Caucasus Wishlist Thread

[GEIST]

  

50 minutes ago, cfrag said:

I really do not want to be contrarian, so I think that you may simply want to read up a little bit more about color space. Color space is about representing the exact same color in multiple different 'spaces' -- by determining the source color's coordinates in that 'space'. There are multiple color spaces (for example CYM(K) and RGB) that are created for different purposes. Going from one color space to another is usually a linear transformation - meaning that the same color may have different coordinates in different spaces, but going back and forth between those spaces will always return the same color. Much like switching between Cartesian and polar coordinates. Using one representation can be beneficial for some applications (for example to simulate subtractive color mixing in CYM, and additive in RGB). But the color that is referenced in both is always the same color. The human eye, on the other hand, is very different, and so far we have not found a way transform a color (any color space) into that of the human eye - we are still looking for a color space that linearly can transform any color to 'human eye space". That's also pretty much what the paper that you kindly referenced to states:

Okay let's dive into this topic a bit more. I can see where you are coming from - you're referring to the mathematical part of converting one colorspace into another. Yes that's easily done - with 1 click of a button in any modern software package. Does that make the color 'correct' - no it doesn't. It simply converts one colorspace into another. This has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of the colors compared to real life. You were referring to a color chart earlier - that's a great idea but only works if that color chart was present when the photo was taken... in any other case it's completely useless, you can't do it after the fact - as the conditions when taking the image matter. 

Let's take a photo from caucasus (RGB, CMYK doesn't matter - let's assume it's correct) and you pick a color of the trees and apply that same color to the trees in DCS and put it in the RGB render engine and on our screens. Does that mean the color is correct - No. Human perception aside that green may or may not be the correct value unless that color chart was in the picture when it was taken and the photo color corrected. And let's say even that is all correct. There was a color chart when the picture was taken and the RGB values are correct there is the rendering part of it all - where simply using RGB is not enough to accurately represent the colors and other factors come into play on how it's all calculated.

From your replies I assume you're getting all that - what I am referring to is that by simply saying it's RGB, it's linear is oversimplifying the problem ... yes its the defined colorspace but it doesn't in any way mean that the colors are 'correct' and that goes beyond perception. In certain lighting conditions your colors might be completely off while you're in the correct colorspace doesn't mean your values are 'correct'. On top of that is perception which is a uniquely complex as well but overall we're talking about a median here.

btw. kudos for checking out the paper!

Edited May 3, 2024 by GEIST

[cfrag]

Just now, GEIST said:

This has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of the colors compared to real life.

Ah, I get it. Let's look at the process or 're-creating' color, where many applications have an issue. Let us assume that an object (say, uniformly colored cube) uniformly emits light of the color 'C' (let's say a definite shade of yellow). We then use a device (maybe a CCD camera) that 'samples' that color (takes a picture), and encodes (converts) the sensor information into a file. Let's say the format is now RGB. This file is accessed by a computer, and displayed on another device (a TV screen, a cathode ray tube with separate r, g, and b rays) as an image, and a human looks at the screen representation.

There are multiple conversions happening that each can introduce errors: when the ccd's sensors trigger and convert the light information into signals that get interpreted into RGB space,  when the computer's output processor converts the RGB signal to drive the CRT beams, when the electrons hit the screens surface to elicit a response (red, green, and blue reagents to emit photons), and finally the eye receptors that get triggered by the photons. Each time, there is error, and each error is device-specific and can vary greatly: the TV can be old, etc.). In the industry, there are means to try and compensate: there are very expensive 'calibration' tools designed to minimize the difference between what emanates from the source (the cube) and is displayed on the screen, so physically, the TV accurately (calibrated) outputs the color that was input. That's how claibrated screens work: they are guaranteed (within limits) to accurately reflect an incoming color independent on the color spaces that were used internally (from camera to TV screen) - calibration is meant to cut out the middle man.

The problem is now that we are still back to square one: two human eyes can (and usually do) perceive the color displayed on the same calibrated screen differently. Cut out the middle, and have both humans look at the cube. You will find that two humans looking at the same color perceive it different. Meaning: color is always subjective to the viewer. No color space can prevent that. The only thing that we can do is try and minimize the error when we sample, encode, store and reproduce color. Colors can be accurately reproduced, calibration can ensure that. The human eye simply can't reliably see color. So color space has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's personal perception.

So what we can do (and what is regularly done) is use systems to tweak the color that is produced so that you personally like it or think that it looks 'just like the real thing'. So what we are doing is take a (calibrated) color that has an exactly defined position in a color space, and then intentionally shift that color's position - falsify the color, introduce an error - until it looks good to us. We intentionally change the output so it appears better to us individually. We do the opposite of objectively calibrating color to reality: we calibrate the output subjectively to out eye's and mind's feeling. So we are not trying to make colors to (objectively) exactly match the source, we are tweaking the emitted colors to match our individual expectation. 

So, with apologies to "the Matrix": "there is no color". If Caucasus feels wrong to you that is because you are absolutely right: it feels wrong to you. It says nothing about the "true" colors of Caucasus or how well the representation matches the source - it feels wrong, and therefore it is. Color, as perceived by an individual is uniquely individual. So, if you feel that caucasus colors feel wrong, you are right. There may even be people who feel Caucasus colors feel right. Neither is absolute right, both are individually correct.

So to circle back: the colors of Caucasus feel wrong to you - and they also often feel wrong to me. And, I believe, that the Caucasus colors are a mixture of artistic choice and industrial pragmatism: compress the color palette to save memory, increase scenic dynamism (difference between bright and dark), perhaps even add a tonal filter during the shader pass. 

So the question for me isn't so much how we can get a more correct color experience. The question is: can we get an experience for Caucasus that pleases more people, and if so, can we do it in a way that does not break memory and/or performance constraints? I surely hope so.

[GEIST]

I think we're on a similar page now. I stand by it when I say it's a hugely complex topic beyond human perception.

And I think there are 2 different ways to look at perception which might come into play here. There is the one what you're referring to and how your chemicals react to the light(colorblindness aside e.g.). I'd argue that probably isn't very much at all. Eyes need such precision that they are overall quite similar between every human.
The other part is how humans perceive the image they see. A lot of people will see something like the caucasus map - that's what they've always known, they are familiar with it and they can't imagine it being 'wrong' until they see it. So in that regard I would say you're right - perception matters hugely but not in terms of how color is displayed but how the brain interprets it. 

I'll rephrase my original statement.
I would like the maps to more accurately represent the true colors by default. And I think there are ways to do so by measurement - accounting for everything you listed above. There will still be errors it can't be helped but I bet 3 chocolate bars and an apple pie our current maps will not be close.

[Wait4It]

I agree with the original post on most accounts, but not just for
- The use of color in every DCS maps looks too uniform. Everything has the same brown or green hues. Look at some pictures of the real locations to see a lot more variation. It also looks dark in most cases where the tarmac in the sun still looks dark grey (and the taxi light manages to overpower the sun)
- Trees, buildings/objects need to blend a lot better in the background and local texture. Currently a forest from far away is not really visible and a forest from close by is a green texture with sharp tree objects on top.
- Cities look very uniform, probably due to the reuse of the same buildings with very clean textures.
- Terrain mesh needs to be better when close and have good working LOD for performance when far.
- There should be clutter at low level for feeling of speed and sense of height. Everything is so clean.

In my opinion the new maps are having these same issues, and its visible where map makers struggle with engine limitations (height mapping/texture/object variation)

As i see it the only real way forward to make it future-proof would be a large feature upgrade on the terrain tech/graphics engine instead of the evolution that we keep seeing, so i hope something like that is in the pipeline.

Maybe even partner up with one of the great game engine makers (Unreal, crytek). As the major player in milsim Eaglee Dynamics should be able to open some doors.

Edited May 6, 2024 by Wait4It

[Bosun]

On 5/3/2024 at 6:14 AM, GEIST said:

Thanks for your response. Good points made on your end. This one however I have to disagree. Colorspaces are hugely a complex topic and depend on lots of factors to get it right. Assuming everything is RGB and using linear transformations will get you where we are. CMYK was just an example if anything was based off photo reference there is a chance conversions went wrong - e.g. compare DCS to a photo of a magazine image printed some time ago and say the colors look correct. That's where your perception part comes in but that's not grounded in any data - perception of color is relatively uniform (unless a person has some health related issue) - scale on the other hand is very subjective.

I am not trolling. I see we don't see eye to eye on this but that's all good.. different perceptions I suppose.

 

I'm a graphic designer. 

If you're taking a digital photo for reference, it will be in RGB until you print it. Printing an RGB image through a physical printer on paper is where you get distortion, because color printing requires CMYK bands.  You'll convert that file prior to printing, to run CMYK values.  That's the only time you'll convert to CMYK, and it'll be a separate copy of the file.  

As long as everything stays digital - no conversions between CMYK or RGB are needed, as none are ever done. 


As for Color Theory being complex - it can be given the right discussion or context. We had entire courses on Color Theory that lasted full semesters.  You can make it as complex as you want.  How complex it needs to be given any specific context, however, is fairly limited.  

[Bosun]

On the sense of scale being off
This is a measured and known phenomenon with low-detail assets in a digital 3d gamespace.  Our eyes perceive scale by continually resolving details that are smaller the closer we get to something. When details stop resolving at a close distance, your eyes stop being able to judge or properly contextualize the scale.  The extreme example of this would be Jane's F-15 game from the late 80s - with the simple grid-lines for land, and the pyramids that were triangle-line shapes.  In that gamespace, you'd never be able to tell how far away you were...when you were close to them.  Same for the ground in early games like Aces over Europe, or Aces of the Pacific.  The ground wasn't resolved enough, so while it was somewhat ok to determine your altitude up high, because they had small dots along the land that you could scroll past....up close those dots were spaced far apart and telling your altitude was impossible without the instruments.  

Finer, more modern versions of that confusion come in when flying over peaks in the new Kola map, or flying low over towns in Caucuses.  It's much more subtle now, but your sense of scale feels off because your eyes don't have the finer detail being resolved, even when going fast, that would better lend you to discern how fast you're actually travelling.  The result is that you appear to be going slower than you really are, making the world objects seem larger than they actually are.  

The real eye-trick of this is to fly along and feel how big the trees in Caucasus' map seem to be at low altitude, and then to go land beside one and compare its' scale to a real tree.  The same for the buildings.  You'll notice the 'scale' is actually fairly on par - but why do they seem bigger, or that you're moving slower, at altitude?    Because of that aforementioned lack of detail, tricking your brain into thinking something is larger than it really is, because the finer details that would exist and inform your perception that would be scrolling by in between those larger assets, aren't there.   Those larger assets lack references to place them contextually in size. 

I've often thought, flying through Caucuses, that houses, buildings and other things are 'off scale.'  Sometimes, they actually are. Some of the buildings legimately are too big or small.  But a lot of the mis-perception is that lack of smaller detail giving those assets context within the landscape.  

Fixes for that?  Finer resolution on terrain tile mapping, and higher-res ground textures at lower altitudes, and more 'gak' as it were - more small objects that can place and contextualize the scale of your larger assets. 

 

(And that's just the rendering details - there's an entire other layer to this, which is in-game camera aspect and 'lens' size.  For example, Star Citizen's camera is notorious for being too 'fisheye', so that even when zoomed in, it is hard to judge distances and scale properly.  That isn't an asset issue - its a camera issue in how they frame with the lens and the equivalent mm size they're simulating.) 

Hope that all makes sense.

Edited May 6, 2024 by Bosun

[Bosun]

Overall though, I agree with the original post:  We need more detailed landscape engines here. 

Games like MSFS have really pushed the bar, and having 2010 map-technology now is showing its age. MSFS has much higher detail and is still performant, so this isn't an impossible goal. 

The real question is whether or not DCS would require an entirely new engine to support such a shift in detail.  The new Kola map is an example where, given OrbX' other projects in MSFS, their quality is quite high and I can only imagine that the trees and buildings we see in their Kola map being as refined as any other on Caucauses is only due to limitations of the engine itself. 

[Qcumber]

Not quite what the OP was suggesting with this post but I think a new Caucasus map could offer an opportunity to expand the area south and east to meet the Syria map and upcoming Iran map. 

[draconus]

15 hours ago, Bosun said:

(And that's just the rendering details - there's an entire other layer to this, which is in-game camera aspect and 'lens' size.

Yes, it all is important, not just model details (they are decent enough for most objects, maybe apart from the mountains, but they were never considered crucial part of the sim), but most important are correct model sizes displayed on a device with correct camera focal length.

To even start comparisons you have to put yourself in the same display environment, meaning usually VR with correct IPD. Then the game has to have correct size models. Now put yourself next to a man, a vehicle, a tree and a building - it's all correct size in DCS. Other test you can do with flight time over known distance with known speed - also correct.

15 hours ago, Bosun said:

Games like MSFS have really pushed the bar, and having 2010 map-technology now is showing its age. MSFS has much higher detail and is still performant, so this isn't an impossible goal.

You can't compare them directly like that. DCS has much more to do with both the terrain (object DM, IR data, seasons, terrain interaction with weapons and units on all surfaces) and other simulated aspects (avionics, sensors, FM, weapons, other air, ground and sea units) than civil flight sims. It's always a compromise between quality, simulation depth and performance. Year after year, as PC performance allows, we get more details, bigger areas, better textures, more in depth simulation. And no, it's not 2010 tech, it's in constant development.

It's easy to put out highly detailed mesh and cover it with high res textures, normal and displacement maps. Now make it a huge area with whole simulation on top and it's unplayable on current top end hardware. You can't expect high quality without impacting performance. Genius new engines, optimisations and smart graphic tricks can only get you so far.

14 hours ago, Qcumber said:

Not quite what the OP was suggesting with this post but I think a new Caucasus map could offer an opportunity to expand the area south and east to meet the Syria map and upcoming Iran map. 

There's no upcoming Iran map. Maybe you meant Iraq? Even then that'd be Turkey/Armenia/Azerbaijan/Iran map - I don't find it very popular. Please take it to https://forum.dcs.world/forum/339-dlc-map-wish-list/

23 hours ago, Wait4It said:

Maybe even partner up with one of the great game engine makers (Unreal, crytek).

ED is not stubborn or stupid. They did try to use other engines but found them lacking to the given tasks and had to go with their own engine. They try to implement different new techs as they come out.

Edited May 7, 2024 by draconus

[Silver_Dragon]

16 hours ago, Bosun said:

Overall though, I agree with the original post:  We need more detailed landscape engines here. 

Games like MSFS have really pushed the bar, and having 2010 map-technology now is showing its age. MSFS has much higher detail and is still performant, so this isn't an impossible goal. 

The real question is whether or not DCS would require an entirely new engine to support such a shift in detail.  The new Kola map is an example where, given OrbX' other projects in MSFS, their quality is quite high and I can only imagine that the trees and buildings we see in their Kola map being as refined as any other on Caucauses is only due to limitations of the engine itself. 

ED has working on a "Whole Earth" technology and Vulkan engine has arround the corner... diferent engines, diferent map building technics and diferent module buildings, and MSFS a engine without none about damage models, warfare systems, weapons, and a long etc... ED dont need change to engine to other with none capability to make realistic combat.

[GEIST]

Thanks for all the replies!

Re: RGB CMYK: Thanks for all the explanations, that's much appreciated. I think I maybe didn't take the best example to make my point - I was trying to say that there seems something to be going wrong somewhere in the pipe which creates these highly saturated images.

Re: Fidelity and Map details: I think it's fair to say that DCS delivers much more than the competitors do in terms of simulation, so it's understandable that there have to be tradeoffs in terms of quality to deliver on all fronts. And I can see with the new maps that there are efforts in place to improve the quality so there is progress but I think it's okay to look ahead.
I am bringing these things up because I don't see that these are things that are actively being worked on. Trees/grass get simulations and that's great for the helicopter pilots but I hope this doesn't mean they're not being worked on further in terms of rendering and realism. There is a reason why there is no Vietnam map yet and I do really hope ED are working on tech to make that happen in the future ... currently this would not work very well. There needs to be a rethink on how trees blend into the environment and how they are rendered from a distance... and that's one area where MFSF just works really well (not perfect but decent overall). The trees seem to cover an area properly and blend into the environment so we know it's possible and I personally think that can be done with DCS today given resources are dedicated to it. And looking at the newly released Kola map I'd say that's required... the map looks great but the trees from hight altitude ... it's a bummer.

I've done some tests myself on how to imporve the environment. This is an island created to replace the one in the marianas (anatahan). It runs quite well on a 3080ti with DLSS - but obvs not everyone has that kind of GP. I think there is a world where the maps can look better and we still have decent performance. And that's what the settings are for to turn them down if you don't have the hardware - but if you have a 3080 or 4080 or whatever I think that can be done now if DCS spends the time and resources on a project like this.



 

 

Edited May 7, 2024 by GEIST

[draconus]

1 hour ago, GEIST said:

highly saturated images

Make sure you start with calibrated monitor before comparing colors to anything. If it's VR I don't know if they keep any standard here.

Maybe it's your preference so just fly in overcast.

You can also use DCS color settings, graphic driver color settings or monitor color settings to get what you want.

Now, remember that RL can generate all kinds of light, contrast and colors and everything inbetween. IRL the flora changes its colors daily. DCS can only recreate some part of that, including sun light, shadows, moon light and seasons (if available). It's like artists can only capture a one moment in time with the textures - everything else is light and saturation that goes with it. So there's no one "correct" image or color range - it's all dynamic.

Edited May 7, 2024 by draconus

[Qcumber]

4 hours ago, draconus said:

There's no upcoming Iran map. Maybe you meant Iraq?

Of course. Yes, I meant Iraq. 

[Bosun]

On 5/7/2024 at 3:43 AM, draconus said:

Make sure you start with calibrated monitor before comparing colors to anything. If it's VR I don't know if they keep any standard here.

Maybe it's your preference so just fly in overcast.

You can also use DCS color settings, graphic driver color settings or monitor color settings to get what you want.

Now, remember that RL can generate all kinds of light, contrast and colors and everything inbetween. IRL the flora changes its colors daily. DCS can only recreate some part of that, including sun light, shadows, moon light and seasons (if available). It's like artists can only capture a one moment in time with the textures - everything else is light and saturation that goes with it. So there's no one "correct" image or color range - it's all dynamic.

 

To add in to this thought, the job of modelers and texture artists, lighting and rigging artists, is to create an environment that is a fascimile of the average of what you felt you have perceived. 

Tough job, for sure. 

Again, I agree with the OP sentiment - there is certainly some work to be done.  Just the revisions you've made on the Marianas above are quite pretty. 

As for comparing MSFS to DCS - the point is not to say DCS should use MSFS engines.  Not at all. The point was to say that it is possible to blend that level of detail with DCS' need for dynamic content a little better.  In particular with render-mesh sizes, because outside of buildings being destroyed, the mesh size on the terrain doesn't get destroyed or distorted currently in game.  (If they're working on that, that would amazing, but I haven't heard they are, anyone know?)  

Also texture resolutions, for scanned texture areas. I think DCS could up these a little.  The technology is there to render detail and manage GPU/CPU/RAM load in displaying it when needed. The map tech is a little behind the curve. 

And I do agree, the stock settings, even with a calibrated monitor (mine are calibrated each year for design work), are over-saturated for the amalgamation of perception, average, that I personally feel I am perceiving (including, as above, all the minute variances of lighting and shading and time of day.) 

But - eyesight is different, and where my perception says colors are duller in real life, someone else's eyes may think DCS is duller than they experience. 

Because at the end of the day, if I perceived the spectrum of 'red' as the color you experience as 'green' - neither of us would ever know.  Let that sink in.

[YSIAD_RIP]

@GEIST:  Have you tried Bartheks Caucasus Redone 2022 v2 and Batter Trees for Caucasus V6 by Taz1004?

Both Mods could be implemented by @Eagle Dynamics some day.  ED has many priorities at the moment also would have their internal reasons for not updating Caucasus at this time. 

 

[plott1964]

If ED chose to update the Caucasus Terrain by using a third party like Orbx or Ugra, how much would you pay for it?

Edited October 10, 2024 by plott1964

[MAXsenna]

If ED chose to update the Caucasus Terrain by using a third party like Orbx or Ugra, how much would you pay for it?

Only the terrain? Not buildings etc?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Dangerzone]

Me personally - I'd be happy to pay $15 to get the map upgraded and be more modern - but only on the provision that players with only the existing map can still fly with players on the new map (just with the old textures) for instance. 

When I fly Caucuses', it's often with people who don't own too many terrains, and would probably not buy Caucuses, or with new players that I'm introducing to DCS, etc. If they were still able to fly on the old map, and I fly on the new map, but both together - that would be fine, and I'd definitely be interested in upgrading.

But if the new one was separate and not compatible in MP with people that only had the old one, I'd probably still be flying on the old one for compatibility, so would be less inclined.

Edited October 10, 2024 by Dangerzone

[cfrag]

That map would have to coexist and work with free Caucasus, else it pre-empts a lot of multiplayer playing. To make matters worse, it would also have to be 1:1 compatible with existing Caucasus missions - when mission creators lovingly and carefully place an object in one Caucasus map, it must be as accessible, visible and consequential in the other. If, for example, you place an ambush at a farm near a bridge, those farm buildings must be very similar, the bridge must be there, and all units must have the same arc of fire (and be targetable) as in the other map. In short: that new map would have to be near-perfect old map. There could be an extension to, say the Crimean peninsula or Turkey that's not reflected in current Caucasus. Well, there goes interplayability...

Another point: Caucasus is my go-to map for performance. DCS's performance in Syria, Sinai, Kola, SA and Afghanistan is abysmal in VR. Sure, an update to my rig is due. Until then, I like having at least one map that works well enough (since around May, Caucasus is also tanking on my computer) 

Edited October 10, 2024 by cfrag

[Tom Kazansky]

3 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Another point: Caucasus is my go-to map for performance. DCS's performance in Syria, Sinai, Kola, SA and Afghanistan is abysmal in VR. Sure, an update to my rig is due. Until then, I like having at least one map that works well enough (since around May, Caucasus is also tanking on my computer) 

+1

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

A new version of the Caucasus map would likely use a (much) higher resolution terrain mesh, which would by definition break all user-created campaigns and missions in that map that use custom placement/movement of ground objects.
The update ED did for DCS 2.5 was likely the extent of what was possible in that regard.

It is still one of  my favourites areas to fly over and I'd love to see an updated version of it (that looks more true to life than our current version, especially the mountains and dried up river beds), but the amount of work it would take is something most people underestimate I think.

We're better off using custom terrain textures such as Barthek's.

[YoYo]

1 hour ago, plott1964 said:

If ED chose to update the Caucasus Terrain by using a third party like Orbx or Ugra, how much would you pay for it?

 

Only if Crimea was added. Currently the map is still great, I use the mod from Bartek and mod for trees and nothing new is needed for me.

[Lace]

No from me.  The Caucasus map is irrelevant for the majority of units in DCS (except some of the legacy LOMAC stuff).  It makes no sense from a NATO/BLUEFOR perspective, and only really exists due to DCS's long legacy and Russian links.  Honestly I think NTTR would be a better default/free map as it is where a lot of real-world training takes place, and would make a better setting for all the module specific training missions.  REDFOR units are secondary in DCS, and due to document accessibility and political pressure, this is unlikely to change.

Kola is my go-to green map now, and probably will be for the foreseeable future.  Maybe the Cold War Germany map will tempt me away.  I have no need for the Caucasus map.

 

[Gunfreak]

I very rarely use Caucasus because it looks so bad. Granted with the new effects added the last year. The forests actually look very good. Especially a few thousand feet up. But built up areas, fields and textures just don't do it for me. Yesterday I flew the a10 on Caucasus relearning some stuff and flew low over a field. On maps like Syria, Kola, Normandy 2. The jet wash interacts great with the grass and shrubbery. But flying over thst field in Caucasus. The grass didn't so much blow from the jet wash, as it more shook. I'd happily pay 20-40 for a really well made Caucasus update. But since it seems impossible to have detailed Ukraine. I'd ask they move the map further east or south. And simply not cover the Ukraine part. Spending time and resources on redoing the map. When 1/3 simply can't be fixed because of political reasons, seems a waste.

Edited October 10, 2024 by Gunfreak

[MAXsenna]

No from me.  The Caucasus map is irrelevant for the majority of units in DCS (except some of the legacy LOMAC stuff).  It makes no sense from a NATO/BLUEFOR perspective, and only really exists due to DCS's long legacy and Russian links.  Honestly I think NTTR would be a better default/free map as it is where a lot of real-world training takes place, and would make a better setting for all the module specific training missions.  REDFOR units are secondary in DCS, and due to document accessibility and political pressure, this is unlikely to change.
Kola is my go-to green map now, and probably will be for the foreseeable future.  Maybe the Cold War Germany map will tempt me away.  I have no need for the Caucasus map.
 

Absolutely this! Even if I payed for NTTR, I wish ED would make it free.
Would also love if the training missions for the Viggen were doubled up for the Kola map. I do know that will require extra work. I'll make a wish one day.
Onky reason for me to pay extra for Caucasus, would be expansions in every direction. Most importantly, West and North-West.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk