Northstar98

I mean, personally I'd just list both, though I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it optional. For me, here's how I'd go about it (at least for English localisation): Before 2.7 I would go through the files and correct/rename them as I saw fit, resulting in a cleaner, more consistent set up that managed to be accurate and precise while also remaining fairly concise. Unfortunately, from 2.7 and onwards all the relevant files were locked down and hidden so now that's impossible and I'm stuck with how ED and others do things. Unfortunately, however, IMO how they do it leaves a lot to be desired: When the naming convention came to DCS (which may have also been 2.7), names were made more ambiguous despite being made longer. It's inconsistent: V PVO SAM systems have their native designations, but not their native names. PVO-SV systems on the other hand have their native names but not their native designations. Most of the time NATO designations and reporting names are used, but sometimes they're not (such as the HQ-7, which has the NATO designation CSA-7. I'm not sure on reporting name but I have seen Sino-Crotale used for it). The Krivak I is another example. Sometimes project numbers are used for ships (such as for the Krivak I and Grisha V) and sometimes they aren't (such as the Ropucha I). Sometimes the wrong NATO designation and reporting name is used: The 9K338 Igla-S should have the NATO designation and reporting name SA-24 Grinch. In DCS it uses the same ones as the 9K38 Igla - SA-18 Grouse. The HY-2 missile is given the NATO designation & reporting name SS-N-2 Silkworm; not only is neither accurate for the HY-2 (which should be CSSC-3 Seersucker), but Silkworm isn't even accurate for the SS-N-2. Silkworm is the NATO reporting name for the HY-1 missile (NATO designation CSSC-2) and SS-N-2 is the NATO designation for the ship-launched P-15 Termit missile (NATO reporting name Styx). Sometimes a name is given for a specific variant or member of a class, when it's actually inaccurate to what's actually present/depicted: The Chieftain Mk 3 isn't a Mk 3. The U-boat VIIC U-flak isn't a U-flak. Everything with Ural-375 are actually all Ural-4320s, not Ural-375s. The Kh-41 is actually a 3M80* (the Kh-41 is the air-launched version, only the ship-launched version exists in DCS). The Mk 5 Walleye II is actually a Mk 23 Walleye II ERDL. Corvette 1241.1 Molniya is actually a Pr. 1241.1M, the 1241.1 is a different version and the difference isn't trivial. "LS Samuel Chase", despite having lifebuoys with "Samuel Chase" written on them, has the hull number of the Arthur Middleton, not the Samuel Chase (why is this not instead called something like "Arthur Middleton Attack Transport" or APA 25 (Arthur Middleton) with the individual members present as liveries?). AGM-62 is a designation that was dropped and replaced before the Walleye went into production (and it should instead just be called Mk 23 Walleye II ERDL), similarly BGM-109 is a legacy designation that was replaced by the time the C variant was introduced (especially so for the Block applicable to our ships) - so it should instead be renamed to RGM-109C TLAM-C Block III. The formatting is rather odd, it flip-flops between using native designations/names and NATO designations and reporting names, instead of grouping them together. For example: "SA-10 S-300 Grumble" instead of "S-300 [SA-10 Grumble]". I could go on. *

Absolutely - it would be way more appropriate than the Tin Shield - a radar that's associated with the S-300. And yes - I definitely agree. It's absolutely staggering how it hasn't been implemented as a functional unit - it's one of the most prolific (at least for the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Bloc) early warning/GCI radars going - we already have 3 maps appropriate for it and are getting another one. It has a perfectly adequate model, appropriately animated and in the right format. Yet, for over a decade, it's been non-functional eye-candy on the Caucasus map alone. The same is true for the PRV-11, which would also be a good unit to fill out air defences. The only other Eastern Bloc EWRs (at least those that can actually function as EWRs) we have are the 1L13 and 55G6 - both of which haven't been touched since LOMAC (though given that the 55G6 and 55Zh6U radars were the direct successor to the P-14, that would also be far more appropriate than the Tin Shield). The P-37 has a far more appropriate model (the only thing it could do with is having the mound it sits on removed). All it needs is a basic .lua definition for the unit and its sensor - I've had a go at it myself (mainly by reverse engineering the P-19), but I've no idea how to implement it as a unit nor whether I've even done it correctly: P-37.lua P-37_sensr.lua

I've encountered a bug with the Kh-22 - on launch, it clips into the launching aircraft. What seems to happen is that as soon as the ventral fin/rudder unfolds, the missile's control surfaces unlock which then results in the missile climbing through the launching aircraft. I'm not entirely sure what sequence of events should happen when a Kh-22 is launched, but delaying the unlocking of the control surfaces should resolve the issue - which if I'm not mistaken was how it was pre 2.9.0. EDIT: According to this video, the missile appears to free-fall from the launching aircraft, gaining quite a bit of separation before engine ignition (which occurs ~2-2.5 s after launch) and pitch-up. Fortunately, the missile seems to lack a collision model (at least between it and its launching aircraft), so it doesn't lead to damage to the aircraft. The problem happens on all 3 stations (see Kh-22_clipping1.trk for the wing stations, and 2 for the fuselage station). Kh-22_clipping1.trk Kh-22_clipping2.trk

Yep...

Not over water it's not (which is what this thread is primarily concerned with) - and that's from the link you provided. Of course the real solution is: And there I'm definitely with you. But I'm going to maintain that decoupling the 33 ft and 1600 ft winds would definitely be a good stop-gap for the time being, given just how long the new weather system is taking (and we still don't know what it'll even entail) - having them be locked together with one just over 2× over open ocean isn't realistic.

Sorry! The OP no longer applies but the main thing to be investigated is the total fuel, which still seems smaller than expected. I'm not sure how much fuel the A/A42R-1 air refuelling store adds but the previous D-704 (which is a similar size and configuration) contained 300 US gallons of JP-5, which translates to about around 2050 lbs, at 20°C; at the moment it currently carries 24 lbs. The total weight of the aircraft is also less than the regular S-3B with a single full drop tank, that could be explained by the removal of ASW equipment seen in the tanker version in DCS, but it might be worth investigating. Merry Christmas!

Nah, they (or rather cameochemicals) are good . The data sheet I used had a table of densities vs temperature - I simply picked one and worked out the mass from a given volume (300 US gallons).

There's been a change compared to 2.9.1, but there's still some funny business going on with how much fuel the S-3B tanker has available and how much it weighs. Though haven't tested how much fuel it dispenses.

Looks like this issue was somewhat-ish addressed recently, though there's still some funny business going on: The non-tanker version can now carry 13144 lbs/5962 kg of fuel internally, with a total aircraft mass (with no other stores) of 39793 lbs/18095 kg. With a single drop tank those figures change to 15159 lbs/6876 kg and 41919 lbs/19014 kg respectively. With 2 drop tanks the figures are 17174 lbs/7790 kg and 44044 lbs/19978 kg respectively. The tanker can now carry 15183 lbs/6887 kg of fuel at a total mass of 41833 lbs/18975 kg. So, larger than just internal fuel, but the A/A42R-1 air refuelling store seems to only carry an extra 24 lbs/11 kg of fuel but somehow removes mass, compared the S-3B with a single drop tank. EDIT: Actually, this disparity in weight could just be the result of the ASW deconfiguration program, which removed much of the ASW equipment. Depending on the weight of the removed ASW equipment a post ASW deconfiguration program S-3B with a drop tank and refuelling store might weigh less than a pre-ASW deconfig. S-3B with a single drop tank. EDIT 2: Though it should probably carry more than just 24 lb of fuel in the air refuelling store - sorry Flappie I'm not sure how much the A/A42R-1 weighs, nor how much fuel it carries; but the predecessor D-704 pod (with a very similar size and configuration) carries ~300 US gallons of fuel and weighs ~700 lbs (unsure if this is full or empty, though I'm leaning on empty as 300 US-gals of JP-5 is somewhere around 2050 lbs at 20°C) according to the source above.

Aviastorm update, from Discord:

Looking at the guide, it has surface winds be 70% of the 2000 ft winds over sea (or put another way, the 2000 ft wind speed should be ~1.43× the surface speed, right now DCS is locked to ~2.125×). You did mention this above, but as this thread is primarily concerned with winds over sea, it doesn't make sense to have the 1600 ft setting locked to just over double the 33 ft setting. As for backing and veering, that isn't possible in DCS either as the setting is locked to be the exact same direction. Given that some locations in DCS are indeed areas where (at least from those forecasting models) there are exceptions, I'm personally much more on the side of having the setting be able to be set by the mission editor (as with other wind layers).

Well, forecasting models operated by various agencies (NOAA, EMCWF, MET office etc) don't show anything like what DCS does, where you're locked into having just over double the speed of the winds at 33 feet, 100% of the time in absolutely all circumstances. Yes, sometimes you see a doubling, but I've also seen a quintupled and sometimes I've seen it be half of the surface speeds (depending on terrain, location etc).

Agreed - as someone who likes to fly low, IMO high resolution terrain mesh trumps high resolution textures.

Just checked the .edm and lods files of the F-14A and B and yep, doesn't seem to be there either.

Yeah doesn't look like it's in - I can't find the model in either the F-14's shapes folder in CoreMods or the main Bazar folder either.

VIAF 2023 - Heatblur Interview:

That one is probably more of a minor thing - at least the main item is fixed

Well, there would still be a lot of geometry to do. Another thing is that the Phalanx that they should have (and all of them were lated upgraded to have it) - DCS only has the Block 1B, when the Phalanx that's accurate to the 42s (and also Invincible from September 1982 - 1986, HMS Ark Royal from 1990 - 1999 as well as the current Condell's in their current configuration) is the Block 0 (later upgraded to Block 1A). The difference isn't trivial from either an artwork perspective or a weapons modelling perspective. So, the only things that are really there are Type 909, Sea Dart and the Type 1022 (which also came to Batch 1 ships following refits).

It's the icon that looks like an open switch, just below the button for the weather settings. Once that's open, add a new trigger (leftmost "ADD" button, set the type, name, event and colour as desired), add a condition for the trigger if appropriate (middle "ADD" button) and then add the SET CARRIER LIGHT MODE action (rightmost "ADD" button, set the type to "SET CARRIER LIGHT MODE", set "UNIT" the unit you want the setting to apply to and set "MODE" as desired).

Well, with Mount Pleasant and the larger runway at Stanley is definitely post-war (mid 1980s onwards, there's probably some other stuff that's more recent - such as the wind turbines), the RRHs on Mount Kent, Mount Alice and Byron Heights are also post-war. The only real modern assets we have in the pack so far are the Condell-class and HMS Andromeda, everything else fits the timeframe. Some of the WIP screenshots above do show more modern vessels though - that Invincible/Illustrious shown is early 2000s (no Sea Dart), the 23 looks to be late 2010s (Type 911 deleted, suggesting CAMM(M)/Sea Ceptor and Type 997), this Type 22 is a batch 3 - which is late 1980s at the earliest (first screenshot shows either a batch 1 or 2, the former is accurate to the war).

Yeah, I've been to Dartmoor (and Bodmin Moor) a few times, looking at photos the terrain at least is farly similar.

What's odd about it? The Invincible also represents as it was during the Falklands War (1980 - 1982 fit), the Castle-class also represents an early 1980s to late 1980s/1990 fit (though with completely the wrong gun). Although the latter was used as despatch vessels and guard ships for Ascension Island. The LARC-V also fits the war. The only assets we have that don't fit the war are HMS Achilles, Ariadne (never took part, but would've been around in the fit they're in at the time) and the Condell-class (which are in an upgraded fit (though with the wrong Phalanx Block), not sure when (Almirante Lynch still had Sea Cat circa 1999 so presumably some time later). Andromeda did take part in the war, but not in the fit it's in (which is accurate to 1968 - 1977), from 1977 - 1980 it was substantially upgraded.

I'm assuming they're referring to the lack of surface clutter (which can be quite noticeable).

Yeah, good idea. If it could work, in principle, to some deprecated units (such as the CVN 70 Carl Vinson) where it's still present in the files, but removed from the unit list - allowing existing missions with it to function, then that would be ideal as what I'm describing would be a massive change.

This the main thing for me - if we could have multiple coalitions beyond just 2 belligerents and a non-combative neutral (who is just everybody that’s unassigned) then the insurgent “country” would be fine. The panacea for me is something like C:MO where you can add, edit, rename and delete coalitions/sides completely at will. Instead of having “countries” assigned to a coalition, they’d instead just be an optional way to filter units with a selection to determine the coalition/side.