Northstar98

+1

Wanted to bump this request, they're both very prolific radars that would fit on many of our current and upcoming maps (Caucasus, Sinai, Syria and the Kola map). Especially the P-35/-35M/-37, which is still used by Syria and Russia (and can still be seen at EWR sites in Egypt, as recently as 2014, so well within the era of the majority of our modules), at locations our maps cover/will cover. The models for these 2 (and the DRL-7 ASR) are perfectly adequate enough as is, all the P-37 would need is the mound it's on deleted. Past that, all that's needed is a .lua definition for them and there's plenty of sufficient information online for what DCS requires. We only have 3 other Eastern EWRs and 2 of them are decades old models dating back from Flanker 2.0 and the other one can only be used as an acquisition radar. What's even better is that the P-35/-35M/37 would be a much more appropriate acquisition radar for the SA-5 than either the P-19 or the 5N59S.

Nope.

It's something that's affecting all new models in the new format, under CoreMods\HeavyMetalCore - the B-1B, B-52H, S-3B and S-3B tanker, as well as LPWS are all similarly affected, whereby they appear to be lower quality models than what's shown in promotional material. New models released in the previous .edm format such as the Kh-29L/T, Kh-59M/MK, new BLG-66 etc are unaffected and look to be modelled to perfection (even including animated seeker heads for the Kh-29L/T and -59M). In this case the Big Bird radar has antenna elements that look as though they're just a flat texture, whereas in the 2.9 short cinematic, they appear to be higher-quality or even 3D: 2.9 cinematic: In-game: The shot isn't a perfect recreation and the lighting is obviously totally different, but the Big Bird shown in the 2.9 cinematic clearly has higher-quality elements. The new Tin Shield (on the 40V6M mast), is also quite a bit less detailed than the previous Tin Shield that was released over 2 years ago: Here's a shot of the previously added, trailer-mounted Tin Shield: And here's a shot of the newly added 40V6M mast-mounted Tin Shield: Here's another shot of the previously added Tin Shield: And another of the newly added mast-mounted model: The difference in quality and detail should be obvious: There's no antenna elements on the feed or sidelobe compensator/IFF antenna (the latter appears to be floating in mid-air). There are model holes in the waveguides. The turntable and elements of the turntable are quite a bit lower in detail and quality. There's missing actuators/links. What's weird here is that the models shown in these screenshots should be identical - wouldn't it have made more sense to reuse the previously added, higher-quality model, removing the trailer and then adding it onto the mast? Regarding the other models in the new format, there are other examples too: The B-1B: S-3B: LPWS: The same also applies to the B-52. Now don't get me wrong, I don't these models are bad in any way, in normal gameplay these almost certainly won't be noticeable, but they definitely are lower quality and not as detailed compared to both promotional material and existing assets. Personally, I'm leaning on this being a LOD issue, where it looks like, for whatever reason, the LOD1 model is being used instead of LOD0, but as the new format seems to be a (possibly encrypted) container that the modelviewer can't open (and as there are files needed but cannot be accessed also in the containers, making custom liveries is also impossible). It would be nice to get an acknowledgement of this though, whether this is in-fact an error or whether it's intentional, as the other thread discussing this same issue (although focusing on the B-1B) also doesn't appear to have been acknowledged yet.

Ahh, I see. I was using open image in a new tab rather than opening the link directly as unfortunately, most if not all images from newsletter behave that way.

Can't argue with that

They all look to still be there on my end.

Ah, I see. To tell you the truth I was mostly looking at textures (it's quite difficult to see undulating terrain on a 2D satellite image), but yes - there I am with you. Hopefully Orbx can make the geometry more like the real thing.

In what way? And hard disagree, Rovaniemi (1st screenshot) and Olengorsk/Olenya (2nd screenshot), look very good to my eyes - I think Orbx has captured the look (particularly of Olengorsk/Olenya) very good comparing them with satellite imagery.

They never did IRL, the closest thing is the Batch 3A conversion to 5 Leanders (F57 Andromeda, F75 Charybdis, F60 Jupiter, F58 Hermione and F71 Scylla), completed from the early to mid 1980s, which added GWS 25 Sea Wolf. Yes, though it is wrong Block. Both Condells IRL feature Mk 15 Phalanx Block 0. However, in DCS, they're depicted with Block 1B (and it isn't a trivial difference (see here for a break down), or at least it wouldn't if they were modelled properly). Yes - it never had a CIWS IRL. It doesn't - it's depicted as it was initially - accurate to the Falklands War. In September 1982, after the war, Invincible was retrofitted with 2 Mk 15 Phalanx Block 0 CIWS, which during its 1986-1988 refit, were replaced by 3 Goalkeeper CIWS.

Well, in that case you'd also need a 60s/70s aircraft carrier We have a post SLEP Forrestal (so mid 1980s at the earliest), pre-SLEP it had significantly different weapons and sensors (and how far back you go, the more different they get - no Mk 15 Phalanx, BPDMS instead of NSSMS/IBPDMS, 5"/54 Mk 42 guns). During Vietnam, Forrestal would've had 4 5"/54 Mk 42 guns. The Ticonderoga we have is mid-to-late 2000s at the earliest (Mk 38 Mod 2, Mk 15 Phalanx Block 1B), the Arleigh Burke, at the earliest, ranges from 2007 with DDG 101 to 2018 with DDG 116.

Yeah, would really love if Heatblur's Forrestal got the supercarrier treatment for people who own it.

On the South Atlantic map there is (or perhaps was) a nearly vertical, smooth, uniform, light-grey band where the sea meets land (even from right up close), making the landmass almost look like it's sat on concrete (as you'd expect to see around ports for instance). The sudden, uniform incline, combined with islets that look completely flat and it almost makes them look like they were cut out with a cookie cutter. Of course, real-life shots of the area (Bodø) does show a lighter, rocky band. But it's clearly not uniform and clearly resembles rocks (see this shot of Lille Hjartøya, taken from Bodø, highlights this relatively clearly). However, immediately to the east-south-east of Bodø Air Station, there is an islet (Skanseholmen), visible in the 7th screenshot. In the screenshot, it very much looks like what I described above - looking like it was cut-out with a cookie cutter, looking almost flat with near-vertical, concrete-looking borders. The real thing should like this (more rocky and irregular). Of course, these are still WIP shots and from further away it is a little harder to judge.

In case anyone hasn't seen the post on the official roadmap thread, more WIP screenshots were posted on the Orbx Discord: It looks really good so far - I'm really impressed with what I'm seeing and this will definitely be the main map I use going forward. One thing has got my eye that I don't like though, which is/was also common to the South Atlantic map, if you look where the land meets water, you'll see a sharp, steep, grey incline, which makes it look like all the landmass is sat on a load of concrete and it's particularly noticeable when flying at low altitude. These are all WIP screenshots though, so hopefully Orbx will improve the coastline to make it look more natural (obviously in some areas, such as ports, naval bases and piers it's accurate, but there's plenty of places where it isn't).

Absolutely. System failures are already optional and can be user-configured, the same should be true here. Even ignoring any realism argument, being able to turn off failures is incredibly useful for testing. If you're trying to investigate say, 'x' weapon's kinematics, it's going to be substantially more of a pain if there's some random probability of it just outright failing in the mission. Even more of a pain is if something didn't fail in the mission, but does when replayed in a track.

FWIW, all the modes described for the 5N62 are CW modes. MHI is unmodulated CW, FKM is frequency-modulated CW and there's another one which is phase-modulated CW. All 3 modes can be utilised for missile guidance and they have their respective use-cases (for instances, unmodulated CW offers the best range, but is susceptible to losing track on targets with a low-closure rate and doesn't provide for ranging).

If there's an aircraft landing it comes on. I'm not entirely sure what the threshold is (perhaps when an aircraft commences), but I've definitely seen it come on when aircraft are landing.

Should have at least the E-2 and F, possibly also M. In the pre-order trailer you can see what looks to be a long-nosed Sparrow (such as what's seen on older Sparrows like the E-2) and a shorter-nosed Sparrow as we're used to seeing on the F, M and P.

To engage a group of targets it's perhaps better to use the CAS task (I know it doesn't really make sense, but unlike Ground Attack, CAS has search then engage unit/group actions and attack unit/group options). So far in testing, they will respect quantities, but not necessarily max attack quantity (leading to them making multiple passes on a single group) though it's probably better to use cluster bombs if available. Here's a very simple example test mission - it will also work if you swap the B-52H for the B-1B. B-52H_attack group.miz

+1, would be very useful when trying to have units in their real-life places.

I make no claim as to the current limitation having to be a certain way, I certainly would rather the limitations of the current system be done away with. I brought up because it would probably be better if DCS supported this first. It would be a pain if we had to say, have 2 different KC-10A, one for flying boom and one for probe and drogue, when it should be a single unit, capable of supporting both.

It may be in the plans but it may end up similar to the Forrestal (i.e post SLEP/1980s), i.e post Vietnam.

I would love CV 67 USS John F. Kennedy (which can be thought of as a Kittyhawk subvariant), but probably for different reasons (I'm trying to have appropriate Atlantic carriers in my missions dated late 1983 - mid 1984). We do have Forrestal, but depicted in a post SLEP (i.e post mid 1985) configuration, which better fits the majority of the carrier aircraft we've got and/or getting. The current F-14A-135-GR starts at the mid 90s, the F-14B starts at the late 80s, the early F-14A-135-GR starts at the mid 80s. The A-7E will be late 80s and the A-6E is at least a TRAM (so post Vietnam - late 1970s), if its a WCSI or a SWIP, that puts it in the 80s or 90s respectively. Heatblur are planning to complete the Forrestal classes, but for the time being I'd assume they're going to be in a post SLEP or otherwise 1980s/90s fit. So far the only carrier-based Vietnam-era aircraft announced is the F-8J Crusader and the AH-1H Skyraider. For the former the best fit is a post SCB-125 Essex/Ticonderoga as that's what they were based on (good thing here is that 4 Essex carriers are still around). Though they both would've operated Skyraiders in the mid-ish 60s. Magnitude 3 is doing a WWII-era Essex for their F4U, so maybe we'll get lucky and they'll do a WWII variant and a post SCB-125 variant for their Crusader.

Probably something more realistic. It isn't something high on my list of priorities but it would be quite nice to see. Ironically yes - if such a system were to be supported, that would allow for things like trenches as well as to level terrain for FOBs and FARPs.

And Ausairpower (supposedly quoting translated operator manuals) states a constant elevation angle of 35°. It could be a different version, or one could be describing a shallow profile, while the other a steep profile - I don't know without additional information. But whatever the case is - DCS does neither. In DCS the launcher is elevated to 48°, which the missile flies at until booster burn out (~5-6 seconds) and then does a 12 G pitch down to <30° which is slowly reduced throughout flight.