Curved Earth model ...

[Guest deleted@50488]

My two preferred air combat sims share a limitation: they use a flat representation of the Earth !

 

While this can be of somehow less importance to ww2 and other slow flying aircraft, modern fighter jets and their weapons are certainly impacted but the curvature, including, but not only, Coriolis effect. The V1 & V2 assets will also benefit from the effects of the Earth curvature-.

 

Wonder if 1C/777 has plans for a new generation of maps tha could use some sort of geoid model ?

[Dragon1-1]

Curvature is hard. The math might not seem hard, but the whole physics engine was likely built on assumption that gravity only works in one direction. I don't think adding curvature is feasible.

[Eisenfaustus]

Sounds like very work intense change that almost no one of the player base would notice.  
 

I personally would prefer the spending their limited resources differently. 

[ITAF_Airone1989]

They use a flat representation of the Earth cause it is flat!

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, ITAF_Airone1989 said:

They use a flat representation of the Earth cause it is flat!

I mean, look at all the evidence. If climbing to a high altitude in IL2, you can *clearly* see it's indeed flat. Shame on all of you for blindly believing your government; in IL2 the earth is flat, and would the Devs lie to us? Exactly. Point proven. 

[jollyjack]

IL2 proves that the devs also believe that Earth is flat ....

https://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html

[Jade_Monkey]

4 hours ago, ITAF_Airone1989 said:

They use a flat representation of the Earth cause it is flat!

 

The other day I went to the edge with my family just to show my kid the end of the world.

 

He was amazed! 10/10 I would recommend it.

 

I was going to leave a review on Google Maps but they have this infinite scrolling glitch where the map shows the other end again and again. Opened a bug with Google.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

What do you mean curved? The idiot who took off in his self made 'Astroflat' rocket and reached 200 feet before dying pretty much proved the Earth is flat! Heretic.

[BM357_TinMan]

6 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Sounds like very work intense change that almost no one of the player base would notice.  
 

I personally would prefer the spending their limited resources differently. 

I kind of agree with this sentiment.  I'm actually in the "I wish the curvature of the earth was modeled" camp.  However, I think there are way more imprtant details to add a sense of simulation that need to be worked on and attention to those would better server the community.

[AndyJWest]

I have to agree with what others have said. This looks like a lot of work, for little practical effect, on the size of maps IL-2 GB uses.

 

It is always a lot simpler to do this sort of thing from the start of a project than to add it later. 

[Jade_Monkey]

1 hour ago, BM357_TinMan said:

I kind of agree with this sentiment.  I'm actually in the "I wish the curvature of the earth was modeled" camp.  However, I think there are way more imprtant details to add a sense of simulation that need to be worked on and attention to those would better server the community.

 

Genuinely curious: what is the practical purpose of having that modeled? Just a bit more realism? Would it affect any of the current systems? (mostly navigation instruments I'd assume)

[ZachariasX]

24 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Genuinely curious: what is the practical purpose of having that modeled? Just a bit more realism? Would it affect any of the current systems? (mostly navigation instruments I'd assume)

 

It would have the advantage of moving as you would on this earth and it would at once solve all hard limitations in reproducing larger (at least in dimensions) playpens.

 

It might well be so that initiating to work on an engine that is based on a geodetic system as baseline is much more complicated than just using a two dimensions as your base reference. Considering how small of a team this engine was strated at Neoqb to contain nothing but a few biplanes it might even have been a sensible choice. It might well have been making a world geodetic system work would have been terminal to RoF ever becoming a product.

 

Yet still, if you do not have the same world in your sim as in real life, it will never look like in real life. That is why sunrise and sunset are never what they are in MSFS. No matter how much makeup you throw at it. That the flat world looks completely different you can also see in another sim, where you can see ships over 50 miles in low flight when shooting missiles at them.

 

I would expect this shortcoming to be the main reason for a new iteration of this combat sim, where we start where BoX started after the original IL2.

 

MSFS is showing the way how to do future flight and combat sims. What worked for tiny „maps“, both in graphical representation as well as in ways to produce such a scenery, is clearly not suitable for what is in principle possible currently.

 

As for now, we have what we have.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Various advantages, from navigation to flight and overall physics  modelling.

 

Navigation based on a geodetic representation of the Earth, like the widely used WGS84 would be a lot more precise, and it would make a difference even for the maps used in IL2.

 

Also some aerodynamic modeling methods that use a geodetic reference system are capable of simulating, for instance, Coriolis force ( should impact higher speed aircraft and rockets ), but this is just one example.

 

But I agree that a small team, with so many stuff in their ends to finish could not easily find the time to go in that direction, at least for now...

[jollyjack]

Some day if we get player ships (Ship Crew?) they will have to adapt anyway, maybe already with this Battery Todt.

Aiming and shooting over the horizon is crucial for naval battles ...

[Flyhighzz]

Why do you want a curved earth map? It's realistic as it is cuz the world is flat ?

(joking)

[Gambit21]

Timing and denivery son, timing and delivery.

[ITAF_Airone1989]

Back to the old IL-2, the earth was curved...

I guess now the devs have updated the world to the new theories

[jollyjack]

On 9/4/2021 at 4:25 PM, Flyhighzz said:

Why do you want a curved earth map? It's realistic as it is cuz the world is flat ?

(joking)

 

joking? here is proof:

[102nd-YU-JPerro]

At an altitude of 36,000 feet the Earth looks completely flat ... Have any of you ever flown a real plane? I don't see the point of having that modeled ...

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, 102nd-YU-JPerro said:

At an altitude of 36,000 feet the Earth looks completely flat ... Have any of you ever flown a real plane? I don't see the point of having that modeled ...

It's not necessarily about the looks, but rather about some strange effects the curvature of the earth has on fast, high-flying objects (such as the late-war BoBP planes). Such as for instance the Coriolis Force the OP mentions.

[ZachariasX]

9 hours ago, 102nd-YU-JPerro said:

At an altitude of 36,000 feet the Earth looks completely flat ... Have any of you ever flown a real plane? I don't see the point of having that modeled ...

You can‘t have dawn and dusk on a flat surface. Just having the sun right on the horizon doesn‘t help. The entire scene lightning is different. Also undistorted maps would be something, wouldn‘t it? You may say „well we gave small maps and it doesn‘t matter“, then I would say it really matters where you place those maps for it to „not matter“ in our current case. But for any eventual Pacific map, you would never fly the same bearing as you would in this world. How can you ask for realism when you don‘t even care for your playpen to be even remotely of the same geometry as the world you are simulating?

[Guest deleted@50488]

18 hours ago, 102nd-YU-JPerro said:

At an altitude of 36,000 feet the Earth looks completely flat ... Have any of you ever flown a real plane? I don't see the point of having that modeled ...

 

Further to the two posts before mine, in all my glider flights ( since ages ) at altitudes well bellow FL360, it is more than evident that the surface of the Earth IS CURVED !

 

But, it's not only the "optical effects" of the curvature, but rather and a LOT More the physics of a 3d-curved space in what they impact when an object travels over it, subject to the various forces of which Gravity is a major player. Coriolis force is present when you shot a projectile, it is very noticeable at higher speeds like those already attained by some of the aircraft in IL-2's current "fleet" etc...

 

Then for those building maps for the sim, it would be a lot easier to have a geoid reference...

Edited February 10, 2022 by jcomm-il2

[Alfster]

There isn't a curved earth/horizon simulator for any airplane or spaceship anywhere  on the spinning globe. You cannot simulate constantly adjusting power, attitude, wing bank, for  constant airspeed altitude level flight. Then the landing with advertised coriolis would be tough to simulate, like a 800 mph crosswind. IL2 has developed a near perfect working model. Enjoy it.

[ZachariasX]

I think you are getting ahead of yourself.

 

But here you go if planetary physics is of interest to you. Ty it, it is great fun:

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

I’m not sure that Alfster has the Right Stuff to do Kerbal.  Just Kidding!?

Edited February 11, 2022 by SeaSerpent

[AEthelraedUnraed]

6 hours ago, Alfster said:

There isn't a curved earth/horizon simulator for any airplane or spaceship anywhere  on the spinning globe. You cannot simulate constantly adjusting power, attitude, wing bank, for  constant airspeed altitude level flight. Then the landing with advertised coriolis would be tough to simulate, like a 800 mph crosswind. IL2 has developed a near perfect working model. Enjoy it.

Huh?

 

This is not how physics work...

[Stig]

On 7/28/2021 at 11:44 AM, jollyjack said:

Some day if we get player ships (Ship Crew?) they will have to adapt anyway, maybe already with this Battery Todt.

Aiming and shooting over the horizon is crucial for naval battles ...

 

Also for not sailing over the edge of the world.

[-250H-Ursus_]

Dude, you know that you have to climb to 22.000mts (72.000ft) to notice the curvature?
I bet you never will reach that altitude

Even from a commercial plane you can't notice the curvature.

 

Edited February 11, 2022 by -332FG-Ursus_

[unlikely_spider]

51 minutes ago, -332FG-Ursus_ said:

Dude, you know that you have to climb to 22.000mts (72.000ft) to notice the curvature?
I bet you never will reach that altitude

What do you mean? I'm at that altitude in my Po-2 all the time!

[jollyjack]

I live by the sea shore; you can see the curve; far away ships and oil rigs at a distance on a non hazy day seem half sunken ..

[JV69badatflyski]

On 2/9/2022 at 9:35 PM, 102nd-YU-JPerro said:

At an altitude of 36,000 feet the Earth looks completely flat ... Have any of you ever flown a real plane? I don't see the point of having that modeled ...

 

On 2/11/2022 at 3:01 PM, -332FG-Ursus_ said:

Dude, you know that you have to climb to 22.000mts (72.000ft) to notice the curvature?
I bet you never will reach that altitude

 

Even from a commercial plane you can't notice the curvature.
 

 

Like jollyjack, i can see the courvature when lying on the beach and sipping a cocktail or two, just by looking at the boats.
Otherwise, here, using the most accurate planetary(earth) engine on the market now. 
Atmo removed to have a better view .
Less than 6000m Alt : curvature visible.

 

On 2/11/2022 at 1:41 AM, Alfster said:

There isn't a curved earth/horizon simulator for any airplane or spaceship anywhere  on the spinning globe. You cannot simulate constantly adjusting power, attitude, wing bank, for  constant airspeed altitude level flight. Then the landing with advertised coriolis would be tough to simulate, like a 800 mph crosswind. IL2 has developed a near perfect working model. Enjoy it.

Let me see: IL2-46 curvature checked, CFS3 same, il2-Cod: same, ALL the space sims: checked, forcoming B-17 from microprose: checked, and i won't mention the "small" engines already running or in devloppement...

Edited February 13, 2022 by JV69badatflyski

[-250H-Ursus_]

20 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

 

Like jollyjack, i can see the courvature when lying on the beach and sipping a cocktail or two, just by looking at the boats.
Otherwise, here, using the most accurate planetary(earth) engine on the market now. 
Atmo removed to have a better view .
Less than 6000m Alt : curvature visible.

 

Let me see: IL2-46 curvature checked, CFS3 same, il2-Cod: same, ALL the space sims: checked, forcoming B-17 from microprose: checked, and i won't mention the "small" engines already running or in devloppement...

Well off course curvature can be noticed with some obvious facts like boats dissapearing from the horizon.
But remember you removed the atmosfere xD.

Look at this photo at the top of Aconcagua (Tallest mountain in Los Andes) around 7000 mts, (6961mts)

No curvature, off course can be haze, and some atmosferical phenomena preventing that

Edited February 14, 2022 by -332FG-Ursus_

[palker4]

1 hour ago, -332FG-Ursus_ said:

Well off course curvature can be noticed with some obvious facts like boats dissapearing from the horizon.
But remember you removed the atmosfere xD.

Look at this photo at the top of Aconcagua (Tallest mountain in Los Andes) around 7000 mts, (6961mts)

No curvature, off course can be haze, and some atmosferical phenomena preventing that

You cannot see the curvature that pic because:

1. Narrow field of view

2. Real world terrain and atmosphere makes it much harder to see the curve the pic in the sim looks much smoother honestly looks like it is completely smooth to me

[Guest deleted@50488]

For those who create scenery, even laying a runway over a curved Earth model based scenery tool vs a "flat-Earth" one makes a difference.

 

Creating scenery for flat surface is tricky because of that, specially if you use RW geodetic data...

 

I can accept arguments of the type: "There are priorities, and a curved Earth model is not at the top..."

 

But please just don't offer silly oppinions like - "There's no point in representing the curvature of the Earth in a flight simulation engine"...

Edited February 14, 2022 by jcomm-il2

[[CPT]Crunch]

If that were a flat plain you'd never see that far off in the horizon, are you kidding?

[JV69badatflyski]

On 2/14/2022 at 7:44 PM, -332FG-Ursus_ said:

Well off course curvature can be noticed with some obvious facts like boats dissapearing from the horizon.
But remember you removed the atmosfere xD.

Look at this photo at the top of Aconcagua (Tallest mountain in Los Andes) around 7000 mts, (6961mts)

No curvature, off course can be haze, and some atmosferical phenomena preventing that

Just like Palker45 said: too narrow angle of view and the horizon is obstructed by the mountains on the left.
I removed the atmo to better show the horizon, but here is the (almost, difference with 2° on the heading) same image.
and you can perfectly see the curvature, even with the atmo and the haze.

[Guest deleted@50488]

@JV69badatflyski,

 

where is that screenshot taken from ? Original IL-2 ?

 

Thx !

 

[Pikestance]

On 2/13/2022 at 11:47 PM, JV69badatflyski said:

 

Like jollyjack, i can see the courvature when lying on the beach and sipping a cocktail or two, [snip]...

 

Are you sure you are not suffering from the Cocktail Effect. 

[JV69badatflyski]

13 hours ago, jcomm-il2 said:

@JV69badatflyski,

 

where is that screenshot taken from ? Original IL-2 ?

 

Thx !

 

Outerra (get the free demo : https://outerra.com/demo.html )

 

11 hours ago, PikeStance said:

 

Are you sure you are not suffering from the Cocktail Effect. 

Only after  3 or 4, not two 

[ZachariasX]

On 2/15/2022 at 11:32 PM, JV69badatflyski said:

Just like Palker45 said: too narrow angle of view and the horizon is obstructed by the mountains on the left.
I removed the atmo to better show the horizon, but here is the (almost, difference with 2° on the heading) same image.
and you can perfectly see the curvature, even with the atmo and the haze.

 

This is a nice way showing another important difference between a (infitite) flat earth and a globe. At any altitude, a level flying aircraft will ALWAYS have  the horizon at the 0 degree elevation line on the HUD on a flat earth, whereas on a globe, the horizon is always below that line (as seen in the pic, and the lower the horizon is below that line that line, the higher you are). The only way to cheat for the flat earther is to reduce rendering distance. Like in original IL2, where the tiny render bubble even fakes an awkwardly bent horizon. But there this limitation was done for simpler reasons and the view bubble was so small, that at 10 km altitude, there was hardly rendered terrain left to see ahead. But if you don’t have those limitations in computing ressources, then either you see the cliff over which you fall into deep space, or you define that you cannot see past 100 miles or so because light somehow does no go there. And you „never leave your combat area“.

 

Also, being able to see/detect ships over distances of 50 nm when flying on the deck is really idiotic.