Silver_Dragon

The main gun used on the Samuel L Chase (Arthur Middleton-class attack transport) carry 4x 3"/50 (7.62 cm) Mark 22 and a 1x Mk22 3in/50 The problem with DCS is that there seems to be a "standard" shell for all of them, with an anti-aircraft function that doesn't fit with reality. On fact, the SLC has only a bar with 40mm cannon ammunition The 3"/50 (7.62 cm) Mark 22 has that ammunion: AP Mark 29 Mods 1 and 2 HC Mark 27 Mod 1 1 AA Mark 23 Mods 1 and 3 1 AA Mark 27 Mods 1 and 4 1 AA VT Mark 31 Mod 1 Illum Mark 21 Mods 1 and 3 Illum Mark 24 Mod 1 Illum Mark 25 Mod 1 About AA ammo: The AA Mark 23 and its associated Cartridge Case Mark 3 were considered to be obsolete by the end of World War II. HC Mark 27 and AA Mark 27 were the same projectiles but assembled with different fuzes. These 3" (7.62 cm) HC rounds were unique in that they were the only ones of that type issued by the USN that did not have a base fuze in addition to a nose fuze. Mk22 3in/50 ammunition: AAC Mark 34 Mod 10 AAC Mark 35 Mods 1 to 12 AAC Mark 47 Mods 0 and 1 AAC Mark 49 AAC Mark 52 AAC Mark 56 Common Mark 32 Mods 1 to 4 AAVT Mark 31 Mods 1 to 11 Special Common Mark 38 Mods 1, 2 and 3 Special Common Mark 46 Mods 1 and 2 RAP Mark 57 2a Illum 3a Marks 27, 30, 44 and 45 WP Mark 46 Chaff Mark 78 Projectile Description: Special Common had a windscreen with a thin hood and the body was strengthened to enhance its armor piercing qualities. Postwar, some Special Common were given a dye bag for spotting. Available colors were blue, green, orange and red. Common Mark 32 had a windshield but no cap. AAC Mark 35 and Mark 49 projectile bodies could be used with Point Detonating (PD), Mechanical Time (MT) or with proximity (VT) nose fuzes. When issued with MT or VT fuzes they were considered as being AA rounds, but when issued with PD fuzes, they were considered to be HC rounds. Changing the fuze also resulted in slight changes in the total projectile weight and burster weight. For example, the Mark 35 with a PD fuze weighed 54.3 lbs. (24.63 kg) total with a 7.55 lbs. (3.42 kg) burster. Controlled Variable Time (CVT) fuzes were introduced post-war. AAC Mark 35 could also be issued as B.L.&P. or as B.L.&T. for target practice. Projectiles that used MT or PD nose fuzes had an instantaneous contact type base fuze while a blind plug was used in place of the base fuze for those projectiles using VT nose fuzes. The AAC Mark 47 was designed as a heavier projectile using new, lighter weight fuzes so as to maintain the same overall projectile weight. However, the fuzes never appeared, so only a few thousand of the Mark 47 projectiles were manufactured. Window and White Phosphorous (WP) rounds were available, many as special Mods of the Illumination Mark 30, Mark 44 and Mark 45 projectile bodies. Chaff rounds were available for jamming different radar types. Chaff Load Mark 15 was for X-band while Chaff Load Mark 21 was intended for S-band. Chaff projectiles used a MT nose fuze that triggered a small ejection charge and the loads were dispensed through the base of the projectile. About ammunition: Outfits listed are the design figures. Pre-war destroyers normally carried about 100 to 150 rounds per gun plus 100 - 120 illumination rounds per ship with the balance carried in magazines on Destroyer Tenders (AD). After 1940, outfits for most destroyers were increased to the design figure plus about 200 illumination rounds per ship. As the war went on, ammunition stowage on new designs was increased where possible. Some examples: Late war Fletcher (DD-445) class carried 525 rounds per gun in magazines plus 50 ready rounds per gun (these totals may include illumination rounds). The A.M. Sumner (DD-692) class carried 352 rounds per gun in magazines plus 50 ready rounds per gun. The A.M. Sumner class also carried 292 illumination rounds per ship in magazines plus 48 ready illumination rounds per ship. This was same capacity for the Gearing (DD-720) and Robert H. Smith (DM-23) classes. This large increase in ammunition weight over the design figures resulted in destroyers losing two to four knots in maximum speed from the design specifications. However, the stowage for pre-war destroyers could not be so greatly increased. For example, the Farragut class destroyer USS Aylwin (DD-355) had about 250 rounds per gun in magazines plus 50 ready rounds per gun in 1944. The rebuilt USS Selfridge (DD-357), which had traded her eight SP guns for five DP guns after receiving torpedo damage in 1943, carried about 43 ready rounds per gun and 260 rounds per gun in magazines. She also carried 22 ready illumination rounds per gun and 85 illumination rounds in magazines. By 1945, the new battleships in their magazines carried 500 rounds per gun, primarily AA Common and AA VT, plus 40 special types per gun. In addition, they had 55 ready rounds per gun. The older battleships that had replaced their mixed secondary batteries with a uniform battery of 5"/38 (12.7 cm) guns were able to store roughly the same number of rounds of ammunition as they had for the older guns. For example, USS Nevada (BB-36) during the Normandy operations in 1944 carried an outfit of 7,426 AA Common rounds (equivalent to 464 rounds per gun) vs. 4,830 5"/51 (12.7 cm) rounds and 2,400 5"/25 (12.7 cm) rounds. Ready rounds for all ships with base ring mounts were stored in the upper handling rooms which were located directly beneath each mount. Ships with pedestal-mounted guns had their ready rounds in splinter-proof boxes located near the guns. Outfits for most ships during the early part of World War II consisted primarily of AA Common plus illumination rounds. As noted above, changing the nose fuze type allowed these rounds to be used as AAC or as HC. The Porter (DD-356) and Somers (DD-381) classes as originally built with SP guns carried mostly Common rounds, but they did carry a few AA Common rounds which were intended for use against torpedo bombers and other low-flying planes. Starting in late 1942, AA VT projectiles were introduced and became increasingly available as the war went on. By the middle of 1944, most front-line ships had about three AA VT rounds for every one AA Common round. The usual practice was to fire this ratio at attacking aircraft. The smoke puffs created by the time-fuzed AA Common rounds allowed the fire control officers to assess and correct the accuracy of the firing control solution and also provided target guidance for the gun crews of the shorter-ranged 40 mm and 20 mm AA guns. VT fuzing reduced roughly in half the number of rounds fired per aircraft shot down. A notable success with VT ammunition was that of USS Abercrombie (DE-343) which shot down a Ohka (Baka) rocket glider bomb in May 1945, firing only two rounds. From: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.php http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-50_mk10-22.php

Catalina has "claimed" to make to the PTO assets pack. I expected ED build some funtionality on land on sea and lakes and DC vs Sub/Ships. Not bad if someone build them as a pilotable module.

I go to edit the first post, with the new B-52H loadouts added by ED.

The stament has the shame of the F-15C module (I think they has copy/paste them). Honestly, I don't even dream of ED being able to "start" development of the F-35 in 2025. Rather, they'll probably start (if they can) in 2026 or 2027, so they can wait 2 or 3 years until they start (unless someone wants another "disaster" like the F-16 launch). There's still a lot to do on the F-16C/F/A-18C and other modules, so they can focus on a single module, let alone what will remain to be done on the Mig-29A/F-15C, etc, unless we get a surprise and they tell us there's a new team of people dedicated exclusively to it or a significant increase in ED's modern modules staff. It's simply a wait-and-see approach, and much less forget about "promises," since it's only a plan. Regarding the release of a Eurofighter, as long as HB and ED don't confirm a launch... I'm putting it at the beginning or middle of next year at the earliest. In itself, let's take into account his latest statement on Discord.

Thas correct, sorry.

More data about that system: http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/F/d/FD_fire_control_radar.htm https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/NHC/NewPDFs/USN/USN Manuals and Reports/USN.Characteristics.Naval.Fire.Control.Radar.1954-11-12.pdf https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/operational-characteristics-of-radar-classified-by-tactical-application.html

Through modding, you've been able to do all of this for nearly 10 years, so it's no surprise. The problem is that ED won't accept it because it lacks the necessary open-source information to implement it for modern naval guns (there was already a discussion about it on the Russian forum). For the time being, I wouldn't expect any progress until there's an official announcement.

Not bad if then will be a future ASC module on a future.

Chinook has actualy your propper CH-47F Shape EDM directory on Core Mods. I dont have that module to check the cockpit on the modelviewer on mods directory.

I see several interesting points that wouldn't be a bad idea to implement on the SuperCarrier, but as a retired aircraft carrier, what other situations would be interesting to simulate on the deck of an aircraft carrier? I was intrigued by your point about aircraft not being sent to the hangar. Another point that isn't currently simulated is helicopter operations.

I don't remember now, but I think the towering clouds were shown in a "202X and Beyond" video, but nothing more was heard about. In fact, we haven't heard anything about improved weather for several years.

Let's be clear that for "greater variety," we need more and more third parties to start having their own "assist teams." Otherwise, you won't see any progress, because ED doesn't have the resources to add that many AI units. We see that it's becoming increasingly difficult to create credible assists because the quality bar is rising higher and higher, and we all want these units to be at the same quality level as a module. Let's not even talk about whether ED implements a new technology or feature that changes the production of these units, requiring them to be rebuilt. As for weapons, this is subject to ED, as they will create the functionality. The days of "coffee for everyone," when anyone could make a "proton torpedo," are long gone.

The .edce file looks like some kind of compressed, possibly encrypted, archive, and something tells me ED isn't going to open it because there may be copyright issues involved. Keep in mind that ED continues to add new EDMs; the entire WW2 M3 support pack is EDMs, and ED has continued updating its previous models, and I believe there are some new EDMs in the various directories in recent months.

That models has into a new directory called "HeavyGearCore".... with a new extension called .edce, no the old EDM, unable to open by the Modelviewer.

A F/A-18E will be a complete new module, no a C "upgrade". Wags was clear on the February Q&A, when the F/A-18C will complete, they start to think if move a Rhino module.

The future PTO (WW2 Assets pack) by ED will coming with: Aircrafts: SBD-5 Dauntless SB2C Helldiver TBF Avenger Catalina A6M5 Zero Nakajima B6N Jill D4Y Judy D3A Val B5N Kate Navy: USS Enterprise CV-6 Worktown class carrier Iowa-class battleship Cleveland-class light cruiser Fletcher-class destroyer Shokaku aircraft carrier Yugumo-class destroyer Kongo battleship Mogami cruiser Mogami carrier conversion a IJN transport vessel Land Some IJN/IJA land units Some of them was show on "2024/5 and Beyond" and "M3 F4U" release video. Not more German aircrafts with fake skins. Other Land IJN/IJA units has been release by M3 on the F4U release.

The talking about a "naval module" coming from years ago, and all about the Naval Warfare. The "problem"... DCS World missing all about a real module building block about a ship module. The Supercarrier module has nothing resembling the functionality of a real surface vessel; it simply uses a ridiculous function to control a ship. There's nothing about sea physics, how navigation controls work, and much less a bridge or anything like that. Also, keep in mind that we're still missing the briefing room on the supercarrier, something that on paper (just a WW2 aircraft carrier) would be necessary, and we still don't even know how it will actually work (there are no videos of its functionality), since there's only a 3D model. Pros and Cons: Creating a naval module requires building blocks that don't currently exist in DCS World, such as the following: There are no maritime physics, such as currents, depth, salinity, waves, or wind. There is also no sonar engine, which is imperative for naval warfare in World War II, with sound propagation, thermal layers, bottom effects, reverberation, etc. There is no realistic ship damage modeling that simulates a ship's compartmentalization, such as bulkheads and watertight cavities, engines, bridges, fuel tanks, or magazines. There is also no simulation of fire propagation, ammunition detonations, or flooding, or the applicable physics. Formulas such as armor impacts or interior explosions that simulate damage or cause catastrophic explosions on ships. - Likewise, damage control simulation, or the crew itself and its shifts, or conducting a battle drill and different states of alarm. Regarding armament, the current simulation leaves much to be desired. There are no specific cannons (naval, anti-aircraft, or multipurpose), nor ammunition as such (armor-piercing, HE, anti-aircraft, mixed, illuminating); it's not possible to switch between different types, nor is it possible to configure the magazines. There's no central fire control, much less a functional fire director (it doesn't even exist on land); everything is local control. All anti-submarine weapons are completely nonexistent, whether depth charges, forward-firing weapons, or guided torpedoes (everything related to configuring a hydrostatic fuse for detonations at depth). Current torpedoes are like dumb missiles that don't even have the option to configure their guidance (either straight course or gyro), depth, or fuses (contact/magnetic), not to mention the first passive anti-ship and anti-submarine torpedoes. All underwater damage against ships and submarines is nonexistent. The same goes for the entire concept of mine warfare. Another unsimulated point is that we can't "walk" inside a ship (in the Supercarrier, we move a camera, not a crew member), a feature that currently doesn't exist. We have the problem that currently, no one can create a pilotable ship module with its internal cockpit, or multiple cockpits (the Supercarrier itself is not a ship module, it is a "monster" that is locked in the code). You can't modding to make a pilotable ship because you can't create "cockpits" like an aircraft module (just as you can't make a vehicle, because CA doesn't have cockpits either and is also locked), so currently you can't make a "community module" as such. Regarding the creation of a destroyer, ED is creating a Fletcher class (we don't know its age or model) along with other WWII ships on the WW2 assets pack, so we would have to investigate how the entire fire control system works, how it is simulated and what we could be doing. A funtional CIC with and a Bridge. Mk4 FC director and Mk30 on local control. On AAA, 40mm and 20mm on local control. Mk14/15 TT launchers Some kind of Sonar control with orders to the Mk6 K-Gun and Mk3/6/9 DC Rails. Some kind of engine / fuel management. Damage control and crew management.

Sorry to refloat the post, @6S.Duke but have some news about them?

DCS Was a E-2C many years ago, but was "update" to the E-2D some time ago.

I maintain the "unoficial roadmap" form many years ago on the DCS forum, and ED not put a "release goal" on any module by problems about "Where are my promise"...

The fuel trailers has some years ago into de DCS directories, but Ed dont has implement them. The UM attrezo build by UM never go to reach that quality level. I review the EDM directories, the TZ-60 and the TZ-22 tank, and the Sa-2 transporter has been deleted from DCS directories. ED, @BIGNEWY @NineLinewhere are they from? On the mission editor, the Attack/detach trailer has present, but missing the trailers.

A Mirage III will be build by other 3rd Party.