Northstar98

And yeah, just for some Cold War shots. This is Hahn circa 77, season unknown (again, the hardened aircraft shelters are the wrong type in DCS): There's a slight smidge of sand-coloured mud/dirt around the taxiway in a few select areas - nothing like as extensive as what's seen in DCS. In this shot though, there's fairly dark grass all the way up to the paved surfaces. Ramstein, from mid August 1988: It's essentially grass right up to the runways, taxiways, parking areas etc. Though again, I'd also like to point out that the smaller variety of hardened shelter is the wrong type in DCS. Mid September 1982, again, grass is seen all the way up to paved surfaces, ditto with the shelter. Weisbaden, September 1983: Note how short the grass is as well, it looks very well kept and goes right up to the taxiway. Airbases in the GDR are harder to come by there's very few images apart from much older monochrome satellite photos. Here's Finow taken in early June 1966: Again, looks like the grass goes all the way to paved surfaces, exceptions are pretty rare. For another example here's Groß Dölln/Templin taken in late July 1980: The low resolution of these images makes it much harder, but if it was like DCS, I would expect to see light areas bordering the runway and taxiway - I don't. I see more-or-less the same shade right up to paved areas. The areas that are darker still are likely trees. I could go on, but I think we get the message. Suffice to say, even modern day satellite imagery almost always show grass right up to paved surfaces and around fences/walls etc. The exceptions are rare and are only resemble what's seen in DCS around construction works. I know some described these areas as being dried/sun-baked grass, but if that's the case, it should be far more uniform and not look like sand right next to bright green grass.

This may be true, but the 9M38 remains the only missile of its configuration, propulsion and use case in DCS that exhibits this behaviour. It also doesn't feature any form of air-breathing propulsion. I don't have any specific evidence to hand one way or the other - searches are drawing a blank. But at the moment, it is the odd one out. I guess I'll have to wait for it to be properly investigated though it's not like BTT is adversely affecting performance.

Hi everyone, It's been discussed (though has not yet been a topic of) several other threads but I thought this could really do with its own. Currently quite a number of runways, taxiways, aprons and a fair few roads have this prominent sand-like texture surrounding them like a border. For example, here's promotional material of Spangdahlem, taken from this post. There's a number of other errors clearly visible in these images also (for instance, all of the hardened aircraft shelters are the wrong type and the open parking spots are marked as helipads when they aren't, several other structures look like they were taken from Syria and aren't that accurate either). The layout however is broadly correct. By comparison, here's a satellite photo, taken summer 2018 (the lighter area is actually from March 2017): And here are a few close-up shots: It can clearly be seen that areas of mud/dirt/sand are few and far between and in the overwhelming majority of areas, the grass goes right up to taxiways, runways, aprons etc. This is further backed up by photos taken on the airbase (these from mid May 2023, sourced from here) These from the end of May 2020: This from May 2024 It should be very clear that the sand-coloured boundary surrounding the paved surfaces is incorrect - at the very least it should be made much more sparse, as IRL, nearly every image shows more-or-less uniform grass right up to them. With these you could also make the argument that the grass texture should be darker. You could make very similar analysis at the majority of airbases, not just Spangdahlem. Yes, you sometimes see brown/dry grass, but it'll be much more uniform and not patchy (it's not like the sun only illuminates certain areas of grass). Sometimes, there is mud/dirt/sand but unless significant construction work is going it's few and far between, not all over the place as it is currently. Personally, fixing this would fairly dramatically improve the realism of these airbases.

Agree with this, but personally, there shouldn't be fictional air defence sites or training ranges in the first place. Instead, those should be up to mission editors to make. This would not only make the map more accurate, it would help remove clutter in certain areas. The other thing with the map is that aerodromes have a large, bold-faced font. If the font was smaller and not bold-faced, clutter would be less of an issue. Though obviously this is something for ED to fix.

What fire-control problem? Oerlikon Mk 7, Bofors 40 mm, AK-630, AK-725, numerous small-arms etc, even the 5"/38 on the Samuel Chase - all are capable of engaging air targets. All are capable of leading targets and compensating for elevation/range differences, why should larger calibre guns be any different? And it's not like we don't have naval gun calibre-like land-based AAA. Unless you mean realistically depicting ship fire-control, radars and the such like. The same issue is true for ground units so that's not really here nor there as far as in-game functionality is concerned.

With the Essex in the newsletter this could probably do with a bump. The Essex has 5"/38 guns, which one of, if not the most, prolific dual purpose gun of the war. The AI is already capable of engaging both aerial and land/surface targets with the same gun (easily seen with land-based AAA) and the AI appears to be able to select appropriate ammunition for appropriate targets (BTR-82A for instance will switch to APCBC-T to engage targets that the HE-T round won't damage). Even if its timed fuses in the interim, while we wait for proximity fused ammunition.

Hi everyone, Small issue, with the late January update, the 9M38M1 as fired by the Buk-M1 rolls to turn. While I don't know if the 9M38M1 actually does, rolling to turn would be quite unusual given its conventional cruciform layout (a layout it shares with most missiles in-game) - it's the only missile with a cruciform layout in-game that does so - no other missile with the same configuration exhibits this behavior and the only missiles in-game that do, are missiles with prominent wings (such as cruise and certain gliding munitions like the JSOW) where rolling to turn is expected. The only SAMs IRL that I'm aware of that roll to turn are the British Thunderbird and Bloodhound SAMs, which don't feature in DCS. 9M38M1_roll2turn.trk

Yes, this seems to be fixed, though the plume from the exhaust no longer appears to vector as it once did (presumably WIP?)

Looks like the topography is wrong compared to the real place and fwiw, the real facility is a forge.

To add an addendum to this one, even the smaller HAS is wrong. Spangdahlem IRL doesn't have this type of shelter: Instead, the smaller shelters at Spangdahlem should be the original generation 1 TAB-VEE shelters, which have clamshell doors inside the shelter, like this (this at Spangdahlem): This same type of shelter should also be present at Ramstein and Hahn (both also wrong in DCS). Pretty trivial to confirm with satellite imagery of these airbases. The easy one to compare against is Bitburg, which does have the kind of shelter seen in the OP. Though one thing I'll also mention is that the neither the shelters that should be there, nor the type seen in the OP have those J style ventilation tubes on top. Those belong on gen 2 and 3 shelters (the latter being the other type at USAFE airbases in Germany - and no they shouldn't just copy the one at Incirlik in Syria, because that's the wrong shape).

Just eye candy unless you add/replace them with functional units.

Personally, I think the better solution would be peer counterpart and contemporary aircraft, to Soviet aircraft that can actually be developed. So 80s F-15A/C, F-16A Block 10/15 or C Block 25/30, and F/A-18A. The REDFOR aircraft still wouldn't have precision strike capability (only dedicated aircraft like the Su-25 have that). In that case I would absolutely support a full-fidelity MiG-27 or Su-25 or even a Su-17/22M3/M4.

Hi everyone, The MIM-23 missile is currently named MIM-23K. This is incorrect for the battery components and the general capabilities of the system. The MIM-23K belongs to the I-HAWK PIP Phase III, which uses the AN/MPQ-62 ICWAR (not the 55) and the AN/MPQ-61 IHIPIR (which not only can track targets in angle completely passively, but can also illuminate multiple targets simultaneously at low altitude). The AN/MPQ-50 IPAR is retained (though given the limited TBM capability of the MIM-23K, the AN/TPS-59 can be used). To compound things however, the AN/MPQ-46 IHIPIR in DCS has the model of a HEOS-equipped AN/MPQ-57 from the I-HAWK PIP Phase II. If you wanted to keep the AN/MPQ-46 designation, the missile should be renamed MIM-23B and HEOS on the AN/MPQ-46 model should be deleted. If the HEOS-equipped AN/MPQ-57 model is to be kept, then the IHIPIR should be renamed AN/MPQ-57 (HEOS) and the missile renamed to MIM-23C or MIM-23D. The AN/MPQ-50 IPAR and AN/MPQ-55 ICWAR are both accurate for both PIP Phase I and Phase II systems. If it was ever implemented, all 3 would use the same IROR (AN/MPQ-51)

Is there a track file? I've found that with Attack Unit/Group, the AI may drop the task if the radar cannot be engaged the moment the task is called. I've found that Search then Engage will only have whatever group fire as many HARMs as there are threat radars.

Hi everyone, I've discovered an inconsistency with AI-fired AGM-84Ds. When "Attack Group" is used, the missiles always only strike the group leader, ignoring any other ships (even if those other ships have larger radar cross sections and are directly in the path of the missile - in the attack group track, you can see missiles overfly larger escorting ships on their way to the group lead). Even with a far tighter formation, the missiles only track the group lead, ignoring any other ships. This they do, even if other ships are obscuring the group lead. As if the missile magically knows where the group lead is and its seeker isn't being modeled. However, when "Search then Engage Group" is used, the missiles more randomly target ships in the formation, leading to every vessel being hit at least once (with the escort ships, which are both larger and closer to the missile's flight path) having more missiles target them. This is more expected behavior of the Harpoon and seems to better replicate the Harpoon's seeker. The bug here is that missiles fired by the AI using "Attack Group" should behave like they do when fired in "Search then Engage". For anyone wondering why I wouldn't just use Search then Engage every time. Well, search then engage requires the firing unit to detect the target themselves, which the low-flying aircraft will only do at fairly close distances. By using Attack Group, I can replicate pre-planned targets (where the Harpoon is fired at a pre-planned waypoint) - allowing the launching platform to remain in EMCON and/or replicate targets transmitted to shooters by other AI aircraft. AGM-84D_AttackGroup.trk AGM-84D_AttackGroup_TightForm.trk AGM-84D_SearchThenEngage.trk

Hi everyone, Pretty simple one - the YJ-83K (as fired by the JF-17 and H-6J) do not produce any sound for their sustainer stage - only wind noise can be heard. The same bug does not affect the surface-launched YJ-83. YJ-83K_no_sustainer_sound.trk

This looks corrected to me.

Not having an issue on the latest patch - tested with GBU-10, -12 and -24. Make sure the laser code matches between pod and bomb and make sure the code is actually entered into the Pave Spike.

Just as a tack on from this one: specifically Type 22 Batch 1 (w/ Type 910 Sea Wolf directors, not the later Type 911) as seen here and Type 42 Batch 1, with the Type 965P DOuble Bedstead, not the later Type 1022 (as seen on the current Invinicble, where it's accurate). See here for an example.

Only if this would entail removing the scenery object airliners that are already there. Simply taking the model and converting it to .edm format so it can be used as a static object doesn't necessarily entail doing that.

Could not agree more.

Yeah, but if you want to put anything else where they are, you're in for a fun time of trying to precisely tailor the object remove zone so that it only removes what you want to remove and doesn't remove things you don't want removed, if this is even possible (and there are cases where it isn't). It doesn't just go for airliners either, though they are the easy example to point towards as they take up what could've been a usable parking space.

Yeah, ythis is exactly my problem with having these kind of objects as scenery objects. Personally, I'd much rather maps embrace more of a sandbox ideology - let me decide what goes where, rather than making the choice for me and then doing so in a way where it's difficult to impossible to do anything else. It is far easier to add a static object and use that as decoration, than to delete a scenery object, especially when it often results in collateral damage as seen above.

Yes, this is a problem when developing an aircraft that was only recently declared fully operational. It's part of the reason why I think that the F-35 is a poor choice for DCS. However, developing a pre-IOC aircraft would really solidify that the F-35 is a poor-choice in DCS for me - on top of everything else (like the lack of relevant peer threats, low fidelity sensor modelling, lacklustre EW etc). And to be honest, the only thing 3F materially improves when it comes to DCS-relevant aerial warfare is external carriage of 2 AIM-9X. Most of the changes relevant for DCS would concern AG armament.

No it isn't. I want an operational variant, of which Block 3F is the first. If I wanted "the most powerful version" I would've said block 4+ It's give me a MiG-23MLA, not a pre-production MiG-23. Give me a 9.12 MiG-29, not a 9.11 MiG-29A.