Northstar98

If I had to name 1 thing (though really it's multiple, as several things would need to be delivered to support it), is a dynamic, persistent campaign (on par with the one in the other F-16 orientated sim) on a historically relevant theatre, with coherent modules and assets.

The Forrestal is a core unit - you don't have to own the F-14 in order to access it.

Yeah, kinda have to agree - I'd only expect dedicated POL vehicles fuel of fuel to burn in such a way. Perhaps it would be better if instead of using the big smoke and fire the effects would be swapped for just smoke, until a more realistic effect for vehicles can be developed (think GHPC).

Maybe, but I would've thought 95% of the effort in making a new asset is the 3D model, once you've done that it shouldn't be much to make them "active units" beyond animating them and making a .lua definition for them. As far as I'm concerned if you're going to be spending that effort, I think I'd much rather that effort be spent on something that functions in some respect. If I want to attack submarines in port or naval bases hosting submarines, then for the time being I'll make do with the Kilos currently in DCS. Yes, it's far from ideal (being based only at Polyarnny AFAIK, and only 1 during pre-perestroyka, they also should be the original Pr. 877, not 877V or 636), but I'd rather do that than not do those kind of missions at all. Yes, which is why submarines are a poor choice to begin with without ASW (which could be a game's worth of content by itself, especially when naval warfare wholly confined to surface units already has a massive list of things missing, simplified or otherwise wrong with it, without touching ASW) which is why surface units (preferably IMO, those from the late 70s to the early 90s) make far more sense practically, in DCS, by an overwhelming margin. But semi-functional attack and guided missile submarines is at least something rather than nothing, even if yes, you're absolutely correct, that it's not much of step up at all and would be a broken and incomplete implementation (though the Type 093 is already able to launch torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles, albeit said torpedoes only have WWI-style gyroangle guidance modeled, when they should be wire-guided + active/passive acoustic homing, so it wouldn't be totally unprecedented).

Just to clarify, can we also expect to see AIM-9J on aircraft like the F-5E? It is accurate to it, according to its manual.

+1 We've got a non-combative neutral/3rd faction (comprising of all unassigned countries), but the real panacea IMO is to have something like C:MO where you can add sides/coalitions completely at will (including civilians).

But they should only be rendered in full quality at close distances (and exactly when can be determined by a setting now), so performance shouldn't really be a factor with the new models - especially when we have higher quality models (sometimes far higher quality models) with existing assets (even AI assets) than the new stuff. For instance, the AI Su-34 is higher quality than any of the new aircraft - I haven't noticed it to be particularly problematic for performance and that was with a system well below spec. As far as I can tell it is exclusive to the models in new format, which are only found in CoreMods\tech\HeavyMetalCore. Those are: B-1B B-52H S-3B LPWS The new S-300PS, excluding the new 5V55R missile model (5P85S/D launchers, 5N63S Flap Lid FCR, 54K6 BCP, 5N64 Big Bird and 5N59S Tin Shield) Models in the existing .edm format (i.e every other model) are unaffected, including those newly added in 2.9.0, such as the aforementioned 5V55R, Kh-29L/T, Kh-59M/MK, R-60, BLG-66 and its submunitions etc (See SilverDragon's post here for the full list of changed models - some are existing models, some are complete overhauls). All of those models are modelled to perfection (including animated control surfaces and even animated seeker heads in the case of the Kh-29L/T and -59M).

I think it's more of a general bug with the autopilot of cruise missiles, so far in the very limited testing I've done Tomahawks are also affected - entering orbits, leaving orbits only to enter another one further along the route, leaving an orbit then crashing enroute to the target (even over water with no obstructions), entering really steep climbs until practically stalling etc. Sometimes a fraction won't end up entering orbits and will fly to the target and hit it as before but there seems to be some new behaviours which seem a bit bugged.

Don't get me wrong - I absolutely see where you're coming from and I'm sorta with you. But I'd argue they'd still have a point even if means pretending it's currently stationing whatever non-present asset. Though I would absolutely love for the map to be appropriately filled out with assets and modules appropriate for it, for me preferably centering around the 80s, where I think this map really shines. I mean, you could still do an AI SSB/SSBN unit and omit the ballistic missile part (after all, Cold Waters and the upcoming Sea Power: Naval Combat in the Missile Age do exactly that), but then they have a degree of ASW modelled, giving you the capability to shadow or hunt them down - in DCS though, unless they're on the surface that capability doesn't exist and you've essentially just got an attack boat with a different model (probably firing torpedoes where WWI-style straight running gyro-angle guidance is the only thing modelled) and in that case, you're probably better off with a cruise missile boat or an attack boat. But yes, I'd absolutely include the boats you've named, particularly the Victor, where if we had all 3 variants (and there isn't too much difference to them externally - main one is that the I has a 5-bladed screw, II has 2 4-bladed screws arranged in tandem and III is essentially the II but adding the pod for the MG-541 towed-array sonar) we'd have something covering from the late 60s to almost present-day. Though I'll maintain that the priority should be combat surface vessels, auxilliary surface vessels, civilian surface vessels, attack/guided missile submarines then ballistic missile submarines as far as naval assets go. Absolutely - I'd say the Sovremenny, Udaloy I and Kresta II are probably top of my list (with the Sovremenny and Kresta II having greater AAW capability and so probably more releavant to something more aircraft focused). Though I'd take just about anything, though yes, that absolutely should include support units such as the Boris Chilikin (though at least we have an Altay, though a legacy model).

While it would be good to get its ASW systems and stores (I'm very much in favour of that), there would need to be some core development before I request those. So I'd rather contain this thread to items that DCS can already support or weapons that already exist. I wasn't aware of things like AIRBOC, that's pretty neat, though again, probably something we'd need to wait on core functionality for.

I did see a photo of one with an AWW-13 data link pod (as well as one with LANTIRN), but as I understand it, they were later editions? I'm trying to stick to stick to stuff pre-1998 given that our model retains the MAD boom and sonobuoy chutes, though given that we have AGM-65s (albeit wrong variants - I've definitely seen a picture of an S-3B w/ AGM-65F, not sure about E or E2/L) perhaps ED would be open to doing later stores.

Thanks for your input, appreciated! Do you know if the S-3B also had the Mk 83 available? Could you still do it or was it not a cleared loadout? (I assume clearance with the Rockeyes extending fins potentially being problematic). I also assume they also carried (or at least had available) CBU-59 APAM and CBU-78 GATOR?

Seeing the same thing with the RGM-109C - it's like they're entering a holding pattern or something. Sometimes they will break out of them and continue to the target, sometimes they will proceed some distance than enter another orbit and sometimes they'll break out of an orbit, proceeding to the target, only to crash away from the target (both on land or open water). In this particular track, 12 missiles were fired, of which 4 immediately proceeded to the target, the other began orbits. After over an hour of orbiting, another missile broke out of the orbit and proceeded to the target. The others continued to orbit until they ran out of fuel. RGM_109C_orbit.trk

Just so you're aware, I added an addendum as the altitude setting can be used to better engage certain targets (for instance, if you were trying to shell a bridge, you might find that your rounds are aimed at the ground below the bridge and not the deck of the bridge - adding some altitude can get the aimpoint on the deck). Obviously depends on the angle your rounds come down at and how high and wide the bridge is.

The altitude setting determines the altitude of the fire-at-point aiming point. If you're trying to engage a target on the ground, you should leave the altitude at 0. If you add altitude, you'll find that whatever unit is doing the firing will be aiming high to hit the aim point, which will be up in the air. This altitude setting is more intended for setting up AAA barrage fire. Of course if you have it set to MSL and then have the altitude equal to that of your target you'll get the same result as having the setting off (i.e AGL altitude of 0). It might be useful for attacking structures that are significantly tall enough though. For instance, when attacking bridges, I've found that I sometimes end up hitting the ground directly below the bridge and not the deck of the bridge itself - adding some altitude can be used to raise the aimpoint up to the height of the deck resulting in much more hits onto it. Similar things for buildings - if you wanted to hit a building high-up for whatever reason (perhaps to hit a certain floor as opposed to ground level) it can be used to do that. Last I checked it was the total number of rounds to be fired by a group as set in a mission editor. It doesn't matter how large the group is, they will (or rather should) stop firing once the total number of rounds reaches what's set in the settings. If you want to have a certain number of rounds fired per gun, your best option is to take the number you want and multiply it by the number of guns you have in your group.

Hi everyone, Now that the new S-3B model has been released (albeit in a potentially bugged state), would it be possible for the S-3B's weapons to be corrected, as well as to add some others that are accurate for it (ignoring ASW specific stores such as torpedoes, sonobuoys and mines, as those require additional core functionality in order to work). The model we currently have depicts the S-3B as it was pre-1998 (i.e with AN/ASQ-81 MAD boom and all sonobuoy ports still present, from 1998 onwards the boom was deleted and at least most of the sonobuoy ports were blanked over as its role switched away from ASW). Currently the S-3B has the following stores available: 300 USG drop tank Mk 82 500-lb LDGP Mk 84 2000-lb LDGP Mk 20 Rockeye II AGM-65D AGM-65K AGM-84A Harpoon IP AGM-84E SLAM If the S-3B is to receive Maverick (which was post 2002 according to this, the same goes for SLAM), it should have the AGM-65F, not AGM-65D or K, neither of which is used by the USN. The SLAM should also use the AN/AWW-13 data link pod (EDIT: seeing as cooperative engagement capability isn't currently supported). It should also have ADM-141A TALD available, which was utilised in the 1991 Gulf War. These are mounted on TERs on the wing stations, but I'm not sure if it can equip a total of 2, 4 or the full 6. The Harpoon variant it should have is AGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C (as with the Hornet), it's probably still compatible with the AGM-84A, but the D is more appropriate (and has a far higher-quality model).

Oh yes, absolutely agreed.

Yeah, it's potentially going to have a pretty major impact for anyone looking to create their own liveries.

It's all of the models in the new format, under CoreMods\HeavyMetalCore and those models alone. B-1B, B-52H, LPWS, S-3B and all the new S-300PS models - they all look as though they're LOD1 models (i.e the next step down from full-quality) as opposed to LOD0. I mean, the B-1B lancer appears in full-quality (as does LPWS, the S-3B and the new Big Bird radar) in the recently released short cinematic: You can also see higher-quality elements on LPWS (higher-poly EOSS and rungs present) and on the Big Bird radar (antenna elements present in 3D as opposed to just a texture). My guess is that it's probably just a bug with the new format, though said new format makes me a bit worried because they seem to be containers (possibly encrypted) and cannot be read in the modelviewer. There are some files that cannot be accessed which are necessary for modders looking to make liveries (as right now, there's only one for each, even though the same short showed a camouflage livery for LPWS and we've seen a 69th Bomb Squadron for the B-52H in a screenshot in a newsletter).

Interesting - I'm not seeing the same: The missiles in your screenshot also appears to be of the older 5V55R model, I've got the newer one on my end.

I hope at a minimum we can change the side number. Though about the B-1B - has anyone else noticed that the in-game model appears to not be as detailed as the one shown off in newsletter screenshots and in-game footage? I've noticed that the countermeasure dispensers and windows for the OSO/DSO aren't present, despite them both being so in the aforementioned promotional material. The S-3B is the same where elements that were shown off in full 3D are just textures in game. Not saying the new models are bad in any way, they're fantastic improvements over what we had previously, but it's interesting to see that the quality has taken a bit of a hit compared to promotional material.

Hi everyone, Minor issue - the B-1B is missing a window for the OSO/DSO station (should be present on both sides): This is something that can probably be fixed with some minor changes to the textures. EDIT: The model shown in promotional material seems to be higher quality than what we have in game. This also seems to go for the new S-3B as well. The screenshot below (from late December 2022) has the window present (as well as much more detail on the countermeasure dispensers) and a more smoother, less angular look overall (particularly the AN/ALE-50 dispensers on the tail): EDIT 2: The window is also present in in-game footage too, which also appears to depict a more detailed, higher-resolution model (countermeasure dispensers present - they aren't in game, AN/ALE-50 sponsons(?) less angular):

Awesome news! The Tomcat has always been the most problematic aircraft for me with tracks, so this is definitely a welcome change!

Hi everyone, Minor issue with the new S-3B; when the OR-89/AA FLIR (turret mounted underneath the aircraft's nose, to the left of the forward landing gear door) deploys and starts scanning, it appears to instantaneously perform a 180° rotation as it looks directly ahead/behind. S-3B_OR89AA_rotation.trk

It did. It hit the water, bounced, went through the hull, through a wall, through the flight deck and then through the nose of the Lynx that was up on it (taking the nose off). So 3 layers that the bomb penetrated through - had it been only been a single compartment and had the bomb not bounced upwards, it's not unthinkable that it would've gone straight through: With that said, there's plenty of examples of bombs not penetrating straight through ships, even ones that feature no armour (such as HMS Coventry, Antelope and Ardent) and bombs in DCS (at least last I tested, which was a while ago) are probably penetrating too far.