Jump to content

Normandy Map Inaccuracies


DD_Fenrir
 Share

Recommended Posts

Noticed a few things that could do with correcting in order to make this map more authentic:

 

1. Guard towers and chain link fencing:

Screen_170624_220025.jpg

 

Guard towers might have been a feature on axis airfields but were a rarity on allied - seeing them scattered so liberally on the Normandy Advanced Landing Grounds makes my OCD trigger; as does the chain link fencing.

 

Whilst appropriate for the permanent airfields (Tangmere, Ford, Carpiquet, Evreux and Maupertus) this fencing would not have been seen around the ALGs; these were bulldozed out of farmland within miles of the frontline - the time and expense in surrounding each of these temporary strips in such exotic form of barrier would have been prohibitive and of limited value. protection would have come in the form of RAF Regiment gun-pits and lengths of coiled barbed wire.

 

I suggest these items be dispensed with from the temporary fields - it could certainly save some memory/frames as well as being more accurate.

 

2. Above ground fuel storage.

 

Screen_170624_220219.jpg

 

In a word, no.

 

No permanent Allied military base, let alone an ALG only a few miles from the frontline would dare to store their fuel supplies so enticingly within reach of air or artillery attack; on all Allied fields, permanent or temporary, fuel was stored in subterranean tanks outside but close to the airfield perimeter. Please dispense with these.

 

3. Brick buildings on temporary airfields

 

Screen_170624_220551.jpg

Screen_170624_220604.jpg

Screen_170624_220455.jpg

Screen_170624_220148.jpg

 

Whilst appropriate for permanent airfields (Tangmere, Ford, Carpiquet, Evreux and Maupertus) these brick buildings as found currently on a number of the ALGS are wholly inappropriate; all accommodation was tented; there was not the time or the resources or the inclination to construct such long-life structures. Control towers particularly should not feature on these temporary fields as Flying Control consisted of a couple of bods with a radio in a tent - or if really lucky, a large caravan trailer. Par example:

 

large_000000.jpg

 

The wooden building *might* have been seen later on the campaign but would have been the exception rather than the rule.

 

What sometimes happened was a civilian or farm building close to or within the ALG perimeter would have been requisitioned for the RAFs purposes.

 

Please consider removing the control towers, brick hangars and other brick buildings from the ALG sites.

 

4. Too many buildings on ALGs!

 

Hangers of any type are far too numerous on the temporary strips - virtually all servicing was done in the open with units lucky to have even one temporary hangar in which to perform major overhauls.

 

Also tents, whether habitation or workshop, were dispersed off the airfield proper in surrounding cover rather than arranged in neat strafable rows in beautifully clear areas of the airfield.

 

Please rationalise some of the numbers of buildings and disperse the tents around the periphery of the ALGS.

 

5. Carpiquet (and others)

 

Screen_170624_220740.jpg

 

As a permanent pre-war field Carpiquet should be a concrete/asphalt construction, as should Evreux, Tangmere and Ford. Currently its runways etc are textured as Sommerfeld Tracking.

 

Please consider accurate runway, perimeter track and dispersal textures for these airfields

 

 

Otherwise a real gem of a map and really looking forward to further developments.

 

Thanks!

 

Fen


Edited by DD_Fenrir
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noticed a few things that could do with correcting in order to make this map more authentic:

 

1. Guard towers and chain link fencing:

Screen_170624_220025.jpg

 

Guard towers might have been a feature on axis airfields but were a rarity on allied - seeing them scattered so liberally on the Normandy Advanced Landing Grounds makes my OCD trigger; as does the chain link fencing.

 

Whilst appropriate for the permanent airfields (Tangmere, Ford, Carpiquet, Evreux and Maupertus) this fencing would not have been seen around the ALGs; these were bulldozed out of farmland within miles of the frontline - the time and expense in surrounding each of these temporary strips in such exotic form of barrier would have been prohibitive and of limited value. protection would have come in the form of RAF Regiment gun-pits and lengths of coiled barbed wire.

 

I suggest these items be dispensed with from the temporary fields - it could certainly save some memory/frames as well as being more accurate.

 

2. Above ground fuel storage.

 

Screen_170624_220219.jpg

 

In a word, no.

 

No permanent Allied military base, let alone an ALG only a few miles from the frontline would dare to store their fuel supplies so enticingly within reach of air or artillery attack; on all Allied fields, permanent or temporary, fuel was stored in subterranean tanks outside but close to the airfield perimeter. Please dispense with these.

 

3. Brick buildings on temporary airfields

 

Screen_170624_220551.jpg

Screen_170624_220604.jpg

Screen_170624_220455.jpg

Screen_170624_220148.jpg

 

Whilst appropriate for permanent airfields (Tangmere, Ford, Carpiquet, Evreux and Maupertus) these brick buildings as found currently on a number of the ALGS are wholly inappropriate; all accommodation was tented; there was not the time or the resources or the inclination to construct such long-life structures. Control towers particularly should not feature on these temporary fields as Flying Control consisted of a couple of bods with a radio in a tent - or if really lucky, a large caravan trailer. Par example:

 

large_000000.jpg

 

The wooden building *might* have been seen later on the campaign but would have been the exception rather than the rule.

 

What sometimes happened was a civilian or farm building close to or within the ALG perimeter would have been requisitioned for the RAFs purposes.

 

Please consider removing the control towers, brick hangars and other brick buildings from the ALG sites.

 

4. Too many buildings on ALGs!

 

Hangers of any type are far too numerous on the temporary strips - virtually all servicing was done in the open with units lucky to have even one temporary hangar in which to perform major overhauls.

 

Also tents, whether habitation or workshop, were dispersed off the airfield proper in surrounding cover rather than arranged in neat strafable rows in beautifully clear areas of the airfield.

 

Please rationalise some of the numbers of buildings and disperse the tents around the periphery of the ALGS.

 

5. Carpiquet (and others)

 

Screen_170624_220740.jpg

 

As a permanent pre-war field Carpiquet should be a concrete/asphalt construction, as should Evreux, Tangmere and Ford. Currently its runways etc are textured as Sommerfeld Tracking.

 

Please consider accurate runway, perimeter track and dispersal textures for these airfields

 

 

Otherwise a real gem of a map and really looking forward to further developments.

 

Thanks!

 

Fen

 

 

I agree with those comments. Clearly the developers have done a magnificent job in the Normandy map, which no doubt will continually be improved. My wish list for that would include:

 

 

More placeable objects in Mission Ed.: For the forward airfields a variety of tents and some WW2 style Nissan huts would go a long way toward greater authenticity. The FARP tents look good, but we need a few more varieties of WW2 tents. Also, some more "clutter" objects such as miscellaneous crates, boxes, un-crated oil drums (in addition to the existing cargo objects) , some 1940's civilian motor vehicles, a bomb tractor, a bulldozer, and a few stationary human figures ( or groups) sitting or crouching.

 

 

As to the map itself, while I love the sheer complexity of roads, terrain, trees and towns, I would like to see a few stretches of road and rail with some random gaps in the trees every kilometre or so. This would reduce the uniformity and add realism, as well as giving better opportunity to attack road and rail traffic with armour and from the air.

 

 

Regards to all,

Mich

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree, I don't even own Normandy but I think it's better to have the buildings be static objects that we place in the mission editor so we truly have the sandbox experience that DCS is supposed to be. Instead of having buildings already placed. Improvements to the template system and the mission editor as a whole could mean that we don't have to go and put them down for every mission for those worrying about that.

 

Regarding inaccuracies with Normandy can anyone confirm if this is still a thing?

 

OoDm0b4.png

  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas, Caucasus

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

UPDATE:

 

Just picked up this rather nice tome:

 

https://afterthebattle.com/store/index.php?id_product=264&controller=product

 

And it has expanded my knowledge greatly.

 

Further to point 3. of my original post; it seems that none of the temporarily constructed ALGS, save one (A-9 Le Molay), had any hangar provision.

 

Page 116:

 

Le Molay was unique as it was the only airstrip constructed in Normandy with covered shelter for aircraft comprising two steel-framed hangars from the Butler Manufacturing Company,

established in Kansas City, Missouri...

 

The hangars at A-9 were clad in canvas and are believed to have been used for storage of supplies. As the primary units based at le Molay were photo-reconnaissance aircraft - F-4/P-38 Lightnings and F6/P-51 Mustangs - cameras and photographic development obviously needed sheltered facilities

 

Furthermore I have noticed a rather significant issue in that B-3 St Croix Sur Mer is incorrectly orientated; whilst the overall layout is about right, the current runway headings in DCS are not. DCS are oriented 90/270 when in actuality they should be 45/225, with the village of St Croix Sur Mer just touching the SW boundary of the field.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

 

Re for the asphalt runways on permanent fields and too many hangars on ASG's,does need a tidy up/overhaul in the near future.

  • Like 1

Chillblast Fusion Cirrus 2 FS Pc/Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake CPU/Gigabyte Nvidia GTX 1070 G1 8GB/Seagate 2TB FireCuda SSHD/16GB DDR4 2133MHz Memory/Asus STRIX Z270F Gaming Motherboard/Corsair Hydro Series H80i GT Liquid Cooler/TM Warthog with Sahaj 15cm Extension/MFG Crosswind V2 Pedals/Saitek Cessna Trim Wheel & Throttle Quadrants/TrackiR4/Windows 10 Home/Sense of humour,I find it comes in handy !

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Water towers aswell are inaccurates, the ones we have at the moment are americans water towers.

 

Too bad we don't have more historical buildings aswell like the Pegasus Bridge for example.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Lose sight / Lose fight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Channel Island of Alderney is entirely missing even though the others are there including the very small Herm and Sark. A mystery island has been added between Jersey and France. Probably not that important in the grand scheme of things but noticeable to us Channel Island residents.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=167220&stc=1&d=1502291824

928833313_ScreenShot2017-08-09at16_15_50.thumb.png.1e7ca73d33c391ea56fd4135739f5e1f.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree, I don't even own Normandy but I think it's better to have the buildings be static objects that we place in the mission editor so we truly have the sandbox experience that DCS is supposed to be. Instead of having buildings already placed. Improvements to the template system and the mission editor as a whole could mean that we don't have to go and put them down for every mission for those worrying about that.

 

Regarding inaccuracies with Normandy can anyone confirm if this is still a thing?

 

OoDm0b4.png

 

That thing is there just because it is the end of the map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That thing is there just because it is the end of the map.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the DCS maps are flat which means that we have to apply a medieval physics which drives to the conclusion that the strip of land is there to keep the water flowing away from the ocean and ships falling out from the edge of the world into the void.

 

A schematic illustration of the problem that had to be dealt with:

 

200w.gif

  • Like 2

F/A-18, F-16, F-14, M-2000C, A-10C, AV-8B, AJS-37 Viggen, F-5E-3, F-86F, MiG-21bis, MiG-15bis, L-39 Albatros, C-101 Aviojet, P-51D, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Bf 109 4-K, UH-1H, Mi-8, Ka-50, NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf... and not enough time to fully enjoy it all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My last Thread where I asked why Evreux is a Temporary Airfield without paved Runway as it should be got moved without any comment to DCS World Wish Thread so good luck...

Something we got out of Time we look future wards in this details sometimes would be much appreciated...

Or this is not true while rather than say nothing...

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My last Thread where I asked why Evreux is a Temporary Airfield without paved Runway as it should be got moved without any comment to DCS World Wish Thread so good luck...

Something we got out of Time we look future wards in this details sometimes would be much appreciated...

Or this is not true while rather than say nothing...

 

To be fair, Sith did say he'd look into it and add it as a feature request. He also asked for more info. You didnt, nor anyone else, actually respond publically to that requst.

 

(for ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=188028)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, Sith did say he'd look into it and add it as a feature request. He also asked for more info. You didnt, nor anyone else, actually respond publically to that requst.

 

(for ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=188028)

 

Dont even look the Thread afterwards get littel bit annoyed my Thread get moved without any Information, after Sith respond to it be fair to say sorry should be watching First...:thumbup:

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

From theDCS Newsletter of 6 October I understood that airfields that had concrete runways in reality would get them in the Normandy map. After the last update I tried Caen-Carpiquet and Tangmere but they still have steel-matted runways. Am I doing something wrong or have the concrete runways not been implemented yet? Are the maps included in the updates or do you have to update them separately?

Many thanks,

Stickshaker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 3 months later...

I don't know if it was mentioned before anywhere

 

Actually i cannot find (because it is missing) the small island tatihou with the vauban tower there.

It is right next to st. vaast la hougue

  • Like 1

sigpic.png.4d2403c54e341ae5cf45e3309e87cb2c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Can I ask what kind of sources (on the web, if any) you used?

Or is most of the information you know gleaned from actual books?

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems a number of the German airfields can be classed as relief, and would never have had hangars or facilities at all.

 

 

http://www.ww2.dk/lwairfields.html

 

 

Its interesting to note that some of them were never used by the Germans and were covered with anti glider defences and trenches. I guess they had more airfields than Luftwaffe by June 1944...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...