New DCS Theater Maps Wish Wish List

[Count von Altibar]

I would be most interested in the middle east and specifically the conflicts that have surrounded Israel in the past. Plenty of scope for the many aircraft types/ground units from the various air forces that abound in that region plus interesting terrain around the Levant. The area is never far off from armed conflict and thus always a topical place to have a flight simulator game. Lots of historical sporadic conflicts (6 day, Yom Kippur etc.) to have games within the game also. Map can be expanded readily north and east toward Iran, Iraq and Turkey. Better to do one region really well than have a vast array of places with less detail and involvement for the player.

[howie87]

Georgia and Nevada maps combined?

 

Would this be possible? Nevada and Georgia separated by a few hundred miles of water?

 

I know it's not exactly realistic but it would make tankers actaully useful and make missions with training ranges in Nevada and 'real' combat in Georgia possible.

 

Imagine being able to fly training sorties then travel over the ocean, refueling as you go, before dropping a few bombs in Georgia and flying home again.

 

Throw in a few carriers and naval ops and this would be incredible

[Flagrum]

Would this be possible? Nevada and Georgia separated by a few hundred miles of water?

 

I know it's not exactly realistic but it would make tankers actaully useful and make missions with training ranges in Nevada and 'real' combat in Georgia possible.

 

Imagine being able to fly training sorties then travel over the ocean, refueling as you go, before dropping a few bombs in Georgia and flying home again.

 

Throw in a few carriers and naval ops and this would be incredible

I'd rather train in Georgia and bomb the hell outta Vegas ... (why do 99% of ALL people here look at Nevada just as a training ground? I do not get it ....)

 

Anyhow, I doubt that it will be possible to use both maps at the same time. Different terrain engines (our current and EDGE) are necessary for these maps. Also I would expect that we will have to choose a "theatre" we want to do a sortie in - maybe similar the way BMS does it.

 

But I could imagine, that once we have more EDGE maps, one could use the upcoming Terrain SDK to copy different maps together into a new one.

[EtherealN]

IMO, a better seting for a concept like this would be some action in the pacific or north atlantic. Lots of water -> less polygons -> possibly greater area -> still realistic placement. Add carrier-enabled aircraft and you also ensure that you don't have to fly multiple-hour sorties everytime; when desired, just place the carriers closer.

[Darkwolf]

Release of terrain SDK would be a huge step. I would eventually pay for it.

[Rongor]

The overall final goal must be to achieve a borderless flyable globe, like in MS Flight Simulator. No one will expect full scenery coverage in the beginning. But at least this would open working grounds for modders and 3rd party developers and therefore be the first step in the future of DCS Sceneries.

[EtherealN]

The overall final goal must be to achieve a borderless flyable globe, like in MS Flight Simulator. No one will expect full scenery coverage. But at least this would be a first step in the future of DCS Sceneries.

 

While definitely desirable, a combat simulator has a problem that MSFS (and XPlane) does not have: it has to be theoretically capable of running the entire map, since there is "risk" of there being active units conducting battle precisely anywhere on that map.

 

Even a "bubble" system like in Falcon 4 doesn't quite solve this, since this needs to be possible in MP as well; and what happens when actual players are well dispersed and you can't scale with bubbles anymore?

 

There probably is a solution to these issues, there usually is, but it's not exactly easy. One option I could imagine (but that is kindaugly) would be to have overlapping but otherwise separate maps, where if you leave an area for another, the former area gets dropped an nothing gets to happen there. But this gets sort of ugly whenever action starts happening around the edges, and doesn't solve the MP issue.

[Rongor]

While definitely desirable, a combat simulator has a problem that MSFS (and XPlane) does not have: it has to be theoretically capable of running the entire map, since there is "risk" of there being active units conducting battle precisely anywhere on that map.

 

Even a "bubble" system like in Falcon 4 doesn't quite solve this, since this needs to be possible in MP as well; and what happens when actual players are well dispersed and you can't scale with bubbles anymore?

I am not so sure about that.

I would think the necessary workload is defined by the amount of calculations caused by the numbers and abilities of interacting or interacted entities within their next environment.

This workload remains the same, no matter what level of dispersal occurs.

If you have two tanks A and B driving across your mission scenario, it doesn't really matter wether you have tank A in Batumi and tank B in Krasnodar or tank A in Batumi and tank B in Baghdad. The workload remains the same. If we are talking multiplayer, also the amount of necessary network traffic containing informations about status of both tanks remains the same. The workload of MP-Clients will also have to handle the same traffic and the graphic visualisation showing the scenery around the client's in game position is anyway generated by their own abilities, like now.

 

But I may have missed something, so please feel free to convince me!:)

[sobek]

If you have two tanks A and B driving across your mission scenario, it doesn't really matter wether you have tank A in Batumi and tank B in Krasnodar or tank A in Batumi and tank B in Baghdad.

 

No, it doesn't. If there's nothing in Baghdad, there's a whole bunch of terrain geometry you can suddenly disregard.

[EtherealN]

This workload remains the same, no matter what level of dispersal occurs.

If you have two tanks A and B driving across your mission scenario, it doesn't really matter wether you have tank A in Batumi and tank B in Krasnodar or tank A in Batumi and tank B in Baghdad. The workload remains the same.

 

Unfortunately this is incorrect. The locations of units govern how much territory must be

 

A) In memory

B) Used in calculations for

B1) Weapon impacts

B2) AI

B3) Pathfinding (and btw, do not underestimate the amount of processing power that pathfinding costs. Prison Architect recently revamped their game engine to give a whole core to JUST that... :P And they're only working in 2D, not 3D... )

 

If we are talking multiplayer, also the amount of necessary network traffic containing informations about status of both tanks remains the same.

 

The issue is not network traffic. The issue is that "bubbles" become impossible, unless ALL players decide to be in the same place. Therefore the server needs to run AI (etc) for all areas where players are active even if "bubbles" are implemented. And to run the AI, it must have all the terrain for those areas loaded, too. Suddenly you could theoretically end up having to keep the ENTIRE world mesh in memory at the same time; something that MSFS and Xplane cannot do either - they get away with it since they do not have any scenario at all where this requirement can occur. Not possible in a combat sim. (Compare with how MS Flight Simulator has for a very long time had the entire world, but MS Combat Flight Simulator series never did...)

 

In MP, the Client does only your own aircraft. The server shoulders all AI actions. So yes - the client will be fine for memory; it doesn't need to worry about things that happen far away. But we need to make it work for the server too; otherwise the client won't have anything to connect to. And if the server gets bogged down, it won't be able to send updates to clients as frequently, and lagg, warping and general UFO behaviour will ensue making the game unplayable.

 

That said, since we've now dropped 32-bit, one of the bigger issues has at least been killed, allowing work in this direction to be done without having to try staying within a 32-bit memory space.

Edited October 7, 2013 by EtherealN
Added some clarifications

[pepin1234]

If someone make a Cuba map and a part of Florida, maybe we will have the most fun and logic cold war. The Counterpart could be a part of Turkey.

Edited October 7, 2013 by pepin1234

[tarracta]

I would like to see Germany and rather whole Europe as a new Map.

 

It would make so much sense since you can place there the WW2 scenario, a cold war scenario and even a third world war campaign (when all the fine planes like F-22 or T-50 were released).

 

Nevada is for me completely uninteresting, it's only a training dojo which has never seen a hot fight. So there's so much athmosphere lost, it's just a place were you fire rockets and drop bombs without warheads ;)

 

And come on, I want to have a big map, where you're not at the end of world within 10 minutes afterburning... The Georgia map was designed for Pentium III, 512 MB RAM and Radeon 7500 Cards, nowadays it's so easy to grab 16 or 32 gig of rams and a quad core CPU, so go and use it :-)

[Joyride]

While a global theater seems like a cool idea, not sure how that would have any sensible application or need from a mission design/scenario. Just give me a big theater, ala Persian Gulf, big enough to require air refueling for certain sorties.

[Flagrum]

I would like to see Germany and rather whole Europe as a new Map.

 

It would make so much sense since you can place there the WW2 scenario, a cold war scenario and even a third world war campaign (when all the fine planes like F-22 or T-50 were released).

 

Nevada is for me completely uninteresting, it's only a training dojo which has never seen a hot fight. So there's so much athmosphere lost, it's just a place were you fire rockets and drop bombs without warheads ;)

 

And come on, I want to have a big map, where you're not at the end of world within 10 minutes afterburning... The Georgia map was designed for Pentium III, 512 MB RAM and Radeon 7500 Cards, nowadays it's so easy to grab 16 or 32 gig of rams and a quad core CPU, so go and use it :-)

Yeah, a WW3 scenario which invoves Nevada is of course totally out of question. Hey, I mean, what war can you win ... with training bombs!?!?11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:doh::doh::doh:

[pepin1234]

I would like to see Germany and rather whole Europe as a new Map.

 

It would make so much sense since you can place there the WW2 scenario, a cold war scenario and even a third world war campaign (when all the fine planes like F-22 or T-50 were released).

 

Nevada is for me completely uninteresting, it's only a training dojo which has never seen a hot fight. So there's so much athmosphere lost, it's just a place were you fire rockets and drop bombs without warheads ;)

 

And come on, I want to have a big map, where you're not at the end of world within 10 minutes afterburning... The Georgia map was designed for Pentium III, 512 MB RAM and Radeon 7500 Cards, nowadays it's so easy to grab 16 or 32 gig of rams and a quad core CPU, so go and use it :-)

 

 

Your idea is partial. If you make only part of Europa and Rusia, you are creating only the western allied against Union Soviet with his Warsaw Pact countries. So with your idea, you always have an invasion againt East coalition inclusive the big lider ( Soviet Union ) but you give not the chance to the Soviet coalition to invade USA. This is not a Global Cold War, but only european and you have only one lider ( Soviet Union )

 

An idea is create the Red lider with Red allied vs Blue Lider with Blue allied in difference stage.

 

To have two Could War lider with their allied with a fast and cheaper way should be like that:

 

First stage: Cuba, Black Sea ( Soviet Union ) vs Turkey, Florida ( USA )

 

Secound stage: Cuba, Black Sea, Ukrania ( Soviet Union ), North of Polan, North-Ost Germany ( Warsaw Pact ) vs Turkey, Florida ( USA ), North-West Germany ( West Europa )

 

Third Stage: Cuba, Black Sea, Ukrania, Bielorussia ( Soviet Union ), North of Polan, North-Ost Germany ( Warsaw Pact ) vs Turkey, Florida/Alaska ( USA ), West Coast Canada, North-West Germany, North France, Part of England ( West Europa ).

 

And so on...

 

This is an impartial creation with different stages and thinking of a future Worldwide creation.

 

PD: with all I have seen until now, the EDGE creation will be created thinking first in the WWII first, then with a non USA Could War with only Nevada ( complet unlogical ).

Edited October 7, 2013 by pepin1234

[Erforce]

While definitely desirable, a combat simulator has a problem that MSFS (and XPlane) does not have: it has to be theoretically capable of running the entire map, since there is "risk" of there being active units conducting battle precisely anywhere on that map.

...

One option I could imagine (but that is kindaugly) would be to have overlapping but otherwise separate maps,

 

Unfortunately this is incorrect. The locations of units govern how much territory must be

 

A) In memory

B) Used in calculations for

B1) Weapon impacts

B2) AI

B3) Pathfinding (and btw, do not underestimate the amount of processing power that pathfinding costs. Prison Architect recently revamped their game engine to give a whole core to JUST that... :P And they're only working in 2D, not 3D... )

 

 

I'm not a multicore engineer CofeeBoy, but would it be possible if, for example, the main displayed map runs as usually on 1.5 core, and the second part of map is calculated on a dedicated other core, separately, like if we had another instance of DCS openned, in map mode (no sound, no render).

If multiplayer is possible, i don't see any big deal concerning client synchronization around borders too.

 

We know Falcon 4 code is tricky, like X3 we are in a defined bubble. outside this zone, everything is about probablities and statistics.

 

ED has the chance today of having players with computers more supercharged than the superchaged PS4 (lol) itself.

 

So ? what about having more than just one instance of DCS ?

sometimes i played with 1.2.4 and 1.2.3 on each screen just to compare :D

my CPU was holding fast.

[Rongor]

Unfortunately this is incorrect. The locations of units govern how much territory must be

 

A) In memory

B) Used in calculations for

B1) Weapon impacts

B2) AI

B3) Pathfinding (and btw, do not underestimate the amount of processing power that pathfinding costs. Prison Architect recently revamped their game engine to give a whole core to JUST that... :P And they're only working in 2D, not 3D... )

Ok, I can follow this as ground units will be the problem then. Besides that I don't see why an AWACS taking off in Geilenkirchen on it's way to the combat zone (other units in action in Georgia) demands that much more serverload for A)-B3) as while taking off in Tblisi.

If a SAM targets the AWACS west of Crimea, the workload still remains the same as if the attack would take place overhead Sochi.

 

I understand that this would indeed be a factor if mission designers would spread enough interacting stuff to a decent amount of bubbles all across the globe, instead of placing some action into the same bubble. But this responsibility could be left to the mission designers, as they wont be interested in creating missions that no server can handle.

There are also simple mechanics to avoid this happening and to guide the mission desginer to create some sort of limited theater. Maybe you know Jane's Fleet Command. In the mission builder tool you had the complete worldwide map available but then hat to choose freely where to set theater borders, and even how large this theater would be.

 

I only say: let the people freely decide what to play. If one player likes to startup an AWACS (human controlled) and fly the 3 hours into the mission theater while other players are already in battle in Georgia, let him. There are cases (as just explained) where the additional bubble (of the moving AWACS) wont create anything more than position and condition telemetry. Nothing a server couldnt handle.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Rongor

[Leatherneck2382]

I picked the Korean Peninsula. Feel like that area of the world is ignored more often than not, although the area around India/Pakistan would be interesting to fly in.

[Alicatt]

Some movie and games have touched on an invasion onto American soil, but I am Canadian. How about Toronto & the Greater Toronto/Hamilton area? That would really be "bringing it home" for me. :thumbup:

 

I could make a mission to save the CN Tower! :joystick:

would be good, as long as we can fly up the Niagara Gorge - a proper jet ride up the rapids :joystick:

[Offlinepilot]

MENA!

[Rangi]

Stick a carrier on Lake Mead, will be a bit tight to get the whole carrier group in but at least you can hit the 'postage stamp'.

[Rongor]

I sense the call for some other soon incoming sceneries. I don't know where they could come from, who could produce them or what theater they should focus on, but the need is so obviously around here.

[Pyroflash]

It is being alluded to that Nevada will be expanded at a later date. I would not rule out the California coast as a likely next step. In the mean time, yes, I'm going to take it as a safe bet that you are going to have to live with the lack of oceanic environs for the time being.

[NineLine]

If we dont see a new map by somebody when the SDK comes out with large body of water, I would be very surprised...

[VincentLaw]

If we dont see a new map by somebody when the SDK comes out with large body of water, I would be very surprised...

If noone makes Waterworld when the SDK becomes available, then I will do it myself for the principle of the thing.

 

I guess a question relevant to this thread is if we will be able to stitch any existing maps together into a Frankenmap, or if doing so would require the "source" of the map. Even if it is possible to weld a Sea of Nevada onto the map, it would probably not be legal to redistribute for multiplayer unless it is possible to make metamaps that get map data from other maps.