Leaderboard

Files have been sent for testing "Historical Action shots" HMS Gloucester defending the Battleship Missouri against a Silkworm missile during the Gulf War we a Sea Dart

You sir, are a man of good taste.... Really liking what little I have seen so far, the terrain mesh its amazing imo.

Thanks for your interest! Not right now, no further work has been done on the Enterprise since release. We're quite busy preparing Vietnam War Vessels 0.9.0. Once this is out of the door, I want to focus on the area of lighting at night, including Enterprise and the Vietnam War Vessels fleet. Cheers, TeTeT

The taxi directors have just been implemented in DCS and my campaigns make full use of the new feature too. However, it's very important to follow the briefing instructions: - Once the INS alignment is complete (before that why do you even want to taxi?!) the mission starts waiting for the salute command in order to know you're ready. You MUST use the 'Catapult Salute' key combo (LShift+U by default). NOT the radio menu item. The mission has no way of detecting the latter. Use the key assignment. - The takeoff checklist will start automatically, and all you need to do is to make sure the switches are in the right position. If the checklist doesn't advance, it's because you didn't perform an item. Check your kneeboard to see what you missed. Or the message history tab. - Then you must follow the director. This is a core DCS feature, the mission is not controlling where they tell you to go and how, it's all hard coded into DCS. If you find any bugs related to this, I cannot help, better send a track in the Supercarrier bugs section where the devs can see it. If you see that the planes are stuck on deck and the mission won't progress, you better let me know as well (with a track) so I can keep pushing ED too. - You'll find that I had to remove some of the statics from the carrier decks. It's no longer safe to place statics on the sixpack or any of the catapults that will be used during the mission, because the directors cannot dynamically react to that and improvise.

Another interesting fact is that this map uses something like "bump mapping" on the ground too. We no longer have a flat surface, but there are additional bulging elements here, which greatly diversifies the environment. It really looks great! Again, not very good quality screenies (taken with VR), but you can clearly see what's going on. Combined with the new "Haze" (if someone complains about the visibility of the horizon ) it looks really good!

This has always been the way with simulators. I have spent $1000's on FSX, Flightsim, P3D, DCS addons etc. If people dont want to pay for addon scenery, thats fine. The base sim is free and comes with some free scenery. Addon scenery costs money to make. Satellite data, mesh data etc is not cheap, especially for commercial use.

Yes, we will never get mad if a customer wants to wait until its complete, if we waited until its complete the waiting time would most likely be the same. Many people like to join us on the development road, its a choice and can be a bumpy journey.

I am aware of his health problems and I am very sorry, I hope he gets better as soon as possible, I wish it from the bottom of my heart!

Admiral has a serious spinal issue, he has to deal with that first, give him time, he will be back when he is able.

Hello, Before I start this post, let me be clear that I am well aware there have been several wish list threads about this topic already, and that there are several modules with this option present and working properly - luckily - such as the MiG-21, Mirage 2000, Mirage F1, AV-8B (broken but hopefully this can be fixed later as it used to work), F-15E, OH-58, ... But this seems to be a VERY low priority item for ED and some 3rd parties (Heatblur have announced all of their modules will get it but that has been announced years ago already with nothing to show for it so far). For me personally (and I bet for some other users as well), this is in fact a CRITICAL item that determines me flying that particular module or not. Now before someone starts accusing me of being particularly dramatic, allow me to elaborate: IRL I have very sensitive eyes. Indoors I need glasses with a special filter that automatically darkens based on ambient light, which gives the lenses a brownish tint. I don't particularly enjoy the world around me always having that brown tint, but it is what it is. You can compare this to photography with an improperly set white balance. Outdoors during the day I wear sunglasses pretty much 100% of the time, even when it's overcast and/or raining. Even clouds can really hurt my eyes (it physically hurts but doesn't damage my eyes as far as I know). So while other people's opinion on the need for a helmet visor in DCS visor can range from "it's a useless gimmick" to "it would be nice to have to combat sun glare when flying straight into the sun so we can read our HUDs", for me it is more than that: bad things happen if I fly a module without sun visor for longer than 5 minutes. A few years ago, before ED overhauled the lighting engine, this wasn't much of a problem, since with low enough gamma setting in DCS (I flew with gamma at 1.6) I could fly just fine. But now with the revised lighting (which is obviously a huge improvement and much more true-to-life), lowering the gamma messes up all colours and the in-cockpit visibility. I'm sure that people can remember a few years ago when ED started overhauling the lighting, people commented on being able to set correct lighting inside the cockpit OR for the outside world, but never both at the same time. Since then it was especially Heatblur that has been stating that they colour correct their modules for Gamma 2.2, since that is the "correct" setting in DCS if you want colours to display correctly (there have been lots of people complaining about cockpits being too dark (recently in the F-4), those were likely using too low gamma). Now allow me to explain what happens if I fly any visor-less DCS module for longer than a few minutes in daylight conditions. After about 5-10 minutes, I start developing a headache. If I continue flying, that headache gets worse. After about an hour, nausea kicks in and that gets so bad I need to throw up (I mean really run to the bathroom and physically throw up). I have been flying in VR exclusively in DCS for about 7 years now, and never had an issue with the motion sickness some people complain about, so my headaches and nausea are purely a result of the outside-of-the-cockpit world of DCS being too bright for my eyes to handle. This results in me exclusively flying DCS modules with visors. Sure, I might take out others for a quick spin but only for a few minutes at a time unless I set the mission time-of-day at early morning or late evening (or night obviously). So with this post I'd like to politely ask ED and 3rd parties to consider bumping up the priority for working visors in their modules. RL pilot helmets have it, for the much of the same reasons why we need it in-game (particularly in VR, I can imagine this not being such an issue in 2D). And since the in-game pilot models often are shown with lowered visor, this should be by default enabled (including shader effects) for all DCS modules - at least those more recent than WW2 with the latter probably using a sunglasses option instead. In more recent ED modules, the keybinds for raising/lowering the visor are there, including pilot animations but they don't actually do anything. When people point that out, their posts get moved from Bug Reports to Wishlist instead... So why not complete that work that has clearly already begun? Cheers for reading and considering. Kind regards, Raven. P.S. I'll leave you with a few examples: https://steamcommunity.com/app/223750/discussions/0/1643167006282305800/?l=turkish

Hello, I purchased the Afghanistan map directly on release and as many others, I immediately noticed the "patchwork" character of the map. Large areas with very low detail and smaller "patches" with very high detailed textures are located directly next to each other without transition. These patchwork patterns can be found all over the place. Also there were/are lots of LOD issues where the terrain literally "moves" up and down when you come closer to an area, which feels strange, of course. Yesterday I saw first content from the new Iraq map and I was wondering that - besides that there are areas on the map, that lack content (buildings/vegetation) - I didn't notice any of the issues from Afghanistan (or far less). All parts of the map that I saw (finished or unfinished) share much more equal texture quality of ground textures with additional layers for terrain details and vegetation. The overall quality seems a lot better and - way more consistent across the map. This causes some questions: Why is the quality of the initial releases of these two maps (both developed by ED) so different? ED told us, that both maps are developed in parallel by two separate teams. Both maps are nearly of the same size. Both maps are located in the same region of the globe with similar terrain and they probably sharing a lot of assets. Why still can't ED tell their customers, 6 months after release, about WHEN Afghanistan will get its first update and WHAT we can expect in terms of improved quality for the southwest regionand what is EDs visual goal in terms of detail and quality for these new maps? I think we can expect that both teams have access to the same tools and techniques for map creation, right? Why did Afghanistan even get released in its state while these issues were clearly visible, not only compared to Iraq but also compared to maps from third-party developers, e.g. the Sinai map? As a purchaser of the Afghanistan map the lack of information from ED, the fact that maps like Kola already received several updates across the year and finally Iraq map beeing released and in a better state even before Afghanistan gets any fixes/updates (and most likely not before February 2025) doesn't feel good. Thanks for listening.

I purchased Afghanistan and at first I thought it was average but after setting up a few missions on there with various aircraft I actually enjoy it. I thought Kola was going to be the best map ever...I was a bit disappointed and still am. But Iraq, although a lot of it is quite flat, is absolutely stunning. If every part of that map was modelled (Kuwait, Iran, East Syria etc etc etc) I wouldn't see any reason for any other maps to exist. We now have a playground full of history and recent stories where a majority of the released aircraft have been used in action. Countless sorties to re-enact etc etc. Well worth the money for me, I can see this map being the new king. Well done ED team, you don't get enough credit with this moany community. Just tell us its Fulda and we will be quiet

You won't have to wait too long.

We have two free maps with a third on the way. Please dont derail this thread with pricing discussion, keep it for Iraq feedback. Thank you

It seems that the latest patch shuffled the order of launch for aircraft groups on the flight deck. They'll happily taxi through each other though, so it's mostly a visual displeasure. We're investigating. Cheers, TeTeT

If a player believes a map is too expensive, it would be great DCS could provide the option to fly on free maps, different areas of course, one lets say with high mountains, and the other mostly ocean with islands, even online, even with other players using different modules without having to buy everything. I guess that would be a popular option for online like you said. But one only can wish huh.

Не, я после афганистана решил что лучше я заплачу полную сумму, но буду уверен что локация получилась хорошая. С Афганистаном проходили и там пока ничего не изменилось. P.S. Впечатления владельцев по Ираку с удовольствием почитаю, в сравнении с Афганистаном и Сирией как вариант. Заранее спасибо!

Map looks good and I love the terrain textures. It can only get better, so I think it will be one of the best maps, when it’s finished.

You could also wait for final release to choose buying or not; it´s ok. both options are valid.

Make sure to read here as well, it explains the textures down low. To explain a little more the focus has been the textures from elevation right now, up high, It's one of the better-looking maps in our opinion, we are currently working on down low improving those textures, even Afghanistan in the upcoming update is working on smoothing out those transitions you talked about. And this is directed at all, it is Early Access so if you are here trying to diced if you want it, understand that there are things still needing work, some things need a lot of work, I have been staring at Iraq and providing much feedback, I have joked I stared at Iraq more than the Bush family so far. It will get there, but again its Early Access if that journey is not for you, then maybe wait. its ok.

I've already spent some time, of course not much so far but I can see progress in relation to Afghanistan and I think it's quite good. Of course you have to remember that photo textures will never look like those created by hand (e.g. Syria) unless the map, instead of 111G, had 1TB but it is better. What is important, and what I suspected it would be, is that they abandoned the "sticker" texture in favor of a "sticker" but not with sharp edges. Now we have smooth png transitions, which makes it seem more natural and less noticeable. This is a nice change and I suspect that these changes are what the current approach to the Afghanistan map is all about. In general, my first contact is positive and I certainly do not regret buying it. In general I am happy and I consider the change to be better, plus of course you have to take into account that the texture will not always be super resolution, it is a compromise to save space. But if you accept it, the map is for you. The map is also quite diverse, from flat desert areas to green mountainous with lots of hills. This gives it quite a wide range of uses for different missions. There currently seems to be no AI traffic, or at least I haven't noticed (EA, although Afghanistan had traffic from the beginning). Sometimes I would see FPS drops in densely built-up areas (alternatively, changing LOD to 50% returns max. FPS in VR, and that's the only way I fly).

Early Access Known Issues and Development As with all early access products Iraq gives you access to the map as it develops, as such some items are still being worked on and developed. The following items are work that is ongoing or will be delivered during Early Access: Hand-crafted terrain around airfields and POI (points of interest). More unique models specific to the region Tuning of draw distances and object LODs Addition POIs, including but not limited, Oil Processing Plants, Power Infrastructure, Hospitals, etc Improved Roads and Road Networks, including bridges and waterways Some Airfield parking and/or layouts may change or be adjusted Please also note the look of the ground textures from around 750 ft to 2,500 ft. Below 750 ft, the ground clutter hides the lower-resolution ground textures compared to hand-drawn art. Above 2,500 ft, I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find a more realistic-looking map. It’s this in-between area that can look odd given the resolution and normal map shadows. It is something we are looking to improve though new tech as well as hand-crafted terrain textures where suitable.

Could we get the TEDAC export script adjusted so it turns off when exiting the GPG seat? - Currently both MFD’s will turn on/off/ change to the appropriate seat using the native LEFT/RIGHT_MFCD.. good. Issues: 1. TEDAC, when exported natively by “CENTER_MFCD” or “TEDAC” is off when initially in the pilot seat-correct, turns on when switching to CPG seat-correct, but when you switch back to the Pilot seat it remains visible-not correct. 2. TEDAC Brightness and Contrast buttons do not affect the exported display in Video mode as would be expected. However in FLIR mode, Gain and Level knob do adjust it. -….as a bonus if you could please add the EUFD viewports as native exports, that’d be great Oops, just noticed the on/off bug and brightness has been reported and acknowledged already…apologies for the double post.. still important to many of us, regardless

So, after a day of intensive testing after work, I would like to give a brief contribution to the evaluation of the DCS Iraq map. Appropriately, I am currently in Arbil on official business with the German Air Force, which is also part of the map that has just been released. In short, the city with its centralized ring layout is beautifully implemented in DCS, I can actually confirm that here and now. ;-D To be more precise, the entire map is actually a statement that speaks for DCS and its future development. Take a look at Lake Thartar. Simply brilliant. The map shows a new technology that is unparalleled. You have depressions, you have ravines and mountain valleys... plus slight elevations and depressions in the terrain. Plus the sensational, new fog system, which creates a simply beautifully implemented atmosphere even in the AUTO setting. Everything is there. And everything is implemented in a way that has never been seen before. I have never seen anything like it outside of military simulators. And the performance is still absolutely top class. My computer will be 4 years old next year. Time to upgrade, sure, I know. Nevertheless, DCS in the current version, but especially Iraq, runs beautifully smoothly on my computer. Please just look at the region between Iran, Suleimaniyah, Kirkuk, Arbil, Bashuhr and Mosul. It simply cannot be better. That's a 10/10. Sure, the map still has a way to go, I don't want to fool anyone there. But it is already a definite recommendation. Clear points of criticism here are night lighting, the road network and transitions in the landscape. The water color of rivers cannot stay the same either. The water color needs to be programmed to be more of a green-brown color. But what can I say... videos say more than words. So please just watch the performance yourself in my video, I have prepared a somewhat longer video for you that should actually cover all questions about performance. My specs are pretty much rubbish these days...the computer is an I9-10900 with 32 GB, plus an RTX 3060 and luckily an extremely fast Samsung NVMe with 4TB. The performance is really good though. But please take a look yourself...here is the link (it's currently uploading, so Full HD might be available a little bit later. Thx for your patience. ;-D) : https://youtu.be/Xyo7mCy44sc **Edit: In the video I fly the Mirage 2000C. ED, if I had one request and one Christmas wish for you, then please ensure that this module is never restricted in its range of functions, but remains exactly as it is now. Please take care of this, no matter how the situation with Razbam develops. Thank you.**

Are there really no airfields planned in Iran? The Iran-Iraq war was "THE" conflict in this region in the 1980s. Without Iran airfields, it becomes pretty pointless to create such missions.

Каждому своё. В 2D-игры я наигрался в 1990-е.

Agree with Stratos, it really needs some more fields in western Iran. Considering most the aircraft from the Iran-Iraq war are in game this seems like a missed opportunity. That being said, thanks ED for listening to feedback and planning to include Qatar, Saudi and Kuwaiti fields. Now if we can get some in western Iran this becomes a must buy. Thanks for considering.

Credit where credit is due. For EA and even without, the map is well conceived. I am most definately NOT a fan of photo imagery but, in this case, its all too apparent negative effects are mitigated quite well. Room for improvement for sure (to many flat bunds are apparent for instance) but not so much I makes me curse under my breath as other recent maps do. Bush pop also seems to have been carefully considered and seems much less of an issue in Iraq from the few hours Ive spent on it. Mountain topography is a highlight for me as. I think its mentioned above that its better than other maps due to tech moving on but Id disagree given tech doesnt move on so quicky that maps released 6 months ago wouldnt have also benefitted if the will to do it had been there. Clearly whoever is in charge of Iraq made better initial descisions than those in charge of Afghanistan and Kola in this regard. If anything though, it highlights the fact that it can be done and perhaps leaves those other maps with a little less room for excuses. As pointed out in the "Read this First" post, Im also pleased to see some consideration for Helo customers this time around. Sure much of the naffness of the photo terrain is obsucred by clutter but, at the heights I use helos at, thats fine by me. The places where that falls down slightly are the aforementioned bunds but again one has to be be looking to be affected to the point of distraction. I wont go as far as some in declaring this the best map. Syria still holds that crown for me and whilst its had several years of development it should be recognised that development it has had. Time will tell if Iraq matures out to be something more that an empty map with life only around airfields. My view is it would be a shame not exploit its potential, especially given this good a start but, dev costs money so Im holding no breath.

Ok, so IRL pilots having visors is just an "accessibility" feature and they don't need it? Do you guys honestly never use visors when playing DCS? It's not about monitors image brightness being too high, it's for when you are flying in DCS, on a sunny day where the sun is almost blinding to the point you can't see HUD. Plop down a visor and you can see better. Did you try that feature on any of the aircraft in DCS that supports it? If you did, can you still argue that there's no benefit of having such visors in DCS? Yes, OP is using his IRL problems to further drive the point, but the root problem is that the visors are not implemented in most of the modules in DCS where they should be and it has an actual gameplay value! I can see stuff in the air way better when having the visor down, however sometimes I have to lift the visor to see the stuff on the ground better as the sun is not in a way there.

You missed the point by a mile. OP just describes, in a very detailed way (nothing wrong with it, better this way as it drives the point more), why the visors are needed for every module, not just a select few. I mean, you have a visor on your 3D model of a pilot, but it's not functional. So "simply" make it functional, that's it. I fully agree with OPs point, I love the visor on the KW, wish the other modules (mostly ED ones) would implement it as well and have it required as the standard.

To be honest the liveries situation is what is holding me off from buying and installing the module right now. Thing is, I haven't installed any repaints for F-5, and I still have (in my vanilla game) something like 20 liveries for USA, 16 for Switzerland, and a dozen or two spread between other countries: Iran, Greece, Turkey, Norway, each have several, other operators at least one. And now we're swapping all this for 7 liveries in total, with a promise for 5 more coming "soon" in some undefined future... that doesn't sound like an upgrade. I really wish ED reversed their priorities and put those 7000 (or whatever) manhours into remodelling the cockpit and just bumping exterior textures, instead of remodelling the exterior and just bumping interior textures. More than 95% of my time in DCS is spent in the cockpit view. Couldn't care less for 3D ammo feeds and opening service hatches. Ah well, not the first puzzling decision from ED in 2024.

Wow. Very nice Spent 1 hour flying over Bagdad in the Kiowa tonight Detail in buildings and scenes and variety of structures is nothing short of spectacular still needs a good deal optimisation from a performance perspective but very impressive even on first launch. This is going to be one of EDs best maps in time gkad I bought it my humble opinion

Health first sir. I hope you are doing better.

Are we going to get any bases in Saudi Arabia? Can't imagine a Desert Strom campaign without some air bases in SA, like Al Jouf from which all it began. We don't need detailed region with villages and stuff but at least two air bases in Saudi Arabia would really help to make a proper Desert Storm campaign

Imagine having the option for not paying upfront, if you as a customer, dislikes the uncertainty of early access.

So, the people who bought Afghanistan Map just dind't get lucky with the team assigned to the project? I hope the update comes soon.

Hi saltyleon, as mentioned there are two different teams for Afghanistan and Iraq, there will be artistic differences in the way the terrain is developed. We are very close to giving you all an update on Afghanistan. As early access progresses for both we will continue to see improvements and additions to each terrain, that will take some time and Afghanistan has taken longer than expected for the first major update so apologies for that. I hope you will think the update is worth it when it arrives. thank you

What about some airports in Iran? so we can replicate the 1980/1988 Iran-Iraq war?

There is only one explanation for this: since the release of the Afghanistan map, e.d has concentrated its manpower on making the Iraq map. The price paid is that the Afghanistan map has not been updated so far. This is embarrassing for customers who purchase the Afghanistan map.

So now ED has released the Iraq map but NOTHING in the changelog for any updates to the Afghanistan map...serious!?!? This seems like playing a joke with customers who paid months ago. I will not be surprised if the reason given is that it's a different team. Still the delay was because some core tech had to be updated to improve the rendering for all new maps right..?

'Interactive movie' is actually a very good expression. I've been pretty upfront about this too. As I said it's my most heavily scripted campaign, brought to you by several real life Naval Aviators so that we can experience what it's like. Thousands before you have played along and said they had the best sim experience ever. But again, we have different tastes. The other end of the scale would be 'MiG Killers' for example, where it's totally randomized, any combination of outcomes is possible. But: it's only possible in a very sterile/ isolated scenario, that is NOT part of a bigger storyline. It's training. Well, if you don't read the briefings that tell you "make sure external sounds" are enabled in your settings, you won't hear any sounds

nullultra

Hello Pope....lol

I bought the Iraq map to support ED and I'm sure it will become even better in the future.

And above all, Congratulations ED on its release! I honestly did not expect this today, in fact, there were some voices that the map would not appear in 2024, and here is such a surprise when I got back from work! Just wow! Now we have something to do and somewhere to fly. The textures in the desert look great, they are also quite diverse and it looks very realistic (MiG-21bis flight, of course in Iraqi repaint ).

XX:\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta Server\bin\DCS_Updater.exe install IRAQ_terrain

DCS 2.9.10.4160 Introduced a new terrain module: DCS: Iraq map by Eagle Dynamics Introduced a new terrain module: DCS: Iraq North map by Eagle Dynamics DCS - Core Resource manager. Warehouse resources dynamically changed by SetItem() don't synchronise for a new client - fixed. VR. VR controllers disappear after selecting the VR tab in settings - fixed. DCS: CH-47F by Eagle Dynamics Fixed. Engines cease operation when a second crew member takes a seat in the hot helicopter. DCS: Supercarrier by Eagle Dynamics Flares are launched when a player disrupts air traffic control and attempts to land without permission - Disabled. DCS Mirage F1 by Aerges Systems: FON light now briefly turns on when starting the engine. F1BE: fixed rear cockpit Standby Horizon indicator initialization with 'Solo Flight' option enabled. F1EE: Fixed nonoperating lights of the Barax control panel. F1BE rear seat 'fuselage tanks selected' light on the fuel quantity gauge was made operational. F1BE. Fixed bug with some lights staying lit at the rear seat without electric power being available. Fixed navigation and formation lights not working in multiplayer for flyable aircraft. Adjusted power on/off dynamics of navigation/formation lights. Adjusted visual look of the landing/taxi light cones. Fixed search light (police light) cone direction - 45º for single seater and and 22º for two seater. Fixed blank radar screen, when '(C+M or SW) R' mode is enabled, and radar modes other than 'HA', 'IC' or 'TEL'/'BZP' are selected. Now the radar will stay in 'IC' mode with '(C+M or SW) R' enabled. F1BE: Fixed radar render in multimonitor configuration. The radar now correctly sets the 'emission active' flag (it is used by AI for emission detection). Radio and navigation: Fixed not operating test function in TRAP-136 ('Green') radio. Fixed a bug with inability to communicate with a radio station via TRAP-137B, when the attempted frequency is the same as of the preset channel 20. Fixed IDN TACAN flag not showing when TACAN signal is lost. Fixed IDN VOR flag not showing when signal is lost. Fixed IDN TACAN distance showing a non-zero value under the flag when TACAN distance is not available. IDN TACAN bearing now stays at the last known value, when the TACAN station is not received. Input: Fixed not working Monitoring Light 'push' (light test) and 'rotate' (light brightness) actions of the old IFF panel variant. The lights brightness potentiometers of both IFF panels versions are initialized at maximum brightness now (previously was 0). F1BE TRAP-137B ('Red') front seat radio can't be reached from the rear seat anymore. Both radios preset channels animation is now in sync with the corresponding channel selectors animation. Manual gravity drop thumbwheel animation was fixed. Manual gravity drop thumbwheel animation is now accelerated with time when it is set by 'Decrease/Increase' input commands. Fixed 'TACAN mode selector Clockwise/Counterclockwise' commands not reacting on input when the selector has reached OFF or A/A position. F1EE Navigational Indicator 'Additional vector bearing/distance adjustment' switch results now in accelerated bearing/distance change when it is held pressed. Textures and 3D models: Fixed landing gear wheels animation of the single seater. General: Replaced custom Belouga BLG66 bombs by DCS standard ones. Added Belouga BLG66 bomb to AUF-2 bomb rack. F1 C-200 (AI) can now carry the BARAX pod. AI now uses bottom strobe and orange tail navigation lights (white tail light will be never though visible as AI uses only steady nav lights pattern). AI now sets formation light brightness according to the current day of time. Improved taxi, takeoff and climb training mission: Forced realistic comms, added instruction to press U + V pushbutton, IFF mode 4 forced not installed and modified several trigger messages. Updated Flight Manual - F1EE IDN description and table. Minor visual fixes in the module Special Options menu. Fixed F1BE Solo Flight checkbox position in ME UI. DCS: C-101 Aviojet by AvioDev Improved textures of the following bombs: BLG66 BR-250 BR-500 BIN-200 Campaigns DCS: UH-1H The Huey Last Show Campaign by SorelRo Subtitles added to all radio communications and crew chat F-4E updated to the latest F-4E AI Time compression stop during the voice communication Other AI updates DCS: F-16C The Gamblers Campaign by Baltic Dragon Mission 01: fixed issue with flight lead diverting and not landing at H4. Mission 03: added a note to prevent players from using GBU in certain scenarios which could lead to mission stalling. Mission 06: updated the skin for Jordanian F-16s

Having just completed a PvE campaign with vCVW-17 on Kola map, one thing that could have added to the diversity of targets would have been Army bridging units; many of our targets were bridges to limit or slow the Russian advance. In reality the Russian forces would have had dedicated bridging units deployed to mitigate the effect of these strikes, and it would have been cool to have Pontoon bridge objects available to place next to these after a period of time to simulate the Russian forces putting these in place. For the PMP from my research it appears that the BMK-130 boat and variations on the KraZ-255 were used. BMK-130: https://mortarinvestments.eu/catalog/item/bmk-130m-russian-boat? KrAZ-255: