World Map

I see this listed in the future roadmap.

 

Just wondering how this would work where it takes so long to populate maps ?

 

Would it be a google earth type thing but not populated with buildings/forests which would be filled in with modules by hand as we go ? or

 

Would be like this with some sort of software recognition program to place buildings/ forests etc ?

 

 

Be cool either way.

 

 

Mark

Well, modelling of the whole world is the ultimate dream, not only for us but also for ED as I understood it so far.

 

It is not happening anytime soon, so as technology (end user consumer PC hardware) progresses it is likely that ED will be able to enhance their Terrain Development Kit as well as EDGE to the point where a procedural generation of terrain objects will be possible.

 

Let's not forget that DCS terrains are made so they are a believable representation of the area with a focus on detailed aviation infrastructure such as airbases, airports, airstrips, etc.

 

With that, there is no need to accurately model each street or building in terrain to match its real-life counterpart. Although that level of accuracy would be my personal dream come - true.

 

I believe it would be similar to what we have got now. It seems we are getting pretty accurate satellite imagery combined with hand-crafted textures and a number of objects that are then distributed accordingly.

 

I don't know ins and outs of EDGE / Terrain Development Kit so perhaps a procedural generation of objects is already a thing. Actually, would be nice if ED shared some in-house "making of" type video.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Gierasimov

I hate procedural world.

I hope ED will focus on detailed war theaters maps such as afghanistan, vietnam, korea, falklands, balcans and so on, rather than develop a useless world procedural map.

Even in civil sims, where a world map is more suited, at the end I fly only over additional high res photosceneries of the areas I'm interested in, rather than over the procedural (but quite unrealistic) generic "world".

IMHO for the purposes of DCS (accurate war theaters, but also some civil activities like aerobatics) a whole world is not needed.

Wow ! That said I would prefer real world vs procedural too.

If buildings could be placed based on a google image that would be game changing.

We could design scenario's over areas we would not ever see in a non world map.

Doubt we will see that, at least not any time soon.

No wold map please, more theaters like vietnam, pacific, afrika, balkan ...

No wold map please, more theaters like vietnam, pacific, afrika, balkan ...

They're not mutually exclusive. We can potentially have a world map that we can paste existing theaters on to.

 

 

I think it's sorely needed. All DCS maps are small (though later ones have grown and it's a appreciable improvement) compared to the range of the larger aircraft. It seems like ED can't include all the relevant airbases for a theater at the full level of detail, so having a world beyond the detail map where we can takeoff/land would help to expand mission possibilities.

Well, modelling of the whole world is the ultimate dream, not only for us but also for ED as I understood it so far.

Well, not for me, because:

I hate procedural world.

I hope ED will focus on detailed war theaters maps such as afghanistan, vietnam, korea, falklands, balcans and so on, rather than develop a useless world procedural map.

Even in civil sims, where a world map is more suited, at the end I fly only over additional high res photosceneries of the areas I'm interested in, rather than over the procedural (but quite unrealistic) generic "world".

IMHO for the purposes of DCS (accurate war theaters, but also some civil activities like aerobatics) a whole world is not needed.

Adding multiplayer on top of it, I don't see the benefit of having a map covering the entire world for 50 player servers...

the whole world in low-detail and then the theaters you buy in high detail would be awsome, because it would allow for real long-range strike missions, and escorts, and maybe also for bigger multicrew aircraft. But its a dream that's far away, and not around the corner.

Because:

1) EDGE has different limitations than the Xplane engine.

2) I don't see any real benefit to DCS gameplay where you fly missions that are limited to a specific AO, unlike a general aviation simulator like Xplane where you fly airliners around the world.

 

 

We're limited to a specific area in DCS out of necessity. The maps are small. A true WWII map would be much bigger than Normandy and we have a campaign system that can take advantage of any scale of conflict by allowing your missions to move from place to place.

 

 

I don't know why people feel like a world map is for civil sims. It's no less appropriate for combat ones.

the whole world in low-detail and then the theaters you buy in high detail would be awsome, because it would allow for real long-range strike missions, and escorts, and maybe also for bigger multicrew aircraft. But its a dream that's far away, and not around the corner.

+1

 

Yaeah, you could take off from Caucasus and drop bombs in Syria or Persian Gulf, a nice refuelling mission !!!

+1

 

Yaeah, you could take off from Caucasus and drop bombs in Syria or Persian Gulf, a nice refuelling mission !!!

 

Quite, there’s loads of potential uses. I get that these might not appeal to everyone, but you deal with that by charging to low res whole world as just any other terrain.

 

Some examples that I’d love to have:

- ww2 bomber escort. Take off in Norfolk and fly to Berlin and back

- cat and mouse carrier battles in genuinely big oceans

- any form of long range strike

- sight seeing around the alps in a Viggen

what distances do u guys intend to fly in a world map? im not sure many people would endure 4 hour one way flights to the battlezone and then get shot down instantly.

 

for me its enough to extend flight times shifting to auto generated area, preferably over water.

 

i also think its better to focus on specific theatres as mentioned in the posts above. it´s likely that terrain size will grow in future.

Personally I'm not interested in a world map.

 

 

I like details and I think that including low-res versions of the rest of the world will just give people the wrong impression about DCS. Everybody wants to fly over their own country, but if it's low-res then why bother? It'll just be ugly and unsatisfying.

 

 

 

Further I think that for the purpose the maps are big enough. Crossing the Persian Gulf in a Viggen at supersonic speeds while flying 20m above the water is fun, but that's more than enough for me.

As a Mission Builder, I understand the need of "room" or "space" and sometimes you find yourself wishing for this or that area. Still We do not need the Whole World thing. Unless you plan to fly intercontinental bombers (witch none are present on DCS yet). For Tactical aircraft we have enough "space".

 

Maybe we could have a same base map, with different "detailed areas" for instance Caucasus as we have now, but instead of adding Crimea, to what we have and making it unusable, just make it a different map with Crimea detailed and Georgia plain.. so we can have different missions with continuity, but loading the specific area that the mission would take place on.

 

AND I would love to see a way to add custom useable bases or airstrips in the Low res part of our current maps, to have more flexibility.

High detail world.

 

Hi.

Most of these "world map" negations seem to focus on long-range flights, which, I agree, can be boring or otherwise unappealing to some.

 

I would not be a big fan of a low res world with detailed terrain modules at all.

This would make no true difference to what we have right now, to me at anyway.

 

My reasoning, however, is different. My dream is that one day we will have the DCS World (meaning the Earth) which allows us to freely choose a full fidelity part of the world we want to fly in, at a given time...

My reasoning, however, is different. My dream is that one day we will have the DCS World (meaning the Earth) which allows us to freely choose a full fidelity part of the world we want to fly in, at a given time...

 

that would be awesome

My reasoning, however, is different. My dream is that one day we will have the DCS World (meaning the Earth) which allows us to freely choose a full fidelity part of the world we want to fly in, at a given time...

 

Me too :)

DCS should go ahead and implement the world map to combine Civilian and military modules. The first good steep will be start with civilian destiny like tourist places that at the past were in some kind of war.

 

America:

 

Cuba/South Florida map: Two very interesting touristic civilian destinies both with some military operation like "cuban missile crisis" and "Bay of pigs invasion"

 

Hawaii: Pear Harbor attack, WWII historical attack. with a very important touristic destiny

 

Barbados: invasion of Barbados. Touristic destiny

 

 

Argentina: Malvinas Islands, Mar del Plata and Buenos Aires around, both comercial and touristic destinies.

 

Africa

 

Angola: very importan regional war there with a very interesting comercial destiny and South Africans Cities around very interesting for civilian airlines too.

 

Egipto, Israel and Syria. Well know wars and plenty all around of touristic and comercial destinies

 

 

Europa. Tons of conflicts and tons of destinies

 

Asia the same and so on...

Hi.

Most of these "world map" negations seem to focus on long-range flights, which, I agree, can be boring or otherwise unappealing to some.

 

I would not be a big fan of a low res world with detailed terrain modules at all.

This would make no true difference to what we have right now, to me at anyway.

 

My reasoning, however, is different. My dream is that one day we will have the DCS World (meaning the Earth) which allows us to freely choose a full fidelity part of the world we want to fly in, at a given time...

That would be nice indeed, but impossible due to technical limitations.

Hello everyone,

 

I have been following the development of DCS for a few years now. And since some years iask me,

why the developers or a company do not offer a big map/terrain/theater that is computer

generated. And in the year 2019 this problem still exists.

 

What i want to say is, that a combat simulator with aircrafts like a F-14 or F-18, which

are really good implemented, needs a good terrain.

 

Why should i fly with a military jet with weapons at the peaceful area like NEVADA Test and

Training Range Map? Its a part

of the USA, the landscape is empty and there is peace. And i do not attack some civilians in

there cars. I need an enemy for a combat simulator.

 

Why not theaters like balkan, korea, vietnam, pacific, afrika, iran, .... ?

 

I think, that is the main problem of DCS and why not so much people buy aircrafts. You have

very good DCS aircrafts inside a good simulator, but no terrain, where

you can fly them. And why should i buy an aircraft for 70 dollars, if i do not have a good

theater, where

i can fly it? The mission editor is great, but i cannot place a tank battalion to the NEVADA

Training Range,

because i do not attack my own people with a F-18/F-14. And i don’t think, the russians will

invade las vegas in the near future.

 

Ok, you can say, there exists the terrain : Persian Gulf Map.

But there is no real conflict and i don't want the bomb the Burj Khalifa or Burj al Arab

building.

 

We need conflicts like taiwan/china or North/South Korea or the balkan conflict in the 90.

And by the way. All maps are to small. I start with a F-18, and after some minutes, i reached

the border of the terrain.

 

Some people know X-Plane with the autogen buildings and forests, that are based on the OSM data

from openstreetmap. If you use this information in combination with satellites images, you have

the following results:

https://www.muenster.de/~marvel/x-plane/folder1/thumb.html

https://www.muenster.de/~marvel/xplane/thumb.html

 

And there is nothing handmade only autogen and osm data and its world wide.

 

Why cannot the developers create a program that reads this openstreetmap OSM data, combine them

with

google/bing satellite images and the world map, or a special 1500x1500 miles area, is ready for

DCS? All information are inside the OSM data and are for free.

I think the most users and me don't need handmade buildings, airports, trees

and all the other stuff likes this one :

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/edb/DCS_Persian-Gulf_700x1000_v1b.jpg

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/images/newsletter/20180406/PG-720.jpg

http://yoyosims.pl/sites/default/files/Obrazki/f-18%20hornet/persian%20gulf%20map_7.jpg

 

 

If i fly at 25.000 feet, i don't see a flag or the door/window of a building or any other details. It doesn't matter. Take a look at this images at FL > 150.

http://www.no9squadron.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/dcs-hornet-6.png

https://stormbirds.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/f-15c-persian-dubai-palms2.jpg?w=1200

https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steam/apps/411890/ss_8775b1627b554e989ab15631050bd69ee0c433ec.1920x1080.jpg?t=1538428958

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/a4f/Screen_180131_001935_00000_00071.png

 

https://bsnews.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/strait-hormuz.jpg

https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steam/apps/411890/ss_9fe72fad05ceab69a26a91c77d036412bfe550c1.1920x1080.jpg?t=1538428958

https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steam/apps/411890/ss_a2f6cd729bb5feec388541f28f10ff212c9d1ded.1920x1080.jpg?t=1538428958

https://stormbirds.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/dcs-ed-persian-gulf-4.jpg?w=496&h=279

 

 

There i need only really, simple low res buildings. Only at start and landing you see the

ground. Then you climb to FL > 250 and see only your cockpit, instruments, the sky, clouds and

satellite images from the ground.

 

Ok, some of you say now, that you want handmade High Res Maps. Its okay. You can buy this

handmade map and place this high res terrains over

the future procedural generated world maps of DCS. I have no problem with that. But the other

pilots like me want to fly

long range strikes (> 150 miles) at 30.000 feet, doing air refueling, dogfights in balkan/korea

and create complex missions with the great DCS mission editor in a 1500x1500 miles area. For

this there is no need for a handmade terrain like the persian gulf map or the next afghanistan

terrain/map.

By the way. Why afganistan? There is again the problem, that there is only desert and empty

landscape like the nevada test range map. There exists only taliban with there AK 47 machine

gun like this one:

http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/images/events/2017/01.jpg

 

What should i do there with a modern F-18/F-14 Fighter? The taliban do not have an aircrafts

like mig 29S or SU 35. And they have no air defensive like patriot or SA-10/S-300. What can i

do then there with a modern combat fighter like the f-14 or f-18?

 

I would really prefer to fight in real conflicts all over the world against strong enemies. And

for me there is no reason, why it should not be possible for the DCS developers

to create a program, that generates maps automatic with the Osm openstreetmap data like the

X-plane maps.

That should be feasible without much effort.

In my opinion is DCS a very good simulator for vfr flights at low level to take a look on

beautiful buildings that are handmade.

 

 

Its a little bit like, if you have a great racing simulator, but no racetrack. Only a parking

spot behind a supermarket with the name : “ KFC Test and Training parking Spot map“.

 

But I do not give up. Maybe there will be a good terrain in the near future. :)

Edited March 11, 2019 by marvel_master

Hello everyone,

 

I have been following the development of DCS for a few years now. And since some years iask me,

why the developers or a company do not offer a big map/terrain/theater that is computer

generated. And in the year 2019 this problem still exists.

Map size is one issue. DCS can't just cut details to reduce the file size either, using the details of terrain is important. Troops on the ground reference those details, as do low flying aircraft, and even high fly aircraft with targeting pods.

 

 

Why should i fly with a military jet with weapons at the peaceful area like NEVADA Test and

Training Range Map? Its a part

of the USA, the landscape is empty and there is peace. And i do not attack some civilians in

there cars. I need an enemy for a combat simulator.

I see many people mention this, but training is part of combat. NTTR is a very fitting map for DCS. It's fine to prefer "real" combat, but that doesn't make NTTR out of place.

 

 

I think, that is the main problem of DCS and why not so much people buy aircrafts. You have

very good DCS aircrafts inside a good simulator, but no terrain, where

you can fly them. And why should i buy an aircraft for 70 dollars, if i do not have a good

theater, where

i can fly it?

I can't really agree there. If there were things keeping people out of DCS I'd point to other reasons. Maybe what you say applies a little better to planes like the F-86 and MiG-15, but those didn't only exist in Korea (for example) and DCS is fine for hypothetical situations. The Black Sea location pretty much fits any aircraft from 1943-Today if you want to be semi historical.

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, you can say, there exists the terrain : Persian Gulf Map.

But there is no real conflict and i don't want the bomb the Burj Khalifa or Burj al Arab

building.

Most of the map is Iran though and there has been fighting in the Straight, even fighting involving the US.

 

 

 

And by the way. All maps are to small. I start with a F-18, and after some minutes, i reached

the border of the terrain.

I won't argue that map size limits what we can do with many modules, but they're big enough now that you won't necessarily run off the map edge on every flight. The F-18 is in a particularly good spot because you can start from the water, effectively making maps with water access bigger.

 

 

I think the most users and me don't need handmade buildings, airports, trees

and all the other stuff likes this one :

Going back to what I said before, there is more to do in DCS than just CAP at 30000 ft. Not everyone is going to use need highly detailed buildings, but some will benefit.

 

 

I'm with you in that we need more space to flight and fight in, but it shouldn't come at the cost of losing what we have now.

As someone with a very long career in building 3D models for architects and engineers. I can appreciate the effort to takes to create these maps in select regions of the world for our entertainment.

 

 

 

I have watched many videos, on how they produce these models and populate the Cities and Airbases. Content is detailed enough and in balance for that air to air engagement, to the guy in the Mobile SAM hiding in the weeds. As someone with experience in 3DS Max it can get tedious modeling a city. Remember the modelers are creating the Building, the textures, collision geometry, and damaged models also with new Textures.

 

 

I bet that Level of detail, Urban density, Rural Density, and map size are limiting factors. Notice how the largest maps and most planned maps are all desert regions. That wouldn't have to do with not having to model all those trees and grasses would it? There are also only a handful of Metropolitan areas on these maps as well! How many Gigabytes would a central Europe Map of the Fulda Gap be if said map was the size of Nevada test range? Oh and we want WWII and modern versions as well.

 

 

 

I bet an open ocean focusing on Carrier operations could be the biggest map yet. I wouldn't mind a WWII Pacific Theater map. Since its only a few Islands from Hawaii to the Philippines would that be do-able as a map today? What about, GUIK Greanland Iceland UK gap? Anyone watch Hunt For Red October, another map for carrier aircraft. 1980s to today and the Strategic significance would likely be the same for the modern aircraft as well. Only problem is Where would the land bases Russian aircraft be based? Murmansk? We have to model how much?

 

 

I like the idea that was noted above by marvel_master, we really need a world map progressive as in Xplane (which I never played) or new tech to cover these "in between areas". In the GIUK example above one can have Russian carrier operations protecting subs heading south and I can fly my Mig-29 or SU-27 escorting bombers from Murmansk or St Petersburg.

 

 

In this situation expansion paks would be released with missions and new "scenery" Cities, landmarks, Roads, and Rail with traffic etc. In the case above the Entire North Cape Region would be progressive landscape Murmansk and the surrounding area would be modeled to show the cities scenery Etc. There are several airports up there they would have to be modeled, but outlying towns would just be part of the progressive model.

 

 

I read on this forum about all the new aircraft being made by third parties, the WWII planes to Current. It is getting to be a point where so much detail is put into the plane yet there are no maps of the regions where the planes flew. Case and point Viet Nam and Central Europe.

 

 

 

Viet Nam for example; we have MIG 15, 19, 21 UH-1 F-5. Coming Soon F-8 Crusader F-4 Phantom. Need I say more, however there are those that want a Taiwan/China map. With a progressive world all of the terrain would be continuous. Expansion Sets would add detail like Buildings airfield roads Etc.

 

 

 

I believe that a hybrid approach world map with a base resolution of X meter imagery and DTM. Add the Detail later and sell them as entire regions

 

like maps today.

Oh and I want to Take off in my Harrier from the cornfield behind my house in Nebraska and fight the advancing Soviet armor. The same guys the Wolverines were fighting in that movie. :lol:

 

 

No one is ever making a map like that anyway. With a world map I may get to do that.

The problem has making a whole earth technology without broke the actual map developing and integrate them into the Map tools. We dont know the actual TDK new features talk by wags on the 2.0 (from 2018 Late year Moscow visit).

 

The other part has "integrate" the actual maps without making issues. The Map Making videos using map tools show Global Mapper technology.

I join the idea of the one who has proposed a high detailed Crimea map with a low res Caucasus, in order to have a wider theatre without bigger (and heavier) maps.

 

Crimea not coming to DCS by a "political" problem.