Join the Maps

[brettmccl]

Wouldn't it be awesome if you could fly from Syria to Georgia and Iran if you have all the maps installed I can't see why not!

[stormrider]

Wouldn't it be awesome if you could fly from Syria to Georgia and Iran if you have all the maps installed I can't see why not!

 

 

It is possible. One could get all the data and convert it into a single huge map by joininig 3 or 4 maps. But it would take 100GB+ to load every time you start a scenario.

There is of course a lot of room for optimization if you take into comparison world scale rendering like X-Plane 11 or Flight Simulator 2020 which most of the time, with addon airports, often look better than DCS (At the cost of very low fps in VR - currently).

Edited June 17, 2020 by stormridersp

[Weta43]

As far as I have seen, X-Plane and MSFS look good where you have an add on, but are pretty cr*p in between landmarks by default, and where simulators do have good terrain at low level across the whole map, it tends to be more generically proceduraly generated

& E.D. I think have said they want to keep as much correlation with actual terrain as possible

 

Re the 'loading them all at the same time' Pretty sure that E.D. have said their engine won't deal with that many objects.

 

Nothing to stop maps having slight overlaps and missions in a campaign moving from map to map though.

 

Start in Georgia, advance down to an eastern Turkey or North Iran / Armenia / Azerbaijan map & through to the existing Syrian or Gulf maps.

Or move between Normandy and the Channel maps between landing and taking off...

 

(Edit: would cut the prospective market down though)

[stormrider]

As far as I have seen, X-Plane and MSFS look good where you have an add on, but are pretty cr*p in between landmarks by default, and where simulators do have good terrain at low level across the whole map, it tends to be more generically proceduraly generated

& E.D. I think have said they want to keep as much correlation with actual terrain as possible

 

 

I have to disagree there mate. They look the same or better than DCS. DCS is an old engine which still uses very old technology.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: And btw, regarding procedurally generated noise, well, all these flight sim engines are required to use very low resolution heightmaps so to start up with, even DCS is already very far from your stated "keep as much correlation with actual terrain as possible" when so little details are actually in the data. Using procedural noise technology can only be beneficial for it adds (in-game) detail to where it should have had if the data had better resolution in the first place.

Edited June 17, 2020 by stormridersp

[Ala13_ManOWar]

They have said they have a goal in a whole Earth low detail map so current maps could be flown uninterrupted. But that's a long term wish and to my knowledge never said they were in any way already working on that, so it's gonna be more than two weeks.

 

 

And about the "badly detailed maps", TBH I don't think they are that bad after flying so many years in crappy FS generic scenarios. It's that bad but my hard disc is over 200Gb only for DCS, most of it is from maps, I don't think I have any other so heavy software currently, so I guess there's more detail there than it seems to some people.

 

 

 

S!

[Buzzles]

I have to disagree there mate. They look the same or better than DCS. DCS is an old engine which still uses very old technology.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: And btw, regarding procedurally generated noise, well, all these flight sim engines are required to use very low resolution heightmaps so to start up with, even DCS is already very far from your stated "keep as much correlation with actual terrain as possible" when so little details are actually in the data. Using procedural noise technology can only be beneficial for it adds (in-game) detail to where it should have had if the data had better resolution in the first place.

 

 

Xplane is the better comparison, and from those vids the landscapes look worse.

 

Dropping a MSFS 2020 video in there isn't fair, considering it's not out so we've no idea what it's actually going to look like on consumer machines (those demos will be on top spec machines running at full pelt with everything cranked to max)

[stormrider]

Dropping a MSFS 2020 video in there isn't fair, considering it's not out so we've no idea what it's actually going to look like on consumer machines (those demos will be on top spec machines running at full pelt with everything cranked to max)

 

 

Well, the DCS community is also well known for their hardware spending obsession and appetite for ultra grade quality stuff, isn't it. It's not an uncommon sight in this forum to see people spending 4+ figures in hardware alone.

[Bagpipe]

(those demos will be on top spec machines running at full pelt with everything cranked to max)

 

I'm on the Alpha and do not own an overly luxurious machine BUT i refuse to comment on the validity of this claim due to the NDA

[Bananabrai]

I hope it can be done (a positive ED statement to that would keep me calm for the next 5+ years)

I hope it will be done

I fear its going to be very long time before they start joining maps.

I hope it won't be as long as I fear it will be...

[Baco]

Maybe flying over a nice "flat" rendering is ok for civil sims, but in a combat sim you need a 3d world all the way, and that means 3d objects...

[speed-of-heat]

Yeah they would likely need to a tweak some map geometry... as they are all flat at the moment, and also different maps from different time periods and differing standards of production would be ... jarring... compare the British coastline on Normandy and the channel as examples... let alone models types... let alone areas that actually overlap... so it could be done, it’s after all ‘only’ software and data...but it’s non trivial ... I would love to see world scale dcs...on one level on another... tanking my way across the Atlantic is not my idea of a good time... I get that some people will get a kick out of it...

[Mars Exulte]

Wouldn't it be awesome if you could fly from Syria to Georgia and Iran if you have all the maps installed I can't see why not!

 

I can see a lot of reasons ''why not'':

 

#1 Time and resources. Everytime somebody says something like this as if it's trivial, my face physically hurts. If it was really ''that easy'' they'd have already done it. It's not like they need random forum dweebs to point out obvious notions like ''what if we had a full globe'' etc as if nobody but them ever thought of it before.

 

#2 See #1, ED is not a multibillion dollar company with virtually unlimited resources, manpower, and easy access to their own global satellite database.

 

#3 Nothing is free. As mentioned, we have 100s of gigs of maps now. Seemlessly moving from one to another is not without its own complications.

 

#4 The real world is not a fairytale and often has limitations, as you can see, beyond simply imagination

[Madfish]

Maybe flying over a nice "flat" rendering is ok for civil sims, but in a combat sim you need a 3d world all the way, and that means 3d objects...

Could you elaborate on what you mean by flat rendering? Are you referring to the lack support of VR in certain other games?

If it's about the texturing, tessalation quality etc. the detail in some other simulators is on par or higher, especially considering the sheer size. You'll reach the end of high res nevada very quickly for example and DCS has a big issue rendering any decent ground detail from textures, especially in the distance. For example check out the mountains in NTTR or PG.

As for geometry quality we don't even have a single airport with a detailed realistic and sloped runway yet in DCS.

 

So here's hoping they'll make a big push to get the maps up to date and hopefully merged as they are beginning to look a bit outdated and feel rather small.

[Repth]

It's not totally out of the realm of possibilities. If you look at what we have now, excluding the Falklands, Marianas, NTTR, Channel, and Normandy maps, they might actually be working towards that goal. This is, of course, all speculation.

 

Even if it was a low detailed area there is still a huge amount of land to cover to make the transition believable. The technical hurdles and manpower would definitely be a factor.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Repth