LetMePickThat

You're partially correct. The 9S19M2 is in fact able to track planes, cruise missile or any other high flying target. The problem arise when said targets dip below the minimum elevation angle of the radar, either because they're too close or because they dropped in altitude. Putting the 9S15M2 first in the group solves the issue because it makes it the "defaut" search radar, but it's not convenient for mission makers. I found two ways to solve the problem. The first one is to make the 9S19M2 more capable against airbreathers so that it can be used from start to finish during engagements versus planes. The second is to make it even less relevant for conventional SAM engagements, so that the system has no choice but to pick the 9S15M2 when dealing with planes. I still haven't picked an approach yet but I'm more enclined towards the first one, as IRL the 9S19M2 has very decent capabilities against all sort of targets.

That's a nasty bug that should be solved with the next version of the mod. Please send me your mission so that I can take a look though, it's always useful. As for the range, both the 9M92M from the S-300VM and the 48N6E2 from the S-300PMU2 have a maximum range of around 200 km. Only the S-400 (48N6DM, 250km, 40N6, 400km, not demonstrated) and the S-300V4 (9M83ME, 150km, 9M82ME, 380km), have longer ranges.

The KS-19 was broken by ED a few updates ago, I believe that @Hextopiaand @Auranisare still trying to find a way so solve that issue. Can you send me the exact installation path you're using?

Hi all, I've jumped back in the 16C after a long hiatus, and I'm trying to understant the AG radar modes. Smooth sailing so far, save for this little problem: there seems to always be a (quite large) offset between real and radar-given object positions. See for instance the image below, where I initially slew the radar to the target, sent the FTT to the TGP then corrected until the TGP was actually on the target. There's a significant difference between where both sensors think that the target is (and the TGP is right). I've tried to use CZ on both the pod and the radar, to no avail. Is there a way to correct this offset for TGP-free, radar-only weapon delivery? Thanks !

Hmmm, I did not encounter this issue. Would you mind sending the .miz so that I can give it a shot on my own server?

Hi Bignewy. Thanks for the heads-up. Do you plan on adding new CWIS/CRAM systems after adding RCS values to bombs? Follow my gaze...

What do you mean by "commenting out" ?

No, you need to pay attention to the contour lines on the map.

Thanks. As far as I am aware, the new missile API only works for Fox 1s and 3s, as well as a few other specialized missile types (HARM, Scud, etc). I searched for quite some time for an ED-made Fox 2 using the new API while I was working on the Super, but wasn't able to locate one. If there is one, it is hidden somewhere where I can't access it.

It's part of the problem, but the real killer (and the reason we don't use them on AA/SAM names) is that long names exceed the maximum length permitted by the drop down menu of the mission editor... ^^' The latest version uses it for most units. It's a "passive" option: you're cycling through the long, short, dot and no label modes when using shift+F10.

I'm well aware, but you can't use the short name in the unit list. It also requires the user to actively set up the game to use the short names, something most people don't even know is a thing.

Beta 1.8.2 is out. No change to the content of the mod, but thanks to @Rudel_chwthere is now a catalog of 2SAP units in the Doc folder of the mod. I'll ask around in the various squadrons using the mod intensively, see what they think about that. If that's a problem for them as well, we'll change the naming convention to something else.

The problem with "SAM SA-23 S-300VM Giant TEL B - HDSM" is that it doesn't fit in the drop-down menu, that's why we elected to use a prefix in the first place. I guess it boils down to the conception people have of mods. My position is that a mod is good when its presence isn't felt by the end-user and integrates well within the rules set by the base game, but that might be just me. I will set up a poll and see what people prefer. EDIT: also, I'm not sure to understand why you would care wether a unit is from a mod or not. Even when sharing missions with others, the list of needed mods is displayed.

That would be a question for @Strigoi_dk, I'm not familiar with all the textures we use.

A potential conflict would be if another mod used a texture with the same name as our own glass texture. Look for mods adding vehicles or buildings with transparent windows.

Yes. Since the HDSM (as well as another upcoming mod we're working on) try to blend in DCS' default naming convention for AA systems, I've elected to keep that approach for AA units of the Asset Pack. The way I see things, structures can have the ERO prefix because it doesn't matter how they're named, but that isn't the case for vehicles because that name is used in AAR and in-game when labels are used. I'd be curious to know what others think about that. Do you mind if I add it to the pack ? Nice catch, I'll fix that.

Do you run other mods? If so, which ones?

Fixed. I'm not a huge fan of ED User Files because it doesn't lend itself very well to frequent or automated updates. With Google Drive, I can iterate quickly to provide fixes and updates.

Please give a shot at Beta 1.8.1. There was indeed a problem with the regular ZU-23 technical, but I wasn't able to see anything wrong with the other, non-AAA vehicles. I get the idea, but modelling realistic human beings is a nightmare and this would take a long time. There are already versions of the Toyota with or without light weaponry in the trunk (AKs, RPGs, the like) so you can already set up civilian and militia convoys.

I'll check if I didn't break something, but on my end I have all of them.

No need to look at other games to illustrate that. Combined Arms is the perfect example of why specialized game engines make it very difficult to implement anything but what said engines were designed for. They did some progress on that front, tho. On Syria, you can crush walls or barricades if your vehicle is powerful enough, for instance. It's far from being perfect, but it's better than nothing.

Well well well, it's update time. Just small changes, for now. Fixed improper use of add_surface_unit(GT) that would cause duplication errors in DCS' log for various units. Added the following units: Armed: AAA ZU-23 Toyota armored technical AAA ZU-23 Toyota technical Unarmed: Toyota Camo Toyota Red Toyota Clown Toyota Desert Toyota Red Each "unarmed" Toyota has subtle variations in payload (and color, obviously), to allow users to create whatever scenario they want, from a dead-serious militia convoy to the famous Hmeimim AB Buggey Contest (tm). KNOWN BUGS: The armored variant of the ZU-23 technical doesn't have more armor than the regular version (will fix asap) The ZU-23 variants have no gun sound (will fix...when I find a fix I guess)

Do you use sounders or custom sounds? You can probably play with the sdef files to change the parameters of the sound cone. Any idea about my problem?

As a sidenote, it's worth noting that, in general, notching is much more reliable in DCS than it is in real life when facing modern platforms. The standard real-life reaction when shot at by an F-16C, a F-15C, an F/A-18C or another airframe equipped with a late-1990s/early-1990s state-of-the-art radar isn't to put the RWR contact in your 3-9 line and hope for the best. The F-16C being less prone to notch defeat is probably more realistic than the trope of the Hornet and Eagle losing a contact each time it goes perpendicular.

The last one is unarmed.