Mariana map water depth

[razo+r]

How deep is it going to be? The default 100m or deeper?

[Silver_Dragon]

Remember TDK can use depth bathimetry...

[razo+r]

Remember TDK can use depth bathimetry...

 

And what is this supposed to mean in correlation with my question?

[Silver_Dragon]

if ED team use real depth, that can be very very depth waters on that zone.

 

[razo+r]

IF they do it. But so far they kept going with the 100m depth...

 

I mean, doing all the 11km depth is obviously a bit over the top. But going a bit deeper than 100m would be doable.

[Silver_Dragon]

Meanwhile ED has not implemented "real" submarine depth yet, we expect torpedos and submarine incoming. The WW2 submarines reach the 600 to 900 feet depht, meanwhile the actual submarines reach to 2000 feets as test depht.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Silver_Dragon

[Tolovay]

I see aliens

[Northstar98]

I really hope for an accurate depth map, it doesn't have to be high fidelity, the level of detail of the terrain mesh of the pre-2.5 Caucasus map would almost be too far.

 

I'm also hoping that we'll get an underwater environment, beneath the water, something like SH4 or even SH3 would be perfect, it doesn't need to be fancy it can be very basic.

 

We have 2 dedicated SLCMs present in the modelviewer (3M-54E and 3M-54E1) with a submarine that can fire them (Kilo 636 and the B-871 - the latter present in game, not sure why the former isn't).

 

Were also getting the Mk-40 Destructor and Mk-63 Quick Strike aircraft deployed, influence bottom mines, converted from Mk83 bombs.

 

Plus Torpedoes - at the moment it looks like WW2 in the near-future, so against surface targets, and we'll only get homing torpedoes (though still fixed depth) if we get G7e/T4 Falke or the G7es/T5 Zaunkönig both passive acoustic homing torpedoes, running at a fixed depth to engage surface targets.

 

Plus, Naval Base Guam is home to 4 Los Angeles class SSNs, 2 Flight IIs and 2 Flight IIIs

[Bananabrai]

That would be pretty cool, SH3 or SH4 level under water.

How much disk space did SH4 use? It had a lot of the pacific already.

Would really already love Operation Flashpoint type (also graphical) gameplay for Land stuff.

 

But maybe it's just to much for DCS, we can only hope for that.

[Tinkickef]

Does this mean we are going to get a fully modelled and leaky Catalina flying boat with emergency egress exercises?

Cos it's the only way I can see water depth being an issue in a flight simulator.

[Northstar98]

Does this mean we are going to get a fully modelled and leaky Catalina flying boat with emergency egress exercises?

Cos it's the only way I can see water depth being an issue in a flight simulator.

 

Well then you need to open your eyes a little wider...

1. Water now has depth based transparency.
   
2. The Hornet is getting naval mines in the future https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3285514&postcount=13
   
3. Submarines and torpedoes are now a thing too.
   

 

Both the Mk-40 and Mk-63 are designed to be laid in shallow waters, and are bottom mines (they sit on the sea floor). It would be pretty silly if a mine designed to be laid at less than <300 feet gets dropped down the 35000 foot Challenger Deep or Mariana trench and still functions as if it were at 300 feet. The Mk-40 already has its model present and animated in the modelviewer (at least on 2.5.5 stable).

 

Plus it's not like it's some massive undertaking - ED have even shown off modelling sea floors in one of their own videos. All DCS underwater would really need is a low resolution accurate depth map and later on a crude underwater environment (even if equivalent to KSP with scatterer), any objects like rocks and underwater plants can be pure autogen, if they were to be done at all.

 

EDIT: Wags has recently stated that adding the mines (and the Shrike) are planned to be added later on - they are still very much planned however, so it doesn't really change anything.

Edited April 24, 2020 by Northstar98

[Tinkickef]

I fully understand the depth based transparency. Flying over the shoreline in the Huey in Normandy is pretty impressive. You see sand giving way to a rocky bottom and in some places, seaweed. Likewise, hovering near a wharfe you can see the structure below water all the way to the bottom, in VR you can see how deep the water is. I am absolutely and enthusiastically on board with that.

 

However, other than the purely academic exercise of dropping magnetic mines into the sea, I don't see the benefit of the manpower, money and performance hit that all this deep water stuff you mention would entail. Drop mines in sea, they sink, fly away.....

Dropping torpedoes from an attack aircraft with flack bursting around you from the ship, yes vastly exciting, but does it matter if the seabed is modelled accurately, other than in the very broadest sense - here be shallow water, ships will run aground and torpedoes will strike bottom at launch?

 

I could see it if DCS became a full war simulation game, with a huge, persistent, and coordinated multiplayer campaign where 3 weeks later some submarine skipper gets sunk by one of your mines trying to kill some ships in the harbour; kind of world of warships, arma and a first person shooter combined, where everything is combined, and not just pilots buying modules.

 

However, if they went down this route, they need to spend a deal of time getting combined arms sorted first, both performance wise and (I do not have CA, so just hearsay) the quality of the ground units.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against it. I just think there are more important things to get right first. We all have our own opinions as to what is important.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Tinkickef

[Northstar98]

Tinkickef said:

I fully understand the depth based transparency. Flying over the shoreline in the Huey in Normandy is pretty impressive. You see sand giving way to a rocky bottom and in some places, seaweed. Likewise, hovering near a wharfe you can see the structure below water all the way to the bottom, in VR you can see how deep the water is. I am absolutely and enthusiastically on board with that.

If it were to get fully fleshed out, ED would have to do 3 things:

1. Build an elevation map of the sea floor - something that doesn't seem that difficult at all (video by ED below).
2. Build some kind of underwater effects, so you can take the camera below the surface. On the level of KSP + scatterer mod/cold waters would more than suffice and something on the level of SH4 would be absolutely perfect, if not overdoing it.
3. Finally, populate the sea floor with objects - this can be low detail, low resolution and populated by autogen/landclass - you've said that this is already present on Normandy.

Now you only really need to do #1 - and that's probably the simplest of all 3, the required data is available online and by the looks of the video down below - the required effort doesn't seem like much.

#2 is probably the most difficult to accomplish, especially in the light of everything else going on, however it is just eye-candy and while far from ideal, it can be omitted for the time being.

#3 like #2 is eye-candy. Building the models entails more work than #1, but once that's done it's just a matter of autogen and landclass - no need to go around manually placing every single object like you would with a village, town or city. And according to you, it's already present in some areas (I don't have Normandy and I play on 2.5.5 stable).

Tinkickef said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against it. I just think there are more important things to get right first. We all have our own opinions as to what is important.

Eh, if you actually do some digging you can actually see that it can be done fairly quickly - at least for the sea floor.

In this video (by ED) at around the 4:20 mark, you can see the process of acquiring and building an elevation map for the sea floor. At around 14:40, you can see a more-or-less complete picture of whole elevation map, including the sea floor.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, removed broken link

[BenniBraker]

It is true, in the deep ocean, it is very difficult to distinguish 10, 20, or 50m deep. And also, on the coast, great beach water allows you to see max 20m, so I don't see why is so important to model all the underwater landscape if is not going to be visible

[razo+r]

It is true, in the deep ocean, it is very difficult to distinguish 10, 20, or 50m deep. And also, on the coast, great beach water allows you to see max 20m, so I don't see why is so important to model all the underwater landscape if is not going to be visible

 

Well, seeing them implement submarines, sea mines and torpedos, it would make sense if they did model the sea floor a bit deeper than the default 100m flat plain that we have in the current maps.

[Northstar98]

Yeah, especially when the water gets the deepest it gets on the planet around here - it would be a little silly if we drop a Mk-40 (only supposed to be laid at depths up to 300 feet) down where the Mariana trench should be, and have it still work as if it was only 300 feet deep.

 

Submarines have just become a thing with 2.5.6, as have torpedoes. Sure, they're only in their infancy and there's still plenty of work to be done, but it is getting there.

[razo+r]

Yeah, especially when the water gets the deepest it gets on the planet around here - it would be a little silly if we drop a Mk-40 (only supposed to be laid at depths up to 300 feet) down where the Mariana trench should be, and have it still work as if it was only 300 feet deep.

 

Submarines have just become a thing with 2.5.6, as have torpedoes. Sure, they're only in their infancy and there's still plenty of work to be done, but it is getting there.

 

As I wrote in a previous post, obviously doing it detailed is a nogo, but making it deeper than 100m is totally doable.

[Northstar98]

As I wrote in a previous post, obviously doing it detailed is a nogo, but making it deeper than 100m is totally doable.

 

Nobody is expecting it to be detailed, going any more detailed than the mesh of the pre 2.5 era Caucasus map would be overdoing it.

 

Finding accurate data and translating that into a mesh isn't too difficult a task either AFAIK.

[BenniBraker]

Yeah, especially when the water gets the deepest it gets on the planet around here - it would be a little silly if we drop a Mk-40 (only supposed to be laid at depths up to 300 feet) down where the Mariana trench should be, and have it still work as if it was only 300 feet deep.

 

Submarines have just become a thing with 2.5.6, as have torpedoes. Sure, they're only in their infancy and there's still plenty of work to be done, but it is getting there.

 

Well not really, you don't need to model everything if it is not going to be visible. Of course, you can calculate it somehow, but if it is not going to be shown from outside, why expend that resources to tenderize it?

 

Even underwater, because the max visibility underwater normally is 100m max, not considering going deeper where the amount of light is so few, so then, why render everything if is not going to be shown?

[razo+r]

Well not really, you don't need to model everything if it is not going to be visible. Of course, you can calculate it somehow, but if it is not going to be shown from outside, why expend that resources to tenderize it?

 

Even underwater, because the max visibility underwater normally is 100m max, not considering going deeper where the amount of light is so few, so then, why render everything if is not going to be shown?

 

Well, this is DCS, not real life

 

just make your plane sink, and then you will see how non-existent the visibility, or more the lack of it, is down there.

[BenniBraker]

Well, this is DCS, not real life

 

just make your plane sink, and then you will see how non-existent the visibility, or more the lack of it, is down there.

 

Yes, exactly that was my point, you don't need so much visibility underwater

[razo+r]

But the whole point of this is not about visibility, but about functionality, especially with submarine warfare, naval mines etc.

 

Of course we could keep the current depth of 100m like it is right now, but then submarines, once ED developed a submerge feature, they would simply drop through the map and that's it.

Edited May 31, 2020 by razo+r

[BenniBraker]

But the whole point of this is not about visibility, but about functionality, especially with submarine warfare, naval mines etc.

 

Of course we could keep the current depth of 100m like it is right now, but then submarines, once ED developed a submerge feature, they would simply drop through the map and that's it.

 

I know I know, but my point is, even you have to compute mines, submarines, etc, you don't need to render everything.

 

For example, if you are flying, and you are looking down, max you can see is 50m deep. So, if there is a submarine or any other thing at 200m, why you need to render the whole submarine? The only thing you need is to let know to your radar, there is a submarine there.

 

The fact that is not rendered does not mean that it is not doing its functionality, that submarine even not rendered, is fully working. Meaning still can detect you, or detect boats, still can attack, etc, etc. Just you don't need to render everything, and that for sure will speed up the whole map, and improve the experience.

 

I hope I explaining well the idea :(

[Northstar98]

Well not really, you don't need to model everything if it is not going to be visible. Of course, you can calculate it somehow, but if it is not going to be shown from outside, why expend that resources to tenderize it?

 

Because the current state that is underwater warfare might not be the state forever... Again, we've only just started to see underwater come in. What if we ever get an actual underwater (as in something beneath the surface)? Then it becomes pretty important and the resources required really isn't that much - again, watch the video posted by ED.

 

As for the resources, it seems marginal at best, you can get the data and plug it in and be done as shown in the video I posted above.

 

Even underwater, because the max visibility underwater normally is 100m max, not considering going deeper where the amount of light is so few, so then, why render everything if is not going to be shown?

The 3D work can be marginal, with a very low resolution mesh and textures. I'm not asking for "everything" I'm asking for a semi-accurate (but low resolution) sea-floor.

[Northstar98]

For example, if you are flying, and you are looking down, max you can see is 50m deep. So, if there is a submarine or any other thing at 200m, why you need to render the whole submarine? The only thing you need is to let know to your radar, there is a submarine there.

 

And if you're using the F9 or F6 camera...

 

The fact that is not rendered does not mean that it is not doing its functionality, that submarine even not rendered, is fully working. Meaning still can detect you, or detect boats, still can attack, etc, etc. Just you don't need to render everything, and that for sure will speed up the whole map, and improve the experience.

 

The resources to do an accurate sea floor is marginal so long as you have the data (which is trivial to come by, you can just google it).

 

The sea floor doesn't need to be high resolution at all, detail can be made absent, just so long as it's the right depth.