Northstar98

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.

Wanted to bump this, there's no reason why the 1600 ft/500 m wind speed and direction should be coupled in this way, it leads to excessively high wind speeds and it doesn't take long in something like Windy to see that it doesn't match with what's expected IRL. For instance, at the time of writing (14/11/2023 @ ~14:00Z), Windy is reporting that the surface wind speed over Andersen AFB on Guam is 18 knots and the wind speed at 2000 ft/600 m (closest I could get to 1600 ft/500 m with Windy) is 26 knots. In DCS, if I try setting the 33 ft wind speed to 18 knots, it forces me to have 39 knots at 1600 ft/500 m (or, in other words, 50% larger that what it should be). For comparison the highest Windy is showing is 32 knots at 45,000 ft/13,500 m.

+1, though personally I'd go one step further and go for just being able to make your own presets. But if not, more presets would definitely be welcome.

With you, apologies for the confusion.

Yeah +1, would be quite useful.

Just had a look and yes, you're absolutely correct - corrected. Toilet2000 is correct, in the diagrams for Dive Toss, Dive Laydown and Laydown in 1F-4E-34-1-1 (c. 1979, r. 1986), it states that the target is momentarily tracked visually. The radar is slaved to the optical sight's LOS in order to compute slant range. A ground return only needs to be locked in radar/non-visual offset bombing (where the target is located at a known position relative to an identification point, for a radar identification point, the radar is locked onto said point, the WSO puts the radar into freeze and presses the target insert button, the aircraft then provides steering information to put it over the target).

Hi everyone, Minor issue - the repeater lights for the AoA indexer on the S-3B (both versions) seems to have incorrect logic. The logic should be: Green: AoA too high (slow) Green + Amber: AoA slightly too high (slightly slow) Amber: On-speed AoA Red + Amber: AoA slightly too low (slightly fast) Red: AoA too low (fast) I'm not sure what range of AoAs are appropriate for each light, but currently, the amber light never seems to illuminate, but both red and green lights illuminate simultaneously. The lights also don't seem to be properly driven by AoA; I've observed that the green light will come on at a lower AoA than the red light (which is the opposite of what should happen) and that different lights also overlap the same range of AoAs: AoA: 9.2° - Green + Red: AoA: 10.1° - Red: AoA 9.2° - Green: Note: Red light on at a higher AoA than the green light - it should be the other way around. Red and green light instead of an amber light. Different lights/sets of lights come on for the same AoA/range of AoAs. Another thing that should be mentioned is that the lights are incredibly dim during the day and that the lights should come on as soon as the aircraft is in a landing configuration, but only come on until later in the approach: During the day - lights barely visible, it would be easy to mistake the lights as being off were it not for the reflection on the underside of the nose: Quite difficult to see (a daylight shot wouldn't be useful as I can only really tell if the green light is on and I could easily mistake any other light for being off when it’s actually on) but this S-3B is indeed in landing configuration for landing on a carrier during a CASE III recovery (hook down, flaps full, gear down), but the AoA repeater lights are off - they only come on until later in the approach: S-3B_AoA_lights_CASE_III.trk S-3B_AoA_lights_CASE_I.trk

Apart from Googling, it doesn't seem so - the Encyclopedia seems to mostly have it covered, though sometimes it switches between the IEEE designation (such as for the AN/MPQ-50 PAR and AN/MPQ-64F1) and the (new) NATO designation. The screenshot in the newsletter is using the NATO system Anyway here's a list of land-based systems, though the vast majority aren't going to be all that applicable to the Shrike (which mainly targets the E, F and I bands - I'll boldface radars the Shrike is mostly intended for, though the AGM-45A/B-10 supposedly has a more broadband seeker able to target various radars): 1L13 Nebo-SV [Box Spring]: NATO A-band, IEEE: VHF-band. 2K12M3 Kub-M3 [SA-6B Gainful]: 1S91M3 [Straight Flush]: 1S11 (acquisition): NATO C-band, IEEE UHF-band 1S13 (track/fire-control): NATO: I-band, IEEE: X-band 2K22 Tunguska (2S6) [SA-19 Grison]: 1RL144 [Hot Shot]: acquisition: NATO E/F-band, IEEE: S-band. 1RL144 [Hot Shot]: track/fire-control: NATO I-band, IEEE: X-band. 55G6 Nebo [Tall Rack]: NATO A-band, IEEE VHF-band. 9K33M2 Osa-AK [SA-8B Gecko Mod 0] [Land Roll]: Acquisition: NATO H-band, IEEE C-band Track/Fire Control: NATO J-band, IEEE Ku-band. 9K37M1 Buk-M1 [SA-11 Gadfly]: 9S18M1 [Snow Drift]: NATO H/I-band, IEEE C/X-band. 9S35M1 [Fire Dome]: NATO H/I-band, IEEE C/X-band. 9K330 Tor [SA-15A Gauntlet]: [Scrum Half]: Acquisition: NATO E/F-band, IEEE S-band Track/Fire-Control: NATO G/H-band, IEEE: C/X-band. 9S80M1 Sborka (PPRU-M1 Ovod-M1) [Dog Ear]: NATO G-band, IEEE: S-band. AN/FPS-117: NATO D-band, IEEE L-band. FlaRakRad Roland 2: Domino 3D (Track/Fire-control): NATO J-band, IEEE Ku-band. MPDR-16 (Acquisition): NATO D-band, IEEE S-band. Flakpanzer Gepard: MPDR-12 (Acquisition): NATO: E-band, IEEE: S-band. Track/Fire-control: NATO: J-band, IEEE: Ku-band. HQ-7B (FM-90) [CSA-7 Sino-Crotale]: Acquisition: ??? Fire-control: NATO J-band, IEEE Ku-band. MIM-23B I-HAWK PIP Phase 1: AN/MPQ-46 HPIR: NATO H/I-band, IEEE: X-band. AN/MPQ-50 IPAR: NATO C-band, IEEE: L-band. AN/MPQ-55 ICWAR: NATO J-band, IEEE: Ku-band. MIM-104C Patriot PAC-2: AN/MPQ-53 RS: NATO G/H-band, IEEE C/X-band. NASAMS II: AN/MPQ-64F1 Sentinel: NATO H/I-band, IEEE X-band. Rapier/Rapier FSA: Dagger (acquisition): NATO J-band, IEEE Ku-band. DN 181 Blindfire FSA: NATO F-band, IEEE S-band. S-75M/V1 Volkhov [SA-2D/E Guideline/Guideline Mod 3] SNR-75M3 [Fan Song-E]: NATO G-band, IEEE C-band. RD-75 Amazonka: ??? S-125M Neva-M [SA-3B Goa]: P-19 Dunay [Flat Face-B]: NATO C-band, IEEE UHF-band. SNR-125M [Low Blow]: NATO I-band, IEEE X-band. S-200M/VE Vega [SA-5B Gammon]: 5N62V [Square Pair]: NATO H-band, IEEE C-band. S-300PS [SA-10B Grumble]: 5N59S/36D6/ST-68U [Tin Shield-B]: NATO E/F-band, IEEE S-band. 5N63S [Flap Lid-B]: NATO I/J-band, IEEE X/Ku-band. 5N64S [Big Bird-B]: NATO E/F-band, IEEE S-band. 5N66M [Clam Shell]: NATO I-band, IEEE X-band. SON-9 [Fire Can]: NATO E-band, IEEE S-band. ZSU-23-4 RPK-2 Tobol (1RL33) [Gun Dish]: NATO J-band, IEEE Ku-band. If we ever get the P-37 implemented as a functional unit (also a primary target for the Shrike), that'll be a NATO E/F-band, IEEE S-band radar. Note that in many cases (Scrum Half, Straight Flush, Land Roll, Domino 3D/MPDR-16 etc), DCS treats the 2 radars as 1 system, not sure if that'll change, but I've listed everything here for completeness. As for naval radars, I'm not sure it's worth listing them all (though I'll probably do it anyway if I get around to it); a decent amount of them are completely undefined, use the definition from a land-based radar or from another different radar. For instance: the AN/SPY-1A (Ticonderoga), AN/SPY-1D(V) (Arleigh Burke) and Mk 92 CAS (Oliver Hazard Perry), all use the definition from the AN/MPQ-53 from the Patriot; the 4R33 Baza [Pop Group] uses the defintion from the Land Roll; the 3R95 Podkat [Cross Swords] from the Scrum Half. One fire-control radar I can name that isn't reused from something else though is the Mk 95 illuminators, used for NSSMS/IBPDMS (MRS-3 and Type 909 on the Leanders and Invincible respectively also uses this definition), this is a NATO I-band, IEEE X-band radar.

You can get a glimpse of it in the pre-order trailer - there appears to be a long-nosed one and a short-nosed one.

This feature looks to be using the fusing window, which is configurable from the rearming/refueling window during missions. Having it be able to be set in the mission editor would still be useful though, for instance when air-starting. EDIT: BIGNEWY confirmed on hoggit that this will indeed be the case, so you'll be able to set it either in the mission editor or during a mission from the rearming and refueling menu.

Really happy with the higher fidelity and more realistic approach to the Shrike’s seekers

Yes, there are several automatic bomb delivery modes, the 3 main ones are Dive Toss, Dive Laydown and Laydown. The modes are more involved than what we’re used to in 4th generation aircraft - as Smyth said the WSO needs to designate a point on the ground using the radar EDIT: actually this is mistaken (toilet2000 is correct) - the radar is used to compute slant range, but in the -34 for the F-4E, the radar is aimed with the optical sight (and all diagrams state that the target is momentarily tracked visually, the bomb button is then pressed and held and the required manoeuvre performed, the bombs then release automatically as set. However the WSO also needs to input the drag coefficient of the bomb into the WRCS and for releasing multiple weapons a release advance (and not just quantity and interval). The release advance can be used to begin releasing bombs before the calculated release point, allowing you to specify exactly where each bomb in a ripple lands. EDIT: In offset bombing using a radar identification point (RIP), that's when the WSO needs to lock a ground target.

I have plenty of storage. Why should I fill it up with stuff I don't need? Oh really Sharpe, is it? I take it you think the module manager is curtailing and complicating the development of the game, effectively asking ED and other developers to stop making modules, maps and campaigns? Oh so you're actually in favour of this, then? And are just arguing against it, for, reasons?

Do you know how much it costs to delete files you don't need? Absolutely, freaking, this.

Welp, that's 2 shots, let's see how long you keep this up.

Oh yes! You're absolutely right! It definitely isn't flat.