Northstar98

If it is and the smoke thickness can be decreased and its transparency greatly increased, then that would be good start. I'll maintain that the most accurate depiction of smoke is either 0 or negligible for DCS, certainly not thick dense white stuff. This also won't work for anything that isn't a submarine, which includes every ship this effect applies to. While making it a choice sounds nice superficially, it doesn't make much sense - it's like getting to choose whether or not some missile produces smoke, or whether some aircraft engine produces smoke - DCS should be about depicting these accurately. Of course, ship smoke is more minor and I'm by no means expecting 1:1 recreations, but the current system is by and large a regression in accuracy to how it was previously. Vessels that nominally produce no or negligible smoke IRL now produce a significant amount of it and even for vessels that should be producing smoke, the current smoke is almost always not accurate at all. The edge cases where significant smoke (well water vapor) is visible are either things the smoke system doesn't account for (like dew point) or cold engines (i.e. just being started, though smoke can be seen at low throttle settings) which isn't applicable to DCS in the vast majority of cases (the AI doesn't support starting engines and coming off of piers to begin with, most missions likely have ships that are underway). I'll post some comparison photos below, I'm going to mostly try and have half of them depicting smoke - in most cases though (and I'll write in the description of each where there are exceptions), the vast majority of the time it's either 0/negligible smoke or if there is smoke, it won't look like DCS. Suffice to say that in just about every case, DCS was more accurate before this new smoke was implemented. One thing to keep in mind though is that in these comparisons, the smoke is often against the sky - the white smoke seen in DCS will blend somewhat with it, making it less visible. However, from the air (i.e. how they'll typically be seen in likely use cases in DCS), the smoke will be against the water where it's incredibly noticeable. Also to keep in mind is that many of these images are close up shots - if smoke is only just visible in these, imagine how less visible they'll be from further away. ARA Veinticinco de Mayo: This is a fairly old, oil-fired ship. Most photos I find of it show an even split between 0 smoke and thick-ish dark/black smoke. DCS is accurate to neither (though with a colour change and maybe a reduction in density it could get pretty close): BDK Pr. 775/I /II [Ropucha I LST] Diesel powered - you can find images where no smoke/only heat haze is visible, or with a small amount of dark smoke. Either way, DCS is accurate to neither, however, if the smoke was made thinner, darker and a lot less dense, it would be more accurate: Castle: This is another diesel-powered vessel. The majority of images online depict 0 to negligible amounts of smoke out of the ones that do, I've only found 1 where it's anything close to DCS and even then the real thing is far less dense. I only found a single image showing significant smoke, but it's dark smoke (and given how nearly every other image shows 0 to negligible smoke, I'll assume engines have recently started). This one was separately reported here (though unacknowledged). CV 59 Forrestal: Again, most images show 0 smoke and the ones that do show more transparent smoke (and it should also be more spread out - at the moment it's a very condensed, thick stream of smoke). Personally, I'd either leave the smoke off - it's what the majority of images depict or if smoke is insisted upon, make it far more transparent but increase its size. Handy Wind For this one, I couldn't find any images of it underway - but it's a diesel powered ship and maintained, modern, marine diesel engines are either going to be smokeless or will be producing very thin, dark-coloured smoke - the exceptions will only be low power settings or a short while after starting. Googling "cargo ship" or "bulk carrier" etc will return hundreds of images, almost all of them depict 0 smoke, especially when underway. Harbour Tug Not sure which exact tug has been modelled, but the overwhelming majority of harbour tugs are diesel powered. Googling "harbour tug" gives you hundreds of results and at least 99% of them show no visible smoke. Even in the images that do show visible smoke, the amount of smoke is tiny - I have my doubts it would even be perceptible if the camera was much further away. Contrast that to DCS which has it producing almost comical amounts of smoke. Invincible: This is a gas-turbine ship (COGAG) and most images online show 0 smoke. Even those that do show white smoke, don't show anything as thick as DCS: LHA 1 (Tarawa): Here I'm really struggling to find a single image with any clearly visible smoke. I've looked through hundreds now and have yet to find a single one where any smoke is clearly visible. TAVKR Pr. 1143.5 Admiral Kuznetsov (FC2/LOMAC) This one is probably going to be the main exception - you can find images depicting 0 smoke (though visible smoke is a lot more common), a significant amount of smoke, to a ridiculous amount of smoke. Though here, unlike pretty much the rest, 0 smoke is probably the exception. Unfortunately, due to the colour DCS, it's accurate to neither. However, if the current smoke was made the right colour and made larger, it would be absolutely fine. Weirdly though, the 2017 version (the supercarrier version), produces 0 smoke - so with this vessel in particular it's the other way around where a vessel that nominally appears to produce a significant amount of smoke IRL, produces no smoke in DCS. Type 12I (Leander)/Condell-class: Despite being oil-fired, these ships while underway also don't produce smoke. The closest I've found is one of Andromeda, but it's far less dense as it is in DCS. SS Atlantic Conveyor: This is a diesel-powered ship, underway 0 smoke can be seen. The closest image I find to DCS is the ship being moved by tugs (so engine is likely cold, low power settings or only recently started, ambient conditions may also be playing a role). Unfortunately, there aren't many photos clearly showing the vessel underway (though one that does shows 0 smoke): Supply Ship MV Tilde: This appears to be based on the real-life MV Asterix, which is a diesel-powered ship, with modern engines. The vast, overwhelming majority of images (particularly those showing the ship underway) show 0 visible smoke. The images that do show smoke show thin-ish dark smoke, which is more characteristic of diesels at low power settings. However, no image whatsoever depicts thick white smoke as seen in DCS: TT Seawise Giant: As with the Handy Wind, this is a diesel-powered ship. I only found 1 image where the smoke is close to DCS (though DCS isn't long enough), most show much more translucent smoke or no visible smoke (the latter being more commong in photos showing the ship underway): This is on top of the already reported La Combattante IIa, I won't duplicate this thread.

Exactly. And as for what's shown in one or two pictures, even there that's not true - because in the picture provided by f-18hornet the smoke isn't as dense and in the picture provided by Flappie the smoke is far less thick. So far the only examples I've found where the DCS smoke is accurate, is when it's being emitted from a smoke screening system - something a Kilo/Improved Kilo II obviously doesn't have. Then there's being told that this is too minor to be worth reporting, which seems somewhat ironic given that it was apparently worth the effort creating a new effect (that's if it wasn't just copied from the effect seen on smoke stacks on the Caucasus map), when it was significantly more accurate before, in the overwhelming majority of cases. It also seems somewhat hypocritical as accurate things have been omitted in the past for allegedly not being common enough, only for this effect to be given to ships where it's accurate basically nowhere and never, because even in real-life examples where thick white smoke is present, it still isn't as dense or as thick as what's seen in DCS. This is true not just of the Kilo and Improved Kilo, but of every unit that's been given this effect.

EA-6B Prowler ICAP II E-2C Hawkeye Group 0 SH-3H Sea King S-3A Viking EA-3B Skywarrior Preferably, in that order - then alongside Heatblur’s AI A-6E and KA-6D Intruders (if they ever materialise), the early F-14A-135-GR and FlyingIron’s A-7E Corsair II we’d have a complete air wing for the Forrestal’s (and fleshing out late Cold War USN aviation nicely). Beyond that: Tu-16 family (chiefly the Tu-16K-26P [Badger-G Mod], Tu-16K-10-26P [Badger-C Mod], Tu-16P Buket [Badger-J] and Tu-16RM-1 [Badger-D]), preferably in that order. These aircraft would do wonders for fleshing out Cold War - Soviet VMF aviation on the Kola map. Then to flesh out Cold War-era maps and aircraft carriers. Sea Harrier FRS.1 - HMS Invincible, South Atlantic Harrier GR.3 - South Atlantic, Germany A-4Q Skyhawk - ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, South Atlantic Super Étendard - South Atlantic F-4G Wild Weasel V - Germany, Iraq The Invincible and Veinticinco de Mayo are completely devoid of applicable aircraft, so getting at least one AI type for each would be fantastic. The Harrier GR.3 would work wonders on the Germany map (particularly if we get RAF Gütersloh) and would fit very well on the South Atlantic map. The Super Étendard on the South Atlantic map was one of (and if it weren’t for limited quantities of AM39) the primary threat facing the Royal Navy task force. The AM39 would also fit Iraqi Mirage F1EQ-5/6 aircraft (and Aerges already have an AM39 Exocet model). The F-4G would also be a great addition, though probably for Heatblur - making alterations to the F-4E model (hard wing, AN/APR-38/47 antennas, Heatblur already have an AGM-78 Standard ARM model)

Reproduced. If the M1126 ICV, M1134 ATGM or M1128 MGS is further than 300 m away, they are not engaged by the BTR-82A, despite being detected. If it's ≤300 m away then the BTR-82A does engage, but is seemingly incapable of causing any damage. If a player takes control however, you'll find you can destroy all 3 at up to the maximum engagement range of the APBC-T round (2000 m - though accuracy at that range makes that very challenging). At ranges ≤1000 m though it's fairly trivial for the player to destroy all 3. BTR-82A_M1126_300m.trk BTR-82A_M1128_300m.trk BTR-82A_M1134_300m.trk BTR-82A_M1126_350m.trk BTR-82A_M1128_350m.trk BTR-82A_M1134_350m.trk BTR-82A_M1126_350m_player.trk BTR-82A_M1128_350m_player.trk BTR-82A_M1134_350m_player.trk BTR-82A_M1126_2000m_player.trk BTR-82A_M1128_2000m_player.trk BTR-82A_M1134_2000m_player.trk

Yeah, that unfortunately still occurs. I'll make a seperate thread for that one though (unless one has been made already), as it is a seperate issue. EDIT: Allegedly, it's a known issue, not sure if I should post one seperately.

No problem Just be wary that behaviour can be somewhat inconsistent mission to mission (even within the same mission) and sometimes a particular way of setting it up works no problem and sometimes it doesn't. But keeping fairly simple set ups, grouping radars together and using one of the search then engage tasks seems to work the best.

The simple fact remains though is these are the exceptions - not the rule. And even so, the smoke in DCS is almost at least double the thickness of this. Again, it looks more like what you'd expect out of a smoke generator - something like this: Yes, diesels (and even GTs) can produce a significant amount of smoke, it's more commonly seen when they've just been started, or in cold conditions/at low power settings. The norm though (and what you see in a good >90% of images when searched) is smoke that's either barely visible, or no smoke at all. The same is true for the La Combattante IIa (though we've already been through that one), the Ropucha I, Tarawa, Leander/Condell (where I've yet to find a single image of either depicting anything like the same smoke as seen in DCS).

No problem, thanks for the clarification

Not sure what's going on here, as I'm unable to reproduce in my own missions However, there are a couple of things I'll mention: I ran into issues using attack unit/group with ARMs a few updates back, it seems that if the radar is not able to be engaged immediately upon activation of the task (for instance, if it isn't illuminating you) the AI will drop it. It's better then to use the SEAD task or the search then engage tasks, as the AI will constantly evaluate these and won't drop the task unless it reaches a stop condition (which you have to define yourself) or until it runs out of waypoints. This can be somewhat inconsistent though - I've seen identical missions sometimes work and sometimes not when testing this today. The EWRs you're trying to engage are 55G6s, these radars cannot be engaged by the HARM, as the HARM's minimum frequency is greater than the frequency they operate at (or put another way, their wavelength is above the maximum that can be received by the HARM). The limitation comes from the fact that, because the HARM's diameter is fairly small, the conical spiral antenna the HARM has isn't large enough to receive such long wavelengths. I've attached some tracks below showing AI SEAD/DEAD aircraft launching ARMs (to get the mission file, simply make a copy and change the extension to .miz instead of .trk). AGM-45A_S-125M_AttackGroup.trk AGM-45A_S-125M_SearchThenEngage.trk AGM-88_S-125M_AttackGroup.trk AGM-88_S-125M_SearchThenEngage.trk ALARM_S-125M_AttackGroup.trk ALARM_S-125M_SearchThenEngage.trk

This: Clearly doesn't look like this: And it especially doesn't look this: Let alone the countless other images where smoke is either not visible or barely visible. I appreciate it's minor, but if it's a waste of developer time, why was it created and changed in the first place, when it was significantly more accurate previously? And that goes not just for this, but nearly every single vessel that's been given this smoke - including the Ropucha I, La Combattante IIa, Tarawa, Kuznetsov etc?

Unless my eyeballs are deceiving me with the above images I posted - no it is not. Because even when it does, it's nothing like as thick as it is in DCS, which makes it look like a steam train. The previous implementation of having 0 smoke is far closer to reality in the vast, overwhelming majority of cases. The only time a diesel engine produces smoke as seen in DCS is when it's on a tank with an engine smoke system. Again, maritime diesel engines (though this also goes for gas turbines, but you can even find oil-fired ships where this is the case) producing clearly visible exhaust smoke is the exception (for instance when starting or otherwise in cold conditions), not the rule.

This is one of the only images depicting smoke on a surfaced Kilo under diesel propulsion, the overwhelming majority of images show negligible to 0 smoke. And generally diesel engines producing smoke are rare exceptions (seen when starting/when temperatures are cold etc), not the rule: Even this one that does show smoke shows nothing as dense as what's seen in DCS: The same is true for a wide variety of ships in DCS, including the Ropucha I, Invincible, the Leanders, Condells and Atlantic Conveyor, the Forrestal etc.

As an addendum to this, the newest model depicts the pylon on the right wing for LITENING/Sniper targeting pods. This was first operational in 2003 [1], [2], [3] meaning our B-52H is most likely a late 2003 aircraft, considering we also have Harpoon (albeit wrong variant and wrong quantity). This also means it would fit fairly nicely with many of ED's teen-series modules like the F-16, F/A-18C and in the future the F-15C and is perfect for Iraq War missions. This means that weapons of the conventional enhancement modification program (circa 1994-) are applicable and given that we have Harpoon, we also have a Harpoon Mod aircraft. We have the HSAB, so the CEM program applies. The AGM-142A Raptor/Have Nap and its associated AN/MSW-55 data link pod was the first on the list for the CEM program, from circa 1994. [4], [5], [6] The JDAM (GBU-31(V)1/B and (V)3/B) reached IOC on B-52H circa Dec 1998 [7] and WCMD reached IOC on the B-52H in 2000 [8], the AGM-158A JASSM also reached IOC in 2003 [9] meaning it is accurate as well. Therefore, the following weapons are accurate: AGM-84D-1 Harpoon Block IC (×8) - note we have 12 AGM-84A. TO 1B-52H-34-2-2 states that only 4 can be carried on each HSAB (3 occupying the forward-most stations and 1 on the rear-centre station). AGM-142A Raptor/Have Nap (×3) and its associated AN/MSW-55 data link pod. AGM-158A JASSM (×12 externally) AN/AAQ-28(V)1/2 LITENING II CBU-52 (27 internally + 18 externally on HSAB) CBU-58 (27 internally + 18 externally on HSAB) CBU-71 (27 internally + 18 externally on HSAB) CBU-87/B CEM (unsure on quantity) CBU-89/B GATOR (unsure on quantity) CBU-97/B SFW (unsure on quantity) CBU-103/B WCMD (16/18? externally on HSAB) CBU-104/B WCMD? (16/18? externally on HSAB) CBU-105/B WCMD (16/18? externally on HSAB) GBU-10x/B Paveway II (at least 8 externally on HSAB) GBU-12x/B Paveway II (12 externally on HSAB) GBU-31(V)1/B JDAM (12 externally on HSAB) GBU-31(V)3/B JDAM (12 externally on HSAB) M117 (×27 internally + 18 externally on HSAB) https://www.raf-fairford.co.uk/operation-iraqi-freedom/ https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/1103bombers/ https://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b52_17.html https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/04/mil-030415-rafael01.htm http://www.airvectors.net/avb52_3.html http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-142.html http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app5/jdam.html https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app5/wcmd.html https://investors.lockheedmartin.com/news-releases/news-release-details/lockheed-martins-jassm-certified-ready-operational-use-stealthy https://www.airandspaceforces.com/PDF/MagazineArchive/Magazine Documents/2003/May 2003/0503weapons.pdf

Hi everyone, In the changelog, the following is mentioned: However, post update the lights appear unchanged to how they appeared when the issue with them was first reported, in this now locked post: S-3B_ARS_lights2.trk

Hi everyone, The recent update has introduced some unexpected behaviour for the AI when performing a racetrack orbit. Unlike previously, where upon activation of the task the AI would fly directly to the next waypoint before making its 180° left turn, now, upon activation of the task, the AI immediately performs a 180° turn to the right, immediately followed by a 180° turn to the left. They will then fly to the next waypoint, make a correcting turn to the right and then commence the 180° left turn to begin the racetrack. Fortunately, subsequent "laps" of the racetrack are perfectly excuted - completely as expected and the AI no longer needs to make corrections upon finishing a turn, which is fantastic to see. However, the initial behaviour upon activation is undesirable, especially for practice missions with tankers and receivers that start from the air. There’s no reason for the initial right, followed by left turn, all it does is displace the aircraft laterally from the intended course line and it's only something the AI later corrects when reaching the first turn. Instead, what should happen is that the AI should proceed to the next waypoint as it did before, perform its 180° turn, fly the reciprocal course until it reaches the start point, do another 180° turn and so on, as it does for subsequent laps. Orbit_2.9.12.5336.trk

Make that 2018 for the Intruder

So long as the road network is accurate (and accurately depicted) I don't see why not - even if they aren't configured as airbases (like Kola for instance) - we already have invisible FARPs, it's fairly trivial to set them up. The only problem is the AI though as they need dedicated aerodromes.

Definitely very excited for this one and yes, we definitely could do with its own subforum. One thing I will say (and something I'll no doubt be repeating) is please include empty SAM and EWR sites - if they can be something akin to this, then that would be basically perfect, but even a generic layout of each type placed correctly would suffice (which was sort-of-ish done with Syria, but only with the SA-2, and only in some locations and even then the generic site wasn't that accurate). I've attached 2 .kmz files from SAM Site Overview.kmz by Sean O'Connor, showing the positions of SAM and EWR sites in the FRG and DDR (though this doesn't include British Bloodhound and Rapier sites, though as I understand it, the former was usually stationed somewhere on or adjacent to some of the RAF airbases). Many sites are still extant with their layouts clearly visible in present-day imagery, but even examples that aren't usually are in historical imagery (the main exception being Nike Hercules IFC sites). Just for some examples: DDR.kmz FRG.kmz

What about air defence assets? Currently, the latest long(-ish) range REDFOR SAM system is the S-300PS from the 1980s (basically the same vintage as the MiG-29 in development), for BLUFOR the latest is Patriot PAC-2 from the early 1990s. Could we expect to see an SA-17, SA-20 or SA-21? These are systems the F-35 was designed to defeat.

Sorry for the OT post, but would you consider doing the same for the S-3B? It's a bit different as we have 2 versions and technically speaking, only some weapons belong on one of the versions (and that version can only be used as a tanker), but for the rest of it all but one of the weapons already exist in DCS.

@DSplayer @Default774 Well this is confusing - if it were a C-5 all along, why the change of name from AIM-120C-5 to AIM-120C in the loadout list?

Hi everyone, The AZP S-60, S-68 (as used on the ZSU-57-2) and AK-725 have some issues with their muzzle flashes; sometimes they won't produce a visible flash and even when they do, the muzzle flash pales in comparison to what's seen in real-life footage. This, combined with the lack of gun smoke, results in firings that are far harder to spot visually than perhaps they should be. The S-68 and AK-725 are both derivatives of the S-60 and all fire common ammunition. It should be said that the AK-725's flash is different to that of the -60 or -68, due to the absence of a muzzle brake. S-60: S-68: AK-725: AZP_S-60_muzzleflash.trk S-68_muzzleflash.trk AK-725_muzzleflash.trk

Well, there is a level of absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the SA-N-4 (essentially a navalised SA-8, but using the exact same missiles) does have limited capability against cruise missiles. If it's able to detect and acquire cruise missiles within the engagement zone of the missile, I can't see why it shouldn't be able to engage them, especially with low line-of-sight rates. If we can source some figures on expected detection distances against whatever RCS target, we should be able to determine when it might be able to detect a cruise missile. However, this'll probably depend on the operators, optical tracking is completely manual and as for the radar, acquisition is done via a fairly manual process. Not quite, because the majority long-range SAMs are all PVO systems, whereas the SA-8 is a PVO-SV system which falls under the ground forces (army), so it would've been protecting mobile systems like the SA-4, -6 and -11. The only "long-range" PVO-SV systems were/are the SA-11 and 12.

For the AGM-158 - that's the JASSM, which doesn't exist in any version in DCS (and the AGM-158C is the LRASM). Is that referring to the JSOW (where the B-1B does have access to the C, but not the A).

Now that the higher quality models have been released, I wanted to bump this. Excluding an ED AAQ-25 (though is externally identical to the AN/AAQ-14 ED are supposed to be developing for the F-16), the missing stores that DCS support are all already present in-game, for both variants. While some weapons technically only apply to the tanker version, ED could, as a stop-gap, either enable weapons that only came with the 2002 Maverick Plus upgrade (even though the regular S-3B is no later than 1998) or make a new unit by duplicating the S-3B tanker model, remove the air refuelling store and the permanently equipped drop tank and give the weapons to that. Then when buddy stores are properly supported (i.e. as a loadout option) the S-3B tanker can be deprecated and then both S-3Bs can receive the buddy store.