RafaPolit

It’s amazing how fast you deliver updates and new products. May I request that, for those of us just getting familiar with your mods, and since you have grouped them by country on your website, that you include a [China] or similar to the name of the unit (and perhaps even to the PDF charts) so we know where to find them? Also to this release notes. Seeing ZTQ-15LT 1.0.0 [China] Released!!! would be great. Obviously as one gets more familiar with them this is not needed, but when you are new it can make a lot of difference. thanks again! Rafa.

Good afternoon friends. I'm trying to figure if this is a bug or a problem with my mission. I'm trying to configure a group of A-20G bombers. They move onto target and drop the weapons perfectly. The ROE and Reaction to threat, on the other hand, has no change whatsoever. No matter what I set them to, they won't attack the enemy fighters intercepting them. And no matter what I set them to, they don't react to me shooting them, they keep on going straight into their target. I have set the role as "Ground attack" and I am changing / setting the ROE and Reaction to threat on the WP0 configuration. Thanks for any insight. Rafa.

Usually there's a month between the beta introduction of a feature and it's inclusion into the stable version. That said, I see really no point in playing the stable version as of the current state of the game, but since you said not to, I'm not going to ask.

Thanks for the info

With the amount of hype with the new Normandy 2.0 and most of the warbirds with a 50% discount to boost the WWII theater, it seems almost like an oversight that the WWII Assets Pack has not been discounted. Maybe it was a mistake? Hence I'm writing in case this was meant to be discounted. Thanks, Rafa.

Same experience for me.

Is the sun location / time correct in Normandy 2.0? I find it hard to believe this is 4:35AM (6th of June 1944)

I purchased first, then downloaded, the minute I jumped into the map I was on 2.0 with high res maps. This is in standalone version.

Question @Reflected: does this update already have your updated campaigns? Thanks!

That I believe is the wrong link for you Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2399880/DCS_Normandy_20/ Only for Normandy 1944 owners: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2314970/DCS_Normandy_2_Upgrade/ for both Normandy 1944 and The Channel owners: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2399900/DCS_Normandy_20_Upgrade/

I get a very large warning that I ALREADY HAVE THIS PRODUCT when trying to buy Normandy 2.0 Should I wait? Is it OK to go ahead? cc @NineLine

The amount of love and care (not to mention knowledge and effort) poured into this project is really amazing! Thanks so much for all these assets. Best regards, Rafa.

For me, it says "radar troopkill". Really no use at all

Are the landmarks bombable? I think that mixing politics with the simulation is a tricky thing. I remember hearing in one of the streams about the upcoming Sinai map that you are not going to be able to destroy sacred Israeli landmarks. I understand the motivation, but I honestly think the reason this is also a game is precisely so we can go off-script and do unexpected things. All the "other side's" landmark are destroyable... why not simply allow anything to have a damage model? I think it would be interesting to mount an offensive to "proof the Allies superiority" against the Axis and bomb the Eifel Tower. Or, conversely, if a Jug were able to reach London and bomb the Big Ben. I don't see the need to "protect" those assets due to their "political" nature.

I was coming to ask / report the same thing. It was a nice eye-candy for seeing what a plane is all about. Now you only see the image thumbnails. Maybe it's a versioning thing and old videos appear "less appealing" because they are showing an older DCS version / look? Maybe it's difficult to showcase updates to the module itself? Still, some sort of video would be very useful!

The instruction manual is fairly good. Also, for starting up, I use ctrl+shift+4 (or 6) to move right smack in the middle of the cockpit.

Agreed. Not sure what this would achieve, but I see no reason for having this permanently visible in F10. A sketch would be enough for mission planners. I see no reason why a pilot would need to know what areas are of high resolution during flight.

I actually developed a Node.js server that connects to DCS-BIOS and sends requests back. I can't "export" views, but I can replicate cockpit status for "known" states and I even have a working DED for the F-16. Maybe you can take a look and see if you can improve on the concept? Here's my attempt:

I agree with the concept, not with the implementation. - It's true they need to keep support for the Channel map and keep support for existing Channel missions... 100% true!. But... - They could "deprecate" the map and say: from now on, campaigns and new developments transfer to Normandy 2 map, please do not create new content for Channel as we are merging it with Normandy to provide a larger combined area - They could "allow" Ugra to recreate the Channel areas with High Fidelity in pro of merging both maps - Added bouns: They could provide a "toolkit" for migrating campaigns / missions from Channel to Normandy This, to me, would reflect a: "we want a combined global map eventually, this is the first step into merging maps". They even have control of one of them (so as to not damage other third party developers). The current route seems much more "business" oriented, on the "wrong" side of it. They still would make money, they probably already do a ton of money, so trying to "cheat" users into getting both maps by PREVENTING a high level of detail on the other map on the overlapping areas is very poor form IMHO. On the other hand, they could have "collaborated" with 3rd party developers tighter and help provide the look and lighting of the Channel into the new Normandy, as the Channel looks (again, in my opinion and my alone, these are not hard facts) better than Normandy as they stand right now. Also, this brings the third party developers arena into the foreground, as current model prevents a joint venture between all to favor the players, this model is one that favors isolated development to favor ease of implementation for ED and "lack of competition" for 3rd party developers. In my opinion, this entire venture has been approached with the wrong angle considering the players and mission creators.

I think this is completely beyond the objective of my small contribution. Mine is meant to be used like a "generic" external touch screen to interact with specific cockpit elements. Since there is already Helios which does most of what I have done and is a more mature thing, plus things like the tablet apps (albeit these are paid), this project of mine is probably a little "less" useful than originally expected. Still, for a single RPi touchscreen, it's really great and I use it every day. F-16s ICP, and F-18 UFC are the most useful of the pages for me. The MCDs and DDIs are a little less useful now that I have included the cougar MFDs to my setup. I'm not really planning on delving into anything map related for the time being. If anyone wants to contribute, this is an free open source software, so all contributions are welcome! Edit: oh, the Apache Pilot and Copilot Keyboard Units are also extremely useful!

Yes, but it only shows a few, it doesn't filter out the ones you already have, so the "related" could perfectly be all things you already own with no exposure for those you don't. I agree there are "ways around". Still, I honestly think this could probably be low hanging fruit that ED can incorporate into the web page without a lot crazy amount of effort.

I'm bumping this up. With the current sale, I wanted to buy some campaigns for my new-ish A-10CII. It should be so obvious to me to go into campaigns and filter by: "Campaigns designed for the X-00", "Campaigns taking place in the Normandy map", "Campaigns that take advantage of the Supercarrier". It requires little else as you already have most of the metadata in place! It will also (I almost guarantee this) increase sales of the campaigns, as you won't be overwhelmed with dozens of campaigns you are not interested in or don't have the airframes just to find the one you want.

None of the SSAA filters are working, nor the Motion Blur. They have asked us to turn those off for the time being. 4x MSAA on the other hand, did actually work for me.

Again, this is difficult to answer. As an "agile" developer, you ideally want to have developed things "correctly" or "properly" and put your software in the hands of the users. Unequivocally, they will surface the (hopefully few) bugs you have and you fix them and put the fix quickly in their hands so they can keep on testing. Obviously, if the software is "too buggy", this will create further frustration and distrust on your users. In this particular development, I'd say it's almost an "alpha": you even need to launch a different exe than the one that is launched with your "normal process", so I'd say this is an opt-in beta test where you know you are going to get even more rough roads than with using the "normal" beta, which is still the same: a place where you are going to face problems. So I'd say "No". They did the right thing and we are expecting this to be even rougher roads than usual beta problems. I have complaints of things more "obvious": how come they "forgot" to enable SSAA. Those are the type of bugs that are less "forgivable". As a tech-lead of a developer's team, that is the sort of thing that makes me pull my hairs off and get into a frenzy: "How the heck did we miss this!". Other types of neglects like: "Yeah, we forgot to test it on externally exported MFDs" are the kind of scenarios where I go: "pfff... Ok, let's fix this and, in the future, create automated tests for these cases that we are more prone to forget to test". That's how we do it.

I managed to fix the ghosting on the F-14, but not the artifacts, so it makes little sense to post it. If someone has managed to solve the artifacts, maybe we can combine efforts?