Northstar98

AFAIK drogues only allow fuel transfer when extended within a certain range (hose & drogue cannot be pushed in too far, nor can it be extended too far). This would mean that we would need markings on the hose where applicable. Boom-drogue adapter kit ("Iron Maiden")

Agreed with all the above, though personally, I'd put more focus towards missing air defence equipment (Cold War-era MANPADS and radars). One thing though: The Chieftain Mk 3 in DCS isn't a Mk 3 - it has the ranging gun deleted, it has a laser rangefinder, MRS, an upgraded engine and the new NBC pack. If it was intended to be based on the Mk 3, that would make it a Mk. 7/L at least.

I could, but there's a couple of issues with this method: It often causes collateral damage, deleting other objects that I didn't intend to delete. In cases where radomes are mounted on towers it will also delete the tower, meaning I can't have my radar at the right height. Having a tower/pedestal/base whatever without the radome allows me to place functional radars where they should be. If there was a radome static object, it would also look the part too. Essentially, the ideal solution is to have EWR sites that act the part and look the part instead of just doing the latter.

I wholeheartedly agree, especially when some of these areas are completely fictional and aren't in the right place, while missing real air defence sites in close-proximity - sites that should have far more influence on what we do in DCS. I personally don't see the utility in modelling details that aren't really relevant to air combat, when sites that are relevant to air combat are either not present or inaccurate. I agree with MBot that its expected that there are some locations where a copied and pasted generic template is expected (I even advocated for this myself with air defence sites - most after all have fairly similar layouts). But in some cases the templates are wrong in fairly significant ways (the SA-5 sites for instance have 3 launch battalions, when every site in Germany should only have 2). However, there are some examples where their locations are entirely fictional. For example, one of the copied and pasted tank ranges is in an area which should just be a forest. Worse, it's on an approach path to an airbase (Damgarten), so it's not exactly easy to miss (and was even pointed out in a livestream by Wags). Meanwhile, the 2 SA-3 sites (one of which on the airbase itself) aren't present, nor is the the EWR site - ironically being replaced by forests and trees. Well, that price is only for early access, the full thing is 70 USD, which is as much as entire other flight simulators. However, that's not what I want to focus on - what I do want to argue is that the map would've arguably been better and more usable had the effort that went into more irrelevant details (such as combine harvester, the inside of factories, balloons, air racing courses that we already had the ability to make ourselves etc) was instead directed into making military installations more accurate or including more of them. I'm not saying that the inclusion of the former is necessarily a bad thing, but if it's one choice or the other, I'm picking the latter. The fact that this criticism is true of other maps doesn't render this criticism invalid. I'm struggling to see what your point is.

With radomes, where they are protecting radars I'd rather they not be present as scenery objects, but rather hollow, static objects. Having radomes as scenery objects prevents these sites from being usable as anything other than eye candy. Having the radomes be static objects will allow for functional radar units to be occupy these sites, meaning they're usable for their intended purpose, not just for eye-candy.

You can place it just about anywhere - DCS has a file browser that will allow you to navigate to it. However, the best place to put it is your saved games/DCS/Missions/Single Missions

Check reaction to threat settings (make sure they’re not set to allow abort, which is the default) and make sure override attack avoidance is set.

From 1985: Looks like the same shelters.

Yeah, western side of the airbase has larger hardened shelters to accommodate the A-10. The eastern side has smaller HASs, more appropriate to F-16-sized aircraft.

Just in case anyone wants to have some of these items (and for ED to take a look), I've attached a folder containing the 2 sets of loadouts. There are some items missing (namely combinations of CBU-99 and Mk 20 Rockeye IIs, Mk 82 and Mk 82 Snake Eye. The pre ASW deconfiguration set is what's actually accurate for "S-3B", given that the Maverick Plus upgrade (which added AGM-65E/F and AGM-84E/H/K compatibility) only applied post ASW deconfiguration - the configuration depicted by "S-3B Tanker". However, given that buddy stores aren't implemented, this can be used as a stop-gap. To install, simply choose the folder you wish to install and drag and drop the contents into your main DCS directory, this will break IC so keep a copy of your original. S-3B.zip

Just as an addendum to this, I've attached an updated Arleigh_Burke_IIa.lua which fixes this issue. Though there are a few other things I'd personally change: Arleigh_Burke_IIa.lua

There should be an SA-3 site to the north-west of Allstedt (about 1 km to the north of Allstedt itself), but the nearest SA-5 site IRL is ~40 km to the south (adjacent to Eckolstädt). See here for real-life satellite imagery of the former and here for real-life satellite imagery of the latter.

Yeah, looking at satellite imagery, what's depicted here doesn't bear much resemblance to the real place.

Scenery objects can be animated (see wind turbines etc). EDIT: Actually, with the video - those could very well be new assets.

They're almost certainly scenery objects baked into the map.

I didn't say it was up to Ugra to implement RSBN or PRMG systems as units that can be placed by mission editor. It would however be up to Ugra to implement RSBN and PRMG systems on the map, ideally where they should be.

Because realism is somehow a bad thing here?

There is a TACAN unit as a placeable unit. There isn't RSBN and PRMG as a placeable unit. You are already catered for even if the NAVAIDS were realistic, but given that there isn't an RSBN or PRMG unit anybody who wants to use Eastern Bloc aircraft at Eastern Bloc airfields is not catered for. Having it the way that it is reduces accessibility. There is a TACAN unit, there isn't an RSBN or PRMG unit. So anybody who wants to use Eastern Bloc aircraft at Eastern Bloc airfields, should do what exactly? This isn't just some pedantic thing (as if realism was a bad thing to begin with), it tangibly impacts gameplay (including whether or not you can even do things like instrument procedures at all). I don't see anybody here demanding perfection. And? What's your point? This results in the opposite. Shame you don't want to give people the choice to use the NAVAIDs that should be there...

Yeah, should ideally have PRMG and RSBN systems, not TACAN. The inclusion of TACAN at these airfields is a post-reunification thing. This site has quite a few of them: https://www.mil-airfields.de/de-rpt/ddr-funkfeuer-rsbn-de.htm

This may be due to the 1L13 and 55G6 being A/B-band radars, whose wavelengths are too large to be received by the small sensors in the HTS and HARM. The P-14 operates at 0.15 to 0.17 GHz, which is also in the A-band, meaning it too will not be detectable to the HARM (whose limits start at the C-band which starts at 0.5 GHz) and possible the HTS. The same would also be true of the P-12M/18 (appropriate radars for the SA-2 and the latter is also seen at numerous GDR EWR sites)

Probably AIM-9B FGW.2 (also known as the AIM-9F) and possibly the AIM-9L?

? The approach is based on the radar range equation, from ED's own whitepaper. Something you yourself recommended I do. Fidelity has nothing to do with whether the equation is valid. You may get a different result, as the variables may change (and its probabilistic in nature to begin with), but the equation remains the same and I'd expect any radar model to use it, at least at some point (as the current model does). The numbers I used are not what I expect to get each and every time, I gave them as approximates for a reason, especially given this is one case of detecting low-flying, closing objects over calm, relatively open sea, radars are also probabilistic and RCS itself isn't necessarily a constant either. The numbers I gave are examples, based on current in-game behaviour. All of this is perfectly consistent with ED's whitepaper. But whether they're detectable at 20 nmi or 2 nmi, the point is they'd be detectable at some stage, but currently, they aren't at any stage, in any circumstance. But what the ranges actually should be is besides the point - the problem is that the radar cannot detect these missiles at all. Not that it does so further or closer than expected. Again, what the detection ranges actually are or should be is irrelevant to this bug report. Using the same numbers I used in the OP, the Hornet's radar should detect a 5 m2 target (what the MiG-29 is defined with in DCS) at ~70 nmi and that's exactly what happens in game with the same set up. Yes, but again, this is irrelevant to the bug report. If I was reporting things detected at unexpected ranges yes, but I'm reporting things not being detectable at all, under any case, as if they have an RCS of 0, so this isn't really relevant. The radar already has detection distance be proportional to the 4th root of RCS as it should be - this was the focus of the phase 2 upgrade (which concerned things like probabilistic detection and RCS etc). The distances themselves may change, but as I've said previously the distances themselves aren't relevant to this bug report. The problem is that the radar simply cannot detect the missiles at all.

Couple things I noticed on the stream by Wags At 24:36, you can see a helipad and training range in the forest on the approach path to runway 25 of Damgarten. He flies over it at 30:00. As far as I can tell this is completely fictional - the only thing that should be there is a forest and the outer marker beacon. In 1985 satellite imagery nothing can be seen apart from the forest and a small clearing for the marker beacon, ditto for a 1969 satellite image. There is an EWR site (FuTK-332) near Saal about 7 km to the north-north-east of Damgarten, which should have a grass helipad, but it's unmarked on the map and doesn't appear to be present. There's also an SA-3 site practically adjacent to this site that also doesn't appear to be present (the area appears forested when it should be fields). Both are clearly visible in this satellite image. Damgarten has an SA-3 site (541st OZRD) which doesn't appear to be present (see 29:35, the area appears to only have a single road is more densely forested - accurate for modern day, not so accurate for the timeframe). It's clearly visible in this image and this image. Hopefully these can get corrected. I'm of course not expecting a 1:1 recreation, but I'm more open to things missing (as I can always remove trees and put an SA-3 site there, satisfying points 2 and 3), but I have more of a problem with things being present when they shouldn't, especially things like the training range in #1, especially when real military sites in the area don't appear to be present.

I'm hoping most of the baked in stuff such as this is attached to the civil traffic setting. Personally, if it were up to me, I'd have the map accurately depict the real place, but leave scenery object cars, aircraft etc empty so I can control if they're present or not and where they're present. A similar thing goes for tanks in storage areas/military bases - ideally I'd place these myself (allowing for functional units). Things like parked airliners should really be functional units we can use (and would provide an excuse for developing more in-depth ROE logic, IFF systems, no-fire zones for things like air defences etc. In DCS, it's far easier to add a static object, than it is to remove stuff (which usually causes unintended collateral damage with other nearby objects). Things like military sites and helipads should be the real ones (and again, empty of vehicles - so I can place my own). Absolutely. I mean I'd take even an AI version at this point and we are getting RAF Gütersloh on release.

Yep, takes me back to this nearly decade old request: I’d love to be able to add, edit and remove sides/coalitions at will, set their posture with respect to each other and have their postures be able to be triggered so they could be changed mid-mission. C:MO is a perfect example, see here for an explanation of that.