Size of the map Combat Sim

[NineLine]

The goal was NTTR for Nevada, anything outside of that wasnt important for what Nevada was, which was a test bed for their new map format and tools. Its easy to backseat drive and tell ED what you would like to see here or there... but there is this thing called feature creep... need to keep that under control until the initial goals are met.

[Silver_Dragon]

NTTR has no complete, remember ED will add new zones (NTC to Combined Arms, new airports and new details), and surely more low detail terrain. Of course, take account the new mesh T-5 technology in develop, that can affect to NTTR, Hormuz, North France and future maps with improvements.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Silver_Dragon

[Snoopy]

I agree with everything Eddie has said. I long for the day to have bigger maps but I just don't see it happening, honestly if appears maps will be smaller at least for the foreseeable future.

[NeilWillis]

On the other hand, when flying nap of the earth in a chopper, it isn't size but detail that matters.

 

Plus missions would be very dull if you spent an hour just getting from home plate to the action. Widely separated, or confined, there are drawbacks to either solution. So maybe both? Large low detailed areas, with highly detailed combat zones?

[Fri13]

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

 

If you want helicopters and ground units on the map, then you need higher resolution.

 

Helicopter pilots are not flying at 5-12km altitude, they fly at 5-500m altitude.

 

Ground units not having any cover or terrain around them is useless as it is like now, shooting ducks on barrel.

 

Fighter pilots can go and fly as much they want at high altitude and even do circles if they like. But once you hit to close against ground targets, it becomes far more demanding.

 

It would be totally OK if the terrain would be randomly created by developers, I don't care if roads are not going where they are suppose to go. Personally I don't want any Las Vegas styled maps with that accuracy. Just make some random towns, cities and so on, with slight touches manually to give some memorable landmarks like docs, factories etc here and there.

 

Otherwise Fulda Cap area with lots of forest, hills and such randomly created and filled would be awesome.

 

And when it comes to ground textures, it doesn't need to be anything else than basic level like 20-50m per pixel and then generate random grass, rocks etc there.

[HiJack]

I would like larger maps and fewer casinos. I did a west coast flight early on in Nevada map. Would be nice to see someone taking a tanker on tour the other way to the east coast. I think it's possible with two humans and a F10 switch using the "follow" function to share leading the tanker.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=154404&highlight=nevada

[NineLine]

 

Otherwise Fulda Cap area with lots of forest, hills and such randomly created and filled would be awesome.

 

Fulda Cap would be awesome, but look at that area in Google Maps, there is a lot more going on there than a bunch of trees, and I would expect the detail levels to be high enough for me to feel like I was really there.

 

Map sizes are trending bigger. Even NTTR grew, at least the low-detail areas, as it developed. Map tech is changing and they are already looking forward.

[Aginor]

On the other hand, when flying nap of the earth in a chopper, it isn't size but detail that matters.

 

Plus missions would be very dull if you spent an hour just getting from home plate to the action. Widely separated, or confined, there are drawbacks to either solution. So maybe both? Large low detailed areas, with highly detailed combat zones?

 

That's what I suggested in this thread.

[Fri13]

Fulda Cap would be awesome, but look at that area in Google Maps, there is a lot more going on there than a bunch of trees, and I would expect the detail levels to be high enough for me to feel like I was really there.

 

Map sizes are trending bigger. Even NTTR grew, at least the low-detail areas, as it developed. Map tech is changing and they are already looking forward.

I am wondering that there isn't already a tools to create a random maps with simple sample from satellite imagery, like place random buildings to positions where there are buildings etc. Height maps are already known so it could do all for mapping.

 

Like the Saab C3 that was Swedishilitary intelligent mapping service that Apple bought, and now they make own accurate maps with 3D models etc just by flying single aircraft around areas.

 

Like think about if that service would have been doing few maps for ED?

[Aginor]

While it does sound simple and can produce some really awesome looking results that method unfortunately does not create maps that you can use in a game engine without doing additional stuff manually.

[Snoopy]

 

Plus missions would be very dull if you spent an hour just getting from home plate to the action.

 

Some of us actually enjoy flying the aircraft and not just blowing stuff up. A typical combat mission in the 476th is 40 minutes to an hour flight before getting to the target area.

 

But as always those of us in the 476th seem to be a minority on many topics, this being another example.

[hannibal]

i think country to country is too much for DCS devs at the moment... but i would like to see state to state at least.

 

you have all these airdrome elements, vor, ils etc, i would like to enjoy DCS in a "flight plan" aspect of simming, especially with future ATC improvements.

 

in the fsx / vat-sim world, flight plans can be involved yet fullfilling!

[Rikus]

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.

 

This:

 

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.

 

 

With a F18, MIG29, Su27, F15 flying in Nevada, next Hormuz, from size to size in 25 minutes.

 

You still think we don´t need bigger maps?

 

Do we really need a higly ultra detailed city? what do they give to a combat situation? I´ll preffer less detail and bigger maps due to a best combat possibilities with tankers and those stuff.

 

I think Kuwait, IRAN, IRAQ, Arabia Saudi and Kuwait would be a better option.

 

By the way, Dubai in night look like this:

 

 

 

Not like this:

 

 

 

More colour is needed.

[Esac_mirmidon]

For me one important thing is how many time an average virtual pilot want to expend flying.

 

A think 2-3 hours average is a good starting point.

 

Taking in count 15 minutes to prepare the flight inside cockpit ( A-10C, F-18C ), 30 minutes max to flight to the combat zone, 30 minutes combat, another 30 minutes to come back, maybe another 15 minutes to refuel inflight, and 10 minutes for traffic pattern and landing.

 

This is more than 2 hours flying.

 

What is the radius of such a mission? I don´t think we need a huge map for a two hours flight, except someone who like to fly from Diego García to Hanoi spending hours in the ferry, or from Wake Island to the Falklands, or from Biggin Hill to Schweinfurt.

 

Who wants to fly a 2 hours mission ferry to the combat zone and another 2 hours back plus two 15 minutes refuelings in the air and another 30 minutes in combat?

 

5 hours continuosly? Seriously?

 

For a 30 minutes in and 30 minutes out Nevada size is more than enough so, more detail and good theater choices, instead of size.

 

PD: Size is also welcomed of course.

[NineLine]

If a map has a city in it, I want that city to look like that city, not some generic couple boxes, might as well stay with the old map if thats what you want.

 

I don't see an issue with some fun combat missions in the SoH map, despite it's size...

 

As for the night shot, its a WIP, and that's a known issue.

 

This:

 

 

 

 

With a F18, MIG29, Su27, F15 flying in Nevada, next Hormuz, from size to size in 25 minutes.

 

You still think we don´t need bigger maps?

 

Do we really need a higly ultra detailed city? what do they give to a combat situation? I´ll preffer less detail and bigger maps due to a best combat possibilities with tankers and those stuff.

 

I think Kuwait, IRAN, IRAQ, Arabia Saudi and Kuwait would be a better option.

 

By the way, Dubai in night look like this:

 

...

 

 

Not like this:

 

...

 

 

More colour is needed.

[chev255]

If a map has a city in it, I want that city to look like that city, not some generic couple boxes, might as well stay with the old map if thats what you want.

Maybe because the terrain mesh on the Caucasus map is far too coarse (especially in the mountains)...

Of course it's nice to have a well modeled city, but to me most tactical military battles happen in the countryside/desert, not in the city

[NineLine]

Maybe because the terrain mesh on the Caucasus map is far too coarse (especially in the mountains)...

Of course it's nice to have a well modeled city, but to me most tactical military battles happen in the countryside/desert, not in the city

 

Tell that to Syria... Berlin... London... Paris... and all cities inbetween... I dont think cities are immune to conflict at all.

[Rikus]

5 hours continuosly? Seriously?

 

Yes, think in "The largest Day" campaigns.

[Enduro14]

Hey sith sort of In regards to that is their any plans or hints at making cities destructible? I'm wondering if this will be in play with Hormuz?

[BlackLion213]

This:

 

I think Kuwait, IRAN, IRAQ, Arabia Saudi and Kuwait would be a better option.

 

By the way, Dubai in night look like this:

 

 

 

Not like this:

 

 

 

More colour is needed.

 

That real picture is not how a human eye would see it, especially at a distance, it's too bright. I think the screenshot is too dark as well, but I don't think it's a good comparison.

 

I think that everyone would like larger maps, but getting the tech developed and working takes time. Plus, there is a trade-off with big maps and long mission times, you need a LONG time to play those missions. A Iraq map for OIF style missions would be totally unplayable for me, I don't have a 6 hour block of time that is available for computer related recreation (it would cost too much political capital on the home front - I use that capital for other things...).

 

Strait of Hormuz is going to be very realistic at that size. When real combat took place there in 1988, the aircraft spent only 15-20 minutes to get on station. The F-14As that provided CAP had an honest combat radius of 500 nm with their war-loads, but they still needed tanking to stay on station long enough to complete their missions. Transit distance is not the only thing that requires tanking.

 

The great thing about SoH is that it allows for realistic missions that don't have to take 6 hours, it's an excellent balance between realism and practical gameplay.

 

Plus, I bet that each map that ED (and 3rd parties) release will be bigger than the last. Over the next few years, we may actually get some rather large maps - if all goes smoothly.

 

-Nick

[Snoopy]

Hey sith sort of In regards to that is their any plans or hints at making cities destructible? I'm wondering if this will be in play with Hormuz?

 

Would be nice, to include if a power station is destroyed power is lost, etc. key tactical items missing currently from DCS.

[Enduro14]

Would be nice, to include if a power station is destroyed power is lost, etc. key tactical items missing currently from DCS.

 

Fact

[BitMaster]

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

 

 

 

 

my dream too !

 

screw tiny nevada sandbox, gimma norway !

[chev255]

Tell that to Syria... Berlin... London... Paris... and all cities inbetween... I dont think cities are immune to conflict at all.

I never said cities were immune... but you are talking COIN here, I specifically said military battles, do we really need F-15C, F/A-18C, M2000, etc. to drop a couple JDAMs on insurgents in a city?

Also, is the DCS engine, damage model, infantry model, civilians, etc. really adapted to COIN at the moment?

 

Personnaly I am much more interested in full-on war scenarii between military forces both with air, land and naval assets. Most of the time these are not within cities.

For sure we need cities, but I could not care less if the casinos and sky scrapers are the right ones at the right place.

[159th_Falcon]

I think SiThSpAwN was referring to WWII bombings, not terrorist attacks of recent years.

Also, a lot of WWII was door to door fighting in cities.

 

Here's an example of a Major City in The Netherlands from before and after WWII;

Edited February 18, 2016 by 159th_Falcon