quick map scale question

[phoenixjohnconnor]

I have forgotten the answer to this, I fear, from long ago - but can someone quickly tell me the scale of the maps in this series - are they half size, or a third size?  They're not 1:1, right?  Same in Flying Circus? And I assume the new Normandy map will be the same - a kind of reduced version of reality? 

 

Thanks. 

[Dakpilot]

As far as I know they are all 1:1 in BoX/FC series 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[phoenixjohnconnor]

Are you sure? I am almost certain the Stalingrad map is half size, and I assumed everything else was too. The new Boddenplatte map 'seems' half size. Am I just imagining things? 

[RedKestrel]

13 minutes ago, phoenixjohnconnor said:

Are you sure? I am almost certain the Stalingrad map is half size, and I assumed everything else was too. The new Boddenplatte map 'seems' half size. Am I just imagining things? 

Yes. All the maps are fully 1:1. I just went and tested it out on Il2missionplanner and with google earth, because I was curious.

For Stalingrad, Kalach on the in-game map is Kalach na Donu (Kalach on the Don) on the Don River, while Stalingrad is Volgograd on the Volga river. In the game map, the flight distance is about 80 km, and on google earth its about the same.

For Moscow, the distance between Klin and Staritsa on Google Earth and in-game is 112 km (luckily, those names didnt change). So no appreciable difference, maybe a few hundred metres.

For Kuban, the distance between Krasnodar and Kerch is 200 km, on the game map and google earth.

For the Rheinland map, from Amsterdam to Koln (Modern day Cologne) the distance is 213 km on both maps.

Of course, all maps are distorted and stretched a little by virtue of being a flat representation of a curved surface. But the difference is almost imperceptible over the distances we talked about.

The old Il-2 1946 maps however, were mostly scaled down by various ratios. Only a few of the smaller ones were 1:1 or close to it. That, and the extra map detail, is why the map building process takes so much longer and more effort to make an individual map.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

2 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

The old Il-2 1946 maps however, were mostly scaled down by various ratios. Only a few of the smaller ones were 1:1 or close to it. That, and the extra map detail, is why the map building process takes so much longer and more effort to make an individual map.

 

 

Was Guadalcanal, in the old IL-2 1946, a full-scale map?

[RedKestrel]

13 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Was Guadalcanal, in the old IL-2 1946, a full-scale map?

I have no idea, but I suspect not. I don't have a way to do real world comparisons like I do with Il2missionplanner -> google earth.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Ok, thank you.

Edited November 28, 2019 by 343KKT_Kintaro

[56RAF_Stickz]

26 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

I have no idea, but I suspect not. I don't have a way to do real world comparisons like I do with Il2missionplanner -> google earth.

try googling flight simulator map areas - there is map locations and areas for virtually all flight sims (all il2 old an new, falcon4/allied force/bms, dcs). But pretty sure solomons/guadalcanal was cut down a lot (area shown is bigger than Korea)

[RedKestrel]

4 minutes ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

try googling flight simulator map areas - there is map locations and areas for virtually all flight sims (all il2 old an new, falcon4/allied force/bms, dcs). But pretty sure solomons/guadalcanal was cut down a lot (area shown is bigger than Korea)

Yes, I've seen those maps. The ones I found showed the extent of the area the map was trying to represent, but didn't provide information of the scale used. So I can see that Il-2 1946 has a map of Normandy and it shows the extent but I don't know if it modeled it 1"1, 1:2 or 1: 4. 

Some of the maps were also stretched and warped in very strange ways. IIRC the Italy map was a square but it encompassed a lot of areas that were proportionally farther away, covering kind of a blobby, irregular area. So the scale within the map was not always to the same ratio.

[Talon_]

4 hours ago, phoenixjohnconnor said:

Are you sure? I am almost certain the Stalingrad map is half size, and I assumed everything else was too. The new Boddenplatte map 'seems' half size. Am I just imagining things? 

 

Stalingrad in War Thunder is a scale model, maybe you're thinking of that game?

[RedKestrel]

The other thing that may make the Bodenplatte map 'feel' smaller is that a lot of the late war aircraft are very, very fast in comparison to the earlier war planes.

[phoenixjohnconnor]

Ok. I'm almost convinced. Thanks for the responses. BUT where are you getting your scale from for the in-game maps? If you're merely taking it from the in game 2d map itself then that doesn't really show anything, I fear. If the distance between x and y in real life is 200km and it is given on the game map also as 200km that doesn't mean that they haven't simply made each km 'in fact' worth 2km in real life, and labelled it as a km. How else would they do a reduced scale map and yet give a good feeling of immersion? They're not going to shorten all the distances. The idea is that we pretend it's real, after all.

 

It would be nice if someone in on the map design could state the facts, because I'm not sure how we, playing the game, would even be able to tell what the scale is. You couldn't even do it by timing a flight between x and y at a certain speed and comparing that to the measurements given in real life because your speed in game is a function of what you are being told the scale is. I think the only way to know for sure would be for them to tell us. Otherwise you rely on a feeling for a comparison of, for example, the height of in-game buildings over a certain distance of map, to give you a feeling of scale. And from that point of view I would say that, for example, in Bodenplatte, Brussels is very very definitely far too small to correspond to the actual space taken up by Brussels in, for example, the excellent 1944 recon photos available at the NCAP library in the UK. What I mean is Brussels (just a random example) might look in game like the total urban area in the landscape is the right size compared to the distance between Brussels and Antwerp say, BUT, the buildings in Brussels in that case all look oversized for that area. Or you might get the same impression flying over fields in the Kuban - not enough fields for that actual geographical area. You can get a feeling for this by comparing with google earth (assuming the fields were roughly the same size as now). But that's just a feeling I get. Not scientific. Like I said, without someone who actually knows telling us what the scaling is then I don't think we can know. 

 

And a propos of that, I have a vague memory of discussions about this when BoS was first announced, and I'm almost sure I was told, by someone on the dev team, that the scale was 1:2 or something like that. 

 

Could someone on the dev team clear this for us, maybe? 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

14 minutes ago, phoenixjohnconnor said:

I think the only way to know for sure would be for them to tell us.

 

No, it's fairly straightforward to check. If the objects, e.g., aircraft, are the same scale as the game world and the flight times are accurate, you can be certain that the map is not reduced.

[216th_Jordan]

28 minutes ago, phoenixjohnconnor said:

Ok. I'm almost convinced. Thanks for the responses. BUT where are you getting your scale from for the in-game maps? If you're merely taking it from the in game 2d map itself then that doesn't really show anything, I fear. If the distance between x and y in real life is 200km and it is given on the game map also as 200km that doesn't mean that they haven't simply made each km 'in fact' worth 2km in real life, and labelled it as a km. How else would they do a reduced scale map and yet give a good feeling of immersion? They're not going to shorten all the distances. The idea is that we pretend it's real, after all.

 

It would be nice if someone in on the map design could state the facts, because I'm not sure how we, playing the game, would even be able to tell what the scale is. You couldn't even do it by timing a flight between x and y at a certain speed and comparing that to the measurements given in real life because your speed in game is a function of what you are being told the scale is. I think the only way to know for sure would be for them to tell us. Otherwise you rely on a feeling for a comparison of, for example, the height of in-game buildings over a certain distance of map, to give you a feeling of scale. And from that point of view I would say that, for example, in Bodenplatte, Brussels is very very definitely far too small to correspond to the actual space taken up by Brussels in, for example, the excellent 1944 recon photos available at the NCAP library in the UK. What I mean is Brussels (just a random example) might look in game like the total urban area in the landscape is the right size compared to the distance between Brussels and Antwerp say, BUT, the buildings in Brussels in that case all look oversized for that area. Or you might get the same impression flying over fields in the Kuban - not enough fields for that actual geographical area. You can get a feeling for this by comparing with google earth (assuming the fields were roughly the same size as now). But that's just a feeling I get. Not scientific. Like I said, without someone who actually knows telling us what the scaling is then I don't think we can know. 

 

And a propos of that, I have a vague memory of discussions about this when BoS was first announced, and I'm almost sure I was told, by someone on the dev team, that the scale was 1:2 or something like that. 

 

Could someone on the dev team clear this for us, maybe? 

 

A square on the map is 10 kilometers and if you fly 600 kph (ground speed) you need exactly 1 minute for that. Thats proof enough.

[phoenixjohnconnor]

So - let me think about this - if the buildings are the right size, say, compared to the air frames, and the time to fly between x and Y is 1 minute in real life and the same in game then the scale is 1:1?

Edited November 28, 2019 by phoenixjohnconnor
incorrrect info

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

1 minute ago, phoenixjohnconnor said:

How would you know whether a plane was scaled correctly? Compare it to what? A building? A tree? Or a distance on the ground. A plane could be the correct size vis a vis a building or tree, but double sized compared to the ground distance - but without such a measurement as I've suggested above, how would you know? 

 

It's really simple. For example, line up a few aircraft with known dimensions wingtip to wingtip in the Editor and compare to the distance given by the HUD. Then, you will know that the aircraft are the same scale as the game world.

[phoenixjohnconnor]

Mmm. I'm not sure how that would help, Mitthrawnuruodo. Scaling would exist (amongst other reasons - like to save time drawing maps...) to make it take less time to fly from Brussels to Arnhem, say, than in real life (because people might find RL flight times boring). But it's a pretend map, so you would give the distances as being the same as in real life - you would hide the scaling, for immersion purposes. Then you would make the planes the correct size vis a vis buildings, trees, map objects, but double size vis a vis map distances. Is that how it would work? So the acid test would be a comparison of how long it took to fly, say, Brussels to Arnhem in real life, at a given speed, and how long in-game. If they're the same then it's a 1:1 scale. Right? Sorry my maths - or ability to conceptualise this - is so slow....

 

To test this I would actually have to fly the distance though, in the game, with a timer running in real life, trying to keep the speed constant. Then compare that to a theoretical calculation from a real world map (unless I could actually get into a real world plane and do the same). That would be the only way to test it. Has anyone done that? Seems a hard thing to do. You can't do it theoretically, you have to actually fly it and run a real world timer. And keep your speed constant, and fly a straight line. Etc etc. If no one has actually done this then we don't know. 

 

Hence, I'd like a dev to say what the scale is. I've trawled all over for an indication but found none. 

[VTMarvin]

Many of us do this exact thing - i.e. flying with real world "timer" at a given speed in a fairly straight line just as a means of navigation (with map marker switched off). And yes, it works just about fine - the maps are 1:1 scale indeed.?

[phoenixjohnconnor]

Ok! Thanks VTMarvin. But you mean you fly off the in-game map and that the in-game map is 1:1 scale to the in-game world. I realise that. A 10km grid on the in-game map is a 10km grid in the in-game world. But I'm asking about the scale of the in-game world compared to the real world. To test that scale you would have to fly as you have suggested and then compare it to a notional real world flight. No need to be a real world pilot - you could just measure the real world distances and then use the speed used in the game in the maths to get, I suppose, a rough comparison. But I haven't seen anything like that yet. So, I'd still like the devs to state what the scale is, game world to real world. 

[216th_Jordan]

The real question is why would you introduce scaling when you don't have to? All it does is make things more complicated. Why would you think the maps are scaled?

 

10 km IRL show as 10km ingame. The time at takes to travel on both is the same. I do not understand the confusion ?‍♀️

Edited November 28, 2019 by 216th_Jordan

[Megalax]

7 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Was Guadalcanal, in the old IL-2 1946, a full-scale map?

 

The Solomons maps are 1:1. The New Guinea/New Britain map was scaled to 75%.

[phoenixjohnconnor]

54 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

The real question is why would you introduce scaling when you don't have to? All it does is make things more complicated. Why would you think the maps are scaled?

 

10 km IRL show as 10km ingame. The time at takes to travel on both is the same. I do not understand the confusion ?‍♀️

 

Many reasons to make maps (by which I mean the actual in-game world) as reduced scale models - the most common one given, as I said, is that some people would find it boring to fly real world long distances with nothing happening. 

 

I think the maps are scaled because I recall a conversation with the devs about this many. many years ago, when BoS had just been announced. I think I backed it. I recall being told that the map would be 1:2 or something like that. I've searched for the conversation but can't find it, so thought I'd check. The other reason I think the maps are scaled is because flying over places I know, the scale of the buildings looks nothing like those places I know. The buildings look larger vis a vis the distances in the map. 

 

You say 'The time it takes to travel on both is the same.' But that's an assumption, I guess? You haven't flown between 2 points in-game and timed it then compared the timings to a real world flight? 

[IckyATLAS]

On reason to scale down maps if I remember very  very long ago was that in fact the planes could not fly at realistic speeds due to CPU/GPU limitations and so the map was scaled down so that the time of flight would be equivalent to a higher speed.

Another element was to avoid long flights between action places, so as to have quickly actions happening without having to wait too long.

In real wartime you had missions lasting hours and then air fights lasting a few minutes. That is not seens as very exciting to replicate. Gamers need action in rapid fire it seems.

 

[LukeFF]

7 minutes ago, phoenixjohnconnor said:

You say 'The time it takes to travel on both is the same.' But that's an assumption, I guess? You haven't flown between 2 points in-game and timed it then compared the timings to a real world flight? 

 

Dude, all of the maps are 1:1 scale. You are wasting your time typing all of this speculation. 

9 minutes ago, phoenixjohnconnor said:

I think the maps are scaled because I recall a conversation with the devs about this many. many years ago, when BoS had just been announced. I think I backed it. I recall being told that the map would be 1:2 or something like that. I've searched for the conversation but can't find it, so thought I'd check.

 

Sorry, but your memory is faulty. 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

57 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

The real question is why would you introduce scaling when you don't have to? All it does is make things more complicated. Why would you think the maps are scaled?

 

10 km IRL show as 10km ingame. The time at takes to travel on both is the same. I do not understand the confusion ?‍♀️

 

Example: Battle of Guadalcanal (Summer, 1942). Zeroes take off from Rabaul (Bismarck islands), attack American fleet over Guadalcanal (Solomon islands) and then go back to Rabaul… this is impossible with our present-day computer resources. It's a too long return trip (more than 2,000 km) to fly in real time during one single game session. That would take something like 4 hours minimum, but the map would be impossible to do in terms of resources consumed.

 

An additional example: typical long-range escort missions carried out by P-51s over German ground targets (go to Germany and back to the UK) would also be impossible in the game with full-scale distances.

 

 

 

53 minutes ago, Megalax said:

 

The Solomons maps are 1:1. The New Guinea/New Britain map was scaled to 75%.

 

Thank you for the answer, that was accurate!

 

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Either the map is 1:1 as everyone has stated and the developers consistently maintain OR there's an elaborate scheme that makes them smaller than 1:1 scale. I think I know which one I'm going with.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Either the map is 1:1 as everyone has stated and the developers consistently maintain OR there's an elaborate scheme that makes them smaller than 1:1 scale. I think I know which one I'm going with.

 

My choice : to address one request to 1CGS so that the developers establish the 1:1 map scale as a sacred rule!

[216th_Jordan]

6 hours ago, phoenixjohnconnor said:

 

You say 'The time it takes to travel on both is the same.' But that's an assumption, I guess? You haven't flown between 2 points in-game and timed it then compared the timings to a real world flight? 

 

In fact I have. Almost every time I took a bomber, thats how I do most of the navigation, direction and time over distance. Gave me accurate results even flying over mostly clouded areas.

 

Also its easy to find the draw ranges weird because of FOV and zoom. When you fly in VR which is a representation of the real view, the real distances become much more apparent.

[phoenixjohnconnor]

3 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

In fact I have. Almost every time I took a bomber, thats how I do most of the navigation, direction and time over distance. Gave me accurate results even flying over mostly clouded areas.

 

Also its easy to find the draw ranges weird because of FOV and zoom. When you fly in VR which is a representation of the real view, the real distances become much more apparent.

You compared it to a real world flight? How? 

9 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Either the map is 1:1 as everyone has stated and the developers consistently maintain OR there's an elaborate scheme that makes them smaller than 1:1 scale. I think I know which one I'm going with.

 

Well, I would believe the developers, of course - but I haven't seen them maintain anywhere that it's 1:1. Can you point me to somewhere? 

10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Dude, all of the maps are 1:1 scale. You are wasting your time typing all of this speculation. 

 

Sorry, but your memory is faulty. 

 Well, thanks LukeFF, but I would need a little evidence. 

 

To be clear, it wouldn't bother me at all if the maps are scaled, but I'd like to know for sure. Easy enough for a dev to inform me, no? 

Edited November 29, 2019 by phoenixjohnconnor

[Diggun]

Can't help but feel like the OP will never be satisfied. Clear and cogent explanations have been given, but it's become evident that, since they didn't get the answer they want, they will never be satisfied. Where's Luke with his dead horse gif? 

 

The maps are 1:1 dude. The actual sizes of cities may vary for resource reasons. They are representative rather than reproductions. The devs owe you precisely nothing. If you could be bothered to do the work you could work it out easily for yourself. Give it a rest. 

Edited November 29, 2019 by [_FLAPS_]Diggun

[cellinsky]

Fly in x-plane from Brussels to Cologne @ 300km/h and measure the time it takes. And then do the same on the Rheinlandmap and compare. Then you know. X-plane is 1:1 otherwise I could not use orthophotos.

[Talon_]

35 minutes ago, phoenixjohnconnor said:

You compared it to a real world flight? How? 

 

Well, I would believe the developers, of course - but I haven't seen them maintain anywhere that it's 1:1. Can you point me to somewhere? 

 Well, thanks LukeFF, but I would need a little evidence. 

 

To be clear, it wouldn't bother me at all if the maps are scaled, but I'd like to know for sure. Easy enough for a dev to inform me, no? 

 

Time to put this silliness to bed. IL-2 community you never cease to disappoint me.

 

Edited November 29, 2019 by Talon_

[ShamrockOneFive]

3 hours ago, phoenixjohnconnor said:

You compared it to a real world flight? How? 

 

Well, I would believe the developers, of course - but I haven't seen them maintain anywhere that it's 1:1. Can you point me to somewhere? 

 Well, thanks LukeFF, but I would need a little evidence. 

 

To be clear, it wouldn't bother me at all if the maps are scaled, but I'd like to know for sure. Easy enough for a dev to inform me, no? 

Quote

We're in the second half of September and this means that the next update 3.201 isn't far away. This one will be massive and will bring a lot of new content as well. Three player controllable aircraft, AI bomber, new AI ground vehicles and of course, the new map - Rheinland. This map tops the records once again: 130 000 square kilometers of reachable terrain (401 x 324 km), 176 000 square kilometers total size (461 x 384 km), 225 cities and towns - a record number of big cities, 70 airfields - 67 of them have historically correct layout recreated using archive documents. For increased detail and historical accuracy, for the first time, we have used 4 airfield types on the same map - with concrete, metal, and unpaved runways and airstrips without runways.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?do=findComment&comment=820277

Just one example of how they talk about the square kilometers of the map. If you now say "But it doesn't say 1:1" I can't help you because that'd basically conspiracy theory territory. Prove it if the scale isn't 1:1 as the burden of proof firmly rests with the person arguing against all available evidence.

 

Edited November 29, 2019 by ShamrockOneFive

[phoenixjohnconnor]

Thanks, ShamrockOneFive. I see, anyway, that it's quite important to people - I don't really know why -  that the scale is 1:1. So I'll leave it there.