Tengah

To add to Kappa's superb post, maybe the addition of some AI Helos? NATO Puma, Wessex, Lynx, MB105, UH-1N Twin Huey. Including OPFOR counterparts. That sort of thing... Just my two penneth in support of Helicopter Assault scenarios. It would be nice to see more infantry/personnel additions.

To be fair, if you got on the six of an EEL, you would have to hang on; she had a very respectable turn radius. RIAT 1987 Frightning Display Anyways, that is enough from me regarding the EEL, back to the 104

The EEL from the F.1a through to the F6 enjoyed the ability to AAR, not commonly used on the earlier versions (F.1a to F.3 and T.4). The F.2's and F.2a's were mainly RAF Germany aircraft, and as with the Buccaneers AAR was considered surplus to requirement due to the short durations of flight to targets. The UK based Lightnings did use AAR via H.P. Victors, VC-10K's, etc. The EEL was only limited in time aloft by engine oil capacity and pilot fatigue. There were many 4 hour plus sorties flown by RAF lightnings... The aircraft would be a superb model for DCS despite its challenges. The cockpit is an ergonomic nightmare, and it would certainly be a high workload environment for anyone trying to fly it while staying ahead of the performance envelope. However, unfortunately, it would only appeal to a niche market within the DCS user base. Better chance as a free Mod or perhaps donation based ala Split Air's offerings. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I agree that the overall aesthetics leave something to be desired, especially the F.6... The T.5, in my humble opinion, was the more attractive variant.

Kermit, I could debate your comments regarding the 104G vs Lightning issue, but to be honest, to what end? At the end of the day, they were two completely different aircraft intended for opposite roles, both hopelessly outdated/outmatched in terms of the current DCS aircraft module lineup. Reading your posts, it appears that the lighthearted "tongue in cheek" tone of my post regarding the EEL was lost in translation. Whilst I admit to being a huge fan of the EEL, I am also a huge fan of the Silver Sliver, and I am looking forward to its release in DCS. Peace to you fella.

As Max said...

I think it's safe to say this mod has fallen by the wayside

RF-101C per chance? Excellent!

Thank you for the update, OneEyeRoss. From what I had heard, it was the old chestnut, "We lost all the files, hard drive crash, etc." Hence, the aircraft could not be worked on any further. Good news indeed that there is hope for further development after the Alpha Jet. Vex, I am not a prop person by rule either, but the OV-10 and when it is released, the A-1 Skyraider are superb aircraft with a lot of mission potential within DCS. While pretty and nostalgic, the WWII stuff holds no interest for me either. The Bronco is certainly a rare Gem.

This Mod has BAe Tempest vibes, nice work, and thank you.

Amen!

If you are referring to the undercarriage glitching issue, it is well known, it came in after a patch a while ago. Unfortunately, the Mod is not in development at the moment. This Mod has a HUGE fan base, hopefully the OV-10 might get some love once again in the future.

Hi MrJollyRoger, I have seen this mod. I downloaded it a while back. Opened the box, looked inside, read the instructions, wept uncontrollably as my brain melted, and shoved it into a dark corner of my hard drive It looks wonderful in the screenshots, it really does. Kudos to the creator, but holy Hanna, for an ignoramus such as myself, the instructions are like black magic. Thank you for thinking of posting it here, though.

Again, thank you very much, Rudel. Downloaded, will try as soon I can.

Thank you for the heads up on the 104 fix, Rudel, much appreciated.

Ooofs... I remember that event quite clearly.

I agree 100%. I was thinking along the lines of a static mod, with AI Gliders flying donuts in the sky but even then, your comment makes total sense; the AI would not perform correctly in the air.

"Some of the resources could be recuperated."

Some of these resources could be recuperated by removing the misplaced brush from airfields, doing away with much of the airfield flightline equipment, the air racing cones, Hot Air Balloons, etc.

This is a fair point, very fair indeed . I often suffer from Derp Brain. Thank you for your response Mazex. Thamiel, I have seen the infamous Ballooning activities, my first thought was "Who on earth would launch hot air balloons from the top of a hill?"... Forgive my ignorance, I have only been to one ballooning event and that was when I was 9 years old, Bath Balloon Festival in the UK. It was a very long time ago. They were launching from wide open Farm Fields... Of course, anyone with more experience can correct me, but I would have thought this would be the established way of launching balloons due to wind, etc. Thank you for your response Thamiel.

Thank you, Northstar, for your reply. I wasn't sure if the remove objects would remove the cones or not, I figured they might have been somehow hard wired into the scenery. I will give it a go.

Beldin, stop teasing me Sir!

A superb thread, thank you, Eole, for creating it. Big thumbs up.

Having already written a whinging post regarding the questionable representation of the NATO airbases included in the initial release of the map else where in this forum, I would like to make a thread of my own regarding a couple of other "niggles" that are bugging me personally. Forgive me if some of the points made herein have been brought up elsewhere in the forum, but this is my post, consider me reiterating said points... Context: In my understanding, this map is being sold as a Cold War map, circa (at a guess) 60's through to late 80's / very early 90's. 1. Why are there racing cones all over the military low flying routes? The "coned" air racing ala Red Bull style did not become a thing, certainly in Germany, until the early 2000's and would most definitely not be located along or intersecting NATO low flying areas. Now, before anyone educates me on the history of air racing, I do appreciate that the sport has been a thing since the dawn of manned powered flight, but it was not present as represented during the stated time period of this map. Please forgive my ignorance, but might there be a way to hide or remove these cones on the map via the mission editor, or perhaps to remove the specific (offending) cone file from the map folder? I don't know how anyone else feels, but they break the immersion of flying in a "Cold War" environment. Of course, I do appreciate the "fun" factor and it's an extra selling point for the map, but... 2. NATO Flightline equipment. This may be something of an emotive subject, but why are the bases populated with non-military specific and most definitely civilian flightline items? Once again, would anyone know how to remove these most offensive objects? To my mind, these inane items could have been left out, saving the resources for elsewhere on the map. A side note: a. One of the big issues we had whilst low flying (anywhere in Europe) was gliders/paragliders, etc. Gliding was/is a big sport in Germany, and care had to be taken in flight planning to avoid such areas on given days of the week. I feel this would be a good addition to the map. Understandably, most of the big gliding areas were located outside of the map area, being further south (notably Stuttgart), but there were a few in the Rhine/Westphalia area. Of interest, has anyone thought of creating a glider mod? b. Is there any possibility of extending the map westwards to include at least the entirety of the Netherlands? So many important locations there, airbases (Leeuwarden, Volkel, Soesterburg, Gilze-Rijen) and weapons ranges (most notably the famous Vliehors Air Weapons Range, otherwise known as the Cornfield Range). Also, perhaps stretching the map to include more of Belgium, featuring Florennes, Beauvechain, and Kliene Brogel? I ask as considering the range of Phase 3, it seems a wasted opportunity not to include the entirety of the Low Countries and their important Cold War bases. c. Will Ugra Media include the Nordhorn Weapons range? In my mind, this is an absolute must if the moniker "Cold War" is to be taken as such. I realise that I might be presenting myself as something of a "Debby Downer" or "nit picker" with this post, if so, that is not my intention. I am grateful for all of Ugra Media's efforts in bringing such an important and much requested map. This map was a huge undertaking, and overall, Ugra has done a superb job. I feel there is room for improvement/changes. Having paid our money based on expectations according to the sales pitch (Cold War Germany), we all have the right to a voice of opinion. I appreciate that this is an initial release and some (hopefully all) of the "niggles" maybe addressed in future updates. Thank you, one and all, for once more putting up with my words. My utmost gratitude to everyone at Ugra Media for releasing one of the best maps for DCS, certainly the one with the most potential.

Hear, hear for the Schloss's, also, will the Ruhr Dams be modelled? Specifically, the Mohne, Eder, and Sorpe?

I would like to second Woogey's post concerning the texture state of the Airbases. Having spent 3 years at RAF Bruggen as a "first tourist" way back in the day, I can speak with a little experience on this topic. RAF Bases back in the 80's were some kind of OD green... Very, very green. Everywhere you looked... Green. The only colour was on the main gate, the Placard announcing you were entering RAF Bruggen. Laarbruch, Wildenwrath, Gutersloh, et al were all the same. The USAF bases always looked very smart in the light tan liveries, statements on their hangars, buildings, and towers. The German fields were very much like the RAF bases, very subdued. CFB Lahr and Baden Sollingen were just a little more colourful from memory. All of the bases I have visited on the Ugra map look run down, rusting, and uncared for, and give a feeling of sad abandonment. Trust me, the US and RAF bases were far, far from this. A case in point (tongue in cheek), RAF grass is measured for uniform height with a half rule and a pair of stout scissors, and woe betide if you dared to walk on it! Ugra, will you be replicating the nuclear weapon storage sites at Bruggen and Laarbruch? These were very imposing areas of the bases and stood out as an area you were never destined to tread without permission from the supreme leader. If anyone from Ugra is reading this thread, please do not get me wrong, I am grateful for the huge undertaking and all the efforts taken. However, I am a paying customer at the end of the day and as such have the inherent right to whinge profusely. Whilst the map is by far and away the best thing since sliced bread, a little more attention to detail could be taken regarding the airfield textures to provide a sense of being there. As they stand on the map, the NATO airbases look and feel like run down versions of an Eastern Bloc civilian airfield. Many of the younger generation will not have seen these bases, and as DCS is something of a window into the past, with such modules, a little more thought could be given. Just my honest opinion, I am sure some people are more than happy with the Airfields as they are, and all power to them. Linking YouTube videos of RAF Gutersloh and Bruggen as they are today. The bases are in a rather sorry state, as one can imagine, but they still look squared away and purposeful. RAF Gutersloh: RAF Bruggen: Many thanks to anyone reading this post for your time and putting up with an old man's griping. To anyone from Ugra, I do hope you will take this post as well intended constructive criticism. Yes! Italy! Many fond memories of Trapani, Aviano, Gioa del Colle, and of course Decimomannu (Ok, this is Sardinia, but still Italy)! This would be an awesome map indeed.