Northstar98

This isn't the case - DSplayer is correct - the HB AIM-7Es are treated separately and have their own independent definitions. I've made the relevant changes myself to the model and file lines for the CoreMods\aircraft\F-4E\Entry\Weapons.lua for both the AIM-7E (which also turns into an AIM-7M when launched) and the AIM-7E-2 - I've got them both appearing as they should, both when attached to the aircraft or after launch, the animations for the control surfaces also work.

That would be my guess - some ships (like the Type 148 Tiger/La Combattante IIa) IIRC never had any smoke whatsoever, even before the MT update - now it does. The trailer also makes it looks like it's intended - personally, it seems odd that they'd set up that particularly shot the way they did if it wasn't. Actually on second thoughts, I'd say you're right. The smoke from trains does certainly undulate more and change size, it also doesn't look to be as dense (though that could be down to the slower speed of the ship - I can't seem to get the train to go any slower than 60 km/h for some reason) or opaque. It definitely isn't the steam train effect but made larger. However, my system is currently lacking in a pretty critical way - so that could always be influencing my results: And just for a comparison with this Ropucha I:

Not sure about the quality, but this is the new smoke. Personally, it doesn't look that realistic on ships - for the most part it's just far too dense and is more like what I'd expect from an engine smoke system on a tank or from a steam train. Heck, it might be the effect we have for steam trains, just made larger. We have plenty of ships in DCS producing smoke, which either shouldn't be producing any whatsoever or produce a lot less visible smoke(not while underway and at speed anyway). It was teased in this trailer so I assume it's intentional - here it was on a Leander, which, unless its boilers are cold and starting, shouldn't be producing smoke at all when underway, at speed. Just for a comparison, here's a picture of Ranger: The smoke is barely visible and there are plenty of images like it. And even in shots where it is visible, apart from the colour it doesn't really bear much resemblance to DCS Note that this image appears to show Ranger moving quite slowly. As for Tarawa: http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/07/10070158.jpg I can't see any smoke at all. I've also done a few comparisons here and a separate bug report on the La Combattante IIa here. I know the smoke used to not work on MT, but for a lot of ships, that actually made them more accurate - this feels like a regression in most cases.

Just revisting this - there is one thing I overlooked in making this request. Having it set such that units start readied if no waypoint exists works very well for fixed SAM sites that aren't mobile (things like the SA-2 and SA-3, where we don't have the ability to relocate them), but doesn't work so well for mobile systems, especially if you're looking to employ shoot and scoot style tactics, or have mobile SAMs relocate at some point throughout a mission. In those cases, because waypoints are present, the system starts at ALARM STATE = GREEN and has to undergo the set-up procedure at the start of the mission. This means that with the current set up, it's only possible to set up missions treating these SAM systems as if they were readied prior to mission start, if I don't plan on having them relocate. If whether they start ready or not was tied to whatever the alarm state is set to be at mission start (for instance if it's at the starting waypoint without a condition or a condition that causes it to be triggered at mission start), I would be able to set this as desired, regardless of whether or not I want to have the system relocate at some point throughout the mission. Alternatively, could there be a separate "start ready" option in the advanced waypoint actions? Attached is an example of what I'm talking about, I have an S-300PS firing battery (excl. a 5N66M) that I want to be set up and ready at mission start. 10 minutes after mission start I want it to relocate to another position, which it does so. But because there's waypoints present in order to facilitate the relocation, the system doesn't start ready and has to undergo the set-up process first. It does however successfully set up to move and does redeploy to where I specified and ready themselves once more. S-300PS_relocate_test.trk

Hi everyone, Something that's bugged me is that the variant of the I-HAWK seems to be quite inconsistent: We have a missile designated MIM-23K (i.e. the Enhanced Lethality Missile), from the mid 1990s and belonging to I-HAWK PIP Phase 3 systems. We have a HIPIR that's designated AN/MPQ-46 (IHIPIR) - this is from the I-HAWK PIP Phase I from the late 1970s (which fires the MIM-23B missile). However, the 3D model actually depicts a HEOS-equipped AN/MPQ-57, which is from the I-HAWK PIP Phase 2 from the early-to-mid 1980s (which fires the MIM-23C/D missile), as operated by Norway, the Netherlands and Germany. We have a CWAR designated AN/MPQ-55 (ICWAR), which is from the I-HAWK PIP Phase I and II. The remaining radar, the AN/MPQ-50 IPAR is accurate to Phase 1, 2 and 3 systems, so it's accurate regardless. So, from that, we either have: An I-HAWK PIP Phase I, with the correct designation for all the radars, but the HIPIR has the wrong model and the missile has the wrong designation (but otherwise, aside from issues with its flight model, appears to be aligned with Phase I capabilities). An I-HAWK PIP Phase II, with the correct designation for 2 of the radars and the right model for the 3rd (but which has the wrong designation) as well as a missile that's also designated incorrectly. An I-HAWK PIP Phase III, with the correct missile designation and the right PAR, but the HIPIR has the wrong model and lacks the low-altitude multi-target engagement capability, while also lacking anti-TBM capability and lacking the radar used for said anti-TBM capability (AN/TPS-59(V)3). For the PIP Phase I, all that would need correcting is to rename the missile to MIM-23B and to remove HEOS from the AN/MPQ-46 and we'd have an accurate PIP Phase I (see here for what an AN/MPQ-46 should look like, compared to a HEOS-equipped AN/MPQ-57 (what we have in-game). a TAS-equipped AN/MPQ-57 is externally identical to the AN/MPQ-61 (see below) but withouth the boxy LASHE antenna seen on the left of the image (adjacent on the right of the transmitting antenna)). For the PIP Phase II, we would need the missile renamed to MIM-23C (or D) and the HIPIR renamed to AN/MPQ-57 IHIPIR or AN/MPQ-57 IHIPIR [HEOS] or something. The only thing here is that the main upgrades of the system were in ECCM capability - not only does the missile have improved resistance to jamming, but the HEOS (or alternatively the OD-179/TVY TAS, which is day-only) allows for passive angle tracking, defeating angle deception jamming (both the Phase I and II feature range-only radars to provide ranging when the HPIR cannot measure it). Right now, HEOS isn't defined as a sensor and ECCM capabilities (especially relating to angle deception jamming) isn't really relevant to DCS as it currently stands, without a substantial EW overhaul. For the PIP Phase 3, the HIPIR and CWAR would need to be redesignated. The HIPIR should also have the LASHE antenna added and HEOS replaced with I-TAS (see here for an image of the AN/MPQ-61) and given the ability to engage multiple targets (up to 12) at low altitude wthin a certain area. Though I'm not sure what the parameters of that "certain area" is. If ED were to give the MIM-23K the anti-TBM capability it should have, then the AN/TPS-59(V)3 radar should also be implemented. This though was only a thing for the USMC (at least as far as US operators are concerned).

I'm afraid I can't test with a human operator - sorry about that. While I own the Phantom, my system currently isn't up to using DCS for anything other than simple tests using the AI - the kind of thing I've posted tracks of. If anyone else would like to chime in though (preferably with a track - you should be able to use one of mine above and use the "take control" option EDIT: Wrong one, it's actually "Get new plane - respawn", found in "General", default keybind is RAlt+J, hit pause on the mission, go into the F10 map, click on the F-4E and hit the keybind, it should cause you to assume control of the AI aircraft) it would be appreciated. EDIT: Actually, gave it a go, wasn't that painful though my iGPU managed 15 FPS, anyway, I couldn't get the Mk 36 to guide on the AN/MPQ-46, but the Mk 37 does guide on the AN/MPQ-50 albeit there's no tone (either from the Shrike or the RWR) and no indication from the flight director - so this method relies on you knowing the radar's location ahead of time or spotting it visually. However, when fired the missile does indeed guide on the AN/MPQ-50. Please excuse my awful flying: AGM-45A_ANMPQ-50_Mk37_player.trk

Appreciate you digging into it. I'm not sure how exactly the Shrike works, it looks like there's a difference between when the AI is firing it vs players. I'm not sure if players have some specific threat library as the AI (at least for radars it'll actually engage) it mostly seems like there's at least one guidance section that can target each radar, so long as that radar is within the frequency band. You might not be - it seems like there's some difference between how it's set up for players vs how it's set up for AI. At the moment I'm only able to test with AI, but please take note that the table Felixx75 linked might not be accurate to player aircraft. Heck, it might even be a bug that some radars can be engaged (the Mk 49 Mod 0 and Mod 1 can engage the Fan Song-E last I checked, despite the Fan Song-E operating in the G band and the Mk 49 guidance sections operating in the H to I band. For the AI though, at time of writing, on DCS 2.9.7.58923, the AI at least will engage the AN/MPQ-50 with a Mk 37-equipped Shrike. However, I've just re-run a test and it seems that the AI will no longer attempt to engage the AN/MPQ-46 with the Mk 36. It will try to engage with the Mk 49 Mod 0 and Mod 1, but they will no-longer guide (and the -46 was definitely still tracking the F-4E, though note that in my tracks the F-4E is set to be immortal). This wasn't the case before, but I'll edit the linked table as it's now inaccurate (I'll re-run everything again just in case anything else has changed). AGM-45A_ANMPQ-50_Mk37.trk AGM-45A_ANMPQ-46_Mk49-1.trk AGM-45A_ANMPQ-46_Mk36.trk AGM-45A_ANMPQ-46_Mk49-0.trk

Well, the Shrike was used against AN/TPS-43 systems in the Falklands. I'm not sure what, if any, modifications were made to it in order to target those radars. Though it stands to reason that it's not necessarily exclusive to Eastern Bloc systems, even if that's certainly what the Shrike was intended for. The AN/MPQ-50 (at least, as defined in DCS) operates within that range and yes, the Mk 37 (which ranges from 800 to 1000 MHz) can target radars within that range and I have gotten the AI to successfully engage that radar, with that guidance section. The AN/MPQ-46 HPIR operates between 8-12 GHz and there potentially the Mk 36 (7.9 - 9.6 GHz) and Mk 49 Mod 0/Mod 1 (8 - 10 GHz) should be able to engage that radar. Though so far, I've only had success with the Mk 36 (EDIT, though having re-run the test, the AI no longer engages with the Mk 36, it does engage with the Mk 49 Mod 0 and Mod 1, but they don't guide). Again, in tests using the AI. I'm not sure what DCS does in terms of what specific frequency it decides to use for radars, because only the minimum and maximums are defined in the .lua. I don't know if it picks a specific frequency or whether it's treated as operating on the entire range. Just note that this test was performed using the AI. I cannot vouch for accuracy with player aircraft.

Reproduced 5N66M_camera_bug.trk

Hi everyone, I recently found this newly updated gem covering the S-300 system, SAM aficionados should find this one pretty interesting:

I wasn't familiar with the mission, but thanks for giving an answer - I appreciate it, I am indeed mistaken (my mistake for looking at conditions - which in that mission mainly seem to operate around groups and units (e.g. part of group in zone etc), but not actions and there are country specific ones there). I can see that in the mission there are country specific actions (message/picture/sound etc). Those would get sent to the wrong country if changed. It would be possible to work around this, but would entail quite a lot of reworking.

Do you not see the irony of complaining about being "forced" to edit livery files (even when you weren't forced in the first place so long as the mission you're playing was set up appropriately) and then advocating that somebody else be instead? And yes, I can and I have. Unfortunately the updater and repair utilities will overwrite the changes, so I've renamed the folders so it doesn't touch them (only then it'll essentially download duplicates), I can probably get around this if I got a mod manager to handle this (as what Rudel_chw has done), though there is this one in the meantime but I've also changed the order of the liveries so they're grouped together - something you can do by adding order = x in the description.lua. I also sometimes reformat names to be more consistent (it isn't helpful having different liveries with identical names like af standard - though this isn't something the Phantom suffers from). I don't remember wanting to stop people from being able to make their own mods to liveries - after all, that's what I do (as I've said above). I'm against blocking the ability to make mods. I think I've been pretty clear what I'm asking for: I want the countries to filter what's available, such that only items actually accurate to those countries are present. That for me is their #1 use case - if they don't do that, then I don't see the point in having them. This is something that was already possible before, while still giving you the option to have everything available. With this change, now I don't. I want to have the ability to restrict available liveries to a certain set, if I feel it's important for the mission. Yes, people might circumvent this, that's okay, if it's really a problem then I might advocate for having this be something the integrity checker can control or locking them out entirely or something. I don't understand. The CJTF "countries" are treated like any other country in DCS, they have their own countryIDs (80 and 81 for blue and red respectively). They're functionally identical - just they have everything available to them. If you have an aircraft from one of the CJTFs on the same coalition as say, the USA, then they're both on the same side as each other. Is there an example of a trigger that would break or stop working correctly if you changed the country of an existing group/unit? I'm not familiar with scripting, so I could well be wrong there (I did have a look and didn't find many use cases for the countryID - apart from defining it if I'm spawning units/groups etc via scripting, but I'm probably glossing over something (I guess if you had a scoreboard broken down by country and you wanted everything to be counted under a certain country)). What I do know is that changing the country of an existing unit or group doesn't change either the group/unit name, nor the group/unitID. It also doesn't change the task, the waypoints or any advanced waypoint action/triggered action. In the trigger menu, apart from those referencing all/part of coalition, there aren't any triggers that would break if you changed the country. Though even for all/part of coalition - that would only break if changing the country would change the coalition, which isn't the case in your example, because there USA and whichever CJTF would be on the same coalition. All the other conditions in the trigger menu (at least the relevant ones), reference either the group or unit name, which doesn't change if you change the country. Sorry, but if people won't set up their missions appropriately, how is it anything other than their problem? If my mission doesn't work in a way I've intended, because I haven't set it up appropriately, then surely that's on me to fix? The only freedom of choice your advocating for, is the choice to not set up missions appropriately for what's intended. It's like having every weapon available regardless of whether or not historical mode is set or the date chosen, because some mission editors might forget to turn it off or select an appropriate date (historical mode seems to be a persistent setting, meaning if you have it on in the last mission you made, it'll start on in the next one). If they don't wish to restrict the weapons by date, then they should turn it off. And if they wanted weapons to be restricted by date, but not the one currently set, then they should set the date appropriately. Would "just because you would solve it like this, others might not. This is why freedom of choice exists" apply here? Because I'm not seeing the difference between these examples - just one concerns weapons availability, historical mode and date - the other concerns livery availability and the country set. And if so, the only freedom of choice you're preserving, is the freedom to choose to not solve a problem that's of their own making. Is that a choice really worth preserving?

I've been playing since 2015 and I've seen it plenty, often to the detriment of my eyeballs. It might be that some update has disabled it/removed it (it is an absolutely God awful effect) as I can't seem to trigger it anymore (it was fully automatic and out of the player's hands).

It seems that next to nobody wants to hear it, but this is already possible even with country restrictions. Taking them away isn't actually solving any problem, that can't be solved by just setting missions up properly. For instance, if I want to have Maverick steal an Iranian jet, in Iranian colours and fly it for the US side, I just have that Iranian jet be part of a CJTF faction on the same side as the US and bam - Iranian jet, in Iranian colours, being flown for the US side. No problem whatsoever. I'm sorry but the examples being provided seem to highlight an imaginary problem that's completely solved if mission editors simply set their missions up appropriately.

Oh should I not get to decide how my missions are set up? And erm, irony much? You want to restrict the options I have available so it's either all or nothing, despite the fact that you're fully catered for and would still have the option to select whichever livery you want, even if the liveries were tied to a specific country. You don't want me to have my choices, even when my choices in no way impact yours, so long as the mission is set up appropriately. Yes I am aware - I have brought it up multiple times now. I have also brought up how I feel that sometimes this is unnecessarily restrictive You were never forced to do anything of the sort, because as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, the game already facilitates what you want from inside the mission editor without you having to edit any file whatsoever. Mission editors just need to pick the appropriate country.

Exactly. I don't understand why the F-14 or the AJS 37 is available for anyone other than the USA and Iran, or Sweden respectively. If I want them on both sides, then again, that's what the CJTF countries are for. Then what's the intended use case? Why do they exist? Because for most modules they're there to filter what's available, which aids QoL when building missions. It means that if I know I want the USA in my mission, selecting USA and only being shown items actually accurate for the USA is a very convenient QoL feature (well, if it was respected that is). Having to scroll through lists that are way longer than they need to be, just to find items actually relevant is a pain in the backside, especially when I have the option to have an unfiltered list with the CJTF countries. And how do I set it up such that players can still change their liveries, just so long as they stick to the same country? Because I can do that if they're tied to countries, as well as having it completely unrestricted and completely locked out. I can't if they're not. See that's the thing, both of us are fully catered for going my way, I'm not catered for going yours.

It is a thing (or at least was) it was triggered automatically when an appropriate vehicle received damage, but the effect was honestly god awful and looked nothing like anything seen IRL (it was like an enormous, low quality cloud). You can see it in action in this post. I absolutely agree though that it should definitely be a thing and should be a thing players using CA can trigger when driving vehicles. The same also goes for engine smoke systems (which is what the new ship smoke looks like).

It certainly would go quite a way into improving naval combat. They would need to improve the seeker modelling on all current anti-ship missiles, such that they can be affected by countermeasures (even if it's the same dice roll system) and some ships have decoy launchers that can be trained to fire in different directions (namely the PK-2 on the Moskva and Admiral Kuznetsov and to a less of an extent the Corvus launcher on RAZBAM's Leanders).

Well, following this - having whichever liveries available becomes a mission editing problem (and one that's easily solved, well depending on how many player aircraft there are) and not necessarily a "livery assigned to a country" problem. Again, I'm left asking what the point of having countries in the mission editor is, if everything is going to be available for all of them? And again, this is completely avoided if mission editors make their missions such that liveries aren't restricted - something they're fully capable of doing without modifying any livery files. I'm sorry, but I'm struggling to see how this isn't just a mission editing issue. This was already the case in DCS for aircraft with liveries tied to countries: If mission editors want every livery to be available, they should use one of the combined joint task forces "countries" which bypass any country specific restriction and has everything available (essentially identical to selecting no specific country). If mission editors only want liveries of a particular country to be available, then they should select whatever specific country. If mission editors only want one particular livery to be available, then they should uncheck the checkbox in the advanced server settings which controls whether switching liveries is permitted. I can think of scenarios where each option could be desireable: if I'm doing a free-for-all and the livery doesn't matter, option #1 it is; if I'm doing a mission where country markings are important (for instance where VID-ing targets becomes important/necessary to avoid friendly fire), but I don't necessarily want to completely prevent players from changing their livery, then option #2 it is; and if I want to try and do a historically accurate mission where I want to enforce as much accuracy as possible, then I can choose option #3. If every livery is available to every country, then all that happens is I lose that second option, reducing the choice to a binary yes/no, all or nothing deal. Where it's either completely wide open or as strict as possible.

Why not just use the CJTF "countries"? They have everything - no need to make any edits to any files. You already have a solution here, even if the liveries were assigned to appropriate countries. That way, both of us are covered, without really having to compromise. If you want the flexibility to choose anything - then select one of the CJTF "countries", want the liveries to be sorted? Select the specific country you desire. Where's the PITA? What even is the point of having countries if everything is going to be available regardless of which one you choose? That's the #1 reason I select a particular country in the first place - so I only see stuff (or rather so I should only see stuff) that's actually appropriate for that country. If I don't want that and want it completely open - I'm already covered, I just select one of the Combined Joint Task Force "countries" and there I have everything unrestricted. With your way, I lose the first option and I don't actually gain any flexibility that I didn't already have by selecting the appropriate country.

Definitely agree with this. Particularly when it comes to being able to transport functional ground units, having the cargo weight account for the weight of the actual items being transported and for cargos to have volume constraints. I'd maybe also go further such that only certain items can be placed in certain cargos (e.g. only liquids in the barrels or fuel tank, only ammo in the ammo crates etc). Adding to this: Open up the warehouse to items applicable for ground units, not just aircraft, allowing the resupply of those (this would also be useful in replicating how towed howitzers are transported - the howitzer is slingloaded with the ammunition carried internally). Allow mission editors to define a route to take when the AI is slingloading (as with the embarking task for ground units).

In the 1979 -1 stores limitation diagram, I can only see Mk 84 LDGPs on stations 1, 5 and 9. Unfortunately, my 1984 revised 1990 -1 (which would've likely had the Mk 84 AIRs and not just LDGP) has the relevant sheets missing.

Personally, it should be RMB to move switches up/right/clockwise/increment and LMB to move switches down/left/anti-clockwise/decrement, which is a bit more intuitive IMO.

But you're not forced to program around it, the game already has an option that gives you everything, even for liveries assigned to a particular country. No programming required - just select one of the CJTF "countries" for the scenario you're building and you have everything. It's even simpler than that - simply select CJTF as opposed to a specific country.

Personally I'm with Rudel on this. Personally, if everything is going to be available to every country then what really is the point of selecting one in a mission? If I want to have a condensed list I can do so by selecting the appropriate country and if I don't I can select CJTF and have everything. This then becomes mostly a mission editing problem. I wasn't aware of this mod, but what I've already done is gone through the entire list of liveries I use and edit their descriptions such that they're sorted by country and are ordered in a way I desire (so they're all grouped appropriately and listed by squadron). In order to stop them from being overwritten by the updated I've also changed some of the folder names, the problem there though is that there isn't a livery manager to exclude liveries from being redownloaded everytime a repair or update is run, so I have to delete the duplicates each time. @Zabuzard There is already a way to bypass country-locked liveries by using the combined joint task force "countries" - these have everything available. I agree with you and these are valid concerns, but personally, wouldn't this be better solved with changes to the coalition system? Firstly, instead of assigning countries exclusively to one particular side, have countries purely there to filter units (and by extension, their liveries). You'd then have a drop-down menu in each group to specify which "side" the unit/group belongs to. There should also be an option for "none" which has everything available (which is what we already have with the combined joint task forces). This is exactly what C:MO does and it offers much more flexibility. It would allow you to use the same unit and livery, from the exact same country, on multiple sides, thus facilitating things like defectors. It also means that, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on, you can have it your way without compromise - don't want the hassle of having to go through lists that are way longer than they should be? You're covered - simply select a specific country and only the units and liveries actually accurate to that country should be present. If you want everything available? Again, you're covered - don't select a specific country (or in the case of DCS select one of the CJTF "countries") and you have everything available. This though is off-topic here and I'd direct you to this post instead.