2.5 Cartesian Projection

Hi guys,

I was wondering about the map projection 2.5 will have.

Will it suffer from the same errors as 2.2 and 1.5? Like the lack of true north and the grid north being the "actual" true north?

Currently 2.2 and 1.5 are projected as if there were no magnetic lines.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2117082&postcount=10

Thanks!

no one?

I'm not sure, but I think the only difference between 2.2 open alpha and 2.5 is the addition of the Caucasus map (plus minor bugfixes and changes). So I wouldn't recommend holding your breath.

I'm not sure, but I think the only difference between 2.2 open alpha and 2.5 is the addition of the Caucasus map (plus minor bugfixes and changes). So I wouldn't recommend holding your breath.

Thanks, I had that feeling too.

But a lot of people are talking about new code and stuff. Made me wonder.

ED has also talked about spherical projection maps prior releasing NTTR if memory serves me right... I wonder if that was just tech talk and has been left un-utilized.

ED has also talked about spherical projection maps prior releasing NTTR if memory serves me right... I wonder if that was just tech talk and has been left un-utilized.

Think that was more geared toward the world rendering where they basically run the game through all the equations that make the flat earth theory work. Which makes sense because it is a video game built on a flat earth. :lol:

If you go high enough you start to see curvature of the Earth even though the map has no physical curve to it. In a sense that flat earth joke is kinda accurate to how it works in game. At least that is my understanding of it. In other words most everything in game is a normal x, y, z coordinate system but the systems that need it compensate for any curvature of the earth that would be needed to compensate for over given distances.

Think that was more geared toward the world rendering where they basically run the game through all the equations that make the flat earth theory work. Which makes sense because it is a video game built on a flat earth. :lol:

 

If you go high enough you start to see curvature of the Earth even though the map has no physical curve to it. In a sense that flat earth joke is kinda accurate to how it works in game. At least that is my understanding of it. In other words most everything in game is a normal x, y, z coordinate system but the systems that need it compensate for any curvature of the earth that would be needed to compensate for over given distances.

What disturbs me (what a fancy word), is that we have a map showing magnetic lines (which should be equal to the true north) but they are actually unused as the actual true north in game is the grid north.

So why not deleting them and put them in x/y system to be more coherent at least with how the game is built.

Thoughts?

ED has also talked about spherical projection maps prior releasing NTTR if memory serves me right... I wonder if that was just tech talk and has been left un-utilized.

My memory is that they said the new engine can simulate spherical worlds, but ( again from memory) at that stage the Caucasus was already extant (that's just for Piston85), as was the early NTTR and Hormuz - Given the circumstances Normandy probably got made with the easiest and quickest technology they had (to nice specs :-).

If they would change the maps to a spherical earth model, they would suddenly run into all sorts of "interesting" problems like having to rework a lot of navigation stuff to use great circles instead of straight lines and whatnot.

While I'd absolutely love to have perfect accuracy in navigational terms, it would be a tremendous undertaking to update all existing assets, maps and system to use great circle nav. Not only would all FMS calculations be redone in all modules, the AI and pathfinding would be affected as well. And once all these things would be in place, somebody would probably start to ask about updating magnetic variation with each patch to match the real world fluctuations. It would probably be a neverending story.

I do love that you see the earth's curvature up high, that is one of the nicest things of flying at these altitudes (and without all the cosmic radiation as well!).

If they would change the maps to a spherical earth model, they would suddenly run into all sorts of "interesting" problems like having to rework a lot of navigation stuff to use great circles instead of straight lines and whatnot.

 

While I'd absolutely love to have perfect accuracy in navigational terms, it would be a tremendous undertaking to update all existing assets, maps and system to use great circle nav. Not only would all FMS calculations be redone in all modules, the AI and pathfinding would be affected as well. And once all these things would be in place, somebody would probably start to ask about updating magnetic variation with each patch to match the real world fluctuations. It would probably be a neverending story.

 

I do love that you see the earth's curvature up high, that is one of the nicest things of flying at these altitudes (and without all the cosmic radiation as well!).

I dont think it will be that much of work. You just need to make AI and stuff to follow magnetic heading instead of straight lines. That way they will be all flying Loxodromic paths.

The MV is already well implemented.

It wouldn't simply be having to calculate which way is north rather than just using the Y axis, you'd also have to calculate which direction is local down instead of using the Z axis.

And you'd have do it for every plane, vehicle, ship, bullet, cloud, smoke and weather effect ....

So wondering if the new advancments of the new map format, engine tech, vulkan API (not saying that it has anything to do with it but for the sake of argument) would simulating the curvature of the earth be doable with neglible impact on performance? All the calculations would be a bit different, one or two more factors to the equations, but I don't see it being a huge resource hog, or not ?

In terms of physics, it all in the end counts to taking a bite out of CPU performance. I wonder not all of the things would need to be curvature aware ofcourse, just the geometry/core unit physics, but probably not all the smaller components and visual stuff, destruction, etc.

ohhhhh finally people that understand my #52 biggest complain in DCS...

I wish we had a round globe simulated (like FSX) with our terrain maps added to it, so you could fly from Nevada map to Caucasus map.

All the other parts of the globe not included in your Terrain Modules could be the lowest resolution possible (theres free mesh aviable and couple textures here and there)

SO you could be expanding your High definition terrains one by one.

I know this will never happen as this means a total rework on DCS world, but It would be nice..

Sometimes I wish ED wasnt stuck with the "old" code so that we could have easier improvments on all those areas nobody pays attention (weather, long range flying, ATC, etc..

So wondering if the new advancments of the new map format, engine tech, vulkan API (not saying that it has anything to do with it but for the sake of argument) would simulating the curvature of the earth be doable with neglible impact on performance? All the calculations would be a bit different, one or two more factors to the equations, but I don't see it being a huge resource hog, or not ?

 

In terms of physics, it all in the end counts to taking a bite out of CPU performance. I wonder not all of the things would need to be curvature aware ofcourse, just the geometry/core unit physics, but probably not all the smaller components and visual stuff, destruction, etc.

Hard to tell how big the performance impact would be. What I think is that the whole math gets way more complicated. Lets imagine a plane flying absolutelly horizontally. In flat world that basically means moving along a 2D plane. Translation matrix is quite simple to calculate, just by adding a delta distance over a time. If the earth gets round now there is also a vertical component. Extreamly small but still it's there as a "flat" plane patch is basically a hudge circle (being more precise a sphere with constant radius).

In other words the question now is if it's only the map that would have to be changed or actually a complete physics engine, including flight models and AI movement calculation.

I dont think it will be that much of work. You just need to make AI and stuff to follow magnetic heading instead of straight lines. That way they will be all flying Loxodromic paths.

 

The MV is already well implemented.

True, but we don't want loxodromic paths (which would be constant track), great circle tracks are orthodromic and that results in non-constant headings/tracks from A to B and there is quite a lot more math involved than with loxodromes.

Also MV would vary slightly whereas in the current implementation MV is just an offset from true north. And even true north doesn't point to a single geographic north pole in DCS, it is just pointing towards the Y direction of the map which means it is more like a grid north.

True, but we don't want loxodromic paths (which would be constant track), great circle tracks are orthodromic and that results in non-constant headings/tracks from A to B and there is quite a lot more math involved than with loxodromes.

 

Also MV would vary slightly whereas in the current implementation MV is just an offset from true north. And even true north doesn't point to a single geographic north pole in DCS, it is just pointing towards the Y direction of the map which means it is more like a grid north.

I know, that's why I said loxodromic tracks :)

It wouldn't simply be having to calculate which way is north rather than just using the Y axis, you'd also have to calculate which direction is local down instead of using the Z axis.

You could use sperical coordinates for that...

I know, that's why I said loxodromic tracks :)

Oh, nevermind then! I wrongly assumed you meant that by following magnetic headings they would already follow great circles and that you mixed up orthodromic/loxodromic. Sorry for that.

Went that wrong direction because you said you assume it wouldn't be that much work to transition to a spherical terrain model in terms of AI rework which I wouldn't concur with.

Sorry for misreading you again!

Oh, nevermind then! I wrongly assumed you meant that by following magnetic headings they would already follow great circles and that you mixed up orthodromic/loxodromic. Sorry for that.

 

Went that wrong direction because you said you assume it wouldn't be that much work to transition to a spherical terrain model in terms of AI rework which I wouldn't concur with.

 

Sorry for misreading you again!

Anyway, the thing is that we still have the flat stuff.

Thanks.

Enviado desde mi Moto Z Play mediante Tapatalk