Northstar98

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.

It also clips through the main gear doors.

The exact same waveform exists in sidelobes and the missile has no way of telling whether it's in the main or sidelobes. How well it can detect and track sidelobes should pretty much be entirely dependent on the transmitted power of the radar and its radiation pattern. Don't forget the Shrike has guidance sections for (even examples exclusively for such as the Mk 37), can and has been used against (albeit less than completely successfully) radars that rotate IRL - or in other words, radars that present a mainlobe a minority of the time and a sidelobe the majority of the time.

This was noted in the changelog (though FWIW the radar used is a TRML-4D, though the radar is fairly similar to the Giraffe 4a).

You need to make sure the fuel door is cycled in and out before the aircraft is able to receive fuel (you should note that if the ready light isn't illuminated, the aircraft can't receive fuel). https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/systems/engines_and_fuel_systems/fuel_system.html#air-refuel-switch

That's a very impressive list for PTO! The most comprehensive set of assets we've ever seen. Apart from the odd ship, we can make the majority of the various task group 58 formations with the all aircraft carriers, all aircraft, the dominant destroyer, light cruiser and heavy cruiser types. The main thing missing for the USN is the Atlanta CL which features in the screen of most task groups and for the IJN, perhaps more crucially - a 10-gunned IJN heavy cruiser like the Takao, Myōkō (or even the other Mogamis) as I fear the current Mogami is at somewhat of a disadvantage. The IJN though is more annoying to flesh out compared to the USN due to the increased number of classes. What's currently there is IMO workable*. The only thing I'm a little sorry to see the Iowa being dropped (though without the a suitable IJN battleship counterpart that's similarly armed, like a Nagato or even better the Yamato-class). The other things I'd like to ask: Will we see improvements to ship AI? Primarily when it comes to manoeuvring defensively (something pretty relevant in WWII naval battles) and opening up arcs of fire for defensive weapons. Will we see multiple ammunition types for dual-purpose guns? At the moment WWII-era naval guns only have a time-fused shell which is often ineffective against surface and land targets (and will especially be so against armoured ones like battleships and cruisers) - we ideally need a point-detonating shell and/or armour piercing shell and an AA shell with either a time fuse or (preferably) a proximity fuse (proximity fuses were introduced and in circulation among Allied warships by 1943 and proximity fuses are relevant to near enough every ship currently in-game with a naval gun with a calibre of 76 mm/3-inches and above). There's also bugs that currently absolutely cripple the ability of dual-purpose guns to effectively engage aircraft. Will we see improvements to ship damage modelling to at least account for armour? Though ideally we'd have internal components modelled and maybe some flooding and fire-propagation model.

+999999999999999 Every point brought up are things I absolutely support and most I'd say are downright essential. I'd also add completion of symbols from NATO APP-6 (we're currently missing hostile, neutral and unknown shapes entirely).

Hardly - they spoke very little of the ATC system itself - they only specifically mentioned "voice generation" and "interface" while omitting any details about what this new system is supposed to achieve and what capabilities and fidelity will it have - they've left an absolute tonne of potential questions unanswered. Questions like: Will it support multiple approach types? For example: Visual straight-in (the only type it supports now). Overhead Instrument (and there are various types here, it should support at least one kind of instrument approach though I'd also at least include PAR given how many of our aerodromes are depicted with PAR equipment). Unrestricted (i.e. only report on final). Will it provide taxi instructions? Both to the active runway and to the designated parking spot upon landing? And will the ATC tell us to hold short, line up and wait/position and hold and takeoff? Will it attempt to manage traffic around the aerodrome? Currently aircraft are all put into the same orbit, which they fly at the same altitude but at different speeds, leading to the kind of chaos one might expect. Will AI aircraft interact with it and obey its instructions? And will the AI be smart enough to not talk over each other? Will it support parallel runways? Will it provide vectors where applicable? Preferably following real-world approach plates if available. Even if it only vectored you to an initial approach fix, getting you there heading the right direction, at the right speed and altitude? Currently ATC will only provide bearing and range to a point along the extended runway centreline leaving no consideration for your heading, speed and altitude. Will we be able to declare an emergency and have the ATC prioritise that aircraft to land? Will it support touch and goes? Will the ground controller follow a schedule? For instance to try and get aircraft to takeoff at designated times (important not only for spacing, but to aid in getting aircraft to reach their time-on-target at the right time). Will we have ATIS where applicable? Will we be able to request QFE and QNH? Will we be able to say "say again" if we miss a transmission? Will the different agencies be separated where applicable, as per IRL? (ground, tower, approach/departure). Will there be any departure instructions? Perhaps following a real-life departure procedure (or a made up one) or at minimum “depart heading [bearing to first waypoint], resume own navigation”. Right now all it does is clear you up to FL 300 for seemingly no reason. Will we have multiple pilot voices and will there be multiple voices for each agency? currently there’s only a single voice handling all ATC and one pilot voice (though that voice sometimes changes depending on who you’re talking to). Will it be intelligent enough to not direct aircraft to taxi, takeoff and land onto runways, runway access points and taxiways that are unserviceable (for instance from debris from aircraft crashes or from damage). Will it support heliports and rotary-wing operations in general? Will we be able to override what runway is active? Will we be able to designate aerodromes as closed? Meaning that ATC isn't present, lighting doesn't come on, associated NAVAIDS become inoperative etc. Will we be able to override what NAVAIDS are operational or not and whether the lighting is on or not? The last one we can do with aircraft carriers. Will it have realistic detection and identification capability? For example not being able to vector aircraft it cannot detect or identify (when multiple aircraft are present in the vicinity)? I'm sure there are others as well (like I could've thrown in will we get NAVAIDS as units (we’ve got TACAN, but not RSBN, PRMG or ICLS. There's already an RSP-7 (PAR) in the files but it’s non-functional eye-candy on the Caucasus map) and will we get aerodrome beacons and identification beacons for aerodromes that should have them? Even better if we could get these as a placeable ground unit. But these are the kind of questions that remain unanswered as far as a new ATC system go and IMO most of these are essential and some are downright basic - apart from #8 and the 2nd part of #14, 1-15 (at least) is what the ATC system in the other F-16-orientated sim already does and does pretty damn well in my experience - I would hope a new ATC system for DCS would at least try and match its functionality. 1-7 are what I'd describe as bare minimum for what an ATC system needs to be able to do. And they spoke about the interface - well the other sim also recently added a new interface, but some (me included) weren't really a fan of it, so the previous interface was also kept as an option - can we expect something similar? Giving us the option keeps both sides happy. Even the supercarrier ATC (which you technically have to pay for) has plenty of shortcomings (and this also isn't exhaustive): It only supports carrier qualifications (CQ) operations and not ziplip, but does not support touch and goes nor bolters (even generally). The AI doesn't interact with it at all, meaning it's not only far less immersive and doesn't feel as alive as it could be, but you also don't have the same situational awareness you should have. There's communications missing (particular related to departure and CASE III waveoff/bolter procedures). It doesn't have the agencies frequency separated (making switch approach/switch tower callouts meaningless). It doesn't support callsigns for the Forrestal. LSO speed callouts only reference the Hornet's AoA range and not the state of the AoA indexer repeater lights (so you get incorrect speed awareness and spoeed gradings for anything that's not a Hornet). There's only a single pilot voice (which sounds drastically different when talking to everybody else) and there's only 1 tower, marshal and LSO voice. It doesn't have realistic detection and identification capability.

Thumbnail is at Marham (where this thing was mostly filmed), which uses a different kind of shelter (very similar to the larger variety of shelters seen at many airbases the USAFE operates at). It's only at the stated timeframe where a HAS at an RAFG airbase is shown.

Reproduced - selecting "On start" leaves infantry where they were spawned in the mission editor and requires the LCVP to pick them up first. LCVPEmbarkFromStart.trk

Are you sure? Specifically between 13:48 to 14:14. Past 14:14, they're inside a different shelter at RAF Marham (which uses a shelter very similar in design to USAFE generation 3 HAS) and there the trailing edge flaps can be seen down. I guess it doesn't matter though as the 2nd video I posted shows Phantoms inside the type of HAS in the OP.

Yeah - main thing for me is they seem to have gone with a semi-circular cross section inside - I suspect they've reused the modified gen 1 HAS model that was already there and then modelled the RAFG shelter's externals over the top of it. Here's a pretty good look inside one of these shelters - showing a Tornado with the wings out (though not sure if it's at 25°): They were used to house the Phantom. This is at RAF Wildenrath - which from the mid-to-late 70s up until it closed was a Phantom base and it only has this kind of shelter - the rest of the parking is either open tarmac or revetted. Also bear in mind that at 25° sweep, the Tornado has a slightly longer wingspan than the Phantom.

It installs a white phosphorous marker which will produce white smoke to mark where the missile impacted. This can then be used to provide a visual reference to other DEAD flights.

Yeah, but 3-point guidance only requires angular information.

The SA-11 is SARH - it must use the radar to illuminate the target at some stage in its flight, regardless of whether the target is being tracked via TV or via radar. Most of the time optical systems only provide angle-tracking as a way to defeat jamming. Not sure this is correct. Aside from transmitting radio command guidance to the missiles, the SA-3's 3-point guidance method only requires that the target and missile(s) be tracked in angle, this can be done passively with the target being tracked by the TV camera and the missile's radio beacon(s) being tracked by the 2 UV-11 antennas, which are receive-only. It's only for the SA-3's lead-guidance method where target and missile range needs to measured which requires the radar transmit. The missiles on the SA-3 (and command-guided systems in general) do not have seekers - they are command guided. The only thing they have is a radio proximity fuse.