Minsky

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.

If it breaks something, as in your example, then it's a bug that needs fixing. No arguing here. But if it's purely cosmetic, then I'm not bothered. Considering there's likely a very tight budget for a number of unique objects they can put on a map. And I would rather have it spent on a city-defining building or monument instead of a slightly different shelter. Contrary to what some people may believe, landmarks are not useless eye-candies or a waste of resources.

No, the video is true to the real-world documents. You're confusing MODE 1 and MODE 1 ALPHA.

They are both important. Personally, however, I would prefer a landmark that makes a city recognizable and unique over a correct HAS model.

Anyone with the basic knowledge of the area (which obviously includes the devs) understands that OP is referring to the most prominent landmark in Haifa and to the UN headquarters in Lebanon. Being "much more specific" would require him to provide the building's blueprints. How else would you call a wish list topic that requests more POIs for a map that is missing dozens (if not hundreds) of them?

The devs call these the "medium detail zones", and as far as I understand, they weren't meant to have any landmarks. Only a couple airbases for flying to neighboring countries, surrounded by generic OSM data. Unless they choose to further develop these zones by adding more airfields, I wouldn't expect anything you have listed.

It's more useful as a landmark than a blank spot.

There were complaints, yes. The general consensus is that the runways are supposed to be uneven. You'll have to convince ED with tracks that this is indeed a problem that affects normal rolls (i.e. no overspeeding, no hard landings etc.) As for the taxiways, it has been acknowledged years ago. Still not fixed. P.S. There is a separate section for bug reporting.

The cycling is only needed if the fire warning tests have been performed. And since these are not strictly necessary in DCS, cycling can also be skipped. That's why they both appear as optional items: