yngvef

I was about to make a similar thread. I just tested the winter textures, and though they look decent, rivers and lakes should definitely be frozen in the winter (even some brackish fjords should be at least partially covered in the middle of winter). We should also have snow depth, but I assume this is something ED has to do on the engine side, and not a terrain maker issue. I don't know if it's possible in DCS, but helicopter operations on frozen lakes and rivers is a real thing here in Northern Norway during winter.

So far so good. Have just tried starting it from cold and dark and doing a simple flight and landing. Jester said the landing was so smooth that he almost fell asleep, so I'll take that as a win. No obvious bugs or issues yet, but I've just started after all. first impression is certainly good!

Oh well. I wish I was surprised.

I think the MiG-17F is the perfect choice. Very common variant of a legendary aircraft. I can't wait to try it out against the F-4, among other things. Now, if only we could get more Vietnam era planes (including AI planes) and a Vietnam map... That would be something. Either way, I am looking forward to this module and hope it isn't multiple years away from release.

I find it confusing that wishes or suggestions for improvement (like this op) has to be reported as a "bug". Incorrect appearance of concrete tiles or low-rez textures are not "bugs" per se, are they? I ask in advance because once the norwegian airfields in my area get made, I will definitely try to compare to reality and make similar suggestions.

Keep in mind that the very steep fjords that most tourists know are in the south-west of the country (outside the Kola map). Fjords in northern Norway are usually not as extreme as Sognefjorden and Lysefjorden (with the famous "Pulpit Rock") for example. Northern Norway has more U-shaped valleys (and fjords). Still steep, but different.

I don't know the specific names of the different areas in Setermoen firing range, but I have personally seen F-16s do strafing runs up there a few years ago, so it is a firing range for aircraft as well. The other firing ranges near Bardufoss AFB (not yet modeled) are only army stuff as far as I know (artillery, tanks and small arms ranges)

I will take some more pictures once summer starts for a better comparison. These were just random pictures I've taken in my area over the past couple of years

Even though Norway is very unpopulated still, I had to check out my area in the sim compared to reality. This is near Rundhaug, about 15-20km east of Bardufoss a(the airport will come in a later update). Not too shabby, but I really hope Orbx adds some houses in the smaller rural areas as well in the future. And yes, I know it's early access and that Norway has not been a priority yet. And winter textures will definitely be very needed. (Yes, that is an ice bridge in the winter btw)

Yes, I know. I hope that sometime in the future, snow depth will be a thing in the sim.

This highlights the point that maybe snow should have depth, as it would certainly add a lot of realism to any winter map.

I think it looks interesting. I would ofcourse love a more modernized version with chinese avionics just to see how it is, but that is probably not feasible at this time. And there may be many reasons for that. Considering the level of fidelity required on DCS modules, the availability of non-classified information is crucial, and that means not everything is possible. In a dream world, I would love to see a J-10 in DCS for example, but I also realize that technical information is hard to come by, so I must simply accept it. And that's why I like DCS: the modules attempt to be quite faithful to the subject matter. If I want an arcadey surface-level game with F-35s, J-20s and all kinds of bleeding edge tech, then that is not DCS. I am sure there are games that can provide this but it will come at the expense of realism. (or the complete lack of it) Realism requires information, and on this type they have clearly found enough information to be able to move forwards with it. Ofcourse even DCS is still a video game and can never be truly 100% accurate, but at least it can come decently close. People are obviously entitled to their opinions, but from my own personal experience I would recommend focusing your energy on the stuff you enjoy rather than bashing the things you don't. If this isn't interesting to you, then that is perfectly fine. You want everyone to know? Okay, sure. But why though? Someone hops into the forum for this plane and starts criticising Deka Ironworks for choosing this plane. What is the best case scenario you are expecting? That they drop their three years of research and progress because some random user on the forum don't have an interest in this particular type? Or do you want someone to comfort you? I am nobody's boss, so you obviously don't need to listen to me, but my advice is to instead go to the forums of the planes you DO look forward to and share your hype instead of being toxic on the modules you DON'T care about. Just a thought. Like the things you like and ignore the things you dislike, and you'll probably be happier in the long run.

I am excited! Deka has done a great job with the JF-17, so I am sure this project is in great hands!

I was flying the Apache and doing some changes to the control settings. All good so far. Then I switched to the Mi-24 Hind and whenever I open the control settings, it doesn't default to the Mi-24 as it should, but still shows the setup for the Apache. I know I can switch which plane I am changing the settings for in the drop down menu, but it's very inconvenient that it keeps defaulting to a plane I am not flying. Several times I started changing things like axis settings before realizing I was messing up my AH-64 settings rather than tweaking my current plane. As far as I know, it only happens with Apache. Even going back to the main menu and starting a new mission doesn't fix it. I have to restart DCS for it to correctly display the settings og the active plane. To reproduce: Fly the Apache, open controls settings, close settings, switch plane type, open controls settings -> should still show Apache settings rather than active plane.

I have Flyingiron Simulations F6F Hellcat and P-38 Lightning for MSFS, and they are both incredibly well made. These guys are very talented, thorough and seem to care a lot about their products, so I have zero concerns about the quality of this upcoming A-7 module for DCS. I am sure it will be amazing.

Obviously it needs a good mix of US Navy squadrons, but I also hope the few non-american operators will be represented: Thailand, Portugal and Greece (yes, they all used the A-7E version at one point).

I seem to recall them saying (in 1975) that it could carry "any air-to-ground ordnance available in NATO". That might have been an exaggeration though, however I think there's a lot to choose from. Though most of the time, in Vietnam for example, it carried mostly Mk-80-series iron bombs as far as I understand.

Here's a good documentary/commercial for the A-7: Roll rate (clean I assume) of 200 degrees per second isn't bad. It is no dogfighter, and that was never intended, but I don't think it will be like a cargo plane either. Sidenote: I never understood what makes it "light attack" when it can carry 30x mk-82 bombs. Three A-7s can carry more Mk-82 bombs than a B-52.

If they implement a voiced WSO, then I think a female voice would be a nice change of pace. I don't really care so much about the callsign/name though, as long as it works.

Just to clarify. My original comment might seem a bit passive-aggressive, but that was not my intent. I simply meant that making something as complex as a plane module for DCS takes a lot of time, especially for the smaller dev teams. The fact that they have other projects to take care of as well, doesn't make it easier. Considering the attention to detail required would make a different version of F4U quite a lot of work, I'm sure. I don't know all the differences between -1D and -4, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are plentiful enough to warrant a completely separate module.

Haha. Yeah, I mostly included the point about the Me-109 supercharger being technically advanced as a protection against over-zealous wehraboos.

Very true. It would have been significantly better to have a two-stage supercharger like most american planes had early on as well as the Spitfire (from Mark IX onwards). My point about the Me-109 supercharger being well designed was referring to the variable intake and the fact that it didn't suffer the normal drawbacks from throttling the engine that other superchargers did. It was a clever design, but as you point out, making clever things usually make them technically complicated, harder to maintain and expensive to manufacture. In fact, I would argue that the germans made this mistake on a lot of their equipment. Some of it was very sophisticated, but not necessarily suited for the gritty conditions of war. Being good on paper or in ideal conditions won't help if it breaks down before even getting to the front (like the Panther tank for example) And even if it was reliable, there is something called over-engineering as well: making something so fancy and exotic that it costs significantly more materials and money to manufacture. Like field radios in fancy wooden boxes that were polished and engraved to a quality making it look more like a musical instrument than something that will the thrown around in the mud. Sure, they were good quality, but at what cost? One of the big mistakes the german airplane manufacturers made was ignore the need for high altitude performance. Except some late-war stuff that never reached mass production (Ta-152H-1 for example), they never were truly competitive at high altitudes. So, in DCS, I would try to pull the dogfight down to a lower level if I'm flying german planes. In my opinion, the biggest advantage the FW-190A-8 has is it's ridiculous firepower (though that is best vs bombers. You don't need all that to down a fighter and it only weighs you down) Edit: I just need to mention that the video you linked is very good. That whole channel is very good for anyone wanting to get technical deep dives on warbirds.

I think there are too many variables to make any definite answer to this. You can compare top speeds, roll rates and g-limits till the cows come home, but it never tells the whole story. Altitude is, as always, a very big factor. I see some people compare the F4U-1D to the P-47, and while they have the same(ish) engine, the P-47s turbocharger will make it more and more dominant the higher you get. The P-47 was never famous for it's agility (except roll rate), but at high altitude it could overpower both the Fw-190 and Me-109 due to their lack of a turbo. (even though the Me-109 had a very well designed supercharger) My gut feeling says that the F4U will benefit from its very high top speeds in low level fights against 190/109, making boom and zoom a likely effective strategy. At high level it's anybody's guess. My other gut feeling is that they are close enough that it can go both ways, making it quite pilot dependent.

Considering it's (so far) taken them almost eight years to make the -1D version, I wouldn't hold my breath.