Northstar98

As I understand it, probably - but I'm not a developer so I'm not in any position to say yes or no. At the moment it's just the way the game is - ideally you'd have one seeker API if you will, that all modules then utilise, what seems to be the case at the moment is that the simulation of seekers prior to launch is actually emulated by the module (if not, what explains the difference in behaviour of the exact same missile across different aircraft).

The funny thing is - the RB 74 is front aspect as soon as it comes off of the rail. It just shows how having modules simulate the seeker prior to launch, instead of having a seeker model that all applicable aircraft then use leads to somewhat of a mess. For instance, in this track, I have no tone, but once I fire the missile still tracks a front aspect, high-altitude, supersonic target. RB74_FrontAspectWhenFired.trk

Oh, when did London, Paris, Calais, Amiems, Tblisi, Sochi, Krasnodar, blah blah blah, lose their city status? No highways or landmarks either? Sure about that? Are you going to tell me there are no forests, bridges or railways next? Uh huh. "There's nothing to set apart the GIUK gap compared to the Marianas or South Atlantic" but sure, I'm the one putting forward bad and silly arguments... Because large NATO airbases (plural) in one of the most relevant areas for the Cold War apparently isn't a difference? The only aerodromes on the Falkland Islands suitable for our aircraft are practically right next to each other - at least with Iceland I could stage blue out of Keflavik and red out of Egilsstaðir and/or Akureyri (ironically, something the light-sim I hinted at also did) and the distances are similar as could be expected on Germany. This way I'd even have more scope for ground combat between them, something that's straight up impossible on the Marianas, unless the ground combat is all concentrated on Rota or something and pretty dubious between Argentina and I guess, East Falkland - I'd argue that Iceland is the more plausible scenario - it's in the right place for a start - not sure what the Soviets are doing in Argentina/Falklands, not exactly sure it's a location with any overarching strategic benefit for them, unlike Iceland or the rest of the GIUK gap, ditto for the Marianas. Going further into the realms of fiction though, I could also set up a scenario between the Faroes, the Shetland Islands or the Outer Hebrides - fairly appropriate distances (similar to what can be expected on the Germany map) and as a bonus, the latter 2 are far more suitable for ground combat than the Marianas. I've got options for long duration missions between islands and short ones, unlike the South Atlantic (unless I'm bombing Isla de los Estados with its 0 inhabited areas, let alone military installations, for some reason). I wouldn't have any issues whatsoever basing Soviet aircraft. I don't think the GIUK gap is as limited as your trying to make out. But hey what about generally? Falklands is fairly similar-ish to Iceland (though less suitable airports), but the season is completely backwards and the main land mass is in the wrong direction. As for the Marianas, the islands are tiny (seriously, Guam is a little under twice the size of Rota, Tinian and Saipan combined and yet, Guam is barely a third of the Faroes) and the biome is completely wrong (not exactly a lot of tropical forest on Iceland) and I'm not exactly sure what NATO vs Warsaw Pact, Cold War gone hot scenario makes more sense on the Marianas or South Atlantic, than it does in the GIUK gap. So yeah, nothing to set them apart? Fractal wrongness. Why, exactly? Have you? Because Stornaway to Lossiemouth is only 100 nmi. 160 nmi to Leuchars. That's about the same as the Marianas, only unlike the Marianas - both are proper military airfields that can base a full squadron of aircraft. I can also set up every other kind of mission on just about every other map - this is such a nonsense argument to anyone who actually cares about where their missions are actually set. Which is why I want Germany, even if I can bomb a Soviet advance on the Caucasus and why I want the GIUK gap, even if I can do blue water (albeit with a completely fictional order of battle) on the SA map. If it were the case that there's no point developing any other theatres if the ones you have already support the same kind of general mission, I doubt we would've moved past the Caucasus. And? Finally something in this post I agree with, but this goes for all maps, just large ones (and large ones with lots of land) suffer more so. At least GIUK mostly consists of islands where changes due to a spherical Earth are less noticeable, apart from really their orientation.

Oh, why do we need a Germany map then? After all if you want huge-ish swathes of green, just load up the Cacausus or Normandy? The same logic applies to just about every theatre in DCS. Ironically one of the ones you named is one of the worst for being fleshed out. The South Atlantic for instance has exactly 0 British aircraft for any timeframe. Argentina only has the MB-339A and Chile only has the C-101CC and F-5E. And there are no upcoming aircraft that fit either. For the GIUK gap, we at least have the F-4E (with an appropriate livery to boot), the E-3 (even if its the wrong variant), the Tu-22M3, the Tu-142 and if you're interested in RSR scenarios, the B-52H (albeit a post 1991 one) and the 9.12 MiG-29. Cold War CVBGs at least have the early F-14A, A-6E and A-7E coming (which represents all of the primary combat aircraft), we are still missing an E-2C, EA-6B, KA-6D and S-3A, but at least for #1 and #4 we have stand-ins. CVBGs for the South Atlantic have 0 aircraft (either present or upcoming). Yes, but there's enough there to work with. Another lite simulator, which ironically had Iceland as a map only came w/ 3 Soviet ships (though it did have 6 US ones) Luckily the GIUK has 4 major airbases for them then - unlike the Marianas which only has one. Another thing is that the GIUK gap is a map that shouldn't take much in the way of resources to develop - the area is less developed than the Kola map and has a fraction of the land mass.

And it really needs to be firing Exocet, not Harpoon.

I've got it producing numbers on my end even with no dive angle (and Dive Toss does support level releases). Perhaps try removing any mods and a full repair.

Pleased to report that in subsequent tests, this appears to be fixed - the AI now proceeds directly to the next turn point before commencing any turns.

No worries. But can the same update also apply to the S-3B?

As expected, it depends on atmospheric conditions: Smokeless (DCS being correct as-is): Significant smoke (though we're looking into the plume here which will make it look thicker than it will from the side):

Unfortunately looks like the new B-52H loadout options aren't present. The Su-24M however did receive the APK-9, which is cool to see

Unfortunately, despite this being in today's changelog: The B-52's available stores are unchanged (ran full repair, tested w/ historical mode on and off).

Hi everyone, Very pleased that missiles now appear on the Mk 13 Mod 4 GMLS of the FFG 7, though there is a minor bug - the RGM-84D that appears on the launcher is misaligned (too far backwards and possibly 180° rotated, the former is obviously more what I'm after in this report). Note that DCS depicts an exercise shot with the red nose, whereas this depicts a war shot with a grey nose (as seen with the AGM-84D in DCS). Note how the radar altimeter is also faces towards the left, in DCS, it faces the right. Mk13GMLS_RGM-84D_misaligned.trk

Most mapping software (open source or otherwise) display these areas as roads, so provided Ugra is accurate to that, they should be present. But yes, otherwise if not, they absolutely should be present for them to be usuable.

I agree, though the only thing I'll say is its possible to create a static template (though it handles all unit types) and then reuse this template an arbitrary number of times, at least then this work only needs to be done the once. But yes, to facilitate the AI, the highway strips would probably need to be actual airfield entities.

Considering that sensor fusion is still absent on the Hornet (MSI), I somehow doubt it. And has for the most detailed, I'm pretty sure the F-4E will take that place for a long while yet. Then there's the simple fact that in terms of fidelity, ED are behind third parties and that's for comparitively simpler mechanically scanned radars. Their ground radar model is the lowest fidelity model present in DCS - it doesn't account for beam geometry or antenna elevation whatsoever (which even leads to cases where radars can see behind themselves), they're magically immune to jamming, they're magically immune to sea clutter, they're magically immune to civil ground traffic, they magically filter out (or otherwise don't detect) aircraft etc.

Just tested again - "FARP", "Helipad Single" and "PAD Single" automatically remove scenery objects in their vicinity. Invisible FARP on the other hand (which is the one most suited here), does not.

@Bremspropeller Just tested - the invisible FARP no longer removes scenery objects like streetlights, barriers/fences, bridges, overhead wires etc. It also doesn't remove trees either - it leaves everything untouched. This is the case, even when the invisible FARP is placed at the same location as a scenery objects. I've tested in single-player on the Cacasus, Syria, South Atlantic, Normandy, Marianas, Straits of Hormuz and the Channel maps. So apart from AI (which needs dedicated airbase entities), highway strips should be pretty suitable for players as-is, so long as the roads are accurately depicted.

As an addendum to this - for EWR sites with radomes, it would be better to model these without the radome (leaving a flat base/tower with a flat top), which would then be a static object. This way, we would be able to place functional radars on top and then place the radome static object (and yes, this is something DCS already supports as is - see the spoiler for a very crude example). We also already have the ability to make templates allowing this to be made once and reused an arbitrary amount of times. In the past, maps with decorative radomes usually results in rendering the sites unusable as working EWR sites (especially sites which have radar mounted on a tower or elevated platform). There is the scenery delete action in the mission editor, but it usually causes unintended collateral damage (and in this case would delete the tower the radar is mounted on). Doing it the suggested way, a functional radar unit could be placed and the sites be usuable in the way that they should be, instead of only being decorative.

Considering the Hornet we have is a TAWS-equipped aircraft (we have ground collision callouts representative of a TAWS aircraft and TAWS is an option present in HSI A/C page), ours is modern enough for DTED. And DTED in general (or at least maybe a more rudimentary version) have been available since missiles using TERCOM have existed.

If that's the case - it doesn't look like it at all. It looks dug up.

Agreed, but with a catch (and this goes for every EWR site). The sites should be suitable for placing functional units on, in this case, we'd ideally have the towers without the radome (just a flat base) - allowing us to place a functional radar on top. We could then have a static object for the radome, which could then be placed over the top. This way the sites can actually be used in missions and directly impact gameplay, in the way they would have IRL, instead of only being eye-candy that's non-functional. Previously, we've only ever had purely decorative EWR sites that were non functional (unless they were completely empty). We could use scenery object-deleting zones but they would delete everything.

Ironic that they call Nike Hercules not timeframe appropriate (what research are they doing exactly?) when their Patriot is a PAC-2 system which wasn't introduced until the early 1990s (so obviously, not the 1980s and after the fall of the Berlin Wall and during reunification). As for the HAWK, it's maybe a more minor point (as they haven't modelled the differences), but it's inconsistent to one variant (HIPIR called one thing (AN/MPQ-46), but has the model of something else (AN/MPQ-57 w/ HEOS) with a missile with a designation that fits neither (MIM-23K, the missile appropriate to the former is the MIM-23B and the latter, MIM-23C. The MIM-23K is incidentally from the mid 1990s when the Cold War was over).

Here's the same site circa 1986: Overall, pretty impressed with the accuracy, though if anything there's too much in DCS.

Can't say I agree - looking at most airbases in summer satellite imagery, you can find the odd bit of brown but they're non-existent compared to the screenshots. For me it's a minor point, but yeah, it would be great if this airbases were as accurate as feasibly possible.

Pretty sure there are: Though it's already perfectly possible to make road bases for player aircraft (AI however are difficult), with the use of invisible FARPs