DCS World 2.0 and New Maps Discussion Thread

[SilentEagle]

Yes, that's how I feel anything is better then nothing. The other thing is I think some people do have the old map while others don't.

 

If you still have beta 1 or 2 install files for the A-10C, you can grab the terrain from there and it still works on the latest version of DCS. It may not be finished or even polished, but it helps to add some variety when you get bored of the default map.

[BRooDJeRo]

I heard that Cry-engine 3 is a open SDK download and the Crytec devs even helped out another game game to make it suitable for large space environments with great effect tools and everything. It might even be free too. It also supports everything that ED is looking for.

 

The current playground of that modified version might even be bigger than the current Caucasus map, it's worth looking into. It will save alot of time, effort and money building something from scratch when it works for DCS too.

Edited July 4, 2013 by BRooDJeRo

[Feuerfalke]

I heard that cry-engine 3 is a open SDK download and the Crytec devs even helped out another game game to make it suitable for large space environments with great effect tools and everything. It might even be free too.

 

The current playground of that modified version might even be bigger than the current Caucasus map, it's worth looking into. It will save alot of time, effort and money building something from scratch when it works for DCS too.

 

Will it?

 

There's a ton of work already gone into EDGE and a map for this engine, too. What sense would it make to buy an engine and then redo the map all over again?

[BRooDJeRo]

To be honest, i have no idea how far the ED team is on EDGE, but what i do know is that building a complete engine with tools from scratch takes a bunch of very good programmers working for years on it with high cost involved while something usefull might already be around and up for grabs. This other developer is only busy with content for the engine, which ED already has, unless ED has plans for outsourcing this EDGE engine to other developers and god knows what. I'm sure that only the current DCS packs won't cover the full cost and profit for EDGE development and having an SDK available for 3rd party developers for free.

 

It's quite possible that a full blown EDGE might take more than 1,5-2 years of development and to be very honest, i'm not so sure if allot of DCS customers still want to fly that long in the pyramid skies of out beloved Caucasus. At this very moment things are changing rapidly in the gaming industry with new high definition and performance hardware that can support way more than what eventually will come out of EDGE. The polygons are already being thrown around and things are about to kick off bigtime. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

Edited July 4, 2013 by BRooDJeRo

[cichlidfan]

Why is this thread not in Chit Chat by now?

[Feuerfalke]

To be honest, i have no idea how far the ED team is on EDGE, but what i do know is that building a complete engine with tools from scratch takes a bunch of very good programmers working for years on it with high cost involved while something usefull might already be around and up for grabs. This other developer is only busy with content for the engine, which ED already has, unless ED has plans for outsourcing this EDGE engine to other developers and god knows what.

 

It seems to be a key element of EDGE to release the map-making-tools to the public. This would give people the chance to engage as 3rd-Party-Developers for mapmaking. Isn't that exactly what we are waiting for?

 

I don't know what the CryEngine is capable of, but I know that the ED-Team knows best what's good for their project and what's not.

 

So comparing an unknown engine to one that maybe able to do something from a consumers point of view is pretty pointless IMHO.

[BRooDJeRo]

I'm not comparing anything, because from my point of view there's nothing to compare, all i'm saying is that shit is already outthere. Time to wake up or fall behind.

[LostOblivion]

The only thing that makes sense to me, is if ED is creating a fully fledged terrain editor software that is easy to use. The Nevada map is only the first test subject required for disclosing what is needed of such software, being developed in parallell. When Nevada comes, the editor will be released to the public as well, and will enable any serious group to develop any theatre they wish, fast, with focus on content and not technicalities, either paid or for free.

[c0ff]

I heard that Cry-engine 3

Unfortunately, there are no commercial game engines in existence which are suitable for flight simulators.

The technical requirements for FPS and FlightSims are on the opposite sides of the spectrum. It is not possible to meet both in the same engine with the current level of technology. And I doubt it will be possible in the observable future.

 

The development cost of any top-notch FPS engine, be it ForstBite, Unreal Engine, CryEngine or whatever, is tens of millions USD. Given the tiny market for flight sims, there's no commercial sense to invest so much money into the development of a flight sim engine.

[BRooDJeRo]

yeah, you're right my friend, although i'm not so sure if i and others still will be around for it and already blended to something else to spend time and money on. We still live in a world where it's all about the money in the end. Familiy's need to eat and pensions need to be build, you get my drift? Handing out tools without letting it generate millions these days and have tons of time and cost involved simply is a hard nutt to crack, but i'll stop now. I'm not going to make a fool out of myself here. Have fun and a good weekend, also happy 4th of Juli to our US playerbase.

Edited July 4, 2013 by BRooDJeRo

[cichlidfan]

Why is this thread not in Chit Chat by now?

 

;)

[Feuerfalke]

I'm not comparing anything, because from my point of view there's nothing to compare, all i'm saying is that shit is already outthere. Time to wake up or fall behind.

 

"Time to wake up or fall behind" IS a comparrison.

 

A racer that runs his race alone with nobody in sight and no laptime to compare himself to, can't fall behind anything.

[c0ff]

A racer that runs his race alone with nobody in sight and no laptime to compare himself to, can't fall behind anything.

Fortunately, for flight sims there's always the reality to compare with ;)

[Glowing_Amraam]

Fortunately, for flight sims there's always the reality to compare with ;)

 

:thumbup:

[Feuerfalke]

Fortunately, for flight sims there's always the reality to compare with ;)

 

Thank God this is to compare, not to compete with :)

 

On a second thought, even reality may advance.

[TimeKilla]

Flight Sims are great more people should buy them. :thumbup:

[gaz2644]

I see what ED are trying to achieve. but atm dcs WORLD as we all want it is a long way off. Unfortunately we all have to wait. one day i hope we can have a sim the combines arma with dcs. .dcs world could be huge and i feel it will be. but we all have to be patient and keep supporting ED and the third party guys. the time will come when we will be complaining that theres too much to chose from :) and tbh tsking part in a virtual red flag on a nevada map with other groups will be pretty cool

[dooom]

Unfortunately, there are no commercial game engines in existence which are suitable for flight simulators.

The technical requirements for FPS and FlightSims are on the opposite sides of the spectrum. It is not possible to meet both in the same engine with the current level of technology. And I doubt it will be possible in the observable future.

 

The development cost of any top-notch FPS engine, be it ForstBite, Unreal Engine, CryEngine or whatever, is tens of millions USD. Given the tiny market for flight sims, there's no commercial sense to invest so much money into the development of a flight sim engine.

 

i certainly do not want to be confrontational but i find it disconcerting when a member of any software development team says "i doubt it will be possible in the observable future". :) Moores law has certainly proven itself over the last years and developers have indeed brought the two elements together in some respect already.

 

Look at Battleground Europe - the flight model and FPS model was simplistic compared to DCS?ARMA but they did in fact meet on a massive terrain. i played that game for 10 years before coming to DCS. i recall flying my ju87 for 30 minutes from Gilze to the River Muese to strafe FPS players attacking an axis town and drop my 250lber on unsuspecting A13tanks.

 

 

Star citizen is another interesting example. Perhaps this community is just not defining the vision properly and robbing ourselves of both investment and ideation? i do hope there is a development team out there saying "it is possible... we just have to figure out how." :)

Edited July 5, 2013 by dooom

[jmod]

I think this is what you're talking about:

http://unigine.com/sim/

[Dudester22]

I wonder how many posts this will reach before they realise the map, or any map for that matter.

[Snoopy]

I wonder how many posts this will reach before they realise the map, or any map for that matter.

 

My guess is at least 5,000.

[cichlidfan]

My guess is at least 5,000.

 

At the current rate, that gives them about 3 years. :)

[Cookie]

I made a practical joke here, but then sobek edited it. So yeah, this entire posting has become pointless now, please ignore it and move on. I promise I won´t be funny anymore in the future.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Cookie

[c0ff]

Moores law has certainly proven itself over the last years

Some food for thought: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/155941-supercomputing-director-bets-2000-that-we-wont-have-exascale-computing-by-2020

 

Current trends in consumer hardware suggest the article applies here as well.

 

When I say "it's not possible" I mean the practical (read: commercial) feasibility.

[c0ff]

I think this is what you're talking about:

http://unigine.com/sim/

 

"Huge open space: 262x262 km"

"Large visibility distance: 40km"

"the dataset is 60 GB in size already"

"running on consumer-level hardware... a single NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN"

...

This is what I'm talking about.

Edited July 5, 2013 by c0ff