Northstar98

So, presumably it will be the Mogami, after being modified as an aviation cruiser?

As I've said elsewhere I really hope we'll be getting at least one allied escort type to go with them. A counterpart to the Mogamis (such as a Brooklyn, which would also fit fairly well on the South Atlantic map), would also be great.

The Mogami was, but the Suyuza, Mikuma and Kumano weren't. Suyuza would later have 5-inch twin mounts replace the rear 20.3 cm/50 turrets to improve anti-aircraft defence (along with numerous smaller-calibre guns), Mikuma was sunk before any conversion could be carried out and AFAIK Kumano remained in it's post-refit configuration. Whichever gets chosen we'll have something accurate to some part of the WWII PTO though.

Just so you're aware, the guns being elevated on the #2 turret to clear the #1 turret isn't necessarily an error, I've provided some references, which can be found in this post, which suggest this particular issue might be correct as-is. There shouldn't however be the large extensions for the rangefinder at the rear and on-top of the #1 and #2 turrets, though they should be present on the #3 and #4 turrets.

Just as an FYI, the overwhelming majority of images show the Mogamis as they were before they were refitted. The main difference is that pre-refit they had triple 15.5 cm/60 turrets (where there definitely is enough clearance between the first and 2nd turret) but the ones shown in the trailer are post-refit (the fit accurate to WWII), with turrets with double 20.3 cm/50 guns. The 20.3 cm guns are longer than the 15.5 cm guns so having them needed to be elevated over in order to clear the #1 turret might be accurate. If you're looking at an image of a Mogami and you see turrets with 3 guns instead of 2, then you're looking at a different fit to what's seen in the trailer and a fit that is less accurate to WWII. Unfortunately images showing the refitted configuration clearly seem to be very hard to come-by, I did find one though, so here's a comparison: Pre-refit (triple 15.5 cm/60 guns): https://naval-encyclopedia.com/ww2/japan/photos/Kumano_1939_forward_turrets.jpg Post-refit (double 20.3 cm/50 guns): https://naval-encyclopedia.com/ww2/japan/photos/Mogami_1943_forward_turrets-bridge-view.jpg Note how the barrels on the #2 turret appear to be raised above turret #1 and how these turrets aren't fitted with the rangefinder seen on turrets 4 and 5. This is further backed up by these plans (sourced from here), these appear to be actual Japanese plans (albeit annotated) for the vessels: The large extensions for the rangefinders do only appear to be on #3 and #4 turrets however, so you're right on that part.

By the looks of it: I really hope we see at least one escort for it though, I only saw the LST Mk II and Arthur Middleton in the trailer. Though at least the Japanese are getting a Mogami (at least AFAIK).

Sure - it would definitely be useful for the F10 map, debrief etc. Yes. Preferably as collapsible menus. This way we have a practically foolproof system, that uses names that are precise, without needing to have massive long display names that include (albeit inconsistently) the system designation/name for every individual component, like it does now. So for instance, we'd have something like [+] S-300PS [SA-10B Grumble], which when expanded would then show: [-] S-300PS [SA-10B Grumble] 5K56S PBU 5N59S [Tin Shield-B] 5N63S RPN [Flap Lid-B] 5N63S RPN [Flap Lid-B] (40V6M) FCR (ideally this would be merged with the truck mounted version and just have a drop down to select which (like with tented roofs etc), so we wouldn't need 2 entries). 5N64S RLO [Big Bird-B] 5N66M NVO [Clam Shell] (40V6MD) 5P85D PU 5P85S PU [+] ... Of course, there should be buttons for collapse and expand all. This could also be used for ships, which could further be broken down into variants and then individual members: Of course, for units that are self-contained (SA-8, SA-9 etc) they can be listed individually (though if we were to get say, a P-40 and a PU-12, then they could be grouped together, as above). I mean, for the rest of it and for items within a group, sure thing. EDIT: Actually, on revisiting this, while I don't think it matters too much, there might be some utility in having them organised in a particular order. For instance: Guns/Launchers Fire-control systems Acquisition systems Command and Control Systems Any additional components Within each subcategory it should probably be named alphanumerically, though I would probably make exceptions where there's a hierarchy within a group, where one unit is subordinate to another. An example of where this is the case is the S-300PS where the 5P85D TEL is subordinate to the 5P85S TEL, so in my mind the 5P85S should be listed before the 5P85D. So for the S-300PS [SA-10B Grumble] it would be ordered as follows: 5P85S TEL 5P85D TEL 5N63S RPN [Flap Lid-B] 5N59S [Tin Shield-B] 5N64S RLO [Big Bird-B] 5N66M NVO [Clam Shell] 5K56S PBU 5I57A 200 kW Generator I think if members of a class are to be included they should be in order (so as to make finding a particular vessel easier), but the naming convention I've used already achieves that. If it's to be categorised as I've laid out, then they should be listed everywhere they're appropriate. For instance (and this is an example I used in the linked thread), we have the components (apart from missing ones) to make both the initial version of Rapier and Rapier FSA, the latter group would list all the items of the first, adding DN 181 Blindfire: Absolutely. Same for having say, a hotkey to take you straight to the encyclopedia entry (similar to C:MO and its database). That way weapon entries could be made more concise (as in some cases, the new system did away with naming what variant we have, despite making the name longer).

Looks like it's just the animation argument not being correctly set for uncontrolled/static units - the ladder (and the wheel chocks for that matter) are present in the modelviewer. The ladder is argument 91, the wheels are 0 (nose), 3 (right main), 5 (left main) and the chocks are 23.

If I'm not mistaken, "fly bullseye" refers to ICLS, not LRLS.

Perhaps it would be good to maybe get at least some light smoke - something similar to what can be seen on the PRV-13 in this image: Ideally though we'd have greater variance in destroyed models that actually reflect what's happened (I'd expect something destroyed by near-miss artillery or small-arms fire to look rather different if it was instead destroyed by a 500-lb bomb for instance). You can absolutely find examples of destroyed and burnt out Flap Lids that look very close to what we have in DCS, I'd imagine some of these (particularly the first 2) would be very difficult to perform BDA with from a black and white image from an aircraft targeting pod (all of these were sourced from Oryxpioenkop, documenting Ukrainian losses, which seemed to have images that were more clear): These examples however were probably either destroyed by artillery near-misses or from loitering munitions. I'd expect a Flap Lid that's just had an ARM go through it to look like this and I'd expect much more destruction from a direct impact from a bomb for instance.

I mean, personally I'd just list both, though I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it optional. For me, here's how I'd go about it (at least for English localisation): Before 2.7 I would go through the files and correct/rename them as I saw fit, resulting in a cleaner, more consistent set up that managed to be accurate and precise while also remaining fairly concise. Unfortunately, from 2.7 and onwards all the relevant files were locked down and hidden so now that's impossible and I'm stuck with how ED and others do things. Unfortunately, however, IMO how they do it leaves a lot to be desired: When the naming convention came to DCS (which may have also been 2.7), names were made more ambiguous despite being made longer. It's inconsistent: V PVO SAM systems have their native designations, but not their native names. PVO-SV systems on the other hand have their native names but not their native designations. Most of the time NATO designations and reporting names are used, but sometimes they're not (such as the HQ-7, which has the NATO designation CSA-7. I'm not sure on reporting name but I have seen Sino-Crotale used for it). The Krivak II is another example. Sometimes project numbers are used for ships (such as for the Krivak II and Grisha V) and sometimes they aren't (such as the Ropucha I). Sometimes the wrong NATO designation and reporting name is used: The 9K338 Igla-S should have the NATO designation and reporting name SA-24 Grinch. In DCS it uses the same ones as the 9K38 Igla - SA-18 Grouse. The HY-2 missile is given the NATO designation & reporting name SS-N-2 Silkworm; not only is neither accurate for the HY-2 (which should be CSSC-3 Seersucker), but Silkworm isn't even accurate for the SS-N-2. Silkworm is the NATO reporting name for the HY-1 missile (NATO designation CSSC-2) and SS-N-2 is the NATO designation for the ship-launched P-15 Termit missile (NATO reporting name Styx). Sometimes a name is given for a specific variant or member of a class, when it's actually inaccurate to what's actually present/depicted: The Chieftain Mk 3 isn't a Mk 3. The U-boat VIIC U-flak isn't a U-flak. Everything with Ural-375 are actually all Ural-4320s, not Ural-375s. EDIT: This has now been fixed. The Kh-41 is actually a 3M80* (the Kh-41 is the air-launched version, only the ship-launched version exists in DCS). The Mk 5 Walleye II is actually a Mk 23 Walleye II ERDL. Corvette 1241.1 Molniya is actually a Pr. 1241.1M, the 1241.1 is a different version and the difference isn't trivial. "LS Samuel Chase", despite having lifebuoys with "Samuel Chase" written on them, has the hull number of the Arthur Middleton, not the Samuel Chase (why is this not instead called something like "Arthur Middleton Attack Transport" or APA 25 (Arthur Middleton) with the individual members present as liveries?). AGM-62 is a designation that was dropped and replaced before the Walleye went into production (and it should instead just be called Mk 23 Walleye II ERDL), similarly BGM-109 is a legacy designation that was replaced by the time the C variant was introduced (especially so for the Block applicable to our ships) - so it should instead be renamed to RGM-109C TLAM-C Block III. The formatting is rather odd, it flip-flops between using native designations/names and NATO designations and reporting names, instead of grouping them together. For example: "SA-10 S-300 Grumble" instead of "S-300 [SA-10 Grumble]". I could go on. *

Absolutely - it would be way more appropriate than the Tin Shield - a radar that's associated with the S-300. And yes - I definitely agree. It's absolutely staggering how it hasn't been implemented as a functional unit - it's one of the most prolific (at least for the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Bloc) early warning/GCI radars going - we already have 3 maps appropriate for it and are getting another one. It has a perfectly adequate model, appropriately animated and in the right format. Yet, for over a decade, it's been non-functional eye-candy on the Caucasus map alone. The same is true for the PRV-11, which would also be a good unit to fill out air defences. The only other Eastern Bloc EWRs (at least those that can actually function as EWRs) we have are the 1L13 and 55G6 - both of which haven't been touched since LOMAC (though given that the 55G6 and 55Zh6U radars were the direct successor to the P-14, that would also be far more appropriate than the Tin Shield). The P-37 has a far more appropriate model (the only thing it could do with is having the mound it sits on removed). All it needs is a basic .lua definition for the unit and its sensor - I've had a go at it myself (mainly by reverse engineering the P-19), but I've no idea how to implement it as a unit nor whether I've even done it correctly: P-37.lua P-37_sensr.lua

I've encountered a bug with the Kh-22 - on launch, it clips into the launching aircraft. What seems to happen is that as soon as the ventral fin/rudder unfolds, the missile's control surfaces unlock which then results in the missile climbing through the launching aircraft. I'm not entirely sure what sequence of events should happen when a Kh-22 is launched, but delaying the unlocking of the control surfaces should resolve the issue - which if I'm not mistaken was how it was pre 2.9.0. EDIT: According to this video, the missile appears to free-fall from the launching aircraft, gaining quite a bit of separation before engine ignition (which occurs ~2-2.5 s after launch) and pitch-up. Fortunately, the missile seems to lack a collision model (at least between it and its launching aircraft), so it doesn't lead to damage to the aircraft. The problem happens on all 3 stations (see Kh-22_clipping1.trk for the wing stations, and 2 for the fuselage station). Kh-22_clipping1.trk Kh-22_clipping2.trk

Yep...

Not over water it's not (which is what this thread is primarily concerned with) - and that's from the link you provided. Of course the real solution is: And there I'm definitely with you. But I'm going to maintain that decoupling the 33 ft and 1600 ft winds would definitely be a good stop-gap for the time being, given just how long the new weather system is taking (and we still don't know what it'll even entail) - having them be locked together with one just over 2× over open ocean isn't realistic.

Sorry! The OP no longer applies but the main thing to be investigated is the total fuel, which still seems smaller than expected. I'm not sure how much fuel the A/A42R-1 air refuelling store adds but the previous D-704 (which is a similar size and configuration) contained 300 US gallons of JP-5, which translates to about around 2050 lbs, at 20°C; at the moment it currently carries 24 lbs. The total weight of the aircraft is also less than the regular S-3B with a single full drop tank, that could be explained by the removal of ASW equipment seen in the tanker version in DCS, but it might be worth investigating. Merry Christmas!

Nah, they (or rather cameochemicals) are good . The data sheet I used had a table of densities vs temperature - I simply picked one and worked out the mass from a given volume (300 US gallons).

There's been a change compared to 2.9.1, but there's still some funny business going on with how much fuel the S-3B tanker has available and how much it weighs. Though haven't tested how much fuel it dispenses.

Looks like this issue was somewhat-ish addressed recently, though there's still some funny business going on: The non-tanker version can now carry 13144 lbs/5962 kg of fuel internally, with a total aircraft mass (with no other stores) of 39793 lbs/18095 kg. With a single drop tank those figures change to 15159 lbs/6876 kg and 41919 lbs/19014 kg respectively. With 2 drop tanks the figures are 17174 lbs/7790 kg and 44044 lbs/19978 kg respectively. The tanker can now carry 15183 lbs/6887 kg of fuel at a total mass of 41833 lbs/18975 kg. So, larger than just internal fuel, but the A/A42R-1 air refuelling store seems to only carry an extra 24 lbs/11 kg of fuel but somehow removes mass, compared the S-3B with a single drop tank. EDIT: Actually, this disparity in weight could just be the result of the ASW deconfiguration program, which removed much of the ASW equipment. Depending on the weight of the removed ASW equipment a post ASW deconfiguration program S-3B with a drop tank and refuelling store might weigh less than a pre-ASW deconfig. S-3B with a single drop tank. EDIT 2: Though it should probably carry more than just 24 lb of fuel in the air refuelling store - sorry Flappie I'm not sure how much the A/A42R-1 weighs, nor how much fuel it carries; but the predecessor D-704 pod (with a very similar size and configuration) carries ~300 US gallons of fuel and weighs ~700 lbs (unsure if this is full or empty, though I'm leaning on empty as 300 US-gals of JP-5 is somewhere around 2050 lbs at 20°C) according to the source above.

Aviastorm update, from Discord:

Looking at the guide, it has surface winds be 70% of the 2000 ft winds over sea (or put another way, the 2000 ft wind speed should be ~1.43× the surface speed, right now DCS is locked to ~2.125×). You did mention this above, but as this thread is primarily concerned with winds over sea, it doesn't make sense to have the 1600 ft setting locked to just over double the 33 ft setting. As for backing and veering, that isn't possible in DCS either as the setting is locked to be the exact same direction. Given that some locations in DCS are indeed areas where (at least from those forecasting models) there are exceptions, I'm personally much more on the side of having the setting be able to be set by the mission editor (as with other wind layers).

Well, forecasting models operated by various agencies (NOAA, EMCWF, MET office etc) don't show anything like what DCS does, where you're locked into having just over double the speed of the winds at 33 feet, 100% of the time in absolutely all circumstances. Yes, sometimes you see a doubling, but I've also seen a quintupled and sometimes I've seen it be half of the surface speeds (depending on terrain, location etc).

Agreed - as someone who likes to fly low, IMO high resolution terrain mesh trumps high resolution textures.

Just checked the .edm and lods files of the F-14A and B and yep, doesn't seem to be there either.

Yeah doesn't look like it's in - I can't find the model in either the F-14's shapes folder in CoreMods or the main Bazar folder either.