Map size limits?

[Jaguar]

Hello CP Team,

I wonder what are the planned size limits for maps.

Being a PTO-focused sim my guess/hope is for a minimum of 1000 km (not considering reduced scale maps). This would allow, for instance, to include all the Solomons inslands and parts of ocean where some relevant air action took place like the Battles of the Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, Rennel Island. 

Any comments?

cheers

[Juri_JS]

I guess map sizes of 1000 x 1000 km shouldn't be a problem, because most of the area will be water. If we see any performance issues in the game, I doubt it will be caused by map size.

I just hope Combat Pilot doesn't make the same mistake as Il-2 Pacific Fighter.  Il-2 PF maps like Tarawa or Okinawa did not have enough ocean area around the islands, so carrier task forces had to be placed much closer to the islands than in reality.

[wheelsup_cavu]

5 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

just hope Combat Pilot doesn't make the same mistake as Il-2 Pacific Fighter.  Il-2 PF maps like Tarawa or Okinawa did not have enough ocean area around the islands, so carrier task forces had to be placed much closer to the islands than in reality.

Concur. The CO-OP and Single Player work around of putting them off the map was less than ideal too.

For me not having Rabaul on the Slot/Solomons maps in 1946 was the only negative to those 6 version of that map. Other than that minor concern it was always a pleasure to build missions for them and to fly on them.

 

Wheels

[Gambit21]

Scaling the map and/or distance between the islands is the answer. 

 

 

[ÆþelrædUnræd]

7 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

I guess map sizes of 1000 x 1000 km shouldn't be a problem, because most of the area will be water. If we see any performance issues in the game, I doubt it will be caused by map size.

Correct; performance issues are rarely caused by map size, if a proper terrain loading algorithm is implemented. Case in point: MSFS. Unparallelled detail across the whole globe. Where map size does matter is development time and disk space requirements.

One solution I can think of is where they'd in fact have a single "globular" map with just ocean, that then gets filled in with islands (or land in general) based on which modules you bought.

38 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Scaling the map and/or distance between the islands is the answer.

I respectfully disagree here. When done properly, the size of the map doesn't really cost much more computing power and if you'd be cutting the distance between islands, not much of development time either since sea is pretty much free in that regard. This leaves lengthy flights as the only real problem, and here I think good time compression is a much better answer.

I think proper distances are important to keep the general perception of size intact.

[wheelsup_cavu]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Scaling the map and/or distance between the islands is the answer.

No thanks. In the end the developers will do what they plan but I would prefer the maps to be full scale.

 

1 hour ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

respectfully disagree here. When done properly, the size of the map doesn't really cost much more computing power and if you'd be cutting the distance between islands, not much of development time either since sea is pretty much free in that regard. This leaves lengthy flights as the only real problem, and here I think good time compression is a much better answer.

I am on board with the time compression idea.

 

Wheels

[_CJK_]

Yes time compression or a way point warp. 

[Trooper117]

I can't see the maps being full scale... it won't be practical for one thing.

The Pacific distances flown were huge for some operations, and not everyone will be able to sit at their computers for several hours.

Time compression is a good thing to have regardless of map size... but if you want a full size map 100 percent to scale, why would you want time compression?

If you demand full scale it means you would want to fly the mission fully for the the time it took for real... hello?

[Feldgrün]

A large map creates the need for external fuel tanks for fighters, with long flight times. Maybe the game would include autopilot and 16x time advancement/compression.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Feldgrün

[ÆþelrædUnræd]

4 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Time compression is a good thing to have regardless of map size... but if you want a full size map 100 percent to scale, why would you want time compression?

If you demand full scale it means you would want to fly the mission fully for the the time it took for real... hello?

Full scale is much more than just the time it takes to fly from one end of the map to the other:

• There's the visual aspect; I want islands (and the islands between them) to be as large as they are in reality to give a good overview of the scope of the battles back then.
• There's navigation. Shorter distances make navigation much less of a challenge.
• If your target is enemy ships, finding them is even more challenging as they'll have moved quite a bit in the time it takes to reach them.
• Fuel consumption is another thing. Or would you suggest to increase fuel consumption as well to match the smaller size of the maps?

[wheelsup_cavu]

10 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

If you demand full scale it means you would want to fly the mission fully for the the time it took for real

I do have that kind of time and I do want to fly missions that are that long without using time compression.  4 plus hour missions on the 1946 Solomons maps are doable and ones I fly quite often. I do realize that not everyone wants to fly those types of boring missions where navigation and fuel management are an issue but as you say the Pacific WAS those types of missions and if we are going to simulate them the option to do it should be there from the beginning albeit with concessions to those that don't have that time or will to fly them in real time.

 

Wheels

Edited May 28, 2023 by wheelsup_cavu

[BlitzPig_EL]

I would guess that less than 10% of the player base would fly realistic Pacific Theatre distances.  Certainly this would not work for the multiplayer side of things.  Flying 3 or 4 hours one way for 5 minutes of action, then 3 or 4 hours back home is a non starter for many people, even in single player.

There must be some kind of compromise to please both camps.

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, ÆþelrædUnræd said:

Correct; performance issues are rarely caused by map size, if a proper terrain loading algorithm is implemented. Case in point: MSFS. Unparallelled detail across the whole globe. Where map size does matter is development time and disk space requirements.

One solution I can think of is where they'd in fact have a single "globular" map with just ocean, that then gets filled in with islands (or land in general) based on which modules you bought.

I respectfully disagree here. When done properly, the size of the map doesn't really cost much more computing power and if you'd be cutting the distance between islands, not much of development time either since sea is pretty much free in that regard. This leaves lengthy flights as the only real problem, and here I think good time compression is a much better answer.

I think proper distances are important to keep the general perception of size intact.

 

Well they're gong to do what they're going to do, but I respectfully disagree. I'm talking about flight time/playability issues.

Nobody is going to fly a Zero for 8 hours from Rabaul to Henderson...yet we want the Solomons.

Also a full size slot map is just not going to happen.

 

You can give the illusion of scale and yet scale things down and make the sorties actually flyable.

Yes, time compression would solve the problem I suppose...offline anyway. There's more than one way to skin the cat, the scaling the map size down is IMHO the best option all around. Take for example people clamoring for B-17s for so long...how many of them are going to sit at their computer for 10 hours? Almost none.

I've wanted PTO again forever...it's my love. Even I am not going to sit for even 3 hours to fly a sortie...I just can't. Yet I want the Solomons. So how does this work?

Scaling and/or time compression. 

That said...I'm not going to worry about it. 🙂

 

I think a "Generic" islands map is also a desirable option. If designed properly it can stand it for many different things, online and off. We had a great time with the small generic islands map offline in 1946. There are a lot of options here.

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I would guess that less than 10% of the player base would fly realistic Pacific Theatre distances. 

I'd be surprised if it was anywhere near 10% honestly. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm trying to be generous.  

 

I thought the Solomons map that "Team Pacific" did for original IL2 was a pretty good compromise.  I could see it being a bit larger, same with the old New Guinea map.

But I'm not flying 4 hours one way in any sim.  

[dburne]

I absolutely love scripted campaigns and flying them with no time compression - however between an hour and hour and a half would be about my limit I would want to put into flying a single mission, whether it be scripted or generated. I have plenty of time to indulge with a sim, but I would not want my missions to be much longer than that.

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, dburne said:

I absolutely love scripted campaigns and flying them with no time compression - however between an hour and hour and a half would be about my limit I would want to put into flying a single mission, whether it be scripted or generated. I have plenty of time to indulge with a sim, but I would not want my missions to be much longer than that.

That's the vast majority of guys I think, for many 'real life' reasons.

[_CJK_]

28 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I would guess that less than 10% of the player base would fly realistic Pacific Theatre distances.  Certainly this would not work for the multiplayer side of things.  Flying 3 or 4 hours one way for 5 minutes of action, then 3 or 4 hours back home is a non starter for many people, even in single player.

There must be some kind of compromise to please both camps.

Full scale maps with time compression options and way point warps. Everyone gets what they want and can do what they want.

[Gambit21]

Just now, Spiritus said:

Full scale maps with time compression options and way point warps. Everyone gets what they want and can do what they want.

Yeah...that's just time and money to implement...but sure.

"Waypoint" warp would often break scripted logic however. There's a lot of things to consider.

 

 

[_CJK_]

15 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Yeah...that's just time and money to implement...but sure.

"Waypoint" warp would often break scripted logic however. There's a lot of things to consider.

 

 

Yeah there are a lot of things to consider for sure. Everything is time and money to implement though. 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

13 hours ago, Jaguar said:

not considering reduced scale maps

 

Reduced scale maps not only shouldn't be considered, they simply should get rid of flight sims. Never, never again. Time compression and/or other potential solutions should always be reviewed first.

 

 

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

Reduced scale maps not only shouldn't be considered, they simply should get rid of flight sims. Never, never again. Time compression and/or other potential solutions should always be reviewed first.

 

 

 

So one PTO freak to another.

How long are you realistically going to sit there in front of a computer screen, and ingress one-way to an objective?

I'm honestly asking.

 

I can tell you that I've received complaints about 45 - 50 minute ingress times during testing of Hell Hawks, to the extent that I moved the player base closer to the front even though it wasn't historical. So even an hour-long (historically accurate) ingress (one way only) was too long for most testers. While on the other hand I've received zero (hey this isn't historically accurate) complaints because I moved the based closer/reduces flight times. 

Further I know complaints that other 3rd party content creators receive. 

If you're willing to fly 4 hours, 5 hours, 6 hours etc...you're a true rarity my friend.

 

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 minute ago, Gambit21 said:

If you're willing to fly 4 hours, 5 hours, 6 hours etc...you're a true rarity my friend.

 

Well, as I said, "Time compression and/or other potential solutions should always be reviewed first". So I'm not seeking absolute full realism, I'm ready to accept infringements to realism (if not, what "simulation" is?), but preferably not by means of reduced maps.

 

 

[Gambit21]

52 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

Well, as I said, "Time compression and/or other potential solutions should always be reviewed first". So I'm not seeking absolute full realism, I'm ready to accept infringements to realism (if not, what "simulation" is?), but preferably not by means of reduced maps.

 

 

 

I know what you're saying...I completely get it.

Keep in mind that flying a real plane for an hour is much different than sitting in an office/room in a chair, looking at a screen (or wearing a VR headset) with life going on around you, etc etc for an hour. It's 2 very different perceptions of time and types of fatigue. So "realism" has to be considered in the context of what you are actually doing...meaning you're not actually in a plane to begin with. I can barely manage 15 minutes doing anything without getting interrupted. 

Second, I'd content that flying for 30 minutes to get somewhere (vs hours) and not hitting time compression (going warp speed) is more 'realistic' than warping across a map at 2000 miles per hour to make it go more quickly (thus making it even possible to fly the mission for most people) 

So realism vs "infringements" to realism as you put it...I'd contend that it's just a matter of how it's done...but it's unavoidable. 🙂

 

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Gambit21

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Unavoidable is the word... if not... what "simulation" is? 😉