Northstar98

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

Hi everyone, As currently depicted, CVNs 71-75 of the supercarrier module represent ships ranging from the mid-to-late 2000s to the early-to-mid 2010s at the earliest, due to the presence of Mk 15 Phalanx Block 1B (i.e. w/ Phalanx Thermal Imager, optimised gun barrels, redesigned barrel clamp). See the spoiler below for a breakdown of the 5 ships, with links to sources. This means that instead of RIM-7M, they should have the RIM-162D ESSM Block 1 (which according to this, was first delivered to the US Navy circa 2002 and has been in full operational capability since 2004). The earliest image I can find of a RIM-162D being launched from a Mk 29 aboard a CVN 68-class is mid 2010. Alternatively, the RIM-7P would also be accurate for the timeframe (which might be suitable for the USS George Washington, as it's the earliest vessel depicted - see above). Incidentally, these ships should also be firing the RIM-116B RAM Block 1, not the RIM-116A RAM Block 0. In DCS though the RIM-116A behaves like a RIM-116B (i.e. IRH from launch mode available) so a rename would suffice.

While minor, awesome news! Very pleased this has finally gotten fixed!

Looks like this one has been satisfied (or something close to it) in the latest update: In which case, very nice to hear! It's greatly appreciated!

Hi everyone, A fairly long standing bug - AI naval units do not respect attack quantity, group attack or release quantity as set in the mission editor, when firing anti-ship missiles. In the first attached track, I have 3 Tarantul IIIs in line abreast, with a single Ticonderoga 60 nmi to the south-south-west. I have an attack group task for the Tarantul IIIs, set to attack the CG 47, the settings I've used are as follows: Weapon Type: Antiship missile (though the same is true if set to guided or missiles) Release Quantity: All Max Attack Quantity: 1 (i.e. fire one salvo) Group Attack: True The objective being to get all 3 Tarantul IIIs to each fire their 4 SS-N-22s at the single Ticonderoga, firing as one large salvo. However, in the track, the AI will only fire salvos of 4 missiles (which use a single shooter, or multiple shooters) and instead of firing one salvo, the AI follows up with subsequent salvos of 4 missiles, once the preceding 4 have been destroyed). This presents a tactical problem that's fairly easy for a CG 47 to solve, certainly easier than 12 missiles, split across 3 axis. In the second track, I have 2 Tiger-class FACs and I want it to fire 2 missiles (which should be MM38 Exocet Block 1, not RGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C) at the single Krivak II to the north. I only want one shooter per salvo and one salvo. Following the above, the settings I've used is as follows: Weapon Type: Antiship missile (though the same is true if set to guided or missiles) Release Quantity: Two Max Attack Quantity: 1 (i.e. fire one salvo) Group Attack: False However, again, a salvo of 4 missiles is fired, with both ships shooting, instead of 2 missiles being fired by one ship. This was then followed up by a second salvo (though this time with one missile, as the Krivak had sank). While 3 missiles are required to sink the Krivak II with the current damage model, I only wanted 2 missiles to be fired (and this problem arises regardless of the target - 5 missiles being fired against say a Grisha-V or a Tarantul III would be excessive, given the limited self-defence capabilities these ships possess). Another thing that can be seen at the end this track, is the 5th missile appearing to track a ship that was fully submerged, indicating that missile seekers aren't properly implemented. This was reported to the forums 2 years ago by another user and presumably affects all anti-ship missiles not using the new API (and at time of writing, only the AGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C, exclusively fired by the F/A-18C Lot 20 (it should also feature on the AI B-52H, F/A-18C, and S-3B at least) has a higher fidelity seeker model). In both cases, it can be seen that: The AI does not respect release quantity - the AI will only fire 4 missiles per salvo (excluding cases where less than 4 missiles remain or the target is destroyed before the AI can complete its salvo). This is unlike AI aircraft where the AI will fire as many weapons as set, regardless of whether they're singletons or groups. The AI does not respect attack quantity settings - the AI will continue firing salvos of missiles until the target is destroyed or the task is cancelled. The AI does not respect group attack settings - the AI will either have multiple shooters per salvo or a single shooter per salvo. All 3 of these are respected by aircraft, where they behave as expected for what is set. AI_attack_qty_group_rel_qty1.trk AI_attack_qty_group_rel_qty2.trk

I mean, could be useful, though personally I'd prefer to just have the current weapon restriction settings be optionally persistent, or allow the settings to be saved and loaded like we can with regular loadouts. It would still mean having to do it for every aircraft, but at least it would only be needed to be done once, instead of needing to be changed every time you make/load a new mission. It would also work for any store you want to filter out, not just inert/training weapons.

The news I have on my end, in the DCS main menu is from the 28 June 2024, which is when the last newsletter was released.

All I will say is that in real documentation for USAF series F-5Es, the only Sidewinders listed are the AIM-9B, E, J, N and P. The AIM-9L isn't listed anywhere and this is a circa 1984, revised 1990 manual (so the AIM-9L definitely would've been around). Incidentally, there are switches behind the headrest, one has a switch to change the Sidewinder variant and it only has positions for AIM-9B, E and J (though the N and the P series are developed/derived from Js). Looking through the -34, the wingtip stations don't appear to provide cooling, unlike say a LAU-7/A. Only power and control (mainly to uncage the seeker head and obviously to receive AIM-9 audio) - this isn't an issue for the AIM-9B (which is uncooled) or the AIM-9E and J (which are cooled, but using the peltier effect, which only requires power), the AIM-9L on the hand uses Argon (though mind you, so does the AIM-9P-5, making it potentially inaccurate too).

It's somewhat imprecise, but what you've put would include it - IIRC it mostly relates to tests (OBC, EMER GEN test etc). Appreciate it!

What about the more miscellaneous functions not present during Cold Start? Things like OBC and some of the other tests?

Yeah, they're both there. They don't have animated control surfaces (like more recent missiles) but they're still very high-quality addons. They are missing their launch capsules (I presume they launch encapsulated) and I'm not sure if the 3M54E has a seperate terminal supersonic stage or whether the whole missile accelerates (I seem to recall quite a high terminal supersonic speed for that missile). Okay Seems odd, it's a very trivial small change to make and they don't seem to have any qualms with having duplicate entries of what should be the exact same unit in other areas seems odd he'd be against having proper export designations (mind you, getting proper designations at all seems to be a challenge unique to DCS. That clears that up - cheers Silver_Dragon

Hi everyone, For quite a number of missiles (those that feature jet as opposed to rocket propulsion), their smoke trail instantly disappears the moment the missile they were emitted from is destroyed (either from being intercepted or by impacting their target). This list is as follows (essentially every missile featuring jet propulsion, though some don't feature the smoke trail, despite being a variant of the same missile, with the same engine): AGM-84A/D/E/H Harpoon/SLAM/SLAM-ER AGM-86C/D CALCM Kh-65SE [AS-15 Kent] Kh-35 [AS-20 Kayak] Kh-59M [AS-18 Kazoo] Obviously, it's more noticeable with anti-ship missiles due to the higher contrast between the water and the smoke trail. AGM-84A_smoketrail.trk AGM-84D_smoketrail.trk AGM-84E_smoketrail.trk AGM-84H_smoketrail.trk AGM-86C_smoketrail.trk AGM-86D_smoketrail.trk Kh-35_smoketrail.trk Kh-59M_smoketrail.trk Kh-65_smoketrail.trk

Hi everyone, Currently the AGM-84A Harpoon Block 1A pops up to about 1100-1200 ft. According to designation systems however, the missile performs a steep climb to ~5,900 ft before diving on the target: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-84.html I'm unsure if this also applies to other Harpoon variants (namely the xGM-84D Harpoon Block IC) as designation systems specifically references the xGM-84A. AGM-84A_popup_alt.trk

Kola Map WIP Screenshots from the 23rd of June, from Discord:

Absolutely agreed. As it stands, this is one of the 3 missing items that are deal-breakers for me. If ED were to implement Mary-1 and -2 and Kokaydi, that would satisfy one of these (the others aren't strictly map related).

If it's any consolation, there are several torpedo schemes present in the files (under Scripts\Database\Weapons\Torpedoes, with things like preset-unguided (which I assume to be gyroangle), guided, guided-stab(?) and unguided-stab(?). So maybe in the future we'll see bugs like the above fixed. I'm not sure what guidance scheme(s) they're planning for (if they're planned for - I believe those schemes have been around since 2.7), acoustic homing is obviously the big one, but itself is split up into active and passive. There's also wake homing (which technically uses a high-frequency active sonar to detect wakes), which is a pretty big one for Soviet/Russian submarines. Yep. Though if anybody is interested, for the domestic Pr. 877V Kilo and Pr. 636.3 Improved Kilo, the torpedoes it should fire include the UGST (presumably), USET-80, TEST-71/-71M/MK, 53-65 (and its versions) as well as the MDM-1 mine (which is a bottom, influence mine). Yes, in DCS the 3M54E is the one with the supersonic terminal stage and the 3M54E1 is subsonic throughout. Personally, what I'd do is the following: Copy and paste current Pr. 636 Improved Kilo, rename one to Pr. 636.3 Improved Kilo and give it to Russia, call the other one Pr. 636M and give it to Algeria, China and Vietnam. Rename (or copy and paste) 3M54E to 3M54K, implement and give it to the 636.3 (unsure if this is used by export customers, but if it is, then copy and paste, give the 3M54K to the 636.3 and 3M54E to 636M). Implement the 3M54E1 and give it to the 636M. I wonder if the 3M54E1 model could be reused to make a 3M14T and 3M14E, which would provide land-strike capability. Though I maintain that until ASW is developed (if it's ever developed) submarines should take 2nd place to surface ships and even then, it would be better if we had say SSGs or SSGNs that need to surface in order to use their primary armament (such as the Juliet or Echo/Echo II series - at least for the latter we already have a P-500 albeit with low-quality artwork and very low-fidelity modelling), at least that way they'd be vulnerable to existing sensors and weapons.

Hi everyone, Kind of a small one, but one that I've been longing for when doing short tests of air defence systems. If I go into the advanced waypoint actions for a group and set the alarm state to red at mission start, units actually begin at alarm state green and first have to go through the set up process (erecting antennas etc) before they reach alarm state red and are actually ready to be tested. Would it be possible to have this behaviour changed, such that if alarm state red is set at mission start, units start at alarm state red, without having to transition from alarm state green to alarm state red, essentially treating them as though they were readied prior to the mission start time. If I desire to keep the current behaviour, this can be done by adding a condition to check for (such as a 1 second delay to the start time), which is very easy to achieve, without even the need to enter the trigger menu (simply by going to conditions on the advanced waypoint action and say, checking time more and adding a second from mission start time).