Northstar98

What? It's the perfect variant for Cold War scenarios, just not early or mid. It's perfect for late Cold War scenarios (and the late Cold War is the one we have the most assets for) and was introduced in time for when the late Cold War came the closest to actually going hot. The 9-12 MiG-29 is still in service with an operator currently at war. If we ever got an F-16A Block 10/15 (arguably the most prolific NATO fighter of the late Cold War and one for which we'll have a relevant map for), the 9-12 MiG-29 is the closest peer contemporary. On the contrary, what maps, current or in development that are appropriate for the MiG-29K? What conflicts has it been involved in? The 9-12 not only fits the Cold War, but the Gulf War and Bosnia (albeit without the maps in DCS). We already have a map featuring 9-12 (albeit 9-12B) MiG-29 operators (Iran on the PG map, Iraq on Syria). I'm not opposed to a MiG-29K (though a Kr would probably be more appropriate, at least we already have the carrier and some escorts for it, unlike the K for which we have 0 Indian ships), but saying it fits better than a 9-12 because of maps, conflicts and eras is just unsubstantiated.

the doors do have a partially and fully open setting, shortly after the timestamp in this video, when releasing a single weapon [from the rotary launcher] opening the doors partially might be "the best way to go":

Yeah, I can see how separating them between unguided and guided bombs would be useful. Perhaps it would also make sense to have decoys as its own category, separated from AG missiles (which should probably be named AS missiles (for air-to-surface) seeing as that category includes missiles that aren't capable of ground-attack).

Meh, personally, I'd rather get what we already have up to the same, common standard before adding completely new models for completely new units. Though there are some really glaring omissions. We have the Square Pair, but the P-14F is sorely needed (and heck, the S-75 is also missing its appropriate search radar - the P-12/P-12M/P-18) and hey, how about adding the P-37 and PRV-11 as units we can spawn? The models for those are already decent enough, they're both very prolific and widely used radars and they've been non-functional eye-candy since forever.

FA.2 primarily has a much improved radar (Blue Vixen - which also has AIM-120 compatibility), replacing the pulse-only Blue Fox radar of the FRS.1

Because the units already exist as free versions, unless this new pack is going to have the high-quality units as completely separate entities, the same unit can be used both for non-owners and owners (the owners will just see a higher-detailed version) - that's just how the game works (and can be seen when it comes to modules or liveries included with paid-for campaigns). NineLine has however said that this new product will include additional features and not just be a simple asset pack, so that might possibly break things, but on the model and unit side itself it shouldn't.

Welp, we finally have info on this, the new models are indeed part of a new paid-for product. Personally, while not the best news, I'd much prefer it work this way (i.e have free, lower-quality assets and paid-for high-quality assets), than to have it work like the WWII asset pack, where non-owners are completely straight-up barred from playing or editing missions or joining servers with even a single asset from it present.

There is a new attach/detach trailer task in the advanced waypoint actions, under perform task (though only for ZIL-131V, MAZ-7410 and KrAZ-258B1). The task is however, non-functional, but presumably its presence means this functionality is planned. IIRC the 5N64S radar uses (or rather a variant of), the MAZ-7410 (which is already present, though the version appropriate for the Big Bird probably has additional equipment (probably the gas turbine generators seen on the launchers and fire-control radar), so we're pretty much already there, we just need that task to be properly implemented. The feeds? Yes. For the version we have, its booms are indeed offset from the array face: Not sure about the horn antennas themselves (kinda difficult to tell), but on the 5N64K/5N64S [Big Bird-A/B respectively], that is indeed how they are. Just of note, we have the S-300PS [SA-10B Grumble], where the 5N64S [Big Bird-B] is appropriate (alongside the 5N63S [Flap Lid-B], 5N66M [Clam Shell] and 5N59S [Tin Shield-B]). The later 64N6/64N6E/64N6E2 [Big Bird-C] (used in the S-300PM-1 [SA-20A Gargoyle] and S-300PMU-1/2 [SA-20A/B Gargoyle respectively]) has a slightly different array with more centralised feeds:

+9999999999999999 The funny thing is if you beach a carrier with a portion of its deck overhanging land, an aircraft starting from ground will spawn up on deck, so it might just be the restrcition preventing aircraft from spawning in the water causing this issue. If that restriction was done away with or made optional (which, all that would mean is mission editors would need to spawn aircraft in sensible places), we would be able to test this properly.

I've got Russian/Soviet air forces/air defence forces done, I'm probably 99.99% finished with Soviet/Russian naval facilities, including what units were where and when (see this for an example). I've also started on the electrical grid (or at least major parts of it, such as power plants and distribution facilities) as well as some civilian points of interest (such as the facilities of Andøya space), though that's still quite incomplete. I think I've got Norway's air defence sites (both current and historical) done (including EWR, CRC and CAOC facilities), though aerdromes still need fleshing out with what units were present and when, same for Finland and Sweden (though in all cases I've got most-to-all of them marked, including highway strips. I am sure however, that there are probably still some minor aerdromes that that I've missed). I've done a couple of Finnish EWR sites that I was lucky enough to spot and make out what radars were/likely are present but Sweden's network is fairly elusive (I have got a single document showing very rough locations of at least 1 radar type, but it doesn't help that many of their radars at least appear to have submersible versions that can retract into hardened silos when needed, much like the Norwegian SINDRE I/II radars) - there's next to nothing about them online. I'm also going to include NAVAIDs where possible and airspace (at least North European Aerospace Test range (comprising of the Vidsel and Esrange ranges), this is still quite incomplete, but this at least should be fairly easy. I've also heavily used ww2.dk in doing the Soviet/Russian side of things, but there are cases where I've had to fill in its blanks (namely the 161st submarine brigade), using other sources and satellite imagery.

Awesome stuff! I fear my work might be made redundant

You're absolute right - with the campaign uninstalled, no liveries are present, only a default one.

If you clip the camera through the shield, the new driver model can be seen.

Hi everyone, As of DCS 2.9.1.48111 the S-3B (and S-3B tanker) feature improved liveries: S-3B: BD Navy Bloodhounds 703 BD Navy Bloodhounds 704 S-3B Tanker: BD Navy Bloodhounds 700 BD Navy Bloodhounds 702 While the side numbers for the S-3B Tanker reflect the side number given in the name of the livery, the S-3B unit does not and both liveries feature 700 as a side number, despite their name: As stated above, the S-3B tanker is unaffected. In addition to this, the liveries themselves have quite a few inaccuracies, namely: CVW-4 markings VS-36 markings USS Valley Forge Markings AH tailcode (appropriate for CVW-16). CVW-4 was actually a readiness CVW (designated RCVW-4) and both it and CVW-16 were disestablished before even the prototype YS-3A took its first flight. Similarly, the USS Valley Forge was scrapped before the S-3A took its first flight. I can barely find anything about VS-36, the only thing I've found is that it at least equipped S2F-1 Tracker aircraft, but nothing about any version of the S-3. Presumably it is also an inaccuracy. What's even more odd is that the previous VS-32 livery was actually more accurate to a real S-3B livery than what we're now seeing. Sources: https://www.seaforces.org/usnair/CVW/Readiness-Carrier-Air-Wing-4.htm https://www.seaforces.org/usnships/cv/CV-45-USS-Valley-Forge.htm https://www.airhistory.net/text/2019-07/s-3-viking-last-cruise.php EDIT: Disregard these liveries are actually part of the Raven One campaign, without the campaign installed, only the same livery as before is present (i.e 0 liveries, just a default VS-32 livery).

In DCS 2.9.1 the B-1B, B-52H and S-3B has received an update, but only to crew members, the models are otherwise unchanged. The S-3B though does however have new liveries (all from VS-36 and, despite their name) all have the same 700 side number. The S-3B tanker however's liveries behave as expected (though personally, it would be better if the side number was dynamic).

As of DCS 2.9.1 the models have been updated, but it's only the driver that has been updated (similarly, only pilots of the new AI aircraft models have been updated), everything else is as above.

Not sure as I (stupidly) didn't test, I guess down to reluctance to use it owing to the legacy model. At a guess though, I wouldn't have expected this to have changed with the updated version as the update was just an artwork upgrade (there's still a few leftovers from the previous units, such as the names of the liveries (EDIT: not the case as of DCS 2.9.1), the names of stores and the types of stores available). Though if you're experiencing that you can't tank as much, then that guess is probably unreliable. In any case, the drop tank and air refuelling store shouldn't be massless and the S-3B tanker unit should have more fuel than just its internal tanks.

It's not really a misnomer, the percentage slider does only affect the internal fuel, but it would be better if the refuelling system was overhauled to make refuelling drop tanks easier (i.e have the ability for the slider to control either internal or total fuel (including drop tanks). That way in the rearming and refuelling window, you could set it to total and refuel everything (including drop tanks) or keep it to internal (and have it the way it is now).

AFAIK that only refers to the percentage slider, the fuel weight field should reflect the total amount of fuel (which explains why it increases when drop tanks are loaded, not just for the S-3B but every other aircraft that can be equiped with drop tanks) - how it's listed is somewhat confusing though. It also explains why (with drop tanks equiped) you can set the percentage to 0, but still have a non-zero fuel weight (owing to the fuel in the drop tanks, which cannot be reduced or removed, unless an empty version of the tank is present). Of course without drop tanks (i.e internal fuel only), setting the percentage to 0, also results in 0 fuel weight, as expected. Personally, it would be useful if the slider could switch between internal and total fuel where applicable, allowing us to alter the amount of fuel in the drop tanks (and make the separate empty versions redundant) or even more ideally, have the ability to specify the amount of fuel in each tank (including external tanks) while retaining the ability to set a total as we have now. This, though is probably something for the wishlist. Good catch on the other weights though - as right now the tanks and air refuelling store not only contain no fuel, but are also massless.

Hi everyone, I've noticed that the maximum amount of fuel available for the S-3B tanker is the same as for the S-3B (non-tanker), at 12125 lbs (5500 kg). This is despite the fact that the S-3B tanker in DCS, is always configured with a 300 US-gal drop tank (and of course the air refuelling store (Sargent-Fletcher A/A42R-1)). The drop tank should obviously add 300 US-gallons of fuel and the buddy store itself also contains at least 300 US-gal of fuel (and the fuelling and dump port are present on the model). Right now, only the internal fuel of the S-3B is accounted for in the tanker unit. They say a picture speaks a thousand words, so here's 3. Here's an image of the S-3B rearming window, showing a maximum of 12125 lbs of fuel: Here's the same S-3B, but fitted with 2 300 US-gal drop tanks, note that the maximum amount of fuel has increased to 16155 lbs: And finally, here's the S-3B tanker, which can be seen with a 300 US-gal drop tank and the A/A42R-1 air refuelling store, as you can see the maximum amount of fuel is 12155 lbs (as in the case with the S-3B with no drop tanks fitted): Here's a source, approved for public release, stating that the D-704 pod has 300 US gallons of internal capacity (see page 2/page 8 of the pdf reader). EDIT: As an addendum (thanks silverdevil) you can also see that the total mass of the aircraft for an S-3B with just internal fuel, is identical to that of the tanker - meaning that not only are the drop tank and air refuelling store empty of fuel, but are also massless.

The RAT does spin when the drogue is deployed/transitioning between stowed and deployed (and vice versa). And this (more or less) is how it indeed appears to work IRL.

Indeed it would and Magnitude 3 are doing a WWII Essex for their Corsair, it would be fantastic if we could get an SCB-125 Essex as that would fit the F-8J and the A-1H (and be the first Vietnam carrier). Yes. Especially considering they'd respresent different versions in DCS, for the carriers we have. Right now though only 80s/90s NTU style ships fit with anything we have in DCS. In which case the RAF F-4M Phantom FGR.2 is way more appropriate than the F-4 Phantom FG.1 in RN service, the former is also far more historically relevant. And FWIW, the only carrier that supported them was the Audacious-class HMS Ark Royal.

While I'd love to get as many ships as possible it's a lot more realistic to focus on escorts that are appropriate for our current and near(er) future aircraft carriers, for the fits and eras that they cover. Right now, DCS has enough problems as it is just getting the current ships accurate to what they should be (from firing completely the wrong missiles, to having completely the wrong gun, to being a mess of different variants while missing quite a bit of their armament) or even just updating legacy assets (some of which date back 2 decades) to a common standard, without adding more and more vessels, despite how much I'd love to see them. Sticking with our current aircraft carriers, for the eras they cover, I'll pick up to 5 escort types and up to 2 auxiliaries. ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (late 1960s - late 1990s): Type 42 (Sheffield) Destroyer Batch 1 (initial) Drummond FFL HMS Invincible (1980 - 1982): Type 42 (Sheffield) Destroyer Batch 1 Type 22 (Broadsword) Frigate Batch 1 Type 21 (Amazon) Frigate Ol-class AO Fort Rosalie-class AFS USS Forrestal (post SLEP/1980s/1990s): DD 963 (Spruance) [Mk 112 + Mk 15, Mk 112 + ABL or Mk 41 VLS would fit] CG 47 (Ticonderoga) Baseline 0/1/2 / CGN 38 (Virginia) [ABL] CG 26 (Belknap) [NTU] / CG 16 (Leahy) [NTU) FF 1054 Knox [Mk 15, Harpoon] FFG 7 (Oliver Hazard Perry) [long] (earlier, corrected*) AOE 1 Sacramento AE 26 Kilauea CVNs 71-75 (mid to late 2000s): DDG 51 (Arleigh Burke) Flight I/II/IIa* (earlier, corrected) FFG 7 (Oliver Hazard Perry) [long] (corrected*) T-AO 187 (Henry J. Kaiser) T-AOE 6 (Supply) Admiral Kuznetsov: BPK Pr. 1155 Fregat [Udaloy I DDG] EM Pr. 956/956A Sarch [Sovremenny DDG] VTR Pr. 1559V [Boris Chilikin AOR] *

Yeah, but given how simplified AI sensors are (which are getting close for as simple as possible), I really doubt this would be much of a factor as the game currently stands, especially for stuff like AEW&C and AGS aircraft. SIGINT/COMINT isn't really in the game at all (beyond snooping on unencrypted radios, which any aircraft in DCS can do, well so long as their radios are capable of receiving transmissions), though things like RC-135W would still be useful IMO, even if it's just purely there to flesh out scenarios. The only other thing is that MPAs like the Nimrod (as much as I'd like to see MPAs such as the Nimrod, but also the P-3B and/or C Orion) are mostly dedicated towards ASW, something that is essentially completely absent in DCS. These aircraft do have ASuW capability (Nimrod received Harpoon in the mid 80s AFAIK, P-3C Orion Update II (from the late 70s/early 80s onwards) features Harpoon compatibility also).

A because it's more relevant for the missions I create. The earlier F-14A-135-GR will probably be my go to once it releases as it's the most appropriate version for 1980s Cold War missions.