Size of the map Combat Sim

[chev255]

Fair enough but the same questions remain:

1- do we think we will be able to model door to door fighting in DCS in the foreseeable future? (The current Las Vegas rendition is clearly not detailed enough for that (no interior of buildings, etc.) and the game engine would IMHO require major changes)

2- does it really matter to have true to life buildings/casinos/streets/etc.?

[NineLine]

Fair enough but the same questions remain:

1- do we think we will be able to model door to door fighting in DCS in the foreseeable future? (The current Las Vegas rendition is clearly not detailed enough for that (no interior of buildings, etc.) and the game engine would IMHO require major changes)

2- does it really matter to have true to life buildings/casinos/streets/etc.?

 

1 - Once 3rd Parties start diving into map building whats not to say we dont see higher detailed areas that are more suitable to Combined Arms. There is no reason really why we couldnt, obviously it needs to be developed.

2 - I think it would add huge immersion to the Black Sea map if the buildings and such matched a little better to real world. They dont have to be a dead on match, and NTTR isnt for much of the suburbs and such, but match enough to give the feeling you are flying/driving in the real area.

[NineLine]

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

 

I hope so as well, and again, as 3rd Parties push the tech, I hope we can see this. Remember, the tools and map tech is very young, it will and has already evolved even from what we have now.

[NineLine]

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.

 

I am not just talking COIN, and I am not sure how you can have a 'full-on war scenario' and think they dont happen within cities. I cant think of too many conflicts the US has been in over the past few years and some activity within city limits hasnt happened. Or look at the conflict in Yemen right now as an example.

 

 

Obviously NTTR isnt the best example for this as the focus is the training range so concern about damage modelling for the buildings wasnt high, although I believe its still a WIP. I would hope that would evolve for future maps.

[kontiuka]

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.

+1. Flying out of Nellis over a half-baked Vegas would just be ... wrong.

[MegOhm_SD]

Long range bombers and transport planes are pointless as well.

 

Maybe we don't need long range bombers with limited maps but Transports would be a good thing for Normandy. I can see bringing in troops or towing gliders to bring in troops just like we can do now with Choppers. What if we could deploy the 82nd and 101st Airborne? We should be looking forward. So no, not really pointless.

[Aginor]

Maybe. On a small scale.

The 101st for example started their mission at RAF North Witham, that's a hundred miles north of London. And I am pretty sure we won't have that on the map. And that's the problem. Those small distances make the whole mission profile of a airborne infantry raid pointless.

 

Of course we can use all the stuff, but not in a strategically realistic way.

I can fly a B-52 from Batumi to bomb Gudauta, and people might have loads of fun with that. It is still pointless.

 

EDIT:

That being said: YES, I agree. I want all that stuff in the game. I just want bigger maps as well. :)

[Eddie]

That's the key point for me, yes you can use pretty much any airframe in theaters of the size we have now, but you can't employ many of the tactics that would be used by those airframes in reality as you don't have the airspace to do so.

 

It also limits what you can do with air defence networks of both sides, it's hard to have large IADS networks that you then punch a few holes in with SEAD and Fighter Sweeps in a small area, for example.

[Esac_mirmidon]

It´s possible to make a B-52 to take off from Tiblisi and strike Anapa. It´s a 750 km trip. Not so small.

[Aginor]

yeah, but consider where the B-52 would take off in real life. Definitely not inside the range of an enemy fighter.

[Eddie]

It´s possible to make a B-52 to take off from Tiblisi and strike Anapa. It´s a 750 km trip. Not so small.

 

For a B-52, it is. That's well within the mission range of most NATO fighters (or the A-10C) without air refueling. ;)

 

But in all seriousness, that's an illustration of the problem. You have to use two extremes of the theatre to do that which massively limits the number of possible scenarios.

[NineLine]

For a B-52, it is. That's well within the mission range of most NATO fighters (or the A-10C) without air refueling. ;)

 

But in all seriousness, that's an illustration of the problem. You have to use two extremes of the theatre to do that which massively limits the number of possible scenarios.

 

Yet we made do with the Black Sea map all these years ;)

 

Mission creators are creative, they will do the same for NTTR and SoH, we will see creative scenarios of all sorts and we will have years of enjoyment out of any and all maps we get. And as I said... I am sure the tech will evolve, as such, so will the size and such.

Edited February 18, 2016 by NineLine

[Eddie]

Yet we made do with the Black Sea map all these years ;)

 

Because we've had to, and there is a very long list of things that we haven't been able to do because of it.

[NineLine]

Because we've had to, and there is a very long list of things that we haven't been able to do because of it.

 

A very long list? I am intrigued... list em.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Between Caucasus map and Diego García-Hanoi it would be a medium point. XDD

[Aginor]

I think we all got the point across:

- Small maps aren't the end of the world

- Large maps would be desirable.

 

:)

[MegOhm_SD]

Maybe. On a small scale.

The 101st for example started their mission at RAF North Witham, that's a hundred miles north of London. And I am pretty sure we won't have that on the map. And that's the problem. Those small distances make the whole mission profile of a airborne infantry raid pointless.

 

Of course we can use all the stuff, but not in a strategically realistic way.

I can fly a B-52 from Batumi to bomb Gudauta, and people might have loads of fun with that. It is still pointless.

 

EDIT:

That being said: YES, I agree. I want all that stuff in the game. I just want bigger maps as o. :)

 

Historical accuracy and realism is fine but it does not have to be a prerequisite.

 

Yes larger maps! But I do disagree with "pointless". Different stokes for different folks.

Edited February 18, 2016 by MegOhm_SD

[Exorcet]

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

Only if they're designed that way. One of the draws for big maps is uncertainty. Where do you hide SAM's around the Caucuses when everyone has flown every square inch of it? It's a problem for the AI too, especially since you need to guide them around things like pop up SAM's in the editor. Medium SAM's are enough to cover the entire landmass at some points.

 

I think big maps are very much necessary for combat sims. Certainly more so than in civil sims where you can concoct any reason to hop from one airfield to another. You technically can do the same in a military sim, but things get silly fast, especially with modern long range aircraft and weapons. This doesn't even include campaigns where big maps facilitate moving front lines and varying tactics.

 

I can understand that people want detail, and this is going to make ED pursue more detail, but it's a completely secondary layer of icing compared to size for me. I do support the idea of big maps with specific areas of detail. That seems like a way to try to meet everyone's needs.

[Shez]

There's a whole list of things I'd like before bigger maps. A working ATC, AI that actually went to flight school, FLIR....etc etc. Get what we have working correctly then lets come back to the map debate.

[Vincent90]

A very long list? I am intrigued... list em.

- Usage of external fuel tanks and the systems involved

- Realistis length and distance of missions

- Navigational challenges

- Long distance flights instead of going back and forth between Anapa and Tblisi all the time.

- Highspeed testing of equipment without the feeling you're steering a plane inside a bath tub.

- And last but not least, it would give the player a much bigger feel of freedom and possibilities.

 

Again, for playing Air Quake and helicopters the current sizes are fine, but when you want to do other stuff, things are getting cramped.

 

I understand the reasoning of ED behind the choice of going for highly detailed environments, I really do, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that there isn't a good market for low detail, big environment maps. Especially if/when the other Soviet interceptors are developed.

 

Again, why not cater to both sides of the market? NTTR/SoH for the fans of helicopters and other machines that require high detail, small map size for immersion, and for jets and war simulations low detail, large map size for immersion.

 

DCS was designed to be a sandbox for a plethora of military possibilities, and you can't disagree that the current map sizes are one of the limitations for that objective.

 

@Shez: You're absolutely right, but those are system modelling/ AI modelling issues, a different branch then texture modelling issues. ;)

[Rikus]

It´s possible to make a B-52 to take off from Tiblisi and strike Anapa. It´s a 750 km trip. Not so small.

 

So if we want long range missions, we have to take off always from the right corner and go for the target in the left corner.

 

Bored, always same scenario.

 

We need bigger maps, to not fly always in the same areas.

[NineLine]

but you'll have a hard time convincing me that there isn't a good market for low detail, big environment maps.

 

Nobody said anything about it being an issue of market value, Wags himself said their goal is to get bigger with the maps as they get more comfortable with the tools and the tech evolves.

 

And you list is neither long nor are all those things impossible with what we currently have ;)

[Esac_mirmidon]

Rikus its an example of a long range mission possible in DCS, not an obligation for every one.

[Eddie]

- Usage of external fuel tanks and the systems involved

- Realistis length and distance of missions

- Navigational challenges

- Long distance flights instead of going back and forth between Anapa and Tblisi all the time.

- Highspeed testing of equipment without the feeling you're steering a plane inside a bath tub.

- And last but not least, it would give the player a much bigger feel of freedom and possibilities.

 

I wasn't going to bother as I consider it rather pointless when people have their own fixed ideas based on their play style alone, but, to expand on the list above. Not exhaustive by any means, and I've left out much of the small scale TTP based details that would require a lot of explanation, but still a reasonable starter for 10.

 

• Realistic length and distance of missions for both sides within a realistic tactical scenario including a realistic air & surface OOB
  
• Navigational challenges, both tactical and non-tactical for both sides within a realistic tactical scenario including a realistic air & surface OOB
  
• Long distance flights instead of going back and forth between Anapa and Tblisi all the time.
  
• And last but not least, it would give the player a much bigger feel of freedom and possibilities.
  
• Space to create a scenario with a realistic ground based air defence network utilizing a correct NATO/WARPAC OOB IAW current or past doctrine.
  
• As above for airborne elements of the IADS.
  
• Space to include realistically configured tanker tracks or proper length and quanitity
  
• As above for AWACS and other ISTAR assets .
  
• Large enough area to allow for basing of aircraft at doctrine appropriate distances from hostile airspace/FEBA as applicable.
  
• Enough space to permit all of the above and have a mobile FEBA over a period of time that is in keeping with both historical and expected theoretical future scenarios (i.e. weeks > months).
  
• Enough space to have all of the above, and be able to use the same physical theatre to create multiple scenarios over time, which have a significant enough of a difference to give the feel of an entirely different play experience and therefore increase game longevity.
  

 

The key here is not the individual elements from a pure single aircraft in isolation aspect, but rather as a part of a coherent and realistic scenario. Yes some of it can be forced into the Black Sea area, but it really is forced, trust me I've been doing it for quite a few years now. For those who aren't that bothered about the "realistic" element and find suspending disbelief either easy or unnecessary I'm sure the current state of affairs is quite pleasing, but such players aren't representative of all.

 

All of this isn't to imply that what we have now is somehow pointless or invaluable, but rather it's a view held by many and also a hope for the future. Do doubt having all of this represents some serious technical, and logistical, challenges. But it is still a very worthy goal in my eyes.

 

Personally I think that the Nevada theatre is a very significant step forward, certainly technologically, even if I don't particularly agree with or understand some of the way it has been implemented. And I don't think anyone would suggest that the level of detail in the "high detail" areas isn't very impressive and immersive. But I do think that some people underestimate the value of using lower detail to "flesh out" the theatres and create more options. At least until we can, one day, have truly massive theatres of operation in high detail.

 

Just because many are quite happy with the current state of terrain, or even the past state, doesn't mean that those who aren't should be shouted down at every given opportunity. Nor does it mean that those people don't appreciate what we have now, or the technological challenges that stand in the way of what we desire. This isn't a competition, or an argument to be won, although I get the impression that some around here are trying to treat it as such.

 

The key thing is, that nothing being suggested would take away from anyone's experience, but it would add greatly to the experience of others.

[astiles5470]

Well said Eddie :thumbup: