in my virtual pit for a true 6 to 8 hour realistic sortie, well i would do it but i would have to do it when the wife wasnt home lol. I am speaking on the Hog sorties by the way, F18 may be a different beast.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Enduro14

[Aginor]

@Sithspawn:

Yep, I agree. Targets should be placed in high detail areas.

But when flying somewhere at 30,000ft+ altitude I wouldn't care, FSX quality is sufficient.

[Silver_Dragon]

Not necessary, more if you move on a helo or a ground vehicle. Surely them has other point of view of terrain and texture detail.

[Eddie]

I tend do agree with you Eddie but i for one will not sit in my virtual pit for a true 6 to 8 hour realistic sortie. I am speaking on the Hog sorties by the way, F18 may be a different beast.

 

"Realistic mission profile" does not necessarily equal 6-8 hours. Looking at the Hornet for example, a 1.5-2 hour sortie can easily cover a 300-400 nm radius, without going near a tanker.

 

Conventional war scenarios are far more likely to be of that duration than the 6 hours plus seen in COIN ops.

[Vincent90]

@Sithspawn:

 

Does this mean we can expect more accurate cities on the Black Sea map?

 

Did a landing at Soganlug this morning; Downtown Tblisi looked more like the outskirts of Belgrade...

 

But in all honesty, I would rather trade in added detail in the Black Sea map for more space. If I want more detail I can always go out and buy NTTR or SoH in the near future. Currently, for me, the Black Sea is only sufficient when using WWII aircraft, when the aircraft has a jet it quickly becomes too small and a lot of users feel the same way with the lack of size.

 

Going down one road doesn't necessarily have to close the other in this case.

[NineLine]

@Sithspawn:

Yep, I agree. Targets should be placed in high detail areas.

But when flying somewhere at 30,000ft+ altitude I wouldn't care, FSX quality is sufficient.

 

Not everyone flies at 30,000ft though, so maps need to cover all possibilities. Also, the details that hold map size back arent all just in buildings and such, its also in the terrain mesh and textures. FSX is not a good comparison and shouldnt be used here.

 

I want the best of both worlds. I want a huge map with the option to fly more realistic length missions (not just modern but WWII, etc) But I dont want to sacrifice the detail too much either. So we will see where ED goes from here. I expect maps to get bigger as we go along.

[Aginor]

That was only an example. Basically I was saying that I prefer low detailed areas over no ground at all.

[Eddie]

That was only an example. Basically I was saying that I prefer low detailed areas over no ground at all.

 

Indeed. As an example, in the current Nevada terrain goes on seemingly forever out in all directions, but doesn't match the real world (prime example is the lack of the Pacific coast). Even having a low detail 100m SRTM terrain mesh and a basic placeholder texture set would improve on the current theatre and allow extra options (such as carrier ops). You wouldn't loose anything from the current theatre by having that and the detail could be built on as and when resource availability allows.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting removing high detail areas to favour low, it's rather a case of using low detail to increase the value and usability of the high detail.

 

Thus is why I consider desert areas to be ideal as there are large areas of land where there is essentially nothing anyway. Which allows a lack of buildings and other features to be entirely realistic.

[Enduro14]

Indeed. As an example, in the current Nevada terrain goes on seemingly forever out in all directions, but doesn't match the real world (prime example is the lack of the Pacific coast). Even having a low detail 100m SRTM terrain mesh and a basic placeholder texture set would improve on the current theatre and allow extra options (such as carrier ops). You wouldn't loose anything from the current theatre by having that and the detail could be built on as and when resource availability allows.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting removing high detail areas to favour low, it's rather a case of using low detail to increase the value and usability of the high detail.

 

Thus is why I consider desert areas to be ideal as there are large areas of land where there is essentially nothing anyway. Which allows a lack of buildings and other features to be entirely realistic.

 

That is a perfect Idea in my mind.