A Poll: Which Map Layout?

[+Major Lee 18]

Here are two versions of DBS:2. Both maps are 2000km square. The first map is close to 1:1 scale. The second is "normal" SF scale. Map B allows a wider range of target areas. Map A is more accurate. Both maps would require very long range flights. Please select one choice, A or B... Just looking for opinions.

 

Map A:

 

Map B:

[Viggen 644]

Accuracy in anything is nice but having more targets is much better.

[+Brain32 265]

Voted

And if we can ask for wishes, mine is 512x512 tiles

[+Julhelm 266]

Is there any reason why we can't have 1024^2 tiles?

[+Jarhead1 27]

I vote A all the way. Long flights??? Thats why the aircraft gods invented droptanks, lol.

[+whiteknight06604 934]

I would prefer full scale but either will be a great addition.

[+Brain32 265]

Is there any reason why we can't have 1024^2 tiles?

Well actually, I'm not sure Aside from being a large download I can't think of any, the thing is, I'm also not sure how much benefit(visually) would it be with anything over 512x512 or the performance impact

Hmmm maybe I should make some(2048-512) and compare...

[+Major Lee 18]

Well, if one set up the terrain for 1000-->250 then the standard 256 pixel tile would only cover ONE km insterad of TWO, effectively doubling the terrain tile resolution also ... Plus, height data points would be every 250 meters instead of the current 500 meter height resolution... Distance flown is the same regardless of map scale; it is still a 2000km wide map... I am leaning more towards "B" since I can squeeze in more places for targets. It is positioned on both so that I can place Anchorage in the correct place and be able to model the base there... This means the eastern edge is fixed... Going off-scale means I can include at least part of Kamchatka and the entire Bering Sea, from Diomede Islands to the entire Aleutian Island chain... Karaga Island off the east coast of the Kamchatka pennisula will be a great place for a Soviet naval base, as are a couple of other locations... I want this to be a target rich environment for both sides. This is why new objects will be critical.

[+Major Lee 18]

Is there any reason why we can't have 1024^2 tiles?

 

Available sytem memory for most people would be taxed to the Nth degree with 1024 tiles... I'm not sure the things will even run with an HFD file of 122mb...

[+Dave 2,322]

I voted for B. Ken drop me a line if you get a chance.

[+EricJ 4,250]

Map B, like to have more than enough reason to fly around

[+Major Lee 18]

OK, "B" it is...

[+Stary 2,427]

Let it be "B" then

[topcat II 6]

B is cool, more targets are soooo much better!!!

[Murphy'S 15]

B is cool, more targets are soooo much better!!!

 

yes the subtile choice between distance accuracy (the 1:1 scale) and gameplay

 

the gameplay must prevail in the goal to get the most pleasure from the game.

[+Major Lee 18]

Very long flights are still a reality. The map is 1242 miles square... Long range flights from Anchorage to the farthest western target will still range about 1000 miles... I dare you to not use Alt-N...

[+Jimbib 747]

.....Or even Alt+T

[Murphy'S 15]

Very long flights are still a reality. The map is 1242 miles square... Long range flights from Anchorage to the farthest western target will still range about 1000 miles... I dare you to not use Alt-N...

 

i never use Alt-N, i like to struggle with fuel consumption.

 

when i said the gameplay is more important than the map scale, it's a reference to a higher target density than on a full scale map.