Minsky

Noted, thank you!

I don't think so. They just reduced the boundaries in the Mission Editor to prevent people from seeing too much of the low fidelity, not-yet-ready area. The "land", if you can call it that, is still there.

I guess it is included in its period correct state: the aerodrome is not yet operational, but can be used in case of emergency. Personally, I see all these unfinished, unmarked and closed aerodromes as a free bonus. They never promised us Qusahwira, and it is not crucial to a map that is focused on the Strait of Hormuz. So, instead of complaining that my glass is half-empty, I'm grateful that someone has poured in a little bit more water than promised.

This?

Bumping to remind that the issue remains unresolved, and to report another one: The RWR displays the old AH-64D (NOT the new "BLK.II" model) as an unknown contact ("U"). Should probably be "64".

Additionally, "opening" Qusahwira would require reworking the whole area which is currently a barren wasteland (no mesh, no GIS data, no proper textures). Probably too much of an investment for such a remote location on a map that has been considered complete for years. (But for the record, I'm two thumbs up for the idea.)

Download

RWY10-29 names in the H-3 Southwest Airbase's info panel are not reciprocal and don't match neither true (124-304) or magnetic headings (119-299). Should be changed to 12-30. At least this looks like 30 to me:

Our in-game Mosul International is completely unlit, while in reality it supposed to have a basic ALS and a PAPI lights:

Someone left the bridge hanging -camera -85.025015 0.028933 150.186504 -cameradir -0.559358 -0.010738 0.828856

The optimal solution would be to manually move power lines further from thresholds (easier than moving airfields themselves or adding another mast type).

The masts at Waren Vielist are certainly not Danube-type, but something considerably shorter. They also located further from the threshold than in DCS (1800 ft vs 1400 ft). The masts near Hasselfelde are indeed Danubes (160 ft / 50 m tall in DCS). But that powerline passes way closer to the in-game threshold than it does in reality (1600 ft vs 3200 ft), so it looks more threatening than it should. Weser Wumme seems correct both in terms of mast type and threshold distance, so I'll remove it from the report.

Agreed. If they really want this to be a Cold War map, they shouldn't have set the default date to 1999 to begin with. Apparently, according to their sources, several aerodromes in Normandy also had ICAO designators back in 1944

Their GIS data probably just says "power line here" without specifying the type. Maybe IRL the poles are much smaller than these?

I believe it should be Ein Shemer.

Think the correct name would be King Faisal Air Base.

1. Hasselfelde - power lines near RWY27 threshold: 2. Verden-Scharnhorst - trees near RWY31 threshold: 3. Waren Vielist - power lines near RWY06 threshold: 4. Weser Wumme - power lines on RWY01 approach: Correct as is.

By "incorrect" I mean names that grossly mismatch headings (not just by a couple degrees, so cannot be written off to magvar): - Bienenfarm - numbers (09-27) don't match headings (128-308) - Braunschweig - numbers (08-26) don't match headings (093-273) - Buchel - numbers (03-21) don't match headings (040-220) - Garz - numbers (10-28) don't match headings (111-291) - Gutersloh - numbers (09-27) don't match headings (101-281) - Hahn - numbers (03-21) don't match headings (043-223) - Haina - numbers (10-28) don't match headings (113-293) - Hamburg - numbers (15-33) don't match headings (162-342) - Hamburg Finkenwerder - numbers (05-23) don't match headings (061-241) - Hannover - numbers (09-27) don't match headings (101-281) - Herrenteich - numbers (06-24) don't match headings (049-229) - Hildesheim - numbers (07-25) don't match headings (083-263) - Lubeck - numbers (07-25) don't match headings (080-260) - Merseburg - numbers (09-27) don't match headings (083-263) - Peenemunde - numbers (13-31) don't match headings (142-322) - Uetersen - numbers (09-27) don't match headings (103-283) - Wismar - numbers (10-28) don't match headings (089-269) - Wunstorf - numbers (08-26) don't match headings (091-271) * - Names according to the in-game info panel: - Bad Durkheim - RWY08-26* painted as 06-24 - Kothen - RWY10-28* painted as 09-27 - Luneburg - RWY08-26* painted as 06-24 - Mahlwinkel - RWY10-28* painted as 09-27 - Merseburg - RWY09-27* painted as 08-26 - Obermehler Schlotheim - RWY12-30* painted as 11-29 - Pottschutthohe - RWY06-24* painted as 22-04 (yes, the names are also flipped) - Wismar - RWY10-28* painted as 06-24 - Worms - RWY07-25* painted as 06-24 P.S. This seems like a trademark of sorts for Ugra, because their Normandy 2.0 also has about 20 improperly named runways which haven't been fixed since the release.

1. Dessau and Spangdahlem have the same ICAO (EDAD) 2. Garz and Hahn have the same ICAO (EDAH) 3. Merseburg and Zweibrucken have the same ICAO (EDAM) 4. Bad Durkheim has no ICAO (should probably be EDRF) 5. Not quite sure that Altes Lager's ICAO is correct (DAMN)

Similar to this:

@f-18hornet thanks for that, guys! The ex. Khost Heliport now looks million times better. Now all that's left is to add a similar texture to Khost Airbase.

Pardon the late reply. I reported this more than a year ago: https://kola.orbxdirect.com/posts/110/monchegorsk-and-olenya-olenegorsk-icao-codes Yet this is what we still have in game:

See if you have other (slower) ships in the same group with Essex.

* in Uzbekistan.

The modern variant is too modern and westernized, I guess? They (there is another person with similar request) want a nondescript jungle frankenmap to cosplay other conflicts. Chances that either request will even be considered are zero to none.