Northstar98

In your track, the bombers have already climbed past 6,000 ft when the LPWS' begin tracking it. While the bombers are set to start at 1,000 ft, their next waypoint is set to ~6,500 ft. Given that the bombers are engaged if set to a lower altitude, by the looks of it, it simply looks like they're outside the maximum engagement altitude of LPWS (at least in DCS). I'm not sure what the engagement altitude should be or what exact value it's set to (in the .lua defining it, I can only see a value for the maximum detection altitude, which is set at 6,000 m (~24,000 ft)). If the engagement altitude is lower than this, it might explain why they track targets but don't engage (as, in DCS, fire-control systems will track targets in anticipation of them meeting whatever engagement criteria is defined for the unit (min/max range/altitude/speed etc). From limited testing, it looks like targets need to be less than 5,000 ft above LPWS for it to be engaged by it. In the attached track, all I've done is changed the waypoints of the bombers such that the altitude is set to 4,900 ft - so long as they stay below 5,000 ft they'll be engaged. LPWS_4.9kft_test.trk

If you right click it, it should be possible to open in a new tab. It also seems to be a word document.

What I'd recommend you do is spend one session setting up the deck with static objects in whichever configuration you like. This may take some time (especially seeing as you will sometimes need to check alignment, as it isn't always possible to check in the mission editor - a 3D editor would certainly help here). Don't forget to link the static objects you place with the carrier unit. Once you are done, go to edit -> save static template. Give it an appropriate name, filename and description. Contrary to what the name suggests, you can actually use this system with any unit type, including mixed. Then when you want to make a new mission, load the template you created via edit -> load static template. You'll be able to move the carrier where you desire, subtly change the configuration of static objects if you want, change the carrier's heading and waypoints etc. The only downside with this method is that unlike the unit templates, these templates are map specific, so you may have to redo it for each map. What would be nice, is if the unit templates could support groups with multiple unit types. Allowing say, naval units + static objects to be in one group. This way you'd have the same advantages as with the static templates, but you'd be able to reuse the template on whichever map you choose.

I infinitely prefer adding stuff to an empty deck than having enforced static aircraft that you most likely won't be able to do anything about (such as the case with HB's Forrestal (albeit with deck equipment) and for the examples named), almost always forcing you to have 1 configuration. Especially so when they take up parking slots for useable aircraft (which aren't exactly numerous to begin with). It's far easier to add things in the DCS mission editor than to remove things. The way it currently is gives me the flexibility to have whatever configuration I see fit. A system whereby there are static aircraft from the get go that I can't remove is inherently the least flexible option. As for saving a configuration - that's already facilitated with the static templates. It may not be the most convenient thing in the world (it would be nice if the unit templates supported mixed unit types as a single group), but it does save time so long as you're using the same map.

Just as an FYI, #3 is already present

Would this include damaged and broken off parts retaining collision models in general? Not only would this result in damage from flying through debris, it would also mean that broken off components would leave splashes and explosions on collision with the water/ground. Currently it seems some parts do and some don't.

I don't think I can agree about them dropping the ball here either. I get that usually ED aren't the most coherent about things, but here it's not the case. We are still getting a relevant fleet carrier for 1944 and onwards operation (and the WWII Marianas map gets us close-ish to the Battle of the Philippine Sea). Enterpise is a pretty famous ship, taking part in more battles and having more battle awards than any other aircraft carrier and any other ship. Enterpise did take part in the Battle of the Philippine Sea (as did 6 Essex and 8 Independence, usually 2 per task group), with Hellcats embarked as part of Air Group 10 (alongside Corsairs - which we are getting even if it might not be the right variant, Avengers and whatever the plural for Dauntless is). The Independence only has numbers above the fleet carriers, but the fleet carriers are much more capable by themselves, being able to embark 2-3 times as many aircraft (though unlikely we'll actually be able to use anything like their full complement). With all that said, it would be excellent to get an Independence, though right now I think what we really need to see are escorts to flesh out the task groups (though yes, the Independence would also flesh them out too).

Hi everyone, It seems that units (at least amphibious ones) can now be spawned on the decks of ships, including ships that are moving, and will stay put through turns and speed changes (previously when I had tested this, they would spawn at the sea surface, requiring them to be jumped onto ships, though the mission editor restriction still restricts you from placing non-amphibious units onto ships). However, if you use CA to take control of a unit placed on a ship, it will immediately start floating upwards. It's almost as if the unit is being abducted by aliens or something. On the Tarawa at least, they appear to come to a stop and level out at 288 ft MSL and continue to follow the ship (albeit not exactly in the same place and orientation). But it gets weirder still - if you switch to another unit, other members of the group may start doing some other weird things. In the tracks below, when player control is relinquished to another unit, the remaining units in the group fly off of the deck and start travelling in unexpected directions, behaving quite oddly (drifting, jumping around, appearing to snap between pitch angles). GroundUnitsTarawa.trk GroundUnitsTiconderoga1.trk GroundUnitsTiconderoga2.trk

That's an argument to correct AI gunners, not to completely remove armament. I hope you are right. Though seeing a ship that, at least from the screenshots, appears quite far along in development with all armament missing (as well as the Mk 37 directors) is unprecedented. Compare that to the Mogamis seen in the 2024 and Beyond trailer, though I guess there the absence of armament would be much more difficult to ignore.

I do hope you are kidding. DCS should be about depicting this stuff as accurately as possible. Units like this shouldn't be artificially nerfed or buffed to try and level the playing field.

Development screenshots of this one look pretty good so far. One problem though - where are all its guns? We've already had vessels added to DCS with the wrong weapons (La Combattante IIa, Castle) and having some weapons missing (Tarawa), I hope we're not about to get a ship that's supposed to be armed without any armament.

I love what I'm seeing with the Enterprise, though still a bit worried that no other escorts seem present and the same LST(2) and Arthur Middleton are being used in screenshots. One question I do have though is what fit will the Enterprise be? IRL its armament went through numerous changes with differing amounts of different types of guns. At the moment, from the screenshots, it doesn't appear to be armed at all.

As Tholozor said - they aren't linked to any country. They're only available as wholly non-functional eye-candy at airbases on the Caucasus map alone. The P-37 does rotate and you can destroy it, but that's the extent of its current functionality.

Yep, absolutely. Both (especially the P-37) can be found on the Caucasus, Sinai, Syria, the upcoming Kola map, and the future Iraq map IRL. They were both very prolific and are staple radars of Cold War redfor. They're already appropriately animated and their graphics are definitely decent enough (though I'd maybe remove the grass mound the P-37 sits on). The P-37, in addition to an EWR and GCI radar, would also make for a far better stand in for the 5N84A radar for the S-200V. Certainly far more appropriate than either the P-19 or the 5N59S.

Well, if that's the attitude, why improve anything at all?

Looks absolutely incredible! If you're talking about the aircraft at 9:05, it's a Su-24M/MR.

Only person making you read this thread is you.

Absolutely definitely agree, though probably something for the general wishlist.

Unfortunately I'm the wrong person to ask, though I believe @Whiskey11 has attempted something with the PRV-11 though (I at least did find this).

There are some exceptions where the gradient does change (though you will eventually end up with a linear gradient), but more or less. All the mission editor and F10 map will tell you is the altitude or depth under your cursor (in the above spoiler you can see ALT -176 in bottom-left of the screenshot). One thing I've done though is that I've gone into Server.lua (found in your main DCS installation, under Config\View) and changed "CameraTerrainRestriction" from true to false, which lets me take the camera underwater, allowing you to inspect the seabed visually. Perhaps (though this is something for the wishlist) it would be nice if the ALT layer showed bathymetry and not just topographical relief. Sorry, I completely forgot to mention how the IRL depths compare with DCS. The problem there is that the ports are a couple of metres too shallow for the Santa Fe. Batumi harbour has a depth of 5 m practically all throughout, which is just below the draught setting for the Santa Fe. Sochi is 6 metres throughout, though immediatelly next to the docks is 5 metres. Both get deeper around their mouths though. As Minsky said, they likely are using a shallower draught setting, or maybe don't have one even defined. I wouldn't be able to tell you which without seeing the .lua definition for it (for ED ships, they can be found here, simply click on the one of interest and Ctrl+F "draft" (I use the British spelling).

The Caucasus map has very simplistic seabed topography, it's more-or-less just linear down to 100 m. The real thing isn't quite so simple and goes quite a bit deeper. With these specfic examples however, it's less so that the ports are too shallow and rather that the vessels being used here are simply too large. The Handy Wind has a draught of about 8.4 m (though I've seen it also listed as nearly 10 m), the Seawise Giant about 24 m and the Santa Fe, 5.2 m. In DCS, the Handy Wind has a draught of 9.5 m, the Seawise Giant 29 m and the Santa Fe 6 m. The only one that's really off (though it could be that ED have defined it for full load) is the Seawise Giant, but correcting it wouldn't change anything in this case. IRL, according to this, Batumi harbour has a channel depth of 9.4-10 m, the cargo pier 6.4 - 7.6 m and the achorage and oil terminal 7.1 - 9.1 m. The port of Sochi, according to this, has a channel depth of 6.4 - 7.6 m, the cargo pier has a depth of 4.9 - 6.1 m and the achorage has a depth of 11 - 12.2 m. So in both cases, the Seawise Giant isn't getting in - it's draught is far too large when loaded (as it is in DCS). The Handy Wind isn't getting into Sochi (beyond the anchorage anyway) and is barely getting into Batumi. The Santa Fe though should mostly be good for both.

According to this, the M60A3's laser rangefinder has a maximum range of 5000 m (about 2.7 nautical miles). According to this document (approved for public release - see page 3 of the reader for the distribution statement) mentions a maximum effective range of 3000-4000 m for the primary armament, 1200-1800 m for the commander’s .50 cal MG and 900 m for the coaxial MG. (See the tables on 18-20 of the reader). For the T-55, tankograd has an article with an image of the sight (TSh2B-32P), the maximum range is 6000 m (~3.23 nmi) for HEF (ОФ) ammunition, 4000 m for AP (БР, ПОДК) ammunition, 3000 m for HEAT (БК) and 2200 m for the coaxial MG (ГТ). Note that the stadiametric rangefinder only goes out to 2800 m, for a target 2.7 m tall. For the Chieftain, first note that despite what it's called in-game, it most definitely isn't a Mk 3. If ED intended it to be based on the Mk 3, then given that we appear to have a tank that's completed Totem Pole and Sundance upgrades, that would make it a Mk 7/L. That aside, this quotes 10,000 m (~5.4 nmi) range for the Chieftain's laser rangefinder, which is backed up by a Marconi pamphlet on IFCS (though not sure if that's rule 1.16 compliant as it doesn't have a distribution statement). What the maximum effective range is I don't know, though is likely a lot less. The real thing's sight has markings for up to 3200 m (note that the sight used in game appears pre IFCS and has RMG markings despite the tank not having ranging machine gun).

Almost certainly no as this will likely be flat.

I'll certainly take a modern day map, so long as all the Cold War era airfields are present in Cold War configuration (and sites like this will help). Here, I'd much rather compromise that not do it at all, given just how much fits and how significant a theatre it is in a Cold War gone hot scenario.

Would love a 1980s north and/or central Germany map. Easily the map that makes the most sense given our current modules and assets and a very important theatre during the Cold War.