Northstar98

For player modules, of the right timeframe and in theatre during that timeframe. I'll be quite strict and where there's caveats I'll mark them with an asterisk: Both F-4Es fit into that timeframe (DSCG is supposed to cover mid 1970s - mid 1990s, DMAS will cover the late 70s/early 80s up to the mid 1990s at least IIRC). Tornado IDS (just about, though depending on how different the avionics it could represent an earlier 1980s aircraft). 9-12/9-12A MiG-29 MiG-21bis MiG-23MLA (if it ever comes) Mi-24P *UH-1H(?) For AI aircraft: *An-26 (I think the countermeasures might be a more modern addition) Mi-24V MiG-27K Su-17M4 Su-24M Su-24MR For the VVS Group of Forces in Germany (as it was known from May 1980 - 1993), the best place I've found so far is this (scroll down until you find the 1980 Organisation). For other aircraft (player and AI) that weren't necessarily in theatre, but were otherwise around for the timeframe: A-6E (Depending on the exact version) A-7E A-50 AH-1W (without the AGM-114K, only the AGM-114B was around for the AH-1W in the 1980s) AH-64A (though again, not with the AGM-114K, only the AGM-114A and AGM-114C was around for the US Army in the 1980s) C-101EB/CC CH-47D F-5E *F-5E-3 F-14A-135-GR (early) F-14B (just) F-104 (depending on variant) G.91R/3 /R/4 Il-76MD (though would've likely had its tail guns fitted). Il-78 KA-6D Ka-27PL L-39C L-39ZA Mi-26 Mirage F1BE, CE and EE. MiG-23MLD MiG-25PD MiG-25RBT 9-13S MiG-29S (without the R-77) SH-60B UH-60A Tu-22M3 *Tu-95MS6 (though not with missile it's armed with). *Tu-142 (depends on what variant it's supposed to be, the missile it has available isn't accurate for any variant AFAIK) So a pretty decent showing, particularly from AI aircraft.

Reproduced. Affects all submarines currently in-game and appears to be independent of what map is used (so far tested with the Caucasus, Marianas, Normandy, SoH/PG and the South Atlantic, with identical results). The Pr. 636 and Pr. 877V seem to be affected differently than the Type 093 and Type VIIC U-boat, the later 2 only having a thin wake and the former having a 3D(-ish) bow wake. SubmarineWakesCaucasus.trk

Oh, absolutely agreed! (Though I think Nike Hercules and possibly Ajax if there were any should be functional ground units that we can place in the mission editor, like any other SAM system). Frankly, I find it rather baffling that outside of airbases, military POIs (especially things directly applicable to aircraft such as SAM and EWR sites) are somewhat of an afterthought on our maps, if they're a thought at all. Syria somewhat improved on this, Sinai moreso but even with Syria it's not exactly done particularly accurately. PG and the Caucasus are as good as absent with only a few sites usable. I don't really see the point of map-object EWRs that we can't use etc. Yep fully agreed. Though I figure that if a Cold War Germany map is planned, it'll most likely be modern day owing to the data, though if that's the case I hope we get all of the Cold War airbases, SAM, EWR and other relevant military points of interest present - there's enough resources online for just about all of it.

Credit to u/Zanderzoo_ for pointing this out but is this shot depicting the Inner German Border? A tease of a possible Cold War Germany map? BT-9-looking observation tower (albeit a squat-looking one, real thing looks skinnier and taller) is what really stands out to me here. The pillbox seen here kinda looks like one of these.

No, don't worry I'm with you (mostly). SA-4? Yes, definitely. SA-7? Abso-bloody-lutely - it and the SA-4 are the only relevant single-digit SAMs missing from the theatre. Huge number of radars and IFF? Again abso-bloody-lutely, the P-37 and PRV-11 have been in game for aeons but only as non-functional eye-candy, it alone would be a big step forward. Also missing the 5N84A (P-14F) + NRZ-14, 5N87, P-12/12M/-18, P-40, PRV-9/16, -13 and 17 and a Parol version. Of course, we'd also need IADS functionality and it would be fantastic if we could get a more complete set of battery components for our Cold War air defences - PU-12 and the P-40 would do wonders for PVO-SV systems, OdaZ-828 could be reused for numerous electronics/operator cabins for a few of the single digit SAM systems etc. However: For Nike, we're mainly missing just the conventionally armed MIM-14B/C Hercules. Ajax was older and not really relevant for the late Cold War, the rest are mostly for ABM defence, never stationed outside the US and kinda lacking a practical role in DCS (not to mention being nuclear armed). Pershing? Similar thing - it has a nuclear warhead and that's a big no-no for ED. Earlier versions of the SA-2 and -3? Personally, I'm fine with the variants we have (just so long as everything is coherent), they are missing a few battery components (transloaders - I know one has been teased for the SA-2, operator/electronics cabins and generators are the big 3). With all that said, look what turned up in the CH-47F Pre-Order video: Credit for u/Zanderzoo_ on hoggit for pointing this out, but this kinda looks like it could be a Cold War Germany map, depicting the inner German border between the GDR and the FRG - that observation tower in the first image (though looks a little short), kinda looks like a BT-9. Of course the helicopter and the much more modern M1A2 SEP v3 are out of place. In the second image, the smaller bunker/pillbox kinda looks like it could be something like this, also found along the Inner German Border.

Forgive me, but how can ED be ready to offer a module up for pre-purchase and yet not be ready to tell us what the EA features should be, let alone what they should be at full release? I mean, I don't even know what I'm buying into right now or what I'm supposed to expect from my purchase. As such I'm incredibly hesitant to entertain preordering, especially with this being somewhat of a running theme for numerous anticipated features.

The PG map already includes roughly 2/5ths or so of the area of Pakistan that's needed to bridge the gap between Afghanistan and the Arabian Sea. The PG map does contain a small portion of Afghanistan (about 400 nmi2 of it) so it is currently possible to fly to Afghanistan from the sea. Of course, none of these areas are detailed in any sense of the word, but what exhausted said is technically possible, albeit in a very limited fashion on the PG map. The PG map also includes a large area of Saudi Arabia, all of Bahrain and Kuwait, easily making up the area needed to bridge Afghanistan with the Arabian Sea, even if low/no detail.

In your track, the bombers have already climbed past 6,000 ft when the LPWS' begin tracking it. While the bombers are set to start at 1,000 ft, their next waypoint is set to ~6,500 ft. Given that the bombers are engaged if set to a lower altitude, by the looks of it, it simply looks like they're outside the maximum engagement altitude of LPWS (at least in DCS). I'm not sure what the engagement altitude should be or what exact value it's set to (in the .lua defining it, I can only see a value for the maximum detection altitude, which is set at 6,000 m (~24,000 ft)). If the engagement altitude is lower than this, it might explain why they track targets but don't engage (as, in DCS, fire-control systems will track targets in anticipation of them meeting whatever engagement criteria is defined for the unit (min/max range/altitude/speed etc). From limited testing, it looks like targets need to be less than 5,000 ft above LPWS for it to be engaged by it. In the attached track, all I've done is changed the waypoints of the bombers such that the altitude is set to 4,900 ft - so long as they stay below 5,000 ft they'll be engaged. LPWS_4.9kft_test.trk

If you right click it, it should be possible to open in a new tab. It also seems to be a word document.

What I'd recommend you do is spend one session setting up the deck with static objects in whichever configuration you like. This may take some time (especially seeing as you will sometimes need to check alignment, as it isn't always possible to check in the mission editor - a 3D editor would certainly help here). Don't forget to link the static objects you place with the carrier unit. Once you are done, go to edit -> save static template. Give it an appropriate name, filename and description. Contrary to what the name suggests, you can actually use this system with any unit type, including mixed. Then when you want to make a new mission, load the template you created via edit -> load static template. You'll be able to move the carrier where you desire, subtly change the configuration of static objects if you want, change the carrier's heading and waypoints etc. The only downside with this method is that unlike the unit templates, these templates are map specific, so you may have to redo it for each map. What would be nice, is if the unit templates could support groups with multiple unit types. Allowing say, naval units + static objects to be in one group. This way you'd have the same advantages as with the static templates, but you'd be able to reuse the template on whichever map you choose.

I infinitely prefer adding stuff to an empty deck than having enforced static aircraft that you most likely won't be able to do anything about (such as the case with HB's Forrestal (albeit with deck equipment) and for the examples named), almost always forcing you to have 1 configuration. Especially so when they take up parking slots for useable aircraft (which aren't exactly numerous to begin with). It's far easier to add things in the DCS mission editor than to remove things. The way it currently is gives me the flexibility to have whatever configuration I see fit. A system whereby there are static aircraft from the get go that I can't remove is inherently the least flexible option. As for saving a configuration - that's already facilitated with the static templates. It may not be the most convenient thing in the world (it would be nice if the unit templates supported mixed unit types as a single group), but it does save time so long as you're using the same map.

I don't think I can agree about them dropping the ball here either. I get that usually ED aren't the most coherent about things, but here it's not the case. We are still getting a relevant fleet carrier for 1944 and onwards operation (and the WWII Marianas map gets us close-ish to the Battle of the Philippine Sea). Enterpise is a pretty famous ship, taking part in more battles and having more battle awards than any other aircraft carrier and any other ship. Enterpise did take part in the Battle of the Philippine Sea (as did 6 Essex and 8 Independence, usually 2 per task group), with Hellcats embarked as part of Air Group 10 (alongside Corsairs - which we are getting even if it might not be the right variant, Avengers and whatever the plural for Dauntless is). The Independence only has numbers above the fleet carriers, but the fleet carriers are much more capable by themselves, being able to embark 2-3 times as many aircraft (though unlikely we'll actually be able to use anything like their full complement). With all that said, it would be excellent to get an Independence, though right now I think what we really need to see are escorts to flesh out the task groups (though yes, the Independence would also flesh them out too).

Hi everyone, It seems that units (at least amphibious ones) can now be spawned on the decks of ships, including ships that are moving, and will stay put through turns and speed changes (previously when I had tested this, they would spawn at the sea surface, requiring them to be jumped onto ships, though the mission editor restriction still restricts you from placing non-amphibious units onto ships). However, if you use CA to take control of a unit placed on a ship, it will immediately start floating upwards. It's almost as if the unit is being abducted by aliens or something. On the Tarawa at least, they appear to come to a stop and level out at 288 ft MSL and continue to follow the ship (albeit not exactly in the same place and orientation). But it gets weirder still - if you switch to another unit, other members of the group may start doing some other weird things. In the tracks below, when player control is relinquished to another unit, the remaining units in the group fly off of the deck and start travelling in unexpected directions, behaving quite oddly (drifting, jumping around, appearing to snap between pitch angles). GroundUnitsTarawa.trk GroundUnitsTiconderoga1.trk GroundUnitsTiconderoga2.trk

That's an argument to correct AI gunners, not to completely remove armament. I hope you are right. Though seeing a ship that, at least from the screenshots, appears quite far along in development with all armament missing (as well as the Mk 37 directors) is unprecedented. Compare that to the Mogamis seen in the 2024 and Beyond trailer, though I guess there the absence of armament would be much more difficult to ignore.

I do hope you are kidding. DCS should be about depicting this stuff as accurately as possible. Units like this shouldn't be artificially nerfed or buffed to try and level the playing field.

Development screenshots of this one look pretty good so far. One problem though - where are all its guns? We've already had vessels added to DCS with the wrong weapons (La Combattante IIa, Castle) and having some weapons missing (Tarawa), I hope we're not about to get a ship that's supposed to be armed without any armament.

I love what I'm seeing with the Enterprise, though still a bit worried that no other escorts seem present and the same LST(2) and Arthur Middleton are being used in screenshots. One question I do have though is what fit will the Enterprise be? IRL its armament went through numerous changes with differing amounts of different types of guns. At the moment, from the screenshots, it doesn't appear to be armed at all.

As Tholozor said - they aren't linked to any country. They're only available as wholly non-functional eye-candy at airbases on the Caucasus map alone. The P-37 does rotate and you can destroy it, but that's the extent of its current functionality.

Yep, absolutely. Both (especially the P-37) can be found on the Caucasus, Sinai, Syria, the upcoming Kola map, and the future Iraq map IRL. They were both very prolific and are staple radars of Cold War redfor. They're already appropriately animated and their graphics are definitely decent enough (though I'd maybe remove the grass mound the P-37 sits on). The P-37, in addition to an EWR and GCI radar, would also make for a far better stand in for the 5N84A radar for the S-200V. Certainly far more appropriate than either the P-19 or the 5N59S.

Well, if that's the attitude, why improve anything at all?

Looks absolutely incredible! If you're talking about the aircraft at 9:05, it's a Su-24M/MR.

Only person making you read this thread is you.

Absolutely definitely agree, though probably something for the general wishlist.

Unfortunately I'm the wrong person to ask, though I believe @Whiskey11 has attempted something with the PRV-11 though (I at least did find this).

There are some exceptions where the gradient does change (though you will eventually end up with a linear gradient), but more or less. All the mission editor and F10 map will tell you is the altitude or depth under your cursor (in the above spoiler you can see ALT -176 in bottom-left of the screenshot). One thing I've done though is that I've gone into Server.lua (found in your main DCS installation, under Config\View) and changed "CameraTerrainRestriction" from true to false, which lets me take the camera underwater, allowing you to inspect the seabed visually. Perhaps (though this is something for the wishlist) it would be nice if the ALT layer showed bathymetry and not just topographical relief. Sorry, I completely forgot to mention how the IRL depths compare with DCS. The problem there is that the ports are a couple of metres too shallow for the Santa Fe. Batumi harbour has a depth of 5 m practically all throughout, which is just below the draught setting for the Santa Fe. Sochi is 6 metres throughout, though immediatelly next to the docks is 5 metres. Both get deeper around their mouths though. As Minsky said, they likely are using a shallower draught setting, or maybe don't have one even defined. I wouldn't be able to tell you which without seeing the .lua definition for it (for ED ships, they can be found here, simply click on the one of interest and Ctrl+F "draft" (I use the British spelling).