Northstar98

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.

Oh my god! I cannot believe it! Is it really, finally going to be fixed, after all this time (~7 years)!? Wow! This is absolutely fantastic news, especially alongside the AIM-9J and a fidelity improvement to the radar. Yes. Certainly odd for a threat receiver to conceal the presence of threats in their most threatening mode and to hide threats from you when their mode changes (especially to a more threatening one).

All good, no problem Ah, I see. Shame on me I guess for noticing it so late I only noticed probably a few weeks ago at most and promptly forgot all about it. I mean, I'm stumped for a reason. There's certainly names that are longer, in some cases a lot longer so it wasn't done to make the naming scheme more concise. Mind you, the new naming scheme (well I say new, it's several years old at this point) did the exact opposite, instead making names longer while making them more ambiguous. It would be nice to get an official answer though to clear this up. Yeah, I can agree with that. lf you do it might be worth mentioning the incorrect markings on the guidance section (applies to both AIM-120B and AIM-120C) too.

Okay, this is all quite confusing. I did read your post, I really appreciate it when users do deep dives on topics such as this, so thank you very much! The only thing I'd watch out for here is that ED have historically called something one thing, but the model/textures depict something else. That's not to say any of your conclusions and reasoning are wrong of course, but it might be something to consider. Just to name some examples: I took a look at the AIM-120B model and its guidance section is marked WGU-16/B, which according to the same source you linked, belongs to the AIM-120A (and the WGU-16/B marking is present on the guidance section of the AIM-120A model). It was at least named C-5 a year and a half ago or so - the linked screenshot and the linked post proves that. I'm not sure which update changed it to just C. I don't think this is the case. The missile is still referred to as AIM-120 and AMRAAM, it would strike me as very odd if its was the variant name alone that was problematic. The Sidewinders are manufactured by Raytheon (same manufacturer as the AIM-120) and at least the P series have their variant names (P, P-3, P-5).

I'm not sure exactly when it changed, but I noticed that the AIM-120C no longer is listed as "AIM-120C-5" (which it definitely once was - see this screenshot, taken from this post from September 2022) but just "AIM-120C". So, a couple of questions: What AIM-120C variant do we actually have in DCS? Or at least, what is it supposed to be? AIM-120C-5 is from the early-ish 2000s and so is appropriate for the F-15C, F-15E, F-16CM and F/A-18C. Was the C-5 designation a mistake and that we actually had the base AIM-120C variant from the mid 1990s? If it is still supposed to be an AIM-120C-5, why the name change?

Luckily there's been plenty of feedback provided to Orbx, so hopefully they can take it to heart and we'll see improvements. I imagine it would be odd, considering this is baseless and looks to just be trying to ascribe some alterior motive to those posting criticism. Why is it that people responding to criticism find it so difficult to just read what the criticism is and respond to that criticism? Instead of trying to make up what their thoughts and motivations are for an easy smear. You don't have to agree with the criticism - that's perfectly fine. If you enjoy the map, good for you! I'm happy that you do. But just because I find enough turn-offs to hold off my purchasing of the map doesn't mean I want the map to fail. I'm critical of the map because I'm incredibly interested in the region, far more so than any other released or announced theatre. If you want to know why, I've listed some of the reasons here (though even that list doesn't include facts such as this map fitting with many of our assets and modules). I want the map to do the region justice and I want to see quality and accuracy that commands its price tag as right now I think it's too lacking, even for an early-access product.

Further to norman99's reply, check to see if the tanker's altitude as reported by the F10 info bar (make sure it's enabled in the gameplay settings, it can be toggled on and off with LCtrl+Y). If it matches, then its a result of the AI altimeters not being as high-fidelity as player ones (at least in some aircraft).

Yep, couldn't agree more. There are 2 relevant Kievs for the Kola map - the Kiev (i.e. the original TAVKR Pr. 1143) and the Baku (later the Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Gorshkov), which is a Pr. 1143.4. Personally, I'd be much more interested in the former - it had a longer service life, relevant for the entirety of the late Cold War period - the flagship of the Northern Fleet. While it has a weaker point-defence SAM system in the 4K33 Osa-M [SA-N-4 Gecko] (with 40 9M33 missiles) as opposed to the 3K95 Kinzhal [SA-N-9 Gauntlet] (with 192 9M330 missiles), it carries a medium-range SAM system with the M-11 Shtorm [SA-N-3 Goblet] (w/ 96 V-611 missiles). It also carries 4 more P-500 [SS-N-12 Sandbox Mod 1] AShMs (albeit 8 as reloads, the Baku has 4 more launchers).

Yeah, at least as far as this particular item is concerned, it would be nice if exclusion zones could be set up. When it comes to ground traffic, the more granular, the better. Presumably that would be the idea. We'd probably need to have a few AI ship routes and then the slider would adjust how many of these routes are populated and/or how frequently they're run. Yeah, there's a few similar issues around the same ballpark: As far as targets of opportunity and self-defence are concerned, we have no way of telling the AI what type and how many weapons it should use against what targets (think the weapons release authorisation setting in C:MO if you're familiar with that one). I don't really want the Moskva to be slinging multiple P-500s at small fast-attack craft, like the La Combattante IIa that could be dealt with the S-300F (at least if its secondary ASuW mode was implemented). Even when targets are designated and player control is given via the attack unit/group task, the AI doesn't obey quantities or whether they should fire as a group - they always seem to fire a salvo of 4 missiles, one unit at a time. This can sometimes cripple a group of ships' ability to saturate a target.

Just a heads-up there are a few others when it comes to naval missiles - they're functionally identical to their ground-based missiles (just being hardened against salt-water ingress, which we don't have to worry about). Of course, very minor, just makes it more accurate: 9M330 Tor (SA-15 Gauntlet) -> 9M330 Kinzhal [SA-N-9 Gauntlet] 9M311 Tunguska (SA-19 Grison) -> 9M311K Kortik [SA-N-11 Grison] 9M33 Osa (SA-8 Gecko) -> 9M33 Osa-M [SA-N-4A Gecko] You could essentially just copy and paste the current entries and change the name as appropriate for the naval designation.

I mean, I wouldn't say no to a pre CCIP Block 50/52, I think it would have to come at quite the discount to existing owners as the differences aren't that huge (well a 52 would also have a different engine). I think though I'd much rather have an even earlier variant - something like a Block 40 which would come with I'd argue a more unique ability (at least among F-16s), with an autopilot-coupled TFR and NAVFLIR (as seen in the F-15E). Going earlier still, the F-16A Block 15 or Block 10 - this would work very well for Cold War scenarios, fitting perfectly on the Kola map and potentially on the teased Germany map.

I agree, though I think there should definitely be a priority here and personally, that priority should be: Surface combatants - particularly those that fit our assets, maps and eras and particularly for where we have aircraft carriers but little/no escorts. Capital ships - namely things like aircraft carriers, amphibious warfare ships and to less of an extent, battleships/cruisers. Auxiliaries - namely UNREP vessels such as tankers and dry-cargo/ammunition ships. Merchants - particularly cargo. Here it would be better if it was maybe a more generic type, instead of one-off ships like the Seawise Giant. Sizes should probably be somewhere in the middle and below (i.e. ≤Panamax). Submarines Pleasure craft With how long ships take to make (and even then there's usually numerous errors) I can't really see it being all that practical, especially with the missing stuff for aerial and ground environments (which IMO, as someone very fond of naval, should take priority). Definitely agree there, other flight simulators have certainly gone down that route. Doesn't the channel map also have moving tugs? Well, the problem there is that DCS is just very limited with what ships can actually do, nearly always due to a lack of modelling. Though I would be on board with something like C:MO's manual attack option (which would be far more useful than what we have in the mission editor and in CA). But just to name a few things: Cruise missiles that should be able to be programmed with multiple waypoints can't be - they just fly direct. This takes much of the planning aspect for attacking targets with these weapons and throws it out of the window - you have very little in the way of control. Naval units are absent from the embarking and logistics system, this largely takes away things like amphibious operations (which is pretty eyebrow raising IMO, considering that we have more amphibious types than we do aircraft carriers or BLUFOR surface combatants), especially from a CA perspective. ASW is as good as absent - relegated to using more conventional ASuW sensors and weapons against largely unreactive, surfaced submarines. I can go on and on and on. Well, I mean, first it would be great to get currently existing weapons made higher fidelity and more accurate, before adding completely new ones for a domain of warfare that is as good as not simulated in DCS World. Missiles are currently far more basic than they perhaps should be: The RGM-109C and RGM-84D (at least) should be able to be programmed with multiple waypoints and attack profiles. Right now they can only fly direct, with only a single profile available. The P-500 and -700 should have their own internal DECM systems and their own countermeasures. They should also have different profiles (at least altitude) and when fired as a salvo, should be able to coordinate with each other (with one missile flying high, searching for targets and then data linking what it sees to the rest of the missiles in the group). The SM-2MR currently behaves like an SM-1MR (SARH, illuminating at launch), this is fine for the Oliver Hazard Perry (which should be firing the SM-1MR in the first place, not the SM-2MR) but is problematic for the Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga, where it should be INS+DL with SARH and illumination only in the terminal stage, with the ability to fly a more optimised trajectory. The SM-2MR (alongside a few other SAM systems) currently lacks its secondary ASuW mode, which is especially important for the Arleigh Burke, as aside from guns, that's its only option for ASuW. There's also weapons that are missing, despite being weapons DCS should already support: The Type 148 Tiger (La Combattante IIa) should fire the MM38 Exocet Block 1. Currently (as it has done so for very nearly 3 years now) fires the RGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C. The Condell-class should fire the MM40 Exocet Block 1 (similar to the 38 Block 1, but has folding fins for smaller launch cannisters and is slightly longer-ranged) The Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga are missing: RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Block IIIB (in addition to the M-2), which has a secondary IR homing capability. RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV (Ticonderoga) RIM-162A ESSM Block I (Arleigh Burke) RIM-174A ERAM SM-6 Block I (Arleigh Burke) RGM-109D Tomahawk Block III TLAM-D RGM-109E Tomahawk Block IV TACTOM - this one has been in the files for years now (possibly since 2017) It doesn't just go for missiles either, gun rounds are similar: Pretty much every naval gun >57 mm calibre in game should support multiple ammunition types - at least a point-detonating and either a proximity or time-fused HE round (with proximity being more common among the ships we have). The Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS still fires the wrong rounds (currently fires some 20 mm HE round, it should fire APDS rounds which at least in the case of the Block 1B should be untraced). RAZBAM's Leander-class frigates still fire the wrong calibre (130 mm as opposed to 114 mm). Again, I could go on. I haven't even brought up the abysmal sensor modelling yet, like how several radars, even those directly applicable to aircraft, aren't even defined (such the AN/SPS-48C and E, the AN/SPS-49(V)5 and (V)9); how often radars will be copied and pasted from each other, even if they're completely different radars (like how the Mk 92 CAS and the AN/SPY-1B/B(V)/D(V) are both copied and pasted from the AN/MPQ-53 RS from Patriot). You can make a slight tweak to Server.lua inside your main DCS installation directory, under Config\View. If you change "CameraTerrainRestriction" to false from true you'll be able to take the camera underwater (though it will also clip through terrain). There is an 'underwater' graphically modelled (albeit quite basic) but before there wasn't anything at all. As for bathymetry, yes, I agree. It doesn't have to be a high resolution mesh, just so long as it's roughly accurate (i.e. the depths match the charts, which are often included in DCS). There aren't many maps that do it particularly well but some are definitely better than others (Caucasus is fairly bad for it, I've heard that the many fjords and naval bases of the Kola map aren't deep enough to be usable either). Again, couldn't agree more. With all that said however, I'm sorry, but I can't see any of this changing within the next decade. I've yet to see much evidence (outside maybe a few minor bugs) that the naval environment really has any priority whatsoever. Not that that's all that surprising, considering there's plenty of stuff that's lacking as far as aerial and land warfare is concerned, before going anywhere near naval (and as I said previously, aerial > land > naval is where the priority should lie and even when we get to naval, the priority should probably be AAW > ASuW > ASW). But I mean, in some cases, I think there's enough evidence to suggest that even basic, fundamental research just isn't being done. What else explains how we have a Type VIIC U-boat U-flak which clearly isn't a U-flak? How the Samuel Chase has the hull number of the Arthur Middleton? (And these 2 are assets you have to pay for!) How the Castle-class has completely the wrong gun and the Type 148 and the Condell have completely the wrong missiles? How the Tarawa has the wrong radars and is missing guns? How the Oliver Hazard Perry is a frankenstein of 2 different variants, which IRL were mutually exclusive? How the Arleigh Burke is quite the mess, having the 2 CIWS from one variant, the funnel design of another, liveries for another 2 and the missile availability from another still? Even HB's Forrestal (which otherwise looks amazing) still doesn't have a graphical damage model to speak of at all, the same is true for all of RAZBAM's assets minus the Tarawa (obviously excluding the smoke). It also still has issues with its lights (particularly the FLOLS), as well as more minor issues with its artwork (things like the Phalanx, the radars, the unanimated directors and propellers) and missing sounds. I also want to bring up that DCS is expanding into WW2 PTO (and looking towards a Battle of the Philippine Sea, the WW2 Marianas map would certainly get quite close if it was expanded westwards, both announced aircraft fit, as do the aircraft carriers). However, as it stands, Cold War BLUFOR is hardly fleshed out at all and now they're adding a WW2 theatre which IRL had a heavy naval focus. As far as allied assets go, so far we've seen 2 USN aircraft carriers (though ED's Enterprise is completely devoid of all its armament - bit worrying), 2 USN aircraft - that's a pretty good, but then, where's everything else? We've yet to see a single applicable escort for them (Fletcher-class DD easily makes the most sense for the Philippine Sea). In the promotional material of them, the battlegroup was a carrier and then everything else was either the LST(2) or the Samuel Chase (amphibious warfare ships, which DCS doesn't natively support, outside of fudging it with late activation). The only IJN ship we've been teased is the post-refit Mogami and while an AI zero has been teased, so far there's no aircraft carrier for it. To make it worse, in the months and months since this was all teased, we haven't even seen a plan of what to expect, let alone progress on their implementation - it's all a big unknown. All this together isn't exactly inspiring me with confidence and the track record is plenty bad enough. It leads me to believe that we'll see yet another barely fleshed out theatre with not a lot to do. It's certainly making the game even wider, but it's not doing much to address its very shallow depth. I guess at least the announced assets, modules and maps for PTO are all coherent with each other, which is rather unprecedented in DCS, so that's definitely a welcome change in direction. That's not to say there's been no improvements (we did get submarines that can actually submerge, torpedoes (albeit basic and broken EDIT: actually this has been fixed), how the A/RGM-84D aims was made higher fidelity (instead of just aiming for the centre of the unit), the straight-running torpedoes appear to have been fixed. However, there's still a gargantuan distance to go (and that's without expanding into ASW, heck, even purely concerning AAW there's a heck of a long way to go) - the AI, the damage, weapon and sensor modelling, physics, controllable functionality (such as lights) etc, etc, etc.

Hi everyone, A smaller one, the 5V55 and 48N6 missiles seem to leave 2 smoke trails. This is most visible just after launch, when performing pitch-over. One smoke trail appears to emit from the rear of the plume as expected, but another appears to emit from the missile itself, leaving 2 distinct smoke trails. The 2nd trail emitted from the missile seems to cut off before motor burn-out (when the plume and its smoke trail disappears). S-300PS_smoke.trk S-300FM_smoke.trk

And if you want to change the date, you're looking for the Date, Time and Weather settings, which is the button that has a clock and a cloud on the left side (in the group under "MIS"):

It's difficult to say. I'd more say something like 20-30% in terms of the work. You'd have to completely redo the nose, the engine nacelles, the tail. The fuselage would require significant changes also (the different nacelles and adding the defensive armament would require significant changes to the geometry). I'm not aware of the differences between the wings, horizontal and vertical stabilisers. Though obviously, the hardpoints on the wings would be quite different (the -D and -J not having any) and there wouldn't be the same antennas on the vertical stabiliser (though that appears to be only at the tip).

In which case, I'll correct the correction - thanks

On a somewhat related note, has the AIM-9J (though the AIM-9E is also applicable) been requested for the F-5E? In that case the missile already exists, but isn't available to an aircraft that should have it.