A smaller or downsized map possible?

[BTTW-DratsaB]

Yes I know, I know. I was only in here a few months ago asking for a larger map with the current region and the old lockon Crimea region joined together. It is pretty obvious to me now this would not work...

 

Idea:

What I do think would be a good idea now though, is if we could have a smaller map. We are having quite a bit of performance/vs visual quality problems since release. A smaller map would let those of us with medium hardware (and especially those on lower end hardware) get much more enjoyment from the sim. Most of the time I fly missions I never really go that far, so 70% of the map may as well not be there.

 

Other sims have done this smaller map option too with great success. A perfect example being Rise Of Flight. They released the game with one map, the "Western Front" which was quite big and inevitably caused problems for a large group of users. To allow all players enjoy nice graphics and smooth game play (and decent sized battles) they released a new much smaller map for Quick skirmishes. I used this map for a long time and was very grateful for it. Now, after a year or two my hardware is a bit better and the game has been further optimized so I can enjoy the big map too.

 

So the advantage and possibilities of a smaller map are:

1. Players with medium to low hardware (eg: those without 4Ghz i7, a 580gtx and 12Gb) can enjoy a much better looking and performing sim.

2. Quicker loading map time (not such a big deal but a plus none the less)

3. Larger number of units/bigger battles/more wingmen (advantage even for those with very powerful PCs)

 

 

What kind of map?

I figure the new map could be one of two types.

1. Completely new, smaller map designed from scratch (as with RoF).

2. Basic chopped version of the map we have now. Eg current map chopped to say..1 quarter of it's current size. (See Image for examples)

 

Given time constraints etc, I'm guessing that option 2 would be best. How hard would it be to do? I have no idea. ED?

 

I do think this (If it works the same way it did for RoF) would be a major help to players struggling with performance problems and even those who are not. See the attached Image for possible candidates for a smaller map area. I think the Red or Pink areas would be good choices.

Edited June 27, 2011 by BTTW-DratsaB

[GGTharos]

I don't think chopping up the map will accomplish anything useful. In fact, it will limit scenarios.

[Speed]

Did you consider the possibility that we are already on a chopped up map? Supposedly, I have been told that LOMAC had a populated Crimea, but it's now unpopulated in DCS. So it looks as if they have already cut the map down to try to improve performance, or at least traded the Crimea for Tbilisi (tough of course, there was no Tbilisi in Black Shark).

 

I continuously find myself wishing the map were larger, in fact. Who wouldn't love punishing Chechen rebels in your Ka-50? And of course, a full sized middle east theater such as the 1000nmX1000nm maps that exist for Falcon 4 would be a dream-come-true.

 

Of course, I understand your desire for a smaller map being performance-based, but the question is if the dcs engine would really get helped from this. I can't tell you what it is that bogs down people with medium computers, and it might be that a smaller theater wouldn't help you at all.

 

And who knows, maybe it would help a lot and be easy to implement.

 

But you cannot say for sure that cutting down on map size will help DCS. DCS and ROF are completely different beasts. In ROF, the game engine doesn't have to calculate all the avionics and weapons and MFDs and ect because you're flying a balsa wood pea-shooter. So maybe they devoted a much higher number of CPU cycles to running the terrain and objects, so a smaller map helps it a lot, whereas it wouldn't help DCS.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Speed

[GGTharos]

The trade was made because of a limitation of either the map code, or 32-issues. Not sure which. It had to do with the number of objects that can be loaded into the map.

[BTTW-DratsaB]

Very surprised no one else is interested in this. I of course meant that this would be an additional map, no changes at all to the existing map. It would make no sense to break that up.

 

If you could imagine one of the areas I highlighted as it's own map. We wouldn't need a new campaign or purpose built missions or anything, just make it available in the editor and the Quick Mission Builder.

 

The kind of problems most people are having are to do with Stutter and choppiness. I figured that less terrain to calculate and less textures loaded/preloaded in memory would help with this, also far less world objects on the map. I don't think its fair to say that RoF isn't not as complex. If it's a sim surely that means if they have less avionics etc to simulate then they use more CPU to calculate other things more accurately (please don't hit me :) ) than DCS? Like the flight model/wind etc? That's how I always figured it anyway. Given that, I believe it would still make as big a difference to DCS to have a smaller map available for us to play with.

 

I guess only a Developer could tell us for sure. I have yet to see a game (espeically a sim type game) that did not run a hell of a lot better in a smaller world. Eg: Rigs of Rods, Arma series, Race simulators, Il2, RoF etc etc.

Edited June 28, 2011 by BTTW-DratsaB

[genbrien]

or 32-issues.

*raise fist at 32bit systems* :mad::doh:

[BTTW-DratsaB]

I want to bump this again.

 

I still load up A10 with a positive frame of mind and attempt to play my usually random quick generated mission (with just hand full of enemy ground units, and a couple of friendly ground units).

 

...But half way through the mission, it's the same old story....complete break down of immersion as my thoughts turn how damn choppy the game is running than actually enjoying the flight/mission. It's doing my head in.

 

Why can't we please, please have a (additional) smaller map like other flight sim's do ? Are there not enough post about stutter and choppy game play to warrant a serious investigation into this?

 

In the back of my mind I think maybe Nevada might run better, but in reality that is highly unlikely.

 

What we really need is an additional cut down map (less than a quarter of what we have now). That would allow a lot of people who are suffering with this seemingly unsolvable stuttering (terrain/texture caching) to get some enjoyment from this sim with out spending the mission thinking: "how great it would be if only it ran smoothly".

 

Would it please be possible for Wags or another developer to give their opinion on this?

 

Thank you.

 

Bare in mind that you guys who are running perfectly fine will not loose anything by having an inclusion of a map like this, so try not to be negative.

Edited January 27, 2012 by BTTW-DratsaB

[213]

my main attraction to smaller map is the possibility of more detailed mesh.

 

larger means more work blending the seams.

[BTTW-DratsaB]

Hmm I don't know, for me that would probably cancel out any advantage of a smaller terrain? With regard to an increase in performance.

 

I thought of some other idea's why a Small map cold be useful (aside for smoother game play):

 

1. It could be used as a demo map. Eg: its hard to limit a something like DCS for demo purposes (I.e. not much you an cut out unless you use time limits or something). But with a small map, that could be used for a demo version.

 

2. Air racing: With the P51 coming, I'm sure some will want to do air racing. Its a waste having a massive map for this.

 

3. Training missions: it makes more sense to have training missions on a smaller map. Quicker load time etc.

 

4. Black Shark: Helos don't need a large theatre to operate in. it would much more optimal for BS player to use a small map.

 

5. Did I mention it would make the game run better for us with mid range hardware and that every other sim has a small map...for good reasons. ? :D

[213]

it's not an advantage, it's just a trade off. an acceptable one as you never actually use the entirety of the huge terrain anyway.

[clafly]

I would be interested for an other big map, Europe(Balkan, Kosovo)? Iraq? Afghanistan?..

[BTTW-DratsaB]

Possible to mod it or do it myself?

 

Well...seeing as no one else seems to embrace or "get" my fantastic idea...lol (baffled by the lack of interest to be quite honest, it's not like there is a shortage of people with bad performance atm :dunno:)...

 

Is there any way that I could "hack" this myself..eg: muck with the game files in some way to make it only load a portion of the map? Or is that kind of thing completely impossible?

 

Would I be better to ask that kind of question in the Mod section of the forum perhaps?

 

Thanks

 

I'd still really like a developer opinion on this suggestion.

[Jona33]

Keep the big map. Then create smaller ones in addition to it. That the idea? +1 from me.

[BTTW-DratsaB]

Yes that's it, it wouldn't make sense to alter with the current, big map. Just provide an additional, small map.

 

Ty for the support

[agrasyuk]

if there is any effort to be spent on map it is expansion i hope for, not reduction. i do not see how any performance gains would come from having another smaller map.

 

just my 2 cents

[Inseckt]

Well...seeing as no one else seems to embrace or "get" my fantastic idea...lol (baffled by the lack of interest to be quite honest, it's not like there is a shortage of people with bad performance atm :dunno:)...

 

I have limited understanding of how the actual code works, but my intuitive understanding is that you fantastic idea, won't accomplish what it intends: From my intuitive understanding, it would only decrease load time by a small amount and have no considerable effect on in-game performance. At any one time, your computer only draws objects in a certain radius from your standpoint, at incrementally decreasing detail from the center. Meaning that your computer doesn't give a crap about models and textures and mesh at krasnodar when you're at batumi (except AI units I believe)

[BTTW-DratsaB]

I get where your coming from and I too have limited understanding of how all this works.

 

...But I have not seen a game yet where the smaller game environment does not give better performance, especially where memory usage and stuttering type problems are concerned. And pretty much all of them use the above method you mentioned of not actually drawing the entire environment at once.

 

There are many, many examples of this kind of performance gain in all kinds of games:

Every sim flight I have ever played (expect lockon, DCS etc) has given a smaller terrain for dogfighting or quick missions. And they all run much better than their large versions.

 

Arma: the smaller maps here perform far better and far smoother than the big maps. Any shooter (BF,HL) or Racing sim (Rfactor etc) also run better on small maps/tracks/environments etc.

 

I don't think that map size has no effect on performance, otherwise they could make it as big as they like, and they very carefully limit the size due to memory restrictions etc. I'm pretty sure you cant just make a massive environment and have performance saving things like distance Fog and LOD to keep the performance the same as a small game world.

 

I know I'll probably regret the comparison to other games (que people telling me Arma and race sims are different from DCS.. :music_whistling::D ) but, regardless of the game genre....if your suffering from the stuttering type of performance problem (which quite a lot are with DCS), a smaller game world always improves this.

 

That's my view on it any way.

 

I'll shut up about it if a Developer tells me it wont help (with stuttering) performance :D

Edited February 2, 2012 by BTTW-DratsaB

[GGTharos]

There are many, many examples of this kind of performance gain in all kinds of games:

Every sim flight I have ever played (expect lockon, DCS etc)

 

And falcon, and JF15, JF18, etc, etc ...

 

Arma: the smaller maps here perform far better and far smoother than the big maps. Any shooter (BF,HL) or Racing sim (Rfactor etc) also run better on small maps/tracks/environments etc.

 

Sure, but they load the ENTIRE map in one go, FC/DCS does not.

 

I'm pretty sure you cant just make a massive environment and have performance saving things like distance Fog and LOD to keep the performance the same as a small game world.

 

Sure you can, but that's pretty sucky given how small the view distance is in tiny worlds anyway.

[BTTW-DratsaB]

If DCS only loads part of the map at a time (I'm not convinced of this, I'm pretty sure its similar to the way arma{and many other games} work; eg streaming textures and LODing terrain and objects), how come there is a limit on how many objects can be on a map in DCS? Surely if it loaded everything on the fly you could have as many objects as you wanted, but their existence requires memory and cpu, so that is why there is a limit. Also what about terrain grid etc, all these things have a memory foot print no? ( also cpu for terrain grid)

 

I would bet money that a map 1/5 the size of the current one would use much less memory in task manager :- and therefore suffer much less from stutter related performance probs.

 

A small map uses less memory (regardless of how much LODing and distance fog and "precaching" is used {all games do this}), I'm no game programmer but that analogy seems pretty logical to me. :dunno:

 

ps please don't see any of this as a rant. Some times it is hard to get across your tone of voice on the ol' internet :) . The tone of this is; Die hard fan desperatly trying to find solutions to performance problems :D

 

Thanks

[ogata321]

Maps like the balkans/iraq etc sound okay to me. Maybe make them downloadable or a addon like nevada ?

[Inseckt]

DratsaB; Usually in DCS/LO/FC the problem is not memory. I see you have 4GB with W7x64. It should do fine memory-wise. If you have poor framerate, it's likely the CPU or in some cases the GPU, (it's never the APU), or if you have intermittent stuttering, it's likely your drive. Having less map elements in memory outside of that actually beeing rendered, would not aid the speed of CPU/GPU/APU/Drive.

 

I might not understand this as well as I think, but I think you should concentrate on other aspects of increasing performance, like minimizing your OS footprint on the CPU, tweaking settings, get some extra RAM (if you are convinced it would help), overclock, etc etc...

 

cheers

[213]

Maps like the balkans/iraq etc sound okay to me. Maybe make them downloadable or a addon like nevada ?

 

both iraq and the balkans are enormous in comparison to what we have now. this is a thread about smaller maps, check your geography.

[Dudikoff]

both iraq and the balkans are enormous in comparison to what we have now. this is a thread about smaller maps, check your geography.

 

Well, IMHO this is already a small map considering only a part of it is populated and most of the map is water. It is already too small for the A-10, let alone some fighter (unless it's a carrier one). This would not be a step in the right direction (as the votes show, anyway).

[Speed]

The only way I could ever see myself supporting a smaller map was if the reason it was downsized was to add a finer terrain mesh, more ground objects, collidable trees- all in support of DCS: Infantry Soldier, where you would be able to actually get out and move around, and your buddies would be able to drop you off and pick you up in helos/ground vehicles.

 

Basically, like ARMA II, but realistic instead of arcadish.

 

The arguments that a smaller map should be made for better performance miss the facts that:

1) We don't know if map size is a limiting factor in DCS performance. In fact, frame rate tests only suggest that it is the mainly the local population of objects that decreases game performance the most (which would not change at all on a down-sized map).

2) DCS runs just fine on systems less than 3-4 years old.

3) The DCS map is actually too small as it is.

4) This poll clearly demonstrates that most of the community hates this idea.

 

No flight sim that I have ever flown uses a smaller map for better performance in certain areas.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Speed

[Luse]

I don't get your performance issues. At all.

 

Amd 6500+ @ 2.3 4GB RAM. A Single 9800. Run everything on Medium with 4X AA ( Through Nvidia Control ) at 1360X768 and have my FPS Capped at 45. Not a hitch.

 

Have you tried limiting your frames?