How does the future of DCS WW2 look if Matt Wagner is rights about a global map? - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2018, 10:18 AM   #1
philstyle
Member
 
philstyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Aeotearoan Republic of Niederbayern
Posts: 646
Default How does the future of DCS WW2 look if Matt Wagner is rights about a global map?

Wags says that a "whole earth round model" is an aspiration for DCS. Given that the Normandy map is historically bound, and would not merge well with the modern maps (NTTR, Caucasus, Gulf etc..) for geographic, aesthetic and operational reasons, does this mean, effectively that DCS will not be producing any more WW2 maps?
I would expect that everyone can see some significant issues with "flying from . . the Caucasus on to Normandy" etc in such a model . . .
Obviously this "whole earth model" is probably a number of years away (so no need to panic right now), but if that is the long-term goal for DCS, then the question of other WW2 maps appearuing for us warbird customers is possibly answered already, no?
Additionally, does this mean that other historically-basde maps (Vietnam, Korea etc..) are not on the development agenda either, as they would potentially copnflict with the "whole earth model"?
Source: https://youtu.be/HX_AezyGiF4?t=38m58s
philstyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 10:23 AM   #2
QuiGon
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 6,881
Default

Honestly, I don't see a global map happen for DCS. I don't even see a use for a global map. All aircraft we have are already close to or even above their range limits fuel wise with the current map sizes, so global maps would only be interesting for long range aircraft like bombers (e.g. B-1 Lancer), and only if you enjoy flying in a straight line for several hours.
I also don't see how ~50 players should spread over a global map in multiplayer.
__________________
Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + ATi Sapphire Vapor-X R9 280X (3 GB VRAM) + Windows 10 64Bit

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

QuiGon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 10:27 AM   #3
philstyle
Member
 
philstyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Aeotearoan Republic of Niederbayern
Posts: 646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuiGon View Post
Honestly, I don't see a global map happen for DCS. I don't even see a use for a global map. All aircraft we have are already close to or even above their range limits fuel wise with the current map sizes, so global maps would only be interesting for long range aircraft like bombers (e.g. B-1 Lancer), and only if you enjoy flying in a straight line for several hours.
I also don't see how ~50 players should spread over a global map in multiplayer.


I think you are right QuiGon.
I would hope that ED think very carefully about whether or not such a plan makes sense. Sure, civil-aviation guys might be doing 8-hour flights, but I don't know many combat-sim people who will remain airborne for anywhere near that kind of time. Concentrating the player base in a sensible map-area is one of the keys to getting a combat sim right: Too small an area, and no-one can get airborne; Too large, and it's a ghost town.
philstyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 10:28 AM   #4
Reflected
Senior Member
 
Reflected's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: LHDK
Posts: 1,811
Default

A global map would be quite a waste of energy. Larger area = less details, or they wouldn't ever be finished. I'd rather they concentrated on important missing theaters, such as Vietnam.
__________________


My Music
My DCS Skins
B350 Gaming Plus / Ryzen 5 1600 X @ 3,6 / MSI GeForce GTX1070 8192 / 16 GB RAM / Samsung PM961 512 SSD / MS FFB 2 / TM Warthog throttle / Saitek ProFlight pedals / TrackIR 4 PRO
Reflected is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 10:32 AM   #5
philstyle
Member
 
philstyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Aeotearoan Republic of Niederbayern
Posts: 646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reflected View Post
A global map would be quite a waste of energy. Larger area = less details, or they wouldn't ever be finished. I'd rather they concentrated on important missing theaters, such as Vietnam.


Totally agree. If the technology/ hardware can handle around 350 x 350 Nautical Miles currently (according to Wags in livestream video), then a "sensible" (Hanoi to Da Nang!) Vietnam map could be made.
philstyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 10:39 AM   #6
MAD-MM
Member
 
MAD-MM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 874
Default

There still a Map development without annoucement after Strait of Hormuz Map, possible they recreate on the of the future MAPs for WW2...
But dont think there is any more WW2 Maps is for the near Future, Battle of Bulge *Dream*
__________________
Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.


9./JG27
MAD-MM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 12:10 PM   #7
OttoPus
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sardinia, Italy
Posts: 420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reflected View Post
A global map would be quite a waste of energy. Larger area = less details
Well, there are some technologies that allow a lot of detail without using GBs of textures ( procedural generation of erosion data, vegetation data, roads, cities, and so on ). So "larger areas = less details" is not entirely true.

With such technology, you can concentrate details in some ares ( like a "persian gulf" area ) and let other areas be procedurally generated while you fly over them just to fill the gap.

In the long run, to me this option wouldn't be so bad.
OttoPus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 12:21 PM   #8
Cytt0rak
Member
 
Cytt0rak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 132
Default

To people that are against whole world map there are people that are interested in flying transport/bomber planes that would like to fly from NTTR to Caucasus or Caucasus to Persian Gulf. Just because combat radius does match the map size doesnt mean that they will waste their time on making a map like that. Ferry flights, AAR?

Edit : Montreux Convention for the straits of Bosphorus and Dardanelles basically forbids huge ships like US Carriers entering Black Sea. Most of the missions we are making is semi realistic already. For the people that are aiming maximum accuracy whole Earth is must.

Last edited by Cytt0rak; 04-16-2018 at 12:31 PM.
Cytt0rak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 12:32 PM   #9
philstyle
Member
 
philstyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Aeotearoan Republic of Niederbayern
Posts: 646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cytt0rak View Post
To people that are against whole world map there are people that are interested in flying transport/bomber planes that would like to fly from NTTR to Caucasus or Caucasus to Persian Gulf. Just because combat radius does match the map size doesnt mean that they will waste their time on making a map like that. Ferry flights, AAR?

Edit : Montreux Convention for the straits of Bosphorus and Dardanelles basically forbids huge ships like US Carriers entering Black Sea. Most of the missions we are making is semi realistic already. For the people that are aiming maximum accuracy whole Earth is must.
None of this addresses the DCS WW2 problem from the OP. This is a DCS WW2 thread.


Even if it were relevant, there are no 1940s transport or even medium range bomber planes... and no-one online is even flying accross the 90km English channel at the moment, let alone 5,000km to Georgia in their P51.

Last edited by philstyle; 04-16-2018 at 12:36 PM.
philstyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 12:37 PM   #10
Cytt0rak
Member
 
Cytt0rak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philstyle View Post
None of this addresses the DCS WW2 problem from the OP.
Yes. I did not write it as a reply to OP.

Quote:
To people that are against whole world map
Cytt0rak is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:29 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.