Northstar98

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.

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.