Northstar98

Probably something for the main wishlist but yes, definitely +1. They were definitely used on the Kola map, at Iškoras (I believe here, but now likely a weather radar) and Maisavarre (pretty sure it was here judging by this article, here's what it would've looked like anyway) in Norway from the early 1970s to the late 1980s. There were 2 systems (incl. the S 613 heightfinder) on the Falklands Islands from late 1982/early 1983 (so post war) up to the mid/late 1990s - one on Mount Kent, not sure where the other was. Mount Alice and Byron Heights had Type 94 (AR-3D) radars from around the same timeframe. S 600 was also used by Oman, the UAE and Saudi Arabia (among others, though we don't have maps for those yet, they were used by Yugoslavia if we ever get a Balkans map).

Hi everyone, The Bofors 40 mm gun on the stern of the La Combattante IIa seems to make the missile/rocket launch sound when it fires. This issue does not extend the WWII Bofors 40 mm AAA ground unit, which makes a more suitable noise. Type148Tiger_Bofors40_sound.trk

Pretty sure the RSBN unit was existing as well. But yes - it's only further proof that these could be added, the models have been present in game for over a decade.

The FC3 MiG-29 is also given the incorrect MiG-29A designation (which again, is for a different aircraft - it's like calling the Su-27S the T-10 or the F/A-18C the YF-17, though at least both of those actually flew). They could use MiG-29 (9-12A) FF, similar to how the FC4 versions of the F86F, F-5E etc have FC appended on the end. As for NATO names, whether it's included or not doesn't really bother me but its presence would make the names more consistent with most Soviet/Russian missiles and ground-based air defences. Really, this is about: A naming system that calls things what they actually are and doesn't call things something they're not - like MiG-29A for an aircraft that isn't a MiG-29A, Su-25A for something not called Su-25A (though DCS gets this correct in the mission editor and in-game, everywhere else though...), the U-boat U-flak for a U-boat that obviously isn't a U-flak, the Chieftain Mk.3 that isn't a Mk.3 and Silkworm/SS-N-2 Styx for a missile that's neither. Again, short of licensing issues, it is not hard to call a spade a spade - the level of research effort required should be bare minimum - wikipedia usually suffices (and in the case of the MiG-29, both Russian and English versions get this correct in the variants section, the Russian one more so) and apart from the one exception I can name, this an issue DCS almost uniquely suffers from. A naming system that's consistent.

Yep and DCS' naming scheme is all over the place, not just with aircraft either. I'd more than happily go and sort it all out and make it more consistent, but with the 2.7 lua lock, a lot of it is impossible. Yes, I imagine its a case of As getting lost and I did describe it as a minor issue - because that's exactly what it is. But to me, when something as basic and trivial as merely calling something what it actually is isn't achieved, my confidence kinda drops - short of licensing issues, it really isn't hard to call a spade a spade. And if something so utterly trivial to get right and fix (and I've even provided said fix) is going to be wrong, what else, maybe not so trivial, is going to be wrong? It's not the only example either.

Yep, ditto for the Su-25 (correct in the mission editor, incorrect everywhere else), HY-2, U-Boat U-Flak, Chieftain Mk.3 etc. I never thought to make the comparison to the YF-17, it is a pretty apt one, though at least that actually flew. EDIT: I see this has been moved out of bugs and problems, despite it being an in-game inaccuracy - I guess ED are content with calling things something they're not.

Yep, seconded - this was allegedly a priority item in the newsletter immediately following the release of DCS 2.7 - that was over 4 years ago.

Hi everyone, I appreciate this is minor (though on the flip-side, fixing it is trivial), but what we have in DCS is not a MiG-29A. IRL the actual MiG-29A (product 9-11A) was a speculative concept from the 1970s that was never built beyond small, scale models. Here's what it may have looked like if it was ever actually built (note 29A written on the nose): This was essentially a stop-gap aircraft, using avionics (including the radar) of late MiG-23ML aircraft (and you can see an R-23R missile depicted under each wing). This model can also be seen in the documentary Wings of the Red Star - the Last Generation about the MiG-29 and Su-27. Here's another image showing prospective loadouts (including the K-25 - more-or-less a copy of the AIM-7 Sparrow), here depicted with semi-recessed stations on the corners of the engine nacelles - much like the Hornet (though you can find numerous other MiG-29A designs - such as this one and even this SAAB 35 Draken-looking one Note how "радиолоцанная станция" (radar station) is listed as "САПФИР-23М" i.e SAPFIR-23M. SAPFIR-23 being the radar fitted to the MiG-23. What we have in DCS is actually just "MiG-29". I'd propose renaming it to "MiG-29 (9-12A)" or "MiG-29 (9-12A) Fulcrum-A", as that's where the As actually belong and this is what the aircraft actually is. Including Fulcrum-A is out of convention for DCS (though DCS' naming convention is inconsistent to begin with), though were it to be done, I'd include NATO reporting names for all Soviet/Russian/Chinese aircraft, as has been done with some ground units. The Ural-375s got corrected to what they actually are (Ural-4320s), let's hope this can get corrected too. I've attached a modified MiG-29-Fulcrum.lua, changing line 410 to have a more accurate display name that fixes the issue - this resides inside CoreMods\aircraft\MiG-29-Fulcrum (ironically the name of the .lua file and the name of the folder gets it right). This will break the Integrity Checker so ensure to retain a back-up of the original. MiG-29-Fulcrum.lua

Yeah, I figured it was an idea, but AFAIK the idea never got as far as so much as having AIM-9s test fired. At least according to the War Zone, the pilot who publicised the F-117's supposed air-to-air role stated that it was never an operational capability, even if it is quite an interesting hypothetical one (see Red Storm Rising for instance).

Well, taking the changelog at face value, it may be that the bug manifests in two different ways and one of them was fixed, but the other (this one was not). Both issues were moved to the same thread, as per my request as it seemed to be the same issue, but perhaps this isn't the case, considering for one user in the original thread, the problem was solved on their end.

Hi everyone, Contrary to this thread being marked as fixed and locked, there are still problems with the cursor in the F-16. I'll copy and paste what I had written there as all of it still applies: Certain pages in the F-16 have the cursor move at inconsistent speed when changing direction, leading to it appearing to jump. It's most commonly seen when going left/right and then adding some up/down. As far as I can tell the following are affected: The HUD (for instance, CCRP, DTOS, Maverick VIS etc). The HAD page (though the cursor does move more smoothly - as if its position is updated at a higher rate compared to every other page. Unsure what the rate should be). The WPN page for HARM. Everything else appears to work as it should and motion is predictable (though the rate at which the position is updated seems to be lower than the HAD page). No other module appears to suffer from the same bug (the A-10C for instance is very smooth and very consistent, with the exact same control on my stick bound), there are also no conflicts in the control set up. The track I originally posted can be found in the previous thread, as can my control profiles for both the A-10C (which shows no issues) and the F-16CM. Here's a video to show what I am seeing (this is after a recent calibration), this video is before recent updates but still depicts exactly what I am seeing with the most recent update at time of writing (2.9.20.15010). Note the following: The FCR and HSD pages don't show this issue - the cursor behaves entirely predictably and there are no sudden rapid accelerations - all good. However, the HAD, HARM WPN page and the HUD (here shown in DTOS, but the same applies to say, Maverick in VIS mode or any other mode using the HUD's cursor), show sudden, rapid accelerations when the switch is moved in a circular fashion. When I make just max X or just max Y inputs, the cursor generally moves more slowly and sudden, rapid accelerations are less frequent (though not entirely 0, you can sometimes still see the cursor suddenly start moving very quickly). The bug appears to affect the Y-axis more than it does X. The sudden, rapid acceleration of the cursor occurs when changing direction. Towards the end of the video I show my control bindings, you can see that my control moves as smoothly as I can make it. It properly re-centres to 0 and I can move it to the extremes of either end without any observable jitter. Here's a video showing what happens when I try another module, here I try the A-10s TAD cursor and the HUD cursor - note how there is no sudden rapid accelerations and the cursor behaves completely predictably and is generally very smooth. I also again show my control bindings and test, you can see that the exact same control is bound and (aside from not being inverted) the same exact settings are used: Every other module I've tested (A-10C II, AV-8B, F-4E, F-14A/B, F-15C, F/A-18C, Ka-50, Mirage 2000C, Su-25, -25T, -27S, -33) work as they do as seen in the A-10C video - smooth, predictable motions, with no sudden rapid movement - if I move the control to its extremes the speed of the cursor stays clamped. It is only the F-16CM and only for the HUD, HAD page and HARM WPN page that exhibit this issue, other pages (such as the FCR, the HSD, the Maverick WPN page, the TGP page etc) show no issues.

IRL the Patriot ECS has to be within 38 m of the AN/MPQ-53 RS as that's the length of the cable connecting the 2. Though you're quite right that the ECS doesn't need to have LOS to the target, only the radar (RS) needs to have that (though it also needs LOS to the missiles, as Patriot uses a command-guided midcourse phase and the RS needs to uplink steering commands throughout the entire flight). And speaking of cables: The power cables between the EPP and the ECS and RS are 23 m long, so the EPP shouldn't be more than that distance away from them. The cable between the ECS and the AMG/CRG are 15 m long, so the AMG/CRG shouldn't be further than that from the ECS. The launchers (LS) are more independent and have their own generators, instead having a radio link to the ECS, they should be sited between 120 - 1000 m away from the RS and 90 m away from each other if out in the open. This all comes from FM 44-15-1.

Thank you so much for this - it was sorely needed

Okay, preliminary testing shows this to be fixed - the AI can now effectively employ Mk 20 and CBU-99 with the Mk 339 and FMU-140 (well, so long as the run is set up appropriately in the case of the latter - as per the changelog).

Cheers! Though at the rate at which my craptacular internet is downloading the update, it might be some time before I can test this.