bfr

I was a bit like that too. I wasn't initially all that bothered, and even now i've finally ordered it I still don't even expect it to become my daily driver. I do however appreciate and like that they're trying to raise the bar and am happy to support that ambition. And hopefully gains from this spill over into gains for other products (like I don't have masses of hours on the F-14 because I find working with Jester a bit clunky currently).

DCS UFC I used for quite a bit (its a paid app but not expensive) until I bought a Stream Deck XL. The same author does a moving map display app but I can't say I ever tried it.

If you like low level i've just blasted down a cracking valley I stumbled across near Storslett (N69 46 03.64 E21 01 29.14). It starts just SE of where the town is marked on the map and then slowly bends S before veering SE again. Lots of fun in a clean F-16.

They've timed this absolutely on purpose, haven't they?

Its on the 'coming later' list, or at least the airbase associated with the range is. And you can already clearly see where the airbase will go if you overfly its location.

Tried the HAS out on a friendly base and they seem to be 'sink into the ground' unfortunately. Yeah, i'd agree it'd be good if the elements were destructible. And yes, I noticed too that its individual sections that collapse. Although i've seen that on some bridges in other maps and it seems reasonable depending on the type of bridge.

Not tried a HAS or industrial plant as yet to compare. I did have a pop at some dam structures I came across but not a lot happened (which I think is usual on other maps).

This was with a couple of 2000lb'ers. From memory then static cargo ships in port in the Syria and Sinai maps would go down with just 1.

From what i've tried so far its standard 'collapse into the ground' stuff much like most of the other maps. Boats catch fire but don't appear to sink.

I did manage to destroy some spans of the longer bridge in Murmansk (GBU-24s)

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.

99% sure that at the time of the official 'delayed until end of May' announcement that Heatblur said people could now refund Phantom pre-orders if they wanted (and without penalty as they'd be able to still get the same price if they then re-bought it once it actually released)

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.