Tengah

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.

Oooh, you modelled the "Funny Farm"... Niiice. I am sorry I missed this in P3D, good work, Manschy, and a very generous offer. Maybe put this forward in the Modding section of the forum? I have flown the heck out of the Germany map the last couple days and I have to say the lack of attention to detail (basic texturing) on the Airbases, etc, is starting to niggle me. Don't get me wrong, I am very grateful to have such a superb map, but...

Oh geez, I just died! Excellent retort, Max

Wiwa, I couldn't agree more. You stated your case very well indeed. This is an important area for military flying with so much Cold War historical significance. Given the eventual size of the Iraq and Afghanistan maps, not to mention what we have with Syria, this does deserve some consideration from Ugra. Here's hoping.

The Harrier, as pictured, would represent a Gr.5 rather than a Gr.7. The 7 & 9 had a few more lumps and bumps than on the 5, especially the ECM "tusks" on the nose. Why RAZBAM couldn't have gone the extra mile to add these lumps and bumps to give us Brits a sense of identity within DCS is beyond me This is a superb project, thank you very much Ghostrida9. When Laarbruch, Wildenwrath, and especially Bruggen come along, would you consider giving them the same makeover?

Thank you both for your replies. This Mod was one of those DCS Gems, the F-16D is just superb. I am very hesitant to reinstall it due to DCS's habit of breaking mods ().

I see that Lahr is included but not Baden-Söllingen. Unless "Söllinge" is a typo for Söllingen, perhaps?. Consider me suitably "derped" at this moment. Thank you for your reply, Raven.

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread, you have all given me an interesting balance of opinions and facts. Now, please forgive my sense of humour for a brief moment... At the risk of being something of a troll: You see... Aerges missed a trick here... Instead of the F-104 they should have gone with the E.E Lightning, starting with the F2a, the F3, then the F6, culminating in the F.Mk 53... maybe as a bonus, the T5. That way, certain people, for all their verbosity, would feel vindicated with their arguments in this thread. Longevity of flight... Oooh about 30 to 40 mins with max fuel and sparing the use of reheat... Mind you, a stonking thrust-to-weight ratio greater than the F-104G (cue the hate)... Now, was the Lightning a capable A2G platform? Ask the Kuwait and Saudi Air Forces. A flying instructor on 1FTS Linton-on-Ouse (1980-something or other. I am that old for the people in the know) once informed me that: You can take a fighter and strap bombs on it, you cannot take a bomber and make a fighter of the bloody thing. As a side note to my previous memoir, the 105 was no slouch as an air-to-air opponent in its day. On several occasions, I consider myself lucky to have enjoyed the company of a perhaps lesser known, but accomplished Thud driver (F-105 - Vietnam - 1 Mig-17 Kill confirmed, 2nd Mig-17 unconfirmed due to gun camera malfunction). Whilst the proverbial hangar doors were open, much to the irritation of wives & sweethearts, the conversation would always turn to his time on the 105, especially his "kills". Whenever discussing the A2A ability of the F-105, he was always vehement that the mighty Thud could hold its own in the hands of the right-minded individual. He would often say that if a 105 driver found himself in a situation not to his liking, then hit the deck and run out at 800+ knots, as he would say, they were limited (in terms of airspeed) by the amount of heat the canopy seals could take. My two cents... This is DCS, we all come here to fly in a virtual medium, whether single or multiplayer. Aerges has picked up a wonderful project, and we should all be grateful that when it is released, we will be able to fly (virtually) this incredible aircraft, in whatever manner we choose, hopefully in all the roles the aircraft was capable of. The F-104 in whatever guise was an A2G platform at some point; the Canadians used them mostly, if not solely, in the A2G role. I couldn't give a fig about the F-104's survivability in a PvP server as I won't be taking it there. I like to fly in DCS in a PvE multiplayer setting as accurately to the real world as I can, together with like-minded people, even if we are flying relatively poor performing aircraft against a superior opposition. This is what makes the challenge, the sense of accomplishment when you succeed, after all, the likes of the Lightning, Buccaneer, F-100, F-105, and F-104 performed admirably in combat settings (maybe not as well as expected or hoped) whilst being mentally & physically "impressive" to fly and operate, otherwise they would not have stayed in service for so long and loved by the people who flew them. At the end of the day, it is down to the individual to do with the aircraft what he or she chooses, with no consideration required as to its actual operating capabilities; no one has the right to judge. For the sake of argument, I will acquiesce to the anti-F-104 A2G debate by making an arrogant statement of fact... If I were flying the 104 in a public server, it would be in low-level A2G. The simple reason is that OPFOR would have a devil of a time trying to catch me. I would be in and out at 500ft or less whilst driving at the speed of heat with one hand on the wheel, dropping accurately, making pork chops of Miss Piggy, before any opposing force knew what hittem and most definitely running away bravely. This the F-104 could do, and by golly, if Aerges and DCS are going to allow me the opportunity to do it... Well? Now, with that said, if I do not get a reaction, there is no justice. To settle the BS'ery here: The 104 was used as an air-to-air, reconnaissance, anti-shipping, and air-to-ground platform. Whether it was good or bad in any regime, I don't care, it was/is one heck of an aircraft, and if modelled correctly (model the BLC, Aerges, the BLC!) it will be one of the best aircraft to hit our beloved simulation, overshadowed by the F-105 of course ... If we ever get so lucky. Let's not forget we are a community; we all need to play nice to support developers such as Aerges, who bring us the nice toys we are all so desperate for. With this said, I will touch my forelock to Kermit, et al, in acknowledgement of the ongoing debate; there was a lot of good reading, even if I was chuckling to myself at times. I, for one, cannot wait for the Silver Sliver, I will fly it in whatever role I choose, as and when and according to what the Devs at Aerges provide. Anyone got any Beemans? Loan me a stick, I'll pay you back later... Edited for clarification.

As the Canadians are being underrepresented here, and I believe they have some, if not THE best 104 paint schemes... Does anyone know if CFB Baden-Soellingen will be represented in Phase 2 or 3 of the Cold War Germany map?

Can anyone tell me if this Mod still being developed? Many thanks in advance.

Thank you, Woogey, can't wait to see them all!

I was on "loan" to RAF Northolt, United Kingdom, back in what would be circa 87/88. Two of these aircraft (in these exact colours) flew in from Germany. As aircrews were in the Mess, many questions were directed about what they were doing at Northolt. With wry grins, the reply was "sightseeing London." They stayed over the weekend. On Sunday, we decided to crawl all over these strange aircraft, very interesting, to say the least. Tried to wrangle a joy flight but to no avail. Thank you Woogey, if it is you, for painting up these aircraft in the requested schemes. Will you announce their release here?

Why not go one better than a Tonka for Germany... 15 or 16 Sqn Buccaneer. Darn sight more reliable; fly lower, faster (with war load), further, all the time trying to understand the mindest of the cockpit designer whilst figuring if what he was drinking is a valid excuse for the ergonomic nightmare.

Once again, many thanks, Minsky. Very grateful for the time you have taken. We will keep working at it.

Minsky, Sir, thank you so much for your help here! I will do without the weather mod, shame as it is such a great mod, but I would prefer the aircraft to do as they are told Really appreciate you taking the time.

As a side note, 894 was responsible for the destruction of the Iraqi AN-12, the cockpit footage of which was shown on many newscasts during early 1991. She dropped and lased her own Paveway and splatted the poor thing on the ground. Initially, the kill was credited to XX901, but upon inspection of the "logs" we discovered it was good ol 894. Bless her.

If you Guys need a photo of a specific part of the aircraft, please let me know. Whilst we had other Buccs, XX894 was the star of "fleet" being respeldent in RN colours. All the others were either in low viz grey or wrap-around slate grey/green. Whilst 894 was one of the new build airframes for the RAF (in 1976), she was painted in FAA 809 Sqn colours for the retirement of the type, a nod to her roots.null

null null

Joey45, I have sent you a forum PM regarding some old photos. They are all taken by me, and the subject matter was owned by myself, so no copyright issues. They could be distributed as you wish in the interest of bringing a Bucc to DCS. P.S. Guys, as for weapons, please do not forget the CBLS 100 (Carrier Bombs Light Store) for the wee 3kg Practice Bombs... P.P.S. An added bonus would be a Palouste for engine starts (see the weird Red Pod photo).