Northstar98

The thing is, the H-6J doesn’t just have tiny tweaks. It has no defensive armament (which I’d argue has a significant impact on gameplay, especially for Cold War intercepts). It has a pretty different nose (the Badger-G and -J have glazed noses reminiscent of a WWII - 1950s bomber). Just to compare: Here’s a Tu-16 (presumably some Badger-G variant or ELINT/EW variant): And here’s a modern H-6 variant: It has substantially different engines, with enlarged inlets. Compared with the Badger-C it doesn’t have any missiles (without nodding AS-4s and even those are wrong, though at least it’s close to the AS-6, the AS-6 being essentially just a scaled down version) that come close to what it would be armed with.

While the H-6J is derived from the Tu-16, the 3D model is quite a bit different, especially for the Tu-16K-10-26 and RM-1.

DMS was included in my initial message (68°01'52"N, 39°32'02"E). Here's a link to a view from Google Earth.

It's good that you're enjoying the map, I just have a few thoughts to share: Well, for me it's not civilian buildings, rather military points of interest. These I'm more likely to want to visit, pay attention to and make mission objectives. Though for me, getting airfields as 1:1 as possible is important, as this is where it's likely to be most noticeable. Yes, the Caucasus map is also inaccurate - it's been brought up a few times. But then again, the Caucasus is both the oldest map (with a data set tracing back to LOMAC, even when it was redone it mostly only involved improving the resolution of the existing map) and a free map. I'm obviously not expecting 100% accuracy across the whole map, but I am expecting accuracy where it matters - namely aerodromes and military points of interest (especially things SAM sites - stuff that can directly impact gameplay). Yes, I agree. Personally, I lean more on the side of photorealism and colour accuracy, rather than resolution (as is the case with most other maps). Even as someone who likes flying helicopters low, where the resolution is going to be noticeable. Here though it definitely needs work. In some instances what was seen on release is lower in quality than how it appeared half a year ago (Olenegorsk being the chief example - an airbase in the high detail region). Yes, but this is what graphics settings are for. Of course it's difficult to reduce the density of objects in a setting, particularly for multiplayer.

There also seems to be a smaller strip near Ostrovnoy (68°01'52"N, 39°32'02"E) which this describes as a helipad. See here for a satellite image (also note the closed "Orbita" satellite ground station immediately to its south).

While explosions could do with some work (as could smoke and fires) I think the main effect that sorely needs improving are tracers and muzzle flashes.

You might need to hit them with something large. Try say, a Su-24M with the FAB-1500M-54 or the KAB-1500s.

Hi everyone, A somewhat minor issue - the Su-24MR isn't available for the USSR. I'm not entirely sure when it was introduced, but ww2.dk has it present for the 39th ORAP (potentially relevant for the Afghanistan map) from circa 1986. Several other results for the Su-24MR on the same website has it present through the mid to late 1980s. According to this and this though, the first unit to perform operational testing in 1987-1988. Regardless of which date is accurate, they're both within the period where the Soviet Union was around.

I could, but it doesn't have the defensive armament that's more relevant for Cold War intercepts and directly impacts gameplay (especially seeing as Norway's F-16As only had Sidewinders at most) and in the case of the Tu-16K-10-26, it doesn't have missiles that come close to the same performance or size.

Hi everyone, With the release of the Kola map, there's a particular aircraft that's currently absent from DCS' roster that I feel would really help flesh out the region for the Cold War era (as well as giving us a Cold War era Soviet bomber that would fit well into the mid and late Cold War period). Primarily, the variants I'm interested in are the: Tu-16K-10-26 [Badger-C Mod] / Tu-16K-26P (KSR-2-5-11) [Badger-G Mod] - these are primarily maritime strike aircraft, armed with long-range anti-ship missiles. The main difference is that the former has a large, long-range radar in its nose and can fire the K-10 [AS-2 Kipper] anti-ship missile. The latter has a glazed nose, typical of bombers of its era and while it can't fire the K-10, it can fire the KSR-2 and -11 [AS-5 Kelt]. Both are able to fire the KSR-5 [AS-6 Kingfish] and both (albeit with the Tu-16K-10-26B version for the former) have conventional bombing capability. Tu-16RM-1 [Badger-D] - this is a maritime reconaissance version which is similar in appearance to the Badger-C (if you were to take the Badger-C, add a couple of radomes to the underside and delete the hardpoints for missiles, you'd be pretty much there). It lacks offensive armament. Tu-16P [Badger-J] - this is an electronic warfare aircraft designed to act as a strike escort. Obviously this would mostly just be decoartive without EW improvements to DCS. Externally it's fairly similar to the Badger-G (if you took the G, deleted the missile hardpoints and added a canoe-shaped radome along with 4 small air intakes to the bottom of it, you'd be pretty much there), like the Badger-D, it would lack offensive armament. The units on the Kola map basing the Tu-16 are the following: 5th Maritime Missile Aviation Division (5th MRAD): 924th Guards Maritime Missile Aviation Regiment (924th GvMRAP) - Tu-16K, Tu-16P. Based at Olenegorsk (previously at Severomorsk-1). 987th Maritime Missile Aviation Regiment (987th MRAP) - Tu-16K. Based at Severomorsk-3. 967th Independent Long-Range Reconaissance Aviation Regiment (967th ODRAP) - Tu-16K-10-26, Tu-16RM. Based at Severomorsk-1. Each aviation regiment having something like 30-40 aircraft each (at least circa 1990). For the former, we would be missing appropriate weapons for them, see the spoiler below:

+1 it's also arguably the most appropriate adversary for upcoming modules like the F-4E. I'd also extend this to the MiG-27K, which as far as the Kola map is concerned, was actually based at Olenegorsk.

You're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm not after functional naval units placed by default on the map. I haven't implied that anywhere. I'm after empty harbours, without purely decorative ships and submarines. Instead of making models and using them for non-functional, purely decorative ships and submarines, make them into static objects, or even better, functional naval units. That way: I can place stuff where I like, without needing to bother myself with deleting scenery objects, which may result in adjacent scenery objects being removed unintentionally. I can more easily utilise these objects as mission objectives and for triggers, having them directly impact gameplay. We have more assets to flesh out scenarios.

I'm sorry, but I totally agree - this is very disappointing. It has utterly failed to capture the look of the landscape - if you'd have told me this was the Caucasus map, I would've believed you. And this is supposed to be within the high-detailed area! For our most recent map, for the price, I'm sorry but this is deal-breakingly bad for me. It's such a shame.

Yes, I know scenery object ships and submarines aren't functional. The point is that, instead of being made into a non-functional, purely decorative scenery object, they should be made into a functional naval unit or a static object we can place.

Yes to the naval bases but I'm going to give a no to non-functional, purely decorative, scenery object ships and submarines: It's a lot easier to add stuff in the mission editor than to delete a scenery object (especially as that can sometimes result in collateral damage, deleting other objects in the vicinity unintentionally - if I want to replace a scenery object submarine with one from naval units or static objects, I'll first have to delete the scenery object, which will likely delete the pier it's moored to and I probably won't be able to delete one without deleting the other. Scenery object ships and submarines typically don't have damage models EDIT: actually, on most maps, there's an alive state and a dead state but that's it (on this map though, at least from what I've heard (barge of salt) this doesn't seem to be the case on this map), unlike static objects or naval units. If you were to do a mission where you're to strike a ship or submarine in port, you'd be better off using a static object or a naval unit (they're also easier to work with and provide greater flexibility as far as triggers are concerned). Scenery object ships and submarines should ideally instead be functional units that directly impact gameplay.

Fair enough, this is early days yet, we'll see what happens Yeah, the main problem for me there is that it's difficult to add extra detail while maintaining readability as some formatting options (unless there's something I'm massively overlooking) isn't present. Though I do agree that it would be better if it was here instead of somewhere else.

I'm just comparing what I'm seeing on the coastline on the Kola map, with what I see on the South Atlantic map - the chopped off coastline is exactly what happens around the SA map. Personally, I'm speaking from experience here - flying low and slow in a helicopter this stood out to me like a sore thumb on the South Atlantic map. Of course mileage may vary and there's definitely a non-zero probability that I am being pedantic about this. Obviously I don't own the map, so I'm going purely off of what I see, but unfortunately I'm not quite with you on the assessment, particularly with the coastlines. Don't get me wrong, I have seen stuff I like, but right now there's enough I don't like to put me off, which is quite a shame.

This particular screenshot looks very rough - the similarities with the South Atlantic map are quite striking. The coastline in particular - I'm sorry, but that looks pretty awful. The South Atlantic has the exact same problem. It doesn't look natural at all, I'd say it's fairly immersion breaking and is definitely a bad look for a map in 2024 with the pricetag it has. To make it worse, a lot of aerodromes in Norway are immediately adjacent to the coast or have their approach paths overflying it, where this is going to be very visible (see the spoiler for the list. Not to mention all the targets that are also along the coastline. What a shame, that's very disappointing.

Just a couple I found on a quick search: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3309067/

Bo-105 is coming. Some variant of the Black Hawk (UH-60A or L would be my pick) would be fantastic.

Here's a fragment of my .kmz showing air defence sites. I haven't done Sweden (and it's a nightmare finding them, the Finnish ones are also in that camp, but I have found a few, mostly completely by accident). My full .kmz is an expansive list of POIs, not just showing where stuff is but in some cases I've included large descriptions (see the spoiler for an example) all referenced. Kola Air Defence Sites Temp.kmz

Here's the fragment of mine (the full thing is incomplete and has far more scope than just SAM sites) containing the locations of Soviet SAM and EWR sites (I have included descriptions and links to reference material in each entry). Note that this is incomplete, it currently lacks Sweden (which is a pain the backside for finding some of this stuff, the Finnish stuff I only found mostly through sheer blind luck). Kola Air Defence Sites Temp.kmz

That's quite disappointing - for the price of this map I'd maybe expect a little more, this certainly isn't a trivial detail for me. At least it would be good to have the clear, empty areas where the terrain topology is suitable for placing units (i.e. not up silly inclines, not LOS blocked from directions where they shouldn't). Some generic SA-2, -3, -5 and -10 launcher and FCR revetment, arranged into a generic layout and then have that be copied and pasted across the entire map (sorta like Syria, but hopefully with a bit more scope, as Ugra only really did a few SA-2 sites). And finally, the ideal option is where sites are recreated as accurately as possible. OneReTech seems to have had a go at doing this and aside from maybe the orientation of the launch revetments, this is perfect and is exactly what I'm talking about. Now that's very disappointing. It sounds like the Kola map is suffering from PG-map-iritis when it comes to these. I think I'll definitely be holding out purchasing the map (even if the area hold a tonne of interest for me), until these sites are useable as is. EDIT: If you don't mind, could you also test out the HAWK sites in Norway? I've found at least 2 of them and I know Orbx has definitely modelled one of them but I couldn't tell if the trees interfere with it. One of them is located on the grounds of Bodø Main Air Station, at 67°15'49"N, 14°21'00"E. See here for a satellite image. HAWK sites in Norway appear to be configured as a platoon rather than a battery (i.e. they have 1 fire section (with 3 launchers)). The launchers would be the 3 circular pads to the west, the FCR would've likely gone here. The other is on the island of Andøya, 4 nmi to the SSW of where the airbase should be, adjacent to some former military base (69°14'00"N 16°02'36"E). See here for a satellite image.

Live at 15:00 UTC: