Kent airfields

[Blackjack_UK]

RAF Manston on North Foreland - super important throughout the war and it even gives something for the artillery to take a pop at from Northern France...

RAF Lympne near Hythe

RAF Hawkinge, also, um, near Hythe - very busy throught the war

RAF Lashenden (Headcorn) neat Tenterden - operational from 1943 onwards

RAF(RNAS) Eastchurch on the Isle of Sheppey

Plus Leeds castle near Maidstone and Dover castle as navigation points.

 

[Fred901]

That would actually be good!  But these airfields are already on the Channel map, that's why they are not present on the Normandy 2 map.

We can only hope that when the technology is ready, ED will perhaps be able to  put these 2 maps together.

[Sandman24]

Such a curious argument. So, since these airfields already exist in the Channel map, they cannot be modeled again in the Normandy map.

I did some research and discovered that actually all of Kent is present in both the Channel and Normandy maps. So is part of Northern France. I believe this observation disproves the presumed theory that objects can only ever exist in one DCS map at a time.

So why do people keep saying that we have to wait for some sci-fi technology that would one day allow us to merge the maps, if Ugra can simply model these airfields again? Can someone please explain why this is not an option?

[Ala13_ManOWar]

1 hour ago, Sandman24 said:

Such a curious argument. So, since these airfields already exist in the Channel map, they cannot be modeled again in the Normandy map.

I did some research and discovered that actually all of Kent is present in both the Channel and Normandy maps. So is part of Northern France. I believe this observation disproves the presumed theory that objects can only ever exist in one DCS map at a time.

So why do people keep saying that we have to wait for some sci-fi technology that would one day allow us to merge the maps, if Ugra can simply model these airfields again? Can someone please explain why this is not an option?

Not that hard, mate. It's not "people's" argument, it's ED's reason not to model them and already explained all over the forums and beyond. Now I'll add, if they manage somehow (and down the road, I don't expect it to happen, if it happens, any time soon) to join maps and all in their upcoming (nobody knows when) World map, or whatever the way they get to, what's the point in having modelled twice the same area? Channel map already have that area modelled, the other map, even though now has grown so much, is still Normandy map at least in the basic idea. What one of them models doesn't come in the other one, just that, and all that area despite much more detailed than it's said is supposed to be "low detail area". Don't fall for it looking so good, it's low detail area no matter what.

To your other subject. ED's graphical engine is proprietary, they make it all on their own, that engine has limitations despite their efforts for so many years and their constant upgrading, which apparently you don't know since your message number is from a brand new user. Ok,you don't know, but still I don't go to a house unknown to me questioning everything without having tried to know, maybe not all, but at least some of the facts in how that house works. After all we're just guests here and it's their house. They know and decide how they upkeep their house, not you nor me . The graphical engine doesn't allow too large maps to be modelled, there's been recent upgrades allowing more area, detail, object count numbers, and all that stuff to be even greater than ever before, those are the new maps we're enjoying now. Those were impossible to make not long ago, not just because of the detail and all, but because your computer wouldn't be able to handle all that detail, hence updates to the graphical engine happen to allow for more. We'll talk about disk space other time. That's why maps have limitations and it seems they'll keep having them until some new tech comes, not because sci-fi, but because since it's a living platform you want it to keep running and all while it's being upgraded almost every patch. They can't afford stopping it all for a time (probably a long time it'd be) and being back when they change it all to a completely different platform, which would have it's limitations again and would need another update some time later. DCS is like you living on a house where new rooms appear every time and it's bigger and nicer every day but you didn't even notice there were workers doing all that work aside for a few misplaced belongings sometimes, but you don't want to arrive home sometime and find it completely shut and locked while they work. That's why they cannot "simply" do nothing here, the platform have to be kept running while they work on the enhances/upgrades/new stuff and all but you keep living in the house and want the minimum disturbance. Then again, the greatest disturbance comes from guests in the house complaining why this or that room isn't even bigger, even nicer, and why don't we have this or that room at all .

[Sandman24]

So much text and still no answer. My question was why they (Ugra) can apparently not model those airfields again, while they can model other objects in that area (e.g. Dover harbour) again. There seems to be no real answer to this, other than "ED doesn't want them to". There would be plenty reason to model them and it would not be a waste of effort. Merging the maps can be years away, and many people have expressed that they would like to be able to have all those airfields in one single map before that. That's reason enough.

There's no need to tell me that I am a guest and how to behave and such. Yes, I am a guest, but a paying one. And I am not paying little. So if ED sets up a forum where they ask paying customers what their wishes are, I should feel free to express my wishes in that forum. And if all I get back is: "it ain't possible because I say so", I should feel free to question that response. The fact that you posted 3.3k messages and I only 8 doesn't give you the right to put me down as a complainer.

Edited April 30, 2023 by Sandman24

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Yeah, you're definitely new here mate…

In every subforum section there's a wishlist section. You can say there whatever you want mate. Writing there, anyway, doesn't mean your wishes will come true, specially soon enough. We all want things to come, not even ASAP, we want them right now if not yesterday which would be even better. The problem is things takes time, the platform is complex to maintain and expand (yeah, I wrote a lot trying to give you an overall look of the subject, you didn't read I see ) and things won't come any sooner no matter how many spamming posts are written here or in any other of ED's social media . You aren't the first (which apparently you still don't realize), you won't be the last. But, DCS development times are what they are due to the complexity of the platform and that's not going to change is the near future mate. It's not "I say so", it's just "it's what it is" .


Yes, people say a lot of things they want, ED's always listening, I can tell you no matter what it looks like since they've demonstrated it so many times. Luckily enough we aren't spoiled child and we know one can't have it all one wants, I wish it were like that, but it isn't mate. Even if ED decides right now,

"Ok, we've listened to your wishes and we're going to merge the two maps, who knows how, and you'll have the whole map of Europe…".

Yes, Ok, Great, we all will freak out and die of hype overdose the first minut, then again…

"Anyway, that job won't take less than 5 years from now and we're taking down any other development of anything… bug fixing, new platform features, new modules, new maps, we ditch it all just to tace care of that, plus, delays are to be expected…".

Would you be happy with your wishes now? That's what I'm trying to tell you. DCS has a context and a background and the fact that newcomers doesn't now that past and how this works won't change how it actually works . ED is still a small team, third parties only share the platform for modules release, they don't take care about kernel, graphical engine, Multithreading, Vulkan incoming, anything. Wishes are free, yet ED can do what they can do, I wish they were almighty, but they aren't.

[Fred901]

Listen Sandman24: the area where the airfields you mention are located is a low resolution area, very sparsely populated and no airfields because ED has defined some like that!  

Think a bit: what would be the point of buying the Channel map if all airfields and cities and... were on the Normandy 2 map???  Players would only buy the Normandy 2 map and no longer the Channel map!  You understand now ?

Edited April 30, 2023 by Fred901

[Sandman24]

@Ala13_ManOWar, your 3324th post on this forum contained over 400 words in which you call me a spammer. Amusing.

@Fred901, no I do not understand. There clearly is a wish among many users (certainly not just me) to have this area combined into one single map. Technically, this is trivial: Ugra could easily model those few airfields. If ED is afraid of losing revenue over the Channel map, they could make a deal with Ugra: Ugra gets the 'right' to model those airfields, ED gets part of their revenue. The result is a better product, which in the end everyone benefits from and which is much more future-proof. Insisting on maintaining the Channel map as a separate product is sunken cost fallacy. The obvious way forward is to bundle strengths and move forward, not as competitors but as coworkers.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Trivial, yeah…

If it's so easy just do it yourself mate, you'll be swimming in gold very quick .

[Sandman24]

13 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Trivial, yeah…

If it's so easy just do it yourself mate, you'll be swimming in gold very quick .

Well, if I did that, there would suddenly be three map developers contending for the same region. How would that solve anything? 

Look, I think we got off on the wrong foot. I am just trying to make a fair point, which as far as I can tell was not yet explicitly made. My point is that the decision not to let Ugra expand to the Channel region is 100% a business choice. If ED wanted, they could allow them to model that part tomorrow, no further technology needed. Any argument that technology would be inhibiting a single map is a smoke screen, concealing the actual reasoning.

Once we agree that it is fully a business choice, my next step would be to – respectfully – argue that I believe it is the wrong choice. Not only from the viewpoint of the users, who would have to contend with a weird L-shaped map for the foreseeable future, not being able to land in the remaining quadrant. But also from a business point of view. If Ugra were allowed to cover the entire Channel region – perhaps even further to the North Sea in due course – this would be a major boost for the DCS WWII community. That way, DCS would become a much stronger competitor to e.g. Il-2. It simply is the right thing to do.

But it requires the willingness to see the Channel Map as sunken costs. I know, that's hard. The Channel Map once was the best map around; I flew it for many hours. But so was Normandy 1.0, and that got replaced too. It's how these things go; sometimes you have to kill your darlings.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Sandman24

[DD_Fenrir]

It depends entirely on EDs plans for the future; if (as I hope) it is planned to expand the channel map eastwards and northwards then the likelihood that the airfields missing from either could be included increases as there would be less conflict of interest.

However, we also know that eventually ED have designs on a full globe model; it could well be that the data from both these flat maps will be integrated and sit side by side on the same 3d environment. If this is the case then the argument becomes moot.

Ultimately Sandman I would have liked to have seen more overlap regards the airfields too from a mission/campaign building process but the ED have made their decision based on decisions that we can only speculate at and that are geared to help keep their company solvent; it does us very poorly if ED folded.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

No worries mate, sometimes it happens we get lost in translation .
 

3 hours ago, Sandman24 said:

Look, I think we got off on the wrong foot. I am just trying to make a fair point, which as far as I can tell was not yet explicitly made. My point is that the decision not to let Ugra expand to the Channel region is 100% a business choice. If ED wanted, they could allow them to model that part tomorrow, no further technology needed. Any argument that technology would be inhibiting a single map is a smoke screen, concealing the actual reasoning.

Here you didn't get what I was trying to explain. New technology (their internal tech, not other, for their own graphical engine, for their own platform, all that, but it'd be unique for this, not shared with any other game out there) would be needed to merge the maps into one, which is what most people are asking (and I'd like to see as well) but turns out to be two maps not necessarily using the same internal tech (because it grows and expands since Channel map first appeared) and from two different developers each one making their own use of those tools. I'm no programmer but from a developer's perspective, not that easy, not that good result, not that straightforward. Anyhow, another thing I was trying to explain, it probably would need another new tech also since the two maps merged together, even if feasible which currently it isn't, would probably exceed the current size limits the maps have.

Almost every map until now has been bigger and more detailed than the previous one (new internal tech they were developing, yeah), size and object count has being increasing all the time, yet, how the sim internally works, they aren't allowed to make a map as big as they would like. Not only tech limits (which they try to expand with those new tools they make available for themselves and third parties) but such a map would be impossible to manage for your system. Performance is another really big issue they have to tackle, and it's easy to see now with this release. I don't have much of a problem performance wise with new N2 map, but I'm still on screen, some people are getting varied results, some can use it 2D but in VR is impossible for them (performance), some see all kind of strange things and poor performance so it's unusable for them, some see not bad performance but that until they get into big cities, some…

If they'd somehow "merged" the two maps, or simply "allowing Ugra to model Channel area together with the rest of the map", as you suggest, it'd be great to have that map (and weird to those who bought Channel as a separated map, not to mention campaign creators having to adapt their work to a different map no matter how close it'd be, they would probably have to start from scratch) but it would only worsen the performance issues some people have. Believe ir or not, current maps are all in some limit of what they can do with their current tech, and that's why they keep expending it all the time. For instance, Vietnam map is said to come at some point (so many people crave for it), but they need new tech in order to make it as big, as populated (rainforest, Ok, but still object populated) and as detailed as such a map would deserve to be.

And all of that, as I explained also, while you keep using the sim all the time because you don't want to stop using it, but it's like a surgery performed on a living, moving and exercising subject. I don't envy them mate…

[Silver_Dragon]

4 hours ago, Sandman24 said:

Once we agree that it is fully a business choice, my next step would be to – respectfully – argue that I believe it is the wrong choice. Not only from the viewpoint of the users, who would have to contend with a weird L-shaped map for the foreseeable future, not being able to land in the remaining quadrant. But also from a business point of view. If Ugra were allowed to cover the entire Channel region – perhaps even further to the North Sea in due course – this would be a major boost for the DCS WWII community. That way, DCS would become a much stronger competitor to e.g. Il-2. It simply is the right thing to do.

ED has very clear about them... They dont go about make competition with other company and/or other games. Your plans has make real aircrafts propper simulate, no balancing or full planesets. Remember the many of actual WW2 modules and maps coming from a old RRG Studios standalone defunt KS with ED rescue and continue develop them, initialy that was none plans by ED to make a WW2 "planeset" on DCS World.

About the sferical earth map... ED talk about them on the 2023 and Beyond January 2023 Newsletter

Quote

DCS Core
...
Spherical Earth Map
2022 saw great progress creating the tools and technologies to support a precise spherical Earth map for DCS. Because this map will be based on current day, it will operate independently of the current and future regional maps that allow historic maps such as World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and other scenarios. Spherical Earth efforts will continue in 2023.

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Silver_Dragon