Northstar98

For me I think it's the coast surrounding Bodø in the first image - both the mesh and textures seem to have quite a low resolution and part of the textures appear stretched. The mesh of the islands immediately north of the air station also looks quite low resolution - reminding me almost of the Caucasus map. You can also see similar areas in the bottom-right of the 6th image (including what looks to be a pyramid). I'm not going to hold too much judgement as the map is WIP and it's still firmly at the top of my most anticipated maps.

True, though this is an issue faced in real life, of course sometimes you've got restricted operating areas and sometimes not many escorts, but then this is why a layered defense is employed. One thing made worse in DCS that isn't just the maps, is that the Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga should have access to much longer-ranged missiles (RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV for both, RIM-174A ERAM for the former), which would partially counteract this problem. SM-2MR in DCS also behaves like an SM-1MR and doesn't fly a trajectory optimised for engaging low-flying threats at longer ranges. The other thing is that ships won't manoeuvre to adapt to a changing threat axis, not will they manoeuvre defensively at all. All this however, is probably going further and further off-topic, so I'll cut it off here.

Yes, there absolutely is. The Stark's Phalanx was famously left in a standby mode when it was attacked by 2 AM39 Exocets. And as it will engage just about anything (including on one occasion, a friendly aircraft, see my edit above), you need to be able to switch it off when friendly aircraft are expected in its engagment envelope (and for maintenance etc). The local control panel for Phalanx also has buttons for "HOLD FIRE" (which AFAIK, removes consent to engage targets) and "BREAK ENGAGE" (which AFAIK manually terminates an engagement in progress). Just note that in DCS, the Phalanx behaves no differently to really any AI gun (though they might now differentiate between radar guided and manually directed) so it will never fire at friendlies unless they're in the line of fire. Yeah, at a maximum it can only train ±150° at a maximum and -25° to +85° in elevation, that should definitely be fixed.

It also makes sense if you want to have maximum flexibility when choosing a theatre, the kind of flexibility you don't have on smaller regional maps. Because: There are theatres wholly absent (Vietnam, Balkans, central Europe, GIUK gap etc). Even for theatres which we do have a map for, they sometimes will either miss important areas or won't have them present in a usable state (Caucasus misses Marneuli airbase for 2008 Russo-Georgia War; SoH/PG misses Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain; Channel misses RAF Hudson for Operation Jericho) etc. It's use isn't solely confined to just having massive long distances. Plus, there are several other combat games which do/are going to have world maps, even in cases where the primary theatre is concentrated on one area (Silent Hunter, Sea Power, C:MANO/C:MO etc).

Even without additional stops, the maximum train angles are somewhere around ±150°, so that should be the maximum train angles in any case. But as for firing at other ships, this has indeed happened IRL - I'm not aware of any system to prevent friendly fire as Phalanx systems (at least in their automatic mode) will fire at anything meeting certain criteria (so it shouldn't be firing at targets whose range is opening). In addition to Viper 13's example of the Gulf War when a Phalanx system mistakenly engaged chaff, but there has also been an accident against target drones where rounds hit nearby vessels. In 1996, a JMSDF Phalanx system also mistakenly engaged a USN A-6 Intruder instead of the target it was towing The best thing to do here is to ensure that ships are adequately spaced apart. I'm not sure on the specifics but unlike what's often seen in DCS with tightly bunched formations, it's more realistic to have several miles between ships.

I agree, it seems unfeasible from a size perspective alone. But hopefully we can at least get higher detailed/historical regional maps that overwrite the areas they cover - exactly in the same fashion as just about every other flight sim with a world map. Personally, if I'm interested in a particular map we don't have (for me that would be 1980s north and/or central Germany, GIUK gap, Baltic) my current options are: A map that has the area present in low detail (which the world map would, only it would include every possible theatre, offering maximum flexibility). Higher quality regional maps that don't feature it (assuming they go near it at all, which no current map does). Then I'm choosing option 1. I'd rather have something than nothing. If the TDK can be made available for everyone, such that we can have user mods on terrain, then that would be ideal. Though I should clarify that by low-detail, I mean at minimum: A low-resolution mesh Generic biome-specific textures (e.g. taiga, tundra, temperate steppe, urban etc). At least major aerodromes with the right layout, even with generic objects. Network of at least major roads Forests and urban areas handled by landclass and autogen. I.e. what some flight simulators of old had as their base map.

But there's plenty of gameplay potential unexplored because of an absence of maps or maps not covering relevant areas. I swear I've already said this. I never suggested that, but fortunately, a world map would do this. Even if you're not interested in every possible theatre, a world map offers you maximum flexibility here and even if you want just a limited selection of theatres you're covered. If you stick with smaller regional maps (which often don't cover all relevant areas for conflicts localised to the region) you might always be waiting, with this you won't be.

Not necessarily, you only need the areas where combat is taking place to be high detailed, especially with more realistic starting locations. Then why is it referred to as an Earth map? Why is it referred to as being "the actual planet" or "the whole world"? Yes there is.

The abundance and variety of smaller maps? The majority of our maps (Caucasus, Syria, Sinai, SoH/PG, Iraq, Afghanistan) are all practically adjacent to each other, as are Normandy/Normandy 2.0 and the Channel (in the case of Normandy 2.0 and the Channel, they in-fact overlap in the areas they cover). I wouldn't exactly call that an abundance of maps, nor would I describe the variety as huge either, again most of them are just different places of middle east (though at least they all have their own historical potential, though sometimes it's difficult because sometimes areas relevant to some historical conflict aren't present in a usable way). That still leaves loads of potential theatres not covered by our maps - Vietnam, Balkans, Eastern Front, Central Europe, South China Sea, GIUK Gap, etc. A world map would have all possible theatres, including all of the relevant areas for conflicts on those theatres.

Based on?

Yeah, completely agree - especially with these areas. Even if the synthetic one is a higher resolution texture, such that it doesn't look blurry from low altitudes, the lost colour accuracy and the lost details, IMO, more than makes up for it, to the point that satellite textures, even if lower resolution are the better way to go.

Well, it's called "LS Samuel Chase" in the unit list but despite "Samuel Chase" being written on the lifebuoys, it actually has the hull number of the Arthur Middleton.

This would honestly be a dream come true for this theatre - you've got just about everywhere needed for Gulf War and Iran-Iraq War missions.

Absolutely - the system is transportable IRL.

It is however implemented with ACLS, using the same functions. As for the OP, absolutely +1.

How much smoke the rocket motor produces should very much depend on the version used. Unfortunately, this is where using real life images and videos become difficult as only videos and pictures showing specifically MIM-72E or G (which have M121 smokeless motors) will be accurate. In the description of the first video, it lists the variant as MIM-72A - so not appropriate to the G we have in DCS. I couldn't find anything on the image, but if it isn't an E or G, then it also won't be an accurate depiction of how much smoke there should be. Everywhere I look the M121 motor is described as "smokeless" and at least according to this: If this description is accurate, then this is probably correct as is.

Does this mean 9-12, 9-12A or 9-12B?

Bloom I agree with, it's a nice enhancement but probably makes for little impact on the overall perceived quality. Tracers though? Personally, I think DCS' tracers are quite bad, even to the point of spoiling the experience (especially when seen up close), so that's more of a big deal for me.

The reason that makes me suspect visual effects is because it was inconsistent - it was only that particular example where I saw the effect in other examples it isn't there (though that doesn't necessarily mean it's a video editing enhancement - it's just something that stood out to me as odd).

What about the increased bloom from rocket exhausts, such those seen here? EDIT: I'd also say the tracers, which in some shots looked quite different, but there are other shots where they looked the same as what we have now. Though that might be just a result of the film effects you mentioned (though perhaps just a more subtle version).

Yeah, hard agree - the current system is very lacklustre, it doesn't even approach the fidelity of the pre-WWII era damage model, which is already problematic for aircraft. With that said, brace yourselves everybody, humungous wall of text incoming! Calculating damage could still be done with a hitpoint based system. As for buoyancy, I doubt anyone here have something that is any higher fidelity than the simplified flight model (i.e. only consider basic, abstracted forces) in mind. Buoyancy is pretty easy here because it's purely arithmetic so long as we know the volume of water being displaced, which we do because we know the displacement of ships and their draught. All we need now is some abstracted compartment system, which could be some number of cuboid (to keep calculations trivial) compartments; the weight and buoyancy of the vessel can be uniformally distributed between them and forces can be treated as acting in the centre of each compartment. How much a compartment is flooded could also easily work with a points based system - each compartment has its own number of hit points, how many it loses determines the rate of flooding. The compartment system described above makes things fairly easy for determining weight and buoyancy (so long as we know the density of water and the volume of the compartments - both of which we do). There's no reason why fire couldn't work in the same way. The only thing with fire is that it should progressively damage internal components and the compartment itself (both hitpoints based, so shouldn't be particularly taxing). As for damage control, all that would do is remove "sinking" and "fire damage" points at some rate. What fires should do is damage any internal components (which again, they themselves would have their own hitpoints based system, which is how components already work). For superstructure compartments, flooding is out of the equation and you're left with something similar to what we have now with some aircraft + fire damage. All of these are fairly simple arithmetic operations from a modelling perspective - I doubt it's any higher fidelity than simplified flight models for most AI aircraft. But it should be perfectly adequate for our purposes. Well, hopefully DCS would be able to track mission-kills separated from catastrophic ones - it's already problematic for ground vehicles. Some ships already have some external components able to be damaged (usually guns/launchers and at least one class of fire-control radar), but it's quite inconsistent. A hitpoints based system is perfectly adequate so long as it's implemented properly. As for states, it only needs to keep track of operational (no damage) disabled and destroyed (hitpoints fully depleted), with the consequences of damage to whatever component considered. But it should also apply to internal components - at the very least command and control (bridge & CIC/operations room), engines and magazines. But as for "detailed damage model", I don't think anybody is expecting anything like the WWII damage model, where even individual engine cylinders are modelled. Obviously from a fidelity standpoint the more the merrier, but this could quite easily be simplified to just include the essentials. And a lot of approximation and abstraction would be perfectly serviceable here. It will, but this shouldn't be computationally expensive compared to those - we already have a far higher fidelity damage model than what I've laid out in the WWII damage model and the simplified flight and pre-WWII damage model, at least in principle and fidelity, already does what such a system would need (i.e. consider basic forces, how large they are and where they act). Why would it ever need to cope with more than one aircraft? I thought in multiplayer, all calculations relating to an aircraft's flight and systems modelling is done client-side? I'm aware that some things fall on the host's machine but AFAIK the flight models of other player aircraft aren't one of them, as it should. This is more problematic but DCS already should be employing methods that deal with this - things like LODs for instance. Well, I personally don't see what the compromise would be between what we have now and the improvements proposed beyond just making the current system more consistent, which IMO, while definitely desireable as consistency isn't something I'd praise DCS for, wouldn't really lead to tangible improvements.

Yeah but in the trailer I can’t see either 5-inch DP guns (Suyuza) or the 20.3 cm/50 guns (Kumamo) on the back, so presumably we have the Mogami post-conversion.

So, presumably it will be the Mogami, after being modified as an aviation cruiser?

As I've said elsewhere I really hope we'll be getting at least one allied escort type to go with them. A counterpart to the Mogamis (such as a Brooklyn, which would also fit fairly well on the South Atlantic map), would also be great.

The Mogami was, but the Suyuza, Mikuma and Kumano weren't. Suyuza would later have 5-inch twin mounts replace the rear 20.3 cm/50 turrets to improve anti-aircraft defence (along with numerous smaller-calibre guns), Mikuma was sunk before any conversion could be carried out and AFAIK Kumano remained in it's post-refit configuration. Whichever gets chosen we'll have something accurate to some part of the WWII PTO though.