Northstar98

Should definitely be included, they're not exactly easy to miss.

Tag says later in 2025, barge full of salt at the ready though.

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).

Hi everyone, A long standing request of mine and one I hope you'll all agree with - please include empty air defence sites, suitable for placing units in. Ideally, we'd get a close to 1:1 recreation of the real sites, in their real locations. The closest example I can name in DCS is this example of an Egyptian S-75 site, which is an almost 1:1 recreation of the real thing and is the exact thing I'm talking about. However, even if Ugra were to pick a generic HAWK layout, an S-75/SA-2 site layout, an S-125/SA-3 site layout and an S-200/SA-5 site layout, then copy and paste them in the right locations across the map, that would definitely be better than nothing and would absolutely suffice. There's plenty of resources out there for finding where each one goes and most are still clearly extant in modern satellite imagery (many of the sites have however been converted, but historical imagery is still readily available). Just for some examples: Here's a HAWK site near Fulda, circa 2009. Everything about the site is clearly visible, including launcher and radar positions, revetments etc. In present day imagery it seems to be some chemical/POL facility. Here's a NIKE Hercules launch site near Arnshöfen. In present day imagery all but the western launch position has been dug up, but in historical imagery (such as this from 2008), everything is clearly visible (though note only the western launch position has its storage shelter visible, they're removed from the other positions, though where they would've been is clearly visible). The IFC site is located on top of a hill, in a forest to the north-west (and is empty save for a tower) - there's even a shot of the IFC site from a drone. Here's an S-75/SA-2 site just south of the large Wittstock Bombing Range. Unlike most imagery, these site shows everything (the central revetments for the FCR and associated equipment, the 6 launcher revetments arranged in a circle centred on the FCR, as well as other reveted positions for the acquisition radar and other equipment). If this was copied and pasted at every SA-2 site, this is would be perfect. Here's an S-125/SA-3 site adjacent to Storkow, close to Templin airbase, here's another historical image, again clearly showing the layout. Everything is clearly visible. Here's another near Möckern, again everything visible. This site appears to be defending an S-200 site in the forest to the east. Here's an S-200/SA-5 site just south-east of Gransee, to the north of Berlin. Everything about the site is clearly visible - the 2 launch battalions (with central launch control centre (which would have generators and power distribution), with 6 launch positions each. The technical batallion to the east, and to the north, the guidance area (with positions for fire-control and acquisition radars). Here is where an S-300PMU/SA-10B sie would've been, immediately to the west is an S-75/SA-2 site. Here's a 2K12/SA-6 site to the south of Erfut. This site is mostly just roads, but there are a couple of reveted positions (you can see the 4 positions for launchers in a rectangular shape, with a 5th inside the rectangle for the Straight Flush. In the development screenshots, there's this image: I'm almost certain that this is Damgarten (an airbase the MiG-29S has a livery for). This airbase has an S-125 site immediately adjacent to it. It's most visible in this image (the grey object is where the FCR and associated equipment would've been located and there are 4 circular revetments for the launchers to the west, though the southern one is only just visible, but nonetheless there are 4), EDIT: here's an image showing the site (3). There's also another site near Saal to the north-east, which this site has historical imagery of. Unfortunately however, the former site seems to be absent in this screenshot. Previously, on the Syria map, Ugra did take a crack at doing some air defence sites, though only really so with the SA-2/S-75 and while the revetment models were perfectly accurate, the site however wasn't (only 5 launcher revetments - should be 6, no revetments for radars or other equipment). I've attached SAMSiteOverview.kmz by Sean O'Connor of IMINT & Analysis below, which can be used to find just about all sites (though is missing British Bloodhound and Rapier sites). SAM Site Overview.kmz

Just reading the newsletter and I'm delighted with the scope of the map: But please, please, please include empty air defence sites (this being a near perfect example) - even if its only a generic site for each type that's copies and pasted in locations where appropriate. The Syria map had some attempt at this, but only did so with an SA-2 and even then, apart from the revetment models, it wasn't that accurate (and some sites weren't accurately placed).

Not really - it fits the GWOT and imagined scenarios and not much else. HH-60G if one could be done would fit so much more (end of Cold War, Gulf War, Iraq War and GWOT), as well as being a contemporary to the DCS AH-64 (which predates UH-60M introduction by almost half a decade) and Mi-8MTV2. But if the HH-60G cannot be done, I'd personally prefer a UH-60L (fits the same scenarios as the HH-60G (and by extension the UH-60M), but can cosplay as Cold War UH-60A better. I don't really understand why ED are so seemingly adamant on only doing an M.

Despite being as relevant as it is, I wouldn't place money on it happening within the next 5 years. We still don't have Cold War MANPADS and the SA-5 is still without a proper search/acquisitionr radar.

Hi everyone, As I understand it, FlyingIron are utilising ED's ground radar API - while understandable as this is FlyingIron's first attempt in DCS, it does lead to some unfortunate drawbacks, many of which have a significant impact on gameplay. ED's ground radar API is currently the lowest fidelity model present in DCS (surpassed even by the Viggen, released nearly 8 years ago and was the first true air-to-ground radar) and radar models subsequently (and even one prior) developed by 3rd parties significantly raise the bar in terms of fidelity, offering raycasted models that more accurately depict radars. This all results in ED's radar model having inaccurate limitations, both in terms of not modelling limitations that should be present and introducing limitations that shouldn't exist. ED's radar model: Doesn't account for beam-geometry at all, meaning: They can unrealistically map from basically 0 out to the instrumented range of the radar, regardless of antenna elevation or aircraft altitude (see here and here). Antenna elevation or different beam settings (for instance, the pencil/fan beam setting in the Hornet) are functionless/broken. To compound this, if you take the picture seen at default elevation and gain, then elevate the radar to its maximum above the horizon and increase the gain, you see very little difference in what's displayed. Conversely, if you depress the radar to its maximum below the horizon, the brightness falls off to 0, despite the fact that the radar should still be illuminating a portion of the ground. In vertical/near vertical climbs the radar can see behind itself, something that's obviously impossible. Will not detect aircraft (even low-speed, low-flying ones). While obviously surface-directed radars/modes are obviously not optimised for detecting aircraft - aircraft that are caught in a lobe of the radar producing a skin return powerful enough to be detected should be displayed, espeically when the A-7E's APQ-126 is a pulse-only radar and has no motion filtering (like the F-4E). Is completely immune to jamming. While ships don't feature anything EW related (apart from radars), low-flying bombers can currently be used as semi-functional approximates (though their jammers aren't powerful enough to completely hide ships). The RDI's ground-mapping mode (Mirage 2000C), the PS-37/A (AJS 37 Viggen) are all affected by jamming and produce jamming returns. Is completely immune to sea clutter (Heatblur's F-4E even takes polarisation into account here). Doesn't model sidelobe returns.

There seems to be a DCS-wide bug with the Mk 20/CBU-99, absolutely nothing drops them accurately, including the AI (and this goes for AI Phantoms as well as AI everything else).

Glad to hear it and yes, I constantly get a breakaway call when joining the KC-130, I usually just ignore it unless the tanker takes evasive action that it doesn't need to take. Hopefully though you will develop an expected sight picture without needing to look at the basket and find references that work for you (of course references, particularly those used for vertical positioning are more likely to vary, as they'll change with your AoA (which will depend on speed, your weight, altitude etc). But over time, with enough practice you should be able to find something that gets you where you need to be, even if only roughly.

It isn't complete just yet (there's a few things like NAVAIDS and airspace to do, as well as more completed electrical grid - I apologise for the long wait), but here's the full thing as it currently stands. When it's properly finished, I'll likely put it in a separate post. Kola Map Locations.kmz

Nope - you shouldn't be looking at either when connecting - you need to pick a reference in your cockpit and pick a reference on the tanker and make the 2 meet. For the KC-130, when connecting to the left: For lateral positioning I fly to place the heading caret somewhere between touching the left side of the propeller disc of the #1 engine to halfway between the #1 engine's nacelle and the refuelling pod (ideally it would be somewhere between, but the tolerance is such that aligning it either or should result in contact). For vertical positioning try and align the top of the HUD glass with the propeller disc of the #2 engine. This one is a bit difficult because it depends on your exact head positioning and how far forward/aft you are. For this image, I've recentered the view, having your head slightly higher may change the sight picture somewhat, but the basket does give some room for imprecision, but this should give a general gist of the sight picture. See the spoiler below for the same image, minus the annotations. I've also included the default head position and coordinates I have on my end. AV-8B_KC-130_AAR1.trk

L by a large margin: It is the perfect peer contemporary counterpart of the Hip we currently have (both are similar in role, size-ish and configuration and are from around the same timeframe (late 80s/early 90s). An L can stand-in for a Cold War A far better than an M can. An L better fits the AH-64D and most other BLUFOR modules. It makes far more sense to offer an upgraded variant at a later date (as has already been done with the A-10C and with a hypothetical Ka-50) than to offer an older one (and ED have been fairly allergic to variants in the first place - better to offer one that offers more flexibility). The L offers far more flexibility when it comes to missions, given that it can fit into much more historical scenarios. The M only fits GWOT and imaginary scenarios - the L fits not only that but also potentially the Gulf War, the Iraq War etc. ED already stated they have sufficient data for it.

Hi everyone, Super minor one - the smoke produced by the boosters of RGM-84D and RGM-109C missiles should be increased. At the moment they produce a fairly thin amount of white smoke. IRL, both boosters produce significant amounts of smoke (which should have a yellow tinge to it for the RGM-84). RGM-84: RGM-109: There's a few very minor issues with the Tomahawk launches, which, while not the subject of this thread, I will list below: RGM-109_booster_smoke.trk RGM-84_booster_smoke.trk

All I can say with certainty is that this is reflected in real-life manuals. I'm unsure what the reason for that is. Speculating though, the RB 74 requires an Argon cooling system for its seeker head, the 24 is uncooled and the 24J uses a peltier-effect cooler, which only requires power. Maybe it's got something to do with that. Because the AJS 37 never carried it, nor is it a weapon the Swedish air force ever operated.

That isn't the case for me - Mk 20 on the Tomcat (and every other aircraft I've tested) only has the Mk 339 Mod 1 for the Mk 20, whereas the CBU-99 has both. Yes, it's a radar proximity fuse - it should function (dispense submunitions) at the height specified. Yes. How it works is that if nose is selected, the bomb should function after whatever time the PRI setting is set to (defaults to 1.2 seconds). If nose and tail is selected, the bomb should function after whatever time the OPT setting is set to (defaults to 4 seconds). If tail is selected, the bomb will dud. Note that in either the case, the actual time from release to the bomb dispensing countermeasures will be the arming delay + whatever function delay (PRI/OPT) is selected. As for the OP, I've noticed the AI drops the Mk 20/CBU-99 way long, with higher ingress speeds increasing the miss-distance.

Not in DCS at least - FMU-140 is only available for the CBU-99. The Mk 20 only has the Mk 339, which is a time-based fuse, with 2 settings.

Note that this table is incomplete and some of the guidance sections that currently work might not do so in the future (like all of the ones currently able to target the SA-13 - no guidance section should be able to target it) and conversely some of the guidance sections which don't currently work properly may do so in the future (for instance, the Mk 49s against the SA-6's fire-control radar (1S31 SNR), where the 1S91 (which mounts 1S11 and 1S31 radars) is listed as the radar these guidance sections should be able to target). I've posted a complete table listing applicable seekers and whether they work or not here, unless ED changes what frequency the respective radars operate at (which they may do for the SA-13 and the SA-6's acquisition radar), this should remain true long-term: Also note that the Mk 37 will only target the acquisition radar, not the fire-control radar (not that it matters in DCS - currently it's not possible to have the fire-control radar transmit and the acquisition radar remain silent, - IRL it's perfectly possible to have the acquisition radar off the air, acquire targets visually via the TV camera and only have the fire-control radar on the air immediately before missile launch).

Absolutely agreed. It would also include the North German Plain which was identified as a significant probable axis of advance in the event of the Cold War going hot (and includes ports as relevant targets), not to mention airbases in the North (such as Damgarten (773 IAP - we already have a MiG-21bis and a 9.12 MiG-29) and Wittmundhafen (JG 71 - we've got JG 71 liveries for the F-4E, we're getting an F-104G of some description)). EDIT: The current La Combattante IIa is depicted as a late FRG Type 148 Tiger, so depending on how much water we get, that vessel would be right at home (if only it could get MM38 Exocet Block 1). It may also enable carrier-based aviation and anti-shipping missions in general and we are getting a Luftwaffe Tornado with Kormoran (so right at home), not sure about Aerges F-104G, though it would be nice to depict Marineflieger units.

I mean, the Ka-50 has an option to move its HMD up and down. I assume this is to move it to your eye level which makes it easier to use with Track IR.

Well, I wouldn't say excuse, more defining the scope of their modules. While very narrow, I don't think going beyond it holds much water for ED, given that they have enough trouble as it is completing aircraft wholly within it, let alone going outside it. But sticking to that defined scope does fit the wider published goals of the game though. And yes, the game is necessarily going to be inaccurate and will make compromises - that's why that wider goal is realism where it's possible. Suffice to say, I don't see how the existence of inaccuracies or compromises mean it should be done away with (especially when the same logic applies the other way around to the converse). Getting back to the F-35 though, I hope they at least make an attempt to represent an IOC or post IOC aircraft. If that means the aircraft is somewhat of a frankenjet, because that's all they can do, so be it.

Hi everyone, A subsequent update has resulted in ships not firing their anti-ship missiles until their targets are detected by their own surface-search radars (which, ignoring atmospheric ducting (which isn't modelled in DCS), are limited to radar horizon, for most ships this is typically on the order of 20 nmi/~37 km, some ships are). Previously, attack unit/group would result in firings, so long as the target was within the weapon's maximum range. This means that ships with longer-ranged anti-ship weapons cannot take advantage of that longer range and put themselves within range of shorter weapons (which can include some gun systems). Sometimes ships will fire 1-2 missiles, but won't follow up until within detection range of their own surface-search radars, this is inconsistent however (possibly related to heavy timewarp usage). While the current set up is somewhat more realistic, ships don't have ESM systems modelled in DCS, the AI won't share targets they detect with each other (in the tracks below their are aircraft that can provide offboard targeting, both via ESM and/or surface-directed radar - targeting should be able to be provided via data link or voice), nor are satellite based targeting systems modelled (outside Given that ships do not feature ESM systems in DCS, the AI won't share targets they detect with each other (and in the tracks below there are aircraft capable of detecting ships at long-range, both via ESM and via surface-directed radars), nor are there any satellite-based targeting systems (such as Legenda), attack group was the only option available to take advantage of the long range of anti-ship missiles. Now there's no option whatsoever. 3M80_Range.trk P-500_Range.trk P-700_Range1.trk P-700_Range2.trk RGM-84D_Range.trk YJ-62_Range.trk YJ-83_Range.trk

Still an issue as of DCS 2.9.13.6818. This feature was mentioned in the newsletter following the patch that introduced this feature, but it has never worked. In the track below, I've removed all weapons from the Arleigh Burke's VLS, yet it still performs the land strike with RGM-109C and intercepts inbound AS-20s with RIM-156A. AI_DDG51_WeaponsQtyNotRespected.trk

I highly doubt it. Even a scope as narrow as "X variant at Y date, for Z operator" is still too large for ED to finish properly. We've already seen items that are perfectly accurate, even to that narrow scope, be either removed, forgotten about, or not planned for in the first place. Though I don't see any of the people complaining about narrow scopes complaining about that... The Hornet is easily the worst offender here - MSI, TAMMAC maps, CAS page, Nite Hawk, CEC functionality for the MITL weapons etc. But this is even the case where classification, research or technical viability is absolutely not a problem in any way shape or form. In fact, some not-planned for features are present on other modules by the same developer (the Apache gets reduced-load ATGMs, the Hind doesn't; the Hip gets PKT door gunners, the Hind doesn't). Then there's the whole stated goals of the game in the first place, this is supposed to be depicting aircraft accurately - I fail to see the issue when it gets closer to doing exactly that. With that said, I'm kind of of the opinion of Block 3F (at least) or go home. Personally, I'm not interested in pre-IOC aircraft, especially given the overall environment in DCS (which is poorly suited to the F-35 in the first place and having a pre-IOC aircraft would only solidify that sentiment for me).