Do we know what the in-game limitations are?
Would love this, but bigger maps they should reduce the fuel burn by like 1.5x as the current fuel burn isnt enough for way larger maps
This is actually pretty much modelled in game realistically afaik. When you’re cruising on military power at sea level, “10 seconds of fuel” goes by in that… 10 seconds, however if you get up to cruising altitude, you’re not only faster (around 6% faster without afterburner, much faster with afterburner), but you also burn through fuel much slower. going through “10 seconds of fuel” at this altitude takes 28 seconds. So both these things considered you’re almost about 200% (3 times) more fuel efficient at altitude. The afterburner is also about twice as efficient at altitude but you’re much faster
I did this test with the Gripen at pretty much sea level 100 meters, and at 10,000 meters.
Will also give incentive to carry fuel-tanks
1 Like
And also more accurate fuel amounts.
I believe they’re accurate already? Any jet you have in mind? I believe the M4K recently got fixed in this regard.
Larger maps would encourage flying high, which would encourage BVR fights
With the addition of many all-around fighters such as the F-15, F-16, MIG-29SU-27 and the MIRAGE-4000, it has become very difficult to find a suitable role for Close Air Support aircraft in the Air Simulator (Referred to 'SIMonwards) game mode. With the SU-25T being at 11.3 in SIM as of the update ‘Alpha Strike’, this aircraft has lost its worth within this game mode as it is already lacking in maneuverability and general Speed/ Reliability. The SU-25T very often has to face superior F14s in the BR brackets in SIM. In addition to thatthe SU-25T allies tend to be more useful in the battlefield, for instance MIG-23s and other aircraft.
I believe that if the maps had a vast increase in size, all aircraft would have the chance to display their necessary powerThe SU-25s would compete with other CAS aircraft in taking down opposing ground units while the fighters are fighting for the skies at the same time.
If map sizes in SIM would be increased, the time taken to travel from point A to B would be much longer. My suggestion would be that the rewards would be increased for the compensation of flying for a longer distance. I also believe that this change in map size could go up to 1000km x 1000km rather than having the 128km x 128km on bigger maps such as Sinai.
For god sake PLEASE gib bigger Maps for AT LEAST SB!!!
I’m fed up with Gaijins sh*t “Mapdesign” for Tanks at BR 10+ on 1.7 BR Maps like Berlin, Köln, etc - its a joke
1 Like
Sorry for being so late, but I think the in-game limit is actually just an engine limitation. Like the engine can’t handle rendering spaces too big or something.
That being said, I don’t know much about the Dagor engine in detail. Nor have I tried to make maps with it. But it does struggle rendering a lot of stuff, you can sometimes notice in sim where the loading in times are super long.
Heightmaps have very low resolution, so we see pyramid-like low poly mountains on big air maps. Map size is also limited by engine. Something about old 32-bit stuff, but I can be wrong.
It’s all about engine limitations.
10 years ago it was good for WWII battles, but not for mach 2 speeds.
If we have bigger maps, we’d see big modern airbases like Bagram airfield that is unused on afgan map.
Dreams…
1 Like
It’s always engine limitations. Always comes back to it lol. Maybe they could update it to 64-bit if they haven’t already?
But yeah the engine was not designed with the intention of implementing 60+km active radar homing missiles the same way something like DCS was, and it is kind of showing after all of this time. We’re getting to the point where, at the right altitudes and launch parameters, an active radar homing missile can cross an entire (small) WT air map and still have a good chance of hitting it’s target.
To be honest, I’m not sure what they can even do to “update” the engine and make it capable of handling bigger maps. I’m not a programmer/game developer, and there’s people out there who probably know it a lot better than I do, but I hope that, somehow, they increase the “maximum” map size the engine can handle to something like the size of the smaller DCS maps, such as Caucasus. I think that would be a step in the right direction for the game as a whole, giving more freedom to both mission designers and players in what to do and how to do it.
(Plug to my suggestion for the Pearl River Delta, in the south of China, size approximately ~550x~750km)
Of course, that’s assuming the engine actually gets updated to such a point. Maybe one day it will.
1 Like
Big WW2 era maps should be reduced in my opinion.
Smolensk and Spain to Sicily’s size, and Denmark to Dover’s (which is already too big when only a few players are around).
Flying on them with BRs between 1.0-4.0 is painful right now.
The technical side isn’t the only hurdle. It is making it work for everyone, not just those with high-end PCs. Look at Ray Tracing as an example. In theory and practice they absolutely could and did implement it, but optimising it across different platforms took a while. There were significant growing pains, like (iirc) the initial issues with AMD-spec’d systems not being able to run it smoothly
Regarding the 64-bit point, even if the engine is 64-bit, the jitter at extreme distances often comes down to floating-point precision and how the game world coordinates are handled. While DCS can handle a map like Caucasus by using origin shifting (Dagor already does this, btw; in very simple terms, the game constantly moves the “center” of the math universe to follow your plane so the numbers stay small and precise), they also have a much higher barrier to entry. Beyond just the math, you have to consider Level of Detail scaling (basically, the game’s ability to swap high-detail models for low-detail ones without stuttering as you traverse those 500+ km.
Unless the average War Thunder player suddenly has 32+ GB of RAM and a high end SSD to handle that level of asset streaming, Gaijin has to balance map scale with accessibility. This is especially true for the console playerbase and those on older hardware who would be completely left behind. Your Pearl River Delta suggestion sounds great for the long term, but until there is a major engine overhaul to fix that coordinate precision at 500+ km scales, we are likely stuck with the current EC map limits. It is a tough spot where the missiles will eventually outgrow the world they fly in.
…meanwhile MSFS2024 runs on PS5, with the whole world at one’s hands…
Fox 3 BRs need maps 2-4 times the size let’s be honest.
But increased rewards too.
You can basically be detected and fired at from across Denmark.
Terribly*
The one thing WT (and obviously, DCS) has over it is consistent quality even on lower end systems. Terrain (technically, everything is) streaming while nice puts you at the mercy of their servers and your own internet.