Northstar98

Right I've gone through all the respective .luas for the various units to find what frequencies they're actually defined with in DCS and so determine guidance sections can hypothetically engage radars operating within that range. Note that some radars are able to operate below or above the guidance sections listed (for instance, if the AN/MPQ-50 IPAR were to operating below 0.8 GHz, it won't be targetable by the Mk 37 or any other guidance section). I'm not sure how DCS handles it - whether anything in the range is valid, whether it picks a frequency within the range and goes with that, I don't know, though if it's the latter it might explain why some guidance sections work but not others (particularly in the case of the 1S11 - the radar in DCS ranges from the G to H band, the Mk 22 and 25 target the former, but the Mk 49s target the latter, if DCS is picking the G band to transmit on, that would explain why the -22 and -25 work but the -49 does not). In many cases, we're also talking about radars that the Shrike wasn't intended to engage (though note that doesn't mean it definitely can't engage them, just don't treat this table as a confirmation that it can). I haven't been able to actually test which are compatible. The list of .luas can be found here, you can usually find entries for at least "SearchRadarFrequencies" and for some units with separate acquisition and track/fire-control/illumination radars there's additionally a line for "frequencyRange". Guidance sections marked in green are ones I've confirmed that will track the radar indicated, and I'll mark in orange those that don't. Currently I'm testing Shrikes fired by an AI F-4E (unfortunately I'm unable to test as a player at the moment), if anybody has tested differently please chime in and I'll make an addendum to the results: Radar: Associated System(s) Within DCS: Frequency Range /GHz Radar Band(s) (NATO): Guidance Sections Corresponding to Frequency Range: Notes: USSR/Russia: 1L13 [Box Spring] 0.18 - 0.22 A None 1RL144 [Hot Shot] (acquisition) 2K22 Tunguska (2S6) [SA-19 Grison] 2 - 3 E Mk 23, Mk 24 Mod 5, Mk 24 Mod 34, Mk 50 1RL144 [Hot Shot] (track/fire-control) 2K22 Tunguska (2S6) [SA-19 Grison] 10 - 20 J None 1S11 - 1S91M3 [Straight Flush] (acquisition) 2K12M3 Kub-M3 [SA-6B Gainful] 4 - 8 G - H Mk 22, Mk 25, Mk 49 Mod 0, Mk 49 Mod 1, Mk 50 Sources contradict (C band or G band), exact version DCS is trying to recreate unknown 1S31 - 1S91M3 [Straight Flush] (track/illumination) 2K12M3 Kub-M3 [SA-6B Gainful] 8 - 10 I Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0, Mk 49 Mod 1 Sources contradict (H band or I band), exact version DCS is trying to recreate unknown 55G6 [Tall Rack] 0.03 - 0.3 A - B None 5N59S [Tin Shield-B] *S-200M/VE Vega-M/E [SA-5B Gammon], S-300PS [SA-10B Grumble] 2.85 - 3.82 E - F Mk 23, Mk 24 Mod 5, Mk 24 Mod 34, Mk 50 *IRL isn't associated with any version of the SA-5 (EWR or SA-10 acquisition radar) 5N62V [Square Pair] S-200M/VE Vega-M/E [SA-5B Gammon] 1.55 - 3.9 D - F Mk 23, Mk 24 Mod 5, Mk 24 Mod 34, Mk 50 Possibly incorrect - most sources state this operates in the H band, centered around 6.66 GHz. 5N63S [Flap Lid-B] S-300PS [SA-10B Grumble] 8 - 20 I - J Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0, Mk 49 Mod 1 5N64S [Big Bird-B] S-300PS [SA-10B Grumble] 2.9 - 3.3 E - F Mk 23, Mk 24 Mod 5, Mk 24 Mod 34, Mk 50 5N66M [Clam Shell] S-300PS [SA-10B Grumble] 8 - 10 I Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0, Mk 49 Mod 1 Sources contradict each other (either E/F band or I band) 9S18M1 [Snow Drift] 9K37M1 Buk-M1 [SA-11 Gadfly] 6 - 10 H - I Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0, Mk 49 Mod 1 9S35M1 [Fire Dome] 9K37M1 Buk-M1 [SA-11 Gadfly] 6 - 10 H - I Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0, Mk 49 Mod 1 9S80M1 Sborka-M1 (PPRU-M1) [Dog Ear] Various short-range PVO-SV systems (SA-8, SA-9, SA-13, SA-15, 2S6/SA-19, ZSU-23-4) 3 - 6 F - G Mk 22, Mk 23, Mk 24 Mod 5, Mk 24 Mod 34, Mk 25, Mk 50 9S86 [Snap Shot] 9K35M3 Strela-10M3 [SA-13 Gopher] Undefined Undefined None Supposedly millimetric band (K band/30 GHz or above) P-19 Dunay [Flat Face-B] *S-75V Volhov [SA-2E Guideline Mod 3], S-125M Neva-M [SA-3B Goa], *S-200M/VE Vega-M/E 0.83 - 0.882 C Mk 37 *IRL isn't associated with either the SA-2 or the SA-5. RD-75 Amazonka S-75V Volhov [SA-2E Guideline Mod 3] Undefined Undefined RPK-2 (1RL33) [Gun Dish] ZSU-23-4 Shilka 20 - 30 K None Incorrect - actually operates in the J band, centered around 15 GHz. SON-9 [Fire Can] AZP S-60, KS-19 2.7 - 2.9 E Mk 23, Mk 24 Mod 5, Mk 24 Mod 34, Mk 50 Cannot get the AI to engage this radar SNR-75V [Fan Song-E] S-75V Volhov [SA-2E Guideline Mod 3] 4.91 - 5.09 G Mk 22, Mk 25, Mk 50 Mk 49 Mod 0 and Mk 49 Mod 1 appear to work (when they shouldn't) SNR-125M [Low Blow] S-125M Neva-M [SA-3B Goa] 9 - 9.4 I Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0, Mk 49 Mod 1 1S51M3 [Land Roll] (Acquisition) 9K33M3 Osa-AKM [SA-8B Gecko Mod 1] 6 - 8 H Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0, Mk 49 Mod 1 Exact version DCS is trying to recreate unknown 1S51M3 [Land Roll] (Track/Fire-Control) 9K33M3 Osa-AKM [SA-8B Gecko Mod 1] 14.2 - 14.8 J None Exact version DCS is trying to recreate unknown [Scrum Half] 9K330 Tor [SA-15A Gauntlet] 4 - 8 G - H Mk 22, Mk 25, Mk 49 Mod 0, Mk 49 Mod 1, Mk 50 For both acquisition and track/fire-control radars PRC: Type 345 HQ-7B (FM-90) [CSA-7 Sino-Crotale] 10 - 20 J None HQ-7B ACU HQ-7B (FM-90) [CSA-7 Sino-Crotale] 6 - 10 I Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0, Mk 49 Mod 1 Known as HQ-7 Self-Propelled STR in DCS NATO: AN/FPS-117 1.215 - 1.4 D None AN/MPQ-46 IHIPIR I-HAWK PIP Phase 1 8 - 12 I - J Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0, Mk 49 Mod 1 As of DCS 2.9.7.58923 the AI no longer engages with the Mk 36. AN/MPQ-50 IPAR I-HAWK PIP Phase 1 0.5 - 1 C Mk 37 AN/MPQ-53 RS Patriot PAC-2 4.48 - 5.45 G Mk 22, Mk 25, Mk 50 AN/MPQ-55 ICWAR I-HAWK PIP Phase 1 10 - 20 J None AN/MPQ-64F1 Sentinel NASAMS II 8 - 12 I - J Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0, Mk 49 Mod 1 Cannot get the AI to engage this radar AN/VPS-2 M163 VADS Undefined Undefined None Should operate in the J band (10 - 20 GHz) Domino 3D (Track/Fire-Control) FlaRakRad Roland 2 8 - 12 I - J Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0, Mk 49 Mod 1 Known as SAM Roland ADS in DCS DN 181 Blindfire FSA Rapier FSA 10 - 20 J None Flakpanzer Gepard Track/Fire-Control Flakpanzer Gepard 10 - 20 J None MPDR-12 (Acquisition) Flakpanzer Gepard 2 - 3 E Mk 23, Mk 24 Mod 5, Mk 24 Mod 34, Mk 50 MPDR-16 (Acquisition) FlaRakRad Roland 2 1 - 2 D None Known as SAM Roland ADS in DCS Phalanx Block 1B Acquisition LPWS (Centurion C-RAM) 12 - 18 J None Radarpanzer TÜR FlaRakRad Roland 2 1 - 2 D None Known as SAM Roland EWR in DCS Rapier Acquisition Radar Rapier (Initial), Rapier FSA Undefined Undefined Possibly operates in the E band (2 - 3 GHz)? I'll list the guidance sections and their respective frequency ranges and bands in the spoiler below, for future reference:

Thank you, though FWIW I haven't yet gone through all the radars in DCS and see which have frequencies assigned to them and what those frequencies are. I also haven't tested whether or not the guidance sections I've listed for whichever radar actually work against that radar. I've only laid out which radars belong to what band and which guidance sections correspond to those bands. At the moment I'm only testing with AI aircraft.

You can already have infantry loaded at mission start. For vehicles though, we'd first need the ability to embark them in the first place. Once we can embark vehicles (which functionally shouldn't be too difficult - they're both the same category of unit after all, though volume and mass constraints might need to be further developed), we should be able to have them embarked at mission start like we now can with infantry.

Oh, do you think the watering down of EA features in comparison to previous EA products is something we've made up? This isn't a figment of our imagination here, we can in fact read what's being put forth. Because I'm able to form a judgment based on what is planned. If the plan is for some basic, fundamental features to be omitted, then I'm perfectly capable of making a judgement based on that. I haven't. But as I explained earlier, whether I buy it or not, this problem will still exist. Me electing not to buy the module doesn't actually solve anything beyond me not being directly affected by it, unless ED decide to increase the scope of the EA release. Considering no plans have been shared regarding wider logistics in DCS (which I would've thought would be something important for a helicopter dedicated to logistics), despite it being first teased over 3 years ago, I will believe this when I see it.

? I don't remember there being a threshold on when people get to call a concern a concern. Last I checked, a minor concern is still a concern, a concern you personally don't care about is still a concern. No, it just isn't a concern for you. Just because you don't care about it, doesn't mean anybody who does must automatically be some troll looking to stir drama. And thank you for demonstrating exactly what I was talking about, you can't engage with criticism honestly so the only thing you're left with is to just make up the motivations of the people making it in order to discredit them.

It looks like it depends on the guns used. While a typical AZP S-60 battery with its 6 guns only has 4 engage one target simultaneously, a KS-19 battery with 8 guns only engages with 6 at one target. Personally, the AI should direct as many guns as is in the group (or how many guns the fire-control system realistically supports) against one target, when only a single target is present. If a fire-control system is not present, the guns should be able to be locally controlled, where each unit's AI decides which target to prioritise. With an FC system and with the guns being directed by said FC system, the guns should only simultaneously engage as many targets as the FC system can simultaneously track (which in the case of both the AZP S-60 and the KS-19 is one). KS-19_battery.trk AZP_S-60_battery.trk

You don't understand why people might have concerns about the state of EA releases going backwards, to the point that basic, fundamental features like force trim, which has always been available on initial release for every other previous helicopter, is an issue? I have decided not to buy the CH-47F, the problem with its EA release state still exists, so this mindset doesn't actually solve the problem, it just no longer affects me personally. But here's the thing, I'm not selfish to the point where I can only advocate or care about concerns if they affect me directly. For you maybe, but you don't get to decide that for anyone else. Personally, I find the lack of a logistics component for a helicopter dedicated to logistics to be my #1 reason not to purchase it. Right now we can transport troops in a functional, albeit janky way and while we can slingload, we cannot slingload functional units, nor does slingloading actually accomplish anything practical in the core game without resorting to user scripts or fudging it with triggers. See slightly further up in this comment in my reply to Cab. Me not purchasing the module doesn't actually solve any of the issues here, it just means I'm not personally being directly affected by them. What utter drivel. It's as if you think that a more completed EA release and core functionality that better supports the product is somehow a bad thing, that only people who "endlessly whinge" care about - which is just beyond baffling. Frankly it's stuff like this that convinces me that people like you are opposed to the game ever improving. Just chalk everything up to endless whinging and bingo, everything is perfect, nobody should ever improve anything and if things go backwards who cares? If anybody doesn’t accept this, they should go away. That or I guess it's a sign of the times where people just cannot deal with or respond positively to anything critical so their only recourse is to try to invalidate it by trying to insult and make up the motivations of people making them. I might be inclined to call that "pathetic" - it's certainly the easier thing to do compared to actually listening to what's being said and taking steps to improve and move forward. If people don't air their greivances or otherwise act like they don't care about shortcomings, how can ED be expected to improve upon them or care about them either?

I understand comments about performance, though surely that's a problem that should be solved anyway. While I'm absolutely in favour of keeping different variants as separate entries, I'm a lot less onboard with having essentially duplicated entries for aircraft we already have, where were it not for performance, would largely just be listing redundant entries, cluttering up the list. The units should still be present in the background, so as to not break existing missions, perhaps an idea similar to Exocet's is the best one - i.e. remove duplicated, redundant entries from the unit list, but include the option to switch models for AI aircraft. Something along the same lines could work for FC2024, which will include the exact same aircraft that already exist, just in a simplified form.

Yeah, afraid so. If you look at the drill round, you can see that the intake is blanked over, you can also see that there are antennas on the warshot's control surfaces that are missing on the drill round (though I'm not sure if the interferometer array on the nose is a dummy). Also note the different coloured stripes (and the lack of a stripe for the warhead section): Drill round: Warshot/mock-ups of warshots:

Looks good, though the 1022 should have a rectangular profile, as here it kinda looks like an AN/SPS-49. Type 1022: AN/SPS-49: The red Sea Dart missiles are drill rounds for training, they have inert propulsion, no warhead and no guidance. Warshots are mostly white, with black stripes.

Hi everyone, Can we expect to see cocoperative engagement capability added for MITL weapons like the AGM-84E SLAM, AGM-84H SLAM-ER and the Mk 23 Walleye II? There have been previous threads about this, but so far unanswered (see here, here and here). I don't have any specific evidence of this capability (aside from it being done between A-6Es and A-7Es) on the Hornet, but cooperative usage of these weapons is a feature of them (and theoretically all it should involve is tuning into the right weapon channel - currently they're only assigned based on what station the weapon is on, but with the the new fusing GUI, it could be done through there). https://designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-62.html: This functionality was stated to be coming to at least the Walleye II ERDL in a comment by Wags on this thread: Unfortunatly, to my knowledge, there's been no update on this functionality since then. The SLAM and SLAM-ER are marked as completed on the roadmap, despite this functionality missing.

More that we're missing the FZU-39. The FMU-140 is perfectly valid for the Rockeye II.

I'm definitely in favour of being able to make groups of static objects and unit templates using static objects, allowing me to move and duplicate groups at will, which would save an absolute boat-load of time (as right now, any configuration has to be remade from scratch). The static template is great but only for an overall mission template, if you wish to change the configuration it entails moving everything individually, entailing pretty much the same work all over again. I'm dreaming here, but even better would be the ability to have mixed type templates, so I could have say, ground units and static objects (such as a fixed SAM site) as one group. Another thing is a box/marquee select tool, and the ability to group and ungroup units and static objects at will.

They would... if that functionality was actually present in DCS world. Helicopters can't be used for over-the-horizon targeting (short of scripting it yourself) and search and rescue (especially at sea) isn't a thing, we have no rafts and no functional rescue hoists/winches.

No it isn't, a livery manager would allow both sides to have what they want without a single compromise apart from maybe multiplayer (where missing liveries use whatever default is defined). I want more of the liveries I'm interested in, I want less of the liveries I'm not interested in a livery manager would allow me to do that without issue. Ultimately, I can manage what modules are installed/not installed, I can manage what terrains are installed/uninstalled and I can manage what additional campaigns are installed/uninstalled, why shouldn't I be able to manage what liveries are installed/uninstalled? Some modules and every campaign only represents a tiny fraction of the total install size, so it would appear that argument against it is completely moot. Can you go into more detail about this? The updater and repair utilities are already able to scan for and redownload liveries, excluding those in an unmodified/undeleted state. It's already able to exclude liveries from being downloaded so long as certain criteria is set. Same for the module manager when it comes to modules, terrains and campaigns. All we would really need it to do is to check 1 more criterion before it downloads anything. Personally even if it meant deleting whatever files manually and configuring which it should ignore in a configuration file would be perfectly sufficient. In any case, the default behaviour of any livery manager should be to download everything, as what happens now and if users what to opt out of certain liveries, they can do so. Users who don't wish to do so need not touch it. Yes, this would be perfect.

Yep, just checked, both missiles now appear to be fixed - thank you very much!

Yep, seeing the same thing, I assume it's a false positive:

True, I was going to mention the S-300FM system, though my main source on all this (which is this) is a bit contradictory, I know that apart from the Pyotr Velikiy the others have 2 3R41 radars for the S-300F w/ 5V55RM, with Velikiy have a 30N6 radar forward for the S-300FM w/ 48N6(M? - though the above says 48N6E2, but I thought that was for the S-300PMU-2 which is export only and not marinised). The reason why I'm paying more attention to the short-range air defence systems is that the SA-N-4 is much more easily saturated than the SA-N-9 (though I guess CADS-N-1 kinda makes up for it). Seems to align with what's here.

Hi everyone, Possibly the most minor bug report I've ever made, barely worth reporting probably, but hey saving a track and writing these takes very little time so what's there to lose? Anyway, the animations for the control surfaces of the RGM-84D Harpoon appear to be inverted, deflecting to pitch down when the missile should be pitching up and vice versa. I'm not sure if this also applies to yaw (the AI will only fire missiles directly at targets so heading corrections are usually minimised) and checking the model viewer, the animations aren't set up for roll. RGM-84D_animations.trk

Definitely agree on an SH-3H - one of those is already important for the Forrestal - it's one of the aircraft missing from its air wing for the early 80s to early 90s (and our Forrestal is mid 80s at the earliest). While I would definitely like the Sea Sprite, we currently lack appropriate ships for them to be based on (e.g. FF 1052, DD 963, CG 16/26, FFG 7 short, CG 47 Baseline 0 etc). Both aircraft are essentially dedicated to ASW, so they'd lack a role directly involved in combat, but as with the Ka-27PL that isn't necessarily prohibitive.

Well, I didn't receive any official reply to this one either - it also isn't marked as reported and none of the tracks appear to have been looked at:

Theoretically Sea Cat can intercept guided munitions, particularly GWS 22 which has radar guided ACLOS. Guiding 2 Sea Cats simultaneously however should be impossible as the director can only track one missile at a time. The reloading time was brought up here. Right now missiles are reloaded every 10 seconds and a missile begins reloading every time one is fired. IRL common practice would be to only reload once the launcher was empty or the engagement completed, with it taking ~10 minutes to reload the entire launcher.

Kalinin still has the SA-N-4 system and not the SA-N-9, it's the same project number but I'd argue that alone is a significant difference from what we have IMO, owing to how much more capable the latter system is, even if both are the Pr. 1142.2 design. Well, I was commenting on the list posted. You are correct of course, the Moskva is essentially identical to Marshal Ustinov of the same period. Pr. 1155 would also be pretty good, I think they had started to receive SA-N-9 by 1988 (I know they didn't have it initially), though would probably be better if its 85RU missiles were modelled specifically in their secondary ASuW role, seeing as ASW is as good as absent in DCS.

+1 Would go a long way to fleshing out Cold War scenarios, it would fit on many of our maps and its closest peer counterpart already exists.