RafaPolit

This is the part the I think escapes the group developing this map. "This is a daylight summer of 44 map". I agree that a field needs to be static. As a house. But the seasons? The light? Please, give us some versatility. $60 for a map that serves a single purpose in space and time is not a great offer, IMHO.

I don't think it's as simple. Since the Normandy 2 map encompasses the entire Channel map, but with a lower resolution, it is somewhat involved in the mix. I agree it's a "better deal" for those that only purchased the Channel to upgrade to V2 as they get the "bigger" map for less. But we paid for those maps knowing what we were purchasing. If you purchase a car and have to purchase the stereo separately for $1000, and during the next month someone offers the car with the stereo included for $200 extra, would you say: "don't do that, it's unfair to the person that paid $1000 before, charge $1000 for the stereo here to avoid being unfair"? It's not great timing, but we have "enjoyed" the map this while, so I think it's a good upgrade plan. What seems unfair is if new purchases need to actually consider purchasing both V2 and ALSO V1 to be able to run the missions. That would really suck.

There is one more possible solution that would “appease” the campaign scenario: after the release of V2, new users purchase “only” Normandy (not v1 or v2), and they get BOTH v1 and v2 versions. That way, if the purchase a campaign made for v1, they can still play it. It’s not great, but is less “wrong”

So you are trying to make it "more fair" for owners of both maps by charging them more for the upgrade? How is that "better"? I own both maps and I wouldn't prefer your solution over the current one.

@Magic Zachbut the maps are more than just square miles! They allow you to "tell the story" of your flights. You use them in campaigns, in missions in multi-player games. So, put yourself into the mind of a new player coming to DCS the very next day of Normandy 2.0 release day and looking at the scenario: "Hmmm... Ok, so I cannot fly anywhere, I need to buy not only the planes, but the maps. Not what the competition is doing, let's see. I think I want to fly WWII, what do I need? Mhm, a plane... great, some obvious choices, but wait, isn't the FW190 one plane? Apparently not, I have to pay twice for the different versions. Ok, I'm a bit confused, and a little pissed. Now, as for the map, obviously the British channel makes sense. So, the Channel? Wait, for there is also Normandy, a few miles west of the other map? Hm. I didn't want to buy two. I want to pick one. Let's read a bit deeper, but I am more confused. So far, not enjoying a lot the experience" "Ok, what? Two Normandy Maps. Makes no sense... oh, I see, there is a new one, covering a larger area. Nice! Obviously V2, right? The newer, more complete and larger-are map. Wait, it also includes the Channel! Great, a no brainer. Should I know more? No, I'm all set" "Wait, wait... the Dunkirk area, a favorite historic place would be in Low Res mode? Why? Oh, because they also want to sell me the "other map".... Now I am less confused maybe, but more pissed of. Still, between the 2 Normandy's, the choice is clear right... I'm set. One nice plane, one map. Now, onto the 'story' for my flights... a really nice campaign in this region... WHAT? Campaigns only work for the V1 version I DIDN'T PURCHASE? and there is no new content for V2? Wait, so the creators of content are pissed because they have to do their work all over again and they won't migrate their missions to the new map? So now I need to purchase ALSO V1 if I want to do anything other than just sight seeing in a COMBAT SIMULATOR? Now I'm really pissed, and I haven't yet flown a single minute of airtime" There are alternatives, obviously. You can spend months learning how to create your own campaigns, put lots of AI or create a multiplayer server. Another alternative? Don't do campaigns, jump right into a multiplayer server without having done a single simple Air-to-Air kill and have your a*s served in a platter. Surely that describes a "great" experience for a new comer to the sim. Do you think such a person will linger a lot faced with that scenario? Do you think it's a "reasonable" experience to expect from users trying to decide in which of the several SIMs to spend their money in? I honestly think this is not in the best interest of ED. I seriously think this will piss off / confuse a lot of current users and even more so the new users.

I was really excited about this launch, and I praised the pricing model both on ED's Discord and on Facebook. This FAQ leaves me feeling that the launch post was, at least, wrongly written if not intentionally misleading. Phrases like This, to anyone that can read English, means that the previous campaigns are compatible with the new map. In that sense, it made a lot of sense to have a NEW V2.0 map that replaces the old one and is offered to previous users at a discounted price. But the wordings on this FAQ suggest that V1.0 and V2.0 will not only coexist, but that they will be SEPARATE purchases from now on? So, as @Reflected has pointed out, new users would be faced with a scenario of purchasing two different versions of, more or less, the same map if they want to play the previous campaigns? And us existing users would have two maps that represent, roughly, the same area just to keep our previous campaigns as an option? This not only sounds like a terrible user experience, it is a very poor business decision: from the pure "money making" point of view, but also from the point of view of third party developers that spend their time with the products that ED decide to greenlight. So, that brings me to the "core" of my complaint: ED needs to enforce a certain "standard", even if products are developed by third parties, because they reflect on EDs game and the user-base purchase decisions. For example, I highly question the decision to make a map around a particular operation on a particular month of a particular year. Sure, you need to pick a point in time to structure a map, but limiting the option to use it on other seasons really makes for a very niche product (on an already niched market on a platform where you would have not one but two maps of the exact same region!!!). So, if seasons make a big impact on a map (like the Caucasus, or Normandy!), EDs requirements for third party developers should enforce some sort of versatility in that sense. In a world where you are facing competition from the likes of MSFS where you can fly anywhere in the world, to have a map model that forces 3 maps encompassing roughly the same area to be bought separately seems like walking backwards instead of moving forward. Please, as the pricing model was a sensible one, make this "a good" decision for users! This, in my mind means: - V2 REPLACES V1, they don't coexist, but... - V2 is compatible with campaigns made for V1 (obviously minor tweaks would be needed, but minor nonetheless) - V2 is a more versatile map that also allows for winter (and ideally autumn) looks - existing V1 players that don't want to upgrade can do so, but not because they want to keep playing their already paid-for missions, but because they prefer not to spend more now... they simply won't enjoy the higher detail and extended areas - ideally, at some point the channel gets merged and users looking for the WWII Europe scenario need to make ONE good purchase, which makes the decision somewhat simpler! So, my enthusiasm shared by me on the original launch post has been completely muddied here with decisions that seems less technical and more commercial. I hope at least some of the points above turn out to be true and we end up with a less absurd scenario than 3 maps of the the same region with no particular benefit of having all three. Rafa.

This describes me as well. I like to think of it like this: if I were ever sitting on a plane for real, I'd like to be able to know how to do that, so learning that for me is a big part of it. Honestly, after the 10 minutes or so from the F14, it does get a little bit annoying if your outing is going to be 5 minutes and killed on a MP server, but I still enjoy the process.

These are the "modes" for the FC3 planes. FC3 planes are not clickable (without a mod anyways), and you have to remember most of the bindings. Some are "relatable", like F for flaps. But key-bindings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are "modes" and are as abstract as they come. For me, remembering that 3 is "Close Air Combat V-Scan" is near impossible (especially if you, like me, fly other planes as well). But not only that you would need to remember that plane X has 1,2,5... plane Y has 1,5,7,8, and that plane Z has 1,2,4 available to them. So, these provide several things (IMHO): - A visual feedback of what modes are available to each plane - A visual and named feedback as to what modes are - A large illuminated button to click instead of a random key in the keyboard Was that more or less your question?

No problem here whatsoever with W10. I think the real problem many users may be facing is that our hobby eats up almost every available USB port, and then some, and most of them end up drawing current from the motherboard and sharing interrupt requests. So this becomes a complex issue when you have: mouse, keyboard, HOTAS, rudder pedals, track-ir, more gizmos to control the planes, etc. So I don't think that people facing issues are seeing a "root" incompatibility, but more a case-by-case problem. For me, it was ghost commands on the throttle and Corsair liquid cooling header stopped showing. After some shifting of USB ports, internal USB2 headers swapped and a powered USB hub for everything else (except the throttle which was only happy connected directly to the MOBO), everything is working fine. So, those facing troubles, be sure that your USBs are not conflicting with each other. Best regards, Rafa.

Yeah, that's the way to do it. You need to wait for your wingmen, and then hover over the designated area to wait for the SEAD team, and you eventually get reports. It's a tad long, as reported above, but it's reasonably "realistic" to just not jump into battle. I actually enjoy that about this mission.

I have had mixed results in further missions. Sometimes they do get "reasonable" damage. Still, if the hit is not on the main body and only catches the wings, for example, the damage is really minimum. But yeah, it may be more marginal than my initial assessment that happened TWICE on the same plane.

Being a software developer usually dealing with UX and the whole user flow, I cannot be alone in thinking that having the Mission Editor (ME) and the F-10 look almost identical and have the same user interactions but that require the clicking, dragging, measuring, etc. to use DIFFERENT buttons a really unnecessary "friction point" or learning curve. Those of use that spend more than a couple of minutes in Mission Editor and then jump into a multiplayer game start to use the wrong button to drag, the wrong button to measure, the wrong button to select. Please, unify them? I'm sure that it even complicate things from the programmers point of view to keep two different interactions with the map. Thanks!

That's why the JSOW model C was such a "good fit", it is already modeled, the plane already has the software to communicate with it. Heck, it was even part of the roadmap at one point! Anyway. Thanks, I hope there's something in the future that feels this role.

Thanks so much for this answer. This last phrase is, precisely, why I think that having the JSOW-C, even if not 100% accurate, was not such a crazy idea. I understand that ED (or third party contributors) cannot model every variation of every plane with every variation of every weapon it can carry. Still, when I purchase the F-16, in my mind I am purchasing "the general use and scope that the F-16 has served in the US (and other!!!) armies". So, if some form of F-16 at some point gained that ability, it makes sense (for me) to offer a point-target standoff weapon. In contrast, the general accepted approach of "we are modeling the F-16C from the USAF that operated between feb and june 2007", makes for a less versatile include in different types of missions. For example, let's say I wanted to model a fictional mission with a stolen older F-16C that was retrofitted an GBU-39 SDB! Sure, that probably never happened, but EDs "limiting" approach prevents those scenarios from being created. I don't know if anyone wonders why, for example, there is but ONE official campaign for the F-16? Is there really no interest at all in the plane? Is it that missions are more limiting due to some reason or another? In my mind (and I am a developer of software in my non-gaming life!) providing versatility (as opposed to more limiting scenarios) greatly enhances the capabilities of our users to be more creative, to expand the boundaries of our modules / software and to use our software in ways we even didn't imagine in the first place. So, if I provide full flexibility, and a particular creator thinks that that GBU-39 SDB overpowers the F-16, he or she can take it away with the click of a button. The other way around is not possible. If some creator thinks that that is the "twist" required for his story, he cannot include it, no matter what with the current options available. With all that said, I still think that we should be able to have those options, and allow the mission creators to limit them if they think that means that everyone would just pick the F-16 in their servers. This also fulfills the notion expressed above about diversity and not having a one plane that can do it all. So, I'd still think there are merits for this, outside of the 100% factual approach that ED takes for the modules. I take it I am on the "lesser popular" boat. Sure. But some people here are inclined to thinking that if you are not with the majority, then you are surely wrong, no matter what. That is why I really appreciate the research and thoughtfulness in your reply @Bunny Clark . Thanks a lot! That makes for a constructive conversation around an issue and I really appreciate that. Best regards, Rafa.

I have been flying a bit more with the F/A-18 and have a new understanding of why the AMPCD is so useful. I was misusing it as, coming from the F-16, I was used to only two MFDs. I have added the AMPCD, but, as expected, the target screen of 800px makes it impossible to combine with the UFC. So, it is a standalone screen: The HDG and CRS switches are not yet functional, as the most common interaction with them is to move-and-hold to reach a value, and that interaction is not possible on a touchscreen where that triggers a "right click". So not sure if buttons that do "click, click, click" to move the HDG and CRS would be useful. The rest (including the BRT knob) is functional.

Hello! Really loving the look of the F-1 and what it brings to DCS (not that much in love with the price and "small(ish)" discount on early access, but that is for another issue). I added the F-1 to some missions and went on head-to-head against the F-1 with an F-16. The F-16 gun can tear the fuselage of almost anything like a hot knife on butter. Yet, the F-1 was REMARKABLY resilient... a powerful discharge and the F-1 was, more or less, flying OK with an "increased" AoA. A full second discharge and the plane had a sink rate that could not be "overcome" by the engine and AoA even more pronounced, but pilot and plane still flying. I could start a new flight and provide a track or capture, but I'm sure this is really, really easy to reproduce by a testing team, so I thought I put here a heads-up in case it's a simple fix (or maybe there is nothing wrong and the F-1 is almost bullet proof! ) Thanks, Rafa.

Yes, with this I have to agree.

I was basing my bl20 comment off of wikipeida: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants Thanks, I'll look into the thread.

Thanks for this info. So they were not "built on top of previous versions"? So, if the F-16A/B Block 20 was able to carry Harpoons, they don't "carry over" to newer versions? Then I have to say the approach by ED is "correct" but I don't think it's ideal. Again, if they are going to limit the module to the Block 50 version that the USAF/ANG used in a particular window of time, I believe it's too limiting. For any aircraft! I believe that, in order to be a little bit more "versatile", the models need to encompass a wider range of variants, or provide different types of variants of the planes, like the Tomcat A/B options. If there are multiple international versions that could carry Harpoons or X, Y and Z, I think it makes sense to include those and let the mission designers include those as options. They could be limited in-mission to model the bl50 of the USAF/ANG perfectly if that is the designers intent, but if those are not available at all, missions cannot take advantage of the "reverse" approach which is to include those on the type of missions that could use a foreign F-16 that had additional options. I really question that obsession with "accuracy" vs. an extra level of playability. For example, Nuclear weapons exist since 1944 ~ 1945. Lets be "realistic" and allow a single plane to destroy an entire map dropping a single bomb. Realistic? Sure. Playable? Probably not so. So, for me, purchasing "an F-16" is one thing, purchasing a general "F-16C block 25 to 52" is more restrictive. Purchasing "the USAF/ANG F-16C block 50 of 2007" borders on the limit of "I think that is the wrong approach". For some reason, everyone prefers things limited rather than versatile. I don't understand that mentality. Thanks again for the info.

Thanks Frederf, I can see you are really trying to be constructive. I appreciate that. As stated above by others, the DCS is (apparently?) a USAF/ANG only version, and circa 2007 at that. So yeah, we are nearing territory where the plane is modeled after the F-16 that launched from Nellis Airbase on June 7 2007 and the bombs that particular flight carried! . Jokes aside, I am really surprised that there was no equivalent to solve that area of needs. @WinterH Yes, I know you can use Mavericks, I understand they benefit from tracking moving targets, I know you can drop 105s and have them even "sense" the tanks around them. You don't need to ridicule the person you are talking to in order to make a point, but I assume that is your way of feeling superior and wining an argument. Was I asking how to defeat a tank with the current options? No. Thanks for your answer, but I already know how to do that. You did not read my questions or concerns. I asked if the F-16 is not to get a long-range GPS guided weapon capable of penetrating armored vehicles. I believe given the time-frame and capabilities of the aircraft, such a role was probably one that the jet did actually have. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert and I was asking if someone knows of such solutions. Also, as you can see, I have 84 posts in 8 months... so, it would take me 20 years to reach your post count. So I am not the one posting useless "statements". Thanks.

Yes, and my question still remains: was there, historically, ANY GPS-guided weapon employed by the USAF/ANG circa 2007 Block 50 capable of tackling armored units from far away? Is the answer to that a no?

So you took the time to complaint and not to answer? How useful. No wonder you get 2.4K posts.

since you opted to ignore the first part of the question, here it goes again: was there, historically, ANY GPS-guided weapon employed by the block 50 capable of tackling armored units from far away?

Also, let me point out that you can pick and choose "which" accuracy you want developed. The F-16 can carry Harpoon missiles, but not on the US version. So, you can choose to pick "that" accuracy and include the Harpoon.

Ok. Since you want a perfectly accurate simulation, then let me ask you the other way around then: was there, historically, ANY GPS-guided weapon employed by the block 50 capable of tackling armored units? If the answer is yes, then give that to us. No questions asked. Is that better? My solution was: since it's more difficult to add different weapons that are not modeled in the system, perhaps adding the C variant, which is already modeled and the Viper already holds its sibling, could be easier. But, since people here are completely obsessed with "accuracy", then yes, for sure, let's change the approach. Give me the HISTORICALLY ACCURATE weapon that the block 50 held that could use ranged GPS weapons that were able to handle armored vehicles. I'm 100% sure there is such a weapon. I'm not an expert on what it's name or functionalities were. I'm sure I'm not the first pilot, on DCS or in real life, that had "that need" as you put it, for the F-16. Happy with the new question / request?