Map Sizes and Compromises - CHOOSE TWO (2)!!

[exhausted]

The key here is to choose two (2) for the future of the 777/1C partnership.

 

By large land maps I mean 500 miles (800 km) x 500 miles (800km), with generalized detail meaning significant landmarks will be present (Eiffel Tower/Coloseum/Big Ben/Kremlin), but the amount of research and detail that went into Cliffs of Dover's London and Rise of Flight in general would be reduced. Cities would not have 100% historical streets and the houses would not be exact. This would affect airfields much less.

 

By small land maps I mean 200 miles (322 km) x 200 miles (322 km), with Cliffs of Dover like exacting detail in major cities, regardless of which significant areas get left off the map, or unrealistically squeezed in.

 

By large ocean maps I mean 1250 miles (2012 km) x 1250 miles (2012 km), with significant cities and hamlets dotting the islands while being represented approximately how they were in in the 1940's. Since many of the significant areas were military bases, this means that the bases would be more-or-less factually correct, and also that forests would be approximate in dimension and shape.

 

By small island maps I mean 300 miles (483 km) x 300 miles (483 km), with more exact detail, such as forest size and dimension, reefs represented more exactly, and bases and towns in more exact detail.

 

Do not choose more than two (2) answers, and only choose one per category.

Edited December 20, 2012 by exhausted

[FlatSpinMan]

Sorry, anyone know how big the RoF maps are? How about the Slot in IL2?

I can't really visualize what a decent sized map is.

[BlitzPig_EL]

How about large maps with correct details?

[VO101Tom]

Please do not take as disrespect, I do not know the 777 staff yet  , but who are you? I don't see on your profile page, that you belong to dev.team or moderators group, but you start the poll with "The key here is to choose two (2) for the future of the 777/1C partnership", which sounds great, but I have to ask, is to have any chance to influence this vote is anything, only we just asking each other about all kinds of random stuff in a boring time? The game engine support these map sizes?

It would be nice if it would clearly indicate somehow, that the developers are interested in our opinions, or something entirely unrelated to them.

 

Thanks

 

ps. I think 2000 x 2000 km map is pointless. 400 km/h speed, 5 hours flight time in the same direction (7 hour diagonally)...? You want to fly Okinawa - Tokyo bombing raid in a real time? 

[=IRFC=Jorri]

I agree with Tom. Pretentious poll.

[exhausted]

Pretentious? I don't look at it that way as I'm not attempting to appear as someone with a direct line to 777 or pretend that I am developing this game. If you stand idle while they develop and you don't say something then you're missing out on an opportunity. I don't want to preach now!

 

Exciting times indeed! :D

Edited December 20, 2012 by exhausted

[Bearcat]

I don't think it is pretentious at all.. I think it's just sharing an idea.. Everyone may not think it s a good one but it was presented in a reasonable way.. I see no issue here.. Agree or disagree.. but no need to label it.. that's my 2 cents..

[VaeTibi]

How are you supposed to choose as a bomberpilot?

Small map and you might as well stay on the ground, as you are just a flying target.

Large map with generalised details......ah how are you supposed to hit then specific targets??

[csThor]

Abstained from voting. Simply put a map must be large enough to incorporate every aspect of the operation it wants to depict and small enough to be managable. Total accuracy WRT, for example, historic city plans is not achievable anyway but the settlements must be placed according to realistic patterns (i.e. in Russia many villages were strung out along the roads, they were long but not very broad/deep).

[VaeTibi]

Please do not take as disrespect, I do not know the 777 staff yet  , but who are you? I don't see on your profile page, that you belong to dev.team or moderators group, but you start the poll with "The key here is to choose two (2) for the future of the 777/1C partnership", which sounds great, but I have to ask, is to have any chance to influence this vote is anything, only we just asking each other about all kinds of random stuff in a boring time? The game engine support these map sizes?

 

It would be nice if it would clearly indicate somehow, that the developers are interested in our opinions, or something entirely unrelated to them.

 

Thanks

 

ps. I think 2000 x 2000 km map is pointless. 400 km/h speed, 5 hours flight time in the same direction (7 hour diagonally)...? You want to fly Okinawa - Tokyo bombing raid in a real time? 

Well during my IL2 time flights with my bomber squadron where sometimes three to four hours, remember one mission where the flight was three hours to target and three back.  But then Bomber pilots are differant to fighter jocks. They are usually an impatient folk, and need fast action. Bombers usually have lots of time if they get the chance to hit hard.

[SYN_Vander]

Strange choices so I didn't vote.

The great thing about a pacific map is that you can have both a huge map AND detailed cities and airfields because they are all concentrated on (small) islands. That's also what makes a North Africa/Desert map so appealing. There is not as much infrastructure/ many cities to model so you can make it look very realistic (I hope!).

[Rama]

Well.... the options given in the poll are strange and unrealistic.

Exact cities and towns detail is totally unreachable for maps as large as what is called "small maps" in the Poll. I would be only reachable for local maps (something like War Thunder maps for example).

Both RoF maps (Western Front and Channel) are small maps according to definitions given by "exhausted", even if they are quite big and larger than any IL2 map.

The proposal for "small maps" would requires millions of dollars investment.

... so this Poll is IMO useless.

[Mac_Messer]

LAND - large maps with compromise cities ;

SEA - small maps with nice cities (or maybe airfields, bases).

 

All said from practice.

The Pacific theater was just boring, because of great lengths, small , very short action and problems with navigation.

The Eastern Front theater is naturally built of great lenghts, as the airfields are scattered all around and the bomber/convoy missions are a big part of that theater.

[VaeTibi]

LAND - large maps with compromise cities ;

SEA - small maps with nice cities (or maybe airfields, bases).

 

All said from practice.

The Pacific theater was just boring, because of great lengths, small , very short action and problems with navigation.

The Eastern Front theater is naturally built of great lenghts, as the airfields are scattered all around and the bomber/convoy missions are a big part of that theater.

So speaks a typical fast action person, not much patience. Can?

[Mac_Messer]

Sorry, VaeTibi, you are way off track. Online wars were hardly fast action and I have over 600 sorties in them. To add to that, my favorite type missions are bomber escort, recon and convoy escort which are long duration missions (50mins - 2hrs).

 

You talk as if you knew me from DF servers. Well see this, I never fly DF servers.

 

Think before you write.

[VaeTibi]

Sorry, VaeTibi, you are way off track. Online wars were hardly fast action and I have over 600 sorties in them. To add to that, my favorite type missions are bomber escort, recon and convoy escort which are long duration missions (50mins - 2hrs).

 

You talk as if you knew me from DF servers. Well see this, I never fly DF servers.

 

Think before you write.

So you think you know me, well guess again....and I only fly bombers, so much to the fast action bit.

[Rama]

Sorry, anyone know how big the RoF maps are?

Western front map: 320km x 320km

Channel map: 200km x 150km

 

How about large maps with correct details?

And how about getting the butter, the milk, the money of the milk, the cow, the farm and the cowgirl?

[ACG_Dickie]

I agree with Tom,  the thread reads as if this is a choice from 777 when it is not.  If there is any sense at all it would simply be a question.

 

The right area for the right time and large enough for 400kmph aircraft.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Personally. I like the old IL2 approach, with some big "main" maps, and a few smaller lighter ones for fun flying and online use.

[Opitz]

I dont understand this question... Are we still talking on BoS forum about Battle of Stalingrad? What you mean by "maps" with oceans and islands??? 

Edited December 20, 2012 by Opitz

[BlitzPig_EL]

I have flown long bomber missions on the Solomons IL2 map in the H8K Emily.  1 hour plus one way to the target and longer back.

 

We flew well out of our way to avoid detection. (mission to bomb US airbases on Guadalcanal)  All over empty stretches of ocean, done with compass headings, stopwatch, and a real nav calculator that our navigator who is a real pilot has.

 

It is to this day one of the best times I've had online, and I normally fly fighters.   Droning along at 25,000ft with nothing but water to be seen.  They never saw us coming.  Great fun and sense of accomplishment.  So yeah, I want large maps with accurate targets.

Edited December 20, 2012 by ElAurens

[Rama]

So yeah, I want large maps with accurate targets.

Accurate targets is a complete different thing than "correct details" as proposed by "exhausted" (taking his own words it would be "100% historical streets and exact houses", something totally unachivable over maps larger than very local maps (FPS like).

You can have tons of accurate targets, including vs historical topomaps, without anything "exact", except a few well known monuments, in towns and villages.

[FlatSpinMan]

So speaks a typical fast action person, not much patience. Can?

[6BLBird-Dog]

I have voted on two polls already but will not anymore .Polls never give enough options.

[Sokol1]

I for big maps - and no care about detailed cities.

 

But, a example of what "online crowd " think about big maps:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/PauloDRK/missao_what-if.jpg

 

Why german bases in England?

 

To avoid fliyng more 10~15 minutes if departure for blues are in correct side of Chanel.

 

 

Sokol1

Edited December 20, 2012 by Sokol1

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

How about large maps with correct details?

yeah.. I don't get the poll

[LG1.Farber]

Abstained from voting. Simply put a map must be large enough to incorporate every aspect of the operation it wants to depict and small enough to be managable. Total accuracy WRT, for example, historic city plans is not achievable anyway but the settlements must be placed according to realistic patterns (i.e. in Russia many villages were strung out along the roads, they were long but not very broad/deep).

Me too, poll is biased aswell.

[VaeTibi]

I for big maps - and no care about detailed cities.

 

But, a example of what "online crowd " think about big maps:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/PauloDRK/missao_what-if.jpg

 

Why german bases in England?

 

To avoid fliyng more 10~15 minutes if departure for blues are in correct side of Chanel.

 

 

Sokol1

I could understand German bases on the Channel islands, as they where partially occupied by the Germans. But on the main land is just "what ever". The type of folks, that find 10~15 minutes flying time till they reach enemy lines,  as something that is to be avoided, are hopefully just a minority, as those people usually don?

[VO101Tom]

I could understand German bases on the Channel islands, as they where partially occupied by the Germans. But on the main land is just "what ever". The type of folks, that find 10~15 minutes flying time till they reach enemy lines,  as something that is to be avoided, are hopefully just a minority, as those people usually don?

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

I could understand German bases on the Channel islands, as they where partially occupied by the Germans. But on the main land is just "what ever". The type of folks, that find 10~15 minutes flying time till they reach enemy lines,  as something that is to be avoided, are hopefully just a minority, as those people usually don?

[76SQN-FatherTed]

yeah.. I don't get the poll

 

I guess he's suggesting that we're limited by the available technology to either small and detailed or large and bland: which would you prefer?

[Skoshi_Tiger]

I for big maps - and no care about detailed cities.

 

But, a example of what "online crowd " think about big maps:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v259/PauloDRK/missao_what-if.jpg

 

Why german bases in England?

 

To avoid fliyng more 10~15 minutes if departure for blues are in correct side of Chanel.

 

 

Sokol1

Server rules at ATAG is to read the mission Briefing before flying.

 

The map you have shown is community contributed mission containing a hypothetical senario where the Germans have acctually invaded England.

 

Are you suggesting that "What If" missions shouldn't be allowed? Wow! I thought the whole idea of flight sims whas a big "What IF" I was there?

Edited December 20, 2012 by Skoshi_Tiger

[Sokol1]

Are you suggesting that "What If" missions shouldn't be allowed?

 

No, only to show that is a "shortcut" for far targets/long fligths.

 

This map, "Operation Dayse" is done to encourage London atacks, but are turned in a tipical "empy server" map.

 

I already saw the server population dropped from 60 to 15 when this map was loaded.

 

The marjority of online players are "funseekers".

 

Sokol1

[FlatSpinMan]

What's so bad about wanting to have fun playing sims? I'll never get that about the flight sim community.

Btw, that's not aimed at you, Sokol.

[exhausted]

Wow, if almost half of you can't follow directions it's safe to assume that half of the complaints on this board will be b*llshit too!

 

Come on guys! TWO CHOISES!!!

 

^_^

[Stirwenn]

large map as i'm flying bombers sometimes. I always thought original maps in 1946 were too small, excellent for doghfight but no interest for coop.

[Bearcat]

Personally. I like the old IL2 approach, with some big "main" maps, and a few smaller lighter ones for fun flying and online use.

This.

[Cpt_Fracassa]

How about large maps with correct details?

Yeah, I support this idea, just generate a good code to make objects disappear with distance.

DCS has a good visual effect: objects sink into the ground and leave a somehow photorealistic ground textures from the distance.

[LLv34_Untamo]

S!

 

Voted for large maps, as they would be great for SEOW campaigns

[Flyingpencil]

Flawed poll.

 

From experaince (WWII Online), a minimum of 400klm a side is needed to gain a proper feel for the environment. 

After all most aircraft can fly that length in 1 hour real time.

 

If one spawns on the airfield and climb to crusing altitued, that takes a lot of space.  Climbing speed is about 50~66% of max speed, and a bomber will take a lot more time to climb then a fighter, thus be easy to catch.