zerO_crash

While the whole post might seem outside the topic, it is to give insight on what the nuclear subpen at Guba Ara (Kola Peninsula) would look like, with infrastructure, designer mentality, facility, logistics and sustainability. Ultimately, Guva Ara was mostly built (the main pens), with smaller details remaining unfinished. While there are no more pictures of what it looked like (they were very scarce to begin with), I therefore decided to show the three main nuclear submarine underground bases that USSR had. That, because there is much information on the two other ones (one being a museum nowadays). By seeing how the others are built, it will give you a understanding of what lies more or less in Kola peninsula. It will give an even better insight into what it would have been, if it was used for the designed purpose. Enjoy: The shelter at Guba Ara, was built '71-'73 (supposedly mostly complete), but strategical plans changed, and was actually never used for its purpose (underground nuclear shelter for submarines, as well as rearming- and repair- point. There were a few pictures from it before, but almost all are deleted. The one I posed earlier, is from Petro Pavlovsk, essentially - eastern fleet. Here's about the best you can find nowadays: Northern Fleet They had, as mentioned above, the underground base at Ara Guba. It was mostly finished, but never used (strategy). Murmansk being one of the most sensitive regions, even before the war, has little information available publicly. This has become even worse (many websites deleted) since the start of the war in Ukraine. Her is a plan of the base, outlining three submarine pens: The information is otherwise very scarce, and none of the formerly few available photos are available anymore. For metrics, the three pens are 30mx30m (crossection) and have the length of 400m each. This was definitely the biggest base of them all. Here is some information about it: https://armystandard.ru/news/2022621937-dfq3B.html/amp/ http://wikimapia.org/12099450/ru/Недостроенная-подземная-база-укрытие-и-завод-по-ремонту-подводных-лодок-«Губа-Ара»#google_vignette https://www.ara-guba.ru/2012/12/08/prokhodka/ Black Sea Fleet This is the underground nuclear submarine base in Balaklava. It was, and is huge as well. Again, due to change in strategy, it has become a museum for visitors to see. As such, information is plentiful on the topic. The main and only pen, is 505m long. Dimensions are 6.5m - 8m x 6.5m - 8m. This pen was mostly was small to medium submarines, where 9 could be held altogether (8 inside the canal and 1 in the sheltered pier by the entrence). Here is a multitude of information and photos: Part: https://russos.livejournal.com/210363.html Part II: https://russos.livejournal.com/211135.html https://www.vladmuz.ru/travel_photos/balaklava/k-825/ The Pacific Fleet This is the nuclear subpen at Petro Pavlovsk, and served as a base for the Russian Pacific Fleet. There is now plenty of material available on the this base, as it is abandoned. There are two parallel tunnels in this base. Both, connected by passages. The bigger tunnel (#1 on the schematic) is the one filled with water. It measurs 450m length according to the information in the facility. GPS measurement, places it at 650m length, however. The width is 19m and height 10m - 12m. The second tunnel (#2 on the schematic), is really a huge hall that measures 225m length, supported by width of 8m and height 10m - 12m. As can be seen from the second picture, there are three entrances from the west to the main tunnel (#1), each approximately 200m long. There is also the main entrance from the bay, south. In total, there's 8 entrances/exits. Here you'll find plenty of information and sources: http://kfss.ru/content/ukrytie-podvodnyh-lodok-pavlovskoe https://dzen.ru/a/XfZQ2JyURgCtlDWp https://4-e.livejournal.com/229433.html As a additional interesting source, I am adding a website, which contains photos and notes on much of the former military infrastructure of the Pacific (USSR), that stands now abandoned. Have a look: http://kfss.ru/index.php/objekts/82-kp I noticed it very quickly, enjoy the corrected one. Sadly, you won't find much on Guba Ara anymore. Information-wise, we are back in Cold War. (Not that you would ever find much on Murmansk. There is a closed FB-group for former employees at Guba Ara. That's about it ).

Corrected in next comment.

Absolutely, the difference is visible. The points you mention are definitely relevant, and apparent to varying degrees. With the quick edits you do achieve a reduction in the blue'ish global "glow" of the map. One could say that the glow off (from) the surface, is possibly something that represents the terrain wrong. With toning that down, you achieve a more credible surface look (material). The lime-green you mention, while small in change, does become darker, giving it a more authentic look. Generally, the laguna-feel of the recent images, makes it feel like an extension to Mariana Islands. While it isn't far off IRL, it's a very special place to pick for a show, in order to represent a region which, actually, is mostly diametrically opposing in the type of vegetation displayed. Looking past the captial "Work i progress", I personally noticed that the topography in that first edit, was somewhat funny. Again, I attribute it to the completeness of the map, as other maps show proper topography. Tell you what, let's see how the map ultimately releases. I imagine that the hue will still be somewhat overexposed, along with some colors - it is graphics engine relevant afterall. If so, we can open a improvement thread within DCS 2.9, so as to have ED look at the lightning/colors in particular. Colors would be a bigger job, as not all maps are made by ED, but I imagine that if they decided on improvement, then 3rd parties would be informed to make relevant adjustments to their maps. No worries brother, you will be popular with ladies. Speaking from experience. #Pedant4life Reposting twistking's images for those who don't have 20/10 and naturally perfect color perception Changes most expressed at the marks: You can see the haze across has a different shade, which then changes the saturation/exposure of the ground overall:

The quality of the third answer though... It was probably friday. All good.

Well, I know it from the business-end. For advertisements, it definitely is true. Regardless, no, I'm not attempting to derail. The point being, it's an ecosystem. You change one detail, you affect many others. Since you agree that the problem isn't as pronounced down low (other than standardized formats for grassland/forest/cities/etc... - which might have a touch of cartooney), I'm glad we got that sorted. On to high-altitude. Well, precisely because of standardized formats down low (granted, they are exclusive to the regions, mostly), you see it even more exposed up high. Here is a batch of images Orbx posted approx. six months ago (not all are high altitude): Are you sure that it isn't just a very specific light-setting/area on the latest pictures, which pronounces the vivid feel? The images above are much better as a show-off all around. Again, if that still worries you, show me those professional skills and add a filter or two, move a couple of sliders, and pump out a new version of the latest picture/s. Let me see how you would approximate the current to realism/naturalism. Don't worry, according to Russian standards, you are a mild cat! Feel like at home, German

Was it the accident from 21. May 1991 by Grimstad? It's a particularly unfortunate accident. It's surreal that parts would, upon failiure, be sent flying perpedicular to the plane of motion. The only thing I can think of here, is a compressor stall (I doubt that an explosion would have occured). Good that everyone escaped unharmed. Still, it goes to show that efforts to mitigate risk by any means, in particular design, are well worth it.

Even in reproduction, you have to consider who the end-user is. Most professional photographers operate off high-quality cameras and 12-bit color screens. If you adjust the commercial market, needles to say, you need to edit it for best representation on 8-bit screens (average). That 4-bit loss in the color code string, is pretty significant. I notice it mostly on the lack of details in the amount of objects drawn, this projects the topography as rather slender (stretched). That said, it is still really good for a digital representation. As to the color, which again - could be photorealistic (graphics engine will evolve, I'm sure), I find it to be one of the elements which actually give the picture a more authentic look, which doesn't mean it couldn't be even better. DCS does use a blue'ish hue, you can see it the most when at higher altitudes in lower atmosphere. If we are to nitpick, the haze should really be less "cold", when approaching ground. That, however, is a question of technology. The effect we are talking about, is typically tied to the graphics engine. To this date, I have never seen a digital representation where such advanced effects are considered. To simulate a varied gas composition of the atmosphere, raytrace a whole region properly from the sun (with light penetrating and reflecting off each layer in the ozone cover) and finally have a graphics engine which will allow to alter the hue altogether (projecting correct results in noon/day/evening/night scenarios) - yeah, we are simply not there technologically, I'm afraid. Consider something as basic as night. Even with the best hardware on the market ((TV/monitor/VR), we are unable to represent a perfect pitch-black night. The black is either "lit up" from the background, or, if you have a Apple XDR/Eizo (e.g.), everything is too visible (the graphics settings in DCS are insufficient to calibrate proper shading at night). You have to chose between not seeing anything at all, or seeing more than what you would IRL. Remember that we have available the color filters in DCS now. You could try the "warmer" one there. But tell you what; take one of the pictures you mentioned (e.g. the last one), edit it to your liking, and upload. Let me have a look at your version of it. I will add these for comparison: Completely stock photos. They are fairly close.

As someone who lives in Norway - Oslo (among other countries), and has travelled around the country (business), I can tell you that the scenery looks pretty spot on. Granted, we don't have photorealism yet, but we are getting closer. With that said; there are so many factors that play in on the picture reception, that it's worth its own topic entirely (photography). Everything from the type of camera/lens, through weather/angle to the light source (sun)/haze, further on to the settings of the camera (ISO among others), PC monitor/TV/VR, color calibration of all the media, etc... It is ridiculous how making a picture from one place with x amount of cameras, would yield x amount of results. Point is, it depends on far too many factors. Even our human eyes will percieve images different. When one sees green, another sees blue, a third will see cyan. It's difficult to judge a picture based on that. I haven't even mentioned retouching photos/videos, which is something one has to be aware of, especially when checking photos/videos online. Notice the maps that we have in DCS, which are based on professional satellite imagery/topography. Take for instance the South Atlantic map. While from high up, it looks authentic and eye-watering realistic, albeit the closer to the ground you get, the more you notice it is off. It's still great, no doubt, but the point is - a satellite/high altitude source, will percieve the color gamut/shading/shadows different, than when you stand on the ground. In Norway, if it's cloudy, and the sun doesn't shine on a specific spot, there are areas which will seem pretty dark, even during the day. This isn't only exclusive to Scandinavia by the way, in central Europe (Poland, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Czech republic, and more), you have even darker terrain features than what can be seen around here. You could walk into a forest in the middle of day, and if your conscious self allows, stop at some point and wonder where the daylight went. Orbx's pictures looked to feature sun at shallow angles (mostly), thus if you set the time to noon, with less clouds, the colors should become more pronounced. You'll see, give it a week Examples: Norway Kola peninsula Poland Germany Notice when you zoom in, the colors are actually resembling the scenery from above, and that, incredibly well:

Not really sure what you mean. Where exactly do you see those oversaturated green? Latest development screenshots:

It's not a request for the map maker. Individual modules (maps, aircraft, additional assets, etc...) are individual IP products. Thus, this request would have to be made individually for each module. You also have the option to go to the "DCS 2.9"-section, and specifically to the "DCS Core Wish List" one, and make a general request there. If it becomes popular enough, ED could implement it on their modules, as well as inform 3rd parties of it (it's still a individual decision). It would be nice, of course, as well as many other implementations. However, it would not be anywhere high up on the to-do list. There are far more basic requests, which aren't yet processed. Still, head over to the above-mentioned section, and report it there.

Well, this is shaping to be a fantastic year for DCS! The early release of the Kola map on 3rd of May, is thus only better. Finally more of Mother Russia!

Ну да - ТАС/ИС требует. (трепетание и прочность конструкции) Харашо

Все ясно большое, спасибо! Это тоже неправильно, я понимаю?: Разрушение из-за структурного предела - все понятно. Не был уверен это моделировано. Невероятно! Спасибо, брат!

I have mentioned this a good couple of years ago, albeit not sure if it got picked up. With pilot body visible, even in VR with full range of motion, there are many panels (switches, buttons, etc...) that are neither visible, nor accessible. In essence, that means that one has to keep turning the body "on"/"off" all the time, to reach everything in the cockpit (some functions are more used than others). Would it be possible to create an option in the "game settings" or so, to have the mouse cursor have a circle around (15-20cm diameter) which, when hovering over any panels masked by pilot body, would simply make the pilot "see through"? I would really appreciate a function like this, or similar, especially for VR. Thanks!

Как понять? Английский (350 км/ч) неверный, или используются разные единицы измерения? Треки иногда работает, иногда нет. Добавлен новый, также видео на этот раз. ИШ1-15 = 0* IAS ∼ 315 км/ч (Замечено, если угол наклона машины больше (x < 90* углов тангажа), винт разрушается при более низкой индицируемой скорости воздушного судна IAS. В одном тесте: при угле тангажа около 70 градусов, винт вышел из строя при индицируемой скорости около 265.) Я превышаю пределы намеренно, да. Но винты не должны пересекаться в этом режиме. Ка-50 Баг новый.mp4 ТЕСТ.miz Ка-50 Баг новый.trk

Well, actually, at 05:45, he mentions that one of the points was off. He doesn't show any map scale, but it looks 20-30km ish by eye measure (it can be measured on the map though). One site didn't even get picked up (SA-11). My experience, is that in a dense area with multiple theatre-level (division) SAM sites, the coordinates can sometimes be between, or completely outside of the area. I've had results ranging from approx. 18-22km away from actual SAM-site, to as much as 70-80 km and more, away. That's why I ask whether this is a actual bug, or simply very advanced modelling of radar waves (electromagnetic)/lack of accuracy of the system. Not sure why Heatblur won't come with a comment on this... There are tracks above, if they need that.

Same problem. The targets are completely off position after having done a ELINT mission. Question is whether this is intentional (what the technology of the day allowed), or whether this is indeed a bug. Confirmed with taking a navigation fix on beforehand, so as to rule out drifting of NAV.

Attaching a short track showing that pedals/pilot legs are not moving when using rudder pedals. AJS-37 BUG.trk

There is a reason Deka doesn't want to touch on the topic. There simply is not enough information on the matter. While I generally don't have too much Chinese documentation, they are even more restrictive with their policy on declassifying documentation, than Russia is. Personally, I have never comes across any credible Chinese source (I have looked for the specifics of Chinese Flankers) which would even mention the subject. The only reason we really know so much about JF-17, is because it is a purely export product. Flankers are domestically used, and that's the problem. Possibly someone with Chinese bakground can comment any more on the topic at hand.

It is clear that you are not patient. It is even more evident, that you are not reading what you are writing. "Nobody said anything about Air to Ground combat." - You absolutely did: You are not paying attention to what you are writing. "... any other role than Air-Air", is definitely A-G accounted for! I did, as a reply to your statement that JF-17 will outdo the J-11A in anything else than A-A. You are not specific enough in your communication, and you make gross estimates which simply are not true. If you don't have the patience to write with some level of specificity, then you ought to consider whether to write at all. I am fully aware of what the discussion is about, you do not need to inform me about that. I read the thread carefully. The point is, you went far outside the boundaries of that specific point - discussing matters of aircraft design, swapping out engines, what if's, and generally much more. Further examples: This statement is purely wrong. A volumetrically "larger" object, in no way increases it's ability to "fall down" (potential kinetic energy - KE) better than a "smaller" object. What matters in this case, is weight. The greater the weight of the object, the greater the KE, meaning the more kinetic energy it will have upon losing its potential. In layman's terms - the heavier an object, the higher the force it will fall down with. That is what you mean, but it is not what you write. Granted, you state - "Im not a physicist, nor a mathematician, so correct me if im wrong.". That is something one notices right away, but regardless, that's why I correct you. Still, that is only a small part of equation. As a quick example: A AMRAAM AIM-120 A/B/C weighs approximately 157kg1 A Vympel R-77 (first iteration) weighs approximately 175kg2 If you dropped both missiles (no propulsion) from a high altitude, the R-77 will out-accelerate the AIM-120 in the start, until the drag of the grid tail fins start to produce a serious amount of drag, afterwhich the AIM-120 will not only accelerate faster (at higher speed), it will actually attain higher speed (due to less drag). That shows you how wrong your statement is. Furthermore, just because one body is physically bigger than another (i.e. more drag), there is another concept that is essential to the total drag-factor of an object. That is the objects slenderness (known as "slenderness ratio"). A body can physically be bigger than any other, but if its slenderness ratio is relatively high (quotient between the height and the width of an object is high), then that bigger object will actually pose less drag than a smaller object, albeit with worse ratio. The best is, there are more factors to consider, when making the statement as to what falls quicker or generally has better KE. I could pick you apart in hundreads of ways, but that's not my point. That's why I stated in the beginning: Feel free to discuss as you wish, but know that you will be corrected in the open forums where mistakes are made. You make gross assumptions, and the fact that you touch on the deeper level of physics, without prior knowledge of even basic concepts, doesn't make it good either. Therefore, my dear, instead of using the energy on "okay sorry to be rude...", use it instead to at least attempt to verify what you write, before you actually write it. And if you get input on your writing, then take it with a smile and appreciation that someone bothered. Normally, in the capitalist world, knowledge costs. I give it for free. You're welcome! As to this: China and Pakistan signed a memorandum of understanding for a joint design and development of a new fighter (what became JF-17) in 1995. (Later that year, Mikoyan joined to support the design phase.). That means, the first thought of a plane, which wasn't yet JF-17, came up in 1995 earliest. China, bought the Su-27SK (first export of a Su-27 to any country, by the way) from Russia with orders being made in '90s. The deliveries started in '92, with some 36 Su-27SKs and 42 Su-27UBK (two-seater, training variant). Both those fighters had the AL-31F engines. Consider your statement above: Does it make sense that Russians would lie about anything on a project where a mutual agreement barely was made in 1995 (we aren't even talking about designs), when China had recieved planes which had these very same engines three years earlier in 1992?! Do you think that China didn't know what it got three years before even agreeing on a cooperation with Pakistan? Glad we got this settled! Let's leave it at that! 1AIM-120 AMRAAM - Air to Air Missiles - Missiles - European Defence Equipment - Armed Forces Europe - edmis2a5 2Vympel R-77 | Weaponsystems.net

@MYSE1234 Can I ask of a update on this? This is one of the most unique features to the AJS-37 Viggen. Is it essentially left to die a slow death, or are there plans to mitigate the issue of inaccuracy with the ELINT gathering? I would really appreciate a response on this.

Read clearly again!: Viggen is not a carrier aircraft, therefore it is not designed to land on one! You might as well try to land on water, just because physics, and complain that the landing gear breaks. If you land on ground (airfield/road - it is designed to be landed on road) and the landing gear breaks, then you can report this as a bug! Albeit then with a track. There are too many variables to consider, chief amongst your flying vs. an actual defect with the module.

Obviously, I'm talking about onboard systems. All the mission planning and aircraft preparation that can be done in the FF-modules, is completely absent on FC3. Off-board systems are naturally equal for all aircraft (mission planner). FC3 stays as it is because ED has stated that it won't develop it anymore, other than keep it relevant to the current DCS version and fixing bugs. They also cannot remove it, because they have an obligation to fullfill according to customer rights. The split is obviously required, and that is why MAC is coming in the first place. This is pure speculation, but I imagine that FC3 will be continued in MAC as a mainstream for that product line. Regardless, I explained in my previous comment precisely why FC3 is somewhat detrimental to the vision of DCS and why MAC is therefore the split that is coming (I repeat, the split is in the consumer base, as paid FC3 will stay in DCS anyways).

Fair enough. Well, the JF-17 is the most modern aircraft variant in DCS (2017). It has an edge in terms of guided A-G weaponry, which the much older J-11 doesn't have. Still, it won't "beat" J-11 based on that alone. J-11 can carry much more weaponry, even if unguided. It really depends in both cases on the proficiency of the pilot in question (with J-11 demanding a more capable pilot - unguided weaponry). If the targets are frontline ones, without too advanced AAA/SAM/Manpad systems, then J-11 brings more weaponry, and heavier, to the front. If the targets are protected and require stand-off, JF-17 will likely perform equal-better. It all depends. Thus, it's not one-sided in any case. There are, however, missions that JF-17 can do, which the J-11 cannot. For example, ELINT (anything with RWR can do triangulation, but JF-17 has specialized equipment for it), SEAD, FAC (with the option to distribute coordinates to the wing for specific targets), Anti-ship (strictly speaking, both can do it, but JF-17 has specialized weapons for the role, as well as stand-off), deep territory strike (cruise missiles), and a few more.