bfr

Yeah, I found Polyarny on the next flight I did.

Most of the scenery buildings seem to come down if you hit them. Tried a moored boat near Murmansk, it burned but didn't seem to sink (haven't tried many others so don't know if that is a universal thing). Tried a large bridge back up-river from it and that definitely sustained damage. The same kind of stuff that is always indestructible on maps like dams are still indestructible. Not found a sub yet. EDIT: found a ballistic missile sub in port and like the ship, it burned but didn't sink

Also worth noting that Orbx are selling it from their own store and also offer their own loyalty scheme (which admittedly isn't useful for DCS-only fliers as they only do 1 DCS product).

There might be some currently unused textures already in there but i'd be surprised if they were sandbagging an entire seasonal texture set. Admittedly i've only clocked a couple of hours on the map so far but the towns seem a lot less cookie-cutter than in some maps in terms of variety of buildings, so those variations might explain at least some of the bloat.

Yeah, bigger drive is the simplest but most expensive solution. At least that option isn't THAT expensive these days versus a few years ago. I'm probably OK for the time being. Only really have the modern maps installed so I think i've still got just under 350GB to play with on a 1TB SSD. Still haven't decided whether I want Afghanistan or not yet. Funny how big maps are getting now though. I was just looking and Kola is about as big in storage terms as Sinai, PG and Syria combined!

SSD to SSD is fairly rapid. There is also the possibility of copying the map folder to a second drive and using symbolic links to make it look like its still on one drive (not had to go down that path myself yet but I believe it works for DCS). As and when I start struggling for space I might just take some existing maps off for a bit (like I don't fly Nevada all that often these days and have rarely used Marianas)

Its an optional thing and not all the 3rd party devs opt into the scheme.

Yes, there can be a lot of not a lot depending on where you go, but it doesn't quite feel as utterly desolate as a lot of SA does. Seeing it in the depths of winter will be quite entertaining too I suspect.

Yes, definitely so.

Yes, definitely demanding. I said the other day I reckoned it'd be 'South Atlantic and Caucasus had a baby' and it does really feel like that. I've been basically doing sightseeing tours at between 5000ft and 100ft and the only real negative i've had thus far is the occasional bit of a slideshow for about 3 or 4 seconds (presumably loading another section). Even hammering around the Norwegian coast ( Bodo to Lakselv, which is well outside the higher detail area) was fun to just stare out the window as the world went by. The earlier flight from the Kemi Tornio all the way to Murmansk was good fun going quite low level at times. When the game isn't catching up on itself then the world was really flying by outside (and the flatter bits aren't that flat when you go properly low). Conclusion: Definitely things that can be worked on but a really solid starting point. When you do occasionally hit a population centre then it does actually look like a functional town rather than just 'here are some random buildings'. I think we'll all have a lot of fun with this in time and there are definitely things to like it about it already. Even the lower definition areas of the map I genuinely enjoyed. It is absolutely pushing DCS to the limit though, even with the already acknowledged compromises about choice of trees etc.

Indeed, but everyone has to start somewhere. And to temper that, scenery/maps (albeit on other platforms) is their bread and butter and they also have a hard-won reputation to protect. So in that sense, less risk on paper than a completely new start-up studio or one branching out from making planes to making scenery. And given levels of interest then it doesn't sound all that likely that they'll drop it because it simply didn't sell well.

I'm not particularly concerned. Razbam had a bit of a reputation even before they'd made a single module in DCS. In any case I expect their current dispute with ED will be smoothed over in time. Orbx i've been buying stuff from going back to FS9 and I can't ever remember having a problem with them. About the only the risk I can see is that its their first foray into DCS.

I was thinking of it a bit as "South Atlantic & Caucasus have a baby" Plus it being a well-used part of the world in early computer gaming (for those of us of a certain age) sweetens the deal.

A pure bomber platform would be a lot of fun and a slightly different mindset, and i've always had a soft spot for the -111.

It seems quite specific though about downloading it via Orbx. And DCS as a prerequisite is a given whichever way it works. It does leave more questions than answers though. - Is it available via Orbx only or will an option to buy/install via ED exist also? - Is the 'no Steam' thing temporary only? EDIT: Ah, seen the screenshot from Discord someone posted now.

Looking at the Orbx 'coming soon' blurb then it looks like Orbx Direct will handle install/download. https://orbxdirect.com/product/orbx-kola-dcs

And kind of how the DCS trial system works now, albeit its pretty much never available for fresh off the press releases.

Although Orbx clearly have the capability to host and deliver that kind of size of content already whereas I don't think Heatblur do. Whether ED want everything under their roof (or can even currently support a mixed environment in the way MSFS works) I don't know, and it might end up that you can choose either source.

It'll be interesting to see how that pans out in reality. Their store and content delivery works very well with MSFS. I don't know if its possible that they can handle the file management and DCS handles the licence, or if you'll just get served up a DCS licence code after purchase from the Orbx store and then everything from there is handled by DCS' ecosystem. I guess we'll find out in due course.

I knocked up a similar 'shock & awe' type scenario for my amusement ages ago (I think I used B-52s instead of B-1Bs) and IIRC then even for dumb bombs you need to space the points a bit for them to get everything in order for the bombing run. It is amusing to watch your screen momentarily reduced to a slideshow though when things start to go bang.

It's been out of sync with releases a couple of times before. I assume it's just edits haven't always beat the deadlines to be bundled with the updates.

Fwiw i absolutely agree Chromium can be a a bit of a resource hog but the last post was on a windows 10 subreddit about a low spec machine and kind of illustrates the point I was suggesting.

It may well be that it was something like lower end kit (which they might not have tested it on much until thrown to a much wider testing pool) that it ended up as being unusable on. Its hinted at it was an OS v hardware thing. Wasn't there a thing with people still on Windows 10 and certain CPUs and scheduling that was a bit hooky in the past?

Not an axis, but 'view up slow' and 'view down slow' are the Y axis options when mapping a POV hat switch. 'Absolute Camera Vertical View' might also be one to experiment with as an axis.

Depends how they define 'create your own content'. I very rarely throw up fully fledged and heavily populated missions (because it is indeed hard and time-consuming to do well) but lots of times i'll throw up very basic scenarios with a handful of assets and waypoints just because I feel like blowing something up (or even just having a guided joyride) in a particular location.