NineLine

Just an update, this is fixed internally now. Hope it will make the next update. Thanks!

I hope we will share some news on this soon and what it will entail, sorry for the wait. 

Ok, my findings so far are that the team has not made any changes (or nerfed) anything.
If I create a similar mission on the Caucasus map the S-300 site intercepts some 88s.
The flight trajectory is odd, and it turns out that this is known, the missiles do not fly an optimal intercept they shoot a little high first making it hard for them to get back down in time to intercept. 
So I have recreated the above track in Caucasus and added it to the current report. Thanks all. 

I do not know what you are reporting as your report is not complete, please post a track if you are still having issues. 

This is just the map loading which is why on MP it might seem worse and loading may take longer. 

Was easy to reproduce, I have reported. Thanks!

So I flew my own missions against Ju-88s and I did not see anything too crazy. I am sure there is times you might hit fuel tanks or something like this, but really the seemed to take hits pretty good, so I am going to assume this one is ok unless I get that track 🙂

I have requested that this be considered to be rolled back until we can consider appropriate damage to tanks and such. I will leave this open for now, but I think I have enough for now.
The F-16 still needs proper fusing to be done for these types of weapons as well which is planned and coming, that could be the reason for the poor pattern compared to the A-10C.

To designate in HAD, you should have first returned to the DED CNI page (or at least exit the MARK DED page), please try that and let us know. Thanks!

While it already does vary, we do plan further refinements of RCS values based on conditions. Thanks. 

Yes very interesting, the tanks are engaging outside a reasonable range for sure. 
I took control and while I could hit a tank... not easily, the AP did no damage as expected, the HE seemed weird, if it hit the ground it exploded as normal but if it hit the tank it didn't seem to explode, I am not sure it would be effective but it should still explode as normal. It's not far-fetched to expect a tank to work in a mobile artillery role, but not against other tanks. 
So I will report the engagements outside a viable range.
I will wait for that to be looked at before I report the interception range as that might be messing it up.  Although worth testing with other units until then.
I will ask about HE rounds seeming being duds if they hit a tank at long range. I need to test further.
Bonus report, I do not like the Binoculars 1) have all that fancy modern stuff in WWII tanks 2) seem to not remember where they are looking when I switch to the gun and back.
I'll leave this open for now. 
 
Also if you go into CA, and use the target help, it says the enemy tank is in range, I would think this should not be the case. 

I'm sorry, neither are abandoned. CA is feature complete and recieved fixes from time to time as well as new units to control etc.
The Supercarrier module is getting major feature work done and we just shared info on some of this recently in the newsletter. 
You can be frustrated by development speed I understand this but please do not make false statements when we just shared an update on progress recently.
Thanks 
 
We are working through some issues with the F-14 along with Heatblur, but as it's their module they need to be involved and have a full plate as well.
As for new features it might be best to ask them what they plan to do or if they plan on supporting new features. Our focus will be first on the F/A-18C and as above work with Heatblur may be needed for F-14 support.

Disperse on fire is not broken, but something is. I have reported this. Thanks!

Thanks this is reported.

Thanks all, if and when there is news we should see it in newsletters or the mini-updates thread. Sorry we do not have anything else on this at this time.
 

We are currently on DCS 2.8 so yes, we will and have already seen DCS 2. 

Reported, thanks. 

Thanks I will take a look.

So final call on this is that it's the P-51D pilot with the issue, it's an older model and will be eventually updated. So far I have not seen any issues with the DM, but if people see more pilot deaths because of the larger pilot please open a new report. 

At this point I think that you should wait until it's in Open Beta and you can test, if you still think its wrong, you can make a bug report with the appropriate evidence. Make sure you are 100% sure the evidence you share is valid for what we are making though. Thanks. 

Fixed internally, thanks.

Just an update, this is indeed planned for the future. Thanks. 

I have been unable to reproduce the crash with the F-86, please make sure to run a clean up and make sure no mods are being used and let me know, thanks. 

Perfect! with that track I was able to see them, so it's not all of them but some of them. I will get this reported, thanks!!

The standard is that we create our modules based on available non-controlled documentation/information on a per aircraft basis. You cannot compare one module to the next as each has different levels of available, non-controlled documentation/information. Further, you cannot compare a system in one aircraft to another because they may be implemented differently (often due to different mission computers and software). Everything we do is based on the standard to create the most realistic simulation possible within the bounds of valid documentation/information, not in comparison between aircraft or based on speculation.