Entire Earth Wishlist Thread

[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

[Terzi]

Is it possible that ED switches to whole globe model? I really hope so. I know this was discussed before but please take a moment to read some thoughts.

 

Those areas which are not yet done by ED/purchased by the user; would be filled with auto-generated terrain, based on (possibly royalty-free) satellite images/elevations. Then those areas which are modeled as DLC, would override that autogen data whereever possible if it exists in DCS shop. No matter how bad the generated terrain would be, noone has any reason to complain since everyone still has freedom to stay e.g inside Syria, just like they would do today, and enjoy their purchased map assets.

 

In that case one would be able to fly from Iran to Syria to Caucaus etc. Just like northern part of Turkey and Crimean side today in Caucaus Map. No airports (or maybe just important ones, basic structure), no fancy stuff but just sea+terrain. This would at least simulate long range flights and would provide many extra possibilities to simulate long-range airlifts, refuelings, and would greatly benefit the dynamic campaign on the horizon.

 

I assume many will argue about the map size in terabytes, but this could also be done step by step. Currently there is nothing in Africa, well, leave it out for now but make the areas between Persian Gulf and the Channel map, even though it is auto-gen. Or make it just like FS2020. They manage to keep their install size 100 to 200GB.

 

If you ask me, yes I would takeoff from Aviano in Italy, refuel on my way on Mediterrenean, strike ISIS in Palmyra and come back the same way.

 

One good point would be, open the map for community contribution. I would be happy to contribute with 3D drawings to model the Aviano base in Italy. Let's say that person X makes a hangar, or a specific bridge. Once that community contributed asset gets approved by the ED, it is added to DCS->core. Isolate the areas which are being worked on by 3rd parties, so that their financial interest is never shadowed by community contributions. Everybody benefits from that.

[G.J.S]

It would be great for true mission patterns, but realistically I don’t think it’s possible (atm).

There would inevitably be trade-offs, not only that, to “flesh out” say a 800-1000 mile ingress would be hard on computing power. Would you want a bare bones world up to say 200 miles from your target area, or same detail availability all the way?

Then units - the more units, the more computing power needed and before you know it, everyone will need to start taking out shares in Cray. 

Let’s say we go with the bare bones until in the poo option (detail-wise), guarantee some will relish it - long transit, maybe a few AAR hook ups,, then dip to low level for a 80 mile run to target, personally I would love it, I really would, but there will be those that would rather have pin sharp detail all the way, and nothing less. That would only benefit the ‘Cray twins’ with their bang wiz NASA supercomputers. The rest of us would have to suffer a slideshow.

Trade-offs.

As much as I would like it, it’s not going to happen without a severe graphical abilities overhaul, which may FUBAR other things.

Edited June 26, 2021 by G.J.S

[Northstar98]

It's something that has been hinted at in the past, but it's more of a future dream than something near term.

 

There's still a fair bit to get right first however, and we'd have to overhaul every single one of our existing maps.

 

Here's a thread I made on the Marianas map, and there are several posts that go into a little more detail (mostly from Machalot).

 

4 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

It would be great for true mission patterns, but realistically I don’t think it’s possible (atm).

There would inevitably be trade-offs, not only that, to “flesh out” say a 800-1000 mile ingress would be hard on computing power. Would you want a bare bones world up to say 200 miles from your target area, or same detail availability all the way?

Then units - the more units, the more computing power needed and before you know it, everyone will need to start taking out shares in Cray. 

Let’s say we go with the bare bones until in the poo option (detail-wise), guarantee some will relish it - long transit, maybe a few AAR hook ups,, then dip to low level for a 80 mile run to target, personally I would love it, I really would, but there will be those that would rather have pin sharp detail all the way, and nothing less. That would only benefit the ‘Cray twins’ with their bang wiz NASA supercomputers. The rest of us would have to suffer a slideshow.

Trade-offs.

As much as I would like it, it’s not going to happen without a severe graphical abilities overhaul, which may FUBAR other things.

 

Isn't this mostly a mission editing issue though? It's not something inherent to having a world map itself.

 

We could have the same missions we have now, just there's more choice over where they are - it's up to the mission editor. 

Edited June 26, 2021 by Northstar98

[G.J.S]

1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

It's something that has been hinted at in the past, but it's more of a future dream than something near term.

 

There's still a fair bit to get right first however, and we'd have to overhaul every single one of our existing maps.

 

Here's a thread I made on the Marianas map, and there are several posts that go into a little more detail (mostly from Machalot).

 

Isn't this mostly a mission editing issue though? It's not something inherent to having a world map itself.

I have a feeling the two would go hand in hand to be honest, editing would go some way to alleviating the stress load, but people being people . . . . 

[Northstar98]

19 hours ago, G.J.S said:

I have a feeling the two would go hand in hand to be honest

 

Oh they certainly go hand in hand, and bigger maps mean there's more room to make stuff big, but I don't think it's an inherent problem, as this is wholly a problem concerned with mission editing.

 

I'm sure people will try and make massive scenarios spanning a huge area, but there's nothing stopping them from making a small scenario - they've just got more choice of exactly where.

 

Though in any case, there's still plenty of technical issues to work through, as well as the feasibility of it in the first place, even if it's something I'd love to see.

Edited June 27, 2021 by Northstar98

[Exorcet]

9 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Isn't this mostly a mission editing issue though? It's not something inherent to having a world map itself.

 

Very true. The only thing stopping me from flying out of Prince Sultan on the Gulf map or Merzifon on the Black Sea map is that there are no airports there. Current maps already have a good amount of unused space, mission designers only need a few extra tools to make use of that space. If we got a globe not much should change, the people wanting detail above all else would just limit themselves to the detailed areas.

[WRAITH]

On 6/26/2021 at 9:56 PM, Terzi said:

Is it possible that ED switches to whole globe model? I really hope so. I know this was discussed before but please take a moment to read some thoughts.

 

Those areas which are not yet done by ED/purchased by the user; would be filled with auto-generated terrain, based on (possibly royalty-free) satellite images/elevations. Then those areas which are modeled as DLC, would override that autogen data whereever possible if it exists in DCS shop. No matter how bad the generated terrain would be, noone has any reason to complain since everyone still has freedom to stay e.g inside Syria, just like they would do today, and enjoy their purchased map assets.

 

In that case one would be able to fly from Iran to Syria to Caucaus etc. Just like northern part of Turkey and Crimean side today in Caucaus Map. No airports (or maybe just important ones, basic structure), no fancy stuff but just sea+terrain. This would at least simulate long range flights and would provide many extra possibilities to simulate long-range airlifts, refuelings, and would greatly benefit the dynamic campaign on the horizon.

 

I assume many will argue about the map size in terabytes, but this could also be done step by step. Currently there is nothing in Africa, well, leave it out for now but make the areas between Persian Gulf and the Channel map, even though it is auto-gen. Or make it just like FS2020. They manage to keep their install size 100 to 200GB.

 

If you ask me, yes I would takeoff from Aviano in Italy, refuel on my way on Mediterrenean, strike ISIS in Palmyra and come back the same way.

 

One good point would be, open the map for community contribution. I would be happy to contribute with 3D drawings to model the Aviano base in Italy. Let's say that person X makes a hangar, or a specific bridge. Once that community contributed asset gets approved by the ED, it is added to DCS->core. Isolate the areas which are being worked on by 3rd parties, so that their financial interest is never shadowed by community contributions. Everybody benefits from that.

 

To respond +1 Agree!

 

Hopefully in very near future.

 

If ED simply built the code and frame work and 3rd  parties did the creative art to landscapes it would be achievable over time through update and what not.  (Many Hands Make Light Work)

 

Now for military airbases and training areas it would not need to be realistic due to them being CLASSIFIED but fictional air bases or approximations would

suffice.

 

I would love to fly through the Scandies e.g. Norways on joint ops missions.....

 

 

To consider the view to flying cross country, hops and/or intercontinental flights would be amazing with air refueling and the use of SKYVECTOR or FLIGHT PLAN to navigate and a proper ATC  and airport / airbases navigation systems of course.

 

 

 

 

 

I do hope ED does take this route embracing aviation as a whole in future, it has been discussed before though, so can just wait that it does happen.

Edited August 22, 2021 by WRAITH

[linside]

Its what i think?

[GrafRotz]

hat, the earth is flat like a map?
indeed, as far as DCS goes  

If you're talking about the newsletter, it is a step in that direction, not more.
What I could imagine, that the blue marble might be patched with the actual maps, but, don't dream about it, there is a long road to go before.

Nothing to be hyped of. There are more exiting news from today without trying to de-emphasize that.

[Antonisrho]

Hi all!

After the "2023 and beyond" update I cannot stop thinking about the spherical earth map that will cover the entire planet. For me this is the biggest thing to be hyped about as for me there will trully be no limit for DCS then! I'm searching each day to see if there's any update, any estimate for initial release, any more details about its technology/quality, will it be photoreal with satellite images or pure autogen like fsx/p3d! Will 3rd party developers be able to enhance it (eg ORBX like in MSFS) with payware addons? So many questions...I really cannot remember any other time being this hyped with a DCS announcement!!! 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Antonisrho

[Dniwe125]

As far as I know, in DCS right now there is a spherical map of the earth, if you fly up to 100 km, you will see that the planet is round, and there is a real position of the celestial bodies of the Moon and the Sun, or do you mean that the map should be filled in like in MSFS?