Callsign112

I think this is an actual image of the in-game structure. Take the M5 North from Damascus.

Thanks very much @Boosterdog, that will definitely get me going in the right direction. I will start by setting this up using Ai planes so very much appreciated.

For me the only way to really enjoy a map is low and slow. So it will likely be in a prop, a helicopter if/when I pick one up, or a vehicle of some sort.

This is a really good point, and I fully agree. If I want/expect the maps to continue improving in quality/texture/damage model especially for an improved ground war experience, I need to do my part and ensure I have a machine that can handle it.

This was a really interesting thread thanks to both of you. Being mostly a WWII guy I have never even actually tired setting up any of the SAM units, but that is likely going to change as I start adding to my cold war collection. Do the early SAM systems in-game resupply in a similar way?

Must be that light sweet crude oil!

The map making tech does seem to be improving though. It is interesting to see how many objects have a damage model on the Syria map. I don't know if they are going to add the same feature to the Normandy map, but you can certainly tell the difference as you drive around. A big thing for me will be damage models for objects (trees/fences) as you drive heavy armored units around. But I am not expecting to see big changes, not at least until they finish with the core upgrades. We have likely all seen how good the dynamic damage done to buildings/terrain in games like Battle Field and PostScriptum is, but with the memory overhead in something like DCS I think this is out of reach at least for the time being.

I doubt it. I think it includes the Golan Heights and clips the tip of Israel. Haifa is on the map for example. I just picked this map up and did a quick flight up the coast of Lebanon. The map really looks amazing. Will definitely be exploring more of this from ground level.

@dorianR666, I just got the campaign and have only opened the first mission to read all the notes and get a general impression of the map area, mission objective, available assets, and opposing force. I have to say at the onset that I am pleasantly surprised and actually impressed with the setup of the first mission. I noticed for the first mission, the only slot available to the player is Game Master, so I'm guessing mission 1 is all about learning what that slot does. As you already discovered, out of all the grouped units, the player can take direct control of a group of T72's, T55's, and a group of AA I think. All other groups are meant to be controlled by the Game Master via way points, except for a couple groups of IFV's and the infantry units being dropped onto the objective by helicopter. But as a Game Master, I should also be able to control/possibly drive the enemy units as well when they arrive, or at least see where they are on the map. I think an important start to this mission though is going to be directing the Artillery and AA into position for the coming battle. But to give a possible answer to your question "why", my first impression albeit from a very early stag in the campaign is that it is meant to introduce the concept and features of Combined Arms. I don't know if you tried it, but were you able to control any enemy units? As a CA mission designer, you could for example have it setup so that the Game Master can interact with enemy units to make it easier/harder for your own units to attack/defend. And I will have to see when I get there, but to stress the point I'm trying to make, take your description of mission 3 as the example. The purpose might be to have the player/commander protect his ground forces from an air attack. Being that the bridge is 25 km away that might not make sense, but I am expecting that learning the Game Master/Tactical Commander slots are going to be a big part of what the Campaign is all about. So it wouldn't surprise me to see a lot of command type vehicles as the only option available to the player. After looking closely at the layout of mission 1, the feeling I get is that the player is supposed either play as the platoon commander of an armored unit, or the Tactical commander on the field.

I can cook the engine on MAX continuous. @Japo32 , complaint is he keeps over heating his engine and can't keep up with the Ai. My suggestion would be to learn how to fly the plane without cooking the engine first. I think one of the problems might be that people are jumping into the extreme end of the SIM too fast. Dog fighting in any of the DCS WWII planes is flying them in the highest stress environment they can be put in. I would also suggest learning to dog fight by using the ME to control the Ai at the start. Start with easy level patterns, and add more challenge at your own pace by playing with speed and elevation change. The point is you will know what to expect, and that should help you concentrate on how to handle the plane.

No need to wait for anything @Japo32. In some ways, I sort of regret bringing this up. I was really just trying to be helpful thanking that it might be so obvious that it is being overlooked. The only purpose to any of this IMO would be to help improve DCS. But again, it was just a suggestion and not being stated as fact. For all any of us here knows, the issues with engine management we are seeing may be related to something else entirely. But I think if you follow the insights given in the last posts by grafspee and Old Crow, you can't go wrong. I second the notion to mentally lock your controls at continuous MAX settings and stay above 200. Once you have the continuous MAX thing and the number 200 burned into your memory, using short bursts of power to keep speed shouldn't be a big problem because your memory will force your hand to return the throttle where it should be even when you are frantically doing other things in the chase, or while being chased. The only reason my P51 sits in the hangar is because I'm doing something else.

Yeah it looks like it has something to do with the server/MP setting as opposed to being a bug, but it could be an issue that only shows up in MP. I think your plan to try it again on the server with a same coalition truck as described by @Boosterdog above will help you resolve the issue. Good luck and let us know.

Maybe make a bug report with a track, because I have seen Ai MBT/IFV resupply without a player directly controlling them. So either the unit you are using doesn't have the resupply feature added yet, or you are missing something.

Absolutely and for sure anyone would be able to understand why you wouldn't be thrashing something like a P51-D around today. I was just pointing to this as a possible consideration in case its something that has been buried out of sight and out of mind by now. ED most likely knows where they are on this anyways, and what ever it is, I am confident that when they do get back to the new cooler model, they will simply be making what is already currently the best P51 Mustang simulation even better.

I think you may have missed my point, and maybe it was my use of the word "maintenance" that misled you. The point I was making was not about the intensity of maintenance, maybe I should have used the term "performance limitations" instead? Also, the point is not whether the de-leading procedure is being done today, or even that it was being done in 1945. The point was that in order to do the de-leading procedure, it demanded that MP be held at 61 for 1 minute with the plane chocked. Current run up limits being used by current collectors/owners according to a post in another thread regarding this issue is 33. Does the DCS model attribute damage if we exceed a MP limit of 33 while parked? So I'm just wondering if the way these vintage planes are being cared for today had any influence on the way things were modeled in the DCS Mustang? Did they use more conservative numbers to model this part of the Mustang? It would certainly fit the current situation, and might help explain why we seem to be seeing a more fragile engine then one might expect. I think you are quite right though, if we were to hold the Mustang at 145 mph with a manifold pressure of 67, it would cook the engine well before 28 minutes.

I think you probably meant to say 141.5 mph (**corrected). It's an interesting chart, and I really enjoy the insight it offers on how altitude affects performance/fuel consumption. But there is something I have been wondering about and wanting to throw out there for awhile now. Could there be differences in the way a vintage WWII fighter would be maintained/cared for today as opposed to its war time maintenance? I might be wrong, but I am assuming that today's collectors would likely want to baby their vintage planes more than the plane would have been back in the day. I honestly don't know how, or if this has had any influence on the model in DCS, but it does seem like the model is being limited toward safety. A good example of this would be the preflight de-leading procedure compared to the current run up limits being used today by collectors/owners.

I would just add that this is a huge project, not just for the third parties involved, but for ED itself. This is not just another module IMO, I think we might also be missing the fact that they are opening up a whole new theater. So on M3's side, we have what appears to be one of the most beautifully modeled WWII props complete with its own carrier and assets. And that's before we get into the whole WWII version of the Mariana Islands thing. I think this is going to be a really big deal for the DCS WWII user base, so personally I am expecting Ed's & Third parties entry into the Pacific theater to be a coordinated effort. This is one time I won't mind being wrong if we get one before the other, but if I had to guess...

Can't say I agree here. Map inaccuracies are quite another thing from being a fictional map. And I would have to understand the context being used to suggest that "maps were never supposed to be accurate", because that comment, if it was made, could simply be referring to a map not containing some landmark for example, which has been a common complaint in the map threads. I think in general, the maps are reasonably accurate in terms of the major road systems that connect the major urban centers, and the landmarks they contain. If you want to recreate the battle of the Falaise pocket for example, I think you can do that reasonably well with the current Normandy map, and I mean even if you are on the ground in a vehicle. So IMO, while map detail could always be improved, the maps themselves are reasonable representations of the specific areas they are meant to portray. True, but if the work needed to make a map is going to be undertaken, it would be more beneficial IMO to have the work spent on making a map of an actual area to help with mission immersion. IMO, I think it would be

Was just wondering if you are still seeing this issue after the latest OB update with improved SC deck crew?

This was a nice overview, thanks SD! Sometimes its hard to see progress, but if you read something like the "Official News 2021" topic from start to finish in one go, most would realize I am sure that the amount of progress is actually staggering. We got the mini-update on SC deck crew Sept 2021, and received the OB release barely 6 months later.

Realizing of course that we would no longer be talking about fictional maps. But I hope we do see more real maps though while we wait for the whole world map thing to materialize.

Just downloaded the King of the Hill mission by @marginal. Haven't completed the mission, but tried out most of what is there and everything seems to work with current Stable Version. Great job to the mission creator. Looking forward to working my way through it. Anyone with CA that hasn't yet played this should really download and try it out.

Well I never looked at it quite that way. But yeah a terrain engine would be cool if it was capable of generating populated centers/roads/industrial-military infrastructure. But it also sounds like it could be a lot of work too. What would be even cooler would be if their whole world map idea would work something like that. The user selects the area they want to operate in and the terrain engine creates the map.

+1 I really hope we see an improved smoke screen for armor soon. For ships I would also like to see depth charge capabilities added.

I really like the new DCS: Tech & Terrain forum grouping as well.