Northstar98

Interesting, thank you!

Hi everyone, Just posing a question (not sure if it's a bug or not, or whether it's real life behaviour) but is the AGM-45A Shrike supposed to roll the way it does in-game? Kinda like how I'd expect a Paveway I or II to behave. I couldn't find anything about it online and the little snippits of test footage don't appear to show any kind of rolling motion - though there it could be that the footage is taken over such a short time interval that any kind of rolling motion would be difficult to determine, the resolution obviously isn't the best either. AI_F-4E_AGM-45A_test.trk

Yep +1, would be very useful to simulate prior engagements and to disable specific weapons entirely.

Hi everyone, For whatever reason, I cannot seem to get the AI F-4E-45-MC to use Paveway II and Paveway III series laser guided bombs against points on the ground. Upon reaching the waypoint with the bombing task, the aircraft simply turn around, follow the rest of their waypoints and land. I've tried numerous options on the weapon to use (AUTO just ends up using the internal cannon, I've also tried guided bombs, guided and bombs) to no avail, override AI attack avoidance decisions also doesn't appear to change the behaviour (and in any case, this mission is empty apart for the AI aircraft - there's no threats). It also doesn't seem to matter if the task is set to CAS and whether or not you use the CAS, Attack Group/Unit or Search then Engage tasks, none seem to work. The issue seems to be fairly exclusive to Heatblur's F-4E-45-MC (though the F-5E-3 also failed to drop the bombs, but then, there wasn't anything to provide designation). Attached is a track showing what happens with the GBU-12, the issue is also present on the GBU-10 and GBU-24B/B (the latter should actually be an A/B, but that's for HB to fix). EDIT: The problem is also happening with a few other weapons as well, it seems mostly isolated to guided air-to-surface weapons, with exceptions (so far the AI is fairly reliable when engaging with the AGM-12). In AI_F-4E_AGM-65D_nofire.trk, you can see that the AI won't fire Mavericks at a tank platoon, the same is true for every other Maverick the F-4E-45-MC has available. It also happens regardless of what the Maverick is mounted on (be it the LAU-117, the LAU-117 on the special weapons adapter or the LAU-88). In AI_F-4E_AGM-45A_nofire.trk, you can see that the AI won't fire an AGM-45A at the SON-9 (the guidance section is set appropriately), I have got it to fire at the Big Bird and the P-19 however - it seems a bit inconsistent. I also can't get it to fire at the Fan Song or Low Blow. EDIT 2: The AI will only fire AGM-45A if the SEAD advanced waypoint task is active, it doesn't work if you only have an Attack Group/Unit or Search then Engage task set. The GBU-8 is as with the Paveway II and III described above, see F-4E_AI_GBU-8_nodrop.trk. Both Walleyes however are unaffected. F-4E_AI_LGB_bug.trk AI_F-4E_AGM-45A_nofire.trk AI_F-4E_AGM-65D_nofire.trk AI_F-4E_GBU-8_nodrop.trk

It should be possible to remove entries from the unit list, while keeping the relevant files in the background in order to not break missions using them - IIRC that applied to the USS Carl Vinson.

Hi everyone, Very minor one (though one that should be trivial to fix) - the F-4E shouldn't have the GBU-24B/B Paveway III available and instead should have the GBU-24A/B. The former is a weapon that's only used by the US Navy, the latter is the appropriate air force version. In game, there isn't any difference aside from the ablative grey textures on the B/B (IRL the B/B uses the BLU-109A/B as a warhead, which aside from the thermal protective coating, is filled with the more insensitive PBXN-109 as opposed to trinotal as in the BLU-109/B as used in the A/B). The GBU-24A/B already exists in DCS and is available for the F-16CM Block 50.

Just FYI, historical mode seems broken on the F-4E-45-MC - it isn't available regardless of operator or date.

Hi everyone, Another minor issue that's been present for a while - the R-24R and R-24T missiles have misplaced plumes. R-24R_plume.trk R-24T_plume.trk

Hi everyone, Minor issue - as of 2.9.5.55300, the control surfaces on the rear of the missile no longer unfold after launch (though they, like a lot of missiles and bombs now, have their animated control surfaces implemented in-game now and will deflect when manoeuvring - that's really cool to see ). So far I haven't seen the same on any other missile, but I'll update this post if I find one. 5V55R_bug.trk

Only thing I'll say is rockets w/ 2 sidewinders doesn't appear in the external stores limitation chart in the real -1.

It was mentioned that it would change - quite odd and somewhat misleading, but hey, it's accurate to what's actually happened now.

Lots of interesting stuff in the Shapes folder for the F-4E - AIM-4D, AGM-78 (though I thought USAF F-4Es couldn't use it - AI F-4G model down the line?), AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack, GPU-5/A, GBU-10 w/ BLU-109/B (GBU-10G/H/J/K /B Paveway II). Some new weapons, apart from the GBU-15(V)1 they're all done to the same standard as ED's weapons (i.e. w/ animated control surfaces).

Indeed it has - much more realistic now, excellent news! Thank you very much!

Regarding the liveries - would it be possible to have these sorted by country (fairly easy to do with minor edits to the description.lua). Obviously everything should be available for CJTF blue/red but IMO, for everything else, they should be sorted by country.

BIGNEWY clarified that for the auto-boresight it was for the HMCS when starting hot/starting from the air. Maverick boresighting works the same way - it's automatically done when air starting or starting hot, with Cold starts still requiring manual boresighting. Personally, I think this is the best option - it retains the perfectly realistic limitations, but when time is limited (when you'd do a start hot or an air start), you've got the option to have it be done automatically (as with other items when starting hot or air starting).

Well, as I said, both are already animated, the problem here is specifically the PRV-11 due to it being a height finder, which is somewhat different than any other radar currently in DCS. There’s no excuse for the P-37 not to be animated, it already rotates even as a functionless scenery object - just pay a visit to all but one or 2 airports/airbases on the Caucasus map.

They're all already animated, but as I'm not a modder I'm not sure how to actually control the animations. The PRV-11 might be more challenging, as it should nod up and down when tracking a target. It's already animated for nodding and for traverse, but I've got no idea how to get it to behave appropriately. Though even as a function-less ground unit, it would be excellent for fleshing out Cold War EWR sites. Exactly. Though for these particular examples (especially the P-37) they really should be functional ground units, as an early warning (and potentially if we ever get proper functionality for it) a GCI radar. And yes, while me and my ineptitude (though the 2.7 .lua lock doesn't help) can't seem to add them to the unit list, it should be practically trivial for ED. Most of the work (the artwork) is already done and has been so for a decade. Personally, I find it staggering how it hasn't been added as a functional unit years ago, considering just how widespread and prolific it is and how well it would fit a decent chunk of our maps. Especially considering the only other Eastern Bloc EWRs that can actually be used as EWRs are very few and far between and are left over relics from LOMAC. The P-19 should also be able to be used as an EWR and as an additional search radar for the SA-6 (though that would probably require IADS functionality and an appropriate C2 unit (e.g. the PU-12) to best take advantage of it). It would also be a far more appropriate interim acquisition radar for the S-200/SA-5 than the Tin Shield (and I've no idea why ED decided that the Tin Shield should be the appropriate radar for that, even the 55G6 would've been more appropriate). IRL the Tin Shield is used as a general-purpose EWR and as a target acquisition radar/battle management radar for the S-300. Unfortunately, in DCS, it's currently capable of doing neither (well, excluding the more recently added mast-mounted Tin Shield, which can be used as a search radar for the S-300PS). It's a shame because it's a very decent model. Though with scenery objects, provided they could be converted into the right format (assuming they aren't already - the P-37, PRV-11 and a few others certainly are), it would be better to get them as units or failing that, static objects. Personally, I'm not really a fan of purely decorative objects such as radars and ships - apart from eye-candy, I don't see the point - they should ideally be units that can and should directly impact gameplay, especially radars.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as not even remotely, but I don't see see much resemblence in specifically the trees in these 2 images. The density isn't there (though that can be explained by performance) and they appear to be the wrong type. I've also seen screenshots of trees that appear to have oranges growing on them on the Kola map, fruits that are best grown in far more moderate climates and are sensitive to frost. I guess we'll have to wait and see - they may be limited more by DCS terrain technology so it might be too hasty to pin this entirely on Orbx. Well, speaking purely from a personal perspective, the things at the top of my list are: Getting the remainder of the aerdromes present and getting them all as close to 1:1 as possible. Right now they're rather sparse, we are due to get several more in the June update, but there's plenty still that aren't explicitly mentioned as coming. Getting military POIs, in particular SAM and EWR sites (i.e. at least clear areas where the terrain mesh is usable for placing units, going better would be to make some revetments and/or raised positions for launchers and radars that are appropriate for the SA-2, SA-3, SA-5 and SA-10, make a generic SA-2, SA-3, etc site out of said revetments and copy and paste those where appropriate across the map (so, somewhat like what Ugra did with Syria, though they only really did the SA-2 and they didn't do a particularly spectacular job of it) and ideally, they'd try to recreate how the real sites (or at least how they would've looked), as close to 1:1 as possible - this is more like what OneReTech did with the Sinai map and this is a near perfect example of what I'm talking about here. If we can get that and have it done for each SAM site across the map, that would be absolutely incredible. Improving the coastline, by a lot. At the moment, from what I've seen, it suffers from exactly the same problem as the South Atlantic map, where it looks like someone cut out concrete with a cookie cutter and then stuck the land on top of it - it looks quite unnatural when low and slow (such as in a helicopter). All maps do it, at least in some areas, but the water is either raised up or its otherwise hidden a lot better. There's a few other things like general quality (I think this and this look particularly bad, especially for a map of its price tag), as well as things like getting the bathymetry more accurate (which is particularly important for a map with more of a naval focus).

Both options (USN grey and green) already exist in the textures so I think it's a fair assumption that all 3 will come some way or another. One thing I think I should bring up though is shouldn't the textures (i.e. thermally protected or not) be dependent on the bomb variant? For instance, shouldn't the GBU-31(V)1/B and -31(V)3/B only have the USAF textures available? And the GBU-31(V)2/B and -31(V)4/B (which already exist in DCS) have the USN textures (probably both) available? The same is true for the GBU-38 (though only the AF (V)1 exists in DCS). You can say the same for the GBU-24 in DCS - the A/B should have the USAF textures, the B/B should have the USN textures. EDIT: As of DCS 2.9.5.55300 there is a seperate GBU-24A/B and B/B with the appropriate textures (though it would be nice to also get the green thermal coating as well as the grey) Mk 80 series and Paveway II series are different, they don't have different designations depending on whether they're thermally protected or not, but they do have different warheads (filled with PBXN-109 as opposed to Tritonal) which would be the BLU-111A/B, BLU-110A/B and BLU-117A/B for the Mk 82 (and GBU-12, GBU-38(V)2/B), Mk 83 (and GBU-16, GBU-32(V)2/B) and Mk 84 (and the GBU-10 and GBU-31(V)2/B) respectively. For all of this, all of the ground work already exists, it just involves copying and pasting some of the existing entries (as has already been done for the GBU-31 series) and having the textures appropriately set for each applicable variant.

Yep, absolutely agreed, they would go a very long way to fleshing out scenarios. For carrier aviation, the A-6E and KA-6D Intruder is supposed to be coming by HB. That largely just leaves a more appropriate E-2C (Group 0 for Forrestal, a 2000 for the Supercarrier) and the EA-6B Prowler (there is a mod, but ideally we'd get one as a core unit of similar quality to other AI units). There's definitely quite a bit missing for the Kola Peninsula map - Tu-16 is a prominent one (K-10/K-10-26/K-26P/RM-1/P) as is the Il-38. I definitely wouldn't say no to a Su-15TM. I'd definitely go for more variants of the MiG-23 - the M, MF and MS would probably be my top picks and are probably the most relevant versions for DCS. Same for the MiG-21 - the F-13 and PFM would be my picks. For the F-111, I'd rather go with F-111Es and Fs (if not both, preferably the latter) circa Operation El Dorado Canyon (which would also fit well for ODS and late Cold War gone hot). I would also mention the B-52G and/or a pre-1991 B-52H (i.e. with the tail gun). We have the SA-3, we don't have an SA-4 however (and that, alongside the SA-7 are really the only relevant single-digit systems entirely missing from DCS). I think something that would be worth mentioning are EWRs and completing battery components for current SAMs. For the former, I'm mostly talking about things like the P-37 (for which a model already exists in the game files and has done for over a decade now), the P-80 and the 5N84A. The SA-2 is missing the P-12M/P-18, the SA-5 is missing the 5N84A. For Cold War tanks (centering on the late Cold War, as this is where most of our Cold War assets are centered around, and my particular favourite ) : Challenger Mk. 2/3 Chieftain Mk. 10 Leopard 1A1Ax M1/M1IP Abrams T-62 T-64B/BV T-72M/M1 T-80B/BV Would be my picks. For Cold War ships... Dear me, there's so many, where to start? DD 963 (Spruance) - any configuration as long as it has Mk 15 Phalanx Block 0 and RGM-84 Harpoon (be it Mk 112, Mk 112 + ABL or Mk 41 VLS - the latter is probably more applicable to DCS, considering we don't have ASW) DDG 2 (Charles F. Adams) or DDG 40 (Coontz) CGN-38 (Virginia) or GC 47 Baseline 0/1 (Ticonderoga) Oslo FFG BPK Pr. 1143A Berkut [Kresta II CG] EM Pr. 956 Sarych [Sovremenny DDG] Would probably be my top picks, though far from an exhaustive list.

I'm sure you didn't, because this wasn't actually said anywhere. Why do you persist in making straw men instead of just addressing what was actually said? Again, nowhere did TheFreshPrince state that only the trees matter and nothing else does. You're pulling this straw man nonsense from nowhere. It shouldn't be surprising that a thread discussing the trees primarily has responses that concern the trees and doesn't have many responses that are irrelevant to trees (such as the names of places or where the roads should be)... Oh of course. Sorry, I forgot that nobody should ever advocate for improvements. This is subjective, but I don't agree whatsoever, I don't see much resemblence in specifically the trees in these 2 images. The former looks like something I'd expect to see closer to the equator, like the Caucasus map.

Of course, but RAZBAM has no control over the AI so the simplified Mode 4 coalition check is all you can do. That's fair enough - it's up to ED to sort out, if they ever do. Well, to be fair, I did mention that it was for their aircraft (though only the Mirage 2000C and F-15E for their aircraft) and the Aerges F1.From the perspective the module specific side it does everything required. Yeah but all the interaction (which is most of what you need) is already there in most of their modules (including the F-16CM and F/A-18C), it just doesn't do anything, so I doubt this is is actually much of a concern.

Yes they are.

Shame, considering RAZBAM developed a system for their aircraft (as well as I believe Aerges' F1) that did everything required.

Unless the fictional livery is at the top of the list there should be no change. However, in the description.lua for each livery, it is possible to specify where in the list that livery should be simply by adding "order = x", replacing x with whatever number you desire. Of course it would be nice if there was an official livery manager as this is a change you will have to keep making every time the game is updated or repaired, unless of course you place the modified files in your saved games folder and just delete the duplicates in the CoreMods folder (I personally keep a copy in my user files allowing me to just drag and drop them in). Hopefully that makes sense.