[Черный Дракул]

Originally Posted by Revelation

With people complaining about having to have more RAM already, you think this is going to be feasible?

Originally Posted by shagrat

Well, more units, bigger maps, with 256 GB RAM in an watercooled i7 @ 5GHz plus at least a 1080ti... Maybe around 30fps.***When everybody bought a new PC and the 1080ti and 32GB RAM are considered a mid-range PC.

Do you seriously believe that the only way to implement a bigger map is to demand more RAM? I can't express how wrong this approach is. Seriously, ATM ED have already hit the ceiling with their RAM demands. They need to seriously optimize the whole engine to make it fit. DCS is clunky enough for any newcomer these days (it was even in the old ones) without adding exaggerated demands for his rig. I just hope ED management understands (and intends to act on) this problem more clearly and deeply than those that brandish their super-rigs and proudly tell everyone around themselves that they have no problems.

Originally Posted by shagrat

By the way, that is more likely what you need, not necessarily DCS.

Others would argue, we need more and better campaigns for single player, others would prefer a focus on a dedicated server and network multiplayer in dual cockpits improved. Yet others would argue for better AI, damage model, more decent mission editor with 3D placement, and so on, and so forth.

All(!) of this would be great to have, but there are limited resources and possibilities to achieve this. That is why there is a priorization based on a lot of factors...

Let's use that vile stuff evil scientists use all the time. "Logic", they call it. If a game is the collection of concepts that envelop the following, you can quickly place the priority of the stuff discussed:

Spoiler:

0. Game engine. A software has to "be" in order to provide anything to the user. This supports all the features of the software, including basis for any optimizations. Also it includes support for any flight models, ground movement models and such -- SFM, AFM, suspension model, terrain traction models, terrain deformation models, suspension models, etc etc etc.
1. Basic framework of the sim. Things to fly (aircraft, vehicles and so on), rules for these to fly (FM settings), places for these to fly (maps) and targets for these to shoot at. The richer this framework is, the more can be done at the later stages. Good damage model is a very good addition, but it's just an addition. For example, current DCS damage model is pretty basic, while it's ground vehicle DM is just a lifebar -- and that does not deter at least all of us who visit this forum. Of course, having a more advanced one would go a long way, but is by no means mandatory. AI, on the other hand, is pretty mandatory. If your enemy has just a couple of tricks and you learn to beat these soon, creating involving gameplay at a later stage will be a difficult thing.

2. The basic gameplay of the sim. Generally, this is the game itself. Single missions, campaigns and dynamic careers live here. This is what player will experience and this is what will keep him in the game (or deter him from playing), this is what makes a game... well, a game. Without these, there's nothing to play at. Practice shows that the game worlds that are complex, interactive, "realistic" (in a set of terms defined by both game and player's logic) and giving a player some sense of progression work best to keep players interested, curious and involved. Even static campaigns in such a dynamic world will have good replayability and generate more involvement than ones in static preset worlds. This is where game developers can show how good (or not) they are. One thing is to build an awesome feature-rich support layers, and the other is to actually make something awesome with it.

3. If the player wants to experience something new, he will try to use player-generated content, or create one himself. This is where public mission editor comes into play. Also, this is where Steam Workshop or m4t/lofiles appear. Having such service support integrated into a game will make such practices hassle-free and thus accessible.

4. Multiplayer. Co-op can bond tightly to 2, while PvP can differ a lot. Again, supporting this hassle-free can go a long way to promote the game, while making it as hard as it gets can significantly lower the myltiplaying numbers.

Now, based on this divine ancestral knowledge, we can get a nice summary.
Dynamic career and better campaigns for single player are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they use the same mechanisms, just in different fashion. Better AI and damage model complement this capacity, not conflict with it. All of that provides an environment for the player to get interested and involved in whatever gameplay you have in mind. This is the basis for any game except total indie sandboxes where the author just doesn't have the resources to implement these and he leaves it as it is.
If we agree in the sequence "having a game mode" > "making it entertaining", there's no dilemma in which priority to assign.

The next step is when people are trying to make missions for themselves and other people with mission editor. It can't precede the first step, when the player is just playing what the stock game offers. If he's uninvolved, he won't try and create a complex and interesting mission for himself, unless he's a total fan of the game (which he probably isn't since the game did not convince him to become one). If he is involved, ME being complex and clunky will deter some, but if he's involved enough, he will overcome it. Or at least will make a decent attempt at it.
Thus, anything concerning ME goes after the aforementioned "making entertaining game modes".

DServer and MP in general are the last, final step that most won't ever take. Not everyone is into competitive gaming, and if multiplayer seriously differs from the basic game world he finds himself in from the very beginning, it just may be not his cup of tea. If a player is engeaged so much that he's going here, he can take a lot of abuse if the game mode itself is playable. Thus, the priority of anything related is the lowest at least until the former, more important stuff is missing.

As you can see, there is absolutely no problem with setting up priorities when you come to it step by step.

[shagrat]

Originally Posted by Черный Дракул

Do you seriously believe that the only way to implement a bigger map is to demand more RAM? I can't express how wrong this approach is.

Then you can surely enlighten us?
I had the silly perception, that if you fly at 45.000 feet altitude with the horizon at about 220 NM and clear sky you need to render terrain in a patch of roughly 190 square miles, probably further when elevated terrain (mountains) is visible lurking up over the horizon. Now, from 45k ft the detail is probably different, but if you add a targeting pod that can magnify an area on the horizon so you need to blend in cities/buildings, forrests in addition, an additional FLIR "view" and at least the positions of all objects in/near your visibility bubble, to check if they are visible or not...
Then at least the next level of more detailed textures and terrain in case you transition lower.

All this needs to be stored somewhere.

If you have a method to achieve this without using up RAM, please tell us?

Maybe ED can implement it in their next generation graphics engine in the 2020ies?

[Esac_mirmidon]

Just dont go that way,

They are not comparable at all.

[NineLine]

SO at this point I will close this and we can wait for what ED brings.

I need to remind everyone about the rules as well:

1.15 Discussions of other game companies products are forbidden. While we allow news and updates to be posted in our Chit Chat section, we do not allow the discussion, reviewing of, or comparison of other software here. Abuse of other companies and/or anyone related to those companies will not be tolerated. ED also reserves the right to remove any thread or post about another game or company it deems doesn't comply with this rule.

ED is worried about their own game and goals, not what others are doing, its hard to compare to others when ED is simulating much larger maps, different types of sensors and terrain quality that is hard to match in any other sim. So discuss those other games on their forums.