Northstar98

I mean, you could, but the only scenario I see a subscription making sense is if you don't plan on staying around very long - over a long enough time (how much depending on how expensive the subscription is compared to what we have now) the perpetual will always be cheaper and offer better value for money.

Oh my God, not again. No. This has been discussed to death. Does this idea need to somehow literally be shot into the Sun before it meets the fate it so deserves? I really do not see how taking DCS and then making it less value for money is so attractive for some people.

Yep, completely agreed - the P-12/18 are already the more appropriate acquisition radars for the SA-2 and, as VHF radars, would likely not provide warning of their presence to our RWRs, nor would they be targetable by current western ARMs. The P-37 (alongside the PRV-11 and DRL-7) already has an appropriate model, in the right format, that's animated and has a destroyed variant to boot, something that's existed for over a decade at this point. I really do not understand why it hasn't been implemented as a functional EWR considering just how prolific it is and how it would be a far more suitable stand in for P-14 for the SA-5. The P-40 (or rather the 1RL128, P-40 is the entire complex) if we had IADS capability, would do wonders for the various PVO-SV system we have and the model is almost identical to the 1S12 used in the SA-4.

The thing is though, this bug has the side-effect of giving the SA-5 a more realistic engagement envelope, which would otherwise be significantly degraded if it were completely reliant on the P-19 or ST-68U - radars which are wholly inaccurate to the SA-5 short of an IADS set up DCS doesn't support. If we had the radars the system is supposed to have, then sure.

ED struggles enough getting the Hornet finished as-is and that's after removing or not planning for features that are perfectly accurate for the stated scope, even for the exact timeframe, variant and operator. Hell, this even applies to modules that are missing trivial additions, where there's no research or technical hurdle, the features are perfectly accurate to the exact scope ED stated and they're features present on other ED modules and yet, despite all of that, we can't get them. It's not only unrealistic (in a couple of senses of the word) but something really wouldn't sit right with me if unrealistic features get implemented while perfectly realistic ones (like TAMMAC maps for instance) get snubbed. And what's even more realistic still? A 2005 Hornet with 2005-era weapons. And this is a false equivalency - DCS mission design is designed to be a sandbox and completely up to you - the aircraft often are not. This is by design - the idea is that the building blocks of the missions are supposed to be accurate, but the scenario you make out of them is up to you. I'd argue that restricting away fictional or hypothetical missions and only permitting accurate, historical ones is far more limiting in terms of gameplay, than having aircraft that's supposed to be accurate. The other thing when it comes to missions is that DCS more often than not lacks coherent, comprehensive assets on relevant theatres to make realistic missions and campaigns - it's always the same ship of theseus thing where far more units need to have stand-ins because the correct one doesn't exist. So in that sense, it would be impossible to make accurate, historical missions in the first place. Let's just take an example - aircraft carrier operations. Using the non tanker version of the S-3B? Well that's an aircraft variant from prior to 1998. Using CVNs 71-75 of the Supercarrier module? Well, what they're fitted with means they range from 2008 (CVN 73) to 2017 (CVN 72) at the absolute earliest and yet they're using a Sea Sparrow version from the mid 1980s. Using the E-2D? That didn't reach IOC until 2015 either, only it's defined with the wrong radar and the performance is wrong even to that radar. We've already got an incoherent mess and we've only gotten started. And let's say we get the GBU-54, okay great, we've made the already incoherent aircraft even more so, great! Are we going to get anything else a 2012 Hornet might have? AIM-120C-7 for instance? No? I mean, we can't get it for the F-16CM either, even though it's accurate there. It isn't puzzling - it's perfectly consistent with the design of the game, as stated previously. I mean, nothing is stopping me from having a Pakistan vs Sweden scenario, set on the Falkland Islands, set before the first manned aircraft took flight. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to what weapons are available to the aircraft or what systems it has. Except this is utterly dreadful logic which taken to its ends permits basically anything so long players have the choice not to be affected by it: Let's make the Hornet's radar see things 400 nmi away, if players don't like it, simply choose not to set your radar scale so far out. Let's add the PL-15 and PL-17 or hell any other weapon ever, players still have CHOICE not to use these, so what's the issue? Let's make the aircraft fly at mach 5, don't like it? Choose not to fly so fast. Found a bug with a weapon? Choose not to use it, problem solved! Or how about, if you don't like the fact that the Hornet predates GBU-54 and doesn't have it, choose to fly something else that does have it. Clearly a line has to be drawn somewhere and again, given ED's issues with finishing their aircraft, even to very narrow scopes I don't see any good reason to have that line any further from where it is now. If that wasn't the case and the Hornet had all the relevant features it should, maybe I'd agree with you, but it doesn't, so I don't.

Both systems have a purely command-guided midcourse phase (which doesn't involve the missile's seeker at all) and a terminal TVM phase (which is otherwise identical to SARH but the missile data links what it sees back to the FCR and the FCR in turn provides steering commands, instead of the missile generating its own steering commands as with SARH). Mad_Shell's thread on the subject had more detail. This issue though also applies to the RIM-66M-2 SM-2MR Block IIIA and the RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV, which do use command guidance + terminal SARH (the initial, command-guided phase doesn't appear to be modelled and launch warnings appear from launch - if it were consistent with current ARH missiles, that launch warning should only happen in the terminal phase).

I'd agree but ED needs to support flying boom and drogue based refuelling in a single aircraft first.

If I may, while the current Tu-22M3 is missing weapons, I'd personally suggest a mid 70s+ Tu-16K-26/K-26P [Badger-G Mod]. It's a staple Cold War aircraft and probably the aircraft most missing from the Kola map in a Cold War setting (the Tu-22M3 was only introduced there in the late 1980s). It has a diverse payload which, in the case of a mid 1970s and beyond K-26P/PM, includes anti-ship missiles (KSR-2 [AS-5 Kelt] and KSR-5M [AS-6 Kingfish-A Mod 3), anti-radiation missiles (KSR-6MP [AS-6 Kingfish-B Mod 3 and KSR-11 [AS-5 Kelt]) and conventional bombs. The model would be incredibly similar to an H-6D, as used by the PRC and Iraq. This also has the ability to carry anti-ship missiles in the form of the YJ-6/C-601 [CH-AS-1 Kraken], (which is essentially an air-launched version of the HY-2 [CSSC-3 Seersucker] missile we already have) and conventional bombs. Speaking of export customers, Egypt also used the Badger-G (though the K-11-16 version, which didn't have the KSR-5, only the KSR-2 and -11 + conventional bombs). The model is also pretty similar to not only the original Tu-16 [Badger-A] conventional bomber, but also the Tu-16P Buket [Badger-J] and other electronic warfare versions (the P also being based on the Kola Peninsula during the Cold War as a strike escort). This only leaves the Tu-16K-10-26/K-10-26P [Badger-C Mod] and Tu-16RM-1 [Badger-D] as the main variants missing, though these have a substantially different nose, accommodating the large YeN [Puff Ball] radar, which can take full advantage of the KSR-5's missile's range (something Rubin-1K [Short Horn]- equipped Badger-G's can't do, which is the version most similar to Egyptian Tu-16s and Chinese & Iraqi H-6Ds). Again, these 2 were also stationed on the Kola Peninsula during the Cold War.

The insurgent one also fires the PG-15V model: If you change .trk to .miz you'll get the mission file, confirming I used the insurgent one. PG-16V_Insurgent_model.trk

I just posted a set of screenshots and a track that clearly show it doesn't. Yes, they are the exact same model, The one in the ED directory was taken from the SA assets, as that's where this torpedo model originally was.

+1 - this should be a setting for the new ATC system when/if it ever comes.

It certainly used to fire a generic shell, but it doesn't any more: PG-16V_model.trk

The PG-16V is already implemented and can be seen being fired by "Paratrooper RPG-16". The Mk 46 appears to be from the South Atlantic assets (the exact same model is present in that directory too, with its inaccuracies - like the nose that's the wrong shape and the rear-most propeller that's a lot smaller than it should be).

Okay... All of this I agree with, but I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I've said here.

Here is an archived version.