Thamiel

Ok, lets start: Please remove those greenish, rusty, american style metal, elevated water towers. Far too many and too middle-west american. Furthermore, I really dont think that GDR and FRG used the same manufacturer of those . Scale those churches down. You may find churches with more than one belltower in big cities as center of an episcopal see perhaps - not in 08/15 villages in the woods far away from any major city. Same goes for industrial centers esp. with those high chimneys smoking in the middle of nowhere. Where do all the people live who work there? In the woods?? You will not find that many windmills in the netherlands, let alone germany. On the other hand, there are important landmarks (for an aviator at least) you didnt include, but which (at least to my understanding) could easily represented just by one or two instances of their class: e.g. "Fernmeldetürme", castles and so on. And at last, but I understand that this is something of a performance bottleneck: the map is not as densely populated as it should be. This is just my impression of 1 hour flying the Rhine and Moselle from Spangdahlem to Koblenz and South: nicely done forests, green land everywhere .... and no villages. The whole rhine valley from Koblenz down.... empty. Since the middle ages that region was a centerpoint of political struggles with commerce prospering through shipping and agriculture and it shows until today. The rhein castles are known since romanticism. The whole moselle valley is lined by vineyards - and the families of those winemakers formed wealthy communitites and villages at the border of the river from Trier up to Koblenz. But no vineyards there.

Its the first map of a highly industrialized and developed area where today in RL lots of people have the time and are actually capable and willing to invest thousands of euro into hardware and software just to play a particular computer game, not counting the service members who were stationed here during that time and do so from somewhere else for sentimental reasons. Of course, this map is hyped. You could easily talk all day long about areas, airbases, military sites all over the place, not just at the edges or the extensions planned. Apparently, we do so right here: "Lots of work if you want to do it right, and lots of critics if you fail." This map will obviously push the limits. But if you want to have something, you have to give something. Curiously enough, nobody talks about that, do they? I could complain about a full fledged military airbase active 'til 1977 just 20 minutes down the road from where I live. I could complain about forgotten Matador sites in the Bitburg region rusting long enough for me to be amazed by the sheer size their metal drop gates just 10 years ago. Would it increase the immersion of the map if those installations would be recognizable from the air? The majority of players wouldnt even know where to look.

This first rollout version of the map will be bigger than 200 GB already. Its not just about storage space or download/update time. It has to sell. As I said two years ago, as this project was pure speculation and afaik nobody here was aware that it was in the making: To compose a map with sufficient performance about this densely populated area is a huge effort not just because it is bloody difficult to square the circle, you also have a lot of critics if you fail to satisfy their specific suggestions. That is what I observe here with everybody discussing more and more details to add completely unaware of the internal ramnifications of their ideas. As @tora117 said: The line has to be drawn somewhere. There is no map (to sell) if your hardware cant handle the one offered. 200GB will be a debut as it is. If the DCS core on your rig can do it to your liking, than by all means go ahead. Until then, cheerio.

In other Words, a zoom?

Because of Trier-Euren not included (and afaik not planned to be), it shouldn't be earlier than 1984 ?

Wallmeister were a lot faster than this. The number of strategically placed and prepared "Sperren" und "Hindernisse" within the Fulda gap alone reached about 300. However, simulating the region to that level of detail seems unnecessary to me as DCS specializes more in aerial warfare than ground fighting. In the end, the targets are where I can find them. I dont care if they are placed by some historical proven barrier or the missionbuilder.

Push back.

Update: Seems mod related alright. But which one was the culprit I couldn't say.

Doing the same, that mod mentioned above was not on my drive.

We disable traffic entirely in the ME if we are about to use a road as airstrip.

Second that. Tried to update a mission from last week, added a new unit and it only shows in the Editor, not on the F10 Map in-game. Older Units added before yesterday are not affected and behave (are visible) as expected.

Hopefully they dont get wet feet after that mountain of expectation raised by these trailers....

Brown spots doesnt mean mud, it can simply indicate dusty patches of soil too dry to grow gras or any kind of vegetation. Ugras pictures were too common during the last dry summers around here.

Although as cultural obstacles, "Bridges too low" could easily be remedied by a well-aimed 2000lbs. bean or two. Something of a Nimitz class steaming circles in Lake Mead right next to Nellis.

I cannot help but having a difficult time imagining a carrier in the baltic sea. With all those airfields around it looks a bit superfluous, not mentioning the mud you have to scratch out of the propellers after passing Malmö.

Let it go. Given his comparison, target ballistics is definitely not his strong suit.

I suppose, if a tank hits a helicopter with its main weapon, that sorry thing should disintegrate regardless of the warhead simply because of the kinetic energy of the projectile.

I dont know. I must admit, I'm rather sceptical about that proposition. Although I can see the beauty of having more closely matched counterparts available, there is already a rather old example of that in both A-10 versions and to be honest, I've never seen the older one w/o HMCS or TGP getting much action on any MP servers. Of course, doesnt mean that there isn't and the A-10 being rather deep down and sophisticated in switchology, if you want to stay on top of things, you choose once and dont switch sides and procedures very often after that or you end up mixing things the wrong way. Still could be rather easy to do though, limiting functionality, basically replacing/removing some panels in the cockpit.

Additionally to the AFBs there were quite a lot of military Cold War installations like "Autobahn-Notlandeplätze" in FRG and GDR. In the southwest there were vast weapon depots in the palatinate forest or even bunkered cruise missile installations in the Bitburg region aiming at the Fulda Gap. Some of them survived the 2000 as derelict lost places.

The A-10 is not my only one DCS aircraft, thank you very much. Accept that SADL is of greater importance to you but not to me, so go promote your SADL somewhere else.

If you want to pursue your own agenda like pilot bodies or SADL improvements, just open a new thread and dont derail. Whataboutism is not going to undermine the topic of this thread which still reads "underpowered engines" and nothing else. Do underpowered engines matter in combat? Depends on how underpowered they are. If they are that is, as some people quoted other factors possibly playing into this like tire pressure, friction rates and so on. I like the DCS Hog on the TWY. The Real Deal seems a lot more unnerving and troublesome while rolling down the lane.

Im merely refering to the possible workload for a devteam to make it happen and not to the reasons to do it (or not to do it). Yes, there are a lot of synergies over the whole range of modules regarding cockpit key functionalities like radio based communication, detection, navigation equipment. I never understood how bugs in those areas could survive that long other than every developer cooking its own brew and core interface behavior changing on a regular basis even after 15 years. Points to an overall lack of planning and some sloppy work priorities. But then again thats old news with ED and its customer base paying for it.

If it is already available in some other modules and the documentation of the implementation of the current F-5 is accurate, its quite easy to adapt including adding limits to its performance. Its far more difficult the other way around, i would guess, creating some new functionality used nowhere else.

The argument is that the guy in the cockpit tells it differently and sitting in an A-10 with airshow configuration the counterargument has been made that those aircrafts are much lighter and could indeed roll and taxi with idle engines. Only that you can reproduce that exact weight setting in DCS and our A-10s still wouldn't move.

We had that before: