Northstar98

The thing that really needs to be ascertained here is what does the MiG-21's radar do to facilitate a missile launch. If it's the case that the radar doesn't do anything differently to its STT mode in order to support an R-3R then there wouldn't be anything to differentiate a track from a launch and so no launch warning might be accurate. Some radars for instance will inject CW, which can be picked up by a RWR and be used to indicate a launch as opposed to just a track. The same is at least hypothetically true if a missile relies on an uplink (which may be encoded into the radar pulses themselves).

This is only true for simple/pure continuous wave radars. If what you are saying was true, then FMCW radars (a kind of CW radar) wouldn't exist (such as radar altimeters) and neither would the term itself (and nor would for instance, FSK-CW). CW can absolutely be modulated while still being in the category of CW - again, see the above examples. Even in wikipedia's continuous-wave radar page, there's a section on modulated continuous-wave, you can find webpages by HAM radio operators who talk about modulated CW as well.

It seems to still be present even if I disable/remove the supercarrier module and it also works (at least to an extent, mostly down to what lights are implemented) on the Forrestal, Veintinco de Mayo and Invincible.

On the subject of lights, recently a new trigger was implemented to the mission editor which allows you to control the lights. For the Forrestal though: When set to "OFF" it takes a while for all the lights to actually go out - the navigation and landing area lights go out instantly, but there are lights around the island that take ~11 seconds to go out as well (a common bug it seems with the new trigger). EDIT: This behaviour does not occur when transitioning from "AC LAUNCH" to "OFF" - all lights immediately go out, as expected in that case. The OLS is off in "AC RECOVERY" (I have rarely seen it briefly come on in the transition to "AC RECOVERY", but then turns off and stays off - also a common theme). The landing area lights are illuminated in "AUTO (i.e. navigation for the track below)", "NAVIGATION" and "AC LAUNCH". For "NAVIGATION" I would expect just the navigation lights and (assuming they're present and if so, implemented) deck-edge lights + any additional running light (there are lights on the stern that come on in "AC LAUNCH" but are off in all other modes. The same is true for some additional lights around the island which are only on in "AC LAUNCH" and "AC RECOVERY", otherwise they either have dim red lights ("NAVIGATION") or are off completely ("OFF"). For "AC LAUNCH" I would expect the same lights as "NAVIGATION" to be on + the deck floodlights (which do come on). But as for the lights themselves, it would be good if HB could either tone down the scaling of the datum and navigation lights as well as make them such that they're only visible at the right angles. CV_59_light_modes.trk EDIT: The problems relating to the "OFF" only occur if it's selected after "AC RECOVERY", so long as any other mode is selected before "OFF" is set, then it works as expected (see CV_59_light_test2.trk below). CV_59_light_test2.trk

Hi everyone, Recently a new trigger was implemented for the mission editor, providing control of how aircraft carriers are lighted. The trigger has 5 modes: AUTO AC LAUNCH AC RECOVERY NAVIGATION OFF For CVNs 71-75 and the supercarrier Kuznetsov, this seems to mostly work as expected but there are a number of oddities: For CVNs 71-75: The lights illuminating various spaces below decks are on (as with every other mode except "AC RECOVERY") when the mode is set to "OFF". The long-range laser line-up system seems to be illuminated in all modes. I'm not sure what real-world procedure dictates but wouldn't it only be applicable to "AC RECOVERY"? The IFLOLS isn't illuminated in "AC RECOVERY". Are the navigation lights supposed to go off for "AC RECOVERY"? In real footage it's difficult to tell as the port and starboard lights aren't visible from behind (as they should - IRL they should only cover a 112.5° sector from directly ahead, the same should be true for all port/starboard navigation lights). It seems to take a while before the "OFF" setting actually takes effect (~12 seconds), the others are instant. Another thing to perhaps mention, are the deck floodlights in "AC RECOVERY", there's footage where (apart from the bow catapults) the floodlights are on and the floodlights are off. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have 2 seperate settings, one with the floodlights, the other without floodlights. Kuznetsov: There doesn't seem to be a difference between AC LAUNCH and AC RECOVERY. I'm not sure how the Russian Navy does things though I'd expect the landing area lights to not be lit in AC LAUNCH (leaving just the deck edge lights - there doesn't seem to be any floodlights present). The OLS doesn't illuminate with "AC RECOVERY" (only if there's actually an aircraft landing). While the navigation and island lights go out immediately, it once again takes a while for the deck lights to go out (~11 seconds) when set to "OFF" (though at least here the ship does eventually go completely dark). CVN_71_light_modes.trk Kuznetsov_light_modes.trk

So far it seems to work as expected on CVNs 71-75 of the supercarrier module. The only thing is that "AC RECOVERY" has both the lights of the landing area and the orange flood lights illuminated (it would probably be better if we could separate these) and "OFF" still has lights illuminated. The LRLS is also on in all modes apart from "OFF". On the Forrestal, "NAVIGATION" has the lights of the landing area illuminated and "off" still has lights around the island illuminated. As buur said above the setting appears to have no effect on the Tarawa. Though for the Veinticinco de Mayo and Invincible it seems at least partially implemented (there's just no difference between "AC LAUNCH" and "AC RECOVERY", which may well be accurate for Invincible) With all that said, definitely an addition to be pleased about, though it would be nice if the same settings could be applied to every naval unit in the game (though obviously AC LAUNCH and AC RECOVERY won't be applicable to vessels without aviation facilities).

Personally, I'm hoping for something similar to what's been found in other flight simulators for years - have a base spherical world map that facilitates addon terrain that replaces a certain area - facilitating areas depicted as they were historically (such as WWII) and more detailed terrains.

Both the Mk 40 Destructor and Mk 63 Quickstrike were removed from the roadmap some years ago, so I'll believe it when I see it. Except their Mk 46 torpedo also behaves like a WWI-style straight runner and can only be used against surfaced submarines (IRL the torpedo is exclusively for submerged targets). We need far more than just submarine units to model ASW properly, but this is quickly going to derail the thread. Suffice to say I would be fine if the models existed and they could be loaded and dropped even if they didn't actually do anything for the time being, but it kinda calls into question the point if the modelling of ASW remains the way it is.

Before I start I'd like to point out that in DCS, "S-3B" and "S-3B Tanker" represent 2 different versions of the S-3B: The former represents an S-3B before the ASW deconfiguration program (which began in 1998, supposedly completed between 1999 and 2000) and the S-3B tanker represents one that is post ASW deconfiguration program (i.e. ~1999/2000 - 2007) - MAD boom removed, 44 of the 60 sonobuoy chutes blanked over, sonobuoy reference system antennas deleted). For some of the weapons here's a shot of an S-3B with an ADM-141A TALD (these go on BRU-42 ejector racks, on the wing stations, but I'm not sure whether it can carry a total of 2, 4 or 6). Here's an S-3B with an AWW-13 data link pod and an AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER (note how this one is post ASW deconfiguration program - no MAD boom, only 16 remaining sonobuoy chutes, no sonobuoy reference antennas): Here's another showing the AGM-84H/K: Here's an S-3B loaded with what looks like an AN/AWW-13 data link pod and an A/A42R-1 Air Refueling Store: The LAU-10 should also be able to go on a BRU-42 (with at least 2 LAU-10s per station): Here's a shot of an S-3B with AN/AAQ-25 LANTIRN and an air refueling store: Here's one with an AGM-65F (as Vampyre said above the AGM-65D and K are not USN weapons - everything I find online only mentions the AGM-65E and F): For the AGM-84 Harpoon, this states the following: In case anyone is unfamiliar the AGM-84C is the Harpoon Block 1B and the AGM-84D is the Harpoon Block 1C. The AGM-84F is the Harpoon Block 1D. I'm not sure if I'm reading it right, but the AGM-84F might've been cancelled according to this. EDIT: The only Harpoon the S-3B in DCS has available is the AGM-84A Harpoon Block 1 - the -84C has the same range but flies lower (though not sure what altitude) and doesn't perform a pop-up terminal manoeuvre. One other thing to maybe note is that the AGM-65E/F, AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER (+ AN/AWW-13 data link pod) and possibly also the AGM-84E SLAM (I did find this photo of a training SLAM loaded, but looks to be a display) came as part of the Maverick Plus upgrade in the early 2000s, meaning it would probably be more accurate for them to be on the S-3B Tanker and not the regular S-3B (though the problem there is that buddy stores aren't properly implemented). While it would be good (as well as mines and sonobuoys), none of these are weapons DCS supports - the torpedoes it has available are exclusively for ASW (right now only anti-surface, WWI-style, gyro-angle torpedoes are modelled, mines and sonobuoys definitely aren't), it doesn't really make sense adding them until DCS actually supports them.

I never said modules have to be the most common, but the RA-5C also saw the most action, it's by far the most applicable variant to Vietnam for instance. Only if you ignore historical context. Not the case here, but also a more common aircraft might have better potential to be used as a stand-in for other operators (F-4E is an easy example). Of course, users need not care about any of that - I don't think any particular scenario is necessarily more valid than any other. You're quite right that an aircraft doesn't have to be the most common to be chosen (hell, there's hypothetical/paper stuff I'd be interested in, though I'd prefer operational types). But there absolutely is an argument for developing a more common variant over a rare one. I personally am someone who likes to have scenarios historically coherent (which in practice means having modules and assets that are contemporaries that fit with each other, on historically relevant theatres where they were based/saw action or at least visited IRL), so that's why I brought it up.

Personally, not for the time being, though I don't think I would say no (it's probably better off as an AI aircraft though, but in that case, I think I'd rather get a proper E-2C, EA-6B and SH-3H as core units). It predates all of our aircraft carriers (it was retired in 1979, our Forrestal at the earliest is post SLEP i.e ~1984 - 1993, CVNs 71-75 are from the mid-to-late 2000s). Of course nothing stopping you from using them but it wouldn't fit very well (and there are no other appropriate aircraft from the era yet to go with it). For the A-5A, it was primarily a nuclear strike aircraft - nuclear weapons aren't really supported in DCS (and so far only the RN-24 and 28 are implemented, but no differently to a conventional explosive, albeit a very large one). AFAIK the A-5A and RA-5C, did have conventional capability (though never utilised on the latter). As the RA-5C (far more common) its primary role (reconnaissance) isn't really supported all that well in DCS.

Because of the area it depicts. And everything I said here.

+1 to both requests (though I'd also add bearing (both true and magnetic, preferably to 1 decimal place)) like the ruler (though maybe something for the list of filters). Yeah, would be nice if there was a hotkey to hide selected and unhide all.

+1 I'm hoping it'll be a part of the mission planning functionality (which should have a ground crew option) for the data cartridge system, even for aircraft that don't have a data cartridge.

It goes in Saved Games\Datacartridges and you should have an EXAMPLE.dtc file in there if you own the Mirage 2000.

Quite late (and another more minor nitpick) but also note in the same image, the AN/SPN-43B antenna. This is the antenna seen just below the ESM antenna platform (with several AN/WLR-1 antennas) and can be seen very distinctly in these images: This should be identical (apart from being a much darker grey/black as opposed to a lighter grey) to the AN/SPN-43C antenna seen on CVNs 71-75 of the supercarrier module, as well as RAZBAM's LHA 1. For a comparison, here's what it looks like on HB's Forrestal: Here's what it looks like on CVN 71 of the supercarrier module (this is actually a SPN-43C, but from what I can tell, apart from the colour it's either near to being, or is, identical) : Note that while this doesn't appear to be animated in-game, it looks much more accurate to the real thing. And finally, RAZBAM's LHA 1 (where it's also animated and also has a more accurate mount): For the HB implementation, the shape of the reflector is definitely on the right track, but the mount and the rest of the antenna is largely very inaccurate. The antenna also nods left-to-right instead of making full 360° with a period of ~4 s (15 RPM). What should be the IFF antenna is also in the wrong place and rotates independently. There's plenty of images that can be found online by simply searching "AN/SPN-43", here's a few of probably some of the better ones Another thing to be maybe note, is the Mk 23 TAS antenna, which is the acquisition component of the Mk 91 Missile Fire-Control System, used in the NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System. On HB's Forrestal it looks like this: While certainly not as inaccurate as the SPN-43, the antenna and mount is somewhat inaccurate. While the overall dimensions are probably about right, the main points of contention is that the mount is incorrect - the real thing has the antenna sitting on a platform, which in turn sits on a yoke (the antenna platform being stabilised along the longitudinal axis of the ship). The acquisition antenna is the wrong shape (cylindrical as opposed to more of a flat shape) and is missing the back-to-back IFF antenna: The only good image I found of the back of the antenna (showing the IFF antenna) was this diagram on a archived report from Forecast International: Obviously, these are again, minor nitpicks, but I thought I'd bring it up as Cobra mentioned that some elements would be tweaked in reply to the above post on the AN/SPS-48C.

Personally, even as someone who flies low (meaning any issues are going to be more noticeable), I prefer colour accuracy even if comes at the expense of resolution or if it introduces anomalies.

Yeah, I've been trying to set historically accurate weather for some of my missions (using resources like weatherspark which has a fairly comprehensive and easy to digest record). But the wind speed at 500 m just being ~2.125× the wind speed at 10 m (at least for metric) in the exact same direction is a massive pain in the backside and it isn't at all realistic. As I said above it isn't difficult to use a program such as windy (which takes data from forecasting models - which may be off from what weather stations are actually reporting) to see the difference. It would be far better if it worked like the other wind layers, where we can have a user defined direction and speed. @BIGNEWY @NineLine

S-300V Antey-300 [SA-12A/B Gladiator/Giant] - here there's an SA-12A on the left, SA-12B on the right. It might actually be the modernised S-300VM Antey-2500 or S-300V4 Antey-4000 [SA-23A/B Gladiator Giant] - again A on the left, B on the right, the versions are basically identical externally.

Ok - at least that is unified though. If the frequency isn't set in the mission editor, does the Tomcat automatically generate one?

It can, but that really isn't how IR works. Just because 2 objects are at the same temperature doesn't necessarily mean they'll both be emitting the same amount of infrared radiation (which is ultimately what infrared systems "see"). This is because different materials and different surfaces have different emissivities and reflectances, which will change how much infrared radiation they'll emit or reflect even if they have identical surface temperatures.

I think this functionality has come with DCS 2.9.0.46801 OB, in the changelog for the Tomcat, this was mentioned: So presumably, the Tomcat's Link 4A frequency for aircraft carriers will use what's set in the mission editor. Unfortunately it's up to ED to add the same Link 4A task (or a data link using task) for the E-2 and other ships. I haven't been able to test this yet though (new build isn't quite up to spec to really play DCS yet).

It is, but the sound is indeed identical. I reported this as a bug when it was released over 2 years ago, but it quickly got moved to the wishlist.

Yeah, I'm not contesting that, but should an F-16A or any new aircraft be developed for DCS World, it should be high-fidelity.

And on the other hand, there's nothing preventing mission creators from making more historically coherent scenarios. Welp I wish F-4Es luck dealing with MiG-29s - that is a historically coherent match up - the F-4E wasn't retired until the mid-to-late 90s so it's definitely plausible to have them in the same scenario (and something to that effect happens in chapter 21 of Red Storm Rising, pretty much the go-to place for Cold War gone hot inspiration). Meh, DCS should be about high-fidelity aircraft, FC4 will be Modern Air Combat if/when it gets released. Absolutely true - but it is a map for which a relevant 9-12B MiG-29 operator is present. Conversely, there are no maps and no additional assets supporting an Indian MiG-29K. The Kola map will feature airbases appropriate for Russian MiG-29KR (for which, a K could probably be used as somewhat of a stand-in) and we do already have the carrier it's based on, but that's just about it. The MiG-29KR of course would be subject to all the same reasons why we can't have any other 2000s+ Russian aircraft (and just getting Soviet stuff is already problematic enough - I think there's a reason why the latest full-fidelity Soviet fighter is the MiG-23MLA...). The 9-13S MiG-29S is a Soviet aircraft and to my knowledge wasn't exported. The SE (an export version of the S) was, but not to North Korea, who use the 9-12B.