General problems with all UK airfields

[DD_Fenrir]

1. White runway centre line markings on hard surface airfields.

Current airfields affected:

Tangmere, Ford, Kenley, West Malling, Farnborough, Odiham and Needs Oar Point

These are a post-war feature and should not be in evidence on WW2 period airfields:

Examples: Tangmere, Feb 1944:

Kenley, March 1944:

Kenley, August 1944:

Ford, 1945

 

 

 

Please remove the white dashed centre line markings from the hard surface runways at the airfields listed above.

Edited January 3 by DD_Fenrir

[BIGNEWY]

4 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

For christ sakes, I just wrote a lengthy text explanation to accompany the images and it's all been wiped on submission?!?!?!

We have no pre-moderation abilities and there are no flags in our moderation panel, so no idea why. 

[Vector1]

Please repost it ,very interested to read it , thanks in advance.

[DD_Fenrir]

2. Trees and shrubs within the airfield perimeter.

Current airfields affected:

Tangmere, Ford, Kenley, West Malling, Funtington and Gravesend.

Given the MOD specifications stipulating the size of run-off areas adjacent to runways (225ft each side, levelled and sown with grass) and a further 300ft each side of the runway to be clear of obstructions, the abundance of trees and shrubs in evidence between the runways and perimeter tracks on the noted airfields in the DCS Normandy 2.0 map is unprotoypical.

 

Also note the absence of any foliage between the runways and perimeter tracks on the period aerial shots submitted in the first post.

Please omit the offending vegetation.

 

 

 

Edited January 3 by DD_Fenrir

[Vector1]

Text explanation?

[DD_Fenrir]

3. Over abundance of Control Towers.

Current airfields affected:

Tangmere, Ford, Kenley and West Malling.

These airfields should have one Control Tower location; in the DCS Normandy 2.0 map they have multiple.

Example:

Tangmere - here is the layout in 1944; note the single Control Tower located on the North side of the airfield, East of the Hangar apron.

 In DCS Normandy 2.0:

I appreciate this is an old In devleopment screenshot, indeed this mark-up I made I actually posted prior to release of the map but it (a) shows that despite the warnings the map was issued with this error still in situ and that (b) make it appreciated by the developer that this why we feel we are not being listened to.

Please correct these airfield CT locations; should there be any questions as to where they should be located I am happy to provide references.

 

Edited January 3 by DD_Fenrir

[Vector1]

Hi seems like your text explanation somehow mysteriously got added at the start of your post. Thanks.

Edited January 3 by Vector1

[DD_Fenrir]

 4. Airfield gun butts:

 

Primary issue is the oversized archery style targets. Really? That's how we think guns were tested and harmonized in WW2?

This was so NOT a thing.

But the second issue is these really became irrelevant as the war progressed.

Were there gun butts? Sure! Duxford has a brilliant example.

These were found primarily on the large airfields, as pre-war built brick structures, with walls and partial roofs to catch stray richochets at a time when the biggest calibre was a .303.

As the 20mm Hispano becomes more prevelant even these are found wanting and not sufficiently safe.

Most gun firing tests are done on the bench on an indvidual gun. The only time aircraft were jacked up in such a manner was to harmonize the guns to ensure a good firing pattern, a process in which no live ammunition was expended.

Here you can see a Spitfire in a blister hangar at Biggin Hill; the Erk on the wing is using a sighting periscope, slotted into the barrel of one of the .303s to try and boresight the barrel with the appropriate disc mounted on the white frame erected in the middle distance.

This to me is representative of a systematic issue with DCS Normandy 2.0. It's a cartoon; an over-exagerrated pastiche of what was actually there.

Too much "that'll look cool" and not enough "does this make sense?"

And I understand why; in the past, many WW2 combat flightsims have felt sterile and without atmosphere in their airfield environments, and I applaud ED/Ugra for attempting to mitigate this and breathe some life into the ground environment.

However, there are ways and means and currently DCS Normandy 2.0 it feels heavy-handed and clumsy.

In the near future I will be submitting posts detailing the further issues at each individual airfield.

Fair-warning: there are many unfortunately.

 

Edited January 3 by DD_Fenrir

[DD_Fenrir]

5. The stock permanent airfield control towers are not substantial enough.

This is the stock example in DCS Normandy 2.0, shown here at West Malling but used as a generic type throughout the UK permanent airfields on the map:

Compare it to these real examples:

Elvington:

 

Beaulieu:

Molesworth:

.

 

Martlesham Heath:

 

The actual West Malling Tower:

 

Now, there are minor variations between these examples, with some having a glazed observation hut on the roof, whilst others do not, and the West Malling example being substantially more stylized with it's Art Deco detail flourishes, but to a building, they are a substantial two storey block with a balcony facing the airside of the field.

In comparison:

Doesn't this example feel a bit meagre?

[Fred901]

Hello everyone,

DD Fenrir, I opened a post more than a year ago about information on airfields, why create other posts? Why not bring everything together in one post instead of scattering it all?
I've already uploaded most of the information you give, so maybe it's being modified, or at least I hope so!

[DD_Fenrir]

2 hours ago, Fred901 said:

Hello everyone,

DD Fenrir, I opened a post more than a year ago about information on airfields, why create other posts? Why not bring everything together in one post instead of scattering it all?
I've already uploaded most of the information you give, so maybe it's being modified, or at least I hope so!

Hi Fred.

I decided to create a separate post in the bugs and problems thread to generate fresh attention and hopefully motivate change by highlighting specific inaccuracies and provide details of particular issues and the accompanying evidence of why these are inaccurate and what needs to change.

Whilst the airfield info thread is great it doesn’t cover specific problems, relies too much on the developer identifying the inaccuracies and being motivated to do something about them, something thus far has not been greatly in evidence.

The best results thus far I achieved in seeing change for a more prototypical environment are by presenting specific issues as bugs in a detailed and documented fashion outlining what and where the issue is and providing the developer with as much of the resources to correct it as possible.

Edited January 6 by DD_Fenrir

[Fred901]

OK DD_Fenrir I understand.  Thank you.