wiwa23

Well I'll leave that to the ones with the real expertize and really qualified to judge including justifying resources which is Ugra Media. I like to believe in opportunities first and still believe I have a strong argument to make this happen. Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. It's up to Ugra Media.

Well, I'll explain. My answer is twofold: 1. As you noted yourself not all bases are included in the area of higher detail (Geilenkirchen for example). So I am not sure 'we're getting those'. So I named just a few (imported ones), even those that could be included in phase 3 to point them out. Furthermore, Leeuwarden like you mentioned is not included in phase 3 which would be a real shame. Weelde and Gilze rijen are on the borders of phase 3, so not sure about those either. Actually Kleine Brogel, Volkel and Soesterberg are all on the borders that Ugra Media has planned to work out in higher detail. But surely hoping these are all included. See attached picture. 2. But aside from the quantity of bases the biggest argument is that of it making a cold war map that is even more complete with regards of historical relevance and gameplay potential including possibilities of carrier ops from the West. All this with a relative small extra to do. Not saying it doens't costs resources and still would be some work. I am aware and appreciatie the amount of work UgraMedia is doing. So based on earlier announcement of Ugra Media this is how I would love to see it extend to the West.

Exactly, and good point! Probably there will be more to think of that is in favor for the argument to include the Low Countries as a whole: - The many airbases that hosts a meaningful USAF department (even with a Nuclear role like Kleine Brogel and Volkel). - The Airbases that support the military cargo role (with upcoming C130!) like Eindhoven and Melsbroek. - A relatively small area with lots of relevant military installations. - As UgraMedia was planning to include half of those countries it is a relatively small area to add with a huge benefit in extra options.

First and foremost, I want to thank Ugra Media for their exceptional work on the Germany Cold War map for DCS. The level of detail and historical accuracy they've achieved is truly outstanding, and it brings the Cold War era to life in a way that captivates both history enthusiasts and flight simulation fans alike. A very well done and hopefull Early acces release if you ask me. As a passionate supporter of Ugra Media and their work, I would like to propose a suggestion that I believe would enhance the map’s realism, historical relevance, and gameplay potential: expanding the current project to fully include both the Netherlands and Belgium. Here are several compelling reasons to consider this expansion: 1. Historical Relevance in the Cold War Context: During the Cold War, both the Netherlands and Belgium were of significant strategic importance. These nations hosted key NATO military bases, radar installations, and airfields critical to defense operations. And let's not forget the fact the NATO headquarters is hosted in Brussels (since 1967). Incorporating these regions would provide players with an even more comprehensive understanding of the geopolitical situation of the era. 2. Military Installations: Notable Cold War-era bases in the Netherlands (such as Volkel, Leeuwarden, Twente and Soesterberg Air Bases) and Belgium (such as Kleine Brogel, Florennes, Chievres and Beauvechain) played vital roles in NATO's defensive strategies. Including these bases would enrich mission creation possibilities for users, offering more diverse operational scenarios. Also it would give an opportunity to inlcude two training ranges which where used very extensively by NATO airforces. I'm referring to Vliehors/Cornfiled range at Vlieland (Island of the coast of the Northern Netherlands) and Pampa range (Houthalen helchteren a couple of miles South of Kleine Brogel airbase). 3. North Sea Carrier Operations: The proximity of the Low Countries to the North Sea presents unique opportunities for carrier-based operations and naval-air interactions from the West (in welcome addition to those from the North). This would add a dynamic new dimension to the map’s potential, catering to those who enjoy complex and multifaceted missions. 4. Broader Appeal and Immersion: Fully integrating the Low Countries into the map would appeal to an even larger audience, especially users from these regions who have a personal connection to the history being depicted. A substantial part from this region is an active part of the DCS community. It would surely enhance the overall immersion by providing a seamless and expansive theater for Cold War-era simulations. Expanding the map to include the entirety of the Netherlands and Belgium would not only add depth to the project but also solidify its status as a definitive Cold War theater in DCS. I trust in Ugra Media's vision and capabilities as developers, and I am confident they will elevate the Germany Cold War map to even greater heights during the upcoming phases of development, hopefully by inlcuding the Low Countries as a whole. I truly hope Ugra Media is considering this suggestion. Wiwa

Still I hope that we can still see the difference here between a 'workaround' and a 'solution'. As such all the socalled 'solutions' I see here are just 'workarounds'. As such this topic has the wrong tag on it. I hope we can find a real solution in the form of a corrected flight model that seriously adresses the issue and not putting it away with a workaround. In short: - No, flaps/ballooning behavior is not implemented correctly at this point. - yes I am aware of the workaround (not the solution) method of deploying flaps at lower speeds. - yes for me it matters because I love realism and especially around the boat the procedures (case 1 overhead break into pattern for example) is such thet the current flap behaviour requires more workarounds... (Deploying flaps later alters the turn radius, etc. Those who fly case 1 procedures know what I mean). - If the previous point doesn't matter to you than I can imagine a workaround is enough for you.

It's just so annoying. A hornet for years and years in early acces with a promise for a reworked flight model. Then finally it gets out of early acces (silently) with a reworked flight model ... but still not finished with an even bigger flaw of this flap issue. It's totally unrealistic and just hard to work with. After all this years I still balloon to the moon with the hornet when selecting full flaps. And now, more annoyingly, you almost lose pitch authority (down) when in full flaps. Pitch authority degrades with each step of flaps selection. I just feel so hopeless and frustrated that not only this issue has made things worse but the endless waiting for a solution. There are modules being made in the mean time with flight model built from the ground up...but correcting this takes forever without an apparent aknowledgement of the problem. Sorry to complain but it really is so frustrating for a thing I/we love so dearly.

But a thing that I don't get, and maybe it's my own faulty expectations, is that this issue was supposed to be fixed in the latest FM update, right? But actually, the ballooning still exists. Now the question is, how long will this take to get fixed...again a tipically loooong time I'm afraid...

Hello, I am confused with latest update regarding tdc functionality. Yesterday my whole virtual squadron was celebrating because we thought the different slew rates across different sensors (rdr vs sa page) was fixed, finally. I am referring to "fixed: sa page tdc acts differently from rdr attk and az/el..." But sadly I noticed no difference and was disappointed to notice the still apparent and annoyingly different slew rates of the cursor. Did I miss anything or misinterpreted the patch note? Thanks, Wiwa

Oh lord. We are talking about an update of a module before it is fully released/out of early acces. Not blaming the request btw but seeing the irony of the way things are nowadays.

It definitely is more sensitive, probably way more realistic. But I've read many reports by many about damaging the gear and a lot of them talk about being on speed, descent rate and stuff but a lot of them don't mention the weight (below 34000 for carrier trap, Below 39000 for flared field landing). In my experience it works pretty well this way. Should do more testing but it feels that it is ok like this. Maybe a bit to sensitive? Maybe crosswinds make it more prone for breaking?

For some time the AB is not working always when launching from the carrier. After testing both online and in SP I can confirm this: 1. AB works when you go AB BEFORE pressing the salute key. 2. AB doesn't work when going AB AFTER pressing salute key. included track files can confirm this. It's not a binding issue ( I can confirm in the track as AB works when leaving the deck). AB doens't work AFTER pressing salute.trk AB works BEFORE pressing salute.trk

Holy smokes, just found the topic you probably meant. So many people having issues with this (also with my buddies of my virtual squadron). Taking into account the fact that it involes so much hardware variables I could not believe what I read in that topic! Why you would not make it adjustable/optionable just for the sake of your costumers is beyound me... I mean ED has that special option for slewing Mavericks as well (depress or not while slewing). That in itself is a perfect example of how to provide the best option for your costomer with respect for realism and practicality. But with this topic many are screaming against a wall that just isn't listening. Very weird, sad and frustrating to read. And just like that it was decided to close the topic... I am baffled.

Hello, As of now the cursor of the SA page and Radar are not matching eachother regarding sensitivity. I Like the way the SA page cursor works but find the radar cursor way to sensitive and very hard to make precise adjustments. If I adjust the Radar cursor (axis tuning) then I find the SA page cursor is way to slow. This inbalance seems not right and is very frustrating to work with. For example the F16 cursor is more on the same level across the different sensors and works just fine. This seems more the way it should be working. What happened, it used to be good in the past? Is there a way to make it balanced again? Are there any plans to fix this? Please allow me to use the word "fix" as I have the strong impression it just should not be like this. Regards!

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.'

Yes this is a good tip. Remember that the speed brakes are extended when doing a cold start. It is easily forgotten to retract them... And you could be extending them by accident as well of course... With this loadout passing mach 1 (and reaching Mach 1.4)should be no problem in level flight at FL250.

Thanks for your reply. I regret these immersion breaking solutions but toally understand why you did it. More due to one of these DCS limitations. It's a shame though, all those incredible cool end complex modules, every year... but missions are still breaking due to core engine issues like AI wingmen not reliable to do stuff like AAR. Anyway, thanks again and I know for sure I'll have fun with your amazing work!

Hello ChillNG, Thanks for your work! It's obvious you went all the way with this and it is very much appreciated. I bought it a few days ago and I'm looking forward to it! Just scanning through the very well made docs. Reading through the welcome doc I have a question regarding the following statement: "... all missions are completable without AAR. Some missions later in the campaign take place in two parts, with part one ending at the tanker and part two resuming after AAR takes place. This means the player (and more importantly the AI) will not have to refuel as well as providing a checkpoint before the action begins. However, should you wish to refuel manually, you're still able to contact the tanker through the default comms menu and do so." Question: If we as a player choose to do AAR can we proceed with the mission without restarting p2? Thanks! Wiwa

EDIT! PROBLEM SOLVED! (Man... so frustrating... I More than triple checked the instructions and the location of the folders but somehow it just doesn’t work. What else could it be?) Hehe...stupid thing that caused this... my notepad window of the readme cut of a piece. Therefore I missed the part 'mods' in the "C:\Users\YOURNAME\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta (Or just DCS World if on stable)\Mods" description. So I have put the tech folder in the wrong location... ok... a bit embaressed here ... But very glad I solved it because the mig 21 surely feels complete with this mod! This way it complements the overall excellent module! It really should be implemented as standard... the default sounds really don't do it justice... Anyway thanks again!

Thanks for your reply. I will check again but I'm quite certain I put them in the right place...or am I going crazy? So strange...

Hello, Thanks for your work! Sadly, somehow I just can't get it to work. All sound are still the horrible immersion breaking default ones. I really think I placed the folders in the right directories. Does it might have something to do with the fact I didn't install DC on my c drive? Therefore the path C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta is different in my case. For the root folder in my case it is...G:/DCS World OpenBeta. Thanks in advance.

Yes thanks! I already had read it but need to truly investigate further so I understand what numbers to put where...

Oh yes, you told me before. Here is the full log! dcs.log

And I'm grateful for your time and expertise, thanks! I will send the reports if I have the chance. The last couple of crashes didn't allow me due to DCS shutting dow ompletely. Included is the latest crash log... actually there were two of them of the same event. This is the latest. dcs.20220218-171904.crash

Hello Maximov Thanks for the tip. Im a bit confused. So you say I should change the c drive (Windows install) to 20-25. But when I look at my G Extra SSD drive I See 'none' ('geen' in Dutch)'. DCS is installed on my G drive... Shouldn't I allocate a value to that drive as well? The way I did it in the screenshot (20-25 c drive) resulted in crashing as well. Sorry for the questions just not fully understaning this. I included a screenshot of the settings to avoid confusion. Anyway thanks! Wiwa

Hello, thanks to all the replies! So adjusting the page files might resolve the issue, right? Because it seems to be memory related, even though I have 32gigRAM which should be enough, right? Anyway, thanks for the help and the effort for looking into it!