Northstar98

This image is of the Forrestal which doesn't have the supercarrier's deck crew system. The only ships that have that deck crew are CVNs 71-73 and CVN 75 of the supercarrier module. The only deck crew available on other ships are static (and have to be populated manually).

Hi everyone, While there's a couple of threads already about Harpoon launch issues, these pertain to ships that shouldn't be firing Harpoon in the first place and don't have launchers for Harpoon. However, the same doesn't apply to FFG 7s and their Mk 13 Mod 4 GMLS, which should be perfectly capable of launching Harpoon. Unfortunately, it seems that sometimes Harpoon will explode almost immediately upon launch, doing significant damage to the ship and destroying the launcher. Unfortunately, I can't quite see what's going on - there's a miniature SM-1 floating on the launcher, that remains present after the launcher is destroyed, perhaps the missile is colliding into that? The only clipping I can see is of the folding wings and fins. OHP_RGM-84_LaunchBug_SlowMo_Ahead.trk OHP_RGM-84_LaunchBug_SlowMo_Rear.trk OHP_RGM-84_LaunchBug.trk

Yep - definite +1

Well, by FF modules, just the F-16 and F/A-18 (and no idea what they do under the hood, not sure if they affect radars of other modules or just the AI). Absolutely everything else uses what you describe as FC-level jamming. But this requires evidence.

This up to ED to sort out. HOJ works best against noise jammers and shouldn't really work at all against DECM (the kind designed to break tracks, which is the most common type found in our fighters). These systems should generally automatically stop transmitting when a threat isn't detected (like you see in say, the F/A-18) meaning that it's only transmitting when a missile is capable of being guided via radar anyway and when the track is broken, the DECM system stops transmitting, giving a HOJ system nothing to home in on (though of course, this allows radars to reacquire and for the process to begin again). Until EW in DCS isn't just basic noise jammers, that only seem to magically affect the mainlobe of radars, missile vs ECM performance may as well be a moot point.

Cheers Flappie! It's a small thing, but hopefully also a small thing to correct.

Hi everyone, In the most recent newsletter, all of the Mogami's turrets appear to feature rangefinders - IRL, these were only present on the No. 3 and 4 turrets (though the No. 4 and 5 turrets were deleted upon conversion to an aviation cruiser, which I believe is the fit DCS is depicting - it is accurate for 1944). These blueprints are of Suyuza, but depicts pre-1943 AA conversion. The configuration forward of the stern (and the 3 forward turrets) should be identical to Mogami. Source

Yeah - looks really good (though those forward 2 turrets shouldn't have rangefinders):

Cheers Flappie, could I make a similar request for the S-3B? It's a bit odd given that we have 2 versions and some weapons should technically only apply to the tanker version (IRL both should be capable of tanking, but we don't have buddy stores - it's a bit awkward), however nearly all of the stores that DCS supports are already present. See this post for details:

Yep +1 This, alongside the older-style green ablative coating is all that's needed to complete the colour schemes for USAF/USN bombs, and apart from a few cases (such as the Mk 81) those already exist: It's only the Mk 81 and GBU-24B/B that doesn't have the old-style olive ablative coating available (the Mk 81 only has AF-appropriate textures).

Nope - only MT fuses. Nor does any naval gun (when nearly all the current ones should). The 5"/38 on the Samuel Chase also only has an MT fused round.

As it's now been announced that we can expect to see a Fletcher DD, Iowa BB and Cleveland CL as PTO assets, I wanted to bump this request. Ordnance Pamplet 1164 (circa 1947) has pretty much all the information required, navweaps.org includes ballistic tables (see here for the 5"/38 Mark 12, see here for the 6"/47 Mark 16). The 5"/38 Mark 12 has a whole load of different A.A. Common rounds with either mechanical time (MT) or proximity (VT) fused rounds, many can be found under 5-inch projectiles, MT fuses can be found beginning here and VT fuses beginning here. Typical characteristics of 5-inch VT fuses are a minimum range of about 600 - 1000 yds and a function distance of ~60-80 ft against aircraft. Over water, fuses without wave-suppression will function between 75 - 130 ft, with wave-suppression 10 - 50 ft. The 6"/47 Mark 16 gun is a bit easier to pin down: H.C. Mark 39: Mk 18 Mod 2/3/4 / Mk 50 / Mk 63 Mod 0 MT Mk 47 Mod 0 VT (min. range 800 yd, max. function distance ~80 ft against aircraft, ~10-30 ft above water)

Really pleased with what I've read in this newsletter. It seems that finally, for the first time ever it seems, we're getting a theatre with a coherent and comprehensive set of modules (though lacking IJN) and assets, on an appropriate map. The assets themselves look incredible and if we actually get everything stated here, then I'd say it would be worth the money, provided we also get functionality that is currently missing. The other thing that currently still seems to be missing are the guns for the Enterprise. The great thing about doing it this way is that it provides maximum flexibility over what we've had previously - before our asset, module and map selection only allowed for completely fictional scenarios and made it impossible to make anything historical (even alternate history with a historical-ish Order Of Battle was pretty much off the table). This allows us to not only do the former, but also the latter.

Some more juicy shots from today's newsletter:

Interesting - I retract my previous statement.

Isn't the L already from the mid-to-late 70s and so is already the proper missile for early 80s stuff? I mean the early F-14A is still a -135 from the mid 80s. The F-14A-95 will be Iranian though, so there the AIM-9J and AIM-7E-2 would be cool. Of course the Tomcat could still use the AIM-9D, G and H, though not sure how applicable they'd be to 80s Tomcat missions (the H is from the early-mid 70s). They'd probably be more appropriate for the F-8 Crusader or Naval F-4 Phantom variant.

It looks like it has been, though a couple of days ago I could've sworn I saw some red + green light funny business going on, but I've since been unable to reproduce. Apart from that (though I may have been seeing things it looks like, or perhaps I've properly lost my marbles), I'd say this is fixed.

Yeah agreed - the SA assets currently has 2 aircraft carriers but the game has exactly 0 aircraft that fit on them. HMS Invincible (of which we have the initial fit, accurate for the 1980-1982 timeframe): Sea Harrier FRS.1 Sea King HAS.5 ARA Veinticinco de Mayo: A-4Q Skyhawk (a derivative of the A-4Q) Super Etendard (there are at least photos of them being operated from the Veinticinco de Mayo) S-2E Tracker S-61D-4 Sea King Though (echoing what bfr said) in that case the Sea Harrier FRS.1 is a far better fit than the FA.2 (which only entered service in the early-to-mid 1990s). I'd say on balance the FRS.1 better fits DCS overall, it's the relevant Cold War variant that saw action on a (albeit anachronistic) map where its most famous for (along with a carrier it fits perfectly on).

I would love to have more variants, but I'm personally thinking more along the lines of: F-16A Block 10/15 - best-fit counterpart for the 9.12A MiG-29 ED are doing F-15A (or at least, a mid 80s to early 1990s F-15C) - fits CW Germany and Gulf War missions. Mi-24V - bit more iconic than the P, but shares quite a lot in common with it, hypothetically less work than a Mi-35P Phoenix (presumably that's what OP is referring to) UH-60A/L - closest contemporary to Mi-8MTV2, would fit Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan and most of our aircraft. We already have an AI A so a module would kill 2 birds with 1 stone (both adding a contemporary module and upgrading the graphics of the current A). CH-47C/D - more historically relevant than the CH-47F, fits more of our aircraft and maps, more operators, fits a wider timeframe (obviously depending on what equipment is present). F-4J/S is probably coming by Heatblur further down the line, the main Phantom version that's missing for me personally (and one we'll have 2 maps for) is the F-4M Phantom FGR.2. Speaking of Heatblur, they've got an AI A-6E coming soon, they did have an AI KA-6D planned (I hope it still is) an AI EA-6B Prowler (preferably ICAP II) would complete the set.

The above method by muniman69 does exactly that, the from start checkbox for the embarking task is a fairly recent addition and allows you to have infantry already embarked at mission start.

Yeah, and the picture I posted above is from a ROC aircraft.

Yeah would love a reworked radar - compared to the F-4E (which is raycasted, features probabilistic detection, accounts for the actual antenna radiation pattern, is capable of locking clutter be it from the main or sidelobes, as well as a display that's far more realistic to the real thing) it's a night and day difference in fidelity and the difference is incredibly jarring.

Would probably need a new display though (I've yet to find an image which has the AGM-65 position and accompanying indicator lights (looks like they're present on all 4 underwing stations)) which has a scope similar to ours:

This to me would be the ideal solution, especially if it could be filtered independently from aerodromes with runways.

Thank you - I appreciate it Just to reiterate though, I've gone out of my way to find examples of clear visible smoke - nevertheless in most of them (which can be an overwhelming majority) such as the Castle, Forrestal, Leander/Condell, Invincible etc no/negligible smoke is seen - for those (especially Tarawa, the Leanders (Achilles, Andromeda and Ariadne), the Condells (Almirante Condell and Lynch) turning the smoke off entirely would be, by far, the most accurate depiction. The other thing is here, most examples I've found are photos taken from low level, with the smoke against the sky - as the DCS smoke is white, it tends to blend in. However, for most of our use case, we'll be higher up and the smoke will be against the water, where it's far more visible. Cheers!