OhNoMyHookBroke

COO Kate of ED did hint that ED would take over development of the MiG-23. Pretty glad they're going back to Russian aircraft, because they can really make those properly.

I set this aside to just get people's perspectives on this specific topic, but I do agree, core most definitely needs to be worked on the most.

8 years for the features the DTC brings is truly absurd.

Sorry, misread a post.

Totally agree. In the meanwhile, I suggest you look into things like DCS Moving Map. It's exactly in the name. If you use it with OpenKneeboard, then you can have the program display a moving map (with tons of options, different maps, symbology, etc.) and move it around to the bottom right corner of screen, adjust size, and so on. I do understand that it's not exactly like real life, since it displays your present position and can display other things, but you can most likely turn most of those off. But that's a mod. We should really get what you said in the core game, ASAP!

(Poll included) I think an opportunity ED isn't capitalizing on is adding new variants and equipment to existing modules. For instance, modeling different Blocks of aircraft, different cockpit layouts, different variants based off of aircraft already in the game. You could charge 3-5 dollars for a different cockpit layout or equipment. You can charge something like 25+ bucks for a new variant, but require the aircraft it's based off of to be owned in order to use the upgrade. (or just charge as much as any other module) I feel like ED is focusing too much on immediately getting the next big module out right after releasing one that needs some serious work. (EA) Take the CH-47F for example. It needs some serious work done to it, but apparently, they're already making a new helicopter according to Wags' Q&A video. And I know that there are different teams assigned to each module, but when I look at third-party developers that have a team MUCH smaller than ED (ED supposedly has over or around 200 employees), I just wonder, "how is a group that small able to develop and release an objectively more accurate and better module than a company of 200 is?", and I say that will all due respect. Maybe I'm wrong. But if ED put these teams together, I'm pretty certain that they'd be able to plow through a module and get it to a good state. We know of all the great things ED is capable of. So, why not go back and add newer variants, customizability, equipment, MLUs, Blocks, etc. to these modules that are already out and have been out for years? I know it's not exactly as profitable as releasing a new module, but in my opinion, it would win over the community and be an extremely good thing for DCS. Like adding a CSAR/SAR variant along with core CSAR/SAR features. Here's another example: Bob loves the Huey, but he doesn't really like the UH-1H's analogue cockpit. However, he loves the TH-1H, which is a modernized UH-1H with a glass cockpit flown by the USAF for training. (I'm definitely not bob lol) This could introduce more people to modules that they previously didn't have much interest for. Also, I want to clarify that I'm not necessarily asking ED to go and create these insanely different variants that would require numerous changes to almost everything, but still share that 1% to still say it's based off of its predecessor. Some things are obviously a no go. That's my opinion and take at least. Curious to what you guys think.

Of course, but even if you're not purchasing modules, the game's still going to just get larger and larger. The hotfix today was over 40 gigs for some people. You'd have to quite literally stop updating your DCS.

100% agree. I'm having to upgrade my storage to continue playing this game. Some of the things being added to this game are just unnecessary.

I'm not too fond of having a 205-gigabyte map, I'd much prefer to rock the current phase one 110 gig version. Can/will phase 2 and 3 be optional installs, like Afghanistan? Thank you

Can we expect the VRAM requirements to drop over time? It's very concerning, as it seems like I won't be able to run this map without some troubles.

Fulda Gap is releasing this month according to the recent newsletter

Awesome! Are the LCACs placeable units or just embedded onto the map? Possible asset pack?

It's not dead, they've said it's still alive. I'd be lying if I said that the lack of WIP posts is a bit concerning, but according to them, it's not dead. So...kinda doubtful but yeah

It's been a couple of updates/patches, can you please bump it again? FPS loss during firing a Vikhr is something that should get fixed ASAP. Really bad considering the Vikhr is something everybody uses.

There are three main reasons we don't have modern Russian aircraft 1: Not enough information 2: Geopolitics 3: Safety for ED employees As we know, ED is a Swiss and Russian company, with employees otherwhere, which obviously means they have to deal with a lot of restrictions, and also the safety of their employees Russia wouldn't like it if a company modeled their Ka-52 as accurately as possible. Y'know, the helicopter that's currently being used in the Ukrainian-Russo war? I don't think the ED employees would be fond of an FSB raid. Even if they modeled the Ka-52K, the aircraft is still pretty much the same thing as Russia's Ka-52. It's still a Ka-52, despite the English avionics, better avionics cooling, reinforced fuselage, corrosion resistance, etc. I think it's just way too risky.

Not true. Stop spreading disinformation.

Got it working after installing the mod manually. Thanks for the awesome mod!

I installed both the mod and the fix via OVGME, but I'll install the mod manually

Hello I have what I believe to be the latest version of the VPC mod As well as the VPC fix for 2.9.6 But when I load into DCS, it says that the VPC mod has failed to authorize. I'm installing them via OVGME. I believe that I might have the wrong version for the main mod. Can someone please send the latest download links? Thank you

Could the developers provide some low-flying helicopter footage to give us a better sense of what the ground will look like? (not including the cities or densely populated areas) I like the outline of the ground from high altitudes (keyword, high alts), but as some users have mentioned in this thread, it does appear to be the fake shadow textures. I think this could be fixed with texture LODs and various ground textures and surface types that can be algorithmically combined based on the satellite imagery (hopefully I'm using the right terms ), instead of the infamous digital zoom sat imagery, which I believe casts those weird, flat "shadows." I know it's WIP, but I personally don't want to see the same stuff that we see in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do trust Ugra to deliver a fantastic product, so I hope it all turns out well and that I'm simply incorrect. I am judging something clearly WIP lol And I'm mainly a helicopter guy, which means I want the main thing I'll be looking at (the ground) to be good, and this map is perfect for the BO-105, so I of course flock to the maps that have a ground like Normandy 2.0

The media of the map looks very good. Imo, Ugra Media makes the best maps in DCS. Syria is as popular and used as it is for a reason... I don't think immediately buying is something that you should do, and I'll apply that for anything and everything. Always invest some time and research when buying things, at least for DCS. That's what I do. I'm sure it'll be a good map, but I'm more afraid of performance than terrain glitches and/or other discrepancies.

Will there be a trail for Fulda Gap? I'd love to test out the map first before I buy it. I know Syria and Normandy 2.0 are both available for trial, so just wondering if this one will be the same. Also, will it be available for trial on day one? Thanks.

I think the W would probably be more sensitive in terms of sensors and added equipment. However, the UH-60M's avionics (which the HH-60W has) are definitely possible to an above acceptable extent I'd say. CSAR would be something I'd look forward to in core DCS.

100% agree with you. Personally, if you asked me, it's because the modules with glass cockpits probably sell better, considering the majority of DCS players probably like that. Also, the AH-64D and CH-47F both have glass cockpits, so that could be another reason as to why they want to do a UH-60M. But I'm not a fan of the M, and I'd much rather have a UH-60L or even a UH-60A if an HH-60G is not possible.