Barrett_g

Are you part of Ugra media?

Will this map ship with any new assets like the South Atlantic Map did? I ask because, frankly, I’m getting tired of shooting down the same old Ju-88 torpedo bombers and I’d really like a He-111 to shoot at. I feel like, as exciting as this new map is, as soon as I download it and load up a mission… it’s just gonna be the same thing I’ve been doing.

Obviously I’m not affiliated with Ugra Media OR Eagle Dynamics… but I happen to know the answers to your two questions. 1). This is just a map made by Ugra Media. Ground Unit AI is Eagle Dynamic’s problem and they are working on it. 2) This is a cut and paste from Normandy 2.0 FAQ: Will there be winter textures? We plan for the Normandy 2.0 to only include the summer season as it is being created around operations in Normandy in the summer of 1944 (Opération Neptune).

The clocks actually showing mission time is just unbelievably awesome!!! I hope you consider removing the bomb trailers. Or at the very least… remove the bombs from the bomb trailers. Like I said earlier it’s really unrealistic. Since my last post I thought of a couple more reasons why they should not be there: From what I can see by zooming in on my phone…. They look like RAF bombs. What happens if the mission builder wants to build a scenario where this base is an American base? Or if, while in a multiplayer server the Germans take over the base? It’s really weird to have nation specific assets hard-coded to that base… it’s the same reason you don’t hard-code Spitfires as scenery around bases. Also: Imagine landing on the runway and requesting a rearm and being denied because the base is out of bombs to load you with…. Yet you count 5 different trailers with 2 each bombs you need!!! Its just an immersion breaker in multiple different ways.

Small criticism: Remove the bomb carts as static objects that are permanently placed on the map and put them in the WWII asset pack as a placeable object. Its very strange and unnerving to start up, taxi by, takeoff, fly for 2-3 hours, land, taxi in…. And still see those bombs sitting off the side of the ramp… forgotten in time. Sitting in the sun during summer… rained and snowed on in the winter…. Time goes on and those bombs just sit there. In real life they’re either in the munitions bunker away from the infrastructure, or they’re being loaded on the aircraft. If the armorers brought too many and there were extra bombs, they’d be taken back to the bunker….. not just pushed off to the grass and left forever. Also… do the clocks inside the hanger actually tell correct time? If not remove them too. It’s a nice detail but if it’s just static there’s no reason to include them. It’s just a constant reminder of something that’s wrong in an otherwise awesomely detailed hanger.

Looks nice. I knew this part would look nice. What I wonder is what the purposely left low detailed Channel Map area looks like.

But you ( ED ) HAS stopped them. It looks like Ugra is making the single best map for WWII, a map that would unite an entire community, but a vital part of the map is off limits ( and forced to be low detail) because Eagle Dynamics has planted their flag in the tiny area that has the famous white cliffs of Dover and Dunkirk. In my opinion, the only way to make this right is if ED relinquishes their sole control on that area and permits Ugra to model the Channel Map area in high detail.

Good point about the campaign builders. This cluster bomb of a mangled map nonsense is really tough for campaign makers that want to stand by their work. DCS is already a pretty large burden for campaign builders… every time flak is buffed or nerfed, a good campaign builder has to go in and adjust his missions. When AI is adjusted, all those missions will need to be adjusted as well. It’s a tall order as it is… now they’ve introduced a 3rd map that may or may not be backwards compatible with the old map. Im afraid this is going to scare off campaign builders and kill new WWII content. It’s much easier to make a F-16 campaign for the Syria map.

The more I think about this the more irritated I get. The release of Normandy 1.0 went over fairly well. Then the Channel map was announced and people complained because the maps more or less overlapped. Later it was noticed that there was a big trench along the border of the maps. It was pretty obvious that there had been a failed attempt to merge the maps. It’s evident Eagle Dynamics STILL doesn’t have the means to merge the 2 maps…. Yet they are allowing the release of a third map that requires it. At this point, Eagle Dynamics needs to come to an agreement with Ugra and just let Ugra media finish Normandy 2.0 as a full high detailed map. You basically have two entities at conflict with each other and that’s not good for the brand. *edit* imagine a 3PD announces a very popular “Desert Storm” map and another developer rushes and releases a “Baghdad” map. I’d imagine Eagle Dynamics wouldn’t allow two developers to do this to one another… yet here we are with Normandy 2.0 and The Channel Map.

I own Normandy 1.0 and The Channel Map, and $9.99 to upgrade to Normandy 2.0 seems very fair…. I had hoped Normandy 2.0 would solve all the “peculiarities” that face the WWII community and become the one singular “go-to” map for WWII missions, but to be honest I’m a little disheartened to find that this entire map isn’t fully detailed. I have 2 questions: 1) how low is low detail? If I fly from one high detailed airbase to another high detailed base but pass through a low detailed area, how jarring will it be? 2) it appears Ugra Media has left the area covered by The Channel Map low detail as to avoid making the former obsolete. I imagine “eventually” merging Normandy 2.0 with The Channel Map is something Eagle Dynamics would like to do. Once merging the two maps becomes a reality, will there be an additional cost?

With Normandy 2 in the works, we’re definitely going to need that 200 gallon belly tank!

Or at least a “hold on a minute damnit!”

Another update. Looks like he’s getting close to a release candidate!

I’d still like a 200 gallon belly tank

There was an update posted on the Facebook project page…. Just sharing here for anyone interested.

For $60 this throttle can’t be beat: Logitech Pro Flight Throttle Quadrant https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M00UHE3/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_i_KMPP1X2KBVQKW717QT8F?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

He’s working on the stick grip and has talked about making the trim pedestal as well!

I’ve been following this guys work for some time… thought it should be shared here: https://www.patreon.com/P47throttlequadrant/posts

The actual tanks were never modified. The detonator was installed in the gas cap. Whether it was used as a drop tank or a napalm bomb, the tank wouldn’t have been filled until right before the pilot stepped for his pre-flight. By then the pilot would have been briefed on his mission and his ordinance. I suppose the ground crew could have slapped some red paint on it or something… but the paint would have still been wet by the time the pilot was climbing in the cockpit!

The A-4E napalm canisters were Vietnam-era napalm specific bombs. IIRC, the napalm P-47’s dropped during WWII, was napalm that was simply mixed and then pumped into external fuel tanks (obviously not plumbed to the aircraft). The fuel cap for the external tank was modified to hold a detonator. I believe sometimes a second detonator was installed on the tail of the fuel tank as well. When the P-47 dropped the fuel tank, the fuel tank’s impact with the ground caused the fuel tank to rupture, dousing the area with napalm. The impact also activated the detonator. So basically, the napalm our P-47’s would be dropping would look no different than the drop tanks already in game, except for a small detonator installed on the red fuel cap, and possibly another attached to the tail. I’m not even sure they painted anything on the tank to signify that it was filled with napalm and not regular fuel… as it was usually filled right before takeoff and the pilot would definitely know his mission (and his load out) by then.

Yes! The bazooka tubes should be available on all P-47 sub-variants, with only the -40 getting the HVARs. Also, both rocket types should have the ability to be jettisoned. I also agree with renaming the "D-30 Early" to the "D-28" I never did like "early" added to it because it's too subjective... how early is early and how late is late? -28, -30, -40 is much easier and cleaner in the drop down menu.

Does the C-47 sound like a high-Revving turbo-prop to anyone else? Im wondering if maybe my install is porked. My C-47 sounds like 2 Edge 540’s flying in formation! edit— never mind… it was my Edge 540 mod that conflicted with the C-47 sounds for some reason.

Any fuel in the Auxiliary tank? Have you checked to make sure you don’t have two devices on your pitch axis? Some other guys were complaining about their button bindings being messed up after this latest update… so that could be the culprit.

Sorry I never saved any tracks and I’ve since edited my mission for the convoy to travel a different route. However, I can tell you that when building the mission, I placed a new ground unit, set it to the opel blitz truck, set it’s waypoints, and then made it 1 of 5. I then changed the first truck to a “APC Sd.Kfz.251 Halftrack”, and then changed the last truck in the convoy to a “Scout Puma AC.” So the half track is leading a convoy of 3 Opel Blitz trucks with a Puma AC protecting the rear. Maybe the Halftrack can’t cross without a bridge and the others are simply following? Im glad the bug is reported and you’ve found a ton of missing bridges… and most importantly, it’s being worked on! Thank you!

Not to mention that usually the Crew Chief would have warmed up the engine and had the plane ready for the pilot.