Northstar98

Yeah, ythis is exactly my problem with having these kind of objects as scenery objects. Personally, I'd much rather maps embrace more of a sandbox ideology - let me decide what goes where, rather than making the choice for me and then doing so in a way where it's difficult to impossible to do anything else. It is far easier to add a static object and use that as decoration, than to delete a scenery object, especially when it often results in collateral damage as seen above.

Yes, this is a problem when developing an aircraft that was only recently declared fully operational. It's part of the reason why I think that the F-35 is a poor choice for DCS. However, developing a pre-IOC aircraft would really solidify that the F-35 is a poor-choice in DCS for me - on top of everything else (like the lack of relevant peer threats, low fidelity sensor modelling, lacklustre EW etc). And to be honest, the only thing 3F materially improves when it comes to DCS-relevant aerial warfare is external carriage of 2 AIM-9X. Most of the changes relevant for DCS would concern AG armament.

No it isn't. I want an operational variant, of which Block 3F is the first. If I wanted "the most powerful version" I would've said block 4+ It's give me a MiG-23MLA, not a pre-production MiG-23. Give me a 9.12 MiG-29, not a 9.11 MiG-29A.

Yep, they would be far more useful as functional units than just decorative, scenery objects. Though we really need a separate civilian faction.

Yeah, would really be nice (though might be something more for the general wishlist), alongside a different icon for heliports and for fixed wing aircraft with systems that list aerodromes to ignore heliports.

Absolutely agreed.

@Ghostrida9 Looks excellent - far more accurate than what's currently there. I wonder if there's any way to actually place the ammunition warehouses for this airbase where they should be? I saw a screenshot showing them in seemingly random places - like 2 objects near the apron in the north-west of the airbase.

It wasn't the only obvious invasion route, the other is the North German Plain, which is not only flatter, but also includes several strategic areas - like control of the coastline and ports (important for Reforger). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine

DCS really needs to have a separate icon for helipads and for them to be filtered out for fixed-wing aircraft that list them.

Same goes for H GDR 21 - see here for 1985 satellite imagery. It should just be a forest. Meanwhile military installations (including, one with a helipad) in the vicinity aren't present, ironically replaced by trees: FuTK-332 (1), which actually had a grass helipad, isn't present (note the adjacent SA-3 site (2)): Another military site in the vicinity that isn't present is the SA-3 at Damgarten itself (1), there's also an EWR site (2), see here for an image showing the 2 very clearly.

@EvilBert VR what website?

It is, however we're getting the Ukrainian T-64BV Model 2017 (though externally it's pretty similar). So not quite, but should more-or-less work as a stand in.

Echoing my thoughts on other threads - the radome should be a static object, not a scenery object, so we can place functional radars in the right locations. If it's a scenery object, we won't be able to use the site as a functional EWR site.

Yeah I would love this as well - I really like how it’s done in the Mirage 2000C where not only is there a model and animation for placing/removing the data cartridge, but you can also use the scroll wheel to select different data cartridges on the same map.

Unfortunately this bridge isn't present and the river is in the wrong place, reported here:

I mean, they're cool for peacetime stuff, but are less at home in DCS. We already have air racing pylons in static objects, allowing us to make our own courses should anyone wish to do so. If it were me I'd remove them and include the pylons as a static object, that way I can more easily choose whether or not I want air racing courses. Definitely agree and yes, you can use the scenery remove objects action in the triggers menu. This will delete scenery objects within an area (defined by trigger zones).

I think Ugra are far from being anywhere remotely "lazy". However, accuracy is something that's quite important to me and it's something most DCS maps fail quite badly on, especially when it comes to sites I will be interacting with and sites that either influence air combat or are significant targets. Do I care about getting every building correct, absolutely not - I personally couldn't care less that some building in some village or town isn't 1:1 with the real place, so long as the layout of the place is accurate and the buildings are roughly the right size, I don't really care if it's copied and pasted throughout the map. Of course some variety would be nice, but I'm perfectly happy if villages and towns had purely generic, copied and pasted buildings. The only exceptions I'd make are prominent buildings and landmarks, especially those clearly distinguishable from the air, though Ugra has already done a pretty fantastic job of that already. Airbases though? I'm expecting those to be as 1:1 as possible, even if assets are repeated where they make sense. Gütersloh for instance has the wrong shelters, there's no ramparts/revetments in parking areas near shelters, the Ems is in the wrong place etc. Then there's fields like Beinenfarm, which looks almost nothing like how it really does. I am not a fan of the dug up look airbases have though and no it doesn't look like dry grass, especially when you compare to the surrounding green grass. The Germany map also has the same issue when it comes to airbase warehouses, with ammunition particularly being quite bad - with warehouses assigned to seemingly random objects instead of the actual WSAs present (and modelled, at least in some cases). Similarly for other military installations, these I'm expecting to be as 1:1 as possible, especially air defence sites (with exceptions where it makes sense - SA-2 sites for instance follow a very similar layout for each site - there it makes perfect sense for them to be copied and pasted). Ugra seems to have done well (SA-3 site for instance looks pretty much perfect for that particularly layout, it would be nice to get another but more than happy with it as-is), much better than most maps (apart from Sinai and a tad of Syria, the bar is on the floor though) - but there's still loads missing, the HAWK and SA-5 sites are inaccurate and in some cases fictional tank ranges have been placed, while real military sites in the vicinity are omitted (ironically what should be a forest has one of the tank ranges in it, meanwhile 2 SA-3 sites and an EWR site in the vicinity are omitted and replaced by trees). I so far haven't seen major tank ranges like the Altmark range just north of Magdeburg and Grafenwöhr - the current tank range objects look like neither and it'll be disappointing if they're just placed where those 2 ranges are, especially given how prominent these sites are. For static aircraft, tanks etc and other similar scenery objects - those I'd rather be actual assets I can interact with, they'd be much more useful as functional units, than they would as static scenery objects, which are only good for eye-candy alone. The Aist we saw for instance is armed and would go well into fleshing out Soviet amphibious units, alongside the Ropucha.

There should be a prepared SA-6 position south of Erfut. Clearly visible in historical satellite imagery. There should be another likely one here (though SAMSiteOverview has this as a prepared SA-8 site).

Cheers, those 2 were some I remember not having information on (and in general the same is true whenever you see anything with a question mark).

Fuel still transfers regardless of the lights in my testing, it's only when I disconnect does fuel transfer actually stop.

That is a T-62M and no it isn't in-game yet. Unfortunately, the T-62M isn't accurate for the GSFG or the NVA. It's more appropriate for Soviet forces on the Afghanistan map. At the moment, we sadly don't have any GSFG tanks for the timeframe (missing the T-62 Obr 1972, T-64A/B/BV and T-80B/BV), the NVA have the T-55A and PT-76B, but are missing the KPz T-72/T-72M/M1. The British have the Cheiftain not a Mark 3 (but lack European & BOAR camouflage schemes), they're missing later Chieftain Marks like the 10 and the Challenger 1. The West Germans fare the best, with the Leopard 1A3 and 2A4, though we could do with some early Leopard 2 variants and the Leopard 1A1A4. The US only has the M60A3 - we're missing the M1, M1IP and M1A1. Of course this is just tanks, IFVs for the Warsaw Pact are fairly well covered (though we're missing the BMP-1P). There's a few APCs that are missing (though one was also in the trailer), namely the BTR-60PB/SPW-60PB, BTR-70, FV103 Spartan (as well as the rest of the CVRT series) and FV432.

Have to agree, ideally they should be tied to the civil traffic setting.

It would also be good to have sea states that go beyond 4.

Beats me, I did report it at the time, but nobody has paid attention to it. It isn't the only example of something named incorrectly in DCS.

AFAIK drogues only allow fuel transfer when extended within a certain range (hose & drogue cannot be pushed in too far, nor can it be extended too far). This would mean that we would need markings on the hose where applicable. Boom-drogue adapter kit ("Iron Maiden")