Northstar98

Hi everyone, Despite the following being in the changelog: I am still experiencing issues with 5-inch/38 calibre guns, as fitted to the USS Samuel Chase and Essex-class. In the below tracks I have a single aircraft approaching the USS Samuel Chase from the starboard rear-quarter. Wind is calm, the ship is not in motion and I've set the weather to clear skies. In both cases the aircraft approaches from the same direction and remains in level flight, the only difference between the 2 tracks is the altitude the aircraft flies at. While the 3-inch/50 guns engage more-or-less as expected (when the aircraft briefly exits their engagement zone, they cease tracking and reset to their default positions instead of attempting to continue tracking the target - so far only the KS-19 appears to do this) in the 6kft track the 5-inch gun never engages, despite doing so in the 2kft track. 6000 ft should be more than within the capability of 5-inch gun (in-fact it outranges and has a higher ceiling than the 3-inch guns - compare this table (5"/38) with this table (3"/50)). With the Essex (which I've separately reported here) the guns track the target in both cases (the directors though do not), but only in the 2kft track do they actually engage. However, even so, they take a long time to commence firing (the Bofors 40 mm actually opening fire first) and they only get a single salvo off before resetting(-ish) and no 5-inch gun further attempts to engage the aircraft. In the 6kft track, they track the target, but never engage and simply reset, pretty much exactly mirroring this bug report for ground-based AAA - where so far only the KS-19 behaves as expected. SamuelChase_5-inch38_Engage_2kft.trk SamuelChase_5-inch38_NoEngage_6kft.trk Essex_5-inch38_Engage-ish_2kft.trk Essex_5-inch38_NoEngage_6kft.trk

Now that the B-1B and B-52H have got most of their loadouts fleshed out (still some things missing however) I wanted to bump this one - in the above post I've got a mostly complete set, with some combinations missing. @NineLine @BIGNEWY

Very nice to see this has now been implemented, ditto for the B-1B (though I believe AGM-154Cs are inaccurate). However, we still cannot carry AGM-86C externally, only the D. We are still however missing the AGM-158A JASSM and the AGM-142 w/ AN/MSW-55.

Well, in terms of what it's been defined as having maybe - the radar ranges are quite severely under-represented, even for a mid 80s Group 0 E-2C which would've had the older-style, 4-bladed propellers and almost certainly wouldn't have Link 16 capability. The current radar has the same instrumented range as the AN/APS-82 from the E-1B Tracer - even the AN/APS-96 from the E-2A/E-2B has a slightly longer range. The model (with its propellers) most fits a Hawkeye 2000 (though the non-functional CEC antenna is still present and quite noticeable IMO), this should have an AN/APS-145 should have at least a 350 nmi instrumented range (at the moment DCS, the -138 is defined as having a ~180 nmi range).

Yeah have now got the Mk 36, Mk 49 Mod 0 and Mk 49 Mod 1 tracking the 1S31 (with the Mk 37 tracking the 1S11 as before, albeit without a tone or ADI steering). However, if the radar is by itself the Shrike does not track, this is unlike other fire-control radars like the SNR-75V or the SNR-125M.

I wonder - had we gone with the realistic option in the first place, I wonder how much of an issue people grumbling about a display light or targeting pods not having far beyond the resolution they should have would be, or if there'd be much grumbling at all.

Well, isn't this supposed to be one of the reasons multiple targeting pod options exist? I'd argue that if current targeting pods are kept in their current state, that negates some of the effort going into newer, more advanced sensors like AN/AAQ-33. Also, shouldn't this game be about depicting stuff accurately? Of course where it's feasible and practical to do so? Of course, but no image enhancement can perfectly replace data that's necessarily lost when using digital zoom (considering what digital zoom does is take a crop of the image and then enlarge it to fit the display).

+1, would definitely like an AGM-88B though one may come for the Tornado anyway.

Yeah, but you do 9x digital zoom and (minus any post-processing enhancement, which won't be perfect), that gets cut down to 29x29 and yet in DCS it seems perfectly lossless.

According to the DCS F-16 manual, the LITENING variant we should have is the II, which has a 256×256 resolution for FLIR. To me, most targeting pods in-game seem to be overperforming, especially when it comes to digital zooms which appear perfectly lossless. Something that seems to be changing with Sniper.

The problem though is when the wrong HAS model is so wrong to the point it bears very little resemblance to the real place (e.g. Gütersloh) or even worse, stops you from basing aircraft that were really based there (such as A-10s at Spangdahlem).

Yeah, 5"/38 guns have been dual-purpose-ish since the introduction of the Samuel Chase, with the Essex I seem to have mixed results, where the same threat setup in 2 different missions leads to inconsistent results. See here. I haven't tested since the initial update though, so this may be out of date. EDIT: Nope and the Samuel Chase appears to be affected also, just less so. Why -ish? Because at the moment these guns only have one type of shell, which is time-fused - against aircraft this is mostly fine (though VT, i.e. proximity-fused shells were in circulation from at least '43 onwards) but for surface/land targets that aren't soft, these rounds (unless they impact before the time-fuse functions) are mostly ineffective. What we need are multiple shell types for ships - a point detonating round (at least, though some guns should also have AP/SAP rounds that offer post-impact detonation) and a time-fused round or a proximity-fused round (though ideally both, where applicable - though illumination should also be on the table, less relevant for this thread though). However, just about every post-WWII naval artillery should receive multiple round types, where applicable.

Yeah and not just for German bases, but USAFE and RAFG bases too - all but Bitburg (though even then one of the shelter types, despite being accurate, is the wrong shape) have incorrect shelter types.

They're still there - the issue is what Zabuzard describes. The list simply has too many entries for them to all be included (at least on my end). Personally I get around this by using weapons restrictions and removing weapons not in USAF inventory (such as the SAMP Type 25 bombs and the BL775). Unfortunately as these aren't persistent (even optionally so - something I requested here), this has to be done every single time I want to use bombs cut off by the length of the list, which further isn't helped by the fact that the list sometimes has duplicate entries for the same thing on a different station. The other thing is that historical mode doesn't filter payloads by operator, only by date - that would also alleviate this issue in lieu of a scrollbar (which I also separately requested here).

I was experiencing the same issue, but it seems to be fixed on my end.

Here's an idea, one that's been brought up loads of times before: Instead of trying to make unfeasible REDFOR aircraft, make BLUFOR aircraft that are peer contemporaries of REDFOR aircraft that can actually be made. 80s F-16A Block 10/15 or F-15A for instance - both would fit very well on the Germany map.

+1 though note that CV-11 is currently the name used in the mission editor. Personally, I'd rather the ship depict a class, allowing for more task groups to be depicted. If it was intended to represent a class it should be renamed to "Essex". If it was intended to just depict the Intrepid, the "CV 11" name can be retained, but I'd personally change the name in the unit List to "CV 11 USS Intrepid" or "CV 11 Intrepid". EDIT: Sniped, though @-Rudel- will the F10 map name reflect a class in that case?

+1 I personally wish that if Ugra are going to be doing SAM sites based on a generic template, is to look at a real site in the region, recreate that and then copy and paste where appropriate. For instance: in this image of this SA-2 site near Wittstock, all revetments are visible. If Ugra were to just recreate this (though with the trees removed) and copy and paste it (maybe moving individual revetments as appropriate) for every SA-2 site. Then if they repeat that for each type (here's an SA-3 example, here's an SA-5 example, here's an SA-6 example, here's a HAWK example, here's a Nike-Hercules launch site example), that would be perfectly adequate. Of course, ideally we'd get as 1:1 as possible, but if Ugra were to simply recreate what's shown in these images, that would be fine. There SA-5 site already has fairly accurate objects, but it's incorrect and personally this is missing the forest for the trees - a less detailed accurate site with only essential positions > a highly detailed site that's inaccurate - right now the SA-5 sites also have another launch battalion that no SA-5 site in Germany had (they all have 2). And FWIW, SA-2 sites in the GDR were equipped with the Spoon Rest-D as a search radar and the SA-5 sites had a Tall King-C and an Odd Pair. Tin Shields in the GDR were only stationed at EWR sites (and Tin Shields IRL are generally used as EWR/GCI radars). The Flat Face-B was only present at SA-3 sites (though the Flat Face-A and Squat Eye could also be seen at some EWR sites).

It's been modelled with AN/ALQ-165 (AFAIK accurate for USMC aircraft of the timeframe - USN aircraft should have AN/ALQ-126B for the timeframe). There's a rotary switch in front of the stick, simply place it to XMIT. The jammer will automatically start transmitting when a radar in a track/fire-control mode is detected and will automatic cease transmitting when a radar in a track/fire-control mode is no longer detected. See page 415-417 of the manual in Mods\aircraft\FA-18C\Doc

+1

Agreed and IRL there's nothing on either approach path that looks like what's here. In satellite imagery, the only vertical obstructions I can find in the immediate are here, here, here and here. Which is pretty well backed up by a 1993/1994 tactical pilotage chart of the area: And is also fairly consistent with era-appropriate approach plates.

+1 having seen it done in C:MO it's incredibly useful - even if it just assumes some standard turn rate.

Definitely agreed. Personally, I'd much rather EWR sites be in a state suitable for placing functional units on - even if that means radomes aren't present (leaving a flat surface, be it a tower/pedestal whatever). Radomes can always be present as a static object that can then be placed over the top (something that's already possible as-is - see the spoiler of this post for a rather crude example). Static templates can then be used to quickly load an EWR network, allowing it to be reused in missions. I really do not see the point of adding decorative EWR sites, when they are and should have a relevant gameplay element and should tangibly affect air combat. It means their suitable for eye-candy and nothing else (and deleting them via the scenery object remove zone usually causes collateral damage and, in cases where EWR's are mounted on towers, result in having a degraded LOS and/or radar horizon). Doing it the way I've set out would allow them to be a tangible gameplay element while providing eye-candy. Radars that are also present as non-functional map objects should also absolutely be made into functional ground units. Especially those that have model files like any other ground unit (in that they are in the right format, are appropriately animated and have a destroyed model), that have been in the game for over 12 years at this point, and are incredible prolific, staple Cold War GCI/EW radars *hint hint* P-37 and PRV-11.

Yes to declaring an emergency, but I'm not too fussed about there being firefighting trucks and what not. But this would be absolutely dependent on broad and substantial ATC and AI improvements in the first place - such as: Actually making an attempt to manage and deconflict traffic, both in the air (for instance by instructing aircraft to orbit for spacing, but doing so in a way where traffic is deconflicted, rather than now where all AI aircraft trace out the same exact circle over the same point at the same altitude, but at different speeds, leading to mid-air collisions) and on the ground (by telling aircraft to hold short and by telling aircraft on the runway to expedite their departure/taxiing). Being able to vector aircraft appropriately rather than just providing bearing and range to a point along the extended runway centreline. Having the AI interact with and obey ATC instructions. By having the ATC support parallel runways.

They've been locked and hidden as of DCS 2.7. Only ships in CoreMods are able to be edited.