Maps level of detail and comparisons

I have a few questions related to the level of detail and accuracy of the maps, especially detailed ones like PG or The Channel (or even better the coming Syria one).

1) Supposing you have enough visibility range and you tree visibility is 100%, for a given scenario, is the number of displayed objects (houses, bridges, roads, etc...) always the same or does it depend also on the clutter/grass parameter? (excluding chimney smoke and civilian traffic)

2) How close to reality are the maps? I'm very impressed by the Syria previews, and PG at least in the towns. The Channel towns, I'm still wondering because I know this region and there's a kind of unrealistic feel in the towns. This is of course my subjective feeling, and for sure, the level of detail is high in this map.

3) Has anybody tried to compare what for example Caucasus or the other DCS regions, like the new DCS Syria, look like in this other sim that will be released in August and which has great landscapes even in low settings? I know DCS is a combat and not a sightseeing simulator, but a good map contributes to immersion.

Re: The Channel Map

I think the consensus is that it’s a bit of a mashup with some airfields being paved when they historically were not and others being useable when in fact, they’d been demo’d by the Germans much earlier than the late 1940s. There are also a few built up areas on the map that were not actually as well developed in the 1940s.

There are several reviews on YouTube that address the not quite accurate timeline of the Channel Map.

In the Caucuses, many of the airbases (according to Google Earth) are no longer active military bases. But the default time period on that map is not “Today”

1. These are all independent settings.

2. As Emmy says maps are made as they supposedly were in one particular time. PG, Syria and NTTR are modern. Normandy and Channel are WWII. Caucasus is around 1990. They all have high detail areas, low detail areas, and no detail areas (either sea or flat land). Depending on a place they are more or less realistic. You can find many recognizable buildings, dams, rivers, roads... Most detailed and true are airbases of course. Smaller cities and villages can be generic especially in low detail areas.

3. Irrelevant.

1. These are all independent settings.

2. As Emmy says maps are made as they supposedly were in one particular time. PG, Syria and NTTR are modern. Normandy and Channel are WWII. Caucasus is around 1990. They all have high detail areas, low detail areas, and no detail areas (either sea or flat land). Depending on a place they are more or less realistic. You can find many recognizable buildings, dams, rivers, roads... Most detailed and true are airbases of course. Smaller cities and villages can be generic especially in low detail areas.

3. Irrelevant.

1. OK, maybe I should have my question more precise. What is the contribution of clutter/grass to the maps details. Obviously, you get nice grass on the ground, but what is the "clutter" exactly? Does it add more vehicles on the airports? more objects in front of the houses?

2. OK Thanks!

3. It may be irrelevant for you, but I'd still like to understand which level of accuracy is reached with the latest DCS maps and if it was possible to reach an even higher level of accuracy? I read that this "other sim" can render up to each individual house? I don't want to compare, I'm just trying to understand if in DCS we reached a level where missions could be as precise as bombing an individual house number in an actual street?

Grass/clutter setting affects only the drawing distance for grass and bushes.

DCS maps are not yet created with that accuracy you ask - it is not the goal currently. If it is some known, recognizable and specific building modeled then it is as real one but others may just be similar in size, placement and quantity although some areas go pretty far in detail: