Northstar98

Yeah, 5"/38 guns have been dual-purpose-ish since the introduction of the Samuel Chase, with the Essex I seem to have mixed results, where the same threat setup in 2 different missions leads to inconsistent results. See here. I haven't tested since the initial update though, so this may be out of date. EDIT: Nope and the Samuel Chase appears to be affected also, just less so. Why -ish? Because at the moment these guns only have one type of shell, which is time-fused - against aircraft this is mostly fine (though VT, i.e. proximity-fused shells were in circulation from at least '43 onwards) but for surface/land targets that aren't soft, these rounds (unless they impact before the time-fuse functions) are mostly ineffective. What we need are multiple shell types for ships - a point detonating round (at least, though some guns should also have AP/SAP rounds that offer post-impact detonation) and a time-fused round or a proximity-fused round (though ideally both, where applicable - though illumination should also be on the table, less relevant for this thread though). However, just about every post-WWII naval artillery should receive multiple round types, where applicable.

Yeah and not just for German bases, but USAFE and RAFG bases too - all but Bitburg (though even then one of the shelter types, despite being accurate, is the wrong shape) have incorrect shelter types.

They're still there - the issue is what Zabuzard describes. The list simply has too many entries for them to all be included (at least on my end). Personally I get around this by using weapons restrictions and removing weapons not in USAF inventory (such as the SAMP Type 25 bombs and the BL775). Unfortunately as these aren't persistent (even optionally so - something I requested here), this has to be done every single time I want to use bombs cut off by the length of the list, which further isn't helped by the fact that the list sometimes has duplicate entries for the same thing on a different station. The other thing is that historical mode doesn't filter payloads by operator, only by date - that would also alleviate this issue in lieu of a scrollbar (which I also separately requested here).

I was experiencing the same issue, but it seems to be fixed on my end.

Here's an idea, one that's been brought up loads of times before: Instead of trying to make unfeasible REDFOR aircraft, make BLUFOR aircraft that are peer contemporaries of REDFOR aircraft that can actually be made. 80s F-16A Block 10/15 or F-15A for instance - both would fit very well on the Germany map.

+1 though note that CV-11 is currently the name used in the mission editor. Personally, I'd rather the ship depict a class, allowing for more task groups to be depicted. If it was intended to represent a class it should be renamed to "Essex". If it was intended to just depict the Intrepid, the "CV 11" name can be retained, but I'd personally change the name in the unit List to "CV 11 USS Intrepid" or "CV 11 Intrepid". EDIT: Sniped, though @-Rudel- will the F10 map name reflect a class in that case?

+1 I personally wish that if Ugra are going to be doing SAM sites based on a generic template, is to look at a real site in the region, recreate that and then copy and paste where appropriate. For instance: in this image of this SA-2 site near Wittstock, all revetments are visible. If Ugra were to just recreate this (though with the trees removed) and copy and paste it (maybe moving individual revetments as appropriate) for every SA-2 site. Then if they repeat that for each type (here's an SA-3 example, here's an SA-5 example, here's an SA-6 example, here's a HAWK example, here's a Nike-Hercules launch site example), that would be perfectly adequate. Of course, ideally we'd get as 1:1 as possible, but if Ugra were to simply recreate what's shown in these images, that would be fine. There SA-5 site already has fairly accurate objects, but it's incorrect and personally this is missing the forest for the trees - a less detailed accurate site with only essential positions > a highly detailed site that's inaccurate - right now the SA-5 sites also have another launch battalion that no SA-5 site in Germany had (they all have 2). And FWIW, SA-2 sites in the GDR were equipped with the Spoon Rest-D as a search radar and the SA-5 sites had a Tall King-C and an Odd Pair. Tin Shields in the GDR were only stationed at EWR sites (and Tin Shields IRL are generally used as EWR/GCI radars). The Flat Face-B was only present at SA-3 sites (though the Flat Face-A and Squat Eye could also be seen at some EWR sites).

It's been modelled with AN/ALQ-165 (AFAIK accurate for USMC aircraft of the timeframe - USN aircraft should have AN/ALQ-126B for the timeframe). There's a rotary switch in front of the stick, simply place it to XMIT. The jammer will automatically start transmitting when a radar in a track/fire-control mode is detected and will automatic cease transmitting when a radar in a track/fire-control mode is no longer detected. See page 415-417 of the manual in Mods\aircraft\FA-18C\Doc

+1

Agreed and IRL there's nothing on either approach path that looks like what's here. In satellite imagery, the only vertical obstructions I can find in the immediate are here, here, here and here. Which is pretty well backed up by a 1993/1994 tactical pilotage chart of the area: And is also fairly consistent with era-appropriate approach plates.

+1 having seen it done in C:MO it's incredibly useful - even if it just assumes some standard turn rate.

Definitely agreed. Personally, I'd much rather EWR sites be in a state suitable for placing functional units on - even if that means radomes aren't present (leaving a flat surface, be it a tower/pedestal whatever). Radomes can always be present as a static object that can then be placed over the top (something that's already possible as-is - see the spoiler of this post for a rather crude example). Static templates can then be used to quickly load an EWR network, allowing it to be reused in missions. I really do not see the point of adding decorative EWR sites, when they are and should have a relevant gameplay element and should tangibly affect air combat. It means their suitable for eye-candy and nothing else (and deleting them via the scenery object remove zone usually causes collateral damage and, in cases where EWR's are mounted on towers, result in having a degraded LOS and/or radar horizon). Doing it the way I've set out would allow them to be a tangible gameplay element while providing eye-candy. Radars that are also present as non-functional map objects should also absolutely be made into functional ground units. Especially those that have model files like any other ground unit (in that they are in the right format, are appropriately animated and have a destroyed model), that have been in the game for over 12 years at this point, and are incredible prolific, staple Cold War GCI/EW radars *hint hint* P-37 and PRV-11.

Yes to declaring an emergency, but I'm not too fussed about there being firefighting trucks and what not. But this would be absolutely dependent on broad and substantial ATC and AI improvements in the first place - such as: Actually making an attempt to manage and deconflict traffic, both in the air (for instance by instructing aircraft to orbit for spacing, but doing so in a way where traffic is deconflicted, rather than now where all AI aircraft trace out the same exact circle over the same point at the same altitude, but at different speeds, leading to mid-air collisions) and on the ground (by telling aircraft to hold short and by telling aircraft on the runway to expedite their departure/taxiing). Being able to vector aircraft appropriately rather than just providing bearing and range to a point along the extended runway centreline. Having the AI interact with and obey ATC instructions. By having the ATC support parallel runways.

They've been locked and hidden as of DCS 2.7. Only ships in CoreMods are able to be edited.

Yeah not sure why it was changed - this new effect is accurate almost never and nowhere. I was essentially told by BIGNEWY that the issue is too minor to be worth reporting (but apparently major enough to warrant being changed when it was more accurate previously). Unfortunately when this was brought up for the Kilo, the thread was marked correct as is, based on a couple of choice photographs that still show nothing as thick as in DCS. I did go through just about every vessel at the time that's been given this new smoke, which can be found here.

Yep And the effect is wrong the overwhelming majority of the time for every other naval unit it's been given to. ED are also of the opinion that for Kilos, this effect is correct as is because they found 1-2 images that sort-of look like it-ish, not really. In a sea of hundreds to thousands where it looks absolutely nothing like it. If our SSs/SSKs could snorkel, they'd be far more visible than they should be - IMO, to the point of defeating the use of a snorkel entirely. Previously, before DCS 2.7 I'd just fix this myself as it's trivial to do. But because the .lua files have been locked down since 2.7, that's now impossible.

All good on my end. AV-8B_AGM-65E.trk

Definitely agreed, Wittmundhafen at least should be present. If we're going to do road bases they should be real-life ones. There's fairly extensive research material on them, for both the FRG and the GDR, backed up with historical satellite imagery. Though I really worry about cluttering up the map with aerodromes that we can't filter out. The good thing about roadbases though is that if the roads themselves are appropriately made (with the turnaround areas), mission editors are able to add them as is, using the invisible FARP. This can then be used to make a static template which can be reused.

Hi everyone, I've noticed that in some testing scenarios, large-calibre WWII AAA will only track targets without ever actually firing - instead at some point they stop tracking and reset (seen in the. Sometimes, guns will start engaging but will only fire a few rounds before ceasing. Adding the Kommandogerät 40 seems to resolve the issue for German Flak guns and the allied director resolves the issue for QF 3.7". However, the Kommandogerät 40 does not resolve the issue with either the 75 mm Type 88 AA gun, nor the 8 cm/40 3rd Year Type gun. However, the director shouldn't be required for guns to actually start firing (especially if they've detected and are tracking the target) - instead directors should make guns more accurate. The same issue also applies to ships (namely the Essex), which I've reported here, but have yet to make extensive tracks (I've seen it sometimes engage higher altitude targets, but my prevailing experience is that 5"-guns don't engage reliably, nor do the directors track targets reliably). The same issue does not occur with the KS-19, which is perfectly capable of engaging targets without its SON-9 director. 8.8cmFlak37_Engage-ish.trk 75mmType88_Engage-ish.trk 80mm3rdYearType_Engage-ish.trk KS-19_Engage.trk 8cm3rdYearType_NoEngage_3kft.trk 8cmFlak18_Engage_3kft_Kdo.trk 8cmFlak18_NoEngage_3kft.trk 75mmType88_NoEngage_3kft.trk KS-19_Engage_3kft.trk KS-19_Engage.trk

Just as an addendum, behaviour seems really inconsistent and appears to affect nearly all large-calibre WWII AAA I’ve tested (the Samuel Chase seems to be the exception but more testing required), in some form, not just the Essex (though Magnitude 3s assets are affected the most).

How does it do anything of the sort? Just because real-life sites exist, it does not mean mission editors are forced to only put air defences in them. This even represents real life doctrines, where some pre-prepared sites are unoccupied and the system relocates to another site. This is especially true of mobile systems like the SA-4, SA-6 and SA-10. If anything it only enhances mission creation options, because without these sites present, the sites aren't usable, so the only mission you can do is where you have air defences not in their pre-made positions as it's usually the case that the topography is otherwise unsuitable - e.g. Caucasus, South Atlantic, Persian Gulf (at least in some cases). If they are present however, usually the map developer has made them so that they're suitable for placing units on - that way you can still use ahistorical or relocated SAM sites and you can place them in the IRL locations. Well, seeing as many of these sites span >50 years at this point and many are still around decades after being abandoned, in their original configurations, probably fairly easily. But even for the ones that have changed - if we have accurate revetments/berms etc as static objects then you can use the scenery object remove zone to reconfigure SAM sites. So if we had those objects, that would be pretty easy too. Again though, the problem is on maps where SAM sites haven't been made, the terrain is often unsuitable for placing them in their real world locations, so building them yourself (assuming we even have the objects required, which we don't) is somewhat fruitless. However, if the map creator has added SAM sites, they usually make sure the topography is suitable for placing functional units on. Again, there is a trigger that does just that - scenery object destruction. You can substitute "based on satellite imagery" to "in DCS" and still be just as true - because every single map in DCS represents a "snapshot in time" and none of them change based on what year you set. Sinai 1960s vs Sinai 2000s is already an issue on the current map, even if none of the air defence sites were present. Ironically, as I described, there is already a mechanism in place for you to alter, edit or remove these air defence sites, so long as we have static objects to do so (and I don't know why maps don't contribute scenery objects to static objects - yes it's a different format, but surely it's the same original model, just re-exported?) - there isn't a way to edit say, edit the layout of airbases, nor is there any way to remove them (even if you remove all scenery objects, all surfaces will still be present). Just for an easy example, the Falkland Islands in the early 1980s wouldn't have Mount Pleasant on them (which is also in a mid 2000s - early 2020s configuration), Stanley would have a smaller runway, the JCUFI wouldn't be there, the wind turbines wouldn't be there etc. The latter I can't even remove with the scenery object remove tool.

Okay - that's a relief. Although I'm interested in the case where the rangefinder shouldn't be present. Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter much. Cheers Flappie!

Definitely - ideally we'd be able to add sides at will like Command Modern Operations - a civilian "side" though is definitely a requirement for this. As well as tweaks to how units are identified (AI does it magically, as does ED's NCTR implementation, at least in the Hornet - a neutral MiG-21 will remain an unknown, a hostile MiG-21 will be determined as hostile). Jester also does this in the F-4, not only does he often assume non-response always = hostile, in some cases he'll even call out friendlies (even friendlies that are providing positive response) as hostiles.

There's AAA issues across the board it seems - 5"/38 on the Essex similarly has issues. Interestingly enough I did notice Flak 18/36/37/41 also not engaging despite tracking a target, so perhaps this is an ED issue.

Hi everyone, The Mk 49 Mod 0 and Mod 1 guidance sections don't track the 1S31 of the 1S91 SURN [Straight Flush], despite providing tone and ADI steering. The 1S91 is listed as an intended threat in both DCS and IRL and the 1S31 track/fire-control radar is the the one that falls within the frequency range of the Mk 49 Mod 0 and Mk 49 Mod 1 (the other radar being the 1S11 acquisition radar, which currently is set to operate in the C-band). I've tested with guidance sections set to both direct and loft and I've ensured that the 1S91 is actually tracking me. You can see, that in no point during either track does the Shrike track the radar when launched, instead flying more-or-less ballistically throughout. AGM-45A_Mk49_1S31_NoTrack_Loft.trk AGM-45A_Mk49_1S31_NoTrack_Direct.trk