Leaderboard

Another important question: If somebody comes to DCS after the release of Normandy 2, do they have to buy 1 and 2 separately? Or if they buy 2, will they have 1 automatically? I'm asking because 1 is the current requirement for my campaigns. So a new player would want to buy Normandy 2 - why would they buy 1 at the same price? - but then they can't play my campaigns, only if they pay extra for a map that's already made redundant by what they just bought.

There is still a lot we are trying to figure out and how it will all end up, I have talked to Reflected and will continue to try and make sure we can transition him and all content creators over to the Normandy 2.0 easily and with the most compatibility. We are hearing all your concerns and trust me, they were all noted before the announcement on Friday. I will continue to follow up on all things here and let you guys know as soon as possible how things evolve. Try not to get too worked up though, the ultimate goal is a kick butt area to throw our Warbirds around in.

But you ( ED ) HAS stopped them. It looks like Ugra is making the single best map for WWII, a map that would unite an entire community, but a vital part of the map is off limits ( and forced to be low detail) because Eagle Dynamics has planted their flag in the tiny area that has the famous white cliffs of Dover and Dunkirk. In my opinion, the only way to make this right is if ED relinquishes their sole control on that area and permits Ugra to model the Channel Map area in high detail.

Hi! We have seen your questions and will try to answer them. When will it release? The intent is to release into Early Access before the end of 2022. However, this may extend into early 2023 based on testing results. How much will it cost? DCS: Normandy 2 will be available as a complete map for $59.99 USD with 20% off while in Early Access. If you have either DCS: Normandy 1944 or DCS: The Channel maps, you can purchase Normandy 2 for $14.99 USD. If you own both, you can purchase DCS: Normandy 2 for only $9.99 USD. How big is the Normandy 2.0 map compared to the Normandy 1944 map? Please see the attached image that illustrates the low and high detail areas of the Normandy 2.0 map compared to the existing Normandy 1944 map. The Normandy 2.0 map will be 400x600 km, which will make it significantly larger than the Normandy 1944 map. Is this a combining the Normandy 1944 and Channel maps? No, this is an all-new map that covers all the same area as the Normandy 1944 map, plus an extensive expansion that also covers large parts of the same area included in the Channel map. What new cities and landmarks have been added? Chief of among them are London and Paris, but it will also include many new medium to small size urban areas that make up the greatly expanded area. This will also include new ports, airfields, factories, rivers, canals, and more. Most of the Normandy 1944 map objects have also been greatly improved like buildings, bridges, airfield objects, rail lines, roads, trees, fences, poles, and more. What airfields will be included at release? The total number of airfields has bee increases to 50 for the Early Access version. This may further increase after Early Access release. Please see the attached map for a listing of the initial airfields. Am I paying for the same map twice? No, this is a new map, not an upgrade to the existing Normandy 1944 map. Although the Normandy 2.0 map includes the same area covered in the Normandy 1944 map, it is much larger with greater detail, accuracy, texture resolution, and trees. Because the Normandy 1944 map was created using older map technology and tools, it is not possible to simply expand the size of that existing map. The Normandy 2.0 map has been created with new map technology and tools that has allowed us to greatly increase the map size and amount of detail. Because they are different maps, all existing missions and campaigns created for the Normandy 1944 and the Channel maps will continue to function on those maps, nothing changes. However, missions created for the Normandy 1944 map would not work in the Normandy 2.0 map. As such, the Normandy 1944 and Channel map will continue to be for sale. If I only own the Normandy 1944 Map, will I be able to join servers running the Normandy 2.0 map? Yes, but detail areas included in the Normandy 2.0 map and not in the Normandy 1944 map would be at low detail and missing world objects. This item is still being worked on and may change. Will the framerates be worse than the current Normandy 1944 map? Using the latest Terrain Development Kit (TDK), we have optimized Normandy 2.0, despite an increase in the number of objects. You should see no loss in performance compared to the Normandy 1944 map. Will there be winter textures? We plan for the Normandy 2.0 to only include the summer season as it is being created around operations in Normandy in the summer of 1944 (Opération Neptune). What airfields are there in Normandy 2.0 Airfields in France A1 Saint Pierre du Mont A2 Cricqueville-en-Bessin B17 Carpiquet A12 Lignerolles A14 Cretteville A15 Maupertus A16 Brucheville A20 Lessay - оригинальны A3 Cardonville A4 Deux Jumeaux A5 Chippelle A7 Azeville B9 Lantheuil A17 Meautis A21 Sainte-Laurent-sur-Mer A24 Biniville A6 Beuzeville A8 Picauville A9 Le Molay B11 Longues-sur-Mer B2 Bazenville B3 Sainte-Croix-sur-Mer B4 Beny-sur-Mer B7 Rucqueville B8 Sommervieu Beauvais-Tille Cormeilles-en-Vexin Dinan-Trelivan Fecamp_Benouville Evreux Guyancourt Villacoublay Saint-Andre de l Eure Orly Amiens_Glisy Argentan Avranches Le Val-Saint-Pere Barville Conches Creil Deauville Essay Flers Goulet Hauterive Lonrai Poix Ronai Rouen-Boos Saint-Aubin Triqueville Vrigny Broglie Beaumont-le-Roger Bernay Saint Martin Airfields in UK Chailey Farnborough Ford Funtington Gravesend Heathrow Kenley Needs Oar Point Tangmere West Malling Deanland Friston Lymington Odiham Stoney Cross

This Normandy 2.0 will be a great addition to DCS even as it currently stands. There is, however, an opportunity here to make this a truly epic map and the definitive WW2 Western Front flight sim experience. ED and Urga, there is potential for a real home run here, let’s make it happen!

THIS is a very important question. The original announcement said that old missions will be compatible, now this one says the opposite. If Rudel's idea works, bringing them over to 2.0 may be feasible, otherwise one can just set them up from scratch again. By feasible I mean we'd still need to double check the location of each object, etc, but at least everything would be set up already.

For well over a year now the catapults have been bugged on the carriers as to not allow another aircraft to hook to either bow catapult if a Tomcat is hooked to the other. This is a huge bug that leads to long lineups on the carrier waiting to get airborne, combined with the AI's shoddy taxiing ability leads to the carrier being nothing more then a huge fuster cluck where I have even had AI aircraft collide with me while I am sitting still waiting for the catapult. ED has been totally silent on this and has not said a damn thing about any fixes to either the catapults or the AI taxiing ability and instead will just dangle the carrot of the briefing room in front of our faces to try to make us forget that they are doing literally nothing to fix serious bugs in their product. And before someone comes in here and says "It's early access you need to expect bugs" Yes I am well aware that it is, but in the over 2 years we have had the SC module the ONLY decent update we have had to it is the deck crew wands for night ops and that took a embarrassing amount of time to even get that. So before a mod comes in here and locks this thread answer this for me, when are we going to see some REAL updates or even some communication from ED about the supercarrier?

I maintain that the Normandy 2 map will end up replacing both Normandy 1 and the Channel, that this will be announced prior to release, and that the map will have a new name. This was a less than successful rollout. While it should have been pretty easy to get a "Yes!" like with the Tornado, we got an "Ummm... yeah, but..." That's not a great start. Unfortunately it's likely to get worse until it gets better, and the better will be a new map with a new name to replace both Normandy 1 and the Channel. That said, I am optimistic. It's going to be a great map, I'm looking forward to it, and it's a day one purchase for me. London and Paris, baby!

Ugra Media are obviously passionate about Normandy and want to bring to us all new features, higher detail and a larger area, why would we ( ED ) stop them? They have offered amazing discounts for owners of Normandy and The Channel, compatibility with campaigns ( with current terrains ) and multiplayer. At the end of the day it is optional, if you dont like it you dont have to upgrade.

I was really excited about this launch, and I praised the pricing model both on ED's Discord and on Facebook. This FAQ leaves me feeling that the launch post was, at least, wrongly written if not intentionally misleading. Phrases like This, to anyone that can read English, means that the previous campaigns are compatible with the new map. In that sense, it made a lot of sense to have a NEW V2.0 map that replaces the old one and is offered to previous users at a discounted price. But the wordings on this FAQ suggest that V1.0 and V2.0 will not only coexist, but that they will be SEPARATE purchases from now on? So, as @Reflected has pointed out, new users would be faced with a scenario of purchasing two different versions of, more or less, the same map if they want to play the previous campaigns? And us existing users would have two maps that represent, roughly, the same area just to keep our previous campaigns as an option? This not only sounds like a terrible user experience, it is a very poor business decision: from the pure "money making" point of view, but also from the point of view of third party developers that spend their time with the products that ED decide to greenlight. So, that brings me to the "core" of my complaint: ED needs to enforce a certain "standard", even if products are developed by third parties, because they reflect on EDs game and the user-base purchase decisions. For example, I highly question the decision to make a map around a particular operation on a particular month of a particular year. Sure, you need to pick a point in time to structure a map, but limiting the option to use it on other seasons really makes for a very niche product (on an already niched market on a platform where you would have not one but two maps of the exact same region!!!). So, if seasons make a big impact on a map (like the Caucasus, or Normandy!), EDs requirements for third party developers should enforce some sort of versatility in that sense. In a world where you are facing competition from the likes of MSFS where you can fly anywhere in the world, to have a map model that forces 3 maps encompassing roughly the same area to be bought separately seems like walking backwards instead of moving forward. Please, as the pricing model was a sensible one, make this "a good" decision for users! This, in my mind means: - V2 REPLACES V1, they don't coexist, but... - V2 is compatible with campaigns made for V1 (obviously minor tweaks would be needed, but minor nonetheless) - V2 is a more versatile map that also allows for winter (and ideally autumn) looks - existing V1 players that don't want to upgrade can do so, but not because they want to keep playing their already paid-for missions, but because they prefer not to spend more now... they simply won't enjoy the higher detail and extended areas - ideally, at some point the channel gets merged and users looking for the WWII Europe scenario need to make ONE good purchase, which makes the decision somewhat simpler! So, my enthusiasm shared by me on the original launch post has been completely muddied here with decisions that seems less technical and more commercial. I hope at least some of the points above turn out to be true and we end up with a less absurd scenario than 3 maps of the the same region with no particular benefit of having all three. Rafa.

A lot of discussion about Heathrow, but nobody mentioned Biggin, Manston, or Abbeville so far? The lack of those is what I'm most surprised about. Heathrow opens up possibilities for post war or more fictional scenarios, so I'm not against that.

Sorry man, but I have to disagree, and so should everyone. The MSRP is pure fantasy, and to see established reviewers basing "performance value" around it on their review's conclusions is a bit moronic (they've been around). It begs the question if some aren't really paid reviews, or shills. The contacts I made tell me that the RTX4090 will sell from 2000,00 to 2600,00 Euros in Europe (not less). That's nearly 2X what the RTX3090 went for, already inflated in price. Quite frankly, while noone should tell anyone how to spend their own money, it's impossible not to look at someone spending this much on a single GPU for a gaming rig as if he/she was spending stupid money on Gucci flip-flops.

Let's wait and see how it will work out in game, we don't know yet. All we have is contradictory info at the moment. And once we do know, I'll check with ED about the best solution in order not to raise that barrier, because I don't want that either. On the other hand I don't want my campaigns to not take advantage of something cool and new in the WW2 scene. Again, we shall see.

022 Hold Position 022 Hold Position 022 Hold Position 022 Hold Position

It's a disgrace really. To have hot start cats be able to hook to Cat 1 and 2 yet not cold start cats. Playing coop with the old man we can hook two Hornets to Cat 1 and 2. Gotta fix this ED

Sorry, but i think it's pointless to discuss pricing to that extend. The pricing seems fair (when you generally accept that maps are payware). Saying anything else is splitting hairs. Of course it sucks that for customers in some regions dcs is prohibitly expensive due to exchange rates etc., but that's a problem of regional pricing (or lack thereof). Arguing about single digit dollar differences between different upgrade paths seems to miss the mark here. There are other concerns that were raised here, that have more merit, i think. Normandy 2.0 should be the map that ends the DCS WWII western front kerfuffle, but as of now people are rightfully worried, that it might add to it. ED, Ugra, get rid of the L, give us a fair square!

Guys, what has any of that to do with performance? Let us get back on topic please.

The reason why ED should "care" is because a map (especially a redundant one that breaks existing content with missions and campaigns) is a reflection on ED's ecosystem. Players will be looking to ED for answers, not Ugra... The design decisions have an impact on the broader community, for both single and multi-player environments. The Normandy 2 enhancement is a wonderful idea, but not if breaks more than it fixes. I'm saying this as a long time DCS supporter, an avid Warbird fan, and I appreciate the continued investment. I just don't want to see a potential win with enhanced Normandy and see it turn sour.

@ Beirut Please add Rene's Cafe.

Oh please stop it. Seriously, even if Ugra is a 3rd party, you can t really be that naive to believe ED does not have a serious say in 3rd party development. Its obvious they do and they have to give their nod for approval for 3rd party module inclusion, be it aircraft or map. All in all this leaves a bad taste so far in my opinion, especially since it’s looks like valuable content creators like @Reflectedget shafted, by raising the barrier to enjoying their campaigns with additional preconditional purchases required. Really ED should be appreciative that these 3rd party campaign creators are there and help attract people with their campaigns to EDs half-baked WWII scene, but instead of supporting them, they seem to make it more difficult for them, with these strange map development decisions..

Its somewhat disheartening to see that the NE corner is going to be in low detail. As the closest bridge between the two lands, it would get a lot of attention for perhaps some more less historical, but more fun dogfighting fictional missions. Additionally there were a LOT of airfields, strips and satellites up in that NE area in general.

Without this becoming a nasty rage of anger and frustration I totally understand the urge for the original author to poste this and support the message. I really hope for improvement as well! Like the previous poste 'The lack of addition of new features is one thing, but the bugs that take away the fun in using the SC is another.'

As a virtual wing aviator who almost solely does carrier ops, I support your post and share the disappointment and quite frankly the frustration with this module. The lack of addition of new features is one thing, but the bugs that take away the fun in using the SC is another. I join you in hoping for improvement!

while we're add it lets fix the "Hold, Position" bug as well

Hi Hawkeye, Excellent video, indeed ! Many thanks ! I finally managed to sink the Kasatonov also, after 25 minutes of naval battle against 2 Arleigh Burke and 2 Duncan class ships, with no air support at all. The ships came in the end as close as 8 nm, and the Kasatonov used also its forward gun against them. The anti-missile defense of the Arleigh Brurke ships was very effective against the Kalibr anti-ship miisiles of the Kasatonov. Many Harpoons were fired, but not many did hit, and the Ka-27 ont the aft deck was damaged (you can see it smoking in the screenshots below). But one Arleigh Birke was lost, and the 2 Duncan escaped... As mentioned previously by Admiral, the Kasatonov is a beast.... A superb Mod , of excellent quality for sure. Many thanks to Admiral and Currenthill for their amazing work

I will chase the server issue up regarding space.

You overestimate how confusing it really is. There was an old Normandy, now there is a new one with more area. It's that simple. Didn't need the 3 chapters of dialogue lol

Nobody is on any crusade here. I find most of the question reasonable. I have all the maps, and will get the upgrade, but I would love to put N1 to rest and fly all the amazing campaigns on N2! Cheers! Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

Simple, modern theatres don’t have 3 maps that cover the same area, to be honest if it was a modern theatre that had multiple maps that covered the same area then I would be arguing for them all to be blended and working together as well. Having to have multiple maps that work independently but cover the same location just does not make any sense whatsoever. if anything it highlights some serious flaws in the current map system and in the tech used by DCS as a whole. I do understand the difficulty with the fact that different 3rd partys have made a contract to cover a set area for DCS, and while they all want to improve our sim, at the end of the day, they are competing against each other, so want to get the most customers. This is the first time we have had a situation that I know of where one company’s product covers the same area as another 3rd parties product and, well to be fair I don’t know what the solution is, although that’s EDs problem not ours. But as simmers it’s only natural that we would expect the entire of the south cost to be covered in DCS world and the maps to naturally combine together as that is what we are used to in other sims. you buy a base and then you expend with scenery modules for various parts of the world, BUT the main thing is regardless of who develops it, they ALL merge naturally so we as a simmer don’t notice the changeover. likewise any missions or campaigns purchased in those sims work regardless so long as you have that scenery area installed. so in this case I would expect that if you have Normandy 2.0 and the Channel map, then the channel map would naturally override the low res areas of Normandy 2.0., but both maps would be merged and working together to create one large high res area, similar to other sims that are available, And that all campaigns would work across the board.

Yes and if a new player wants to fly the big show campgian and beware beware they have to buy 2 maps, and if he wants to fly a 3rd campaign released for Normandy 2 later. He'll have to buy a 3rd map. It was bad enough you had to buy 2 maps to play ww2 campaigns, now you have to buy 3. And when flying campaigns on the old Normandy map, it will leave you with a sour taste, knowing you are flying on the sub quality map compared the new Normandy map. The original relase news made it sound like at least the Normandy 1 campaigns could be transferred quite easily, and this was one of the main reasons many were exited for the new map.

Always so much emotive complaining it gets tiring visiting these forums. How about just some fair and constructive criticism then move on. If you don't want a product someone made, then just don't buy it. Great work all, looking forward to this, will gladly shell out $10 for an expanded and improved Normandy map. When I first saw the announcement, I was hoping that dcs channel would also be wrapped into this map and it's a shame that it isn't, although you can understand several reasons why it would be a difficult thing to do considering performance and the likely different ways the two maps were built. Hopefully some day they can be combined in some form allowing us to fly seamlessly from one to the other.

The more I think about this the more irritated I get. The release of Normandy 1.0 went over fairly well. Then the Channel map was announced and people complained because the maps more or less overlapped. Later it was noticed that there was a big trench along the border of the maps. It was pretty obvious that there had been a failed attempt to merge the maps. It’s evident Eagle Dynamics STILL doesn’t have the means to merge the 2 maps…. Yet they are allowing the release of a third map that requires it. At this point, Eagle Dynamics needs to come to an agreement with Ugra and just let Ugra media finish Normandy 2.0 as a full high detailed map. You basically have two entities at conflict with each other and that’s not good for the brand. *edit* imagine a 3PD announces a very popular “Desert Storm” map and another developer rushes and releases a “Baghdad” map. I’d imagine Eagle Dynamics wouldn’t allow two developers to do this to one another… yet here we are with Normandy 2.0 and The Channel Map.

Sir, this is a Wendy's. But seriously- in that ramble you touch on a number of factors, complaining about what may in fact be the key, but not effectively identifying it: Those guys from upstairs- the suits. You know why they're the suits? Because they answer to the board, and to the shareholder. The answering and decision making takes place because if the shareholders aren't placated in seeing the value in the firm, valuation is lost, access to financing evaporates, and nobody gets paid- which means nobody has games to play, all because nobody works from the ground up for free. The mention of Hollis isn't as compelling an argument as you think, frankly, because he came up in the era when one or two kids fresh out of college could produce content that could make a massive return in the early and mid-80s. Sid Meier wrote Hellcat Ace alone in 10 weeks and MicroProse turned its first profit two months later. Three years after Hollis signed on they broke $10 million in annual sales. That doesn't scale to today, and not remotely in this genre. Sorry, but I'm not interested in 320x200 pixel resolution sprite-based graphics and paper thin gameplay and modeling, zero connectivity to anyone that isn't at the same desktop and no interoperability between titles. That might work for somebody's nostalgia-laden Steam upload for $3.99, but that doesn't (literally or figuratively) fly here. So what happens to the guys in the middle? Who have the skills and specialization to break through, but can't secure the financing (and no, nobody is venture financing the serious flight sim genre)? Software licenses cost money. If you want a shot at seriously producing a product, you need a core who maintain it as their day to day, who bring the talents and experience required to have the drive and best chances of getting it out the door- that means they need to get paid as their 9-5. And that's just the core 3 to 5 people. The bigger the scope, the more rapid the expectations to complete (and thus survive), the greater the need for capital. At some point in the process they have to get an influx to keep the lights on and the project moving forward. But if the bank won't back them, and venture capital laughs them off- who is left? The people that want it. You don't have to invest or assume the risk if you don't want to. By the same token, life is short, and the costs invested at the user are tiny in the larger scheme. $50 to $90 bucks invested in a title, a thousand hours invested, and still people come back raging for the idiosyncrasies and their pet points that are still in the development cycle and being done- all while things are getting concurrently fixed in real time should they break. Unless, of course, you've hit for Poweball and have a nice $1-5 million capital infusion you'd like to toss at a third party studio to help them jump start the process for a module. You'll still be 3+ years out to competition from jump, but at least you won't seemingly have your heart strings pulled during the normal EA period since the man-hours can all now be paid for up front.

I mean if this new tech grows from here, the possibilities are endless, something like this would probably be important for an entire globe as well, being able to have chunks of high detailed that you wanted, etc. So while it would be nice to add the Channel chunk in there, I am not sure its possible or planned right now, we just need to see how this first step works and is handled by everyone and everything.

I'm very disappointed that the most iconic area in the new map, the area around Dover including the famous white cliffs, Dover port, Dover Castle, Chain Home radar station, etc isn't included in the high detail area. This was a golden opportunity to include that area in this map properly. Might that area be included in high detail at some point?

Excuse me. My reply was more directed at barry_c This is the FAQ for the new map and not a discussion if WW2 is dead or not. Since me and alot of other users are excited about the new map, we should not derail this thread.

Hi @MAESTR0, Thanks for the FAQ, I have a small question .. will the internal dcs map coordinates be the same as on the prior Normandy 1944, I mean the same coordinate origin and coordinate scales? I ask, because if the internal map coordinates are the same, it would then be relatively easy to adapt my prior missions to the new map, I would only need to edit the ["theatre"] = "Normandy", mission sentence, and all mission objects would already be on the correct place. Best regards, and I will still purchase the map even if its coordinates are not the same (because of the very very reasonable upgrade price )

Kevin Bacon just called, sending tremors across the team.

I remember that ED once said tgey were working on - or at least considering - tech that could change aspects of maps. This would come in really handy here to hide those advanced landing grounds in France giving the map much more credibility for pre-invasion missions. The history buffs will of course always find a thousand more things to be ahistoric, but i think for the general playerbase, the advanced landing grounds are THE giveaway that the map is mid/late 1944.

What happens when a player with just Normandy 1 spawns at a field on a Normandy 2 MP server that isn't on the Normandy 1 map? Are collisions between aircraft and structures handled on the client or the server? If he taxies through a hangar that he can't see, will he see himself catch fire , or would players with Normandy 2 see him catch fire or just taxi through the buildings? Please tell us you've tested this before claiming Normandy 1 players can join MP servers running Normandy 2.

Good point about the campaign builders. This cluster bomb of a mangled map nonsense is really tough for campaign makers that want to stand by their work. DCS is already a pretty large burden for campaign builders… every time flak is buffed or nerfed, a good campaign builder has to go in and adjust his missions. When AI is adjusted, all those missions will need to be adjusted as well. It’s a tall order as it is… now they’ve introduced a 3rd map that may or may not be backwards compatible with the old map. Im afraid this is going to scare off campaign builders and kill new WWII content. It’s much easier to make a F-16 campaign for the Syria map.

PF / PFM were second best, after MiG-21bis, when it comes to thrust to weight ratio, and only because latter one had second afterburner stage. Take that out of the equation, and PF / PFM end up at the top with T/W in excess of 0.8 And if you really want to be prepared to fight Phantoms (especially F-4E than PF / PFM with R-13 engine will be needed ). Michael Wegerich, former NVA and Luftwaffe pilot who flew, among other things, MiG-21M, than MiG-21SPS (NVA name for PFM) and finally MiG-29, preferred the SPS. I recall similar statement from a Czech pilot. So Michael, in recently released book about NVAs JG-1 - "697, Montur-Start, Überfahrt zu Halifax-Start, Kanal 1", said this about MiG-21SPS (mind you its automatic translation from German to English, some errors will be there): "FLYING ON THE MIG-21 SPS / SPS-K - Michael Wegerich, Lieutenant Colonel NVA While I loved the MiG-21 F-13, my true love was the MIG-21SPS. It was very balanced in controllability and stability. It reacted immediately to control deflections and could be flown in a stable attitude without great effort. Compared to the F-13, the controls felt slightly subdued and not as fidgety. This made flying easier, especially when intercepting targets in the clouds or at night. But even in a dogfight, the controls left nothing to be desired. A clearly audible warning shaking signaled that the maximum permissible angle of attack had been reached and that the aircraft was about to tip over or be imminently stalled with an unwanted rotation as a result. With only two weapon stations, the SPS was very light compared to its successors and it was powered by the powerful R-11F2S-300 engine with 6,175 kg of thrust. The SPS had a thrust to weight ratio greater than 0.8. Relatively tight maneuvers were possible thanks to this good thrust-to-weight ratio. It was permitted to go up to a loads of 8.5 G. Even brief 11.5 G did not bother the aircraft. It wasn't a heroic feat, but I once pulled enough in air combat training to shake off my opponent. I managed to do that, but for the time being I had to do without the next flight on the same machine. As the permissible load of 8.5 G was exceeded, the machine had to be checked to ensure that all devices, lines and cables were still in the correct place and that nothing was warped or bent. That lasted about an hour and my planned aerial opponent was in the air with another one in the meantime. After checking the aircraft, I was able to throw myself into the dogfight again with the aircraft, provided the permitted limits were observed. Such an experience strengthens confidence in the stability, reliability and performance of this technology. If some people dreamed of a Porsche in their garage, I would have loved to have had a SPS in my garage, to do a few flights at the weekend without asking anyone, without a flight order, simply for the fun and joy of flying this MiG. (...). After the work on the aircraft in the KRS, the machines had to be checked under simple weather conditions, i.e. blue skies and sunshine, before they were certified for combat training. If necessary, these flights were also carried out at the weekend with a small crew at the airfield and without much organization. Since I really enjoyed doing these flights with the SPS, I felt that this task was like pursuing a hobby at the weekend. After an engine change, the check flight program called for a check of the engine system to Mach 2 and to an altitude of 18-19 km. The SPS flew slightly faster than the F-13 at 2,175 km/h and achieved the same static ceiling altitude. The flight characteristics at altitude were just as excellent as with the F-13. The directional stability in the supersonic range and when flying with high angles of attack was improved by enlarging the vertical stabilizer and keel. The lurch around 21 the vertical axis was occasionally still noticeable when pulling up, but it was not a problem. The SPS accelerated best in the supersonic range compared to the other variants. The machine owed this to the powerful engine, the relatively low flying weight, but also to the new continuously and automatically adjustable cone. This regulated the air flow in the air intake section depending on the engine RPM, speed, altitude and angle of attack, so that the engine could be optimally supplied with air under all flight conditions. I noticed the effect of the positive thrust-to-weight ratio of the SPS in comparison to the successor models when I switched from the M/MF to the SPS and carried out my first summit interception. The interception procedure saw the climb to an altitude of 11-12 km with a west-southwest curve. At altitude, the aircraft accelerated to Mach 1.2 with a slight descent. The acceleration was speeded by the descending flight, since the drag coefficient increased with increasing speed at Mach 1 and only dropped sharply when Mach 1.1-1.2 was reached. This area had to be overcome quickly in order not to consume too much fuel. When Mach 1.2 was reached, a 180° turn was carried out on a north-easterly course with an inclination of approx. 35°. At the end of the turn, the speed should be Mach 1.5, then accelerate further to 1.8 and climb to the target altitude of 18 km. You had to fly the 180° turn very carefully, otherwise you wouldn't reach Mach 1.5 on the commanded north-east course. I flew the turn on my first flight on the SPS, as I was used to on the M/MF, very carefully and sensitively, with not too much bank and load multiples. At the end of the curve I had Mach 1.8 instead of Mach 1.5 because the SPS was able to accelerate very well. Corresponding to the high speed at the end of the curve, my curve radius was also much too large and I was much too far north for the normal recovery geometry, almost 30 km. Thanks to the energy reserves of the SPS and its agility under the flight conditions, I was able to correct this error and still successfully engage the target at an altitude of 18 km. This would not be possible with an M/MF , because of the increased weight one always flew with higher angles of attack and thus with higher drag, which resulted in higher fuel consumption. The stepless and automatically moving cone also made aerial combat easier than on the F-13. There were no restrictions on turning on the afterburner. Whenever you needed thrust, you could switch it on regardless of the load factor, angle of attack or position. An example of a flight maneuver where automatic control of the cone was required in air combat was the following: as a target for another fighter, I let the fighter fly towards me from behind and from a good attack position. Shortly before he was in firing position, I deployed the airbrake and pulled towards him at an 80-degree bank angle with a high loss of speed but a small turning radius, at the shaking limit, so that we met on opposite courses. None of his weapons, cannon or rockets, were usable now. At the same moment I switched on the afterburner, retracted the airbrake and the flaps to 25 degrees. I turned the machine on its back and pulled it down again at the shaking limit, i.e. with maximum angle of attack, behind the target and immediately retracted the landing flap again. With this extremely fast maneuver I flew at the permissible limit just behind the target. I was lower than the target and the pilot couldn't see me. I had to leave the burner in place, then I was within shooting range and was able to shoot it (simulated) without him seeing me."

I own Normandy 1.0 and The Channel Map, and $9.99 to upgrade to Normandy 2.0 seems very fair…. I had hoped Normandy 2.0 would solve all the “peculiarities” that face the WWII community and become the one singular “go-to” map for WWII missions, but to be honest I’m a little disheartened to find that this entire map isn’t fully detailed. I have 2 questions: 1) how low is low detail? If I fly from one high detailed airbase to another high detailed base but pass through a low detailed area, how jarring will it be? 2) it appears Ugra Media has left the area covered by The Channel Map low detail as to avoid making the former obsolete. I imagine “eventually” merging Normandy 2.0 with The Channel Map is something Eagle Dynamics would like to do. Once merging the two maps becomes a reality, will there be an additional cost?

This thread isn't about responding to your many criticisms, this is a FAQ thread about this new map, please stay on topic.

Yes. Full-size, manned helicopters differ greatly compared to R/C models, in a lot more ways than I suspect you realize. The comparison of the two isn't even close, not even in the same ballpark. But if you think that teaching anyone to fly an R/C helicopter is anything like teaching someone to fly a real helicopter, you are quite mistaken. (And yes, I've flown RC helicopters as well) I fly with a Saitek X52 and Saitek rudder pedals, no expensive set up here. Additionally, I have been playing flight sim games for decades as well (as has @bradmick), so we are fully aware of the differences between real helicopters, professional simulators, and desktop flight sim games. Further, equating force trim to "automation" is a false premise. The AH-64D's force trim is not a crutch or "an easy way out", it is a key components of the pilot-machine interface of the AH-64D. This isn't a Huey, or an R/C helicopter, there is more to flying the AH-64D than wiggling the sticks. I've noticed a common thread as of late, in that several demographics of forum-goers: helicopter mechanics, crew chiefs, engineers, and in this case an R/C helicopter operator, all are of the opinion that they are more qualified to comment on the accuracy of the AH-64's flight model than those that have spent thousands of hours and years of their lives flying the real AH-64D (not every person in those demographics, just that at least one person from each has commented as such). I mean no disrespect to you or your own experiences (or the experiences of others that work on or with rotorcraft), but such assumptions are silly. In your very own words, "you can study helicopter theory for 20 years, when you finally get in the seat, you'll still be a novice like anyone else". If you truly believe this, lacking first-hand knowledge doing the very thing that the DCS: AH-64D is simulating, which is being a crewmember in an AH-64D, how can you possibly assess the accuracy of the experience or the relevance of its flight control systems better than someone that has actually flown the real AH-64D? Again, I mean no disrespect, you are entitled to your opinion. But as someone that has seen both sides of the coin, as a helicopter mechanic and a pilot, not to mention played all sorts of flight sim games in the past 30 years, I'm telling you that your assertions are off the mark in these regards.