firmek

One point that might have not been noticed is that as communicated, winter textures were one of the few things missing to complete the map. In other words, basically unless I'm mixing some facts, as well looking on the intensity of news and new screenshots appearing, the initial map release should be almost there.

Couldn't resist the recent sale and finally got F-5 - yet another great module which most probably I won't be able to devote the time it deserves. Anyway, so far enjoyed it a lot - it's super simple. On negative side - something seems to be strange with the sounds, like the engine sound would be really muted with a lot of white-noise on top of their audio cue. Anyway, I've added F-5 to server.lua. Server.lua SnapViews.lua

Great news. I had a lot of fun playing Museum Relic as well learning the navigation. I enjoyed it so much that flying over the stadium during last mission had actually made me sad that the story has ended. Can't wait for the new campaign. Whichever the timeline for the story is I'm sure the campaign is going to be great :thumbup:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=192998

Maybe this helps: Provided that RAL codes can be found for the listed colors, like "155 olive drab" EDIT: or this one Again, I don't have any clue about buidling the models but maybe the RAL codes could be guessed based on the numbers.

Amazing level of details. The way how it's worn is spot on IMO, not brand new from the factory but also not totally destroyed. Adds an immersion of flying a real thing. Based on the work from Heatblur so far it’s going to be a great module with extraordinary cockpit. The only one thing that pulls me of from buying F-14 is this guy :P EDIT: One thing that would be great to have though out of the box are a 3 and 2-way button abstractions. It's not a big deal to create them ourself but with an early release modules there is always a risk that something goes wrong due to udpates in the key-actions map. For that reason it's better it's provided and maintained by the dev team from the start.

+1. There is probably no chance we can get any newer European plane than Tornado. Still, the day Tornado would be released will be the day that I'll stop flying other DCS modules :)

Probably we can expect that the initial release of the new, reworked Caucasus coming out in 2.x branch, (let's say 2.2 or whatever) having the 1.5.x still available. That's at least until the new Caucasus map comes out of Alpha and a decision is made to ultimately cut out the old Caucasus, thus discontinuing the 1.5.x. This will be the final 2.5 version I presume.

I agree and disagree at the same time. The fact that it would come without any adequate opposition from the era should not be a decision criteria. On the other hand I think that a lot of unused potential comes from sole focus on "simulation of flight" and “sand-box” approach. What I mean is that DCS does the best job in publicly available flight simulators as for the flight and systems modeling and by no means that should be compromised on. At the same time more focus should be put on simulating the overall environment and "air warfare". The situation is improving (see Normandy and Assets Pack) but still many of modules in DCS are like a car simulator without a race track. Take Sabre and MiG-15 as an examples. Those are beutifull modules on their own but you can't get an experience of 50's era pilots in DCS due to severe lack of AI modules from the era. It's not much different with MiG-21 and will not be different for some other modules that are under development unless the situation changes and more focus is put on simulating the air warfare as such instead of only the airframes.

+1 :thumbup: Regarding the Marueli though. I'm also not sure as I wasn't able to find much information about it but it seems to be operational. If I recall correctly during 2008 conflict Kutaisi got bombed (thus the craters). Senaki also had been bombed as also later on blown up by the special ground forces. Both are closed at the moment which aside of being further South might be the reason why some squadrons had been moved to Marneuli. Take above with a grain of salt as I might be confusing thinks as also base on non accurate information. Those event's shouldn't also have an influence on the map design. Again, it would be interesting though if someone could shed some light on the history of Marneuli AB.

Based on the pattern of information flowing prior the release for previous modules, the intensity of the screenshots shared makes me belive that it's not that far before we'll see the map. :thumbup: Keeping the fingers crossed though still would love to understand more on what kind of structural updates the map will undergo.

:huh: Ok, but really, maybe it's early and I didn't had enough coffe and my brain is not there yet but could someone please shed some light what is this post about? Assuming it's about "guess what new module we're working on" it's rather unusuall way to communicate it.

So no plans for adding Marneuli? Is there any specific reason why it's not already included in the DCS map? Many of the airports/airbases changed a lot from 90's which as I understand the Caucasus map is portraying. Noworosyjsk doesn't exist anymore, Mozdok got a new runway. The question is did Marneuli exist in 90's or it's a relatively new airbase? Different question is if the airports are going to be changed. Again, might be a timeline difference but for instance Maykop looks totally different. Another example is Anapa which at the moment is an civilian airport while in DCS it's modeled as an military airbase. Another question - since the "X" runway had been mentioned. There seems to be a real firing range just East of Vaziani. It's in the area covered by current DCS map but is not modeled. Would be great if it's included in the new map. Last but not least, are the cities going to obtain more distinctive layout. It's not required to reflect every single buildings but just a major street layout with maybe some distinctive buildings would really help in visual navigation. Overall the point is that as far the progress on visual side of the map looks just amazing there could be more information about the changes for the map topology.

Guys correct me if I do something wrong with the math but... The real one is 13/31 with 126°/306° true heading. 13/31 is also painted on the runway. Variation for Batumi is 6.53 (though SkyVector say it's 5° East) which could result in rounded (because of 0.03) magnetic heading to be 119°/299° - which then could explain the confusion about the runways not being marked as 12/30 as also mentioned 119°. EDIT: As a second thought the question is how the variation is modeled in DCS. Is it dynamic and matching the date setup in the mission editor or is it fixed per date that the map is generally developped for. As far as I recall it's fixed about 6 deg.

What made me uncertain is the low resolution blury image as also a painting scheme which seem to have different colors between Krasnodar and Maykop L-39's. Might be it's just a different light conditions. I do however agree, its safer to assume those are L-39's :thumbup:

The point is about collecting real location of air force training units and ranges in Caucasus region for a mission building purposes. I guess prety much at some point of time everyone had been setting up a training mission in DCS Caucasus map. After getting bored with unused "X" airport and striving for more immersion (especially when practicing with L-39) I've started to look for information on which airbases host training units and for places used as a training ranges. Obviously even with the 476 weapons range it'll be diffuclt to exactly replicate a real range but it would be great at least get the location right. What I've found for the moment: I.) South Caucasus Units: Didn't really find any specific information. I gues that would be Senaki (before it got closed) Vaziani or Marneuli. Georgia supposed to have 4 L-29 and 4 L-39. Training Area: 1. Just East of Vaziani airbase Multiple news stating a mutlinational excersises taking place in this general area. Nothing specific though about if it's actually used by air force and where a specific targets would be placed. II.) North Caucasus Didn't find any weapon ranges. Though there are a number of training regiments in the region. Units: 1. Maykop - Khanskaya Seems to be mostly used as an airbase for training regiments. - 709th Training Aviation Regiment (united with 761 08.1991) Yak-11/18, 1951-1956 MiG-15, 1955-1960's MiG-17, 1960-1978 MiG-21, 1974-1991 - 761st Training Regiment MiG-15, 12.51-1953 MiG-17, 1.53-1969 L-29, 1969-1991 L-39, 1988-1998 MiG-23, 1998-today Google maps show a lot of L-39's and possibly MiG-23's - could be mistaken with Su-24. 2. Krasnodar - Pashkovsky - 802nd Training Regiment. In 1993 renamed to 461st Assault Aviation Regiment MiG-15, 1952-1960's MiG-17, 1960's-1970's Su-7, 1960's-1980's Su-22, 1970's-2004? Su-24, 1989-1990's Su-25, 1989-today L-39, 1990's-today 1990 with 31 Su-25, 15 Su-24 and 70 Su-22 2000 with 34 Su-25, 14 Su-22 and 36 Aero L-39 Can't see L-39's though on the google maps image - I think those which look similar are Su-25. As a side note, interesting information for mission building can be that there is a substantial military aircraft repair compound located just on the east-sout-east side of the airbase. Any information is welcome.

Add the Tornado to the list ;)

Yes, but that's probably the most honest and straight answer - which is just wait for F-18 to learn it's systems as it's a beast of its own. Aside of that the best starting point is the manual - assuming that it'll be published before the module or there are publicly available documents. Otherwise I support the opinion that learning A-10C it's well... learning A-10C systems. Trainer and F-5 would make the sense as a starting point to learn the general aviation, navigation, AFM, BFM, and some of the systems - like TACAN. There are reasons besides of being afraid to crash why real pilots start on a trainer (like Talon). Applying quite often presented forum logic the flight training regiments are should be equipped with A-10.

It went into service in many western NATO countries as Lockheed heavily "contributed" to make it happen ;) Anyway, if any developer decides to make a century series aircraft, F-100 and F-105 should be on top of the priority list.

Nothing particullary wrong with MiG-21. It's a great module. Take what you read on forums with a grain of salt. There are many people that enjoy flying MiG-21 or other modules while being aware and accepting some problems, inacuracies and schedule to get them fixed. There are also those that complain that they're puting whichever "module to the hangar" on a first occurence of running into a bug or even just by reading that something is not exactly as it used to be. Unfortunatelly, as the time passes from the release those that enjoy the module don't rush to write about it on the forums while the detractors for sure do. To be fair however, while I don't see anything specificly more wrong with the MiG-21 comparing to other modules, LN could have had done a better job with communication.

Ground radar, ... maps..., F-105 and Vietnam map confirmed :smilewink:

Is that a new Caucasus map? Anyway looks great :thumbup:

+1. Pushing it further than some hypothetical scenario like Operation Unthinkable actually taking place and going wrong resulting in front lines being back to the positions from '44 is probably as far I could bend my imagination. MiG-15 and Sabre would fit such scenario but anything further than 1'st generation jets requires a lot, I mean a lot of imagination. Besides of Normandy airfields being not exactly best suited for the modern jets I would constantly scratch my head trying to figure out how the hack is the GPS working.

Thanks for posting this link. I've read the real pilots manual and had seen the schematics but seeing a real pictures is much better. Great find :thumbup: If I get it correctly at low altitudes the radars screen should fill-in with false returns from the ground. Also the closer to the ground the more of the radar screen should be filled with the ground clutter. The DCS implementation from the visual perspective is quite an opposite - though the result is generally the same (not being able to recognize the target). Rather than clutter being dynamic in size and masking the target return (which is still there) what we have is the target disapering on a clean screen while the clutter is a fixed ~1 cm line at the bottom. Looking forward to check how the new radard implementation works!

I've run into icing warning and de-icing automatically turning-on in Mi-8. But that's the only module where I had experienced icing effects. I always thought that turning on the pitot heating is more of role-playing so to say as due to not being simulated in DCS it doesn't have any effect. How to test it? Not turning on the pitot heating and flying high should be enough or it's also required the temperature is low and humidity high enough? IRC the L-39 manual mentioned that pitot heating should be turned-on while on the ground when ambient temperature is below +5C.