currenthill

It's because the assets in my mod packs doesn't have a Level Of Detail (LOD) configuration. Using this technique the models will be replaced with ones with much less polygons the further away they are. Without LODs your computer will have to calculate the max poly version of the asset regardless of the distance to you. My core DCS assets all have LODs, and I'm currently adding it to the mod packs also, but it'll take a while before it will be done to all of them.

Hey! They are both guided precision strike munitions. And since they are pretty accurate, they will hit close to the target spot. If you want to hit a wider area, which is preferable with the cluster munitions, just create several 'Fire at Point' tasks with one round per launch. Make sure to spread them around the area you want to hit.

I appreciate when these more obvious issues are found, because it makes the asset more realistic with mostly just a simple fix.

Thanks for the feedback!

Thanks, I’ll take a look! Edit: You're correct. The current configuration is both right and wrong. I set the gun to known specifications, which include the capability for indirect fire to around 5000 meters. But the current configuration allows the 5000 meters shot to be made in direct fire mode, which isn't correct. Edit 2: On top of the HESH round, I'm going to add the HE-T for indirect fire at longer ranges.

Military Asset Pack Iran 2.0.0 released! Changelog Version 2.0.0 Added LODs Changed textures to reduce size Added encyclopedia entry Changed folder structure Distribution model This Military Asset Pack is available in the following versions: The standard full download. Remove old asset pack version and unzip this in your Saved Games mods\tech folder. The incremental download which updates your full download and contains only the changed files. You apply it by overwriting your current installation.

Thanks for the feedback.

Not sure, I'm currently working on fixes and updates on the core assets since the release.

Hey! This was reported in the Discord. I've made changes for the next update, which will definitely improve both the Pantsir and Tor M2 engagement performance.

Thanks! Looks like the low-armored assets are having a bit more protection than I intended. I'm going to re-calibrate all the remaining low-armored ones (Pantsir, IRIS-T SLM, M142 and M1083) to better reflect their intended protection level.

I agree that these kind of vehicles can be a challenge when it comes to the damage model. But the current damage implementation, even though it's based on hitpoints, can be more granular then before and make different zones absorb these points differently. The TOS-1A has 16 different damage zones implemented.

Thanks! I did balance the TOS-1A somewhere between the T-90 and something with low protection. But based on your report and after doing more in depth testing I agree that the unit takes too much fire without being damaged. I need to make the protection contrast between the tank chassis and the more vulnerable launcher turret more obvious. I've done some testing which I think will be a suitable update for the unit. This means that it will matter to a higher degree if you hit the chassis or the launcher turret (which might be a challenge in the Apache, haha).

I only work on CH assets.

Thanks for the feedback. The damage model in DCS can be very binary when it comes down to it. Most sources consider the 9K720 to be equipped with additional armor on the roof and cabin, that's why I've set the 9K720 with its MZKT chassis to a higher armor level than the MAZ based Scud TEL. There doesn't seem to be any hard numbers on thickness available, so it's always hard to estimate the exact outcome of these variables, especially depending on the characteristics of the ammunition fired towards it. But I agree, the 20 mm ammunition you refer to should definitely be able to penetrate and defeat even the slightly up-armored MZKT chassis. I shall make a note and find a suitable middle ground. Edit: I ran some tests and I definitely agree. I've made some changes to the armor level, which now should be more realistic, while still taking into account its additional armor compared to stock chassis of this type.

Thanks, but I think you misunderstood, my main priority isn't CA, it's their AI performance. Thus, having the more realistic radars is my main priority. If I wouldn't be able to find a way to implement them together with player control, I would choose the more advanced radar features.