Smaller maps, increased spatial resolution

[stormrider]

This is something that I realized some time ago. It wasn't really necessary before, but now we're going to really get an Apache! With that, some nap of the earth flying and smart use of terrain; but wait, there is no terrain in DCS currently; it's all "flat", blurred with barely any detailed relief. From 15k feet, looking through a straw in thermal shades of green or grey, we'd never needed that anyways. Now its different. Our prey will depend on the finer terrain details to survive; heck, even in open wide deserts like 73 easting, ground forces used anything whatsoever that they could find to "hide", in that particular case, a minor long dried shallow wadi, and alike.

This is when I plead my case for new kinds of maps; maps that are made with the chopper user in mind from ground up: smaller of course so as to not waste that precious fps, and with a base map at its core, the heightmap: as detailed as possible; and it is possible. I made myself quite a few of these for another simulator of mine, using freely available, lidar sourced, processed DTMs, ranging from 1 to 5m/px of spatial resolution. Nowadays, one can get hold of this kind of data basically for anywhere in Europe.

I can only imagine a proper DCS helo terrain, a Fulda gap of sorts, made specifically for choppers while not excluding the fighter jock, about 80x80km (or less) at ~2m/px spatial resolution...the sweet spot. That'd be something! Currently, I'd estimate that DCS maps are made from 90m/px.

 

Edited October 17, 2021 by stormridersp

[Raptor9]

I've done a lot of low-level helo ops on the Caucasus, NTTR, Persian Gulf, and Syria maps, and I can say that the current Caucasus and Syria maps are quite amazing at low-level, both in detail as well as providing plenty of tactical options.  NTTR and Persian Gulf are fun too, but as mostly desert areas they are more challenging to operate in contested environments.

Aside from re-worked rotor wash effects on various types of terrain, soil composition and vegetation, I'm not quite sure how much more detail would be necessary than what we already have.  For how much resources go into making a map, personally it seems like quite a waste of development resources to make maps that are smaller in size and scope, since that limits the available gameplay options to players and content makers.  Just my opinion though. 

[LooseSeal]

3 hours ago, stormridersp said:

made specifically for choppers while not excluding the fighter jock, about 80x80km (or less)

That size would definitely exclude fighters. As soon you took off on a map that size you'd be within range of most modern missiles.

I think Syria and PG are more than detailed enough, the former more than the latter. Better spending resources on new big, detailed maps that can be used with the dynamic campaign, etc.

[NeMoGas]

The Marianas map has pretty detailed terrain.

It also has lots of scenery objects for such a small map.

This all comes at a price of lower performance across the board, for a map that is 90% water.

IF they could optimize it further that would be great. I would be okay with a smaller map for helicopters, although 80x80km is still to small IMO.

[stormrider]

18 hours ago, LooseSeal said:

That size would definitely exclude fighters. As soon you took off on a map that size you'd be within range of most modern missiles.

I think Syria and PG are more than detailed enough, the former more than the latter. Better spending resources on new big, detailed maps that can be used with the dynamic campaign, etc.

If you think about it, a famous tabletop wargame covering the Fulda gap region is called: Less than 60 miles !

From Buddingen Airfield to Meinningen Airfield, you have 90km! That would make already 4 airfields inside ~90x90km

21 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

I've done a lot of low-level helo ops on the Caucasus, NTTR, Persian Gulf, and Syria maps, and I can say that the current Caucasus and Syria maps are quite amazing at low-level, both in detail as well as providing plenty of tactical options.  NTTR and Persian Gulf are fun too, but as mostly desert areas they are more challenging to operate in contested environments.

Aside from re-worked rotor wash effects on various types of terrain, soil composition and vegetation, I'm not quite sure how much more detail would be necessary than what we already have.  For how much resources go into making a map, personally it seems like quite a waste of development resources to make maps that are smaller in size and scope, since that limits the available gameplay options to players and content makers.  Just my opinion though. 

I'm not sure that you or the other really understood what I wished. It has nothing whatsoever, to do with textures, or how the ground looks from up close or high up. I meant the heightmap, the core of the terrain, the lay of the land if you will, the 3 dimensions representation model of the relief. Details, in this case, is the difference between a rounded, "blurred" hilltop and a sharp edged that more resembles the real geography, ditches instead of a flat surface and so on...

A brief explanation is when you compare different spatial resolutions, for example: 30m/px means that for every pixel; be it white or black or any shades of grey in between, represents a 30x30m square, while on a 2m/px spatial resolution, one single pixel with the same shades of grey, represent only a 2x2m square. It's easy to notice that for a ground based game, with tanks and infantry, that is of utmost importance; it's the difference between a tank being in wide openn uncovered, unconcealed from being hulldown, just because of the spatial resolution of the DTM/DSM (Digital Terrain Model/Surface Model). When I'm back home this weekend, I'll take some screenshots to better represent this difference using Steel Beasts Pro PE simulator and to show how much difference it actually makes.

Cheers

 

[Raptor9]

13 minutes ago, stormridersp said:

I'm not sure that you or the other really understood what I wished. It has nothing whatsoever, to do with textures, or how the ground looks from up close or high up. I meant the heightmap, the core of the terrain, the lay of the land if you will, the 3 dimensions representation model of the relief. Details, in this case, is the difference between a rounded, "blurred" hilltop and a sharp edged that more resembles the real geography, ditches instead of a flat surface and so on...

I understood what you were getting at, and my opinion still stands.  There are still quite a lot of things to hide behind, even small elevation differences.  I'm really not to concerned about sharp knolls or ditches since those really don't impact my gameplay or tactical methods.

If I was doing Combined Arms and driving a tank platoon around, then your argument would certainly have more weight.

[doedkoett]

FWIW, I agree that the terrain mesh is sometimes a bit rough around the edges, so to speak. But if there must be a compromise, I think I prefer the present situation. Having maps that contain missions for both helicopters and tactical fighters is one of the parts that make DCS unique. Another advantage with large maps is that you get a lot of value out of a map like Syria, where different parts offer different gameplay. Maybe improvements in the graphics engine will enable a higher resolution of the mesh in the future.

[stormrider]

9 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

I understood what you were getting at, and my opinion still stands.  There are still quite a lot of things to hide behind, even small elevation differences.  I'm really not to concerned about sharp knolls or ditches since those really don't impact my gameplay or tactical methods.

If I was doing Combined Arms and driving a tank platoon around, then your argument would certainly have more weight.

Thank you for your answer, that's exactly where Im getting. Do you realise there is a DCS module called Combined Arms? This is the kind of love that this module deserves. I can only imagine the possibilities of reviving it so it becomes a central part of DCS Apache Longbow. It reminds me of the missed opportunity that once was Microprose Gunship!, a helo game supposed to be multiplayable with the planned, but never released, M1 Tank Platoon 3, to create the very first combined arms game.

[Raptor9]

9 minutes ago, stormridersp said:

Do you realise there is a DCS module called Combined Arms?

Yes, that was precisely what I was referring to, and I mentioned it in my post.  However I don't think DCS World is primarily geared towards that side of warfighting.  My personal assessment is that the Combined Arms module is mainly for providing a more immersive experience for the aircraft modules by allowing a human JTAC for CAS missions, or to provide human decisions/changes to the ground force scheme of maneuver mid-mission.  It doesn't seem to be geared toward first-person/third-person ground combat, more of a mix of real-time strategy or human JTAC applications.

[stormrider]

26 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

Yes, that was precisely what I was referring to, and I mentioned it in my post.  However I don't think DCS World is primarily geared towards that side of warfighting.  My personal assessment is that the Combined Arms module is mainly for providing a more immersive experience for the aircraft modules by allowing a human JTAC for CAS missions, or to provide human decisions/changes to the ground force scheme of maneuver mid-mission.  It doesn't seem to be geared toward first-person/third-person ground combat, more of a mix of real-time strategy or human JTAC applications.

As we usually answer to people being intransigent around these parts, you're right!

https://www.esimgames.com/?p=2070

"High time for simulation engines to catch up!"

Edited October 18, 2021 by stormridersp

[Lurker]

23 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Aside from re-worked rotor wash effects on various types of terrain, soil composition and vegetation, I'm not quite sure how much more detail would be necessary than what we already have.  For how much resources go into making a map, personally it seems like quite a waste of development resources to make maps that are smaller in size and scope, since that limits the available gameplay options to players and content makers.  Just my opinion though. 

Agree 100%. More detail sounds like it would be nice, but look at what happened with the Mariannas map. Almost completely unusable in VR for most people. Even though it's landmass is nothing compared to the maps we already have. Maybe things will improve with the engine changes that Eagle Dynamics is promising, but who knows when that will become implemented or available. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by Lurker

[stormrider]

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

Agree 100%. More detail sounds like it would be nice, but look at what happened with the Mariannas map. Almost completely unusable in VR for most people. Even though it's landmass is nothing compared to the maps we already have. Maybe things will improve with the engine changes that Eagle Dynamics is promising, but who knows when that will become implemented or available. 

 

By any chance, are you bushlurker, veteran arma map maker?

 Nevermind, I just realized that he passed away in 2017.

Edited October 18, 2021 by stormridersp

[bies]

Yes, Fulda Gap map would be awesome, that's all I know. 

[Callsign112]

On 10/17/2021 at 5:18 AM, stormridersp said:

This is something that I realized some time ago. It wasn't really necessary before, but now we're going to really get an Apache! With that, some nap of the earth flying and smart use of terrain; but wait, there is no terrain in DCS currently; it's all "flat", blurred with barely any detailed relief. From 15k feet, looking through a straw in thermal shades of green or grey, we'd never needed that anyways. Now its different. Our prey will depend on the finer terrain details to survive; heck, even in open wide deserts like 73 easting, ground forces used anything whatsoever that they could find to "hide", in that particular case, a minor long dried shallow wadi, and alike.

This is when I plead my case for new kinds of maps; maps that are made with the chopper user in mind from ground up: smaller of course so as to not waste that precious fps, and with a base map at its core, the heightmap: as detailed as possible; and it is possible. I made myself quite a few of these for another simulator of mine, using freely available, lidar sourced, processed DTMs, ranging from 1 to 5m/px of spatial resolution. Nowadays, one can get hold of this kind of data basically for anywhere in Europe.

I can only imagine a proper DCS helo terrain, a Fulda gap of sorts, made specifically for choppers while not excluding the fighter jock, about 80x80km (or less) at ~2m/px spatial resolution...the sweet spot. That'd be something! Currently, I'd estimate that DCS maps are made from 90m/px.

 

 

I couldn't agree more, with helicopters increasingly becoming more popular, the demand for better ground vehicles/infantry and maps to drive them on is only going to follow. But if you own Combined Arms, have you used it very much on the Caucasus map? The Caucasus already includes large elevation changes with contours in map detail defined well enough to hide large armored columns in. The more I use the FREE Caucasus map, the more I like it. I don't have Syria, or the Persian Gulf yet, but my two favorite maps at the moment are the Caucasus and Nevada, even for WWII scenarios. I am using the Caucasus to simulate West Germany post D-Day, and Nevada for N. Africa. 

I think the new engine and coming core improvements are meant to make VR more workable in DCS World, but they should also certainly be able to increase the allowable overhead needed to make better more detailed maps. But what I think we need more in terms of DCS World map tech is the ability to interact more with the maps we already have. Things like Collision/Damage models of map objects (destructible buildings), graphic/sound effects of map objects (bomb blasts), with an Ai infantry capable of realistically using the map objects to attack/defend your position. 

Map technology will be a crucial part of bringing DCS World to the next level.

 

[FoxOne007]

Not trying to be rude but this is arguably the worst idea for DCS, making even smaller maps will leave out a lot of other areas where conflict might have happened too, thus severely limiting playability, along with 80x80 (or similar) being way to small for any fighter group to fly in properly. This would do 2 things, have even more maps that are super small but take up a lot of disc space that a lot of people would have to buy. 
 

on that note, both Syria, Caucasus and Marianas have great ground level detail and terrain. The upcoming South Atlantic terrain by RAZBAM also loons like it’s gonna have a lot of great terrain for low level flying

[razo+r]

39 minutes ago, FoxOne007 said:

 being way to small for any fighter group to fly in properly. .
 

 

There are also people who drive tanks or fly helicopters, not everything is about jets. Those could benefit from a non-triangular ground. 

[FoxOne007]

54 minutes ago, razo+r said:

There are also people who drive tanks or fly helicopters, not everything is about jets. Those could benefit from a non-triangular ground. 

As someone who regularly JTAC’s I 100% agree, but that has nothing to do with making smaller maps, terrain smoothing tools just need to be drastically improved by ED

[razo+r]

8 minutes ago, FoxOne007 said:

As someone who regularly JTAC’s I 100% agree, but that has nothing to do with making smaller maps, terrain smoothing tools just need to be drastically improved by ED

It kind of does. For a given size, the more detailed you're going to make a map, the smaller in total area it will be.

[Exorcet]

26 minutes ago, razo+r said:

It kind of does. For a given size, the more detailed you're going to make a map, the smaller in total area it will be.

Not necessarily. I think the better way to follow the spirit of this idea is to have a normal sized map, but with a small (or a few small) regions of very high detail. 200x200 miles is about the smallest a map can feasibly be in DCS, and even that isn't really ideal. Anything smaller would be pretty useless, and I'd think even helicopters and CA would feel it too. You'd always be in the same locations. You'd memorize everything after a few battles, and it would all get stale.

Perhaps the obvious solution is to focus on islands to cut down on the map land area for a given size. Another trick might be to find a location that has a lot of flat land surrounding a region of hills and varied terrain. Anything but small maps though, that just sounds like a massive step backwards unless maybe it's done by modifying existing maps in preparation for releasing full scale "HD" map upgrades in the future.

[Bremspropeller]

I'd like a cookie-cutter feature in the mission-builder to thell the game to only render the selected part of a map.