Ha, you funny guy!
Max heightmap resolution for Dagor Editor is 2048px.
√410,700=647,5km each side that means your map have accuracy 647500m/2048=316m per heightmap pixel. You cant even see river and small mountains with that accuracy
I’m very well aware. Doesn’t stop me from asking for it though. That level of detail may have been good when this game first released, but we’re now quite literally in the age of missiles that can outrange entire maps. There needs to be some change.
(also that just means that Dagor Engine should just be phased out/upgraded to something better, no easy task, I know)
That explains a lot, having such a low heightmap resolution is just a pity. I hope they’ll be able to increase it at least fourfold, as currently the terrain features on big maps leave a lot to be desired. Even the most recent maps could be improved a lot, although the Chinese space port map is a step in the right direction for details and map complexity in terrain.
640 im not sure it’s a good idea, it hink it’s too much.
(With fuel Addon) Most i have ever got is 45mins of fuel, at 1190kmh which is ± the speed you have without afterburner, you Can then get 893km, so you wont be able to travel then go back without being low on power, (it’s just my personal opinion) it will break a bit the fun coz i can admit fuel preservation is a good part of the plane, but 50% power on 1000km doesnt shine
I mentioned that actually. The purpose of such a large map is to allow many different segmented smaller maps to take place in the same area. In the mission editor there is a function to limit the size of the play area, which could (should) be used in this instance to create smaller maps of a more reasonable size for the capabilities in the game.
I suggested this somewhat as future proofing in case a DCS-style map/gamemode/ability is added to the game, such as air-refueling or AWACS, which require large maps to be useful at all. Just the area from Hong Kong up to Guangdong could be its own map, as that area is large, but with the rest of the areas added on it allows for a large, open area for mission editors to design more missions freely.
I think i see, so then your idea is to make few maps that are actually one like for normandy battles ? Interesting, but sorry i didnt understand what would we do on the non playable areas, for the new features, one of the initators here said that new features wouldnt pass to gaijin, so i guess the ideas should be done with old
thats called smaller 2048px heightmap for ground forced map terrain. that cant resolve problem.
very expencive, and thats gameplay with DCS map will never succeed.
devs afraid politics and china itself
problem its gameplay, not map size. You want to know why? here s small map 80x80km, but with briliant gameplay! try it:Nuclear Option on Steam
In private message we thought about the supposition of border battle like pve heli btw, what do u think 'bout. What he meant for the large map wasnt a xxl sandground where we could fight everywhere but more a world where the whole map was cut in tinier maps, so these have a link, like what did gaijin do with normandy battle
just a few map propositions
It’s in case if gaijin refuses to put an other map than the one already in game, i know a new map is more adapted and i rly like the designs but we never know
n°1
n°2
for the second map, i crossed 1 length square at 506kmh in 46.9sec, giving a 0.013h, it gives a distance of 6.58km, meaning map is 4316.5km²
Edit : i did another test because the map did not really look that big and got ± same values, but the map looks still too little coz enemy spawn are far from like a 50km
Honestly like at this point yeah. War Thunder is almost 11 years old, quality of 11-year old assets isn’t that good. Nuclear Option on the other hand is less than a few years old, and so is still very good looking, not to mention that it is of course developed for newer hardware.
No it’s something different called “battlearea” or something in the mission editor, I’ve used it for custom missions before on maps that already exist.
That’s why I was talking about it here. We are currently in somewhat of a catch-22. You can’t get better top-end gameplay without increasing the map size, but you can’t increase the map size (or justify it) because the gameplay is bad. This suggestion quite literally aims to fix the gameplay problem, not completely, but it is a start, which is why I was talking about it.
word. its just an area tho, i don’t really see the problem especially since that entire area is part of China now. It’s not like it’s a map across the Taiwan Strait or something.
For the area, mig valley isnt already in game ? Could be good too if china takes problem
No I don’t think it is. And if it is, the map is really small because it is really old sadly.
Ooooh ye i remember this korea map. This has 3 rivers joining themselves. If they use this as mig alley then ye terribly small for ec
+1
Also, this could easily be it’s own suggestion post.
Please consider making one for this as well!
3 Likes
Wip. Right now I doing test mission and location for testing
It’s not about the size of the map/submap, it’s about how much of the map area is used in the gameplay and in its design. 30x90km strip is currently used on 120x120km maps. A map of 80x80 km, with the right design, a bunch of points of interest all over the map and echeloned air defense will satisfy all the needs of the gamemode.
3 Likes
The problems of the maps in wt arent totally their lentgh. If you take an operation map, nobody flights somewhere else than the center because the spawns are placed so ppl runs straight to find the other, neither without nothing to do somewhere else if u not a bomber, nor obstacles like the volcans in one map
ive make this bcs of you
Enjoy
4 Likes
I hope they make it an official mode in the simulator tab and not that ”you have a chance of getting„
4 Likes