DCS World 2.5 --> Full Terrain Coverage

[DieHard]

(re: Poll)

 

No checkbox for North Korea, at least!

[firmek]

build a "entire earth" have a series of issues outside of "copy paste" others simulator features.

 

The engine need reworked previously to work a "whole earth" system and see if the actual maps have compatible with a "whole earth" type. ED has implemented develop "steeps" to get more and more details and functionality on the simulator engine technology and that "request" has outside of the actual plans by have a very high milestone on a graphic engine.

 

Remember that is not only put a 1.5gb uncompressed texture and "viola" have a whole earth. If that will have easy as someone ask, surely ED had implement them some time ago, but surely the actual engine need build first some "milestones" previously to them.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:. I could only add that:

1. Why to create a big wasteland? It's hard to do anything useful with a terrain that is just a height map.

2. As far as I can tell a detailed, or rather the best DEM available at the moment is 1 degree one. Last time I've checked it's hundreds of gigabytes of raw data.

3. Putting aside the size and accuracy of DEM, porting it to a working game engine is not as an trivial task as it may seam.

4. I'm not even sure if current maps are a section of geoid or are just flat.

 

EDIT: I didn't check "you're crazy" as it is possible and realistic. A lot of the data is out there. On the other hand it's either do it wright which would require unbelievable amount of work, or take an easy approach which would still consume a lot of man-hours and result in creating a content which due to low quality would have close to none value added.

Edited April 16, 2017 by firmek

[rogonaut]

ED had implementing something called map clipping. If I am not wrong this is the next step allowing two distinct maps, that are actually neighbor to each other, to be somehow seamless transited from one to other, of course assuming you are owning both.

 

If this first step is here then rest is just of matter of time. I also prefer manually worked maps more than those automated generated... it is something very itchy with these automated things.

 

that sounds promissing

[Northstar98]

Expand the caucasus region and just make this theater larger and connect it with the straight of hormuz! Thats the best idea ever, by far :D

 

That I would love!

[WRAITH]

Since DCS 2.5 is not out yet, I was thinking that there is still room for some big changes

One of the thing that have in common most of big flight simulators, like FSX-P3D-Xplane-AeroflyFS2, is the terrain coverage of the entire world.

I don't think that process the terrain DEM data at a basic level of detail, can slower down the appearence of 2.5.

In this way, Caucasus, Nevada,Strict of Hormuz, Normandy should be considered as Theaters, and not as maps.

With this change, DCS will not leave out from the sim the use of strategic bombers, that all we know have a very long run to play their bombing sessions:

You can takeoff from a B1 in the UK(OUT OF THEATER), flying at 40.000 feet over Mediterranean Sea, for strike in the Strict of Hormuz (THEATER)

 

+1, I agree and "VOTED YES" ..... You, many others and myself want a World Map like other sims.:thumbup:

 

Will it ever happen I don't know, it was said a while back it will start with small maps released at first as they learn development and acquire finance, then it will be put into a World Map.

 

Now don't ask me where is that post I tried looking for it, I cant find it, probably deleted due to many disputes over this subject.

 

The point is this is what aviation is about flying in a world and like I said anyone keen on sims knows this is a must for DCS World future, but then we also need a full ATC and many other things that require programming and development knowledge plus bug fixing and the list goes on....... so not any time soon. :cry:

 

But hey no harm in healthy discussion as sim enthusiasts, I support your post wholeheartedly.:thumbup:

 

I was looking at this............... :shocking:

 

 

 

Link:- https://www.google.com/earth/

Imagine yeah sweet dream sim'g :pilotfly::joystick:

Edited April 25, 2017 by WRAITH

[VampireNZ]

Hows about we just focus on getting the existing stuff working correctly first shall we. Then maybe expand after that....

[WRAITH]

Hows about we just focus on getting the existing stuff working correctly first shall we. Then maybe expand after that....

 

 

Well reality is like Woona said here..........................

 

 

 

Right, i hear this way too often. I'm gonna go out of my way to answer this.

For the record, i've been lucky enough to work in video game and animation studios for the past 2-3 years as a 2D artist.

 

From your message, i'll presume you haven't worked in a studio before. The reason for not focusing on the single most anticipated module comes down to 2 things:

 

A) Bottlenecking.

Modules are effectively full games plugged into an OS (DCS), and like full games, certain aspects of the module cannot be worked on until other parts have been finished, because they're reliant on the information from them. For example;

2D artists can't work on textures before the model is finished.

The model can't be finished before the research and data on physical dimensions are finished and available, and only then can animators slowly begin making animations, however many of these (including auto flaps logics, HUD symbologies and more) can only be implemented once an accurate PFM/AFM has been finished, which once again can only be done once the data is ready and available. This is not including the extremely complicated systems of 4th generation fighters, such as the F/A-18C (especially lot 20, which is the one we happen to have in the pipeline).

 

This is what we internally, at least where i've worked in the past and continue to work today, call bottlenecking - one department is prohibited to work on a given aspect of the game before another is done, as to make sure no one is working more than they have to, and the studio saves money and efforts they could otherwise spend more effectively.

 

So, these guys are now left without anything to do; they can't work before the 3 other departments have finished their work, and there's no saying when it'll be done, as is often the case with DCS modules. What do they do? They introduce a multitude of modules to develop, all in different stages, as to keep departments active and working, more effeciently at that, compared to working on a single module.

 

B) As mentioned, focusing on the F/A-18 module would likely not cut development time in any significant way. Furthermore, economically and functionally, it'd be a terrible strategy if you're looking to grow your relatively small niche that is the flight simming community, and at the same time expand your company. Developing a single module, in a category that's already well covered in the game, in no way expands their possible market.

 

If anyone else ever asks, i hope you can summarize this somewhat shortly to them, because as someone who again has been extremely fortunate to work in the industry, it can piss you off to hear your fans complain about something they haven't even begun to understand.

 

 

 

While people are waiting on stuff no reason why other things can get done, and in my opinion MAPS forming a globe could fit that category.

 

Using Tools and software apps............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So on........

 

 

It all comes down to waiting for "The Merge"! LoL

 

Also this sim is as old as I am and its being retrofitted for future development...........

 

Eagle Dynamics is a software company founded by the Russian Igor Tishin in 1991, based in Moscow, Russia. The company is the leader in developing combat flight simulators, and it develops Oracle-based products.

 

*Link:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Dynamics

 

But again this is just community chatter we don't dictate what ED does or does not do we will have to wait patiently........

 

Edited May 6, 2017 by WRAITH

[dertien]

I apologize for coming a bit late to the party here and necro-ing this post:

 

As for an elaborate answer to the vote on this poll: should the ED team focus on giving us 'the world, Chico, and everything in it' ?

 

No,

 

Some people here fail to understand the scope of DCS. This is not a 'Flight Simulator' like Aerofly FS 2 is, but it is a 'conflict simulator'. The focus of the controllable war machines is focused on Aircraft and Helicopters now, but in a distant future we might see DCS World include Tanks as well. And by driving tanks I do not mean the Combined Arms module, but something more akin to a simulation which does this quite in depth - Steel Armor Blaze Of War; where you can control either a T-55 or an M-60 Tank.

 

DCS focuses on theaters of war (past and present) which are swathes of countryside where conflicts take/took place. Georgia was also a theater of war in Enemy Engaged Comanche Hokum / Enemy Engaged Apache Havoc, which had a dynamic campaign and where you could hop into any chopper on either side and fly different missions to win the campaign. Although this focused on Apache/Comanche vs Havoc/Hokum, I consider this to be a spiritual predecessor to DCS.

 

Indeed, the devs are focusing on the right approach here. Normandy (WW2), The Nevada testing range and Georgia.

 

What I personally would like to see is a few different conflict zones that topographically offer a different challenge:

 

In no particular order:

 

- (Northern) South Africa / Angola / Rhodesia (bush war)

- Sierra Leone - RUF vs South African Mercenaries

- Vietnam

- Korea

- Afganistan

- Syria

 

just to name a few.

 

Why these zones?

 

The conflicts fought here in the past offer a plethora of scenario possibilities using declassified hardware that already exists in DCS.

 

I'd rather prefer the devs focus on getting Georgia into DCS 2.0 - streamlining it for VR and upgrading the topography of this existing landscape close to something we have in ARMA 3. Georgia was well chosen, because it has everything - seaside, hills and mountains.

 

After this feat the devs could choose to focus on bringing in one (or a different) conflict zone(s) I enumerated above.

 

Remember that sometimes 'Less is more'.

 

My 2 cents.

Edited July 28, 2017 by dertien

[Northstar98]

I apologize for coming a bit late to the party here and necro-ing this post: Some people here fail to understand the scope of DCS. This is not a 'Flight Simulator' like Aerofly FS 2 is, but it is a 'conflict simulator'.

 

You say that and yet DCS is one of, if not the best flight simulator out there, the best out there! The reason I jumped ship from FSX to DCS is because DCS does the same thing but far better, it has a mission editor for starters and helicopters don't behave like planes with exceptionally low stall speeds.

 

DCS is a sandbox combat simulator - you have the option to do what you choose. If you so wished you could fly aircraft for years on end without firing a single weapon or doing a single bit of conflict. Because DCS is designed for you to have the freedom to do what you choose - not force you. It's still possible to have an enjoyable experience - like you could in FSX but in DCS it's way better (best mix of graphics, immersion, realism and potential).

 

DCS is not an overglorified Strike Fighters 2 that you seem to think it is. We're a combat simulator yes but on the face of it DCS = FSX but way better + the ability for actual realistic combat. Yes DCS is WAY more than that - which further backs my viewpoint up that DCS as a simulator probably has the most potential - for me it certainly does as well as having the best mix of realism, immersion and graphics.

 

The potential is there to do everything in DCS. Why should it be confined and limited to like a few things only? With the current map sizes not only can you not do full military logistics (a part of combat, y'know the whole point of aircraft like the C-130 etc) But you also alienate long range combat operations - and combat aviation isn't just about knife fights in phone booths. Take an example, the Falklands war. Then take the opening shots as far as the air is concerned - this would be the Black Buck raids, starting with Black Buck One. They started off at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire, then had to be ferried down to RAF Wideawake on Ascension Island 6,920km to the south. Then from RAF Wideawake, bomb the islands 6,400km away and return to Ascension. An epic raid requiring ridiculous logistical support from tanker aircraft etc. But that was a combat situation wasn't it? That was a military operation, it really happened. Why shouldn't I be able to recreate this in it's entirity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBJ99bIhAVk In FSX I could. Obviously without the actual bombing, and without a mission editor and without proper air-to-air refuelling. But in terms of maps the potential is there. Like I've said I'm obviously massively limited by FSX's obsolete FDM, obsolete graphics and all it's other shortcomings. But I could do that in FSX but I can't however do that in DCS, even though it's a valid combat mission right?

 

Ultimately yes, it's a question of priorities - I don't want 2.5 delayed by one single solitary second. Because then things might actually progress a little faster.

 

Y'know I don't mind if what I would like in DCS isn't the same as everybody else's. I accept that there are more important things that need to be addressed and sorted first. I mean I can write dissertations on what features and technologies I'd like to see developed before I get to just adding new aircraft, adding new vehicles or adding new maps which includes adding a world map. A dissertation. But just because I see a world map as being something that will take years and years to procure, even if it is a basic one, and something that is low priority doesn't mean I close the door on it. Because closing doors on anything in DCS automatically makes it less of a simulator and lessens it's future potential. No matter how far into the future I go.

 

My second thing on the wishlist is a proper 3D mission editor - it's just infuriating fine positioning objects, thinking you've got it where you want it, flying the mission getting a slap in the face realising you haven't, going back to the mission editor changing it's position to then find out that I overcompensated or still haven't got it right and then becoming trapped in an endless loop. I end up spending more time making the mission than the cumulative time I will ever spend flying it.

 

The reason why I'd personally like a world map, some time in the future as it will allow me to do anything and everything in DCS. My solution is to have a basic world map with largely autogen objects - something like stock FSX and then use our existing theatres as addons that improve over certain areas. That's the system in place for FSX/P3D and I have to say that it works brilliantly.

 

The problem with this is that it is a gargantuan task, we've already witnessed truly how long it takes to get the current maps done let alone a full world. It's also maybe a little unrealistic. But let's pretend we had the resources to make a world map, would it be so much of a problem then?

Edited September 29, 2017 by Northstar98

[Exorcet]

I apologize for coming a bit late to the party here and necro-ing this post:

 

As for an elaborate answer to the vote on this poll: should the ED team focus on giving us 'the world, Chico, and everything in it' ?

 

No,

 

Some people here fail to understand the scope of DCS. This is not a 'Flight Simulator' like Aerofly FS 2 is, but it is a 'conflict simulator'. The focus of the controllable war machines is focused on Aircraft and Helicopters now, but in a distant future we might see DCS World include Tanks as well. And by driving tanks I do not mean the Combined Arms module, but something more akin to a simulation which does this quite in depth - Steel Armor Blaze Of War; where you can control either a T-55 or an M-60 Tank.

 

Well planes can fly pretty far. Far enough that a number of them can break out of any map currently available or in development for DCS. Having room to fly is far from a civil aviation thing. I want large maps because of the impact on combat. I also don't see an issue with ground units fitting into a world map.

 

The entire globe in NTTR detail isn't possible, but crude terrain with at least airbases outside of the main maps is doable and would add a lot to the sim. Just going back to NTTR, a very basic California coast allows carrier operations on the map. It doesn't matter if the ground textures are low quality over CA, at least not to me.

[Automan]

I wrote the first post of this thread when the roadmap times were still not clear: now I feel that we are really near a 2.5 update ( not 2 weeks, thought :D), so we can assume that full map coverage should became a DCS 3.0 wishlist ;)

 

PS poll says that I’m crazy at only 30%:megalol:

[Northstar98]

Well planes can fly pretty far. Far enough that a number of them can break out of any map currently available or in development for DCS. Having room to fly is far from a civil aviation thing. I want large maps because of the impact on combat. I also don't see an issue with ground units fitting into a world map.

 

Yep, I mean you say a 'number' of them, it's probably actually closer to near enough all of them. Thinking about it, it makes air-to-air refuelling tankers almost unnecessary doesn't it? (well it doesn't, they are a necessity in DCS - but hopefully you see sorta see what I mean).

 

The entire globe in NTTR detail isn't possible, but crude terrain with at least airbases outside of the main maps is doable and would add a lot to the sim. Just going back to NTTR, a very basic California coast allows carrier operations on the map. It doesn't matter if the ground textures are low quality over CA, at least not to me.

 

Thing is though, this would be from a performance aspect. 70% of the planet is water, and we don't yet have the technologies present in DCS (yet) that would facilitate a high fidelity world map. However, we do seem to have other stuff that's possible? I mean you could adopt a system where you have areas modelled to a lower-level of detail at larger ranges, then when you get closer the detail is there. In that sense at any one time, the performance is unchanged from what we have now. Then again I'm no developer, and I've probably just spouted a heap of garbage. I know what does change is required storage space - it would be very large, (Outerra for example has a fantastic Earth Map, and an underwater to go with it, I mean the level of detail you can achieve is monstrous - down to individual stones. Plus it can be deformed. It is however, almost completely unpopulated - no cities, no buildings, no roads, no rivers nothing with only a basic tree and weather system, it is possible to populate it but just the whole world dataset tops out at 40GB). The amount of storage space required I'm also guessing would also have ramifications for performance.

 

My dream for the DCS map system is a basic base line word map comprising of only basic elevation maps, lower resolution textures, with cities purely based on landclass and autogen. Then over the years we receive proper 'hand-crafted' payware map modules (like our current theatres) that improve over and replace the base map in certain areas, so for a customer without the NTTR map you would have a landclass Vegas that wasn't that accurate with airbases that are basically a runway and an apron with a generic control tower then if you've bought the NTTR map, that area will be replaced - so you'll have areas which are the basic map and areas that are improved over - which would be the maps we use now. This is the exact same concept that FSX/P3D uses and I'd say that system works quite well. You could even have modules that just improve airfields in particular areas, maybe even adding minor airfields - just like FSX/P3D have. It's just an idea but it's an idea I'd ideally like to see.

 

I wrote the first post of this thread when the roadmap times were still not clear: now I feel that we are really near a 2.5 update ( not 2 weeks, thought :D), so we can assume that full map coverage should became a DCS 3.0 wishlist ;)

 

Ugh 2.5 can't come any sooner - I don't want to delay it by a single solitary second. The 3rd parties must be sick to death of this 3 version madness.

 

PS poll says that I’m crazy at only 30%:megalol:

 

Well it might be a crazy idea :) but I agree! I would like a world map, because it opens up potential for more aircraft types and larger missions which are always a big plus for me. Whilst not taking away anything we have at the moment. Yes, it's a huge undertaking but I feel that if we got the map technology to support a world map and I mean performance wise then I don't see why not in the far future.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Northstar98

[dertien]

You say that and yet DCS is one of the best flight simulators out there.

 

I totally agree. That is why I bought and enjoy the 'oil fields' campaign for the Mi-8, I would also enjoy to fly gliders if DCS would feature a proper weather system with thermals and windsocks that are actually usable and any glider module with a PFM. Not even Aerofly FS 2 (which supports VR as well) is multiplayer capable at the moment.

 

DCS is not an overglorified Strike Fighters 2 that you seem to think it is.

 

I don't know or played SF2, but I did play Falcon BMS with track-IR. What I miss in F-BMS is the ability to use VR gear. What I miss in DCS is an F-16...and a DCS VR-rendering capability that can keep up with the jet's speed.

Aaah... decisions, decisions...

 

...and combat aviation isn't just about knife fights in phone booths. ...They started off at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire, then had to be ferried down to RAF Wideawake on Ascension Island 6,920km to the south. Then from RAF Wideawake, bomb the islands 6,400km away and return to Ascension...

 

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no issues with your desire to spend countless hours of flying above the ocean for realism sake sticking to using real time only, while you confine yourself to your seat for 6 hours on end - not sure that Vulcan Bombers had a toilet - while staring at the horizon and then enjoy 10 minutes of 'bombing action', since AFAIK the sim has no save function; and then ultimately 'navigate' 6 hours back to home plate.

 

I am sure of two things however:

 

1) very few realism buffs - like myself - will go that far! PC's crash, Windows crashes and so does DCS ...occasionally; without even speaking of the 'time' factor. My game sessions are also very long (6 hours+) but my hands and brain need something to do.

2) I'd hate to be your keyboard when after 11 hours just before that succesful landing, Bill Gates' miracle OS decides to install updates :) no matter how 'zen' you are or how many yoga sessions you do every week.

 

But...as in EECH and EEAH you have the whole of Georgia, which is not a small country... but yes if you fly at Mach 2+...

The aerial re-fuelling bit is still usable (comparable to the same feature in Falcon BMS) even if you don't fly halfway around the globe; since due to weight and balance issues your fuel load will be a factor depending on your weapons package.

 

I did not mean to minimize the "Combined Arms" module. I do not own it and my judgement is based on Youtube videos. The tank 'driving' that the module offers however is pretty minimal and if a level of realism could be obtained in DCS that could hold a candle to the way SABOW handles it, I would be very happy even on the existing terrain.

 

Speaking of priorities terrain wise, how 'bout getting those trees usable as a terrain masking feature. I usually fly the Helicopter modules (because DCS gets more time to render the terrain for my VR setup with less hiccups than when I fly jets) it's absolutely aggravating that trees cannot be used for cover, a mundane feature which I feel is an absolute MUST on the DCS to-do list; I'm not even asking for different tree models! Just trees that will mask the sound of my chopper and incoming sams or AAA.

 

I have Georgia on my mind, with better curves and collide-able t..rees before anything else. :)

 

Ultimately yes, it's a question of priorities -

My second thing on the wishlist is a proper 3D mission editor -

 

Could not agree more with that!

 

On top of that, I would like to see a dynamic war system just like in EECH or EEAH, or like was done for ARMA 3 by the ALiVE mod team. One that would intelligently spawn and render entities depending on their distance from you, since the currently available quick-missions involving a lot of units (even those that cannot be seen) make DCS in VR a nauseating slideshow.

Edited July 29, 2017 by dertien

[Northstar98]

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no issues with your desire to spend countless hours of flying above the ocean for realism sake sticking to using real time only, while you confine yourself to your seat for 6 hours on end - not sure that Vulcan Bombers had a toilet - while staring at the horizon and then enjoy 10 minutes of 'bombing action', since AFAIK the sim has no save function; and then ultimately 'navigate' 6 hours back to home plate.

 

My apologies for responding like a grumble monster with a bad attitude :) For more detail, the Vulcan's were modified with a toilet for the raid, and for those 6 hours there was a colossal air-to-air refuelling operation, you can see more if you watch the video I posted in my comment.

 

One of my dreams in DCS is to have a military campaign from the very start, to the very end - incorporating a logistical element. From ferry equipment down, to installing and building said equipment into FOBs etc to then carrying out combat missions and then right and the end packing everything up. I'm not saying every mission should be whole military campaigns like that - not at all, but personally I'd like at least the capacity to do that. Adding a world doesn't invalidate DCS as a combat simulator, it just gives you the potential to do more - which is what you want in a combat simulator. (That's why for me the Caucasus is the best map - it has one of the largest usable areas and you can do near enough everything in it.

 

I am sure of two things however:

 

1) very few realism buffs - like myself - will go that far! PC's crash, Windows crashes and so does DCS ...occasionally; without even speaking of the 'time' factor. My game sessions are also very long (6 hours+) but my hands and brain need something to do.

2) I'd hate to be your keyboard when after 11 hours just before that succesful landing, Bill Gates' miracle OS decides to install updates :) no matter how 'zen' you are or how many yoga sessions you do every week.

 

Well in FSX, my PC would crash before I reach Gibraltar. That's one of things that makes DCS so much better. As for 6+ hours without doing anything - I suggest you watch the documentary after the 21 minute mark, you'll see 'just sitting there, doing nothing' isn't exactly true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBJ99bIhAVk&t=21m

 

But...as in EECH and EEAH you have the whole of Georgia, which is not a small country... but yes if you fly at Mach 2+...

The aerial re-fuelling bit is still usable (comparable to the same feature in Falcon BMS) even if you don't fly halfway around the globe; since due to weight and balance issues your fuel load will be a factor depending on your weapons package.

 

Georgia isn't a small country, but it's far from being a large one either - in the Viggen flying from Vaziani the most easterly airbase of Georgia to Poti/Kobuleti on the west coast (one of the most westerly points of Georgia) takes me just about 20 minutes @ ~750km/h true airspeed @ ~500m AGL - which is about mach 0.64(?) at that altitude. Looking at it Georgia is actually a slightly smaller country by area than Ireland, in the Caucasus map we're also missing a portion of Georgia to the south-east - as a rough estimate we're missing a quarter maybe even a third of the entire country (not including Abkhazia). In comparison to the country where I come from, which also isn't regarded as being particularly large (the UK) is ~3.5x the size of Georgia by area. Plus on top of that, in the 1.5 Caucasus map Georgia actually isn't there in it's entirety - we're actually missing roughly a third of the country (the entire Kakheti province): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakheti#/media/File:Kakheti_in_Georgia_(Georgian_view).svg

 

Don't get me wrong the Caucasus map is a big map. Thing is though 80% of it is the Black Sea, and we don't exactly have the naval environment covered yet and we don't have access to areas like Crimea (whether or not we'll ever get access to Crimea - well who know, but it isn't coming soon). I'd personally also like to see the Turkish straits and the Sea of Marmara - a principle naval choke point - just expanding the range of possibilities in DCS.

 

Speaking of priorities terrain wise, how 'bout getting those trees usable as a terrain masking feature. I usually fly the Helicopter modules (because DCS gets more time to render the terrain for my VR setup with less hiccups than when I fly jets) it's absolutely aggravating that trees cannot be used for cover, a mundane feature which I feel is an absolute MUST on the DCS to-do list; I'm not even asking for different tree models! Just trees that will mask the sound of my chopper and incoming sams or AAA.

 

Yes, I agree! Personally I'd prefer adding new features and technologies that improve the experience and better pave the way to the future than just adding more planes, more tanks etc - that's part of the reason why I wasn't too impressed by the WW2 Assets pack - yes you can see that some care has gone into it, I am grateful for that, believe me I am. But it doesn't improve CA one bit, apart from historically accurate units but these units still suffer the exact same problems as any other CA unit - you still don't have things like lights or control over specific things, you still don't have accurate tank or track driving physics and we still have that crude, primitive suspension modelling that is the exact opposite to what happens in real life (the tracks and wheels all stay perfectly level to the terrain and the hull just bobs around randomly, in reality the tracks and road wheels respond to terrain and movement of the hull is dampened as a result, the near polar opposite happens in DCS). In light of the assets pack, the rest of the vehicles are left in the dark - with many units still missing updated 3D models, some of them important units (I saw this in November 2015, well over a year ago http://ru.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%9F%D0%92%D0%9E_%D0%A1-300%D0%9F%D0%A1 and yet...). We're also lacking support units for SAM sites (vehicles carrying reloads etc) as well as combat engineering vehicles. I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable fee for improvements - I really wouldn't. I know just improving the same thing over and over again for free can be perceived as unfair to the developers. I also know that they're not an immediate priority. (Please ED, finally release 2.5 so we can end this 3 version hell. Hell not just for us, but developers as well - 3x the bug fixing, 3x the support, 3x the workload just so everything works in all versions).

 

I have Georgia on my mind, with better curves and collide-able t..rees before anything else. :)

 

The Caucasus map is receiving a major facelift, allowing you to have NTTR and Caucasus on the same installation. Hopefully incorporating collideable trees. When that will happen... could be this year, could be next year, I could be dead before it turns up... who knows? All I know that it's been over a year since we saw this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=170914

Edited September 29, 2017 by Northstar98