Northstar98

Yeah, can't say I'm interested in GWOT scenarios, I'll be waiting for the southern expansion, if that entails BLUFOR airbases.

Yep, certainly is. Unfortunately, and as much as I'd like it to change change, historical coherency is not something DCS does well at all. It seems very little (or indeed any at all) consideration is given towards it. My guess is that it was chosen simply because it's more modern if there was any reason at all. There's a few other examples like this, though as they're not relevant to the Hind this probably isn't the best place for them.

Well that's certainly interesting, I'd love to test it as great circles aren't applicable to flat maps and would have the direct polar opposite of their intended effect on them.

Absolutely agree. Items such as those you've listed should definitely have higher priority than they currently do. Some maps are certainly better than others, but then there are some where's there's either very little or nothing modelled. The only thing I'll say about EWR sites though, is that I wish they'd be left empty (with just the correct border, fences etc) - I don't really see the point of having radars that are purely cosmetic (such as what's seen at some locations on the Syria map), having the sites empty makes it easier to place radars that can be used as functional units.

I'm guessing it's the old VEAO one - it's still in the unit list, albeit AI only.

I strongly doubt any navigation system in DCS is calculating for great circles as all it would do on a flat map is make longer routes - the exact opposite of what it would do on a sphere.

For me I think it's the coast surrounding Bodø in the first image - both the mesh and textures seem to have quite a low resolution and part of the textures appear stretched. The mesh of the islands immediately north of the air station also looks quite low resolution - reminding me almost of the Caucasus map. You can also see similar areas in the bottom-right of the 6th image (including what looks to be a pyramid). I'm not going to hold too much judgement as the map is WIP and it's still firmly at the top of my most anticipated maps.

True, though this is an issue faced in real life, of course sometimes you've got restricted operating areas and sometimes not many escorts, but then this is why a layered defense is employed. One thing made worse in DCS that isn't just the maps, is that the Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga should have access to much longer-ranged missiles (RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV for the latter, RIM-174A ERAM for the former), which would partially counteract this problem. SM-2MR in DCS also behaves like an SM-1MR and doesn't fly a trajectory optimised for engaging low-flying threats at longer ranges. The other thing is that ships won't manoeuvre to adapt to a changing threat axis, not will they manoeuvre defensively at all. All this however, is probably going further and further off-topic, so I'll cut it off here.

Yes, there absolutely is. The Stark's Phalanx was famously left in a standby mode when it was attacked by 2 AM39 Exocets. And as it will engage just about anything (including on one occasion, a friendly aircraft, see my edit above), you need to be able to switch it off when friendly aircraft are expected in its engagment envelope (and for maintenance etc). The local control panel for Phalanx also has buttons for "HOLD FIRE" (which AFAIK, removes consent to engage targets) and "BREAK ENGAGE" (which AFAIK manually terminates an engagement in progress). Just note that in DCS, the Phalanx behaves no differently to really any AI gun (though they might now differentiate between radar guided and manually directed) so it will never fire at friendlies unless they're in the line of fire. Yeah, at a maximum it can only train ±150° at a maximum and -25° to +85° in elevation, that should definitely be fixed.

It also makes sense if you want to have maximum flexibility when choosing a theatre, the kind of flexibility you don't have on smaller regional maps. Because: There are theatres wholly absent (Vietnam, Balkans, central Europe, GIUK gap etc). Even for theatres which we do have a map for, they sometimes will either miss important areas or won't have them present in a usable state (Caucasus misses Marneuli airbase for 2008 Russo-Georgia War; SoH/PG misses Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain; Channel misses RAF Hudson for Operation Jericho) etc. It's use isn't solely confined to just having massive long distances. Plus, there are several other combat games which do/are going to have world maps, even in cases where the primary theatre is concentrated on one area (Silent Hunter, Sea Power, C:MANO/C:MO etc).

Even without additional stops, the maximum train angles are somewhere around ±150°, so that should be the maximum train angles in any case. But as for firing at other ships, this has indeed happened IRL - I'm not aware of any system to prevent friendly fire as Phalanx systems (at least in their automatic mode) will fire at anything meeting certain criteria (so it shouldn't be firing at targets whose range is opening). In addition to Viper 13's example of the Gulf War when a Phalanx system mistakenly engaged chaff, but there has also been an accident against target drones where rounds hit nearby vessels. In 1996, a JMSDF Phalanx system also mistakenly engaged a USN A-6 Intruder instead of the target it was towing The best thing to do here is to ensure that ships are adequately spaced apart. I'm not sure on the specifics but unlike what's often seen in DCS with tightly bunched formations, it's more realistic to have several miles between ships.

I agree, it seems unfeasible from a size perspective alone. But hopefully we can at least get higher detailed/historical regional maps that overwrite the areas they cover - exactly in the same fashion as just about every other flight sim with a world map. Personally, if I'm interested in a particular map we don't have (for me that would be 1980s north and/or central Germany, GIUK gap, Baltic) my current options are: A map that has the area present in low detail (which the world map would, only it would include every possible theatre, offering maximum flexibility). Higher quality regional maps that don't feature it (assuming they go near it at all, which no current map does). Then I'm choosing option 1. I'd rather have something than nothing. If the TDK can be made available for everyone, such that we can have user mods on terrain, then that would be ideal. Though I should clarify that by low-detail, I mean at minimum: A low-resolution mesh Generic biome-specific textures (e.g. taiga, tundra, temperate steppe, urban etc). At least major aerodromes with the right layout, even with generic objects. Network of at least major roads Forests and urban areas handled by landclass and autogen. I.e. what some flight simulators of old had as their base map.

But there's plenty of gameplay potential unexplored because of an absence of maps or maps not covering relevant areas. I swear I've already said this. I never suggested that, but fortunately, a world map would do this. Even if you're not interested in every possible theatre, a world map offers you maximum flexibility here and even if you want just a limited selection of theatres you're covered. If you stick with smaller regional maps (which often don't cover all relevant areas for conflicts localised to the region) you might always be waiting, with this you won't be.

Not necessarily, you only need the areas where combat is taking place to be high detailed, especially with more realistic starting locations. Then why is it referred to as an Earth map? Why is it referred to as being "the actual planet" or "the whole world"? Yes there is.

The abundance and variety of smaller maps? The majority of our maps (Caucasus, Syria, Sinai, SoH/PG, Iraq, Afghanistan) are all practically adjacent to each other, as are Normandy/Normandy 2.0 and the Channel (in the case of Normandy 2.0 and the Channel, they in-fact overlap in the areas they cover). I wouldn't exactly call that an abundance of maps, nor would I describe the variety as huge either, again most of them are just different places of middle east (though at least they all have their own historical potential, though sometimes it's difficult because sometimes areas relevant to some historical conflict aren't present in a usable way). That still leaves loads of potential theatres not covered by our maps - Vietnam, Balkans, Eastern Front, Central Europe, South China Sea, GIUK Gap, etc. A world map would have all possible theatres, including all of the relevant areas for conflicts on those theatres.

Based on?

Yeah, completely agree - especially with these areas. Even if the synthetic one is a higher resolution texture, such that it doesn't look blurry from low altitudes, the lost colour accuracy and the lost details, IMO, more than makes up for it, to the point that satellite textures, even if lower resolution are the better way to go.

Well, it's called "LS Samuel Chase" in the unit list but despite "Samuel Chase" being written on the lifebuoys, it actually has the hull number of the Arthur Middleton.

This would honestly be a dream come true for this theatre - you've got just about everywhere needed for Gulf War and Iran-Iraq War missions.

Absolutely - the system is transportable IRL.

It is however implemented with ACLS, using the same functions. As for the OP, absolutely +1.

How much smoke the rocket motor produces should very much depend on the version used. Unfortunately, this is where using real life images and videos become difficult as only videos and pictures showing specifically MIM-72E or G (which have M121 smokeless motors) will be accurate. In the description of the first video, it lists the variant as MIM-72A - so not appropriate to the G we have in DCS. I couldn't find anything on the image, but if it isn't an E or G, then it also won't be an accurate depiction of how much smoke there should be. Everywhere I look the M121 motor is described as "smokeless" and at least according to this: If this description is accurate, then this is probably correct as is.

Does this mean 9-12, 9-12A or 9-12B?

Bloom I agree with, it's a nice enhancement but probably makes for little impact on the overall perceived quality. Tracers though? Personally, I think DCS' tracers are quite bad, even to the point of spoiling the experience (especially when seen up close), so that's more of a big deal for me.

The reason that makes me suspect visual effects is because it was inconsistent - it was only that particular example where I saw the effect in other examples it isn't there (though that doesn't necessarily mean it's a video editing enhancement - it's just something that stood out to me as odd).