Massive Low Detail Maps! +Briefing Room!

[Pilot909]

Thinking about it, another good way to have those large maps come to fruition would be for ED to release the map tools, allowing FINALLY for user created terrains. Perhaps if or when that happens we could see something like this.

[MegOhm_SD]

:smoke:Well “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”.

Doubt the number that would desire or use such a thing would justify this.

So, a pipe dream it appears. Which begs the question...what is in the pipe? :smoke:

Edited October 31, 2018 by MegOhm_SD

[Pilot909]

:smoke: Doubt the number that would desire or use such a thing would justify this. :smoke:

 

And you've come to this conclusion... how exactly? Talking to people I've found that quite a few people would be interested in larger maps, especially if they are large enough to simulate entire military campaigns (like the different parts of the Vietnam war for example). In the event of a DCS: Vietnam Tactical terrain, you'd be able to make a campaign based on the full operational history of a fighter squadron in Vietnam for example. Or in the event of a Dynamic Campaign, you'd be able to fight and alter the event of the Vietnam war your own way as opposed to what occurred in history. A traditional (current style of terrain) Vietnam map would feature a 400x400 plot of land and would greatly reduce the amount of options you have for replicating different parts of the conflict and would inhibit the "campaign" in Dynamic Campaign IMO.

Doubt the number that would desire or use such a thing would justify this

Justify what exactly? Making large low-detail maps out of satellite images and autogen? I stated many times that something like this would be released in parallel to the traditional style of terrain. Large low detail terrains would not replace small high detail terrains. In theory the map should be relatively easy to make, use of autogen scenery and satellite image terrain should drastically reduce workload for the devs and thus they would still have lots of time to make the traditional style maps we all know and love. Please read the initial post if you haven't already.
Edited November 1, 2018 by Pilot909

[Pilot909]

As I had said in my last post, large terrains that could encompass entire AO's (Afghanistan Tactical, Iraq Tactical, Vietnam Tactical, etc.) would allow for a far more enjoyable and in depth series of campaigns (and Dynamic Campaign) experiences within DCS and would bring forward much of the "life" and game experiences needed in singleplayer. You can have a Vietnam Campaign where you're flying F-4E's with the 557th TFS 12th TFW, or you could be flying UH-1's as a pilot in the 20th SOS "Green Hornets" dropping SEALs off and flying nap of the earth in the most hostile environments imaginable. Large maps give you realism, flexibility and tactical uncertainties thus improving the digital combat simulation experience. I personally think the game would be far more enjoyable and far more dynamic with larger maps and briefing rooms involved (esp with ED adding in in-game comms).

[Tinkickef]

I think the idea of being able to place generic bases and maybe interest points or targets outside the detail modeled maps is a win win situation. It gives more flexibility to mission builders. If ED could find the way and resources to give us two generic bases, large and small, a few more generic buildings and maybe roads we could fill the gaps on the low detail zones and expand our universe, also being able to use current maps as a different theater altogether.

 

Indeed. The ability to lay concrete would be a huge asset. Last night I flew the Hornet to Qatar and landed somewhere around the Al Kaban region.

The land mass is in fact there, but the coastline is just a general outline with no detail. There is no terrain mesh, nor any other ground detail, other than very low res, shadowy outlines of towns and roads visible around 10,000ft.

I landed and took off again on this featureless plain, so you do not automatically end up in a fireball. The only ground level details are the ubiquitous shrub grass clumps found everywhere on PG and the small stones littering the ground.

 

It is calling out for some quality third party to come along and add the mesh and detail.

 

Imagine someone filling in the blanks around PG and making a modest charge to incorporate it into the PG map. Fully featured Quatar and Bahrain....I'd pay a modest amount for add on terrains to flesh out the region.

 

Anyone know how far the basic land masses are featured? I think I might set course for Kuwait this afternoon to see if it is there. 3 drop tanks, no weapons, high altitude and placing the Stennis as far west as the ME allows should do it.

 

Expect it will be a one way mission.

 

EDIT:

 

I was surprised to find that the Stennis can be placed directly offshore from Kuwait and again all the outlines for the city and oilfields are there in v low resolution. Took literally 5 mins flying. I did not know the mission editor allowed object placement so far off the map.

 

Welcome to Kuwait International airport......Runway 15. What a shame we can't lay concrete in ME.

 

 

%5Bimg%5Dhttps%3A//i.imgur.com/DnTWrdO.jpg[/img]

Edited November 4, 2018 by Tinkickef

[Mars Exulte]

I don't think you understand just how short a true dynamic campaign would be in a map the size of PG or Black Sea. As another user mentioned, placement for many units is already tight and unrealistic, having refueling aircraft and AWACS congested into a small map with a dynamic campaign going on would be a real mess and even moreso when you begin to factor in longer range SAM's that take up damn near the whole map. A larger map would offer larger variety of threats, more ambiguity when it comes to the location of those threats, increased sensation of weariness and loneliness when away from friendlies en-route to a strike (like IRL), realistic fog of war, different ROE's (think going from a civil air traffic system to a warzone) and others. It's not just about having empty space to do nonsense, it has a clear application. The 400x400 box we have is simply not enough to house an ultra-accurate depiction of a 3rd or 4th gen combat environment (esp w/ dynamic campaign). It's not for everybody, hence why I mentioned that this would be an alternative style terrain to what is normally given. Did you even read what I had to say or did you just comment based on the title?

 

Yes, I read it, despite proper formatting apparently being a death dealing sin in your religion @@

 

I just think it's a poor idea. 'Lots of generic crap... but not TOO generic' I see this in virtually every game, it's designed for one scope, and people always want to do stuff outside the scope of the game, which is fine, but you take what you can get. There's always going to be an upper limit/edge.

 

The maps are already 20-30gb (or more) and climbing. Procedural generation isn't an option unless you want REALLY generic crap, so that leaves us at giant file sizes, all over adding vast amounts of low res terrain populated with generic items, so that 99% of it can be unused anyway.

 

Yep. Sounds like a great, carefully thought out plan alright @@

[Exorcet]

I just think it's a poor idea. 'Lots of generic crap... but not TOO generic' I see this in virtually every game, it's designed for one scope, and people always want to do stuff outside the scope of the game, which is fine, but you take what you can get. There's always going to be an upper limit/edge.

We don't even know where that edge is unless the developers tell us. If they came in and said the map size now is the max it can possibly be (like was the case with 1.5 Caucuses), that settles things.

 

 

The maps are already 20-30gb (or more) and climbing. Procedural generation isn't an option unless you want REALLY generic crap, so that leaves us at giant file sizes, all over adding vast amounts of low res terrain populated with generic items, so that 99% of it can be unused anyway.

We already have multiple levels of detail in maps, so it's not necessarily a question of having procedural generation or detail, but possibly how much of each. Current map sizes don't really matter. Reduce detail to reduce map file size and the increase map dimension size.

 

 

Yep. Sounds like a great, carefully thought out plan alright @@

It does, especially considering all the other avenues for achieving the goal that haven't been mentioned yet, like map location.

 

 

The PG map is in a great area because it has a natural barrier (the straight) that offsets some of the issues of having bases right on top on each other while also offering a good bit of water area to take up space. The Southern UAE bases are also a good distance from the front lines. The biggest flaws are probably that the bases are kind of huddled together on Blue side, which makes the AFB in Qatar valuable, and that so little of the Gulf of Oman is easily reached on the map for carrier use.

 

 

Building for map size would probably involve areas with higher portions of water compared to land, maybe like the Kuril Islands, or something like Korea.

[Mars Exulte]

@exorcet

On that note, have you heard about Razbam working on the Falkland islands? They're including a slice of Argentina, with the long flight times and fuel management that implies. We'll have at least one example of (more or less) what you guys are requesting. I'm not opposed to it, persay, I just recognise the extremely limited utility and appeal of such things.

 

And for the record, I'm in the 'willing to fly several hours' crowd, but I have no illusions about being my being in the minority =)

[Pilot909]

so that 99% of it can be unused anyway.

 

This in itself illustrates that you clearly did not understand the point or large map design. That "space" is needed for the sake of a realistic tactical environment, more dynamic battlespace, more airbases, more tactical ambiguity, more tactical opportunity and consequently a more accurate set of campaigns and dynamic campaigns. People wanted a dynamic campaign experience akin to BMS with a terrain a mere fraction of the size and asked to "just be a cog in the machine". That's not gonna happen when your missile can reach a quarter of the way across the entire map (AIM-54)...

[Pilot909]

for the record, I'm in the 'willing to fly several hours' crowd, but I have no illusions about being my being in the minority =)

 

That's the thing, you don't HAVE to fly several hours to fight on massive maps. Just fly out of an airbase near the front lines of the conflict. Fly into enemy held territory, do your thing and come back. Only this time units are spread as they should be and there is a more accurate set of air defence threats, refuelers and AWACS aren't flying right next to the enemy etc.

[Exorcet]

@exorcet

On that note, have you heard about Razbam working on the Falkland islands? They're including a slice of Argentina, with the long flight times and fuel management that implies. We'll have at least one example of (more or less) what you guys are requesting. I'm not opposed to it, persay, I just recognise the extremely limited utility and appeal of such things.

 

And for the record, I'm in the 'willing to fly several hours' crowd, but I have no illusions about being my being in the minority =)

 

 

I've not been following Razbam's map work, so it's good to hear the Falklands are coming and that it will be pretty extensive in size. I'll definitely look into getting it assuming I still have space on the SSD as DCS just seems to keep growing.

 

 

 

Very long flights are niche are probably of limited appeal, but I don't think that's the only thing that large maps offer. Having a variety of spread out airbases to fly from is something I think everyone can enjoy depending on how it's balanced against map detail. Just hypothetically imagine for the sake of example a map that covers a northern snowy region, a moderate climate, and a hot desert area. Even if most players wouldn't fly through all three regions in a single flight I would expect many to fly in all three areas separately. Not to mention that having these diverse areas connected allows you to move a campaign through these areas seamlessly.

 

 

 

In any case, I'm not trying to pitch this as something ED must do. I'm just letting it be known that it's something I'd like to see and discussing how it might be implemented. Whether or not it makes it into the sim is ED's call, and they may decide against it for reasons similar to the ones you mentioned.

 

 

To be fair, most already can with aerial refueling. You can stay in the air until the tanker runs out fuel, you encounter failures or get shot down.

What I meant there was that even without refueling, you can cross the high detail areas of the maps. The F-15 has something like a 600 nm radius while still being able to engage in combat. I actually made some missions making use of the range in the old 1.5 map, flying out of Batumi I think (as a stand in for Merzifon) and escorting F-18's on a strike in Ukraine.

 

 

The Persian Gulf map honestly has a lot of similar potential (and in case it's not clear, I'm not really dissatisfied with that map at all, it's a really nice area to fly and fight in), but things like the map zoom out restrictions in the ME can make it needlessly hard to tap into all of that.

[Mars Exulte]

This in itself illustrates that you clearly did not understand the point or large map design. That "space" is needed for the sake of a realistic tactical environment, more dynamic battlespace, more airbases, more tactical ambiguity, more tactical opportunity and consequently a more accurate set of campaigns and dynamic campaigns. People wanted a dynamic campaign experience akin to BMS with a terrain a mere fraction of the size and asked to "just be a cog in the machine". That's not gonna happen when your missile can reach a quarter of the way across the entire map (AIM-54)...

 

 

Oi, ffs man. Yes, I'm not stupid and understand the utility of a larger map. I disagree on the appeal of it, not 'oh he doesn't understand or he'd totally back me up'. None of this is particularly realistic in scale and scope anyway. Have you created a mission fighting major regional power troops where you are not being perpetually bombarded by dozens of SAMs? Then it's already terribly unrealistic in scope and scale.

 

THAT'S my point. 99% of the missions utilised are glorified COINOPS anyway. So 'the tankers are unrealistically close' is hardly an imposition. If you want to force air refueling do an air start or simply reduce available fuel on the ground. Or design the mission so there is incentive to stay airborne via staggered enemies/events.

 

RL militaries do this sort of thing when required, if they have airbases handy or can park a carrier offshore they do that instead. The only exception is when loitering over an area for prolonged tines, which is a mission design issue that has nothing to do with how far you're flying.

 

I'm not particularly interested in bloating the already gargantuan file size so we can... fly long distances over featureless generic terrain? Or conduct operations in/from various exotic locations consisting of generic featureless terrain? And yes, I realise the main thing you're interested in is expanded playing area and the possibilities it offers.

[Pilot909]

I disagree on the appeal of it, not 'oh he doesn't understand or he'd totally back me up'

 

lol. I'm not saying you'd totally back me up if you understood. I'm saying you have yet to provide any logical reasoning as to why it shouldn't be in the sim.

 

Have you created a mission fighting major regional power troops where you are not being perpetually bombarded by dozens of SAMs? Then it's already terribly unrealistic in scope and scale.THAT'S my point. 99% of the missions utilised are glorified COINOPS anyway.

Uhh, that's largely due to the limitations of small map design. Map is too small to create a realistic and dynamic air defence environment.

 

Anyway, lets play a game. Tell me. What you tell someone who wanted smaller sized, more detailed terrains compared to the ones we have now. Now consider those same arguments in this context.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Pilot909
Spelling

[Mars Exulte]

No, the limitation on a realistic war scenario is not map size. Having 10-15 divisions active in the AO will crash a NASA physics computer =) That, and it quickly ceases to be 'fun' if every sortie is a one-way suicide run OR because it requires a large multi-flight coordinated attack to pick away at ADS layers. As a result missions are made where the players effectively have plot armor and can feasibly be the hero of the story =)

 

When it comes to map size, yes there is a lower limit. In WWI and II aircraft that are guns and WVR only with 45 minute flight times, you can get away with much smaller maps than wouldn't work with aircraft cruising at 3x the speed and engaging targets from 30-40 miles away. Even then, there is a minimum range, as anyone can see in War Thunder for example, 20-30km separation isn't nearly enough.

 

That doesn't mean that the maps have to be 1000x1000 to support multihour flights, global sorties, or forced aerial refueling, especially since you can still accomplish all that within the existing framework with only minimal effort to avoid 'gamey' mission scenarios. You don't need 1000 miles to do those things, you just need to design the scenario with it in mind from the get-go.

 

Basically, DCS is scoped for single sortie or relatively low intensity warfare in semi-localised areas. Unlike say 'a part of France' what we have here already are entire countries and large chunks of detailed or low detailed parts of multiple neighboring countries. That's well within the framework to simulate something the scope of the Russo-Georgian War, any of the Afghan conflicts, or any of the Iraq/Iran/ME conflicts, which were relatively localised affairs.

 

You're welcome to aggitate for it, but what we have is more than enough to create any desired scenario actually involving the featured nations. No, squeezing Turkey's involvement into the Black Sea map is a bit of a stretch, but if you focus on plausible particpants, or simply adlib the territories, it works fine. Only hinderance is sloppy mission design.

 

 

 

One note regarding layered ADS and map size. No, you can't put a series of hostile layered S-300s in the middle of the map for example, but there's little reason to, as that scenario basically means the war is already over and BluFor lost, in which case you have to operate from the edges or sea and work inward in a long slog. That applies no matter how big the map is, you have to design it with both teams and a feasible thought out scenario in mind, or it's just sloppy mission design. You're not going to simulate WWIII with multinational armies from multiple directions. You pick a theater and stick to it.

Edited November 4, 2018 by zhukov032186

[Bad_Karma-701]

Question

 

 

 

1. What if We had ORBX true earth support or something similar and the ability to edit current maps.

 

Plus a dynamic theater. A campaign that moves through multiple maps in various ways

 

Such as for example Nevada}PG } future Syria map or bounces back and forth mission to mission. Now to address Size you say doesn't let you refuel how about a cutscene vs loading screen your flight transitioning from one map to the next and your starting task is to Refuel or land at a nearby base one you have placed or one already on the map.

 

2. If maps were editable and the map tools were available. why wouldn't it be possible to turn Nevada into say parts of Jordan and Iraq.

 

i dunno if larger maps is the ideal solution whats the pro's cons to the 400x400 that a say 600x600 or 800x800 would fix what problems would they introduce.

 

3. what time target are we trying to achieve for missions that current maps cant hit.

 

 

The Question I now pose is.. Using what i asked in 1/2

say we plan a 30-45 min flight followed by 15 on station followed by another 30-45 min return

 

this is a pretty long flight for a single mission.

 

 

now say you have 30 missions to a operation that is roughly 45 hrs. and say you design a campaign around say 3 operations.

 

That is roughly 6 days. and you got yourself a war.

 

that's just flight time vary the missions length add in a interactive war room or briefing room that allows for mission planning load out selection and you have a pretty solid setup.

 

and if they are using AI game logic the AI reacts to User inputs and BDA. it can vary and randomize assets. based on theater operations, think Chess or the game Risk. AI has Options WIN Stalemate, or survive. do they commit assets in this theater and potentially lose them or retreat and fortify elsewhere.

 

there is I think so much potential in map integration and a theater wide dynamic campaign setup.

 

Sorry for the WALL of text...

Edited November 4, 2018 by Bad_Karma-701

[Silver_Dragon]

ORBX true earth or something, require first adapt to ED graphic engine to work into them, not vise-versa. You need build all new technology branch to use on a ED "whole world".

 

Remember the SDK only has available to licence 3rd Parties.

[Pilot909]

No, the limitation on a realistic war scenario is not map size. Having 10-15 divisions active in the AO will crash a NASA physics computer =)

 

BMS does it just fine on a rusty old frame.

 

it quickly ceases to be 'fun' if every sortie is a one-way suicide run OR because it requires a large multi-flight coordinated attack to pick away at ADS layers.

 

How does the "fun" get omitted if you fly as 'a large multi-flight coordinated attack' playing with people (or AI) and accomplishing a team objective? That sounds fun to me and plenty of others. Especially considering we're getting in-game comms at some point in the future. Let's not forget that I clearly stated on multiple occasions that this Tactical Terrain series wouldn't be for EVERYONE, some people will be into it, some wont and that it wouldnt replace the current style of terrain. The Tactical Terrains would be based on Satellite imagery and auto-gen and made to effectively create as realistic of an AO as possible for those that want that experience, considering no real art has to go into the ground models and the ground doesnt have to created from nothing it would be an easier workflow than the smaller more traditional maps anyway. So I don't see it detracting from the traditional terrains that people know and love.

 

to pick away at ADS layers

 

That's what SEAD/DEAD are for, which is fun and a great place for the F-16, F-18, SU-25T, F-4E and others.

 

As a result missions are made where the players effectively have plot armor and can feasibly be the hero of the story =)

 

How does that make sense, in order to just survive, you have to hope that SEAD/DEAD and BARCAP did their job so that you can make it to an enemy airbase for the OCA strike for example. It REQUIRES a team effort when you have a larger map with realistic AD and air interdiction threats. That one man army stuff you can do in DCS would be impossible and with it the ability to win the war virtually all on your own (people have been wanting to be a 'cog in the machine' for a while).

 

You don't need 1000 miles to do those things, you just need to design the scenario with it in mind from the get-go.

you have to design it with both teams and a feasible thought out scenario in mind, or it's just sloppy mission design

 

Sure, I'm not saying you can't design mission scenarios that may reflect reality, however a true tactically authentic campaign or dynamic campaign in itself would not be feasible under the current map size. But again, even if you made a mission with the right spacing and AD threats, it would be over the same little square of territory every time as opposed to different parts of the area allowing for different landscape and tactical opportunities as a result of shift in terrain and weather.