Northstar98

Not to detract from the very nice update, but there are a couple of issues with the SA-2 site that i want to highlight. Firstly, there doesn't seem to be any revetments for placing search radars and their associated electronics trailers, nor does there seem to be any ready areas for transloaders. If what's depicted in this image were to be recreated then that would be essentially perfect (though the central area is typically rectangular in Germany, If the above image were to be recreated (though typically the central revetments are comprised of numerous straight ones in Germany), that would be perfect. Secondly, the revetments themselves don't look that accurate - real sites have essentially simple earth berms and SA-2s typically have at least 3 openings (as depicted in the above image). The central area for the guidance radar and associated hardware is also typically rectangular constructed out of 2 sets of parallel berms. In the screenshot in the OP, the berms are the wrong way round. This is somewhat puzzling because the Syria map already has more accurate launch revetments (they could just do with a retexture to make them suitable for Germany and maybe include some very short grass). For example, here's an SA-2 site near the large Wittsock bombing range, you can clearly see that the central area is rectangular in shape, constructed from 2 sets of parallel berms. You can also see that the launcher revetments are more similar with the image above and that there are additional revetments for search radars etc. Secondly, the roads connecting the various elements, IRL these would've been more austere with much more mud/sand - the area between the fences in the screenshot captures this look very well - if it could be applied to the various roads around the site, that would be excellent and would make the site look more authentic.

Okay, but this doesn't actually answer my question. The point I was making is why would there necessarily be a difference between the uplink in a TVM missile vs a command-guided missile and why would an illuminating waveform necessarily be different in a SARH set up vs a TVM set up. Yes I'm sure you can name examples where they are (APG-73 for instance, though that's fairly out of scope for a discussion mostly centred around systems that don't require continuous illumination and can simultaneously engage multiple targets), but that doesn't actually answer my question. Essentially, what I'm asking is, is could you create a command-guided + SARH set up, using the exact same waveforms for the uplink and illumination as a command-guided + TVM set up. Especially if we're dealing with electronically scanned arrays and missiles that work with interrupted illumination (the Sparrow obviously not being one of them). If the answer is yes, then the only thing that's relevant are what certain systems actually do, which is probably going to be harder to find. Otherwise a system merely being TVM doesn't necessarily convey that track or launch warnings should or shouldn't be detectable to a certain ELINT system (though the prevailing narrative online is that they shouldn't, often said devoid of explanation). Well it was an inference. A reason why is what it describes the antenna as - it uses the term "TVM antenna" instead of "uplink antenna" - Patriot missiles require an uplink during all phases of flight and it seems very odd for it to have a separate antenna for the uplink but only for the TVM phase of flight. This also circles back to my point about the uplink during command-guided flight hypothetically being no different to the TVM phase of flight and so why command-guided + SARH or command-guided + TVM or even just purely command-guided might not necessarily convey any advantages or disadvantages, assuming they can all be implemented in a similar way. I also made the assumption that it uses 1 array for search/track/uplink and another for illumination, because as far as I can tell, that's the more common set up (even if the uplink is on a subarray), than having a wholly separate antenna for an uplink (at least for these modern radar systems) - the only one I can name is CAMM/Sea Ceptor. That's why I brought up SM-2 (though I utterly failed to elaborate on it - apologies) as that's an example as is CEAFAR-equipped ESSM-firing platforms. These illumination antennas are also smaller than the main array, usually because they operate at shorter wavelengths, they also don't don't necessarily need to track the target themselves as the main array is already doing that. I'm not sure if that's the case with AN/MPQ-53 (as maybe the missile can use G-band illumination) in any case the size of the elements on the main array vs the TVM array appear to be same in images. Though that's obviously not to say that there aren't systems that do combine everything under 1 radar system - APAR for instance handles all tasks, including illumination. The 5N63/30N6 series and 3R41 can handle all tasks as well (though those have a dedicated search radar, though these radars are nevertheless capable of independent search, though more limited).

Well, in that case - its incorrect, all versions of the SA-10B (including the S-300PS we have and its accompanying 5V55R) are command-guided w/ terminal TVM. The SA-N-6 should fire the 5V55RM (and AFAIK has never fired the command-guided+SARH 5V55K from the S-300PT). EDIT: Actually, no that's wrong - the 5V55K is not command-guided+terminal SARH, it's just command guided - no version of the S-300P employs SARH anywhere, only the S-300V series. The S-300P uses missiles that are either purely command-guided (S-300PT) or command-guided+terminal TVM (S-300PS/PM(U)-series and F)). Though the 5N63S RPN [Flap Lid-B] and the S-300PS is allegedly backwards compatible with the 5V55K, which could be further evidence that the uplink in TVM could be similar to the uplink for command-guided versions. And while this is all speculative, why would TVM make any difference compared to command-guided and SARH? From a radar perspective, the exact same thing is happening, just what generates the steering commands is with the fire-control radar, not the missile. And for the uplink, how would it be different (if at all) between the command-guided phase and the terminal TVM phase? Of course I have absolutely no idea about any of the waveforms the 3R41 Volna (SA-N-6), 5N63S RPN (SA-10B) or 30N6-1 [SA-N-20] produce, but right now I don't really have anything to suggest that they differ between whatever waveform is used to provide for SARH and which is used to provide TVM (at least as far as target illumination goes, of course the TVM must also include a missile uplink alongside whatever illuminating waveform). Unfortunately apart from pontificating there's not much I can do to determine what is what, but lets say for argument's sake that from a strictly target illumination perspective, the waveform is the same and that the same waveform is used to uplink steering commands in both phases. The way I see it (and barge of salt at the ready): If (and a particularly big if) the RWR can detect the uplink and determine if the aircraft is being tracked, then provided by brain ooze above is correct, then a launch warning should happen the moment the missile is launched, regardless of whether the missile is command-guided + terminal SARH or command-guided + terminal TVM. If the RWR can only detect when the aircraft is illuminated by whatever waveform the missile's seeker tracks (which I'm assuming is true for both TVM and SARH, there's no reason to suggest these must necessarily be different - you can use the same seeker in both set-ups, the only difference is the information from the missile's seeker gets processed and steering commands are generated locally by the missile in SARH and data linked back to the fire-control system, processed and steering commands data linked back to the missile in TVM), then you'd only get a launch warning once that starts. And obviously if it can detect neither then you wouldn't get a launch warning at all. And this kind of discussion is also relevant to Patriot (which I assume is interrupted CW, given that it's supposedly transmitted from a separate array on the same radar, or at least that's what FM 44-15 implies - it describes the smaller, circular array as a "TVM array" and states that in the TVM phase a "special waveform is transmitted that illuminates the target" and then describes this waveform as "the TVM waveform" so presumably it's transmitted by this array) and the SM-2 series (which have a terminal SARH phase, though in that case the waveform is CW, somewhere in the J-band, provided by a different radar).

Indeed.

Yep, completely true - I'm not aware of any changes in the waveform of the 5N62 when tracking a target or when firing a missile and I even believe missiles can be guided to targets in any of its modes (either monochromatic CW, or the phase or frequency modulated modes). Hell, I'm pretty sure its the same waveform in its acquisition modes as well (though there'll be a change in dwell time there). The only other thing is the missile downlink (which I assume is telemetric or just to provide operators with an indication of how the intercept is proceeding/time to impact etc), but I'm not confident RWRs will be able to detect this (it would likely depend on the radiation pattern of the downlink transmitter on the missile and its power). Rest I agree with, though looking at the manual, it seems the only SARH system that provides launch warning is the SA-6 - everything else is command guided (or at least is command-guided at launch and in the midcourse phase with the SA-10 and SA-N-6, then again, the system doesn't detect the SA-N-20 according to the manual, I'm not sure why if it can detect SA-10 and SA-N-6).

Ah, I knew about TCS but didn't realise the dome was as well. In that case, no external changes from the existing A AFAIK.

They did mention a few in a newsletter, here's one mentioning the Shrike, here's one mentioning the Bullpup and GBU-8 - in the 2nd note the wording "we are currently developing a new variant of the AGM-12 Bullpup..." , I believe the AGM-45B Shrike is also on ED (and that's why it isn't in) etc.

Behind the cockpit. 1990s+ F-14A: 1980s "Early" F-14A: All I can say is on the HB Discord, HB team members are saying they'll be added when ED develops them. I believe the same is true for the CM-400AKG ALBM on the JF-17 - Deka are again waiting on ED to implement the weapon.

Well, I was under the impression ED had taken over weapons development (which is a good thing as it means aircraft share the same weapons), though would've thought it would be on HB to provide artwork (see AIM-54, AIM-7Es etc).

Right now its only the RWR and the accompanying in-cockpit changes for it. Both As are the same block and have the same engines. Unfortunately there aren't any external changes aside from the removal of the GPS dome. Weapons like the AIM-9G and H are on ED.

Wrong way round. SA-2 and SA-3 use radio command guidance and don't use CW anywhere, whereas SA-5 is SARH and uses CW.

Just FYI, the aircraft is depicted as more of a mid-1980s to mid/late-1990s version, so those dates aren't appropriate for it. The previous A is more mid/late 1990s+ and the B is late 1980s+ - whether historical mode reflects that I haven't tested yet.

Yep, completely agree. From what I've seen Germany seems to have a lot of trivial details which only add eye-candy but do nothing else (they can't be used as a gameplay element), but quite a number of areas that do genuinely have gameplay elements and would make the map more accurate and more useful get omitted/overlooked and even some that are in aren't modelled all that accurately.

Hi everyone, While the Kh-25MR appears fine prior to launch, after launch it transforms to appear as a Kh-25MP/MPU. It looks like line 570 of CoreMods\aircraft\AircraftWeaponPack\kh25_29_family.lua is to blame, "model = X-25MP" should instead be set to X-25MR and changing this line to be as such fixes the issue.

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.