Northstar98

Not to my knowledge, the images released so far are mostly ambiguous. For me I'll absolutely take the North German plain over Fulda (it does have a bit more strategic importance, though many of our aircraft fit on the central area and we don't have many that would fit on the north - the RAF from that period is basically absent), though both would be ideal.

Hi everyone, At the moment, upon reaching the cargo transporation waypoint, the AI navigates to the cargo and then flies directly to the trigger zone that defines the drop point. This however reduces flexibility, flying direct is all well and good, but it means I don't have much control over what route the AI follows, nor the speed or altitude - I can't for instance utilise terrain masking or have aircraft go around threats instead of just going in a straight line. Ideally, what I'm after is something like the embarking/disembarking tasks - how that works is the helicopter flies its route until reaching the waypoint with the embarking task, whereby it'll navigate to the ground unit group to be embarked, it then follows the route as set by the mission editor until reaching the disembarking task, which specifies where the helicopter should land to disembark the ground units. Following the same principle, have a task which has the helicopter pick up the cargo and a task to drop the cargo which allows you to specify exactly where.

As another addendum, for some reason the Pave Spike seems to be required to get the AI to employ GBU-8 HOBOS. This shouldn't be the case - it should be possible for the AI to employ GBU-8 without needing to carry Pave Spike. After all, the GBU-8 uses an electro-optical seeker - it doesn't require laser designation and the bomb is completely independent when it's dropped. Moreover, target acquisition and tracking has to be done via the GBU-8, using its seeker as a sensor as it's not possible to slew or slave the seeker to the Pave Spike's LOS. In the tracks below I have an identical set-up, the only difference is whether or not Pave Spike is carried. In F-4E_GBU-8_PaveSpike.trk, the F-4E has Pave Spike equipped and drops the GBU-8 as expected, but in F-4E_GBU-8_NoPaveSpike.trk it ignores the target and simply follows its waypoints, eventually landing at the nearest valid aerodrome. F-4E_GBU-8_PaveSpike.trk F-4E_GBU-8_NoPaveSpike.trk

Looks like this issue is mostly resolved with the 2.9.7.58923 update - the AI F-4E-45-MC will now drop LGBs, the GBU-8 and the Shrike now works with Attack Unit/Group and Search Then Engage tasks as opposed to just SEAD (which gives you no control of quantity). However, the AI still refuses to fire AGM-65s, regardless of the task (i.e. CAS or SEAD), the advanced waypoint action (i.e. Attack Unit/Group or either of the Search Then Engage Tasks), the AGM-65 variant or the launcher used. With an identical set up, no other aircraft has this problem. In the tracks below I have a single F-4E with 2 AGM-65Ds, set to engage a single T-55 using the Attack Group advanced waypoint action. The aircraft simply follows its waypoints and lands. This occurs regardless of what settings are used - be it Attack Unit or Group, the CAS task or the Search Then Engage Task - it appears that under no circumstances will the AI F-4E-45-MC engage with Mavericks. Keeping the exact same set up and swapping the F-4E for an A-10, AJS 37, F-16CM or any other Maverick-firing platform has the AI engaging as expected, for the settings set. I've also attached 2 tracks with an otherwise identical set up, but substituting the F-4E for an F-16CM Block 50, as you'll be able to see, the F-16 engages as expected, as does every other Maverick-firing aircraft - this issue is exclusive to the F-4E. F-4E_AGM-65D_AttackGroup_NoFire.trk F-4E_AGM-65D_CAS_NoFire.trk F-16CM-50_AGM-65D_CAS_Test.trk F-16CM-50_AGM-65D_AttackGroup_Test.trk

As I understand it, both the S-300PS and the Patriot PAC-2 we have should operate with a command-guided midcourse phase and a terminal TVM phase (which is more-or-less a combination of SARH and command guidance). See this thread for sources. That midcourse phase is, in principal, identical to a Fox 3 fired in TWS.

The encylopedia is incorrect (it's also not the only thing it gets wrong). The S-300PS only uses the 5V55R missile, the 48N6E is used in the S-300PMU-1 [SA-20A Gargoyle] which is essentially an export version of the domestic S-300PM-1 system, with the same NATO reporting name [SA-20A Gargoyle]. The S-300PM-1 system, like the S-300PS is also known to NATO as the SA-10B Grumble and uses the same radars, but fires the 48N6 missile. Early versions of the S-300FM Fort-M [SA-N-20A Gargoyle] also use the 48N6 missile. Right now, there isn't a system in the game that uses the 48N6E2 missile, which IRL is used by the export-only S-300PMU-2 Favorit [SA-20B Gargoyle] and Rif-M [SA-N-20B Gargoyle] systems (which is only found on the 2 Type 051C Destroyers [Luzhou] used by the PLAN). The 48N6E2 missile is the export designation of the 48N6D missile, but I'm not sure what domestic systems actually use the 48N6D (I have a hunch that its the S-300PM-1 and in which case the system would likely be designated SA-20B Gargoyle as with the S-300PMU-2, but this is speculation and should be taken with a barge full of salt, the S-400 Trimuf [SA-21A Growler] uses the 48N6DM missile with extended range), the closest thing I can think of is the 48N6M missile used in upgraded S-300FM Fort-M [SA-N-20B Gargoyle] systems, it does get a bit messy though as online sources seem to mix and match these designations interchangeably, but 48N6E2 is definitely an export designation (that's what the E stands for AFAIK). The 48N6E2 is also used in the export version of the Fort-M, the Rif-M, so that makes sense. The systems we have in DCS and the missiles they should use are as follows: S-300PS [SA-10B Grumble] - 5V55R S-300F Fort [SA-N-6 Grumble] - 5V55RM (basically just a navalised 5V55R) S-300FM Fort-M [SA-N-20A/B Gargoyle] - 48N6 (SA-N-20A) / 48N6M (SA-N-20B), AFAIK the 48N6M is a navalised version of the 48N6D missile, but here it's quite messy as sources contradict one another and sometimes use export designations for native systems or use a land-based designation to describe a naval. The export system, the Rif-M, uses the 48N6E [SA-N-20A] and 48N6E2 [SA-N-20B] missiles.

I really don't understand all the opposition to getting this corrected, I do not get it one bit the "I don't think errors should be fixed and the people bringing them up should be scoffed at" - it has to be up there for one of the most baffling takes I've seen here. What exactly are you guys losing by having this corrected? How is this going to negatively impact your experience going forward? Isn't this game supposed to try and be as accurate as it can? Isn't this module supposed to be as accurate as it can? And if it is, why do you have a problem when it gets closer, even by a tiny bit, to being exactly that? Fact is, the Tomcat is the only aircraft that has this issue, no other aircraft in DCS, including those that are both older and less detailed has this problem. The F-16 (with more-or-less the exact same nozzle) doesn't have this issue and the difference between them is obvious. It's the same with the rudders that clip through the vertical stabilisers when they're deflected because the axis they rotate around isn't properly aligned (also reported here) - I so far haven't noticed a single other aircraft in DCS that has the same problem. The Viggen has similar problems too - having weapons that clip through the landing gear doors (also reported here), again - can't say I've noticed a similar problem on any other module, only some of the really old (20+ years) AI aircraft have similar issues.

Excellent news

Yeah - when starting up or at low power settings it's common to see smoke - low temperatures, poor atomisation, less complete combustion (for instance due to lower boost pressure from the turbochargers at low engine RPM (and the Type 148/La Combattante IIa's engines are turbocharged)). However, even the first video I'd argue that the smoke isn't as dense compared to in-game, where it drastically increases how visible the ship is compared to real life. Also, seeing as the current smoke system doesn't factor for engine power settings, whether the engines are warm or cold, or how well maintained they are and in the majority of circumstances we don't have ships pulling out of port and are instead at sea, personally, removing the smoke almost entirely would be more accurate here.

Sorry - not how this works. You want your bug report to get addressed, you post a track. It is that simple - no if about it. Well, at least for people who don't seem to have some attitude problem with it, for some reason... See attached, no idea if it's the same behaviour you're describing, not sure if it replicates your set up, because I don't know the spacing, the speed, whether you're using big formation/escort tasks or what they're set to - kinda why you should post a track, lot less effort on your part. P-51_formation_300kts.trk P-51_formation.trk

Somebody trying to help make sure your bug report actually gets addressed. You're not doing yourself any favours by refusing to post one. If you don't post a track it's unlikely any developer will address the issue, this thread (if it gets looked at) will simply be marked "missing track file" and that'll be the end of it. It barely takes more than single digit seconds to hit "save track" and then drag the file into the attachments when making or editing a post.

The only way I know is to use multiple ships, each being their own group as opposed to having 1 group consisting of multiple ships, if that makes sense. The 4 missiles per salvo is on a group basis, so if you have multiple groups, you can increase the number of missiles in a "single" salvo. I've attached an example below (if you rename the file extension to .miz you'll get the mission file). Taruntul_III_vs_OHP_separated.trk

Hi everyone, I'm encountering an issue with the AI - they appear unable to accurately deliver either the CBU-99 or Mk 20 Rockeye II. In the track below there is no wind or turbulence and apart the absence of clouds uses default weather conditions. With the Mk 339 fuse (set to default settings), the AI always seems to drop the bomb long. A similar thing can be seen with the FMU-140 (again, using default settings). With the exception of the BLG 66, all other cluster bombs (including unguided ones) do not seem to suffer from the same issue and the AI is able to employ them with far better accuracy. AI_Mk20_Mk339_350kts_min.trk AI_CBU-99_Mk339_350kts_1kft.trk AI_CBU-99_FMU-140_350kts_2kft.trk AI_CBU-99_FMU-140_450kts_2kft.trk AI_Mk20_Mk339_450kts_min.trk

Yeah, the F-14A-135-GR (which is from FY 1984 at the earliest) and maybe the Iranian F-14A-95-GR.

AV-8B is modelled with the LITENING G4 IIRC

The AV-8B N/A was one of the first aircraft to be updated with the new FLIR:

Yeah, would be nice to have some woodland/European 1 scheme or even the factory green coating for it. I did notice that the new Abrams models (and the MaxxPro for that matter) are a part of HeavyMetalCore, which is supposed to be part of a new ED product. Unfortunately there hasn't really been any news about it since it was announced (apart from that it's supposed to be more than just a simple HD assets pack). EDIT: Just had something strange happen - on the SA map, the M1A2 had a woodland camouflage scheme, but selecting desert and then back to default resulted in the same desert scheme - certainly some funny business going on.

Early F-14A-135-GR is from FY 1984. The current (late) F-14A-135-GR is from 1994 as it has some (but not all) of the MMCAP upgrades (LAU-138/A BOL, AN/ALR-67), this changes to 1996 at the earliest with LANTIRN. F-15C is supposed to have the AN/APG-63(V)1 according to the manual, which means it's from 2001. Not saying you can't approximate earlier versions or can't use them in missions dated prior to these, but those are the accurate entry years for these aircraft.

Yeah, I did something to that effect (though note as of the most recent update, the correct lines are 445 and 625) and I did get the GBU-24A/B to show up as a payload instead of the B/B. Unfortunately due to another issue (also reported here), I can't get the AI to drop it (and atm I'm limited to testing with the AI), unless it's jettisoned (and indeed a GBU-24A/B shows up).

In your track it looks like there's a LOS issue (the radar though is tracking the Phantoms through a hill and that wouldn't explain the F-5E track) when it does start tracking, the Phantoms are around 7 nmi away and, due to their speed, about 25 seconds from minimum range), which might not be enough to ready the launchers, mind you even waiting longer they still don't want to fire. In your F-5E track the SNR-75V starts tracking the F-5Es from about 7.5 nmi away and the F-5E's are still within range 40 seconds later (which is roughly when the first launchers start aligning missiles in preparation to fire), one of the F-5Es is just outside minimum range when the first missiles start being fired around 10 seconds later. I'm not sure, but personally in this case, I think it's a matter of the site not having enough time to acquire and engage the F-4Es for their speeds and distance and the poor LOS of the site is definitely not helping - I don't think there's an inherent problem that prevents it from engaging F-4Es on the Marianas map (be it SAM system, aircraft or map related) - with my own set-up, I've got the S-75 engaging F-4Es on the Marianas map without issue. S-75_vs_F-4E_Marianas.trk

Hi everyone, With the newly working and updated ship smoke, the Type 148 Tiger (La Combattante IIa) now produces an excessive amount of smoke, leading to it being far more visible than it should be at a distance. IRL, the overwhelming majority of images found online show little to negligible/no smoke. I've only found images of Iranian Kaman-class (which is similar to the Type 148 Tiger/La Combattante IIa but is not what we have in-game) vessels producing visible smoke. The 2 following screenshots show a Type 148 Tiger, in default weather (apart from a 12 knot wind), at 20 knots: I'll include screenshots of various Type 148 Tiger/La Combattante IIa/Kaman/La Combattante II vessels in the spoiler below for reference, none of them however show anything as visible, or as dense and opaque as what's seen above: Type_148_Tiger_smoke.trk

Do you have a track? I'm unable to reproduce this - the launchers rotate and fire as expected on my end, see my track. S-75_test1.trk

As of the latest update an AM39 Exocet has appeared in the files for the Mirage F1 (and can be found under CoreMods\aircraft\Mirage-F1\Shapes\Mirage-F1common), here's hoping it comes to the Mirage F1EQ.

Hi everyone, With the most recent update to DCS 2.9.6.57650, the Paveway III series bombs (GBU-24A/B, B/B and GBU-27) now correctly perform a "bump-up" after being dropped (which is really nice to see! ) which should in theory extend the range of the bomb, as well as better facilitate attacks from low-altitude (which is what the Paveway III series were designed for). Unfortunately however, the AI seems to release Paveway IIIs too close to the target - from limited testing, they appear to drop GBU-24s/27s at the same distance as they would a dumb bomb (like a Mk 84) - as if the AI is computing a release point based on a ballistic trajectory. What this results in is one of 2 things happening: The bomb performs its bump up and overflies the target (and the seeker will lose sight of the designating laser) and will land long. The bomb performs its bump up then overcompensates, performing a very steep dive onto the target, which it usually fails to recover from, resulting in the bomb missing (in tests, sometimes the bomb just misses the target, but sometimes it falls way short of it - this may point to an issue in the bomb's guidance itself, but the main issue I want to focus on here is the AI releasing the bomb from too close, as it wouldn't need to perform such a steep dive in the first place had it been released from farther away). In the 3 tracks below, I have an F-16CM set to bomb an outpost at low altitude. In the 1kft track, the bomb overflies the target and lands long, in the 2kft track the bomb pitches down but doesn't recover in time, resulting in the bomb landing short and in the 3kft track, the bomb does recover but just misses the target. Similar behaviour can be observed with the AI dropping GBU-27s, the bomb overflies the target when dropped at 1000 ft, has a miss (but close) at 2000 ft and the bomb falls very short at 3000 ft, due to it not recovering from its dive, see the remaining 3 tracks with the same setup. AI_F-16CM_GBU-24_1kft_miss.trk AI_F-16CM_GBU-24_2kft_miss.trk AI_F-16CM_GBU-24_3kft_miss.trk F-117A_GBU-27_1kft_miss.trk F-117A_GBU-27_2kft_miss.trk F-117A_GBU-27_3kft_miss.trk