New DCS Theater Maps Wish Wish List

[c0ff]

theres no immersion if mountains are cubes if you ask me...

 

No, they are pyramids!

[EtherealN]

Pyramids worked fine in Falcon and Chuck Yeager. :(

 

Pyramid power!

[ericoh]

No, they are pyramids!

 

Pyramids worked fine in Falcon and Chuck Yeager. :(

 

Pyramid power!

 

 

Lets not fight over geometrical shapes :D

[TimeKilla]

I must be the only one/one of the few who just loves flying and doesn't care that much about the DCS terrain does the job for me, as someone else said when its a combat sim there tends to be a'lot more to do than just stare at parts of the map.

 

Still will be good to get the new engine but not in any rush.

[Megagoth1702]

I must be the only one/one of the few who just loves flying and doesn't care that much about the DCS terrain does the job for me, as someone else said when its a combat sim there tends to be a'lot more to do than just stare at parts of the map.

 

Still will be good to get the new engine but not in any rush.

 

Agreed. The engine is doing it's job and I feel like a crazy badass when flying the black shark that I had no idea how to fly 2 weeks ago.

 

The only thing that annoys me about this engine are random performance issues with certain things that randomly pop up and dev's cant track down easily so it stays in forever and we need bigger and bigger machines... :-/

[ericoh]

Flying for me is also scenery. Combat or not, without a nice scenery the feeling goes down the drain, imagine flying without landmass under you... It would be empty space.

 

Besides, who doesnt like low level high speed hunting?

[Kaktus29]

of course, i think as many probably that immersion is needed.. immersion is also scenery.. but its much harder to do hi-fi scenery just like that.. if you have a 4x5 miles battlefield and put all your sources on this little patch of land you can make extreme details, villages, city skyscrapers, buildings where soldiers can enter, occupy, shoot from, .. and then its bliss for chopper pilots... i mean i don't think we would leave the computer until we would starve and somebody would find us drooling over the keyboard going "i need more, i need to check the south part of the city again.. must try, must prevail.."))

 

but its hard to do such scenery in DCS..it is too big for such a detail to be implemented.. unless they manage to do a bubble graphic engine..where other parts of the map gets "blurred" by the GPU, CPU and your computer only concentrates on the 4x5 mile patch of land..so you can have your hi-fi scenery.. but even if this works it still means lots of work for DCS to create this..

 

would you guys be happy if we had only small patches of hi-fi scenery like the cities and villages but not the other un-populated areas?.. so when battles would occur in the cities, there would be more action, more CAS(that would be much more difficult to implement with A-10/Su-25 but more with AH?.. and seeing squads, platoons go take cover, fire for cover, flanking the enemy, calling back-up, going into a building..

 

or would this require the newest super-computer to implement? ..

[galevsky06]

Flying for me is also scenery. Combat or not, without a nice scenery the feeling goes down the drain, imagine flying without landmass under you... It would be empty space.

 

Besides, who doesnt like low level high speed hunting?

 

Sure, it is essential into software called simulator. Everything is significant to bring immersion feelings to simmers.

 

We still could fly a set of pixels firing smaller ones to another :joystick:, but it becomes very hard these days to stay backward sim standards. :cry:

[ericoh]

of course, i think as many probably that immersion is needed.. immersion is also scenery.. but its much harder to do hi-fi scenery just like that.. if you have a 4x5 miles battlefield and put all your sources on this little patch of land you can make extreme details, villages, city skyscrapers, buildings where soldiers can enter, occupy, shoot from, .. and then its bliss for chopper pilots... i mean i don't think we would leave the computer until we would starve and somebody would find us drooling over the keyboard going "i need more, i need to check the south part of the city again.. must try, must prevail.."))

 

but its hard to do such scenery in DCS..it is too big for such a detail to be implemented.. unless they manage to do a bubble graphic engine..where other parts of the map gets "blurred" by the GPU, CPU and your computer only concentrates on the 4x5 mile patch of land..so you can have your hi-fi scenery.. but even if this works it still means lots of work for DCS to create this..

 

would you guys be happy if we had only small patches of hi-fi scenery like the cities and villages but not the other un-populated areas?.. so when battles would occur in the cities, there would be more action, more CAS(that would be much more difficult to implement with A-10/Su-25 but more with AH?.. and seeing squads, platoons go take cover, fire for cover, flanking the enemy, calling back-up, going into a building..

 

or would this require the newest super-computer to implement? ..

 

 

Look at all the engines the past 10 years brought us, it does not need a super computer anymore to have decent looking landscapes. These times are over. Look at what the Outerra engine can do, look at BI's new arma 3 engine or even the old arma 2 engine ( chernarus was not ugly). you can even look at all revisions of the cryengine. These engines are visualy all far beyond, you could scale them down a ton and still have way better looking scenery. It is just wrong to argue that theres no way. it could be WAY better. :huh:

[Phantom88]

A Little reminder of what is hopefully yet to come

 

Edited May 11, 2013 by Phantom88

[ericoh]

A Little reminder of what is hopefully yet to come

 

 

Was there word on how big the nevada map is?

[Haukka81]

Well, edge is nothing until we see that trees are not ghost trees anymore..

[Kaktus29]

@ericoh .. i agree the map quality could be better, but you seem to not mention that BF or Arma and others have a really small map compared to large theater of operation that DCS must simulate .. flying in 5*5km box is not really conducive to enjoying DCS A-10 or F-15/Su-27 ..

 

The problem is how much would FPS drop when one would make Arma 3 quality world the size of DCS -Georgia map.. as far as i understand BF, Arma and other they simulate something like 5x5 km patches.. try doing this in 200x400 km patch and tell me how "smooth" flying over that would be? ..

 

if it can be done super, i'm all for it, but even if its possible(which i doubt) it would take ages to simulate so many villages, cities, roads, landscape .. just try to draw on hand a small village and it will take you 3 days to complete it..and this only 2kmX1km small patch..

[ericoh]

@ericoh .. i agree the map quality could be better, but you seem to not mention that BF or Arma and others have a really small map compared to large theater of operation that DCS must simulate .. flying in 5*5km box is not really conducive to enjoying DCS A-10 or F-15/Su-27 ..

 

The problem is how much would FPS drop when one would make Arma 3 quality world the size of DCS -Georgia map.. as far as i understand BF, Arma and other they simulate something like 5x5 km patches.. try doing this in 200x400 km patch and tell me how "smooth" flying over that would be? ..

 

if it can be done super, i'm all for it, but even if its possible(which i doubt) it would take ages to simulate so many villages, cities, roads, landscape .. just try to draw on hand a small village and it will take you 3 days to complete it..and this only 2kmX1km small patch..

 

I agree that they mostly simulate smaller areas, but check out the up-coming arma 3 map, it is huge.

 

AND!

 

What i think and said is that DCS does not need the quality level of those maps, it could be extremly downscaled but it would still look a magnitude better.

 

 

P.S.: The Battlefield 3 (Frostbite 2) Engine sucks, their trees in the scenery are lower poly then DCS World trees^^ thats what they call a good engine.... tz...

Edited May 11, 2013 by ericoh

[Eddie]

I agree that they mostly simulate smaller areas, but check out the up-coming arma 3 map, it is huge.

 

For a flight sim, it's tiny. Even the current DCS theatre is too small, we really need theatres 4 times (or even more) larger than we have now. It's not even possible to fly a combat radius mission in the A-10C in the current theatre unless you start at the far N/W or S/E airbases and fly to a target in the opposite corner.

 

Yes high detail is nice, but considering how little of it you actually see from an aircraft, even a helicopter, over size is far more important.

[Yskonyn]

Previous iterations of X-Plane used some kind of freeware terrain mesh / texture package that covered the whole world at a decent scale.

I would love to see such a thing for DCS World.

[galevsky06]

No issue for size.... :happy:

 

This is how FSX -let's say a nearly outdated sim- looks:

 

No matter the size with boxing. Landscape is so much better in FSX that French guys started to implement combat environment into FSX:

 

Check http://www.fsxwar.net/index.php?lang=en

 

Edited May 11, 2013 by galevsky06

[ericoh]

For a flight sim, it's tiny. Even the current DCS theatre is too small, we really need theatres 4 times (or even more) larger than we have now. It's not even possible to fly a combat radius mission in the A-10C in the current theatre unless you start at the far N/W or S/E airbases and fly to a target in the opposite corner.

 

Yes high detail is nice, but considering how little of it you actually see from an aircraft, even a helicopter, over size is far more important.

 

 

Exactly thats why i wrote what i wrote, see the context of my full post. I dissagree that we need bigger maps then DCS currently offers, if you wanna do trans-atlantic flights go play FSX, my 2 cents...

 

Again, was there word how big nevada is going to be??

 

P.S.: Detail is extremly important for a sim, camo etc. does not work if tehres not enought detail.

Edited May 11, 2013 by ericoh

[EtherealN]

Exactly thats why i wrote what i wrote, see the context of my full post. I dissagree that we need bigger maps then DCS currently offers, if you wanna do trans-atlantic flights go play FSX, my 2 cents...

 

Transatlantic isn't the point. He's talking about being able to create missions where the effective combat radius of the simulated aircraft become truly relevant.

 

Not for the airquake people, of course, but for serious squads it would actually be really nice.

[jiri01]

I prefere to have a new map rather a new plane now (probably because I have got the Huey, which is excellent and flying it in a more detailed map would be superb!)

[ericoh]

Transatlantic isn't the point. He's talking about being able to create missions where the effective combat radius of the simulated aircraft become truly relevant.

 

Not for the airquake people, of course, but for serious squads it would actually be really nice.

 

 

Well okay for sure, if people wanna go through the agony of 5 hour autopilot flights.

 

For that kind of approach you would need a simplified terrain, such as in the Outerra engine.

 

Out of couriosity, what are "Airquake" people? I hear people in this forums hitting alot on them and i dont even know what it is lol

[ishtmail]

From 'Air' and 'Quake', I suspect that this is a reference to the 3D 1st person shooter that changed the 1st person experience (i.e. brought in a real online deathmatch experience), so Airquake would be someone who flies online the way Quake deathmatchers fight - quick and dirty.

 

Also, there was an 'airquake' mod for quake, making it possible to deathmatch flying virtual airplanes in a Quake arena. Among other planes, A10 was also used (I was about to write 'simulated', but that's really not the right term :) ).

 

I've yet to see a rocket jump with the DCS A10C, but I get the general idea :)

[Haukka81]

Well okay for sure, if people wanna go through the agony of 5 hour autopilot flights.

 

For that kind of approach you would need a simplified terrain, such as in the Outerra engine.

 

Out of couriosity, what are "Airquake" people? I hear people in this forums hitting alot on them and i dont even know what it is lol

 

Hey, we need big maps because then there would be reason to refuel in air (desert storm etc..) and you have to think how much weapons you can take etc..

[ericoh]

From 'Air' and 'Quake', I suspect that this is a reference to the 3D 1st person shooter that changed the 1st person experience (i.e. brought in a real online deathmatch experience), so Airquake would be someone who flies online the way Quake deathmatchers fight - quick and dirty.

 

Also, there was an 'airquake' mod for quake, making it possible to deathmatch flying virtual airplanes in a Quake arena. Among other planes, A10 was also used (I was about to write 'simulated', but that's really not the right term :) ).

 

I've yet to see a rocket jump with the DCS A10C, but I get the general idea :)

 

Lol okay thanks, i think nobody who plays any ED product could be called a "airquaker" then. Thats realy far far off....

 

 

Hey, we need big maps because then there would be reason to refuel in air (desert storm etc..) and you have to think how much weapons you can take etc..

 

I get the point, but dont you think that can be solved with creativity while creating missions? Rather then giving up detail on the maps?

[Eddie]

Well okay for sure, if people wanna go through the agony of 5 hour autopilot flights.

 

The A-10C, F-16C, F/A-18C, and others all have a combat radius in the 300 NM range. That is the range from home base they can fly, hit a target, and return to base on internal fuel without in-flight refuelling. That isn't a 5 hour mission on autopilot, it's a 1.5 - 2 hour mission, including time spent on the ground (a bit longer for the Hog).

 

At present the only way to do that in DCS is to take off around Anapa/Krymsk, and fly to the Tbilisi area. In both cases you are at the edge of the available map.

 

When you start thinking about deep strike missions in the F-15E or the Viper/Hornet with drop tanks, you're talking around 3-4 hour duration. With much of that time spent in enemy airspace, avoiding threats, not on autopilot.

 

At present such missions are not possible.

 

And for the record many people, myself included, would rather enjoy 5+ hour combat flights. Just as we did in Falcon and other combat sims, and if you spend it all on autopilot, you're doing it wrong.

 

 

I get the point, but dont you think that can be solved with creativity while creating missions? Rather then giving up detail on the maps?

 

In theatres of the current size, no. Besides, some people like to replicate real world missions and scenarios and/or realistic and plausible fictional scenarios. And to do that more theatres of a larger size are required.

 

What is the point in pretty trees or nice looking brick textures etc. when you won't even know they are there from 25,000 ft MSL?

Edited May 11, 2013 by Eddie