Northstar98
-
Posts
8326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Northstar98
-
And it really needs to be firing Exocet, not Harpoon. -
Bombing Calculetor not working since latest patch.
Northstar98 replied to TBear's topic in Bugs & Problems
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.
- 1 reply
-
- 5
-
-
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
-
Should definitely be included, they're not exactly easy to miss.
-
Tag says later in 2025, barge full of salt at the ready though.
-
E-2D Advanced Hawkeye radar range
Northstar98 posted a topic in Aircraft AI Bugs (Non-Combined Arms)
Hi everyone, The E-2D Hawkeye is defined with the wrong radar which has far less range than it should have (even for the radar being depicted). The E-2D is currently defined with the AN/APS-138 (see line 292). This radar actually belongs to the E-2C Hawkeye Group 0 from the mid 1980s. In DCS this radar is defined with a detection range of 330 km (or ~178 nmi). The radar actually appropriate to the E-2D (which despite the name of the .lua, is what's depicted in DCS) is the AN/APY-9, which has an instrumented range of 350 nmi (or 648.2 km), almost double of what the -138 is currently defined with and very nearly 250 km greater than the maximum detection distance (see line 371 of the first link). IRL, the AN/APS-138 has an instrumented range of 300 nmi (or 555.6 km), so already we're over 200 km short (we're significantly short, even the 250 nmi range for the AN/APS-125). -
The CEC functionality is only really relevant for the AIM-120D and SM-6 - neither of which we have yet (though the Arleigh Burkes depicted in DCS are new enough to receive the latter). And given that we still don't have CEC functionality for the Mk 23 Walleye II ERDL, the AGM-84E SLAM or the AGM-84H SLAM-ER (despite it being announced for the former). Another thing is that the E-2D is currently defined with the AN/APS-138 radar (which belongs to the E-2C Hawkeye Group 0, the version appropriate to the Forrestal). The E-2D should have the AN/APY-9. Unfortunately, said AN/APS-138 only has a range in DCS of 330 km (~180 nmi), the real thing has an instrumented range of 463 km (or 250 nmi) and the APY-9, 350 nmi (or ~650 km).
