Northstar98

Looks like this is still an issue as of 2.9.8.1107 The AIM-7E-2 uses the AIM-7E model Both the AIM-7E and AIM-7E-2 transform into an AIM-7M when launched (as far as artwork goes). Both these issues can be fixed with small edits to Weapons.lua found in CoreMods\aircraft\F-4E\Entry: To fix issue #1, change "HB_F-4E_AIM7E" to "HB_F-4E_EXT_AIM-7E2" on line 575. To fix issue #2, change "aim-7" to "HB_F-4E_AIM7E" on line 324 and to "HB_F-4E_EXT_AIM-7E2" on line 524. I've attached a modified Weapons.lua file that fixes both issues (tested with both player and AI aircraft), this will however break IC so be sure to back up your original. F-4E_AIM-7E_model.trk F-4E_AIM-7E-2_model.trk Weapons.lua

Doesn't take away from your overall point, but shouldn't they display as an S, like other search radars? Ditto for the SA-10 S-300 "Tin Shield" - i.e. the exact same radar but on a 40V6M mast. Especially when, IRL, no version of the Tin Shield is associated with any version of the SA-5 - it's first a general-purpose EWR (which is what you'll mostly see it used as IRL) and second an alternate acquisition radar for the SA-10 (or at least some versions of it), with the primary acquisition radar being the Big Bird.

Yeah, out of all the Pave Tack footage you can find online, it's easily the funniest

New digital inertial navigation and attack system (storing 99 waypoints) (AN/ARN-101) CCIP capability, with both immediate and delayed release, using the exact same gunsight we have now. AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack (first generation FLIR pod, a bit fancier than Pave Spike but not by a whole lot) - here's a video. TISEO - practically the same as TCS on the Tomcat - here's a video. GBU-15 - you can kind of think of this as more of a USAF Walleye II ERDL. It has Mk 84 and BLU-109 warheads available but I couldn't see BLU-109 versions listed in a 1990 -1. The DMAS Phantom can also equip the AN/AXQ-14, which supports man-in-the-loop guidance via data link and lock-on after launch capability. It also supports cooperative engagement capability, but that's probably something for ED to do, as their current aircraft don't support it, even though they should. LORAN navigation.

Hmm, I've had a play around with it - I can't see anything wrong with how you've set the tasking up. I was able to get success with the A-10C as an AFAC in my own mission (if you change the file extension to .miz from .trk you'll get the mission file), just using the FAC - Engage Group task, under "Start Enroute Task". The MQ-1A and MQ-9 pretty much always seem to give "No Mark", even though LOS should exist, they should be in-range and the laser shouldn't be masked by anything. I was able to briefly get a "marked by laser" message from the MQ-1, but I haven't been successful in replicating this. Personally, it looks like that there might be an issue with how the MQ-1 and 9s designator is defined - an identical tasking yields expected results with other units and as said above, the targets should be in-range, LOS to them should exist and the designator isn’t otherwise masked by anything. HMMWV_FAC_Mark.trk MQ-9_AFAC_NoMark.trk A-10C_AFAC_NoMark.trk MQ-1A_AFAC_NoMark.trk

If you go into your Saved Games\DCS\Missions you should be able to find your .miz file - to attach it, you simply drag and drop the file into the box that appears below where you enter text.

No to the former and yes to the latter, though that comes with some asterisks. The AI can use GBU-8, but for some reason only if the aircraft is equipped with Pave Spike. This shouldn't be the case, the GBU-8 is TV guided, not laser guided. It's also fire and forget and target acquisition has to be done via the GBU-8. The AI can independently guide multiple Bullpups simultaneously. I've no idea how it does this - it certainly isn't something players can do. If a player fires multiple Bullpups they all receive the same steering commands, it isn't possible to guide them independently. I wanted to test this with the AJS 37 to see if it was a general AI problem with regard to MCLOS missiles, but the AI doesn't want to use the RB 05As for some reason, for players though, only the last missile fired receives guidance. I'd recommend against using the Paveway III at low level for the time being, due to this bug, which causes them to drop too late, often leading to the bomb sailing over the target.

Something else for the to-do list (albeit minor) - the AA1 panel for the AN/APX-76 interrogator currently isn't present (blanked off). Of course, without wider IFF functionality (though RAZBAM have implemented a system that does everything required for their aircraft, which Aerges' F1 also uses) I'm not expecting functionality, but the equivalent for the F-4E (which is similarly non-functional outside of LotATC) - the AN/APX-80 (which includes the AN/APX-76), exists. The panel is rather simple and is described in HB's own manual. There have been mentions of it being planned but low priority on Discord.

Added San Carlos (not to be confused with Port San Carlos).

+1 But there isn't a P-15 missile in game - there is a missile derived from the P-15 - the HY-2 [CSSC-3 Seersucker] (though the 4K51 actually fires the P-20/P-22 [SSC-3 Styx] missile). But the HY-2 is a different missile to the P-15 and the P-20 (though it's roughly the equivalent of the P-15M, which is what the P-20 is based off of). While the in-game infobar refers to this missile as the SS-N-2 Styx (i.e. the NATO designation and reporting name for the P-15), this is incorrect - the actual designation and reporting name for the missile we have is the CSSC-3 Seersucker. According to some sources (see appendix C of this (page 113 of the reader) for the HY-2 and here for SSC-3 Styx), the 2 missiles have a similar maximum range of approximately 40-50 nautical miles. The HY-2 missile AFAIK is lengthened (though it's sometimes difficult to tell in photos) and some sources give the HY-2's range as 110 nautical miles, which is over double that of the P-20/P-22. There are other physical differences as well, not only is the HY-2 longer, but it also doesn't have folding wings (meaning it wouldn't fit into the launchers of the 3P51 TEL/TELAR), the missile also has a fairly prominent raceway (at least I think it's a raceway) on the bottom of the missile, which the P-20/22 missile doesn't have. The P-20/22 (as well as other versions of the P-15/-15M) instead has 2 smaller raceways on either side of the missile (it can be clearly seen in the photograph below, here's a better image, showing the same configuration). I'm not sure entirely, but I think we might have the HY-2G missile (owing to the low sea-skimming, terminal phase altitude - but I'm not sure what the terminal phase altitude of non-G variant missiles are, so barge of salt at the ready). P-22 (presumably) missile: HY-2 missile: (Note the single ventral raceway) For the Kola map, the 4K44 Redut system would be more appropriate, as that's what was actually used there. It would however require the side-sided version of the Binom [Scoop Pair] radar for missile tracking (and possibly target acquisition - though you can find trailer-mounted MR-10/Mys radars (similar to the Mys-M1E we already have) on the Stredny peninsula (check the photos here).

Yes - would absolutely love to see all of the above. More infantry (there's plenty of countries that don't have anything and even the countries that do have infantry aren't anything like comprehensive). It would be great if we could change the loadout of infantry, even just the primary weapon. We only have one man-portable anti-tank system on quite an outdated asset. There are no western MANPATS at all, nor are there any tripod mounted anti-tank systems (only vehicle mounted). We only have 2 MANPADS (considering the Igla and Igla-S currently fire the same missile), there are plenty of Cold War MANPADs missing (namely the 9K32M Strela-2M [SA-7B Grail]) For civilians, personally it would be better if they were their own separate coalition/side, though we can make do with the current neutral one (just so long as there are no other neutral units). We are lacking a side that's hostile to both red and blue though. But yes, I'd definitely appreciate civilian units and not just land units, but aircraft and ships (though they should be a distinct second to military assets). As for entrenchments, I would love to see it, but I have a hunch it'll probably require imporvements to the terrain engine to facilitate it, a certain tank game recently implemented them and even better they were made procedural.

HB have spoken about implementing it, but it's up to ED to do the missile. This shouldn't be too difficult, provided specifications on the rocket motor (Aerojet Mk 78) are available. It's also the same rocket motor that the AGM-123 Skipper II has (which will be relevant to the A-6E). It's identical to the A, but with a superior rocket motor and a modified warhead. The real -1 for USAF series F-4Es (both 1979 and 1984 revised 1990) manuals list both versions in the stores limitation diagram. From ben_der: source source source

Again, I'm afraid making these kind of mods for DCS is outside my sphere and my knowledge of 3D modelling/animations is marginal. I do know that the model files in question are already set up with animations, they just need controlling. I would recommend asking for assistance here, as I really am the wrong person to ask. Ideally though, these would be added by ED - it should be relatively trivial for them.

As razo+r said - currently, the AI is not capable of accommodating multiple refueling types per unit - it's either one or the other. So this means that the regular KC-135RT only supports the boom and the MPRS only supports probe-and-drogue. It's not the only aerial refueling limitation either - buddy stores also aren't supported, meaning that any aircraft with them will need to have a dedicated tanker "unit" to use them.

To me this looks like a minimum range problem - it's being employed outside of its envelope for the profile it has. The missile first performs a lofted trajectory, then assumes level cruise flight and then descends for the terminal phase upon acquiring the target. Because the target is close you're not allowing the missile to transition between the phases - it's being forced to perform an aggressive dive before it can even finish the initial lofted trajectory. Simply increasing the target distance to 5 nmi has the missile hitting the target 4/4 times, though ideally, it should be even further away to allow the missile to assume its level cruise flight and terminal phase (and the HY-2 has a maximum range on the order of 50 nautical miles). Now, it might be that the Seersucker (which, FWIW, is what the HY-2 missile's NATO reporting name actually is) has a mode that results in a shallow trajectory, meaning it doesn't have to perform such an aggressive dive to hit a close target, but right now only one profile is available. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of real launch footage, but so far, the initial loft seems correct as-is (though obviously I can't determine altitude accurately from just video). HY-2_10nmi.trk HY-2_5nmi.trk

Fair enough, I do agree. I'd probably agree with you most of the time. Most don't seem to care about the incosnistencies or incoherency much at all. The problem here though is that the lack of an appropriate acquisition radar significantly neuters the S-200M's range and means it's incapable of covering the same area that the real system should, essentially serving as a somewhat of a "nerf" (and we already have a way of setting maximum engagement ranges so if players wanted to "nerf" the S-200, they still could). I'm going to go off-topic here but this is more of the same coherency problem that DCS has had since its inception. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much (if any) thought towards it, so we'll likely continue to see similar things. With the SM-6, while its true that the latest carrier capable aircraft we have is from the early (though it used to be mid before ED changed it) 2000s, the configuration of CVNs 71-75 of the supercarrier ranges between 2008 - 2017 at the absolute earliest, except there's incoherency there because it's firing a Sea Sparrow variant from the early-ish 1980s) The Arleigh Burke includes a liveries for ships that comprise of 3 different variants and 2 of those variants are new enough for SM-6 to be accurate (being from 2017 at the earliest). Ideally they'd split these variants up because if depicted in their earliest configuration they have different capabilities. The Ticonderogas we have range from 2006 to 2012/2013 for the configuration they're in, so RIM-162A ESSM Block I and RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV is also accurate (along with the RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Block IIIB, which would also apply to the Arleigh Burke). See the spoiler below for the earliest entry date for the configuration depicted in DCS. Here though, the S-300V or V1 would be coherent with other eastern air defences (we do have ground based air defences introduced around the same timeframe) and assets.

I don't doubt it. But have you considered that one of the reasons for this is because the ATC is so useless? I'm certainly disuaded from making missions with busy airbases due to the state of the system, be it single player or multiplayer (though at least with the latter players can coordinate with each other). So I'd caution against this as a reason, because useless ATC could very well be one of the reasons why you don't see this done. It can also set up a bit of a loop where you have awful ATC, so nobody wants to make missions where it's relevant/important, so you don't see any missions where it's relevant/important, which leads people to see ATC as unimportant, which results in the awful ATC remaining awful, so nobody wants to make missions where it's relevant... So on and so on. Just following ATC instructions in and of itself is a minor point - at least for me. I follow ATC instructions because there's an actual tangible benefit to doing so and there are consequences for not doing so. The main thing is more the management of aircraft both on the ground and in the air, so as to facilitate busy airbases, as would maybe be expected in a more real-life operation. In missions with lots of AI aircraft (which is practically the default in single player campaigns in the other sim), I'd argue it's downright essential and short of deploying workarounds to bypass it entirely (like starting in the air and despawning aircraft before they land), its absence can be mission-breaking. Especially if persistency is involved. I also like my airbases to feel more alive - I get that when the AI are interacting with the ATC and actually obeying their instructions, I don't get that with the current system when there's no interaction between them at all and especially when I have to work around the AI's idiocy and the ATC's uselessness. See? Wouldn't it be better if you didn't have to do that? And the ATC system instead properly interacted and coordinated aircraft on the ground so that they wouldn't foul up taxiways?

I mean, right now that's the only thing it's really useful for. That and for getting one vector if you somehow manage to get lost. What would be the point of it then? This is something you can already do with fairly simple triggers. Have you ever played that other F-16 (and now also F-15C)-orientated sim? That one has an ATC system that is leaps and bounds ahead of DCS. It's incredibly important when you have busy airbases, with lots of aircraft. At the moment the current ATC makes no attempt to manage anything, be it in the air or on the ground, which can lead to what I'd describe as utter carnage with lots of AI flights. It drastically takes away from the experience and causes more problems than it solves. But the other, non-money rich, non-WW2 combat flight simulator has one that's probably as close to perfect as you can get in any consumer flight simulator (at least). You seem to be only thinking about this from the perspective of your aircraft in a vacuum. If it's just you, alone, operating around an empty airfield, then yes, I can see how it's less useful - you're largely just clicking through a series of triggered menus. However, when you have busy airbases with lots of AI flights, then it becomes very important - a lack of a proper ATC system (which is not simply just triggered radio callouts like the one we have for the supercarrier) can absolute destroy missions with lots of AI aircraft. For instance, with the current system, as I've described above makes absolutely no attempt to manage the airspace around an airbase - it simply sticks all of the arriving aircraft into the same orbit at the same altitude, which leads to the kind of carnage I've described here. This would absolutely break any kind of persistent mission (i.e. one that tracks things like aircraft inventory and losses) as soon as the scope is sufficiently high (which might just mean - realistically replicates the number of assets in a real operation). It also doesn't properly manage aircraft on the ground either - it won't manage the traffic on the taxiways, it makes no attempt to try and get aircraft off at the appropriate time (you can't even set it - and what I've described here would be useful for the mission editor in general (because the time calculations it gives you doesn't account for takeoff time)). I've had missions where I'm the only arriving aircraft at an airbase but there's a conga line of AI aircraft taxiing to depart. Even though the ATC system had cleared me to land, the AI aircraft didn't care and made incursion after incursion onto the runway to takeoff, forcing me to do go-around after go-around while down on fuel. Eventually I just thre my hand up and said "sod it" and managed to land, narrowly avoiding an aircraft taking off. If I was in the other sim however, with an ATC system that's superior to an almost indescribable degree, it would be telling AI aircraft on the runway to expedite and hurry up out of the way and would be telling taxiing aircraft to hold short - in both cases the AI would respond and obey their instructions - this not only makes the airbase feel more alive, but gives me a much more worthwhile and less frustrating experience - I don't have to try find ways to work around the AI's stupidity like I do in DCS. That above, makes me want to avoid using AI aircraft almost entirely around airbases and instead make use of air starts and group deactivate. I'm not sure it's possible to see this as anything other than a bad thing. It makes for an unimmersive experience that feels much more dead than it could be. Having experienced something where this isn't the case makes the problems all the more present in DCS. There's also other things as well: The different services (ground, approach, tower etc) aren't separated by frequency when they should be (where applicable). With busy airports, this leads to comms getting clogged up and here it's a good thing that the AI don't interact with ATC, even if it makes SP airfields feel dead. There's no ATIS, which would be important if we ever get weather that changes with time. ATC doesn't support parallel runways. ATC doesn't provide taxi instructions. ATC only supports straight-in approaches, it doesn't support PAR approaches, it doesn't support overhead breaks (and will tell you "go around, runway occupied" even when the airfield is empty - this doesn't exactly help the immersion). The english language ATC only has one voice actor, which doesn't help the immersion either. Many aerodromes don't have their name voiced, again, this doesn't help the immersion. ATC and the AI don't support section takeoffs (not unless they're starting from the runway), which increases the interval between departing aircraft, making takeoff operations take longer than they need to). The ATC doesn't support contigencies or emergencies - there's no way for the ATC to prioritise landing aircraft. As for the immersion, having AI aircraft that don't interact with the ATC system at all is definitely not immersive, again, it makes aerodromes feel dead. And as cfrag pointed out below this also aids situational awareness. I could probably go on and on and on about this, but the TL;DR of it all, is give that other sim's ATC system a try and then try and replicate one of its missions in DCS - you'll probably quickly see why it's important. Because, unless you're doing missions where it's just you or have a very small number of aircraft you can quickly run into problems which are at best unrealistic/unimmersive and at worst frustrating and mission-breaking.

I mean, ideally this would be a complete overhaul for all communications with AI entities in-game. There's certainly plenty of good arguments for one or the other. Personally, I'd lean towards ATC as that's something more relevant to my personal use case. Right now, I consider the in-built ATC to be lacking to the point of not being worth using - that's with a single player aircraft, it gets far worse if you have AI flights landing at around the same time - not only will ATC and AI aircraft not interact with each other at all, the ATC system makes no attempt to manage the airspace around aerdromes - with a suitably large enough number of aircraft & aircraft types, this leads to complete chaos as all the aircraft trace out the same exact circle, over the same location, at the same altitudes, but fly at different speeds (depending on type) with no concept of spacing - with predictable results.

Okay, I've definitely had success with the Mk 37 and the P-19. The Low Blow though might be having from issues highlighted in this thread, where it seems Shrikes will only guide against fire-control radars (so far highlighted with the AN/MPQ-46 and SNR-75V, though the SNR-125M likely has the same issue). If you post a track, we should be able to determine what's going wrong.

Yeah I'd say that's fair and yes - the disparity between having an improved system (i.e. the supercarrier - though even that still has omissions) and other agencies (be they friendly AI flights, ATC etc) is pretty jarring and so they should ideally be improved as part of a complete communications overhaul. And yeah, being a game where the main thing is combat aviation, maybe there should be higher priority given to functions directly related to combat (though ATC is still completely necessary to have, as you said).

It's still incorrect behaviour though. I mean, every guidance section tracking the SNR-75V is "how it is in DCS" - it's still incorrect behaviour. That's what's present under beamWidth at least. See line 17 for the AN/MPQ-46 and SNR-75V. It might be just for RWRs (I assume to approximate sidelobes, as 90° is far larger than the mainlobe beamwidth of fire-control radars). But it doesn't make sense that only the Shrike should only track on the mainlobe, especially at the distances it's fired at. Of course, this depends on the radiation pattern (and transmitted power), as well as the sensitivity of the Shrike's seeker and the signal-to-noise ratio.

But this is ignoring the fact that radars don't just radiate energy in one narrow area - they have sidelobes. I'm not sure what the mainlobe beamwidth should be for the AN/MPQ-46 IHIPIR (though I assume it's quite narrow). Both the AN/MPQ-46 and the SNR-75V in DCS are defined with a beamwidth of 1.5707963267949 radians (i.e. 90°). For the SNR-75, the beamwidth is dependent on what mode the radar is in: In wide, the area the radar illuminates is 2 overlapping rectangles in a + shape (one landscape to scan azimuth and one portrait to scan elevation, each rectangle covers 20×7°) In narrow, again, + shaped, but this time the scans cover 7.5×1.7° horizontally and vertically. In LORO (lobe on receive only) the illuminated area drops to a 1.7°-wide pencil beam. In should be stated that DCS doesn't account for the different modes and that IRL, only the wide mode and LORO mode are applicable to guiding missiles (while guidance can be performed in narrow, the returns from the target and missile are received by different antenna pairs - the boresights of the 2 antenna pairs aren't necessarily perfectly aligned with each other, which may result in a miss. In wide and LORO, the target and missile are both received by the wide-beam antennas).

The Arleigh Burke, Moskva, Oliver Hazard Perry and Ticonderoga all have animations to lower/raise the netting around their flight decks (they even have animated hangar doors too). It's been a long time since I checked, but have you tried contacting inbound on ATC on approach to these ships?

Completely overlooked that one One thing I've noticed from the tables above is that a few of the radars that are seemingly targetable by every guidance section are those without a frequency range defined. For instance, the SA-13, Kuznetsov, Slava and Moskva only have a definition for searchRadarFrequency, but no FrequencyRange (which appears to be for track radars). Mind you, that wouldn't explain the SON-9 or SNR-75 or 5N62 for instance, all 3 do have definitions and all 3 can seemingly be targeted by all guidance sections.