Sandman24

Thanks for the suggestion! I think I fixed it and you certainly put me on the right track. So here's what happened: On waypoint #1, the first airborne waypoint after the start, there used to be a 'CAP -a -ref' action which the mission editor put there by default. This, apparently, got ignored in case the airplane starts as 'uncontrolled'. I then replaced this action by a 'Search then engage group', pointing to the B17 group, as you suggested. This worked, except I wanted the task to be a proper CAP, not a designated attack on a specific target. Next I replaced the 'Search then engage group' again by a 'CAP' action. So same as it was, except without the '-a -ref'. And now it worked! It properly engages the B17 even though I didn't tell it to specifically attack that target. What I think is that the '-a -ref' addition means that it's a repitition of the original CAP task it got at mission start, except this got ignored. By telling it to 'CAP' without this addition, it counts as a new command. So in summary, for anyone running into this problem in future: if you want a CAP group to have a delayed start using 'uncontrolled', make sure to remove the 'CAP -a -ref' at the first waypoint and replace it by 'CAP'. Thanks again for looking into it!

Hi, not sure if this is a bug or if I'm doing something wrong. But in the attached mission I placed an uncontrolled AI aircraft (Fw190) that has a delayed start after 30 seconds. It then takes off with a CAP mission towards an approaching B17. However, it completely ignores the incoming aircraft and refuses to engage. If I deselect 'uncontrolled' and let the aircraft start without delay, it will intercept the B17 though. Is there a way to make uncontrolled (i.e., delayed start) aircraft engage? Thanks for looking into this. main.miz

Currently the bombs I drop myself (both 250 and 500lb) fail to detonate, regardless of fuse setting. Did anything change in the last update? Anyone else experiences this?

Very nice addition of the new airfields – thanks a lot for adding those! Will the general quality of the 'low detail' area be addressed soon too? Dover Castle is still missing, for example. I have the impression that in general the detail is less in the north-east. And how about other airfields such as Hawkinge and Eastchurch?

Haven't heard from @Barthek in a while. I secretly hope this means he finally got hired by Ugra and is no longer allowed to tell us that he is upgrading the official textures of the Normandy 2 map... though that could be wishful thinking.

Is this being looked into? At the moment the runway is all tilted and has this sharp wall along the eastern edge. You can barely take-off safely. It's a real pity, as this airfield is used on the 4YA Overlord server. Shouldn't be too difficult to fix, I suppose?

Pity. With possible cheats, do you mean that someone would install custom textures so they can fight against a bright purple 109 over a white landscape? I doubt that many players will go that length. And if they do, let them score a few kills that way; their fun will wear off soon enough. My take on it is that multiplayer DCS is not an olympic sport that needs to be monitored in detail. Different players come with vastly different PC specs and input equipment, so it will never be fully fair no matter what you do. Rather, I would try to offer an experience that is as realistic as possible; that's what most WWII simmers are looking for. And mods really can help a lot there: they exist for a reason. Anyhow, just my two cents. Thanks for the reply!

Is there any chance to lift the texture requirements on this server? Many people use improved textures on the Normandy map (such as Barthek's), which look so much better. I would love to be able to use those on this server.

Hi @Barthek, I was wondering if you are still working on spring and/or fall textures. Would love to see those at some point. I hope I don't come across as impatient, that's not my intention. Love the work you are doing!

Well, not really: Normandy is a different map. He is asking for the Vivid Channel mod. But as far as I understand, this has been discontinued since the new Normandy map came out.

Those last screens look really beautiful Barthek! Can't wait to try this out. Thanks so much for your effort.

Not a huge deal, but there is a nasty bump at the north-eastern end of the runway at Deanland. Like the tail of a hill sticking out onto the runway. Makes for rather dangerous takeoffs and landings. Perhaps you can send some guys out with shovels to level the runway . In addition, I noticed two things with civilian traffic that I suspect are general DCS issues and not unique to the Normandy map, but still: I saw a steam train run backwards and a (moving) ship on the Thames without a stern wake.

Wow, I didn't know I was so fluent in Spanish By the way, there was an earlier post about the number of yellow fields being excessive. I don't think it's that bad. This satellite image is from just north of Le Havre. It does vary a lot though throughout the region: some areas are much less 'yellow' than this.

Agree, it's somewhat illogical. The reasoning seems to be that nobody will buy the Channel map if the full region of the Channel map is already covered in high detail in a different map. Fair enough, but frankly, in the current state I suppose not many people will buy the Channel map anyhow, the Normandy map being so much larger and more advanced. Perhaps, if at some point ED decides to expand the Channel map to Belgium/Holland, people will be interested in buying it again. But in that situation, they won't be buying it because of Biggin Hill or Dover Castle, but because of Belgium/Holland. Also, if they decide to expand the Channel map, by their own reasoning they will not be allowed to cover London, since it is already in the Normandy map. So yeah, not very logical indeed.

Looks amazing; can't wait for it! Quick question about the seasons: does N2 currently have no winter textures at all, or are the winter textures identical to the autumn/spring ones? In other words, are there only three sets of textures, or four out of which two are identical? In the latter case, @Barthek could implement winter textures after all. Though I suppose you would have to do something about the trees as well in that case. Speaking of which, are there plans to have a Better Trees mod for N2?

Well, if I did that, there would suddenly be three map developers contending for the same region. How would that solve anything? Look, I think we got off on the wrong foot. I am just trying to make a fair point, which as far as I can tell was not yet explicitly made. My point is that the decision not to let Ugra expand to the Channel region is 100% a business choice. If ED wanted, they could allow them to model that part tomorrow, no further technology needed. Any argument that technology would be inhibiting a single map is a smoke screen, concealing the actual reasoning. Once we agree that it is fully a business choice, my next step would be to – respectfully – argue that I believe it is the wrong choice. Not only from the viewpoint of the users, who would have to contend with a weird L-shaped map for the foreseeable future, not being able to land in the remaining quadrant. But also from a business point of view. If Ugra were allowed to cover the entire Channel region – perhaps even further to the North Sea in due course – this would be a major boost for the DCS WWII community. That way, DCS would become a much stronger competitor to e.g. Il-2. It simply is the right thing to do. But it requires the willingness to see the Channel Map as sunken costs. I know, that's hard. The Channel Map once was the best map around; I flew it for many hours. But so was Normandy 1.0, and that got replaced too. It's how these things go; sometimes you have to kill your darlings.

@Ala13_ManOWar, your 3324th post on this forum contained over 400 words in which you call me a spammer. Amusing. @Fred901, no I do not understand. There clearly is a wish among many users (certainly not just me) to have this area combined into one single map. Technically, this is trivial: Ugra could easily model those few airfields. If ED is afraid of losing revenue over the Channel map, they could make a deal with Ugra: Ugra gets the 'right' to model those airfields, ED gets part of their revenue. The result is a better product, which in the end everyone benefits from and which is much more future-proof. Insisting on maintaining the Channel map as a separate product is sunken cost fallacy. The obvious way forward is to bundle strengths and move forward, not as competitors but as coworkers.

So much text and still no answer. My question was why they (Ugra) can apparently not model those airfields again, while they can model other objects in that area (e.g. Dover harbour) again. There seems to be no real answer to this, other than "ED doesn't want them to". There would be plenty reason to model them and it would not be a waste of effort. Merging the maps can be years away, and many people have expressed that they would like to be able to have all those airfields in one single map before that. That's reason enough. There's no need to tell me that I am a guest and how to behave and such. Yes, I am a guest, but a paying one. And I am not paying little. So if ED sets up a forum where they ask paying customers what their wishes are, I should feel free to express my wishes in that forum. And if all I get back is: "it ain't possible because I say so", I should feel free to question that response. The fact that you posted 3.3k messages and I only 8 doesn't give you the right to put me down as a complainer.

Such a curious argument. So, since these airfields already exist in the Channel map, they cannot be modeled again in the Normandy map. I did some research and discovered that actually all of Kent is present in both the Channel and Normandy maps. So is part of Northern France. I believe this observation disproves the presumed theory that objects can only ever exist in one DCS map at a time. So why do people keep saying that we have to wait for some sci-fi technology that would one day allow us to merge the maps, if Ugra can simply model these airfields again? Can someone please explain why this is not an option?

I am still trying to understand the situation. Did Ugra decide to leave the Channel area low-detail voluntarily (which I doubt) or did ED force them to do so? If the latter is the case: did the agreement include that they are allowed to model Dover Harbor, but aren't allowed to model Dover Castle? And that they are allowed to model the towns, but not the airfields? What is the point of that?! Of course I fully understand that ED heavily invested in the Channel map and that they want to see a return on that investment. But can't they simply sell the rights to the area to Ugra? Either for a fixed price, or for a certain fraction of the future revenue? For one, I don't mind if that means that future upgrades of the combined map become more expensive. How can selling two clearly suboptimal products be a better business strategy than selling a single superior product for twice the amount? In this situation the whole is so much better than the sum of the parts. Having a single WWII map would hold far more potential for future development and expansion in all directions – it would be an obvious win for all parties involved. In short, can't this issue be solved by the two parties talking to each other? I really hope these talks are already happening.

Hi, I'm trying to install a livery but get the following error: DCSLM> install https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313697/ Attempting to install 1 livery. [1/1] Getting DCS User File information from https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313697/ ╭─────────────────────────────────── F-16C Viper - 80th Fighter Squadron Wolf Pack ────────────────────────────────────╮ │ ID: 3313697 | Author: lee1hy | Upload Date: 12/06/2020 06:25:23 | Archive Size: 205.54 Mb │ │ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.comhttps://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/userfiles/a45/80th_Fighter_Squadron_W │ │ olf_Pack.7z │ ╰──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯ [1/1] Downloading livery archive file https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.comhttps://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/use rfiles/a45/80th_Fighter_Squadron_Wolf_Pack.7z HTTPSConnectionPool(host='www.digitalcombatsimulator.comhttps', port=443): Max retries exceeded with url: //files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/userfiles/a45/80th_Fighter_Squadron_Wolf_Pack.7z (Caused by NewConnectionError('<urllib3.connection.HTTPSConnection object at 0x0000021188EBA220>: Failed to establish a new connection: [Errno 11001] getaddrinfo failed')) Failed Livery Installs: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313697/: HTTPSConnectionPool(host='www.digitalcombatsimulator.comhttps', port=443): Max retries exceeded with url: //files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/userfiles/a45/80th_Fighter_Squadron_Wolf_Pack.7z (Caused by NewConnectionError('<urllib3.connection.HTTPSConnection object at 0x0000021188EBA220>: Failed to establish a new connection: [Errno 11001] getaddrinfo failed')) I already made an exception for DCSLM in my firewall, so that can't be it, I think. Any ideas what I could be doing wrong? Seems like a problem already at the identification stage: it pastes 'https://digitalcombatsimulator.com' in front of the URL, so it is doubled.

Well, let's see what happens after N2 comes out. If they don't merge in a year or so, I 100% agree with you that frustration is justified. In my opinion ED would shoot itself in the foot by continuing to separately develop the Channel map and thus internally compete with Ugra. It should be in ED's interest to make the WWII part of DCS as good as possible in order to compete with IL-2. In any case, the argument that it would be 'technically impossible' is of course nonsense: if both parties want it, it can be done and fast. By the way, in general I believe ED should not burden itself any longer with making scenery. There are plenty of dedicated third party companies who can do that. Let ED focus on actually finishing the game – AI, ATC, dynamic campaign, multithreading, etc.

I wouldn't be too frustrated about the L-shaped business. Ugra will probably not confirm this, but the way I see it they are making it as easy as possible for the two maps (N2 and Channel) to be stitched together at some point. Perhaps modders will be able to do this. Or even better, once the N2 map is out, the Channel map will probably not sell too well any more. So I could imagine that ED might eventually give their Channel data to Ugra, so they can very quickly expand the N2 map to cover the entire region. Have some faith. It would be best for all parties involved (Ugra, ED, the player base) to end up with a single high quality WWII map. It is bound to happen sooner or later. And if I may make a suggestion for when that time comes: please make a 1941 and a 1944 version of that map. Should be fairly easy to do once everything is in place.

Biggin Hill is already on the Channel map. No single airfield from the Channel map is remade for the Normandy 2.0 map (even though I believe technically Biggin Hill would be located in the high detail area of Normandy 2.0). This makes me believe that eventually the plan is to merge the two maps – though this might be wishful thinking. Anyhow, beautiful screenshots! There seem to be many complaints about the colors of the grass. I do get that impression on some of the screens, but in the latest videos the colors actually look perfect to me. Just like on the Channel map. Another reason to believe that one day they might be connected.

Hi all, Not much new to add, but for the purpose of statistics I'd like to report that I'm seeing the same glitch. For me it consistently happens for an Instant Action dogfight over Normandy in a Bf109K. I also noticed that if I continue flying despite the glitch, the game becomes extremely choppy after a while. Normally I don't have any significant FPS issues, so think it is related to the glitch.