Northstar98

I couldn't be happier, outstanding stuff! EDIT: Only thing I'll mention, though I'm very happy with it as-is, is I don't think any SA-5 site in Germany had 3 launch battalions, only 2. However, the configuration of the launch battalions and the revetments looks pretty much spot-on for what I'd expect.

With these, will they be in their real-life positions & configurations? Are there sites appropriate to HAWK, S-75/SA-2, S-125/SA-3 and S-200/SA-5? Will it also include EWR sites and, if so, where there are radomes can the radome be removed, leaving a structure (be it a tower, pedestal, building etc) with a flat top, so we can place functional radars? And finally, can we see an example? See the spoiler for one from the Sinai map, showing an almost 1:1 recreation of a real Egyptian SA-2 site. If we can have something akin to this (obviously appropriate to the sites in Germany), then that would be perfect (and Ugra already have a perfectly adequate SA-2 launcher revetment on Syria, it only needs a retexture and it would be good to go as-is on Germany): For me, the presence of real-life air defence sites, in their real-life positions (even if we have generic HAWK, SA-2 and SA-3 etc sites, placed where they really are/historically were) is very important to me - the closer I can get to recreating the real-life air defence order of battle, the better. If Ugra does this, then I'll be absolutely sold.

It's both. We have the S-200M/VE, which should have about a 240 km maximum engagement range, but the Tin Shield only has an instrumented range of 150 km and while the P-19 is set at 300 km, the detection ranges its defined with maxes out at just 80 km. But yes, it doesn't have its proper profiles either.

Yes, this is still the case - however this thread mostly was reporting behaviour upon entering the orbit, which is now fixed (procedes directly to the next waypoint then turns, instead of doing a 180° turn to the left, followed by a 180° turn to the right). The behaviour you're seeing is probably worthy of its own thread, as it is a different issue (albeit a related one).

With this: Or once/if it's released, this: Precision bombing from high-altitudes isn't the only thing going and as Schlingel mit Kringel said, their differences aren't confined to just looking different. But yes, I do agree that air defences should absolutely take priority.

Yeah, plus some assets could do very well as ground units (for the fortifications) - such as the variations of watchtowers present along the inner German border.

It's appropriate past 84, however there's still a number missing. The FRG for instance has the Leopard 1A3 and 2A4. Apart from GSFG everyone has a counterpart for the former, but not for the latter: GDR are missing the KPz T-72/M/M1 (largely similar to the T-72 Ural/Ural-1 and A) British are missing Challenger 1 (the Chieftain not a Mk.3 is however a fairly decent contemporary of the 1A3) US are missing the M1 and M1IP. GSFG has nothing at all (missing the T-62, T-64A/B/BV and T-80/B/BV) Of course we do have stand-ins but from a historical perspective, we aren't well covered in this aspect. A similar thing could be said of Eastern Bloc APCs (chiefly missing the BTR-60PB/SPW-60PB though it's relevant capabilities aren't that great a difference between it and the BTR-80). Onto things more relevant for DCS and aerial warfare, early warning radars are absolutely lacking - we only have the AN/FPS-117 for NATO and it's not relevant to the theatre for the timeframe. The Warsaw Pact only have the P-19, which is mostly just an SA-3 acquisition radar though has seen use as a PVO-SV early warning radar. The SA-2 and SA-5 are still without appropriate acquisition radars (though at least the P-19 doesn't significantly compromise the SA-2s range) and even stuff like the Tin Shield (which has seen use as a general-purpose EWR, in-fact that's primarily how it's used IRL) cannot be used as one in DCS.

While most assets are late Cold War, there are a few notable things we're missing, chief amongst which: Air defence radars (AN/TPS-43E/F, AN/FPS-67C and 90/-6C for NATO, P-12M/P-18, P-14, P-37 and P-80 for the USSR/GDR) Cold War MANPADS (chiefly the 9K32M Strela-2M [SA-7B Grail], maybe early Stinger/late Redeye and Blowpipe/Javelin). A couple of air defence systems like Nike Hercules, Bloodhound and the 2K11 Krug [SA-4 Ganef] (though many systems we currently have already fit) GSFG tanks (we don't have a single one - American and British Cold War tanks are also pretty thin and the DDR is missing the KPz T-72) Potentially more AI aircraft (especially those where full-fidelity modules are unlikely, such as the Harrier GR.3, Phantom FGR.2, F-4G, MiG-21/23 variants etc).

Do you have an example? It's just that when broken down the launching aircraft ultimately controls: Whether the seeker is enabled or not. Where the seeker should be pointing. Whether the seeker is uncaged or not. Whether the seeker is cooled or not (or how cool the seeker should be wrt. supplying/enabling coolant) In return, the aircraft should get whatever signal back from the seeker (which could be abstracted into 3 primary staes), that may be presented in different ways - that obviously would be down to the aircraft, but the seeker model should, in an ideal world, be something common to the missile itself as it doesn't change dependending on the aircraft. This way, any change to seeker modelling need only be done the once and it would apply to every applicable aircraft. Obviously the functions that govern and provide the output for where the seeker should point for instance should be provided by the aircraft (as some aircraft can only do boresight acquisition, some can slave to radars or HMD LoS, some can command a pattern for the seeker to scan etc).

It seems this is already possible, with the hitbox retained - so all we need is a radome static object and for any tower/pedastal etc to have a flat top and we're good. If you see the contents of the spoiler in this post, you can see my attempt at a crude example (in this case I stuck a P-19 on top of a tower block, then stuck one of the M92 shelters over the top). My main concern is weapons, however even with the shelters used in the above example, every ARM was able to at least disable or destroy the radar inside. What I'm not confident about are cluster bombs and gun rounds, but this could be easily resolved, either by making the life of the radome miniscule or to have it without a hitbox as you suggested. Couldn't agree more - on both counts.

Again, pretty impressed with the accuracy - most maps barely bother with military POIs past airfields and getting them pretty accurate to boot, so this is eally fantastic to see I mean, the only thing I can comment on are very minor things (the tower at Teufelsberg isn't quite correct and the radome at Bitburg in amongst the shelters seems to be a modern day thing - it's not there in 2017 imagery and before), but these are such minor things I'm almost reaching. With the grass around the runway at Bitburg and numerous other locations, it does look a bit too dug up, as though the airbase was only recently constructed or had major works done - it's a minor thing for me though, definitely nowhere near to put me off. Is it possible to see some air defence sites? If at least empty HAWK, S-75, -125 and -200 sites are present in the right places, suitable for placing units on, then I will be absolutely sold - Ugra have already developed perfectly accurate launcher revetments for the S-75 - they only need a retexture and they'd be perfect for Germany. I'd also mention EWR sites, though if these are going to be produced, please make the radomes hollow static objects, instead of a scenery object, leaving a flat base or tower with a flat top, suitable for placing usable radars onto. The radome can then be placed by mission editors over the top. This way we could have EWR sites that not only look accurate, but are actually usable in missions. If they're scenery objects, they'll only do the former and won't be usable.

Are you sure about that, because the Caucasus map is over 900 nautical miles across, over 1000 going corner to corner. The Marianas map is over 1100 nmi across, corner to corner and is 700 nmi N-S and >850 nmi E-W. conveniently roughly the same dimensions as a GIUK gap map. So just what are the limits of the DCS engine exactly? Again, I've no idea why you think this is the only possible scenario. Is it the primary one I'm most interested, yes (well, if we had a Buccaneer - the only fighter-sized maritime strike platform based in the region for the timeframe). Is it the only one possible? No. Is it the only one realistic? Also no - the 57th FIS is hardly optimised for maritime strike, nor is No. 43 or 111 RAF. Even if I could? You only have to have your ground scenario barely past 20 nmi away from the coast - naval artillery present on most surface combatants has a range inside of 15 nmi and even the 16" Mark 7 guns on the Iowas maxes out barely past 20 nmi. The B-38 on the Sverdlov again, tops out at 15 nmi. For comparison, even if I parked a warship next to Seyðisfjörður (the town the fjord borders), it's already over 10 nmi to the airport at Egilsstaðir - there is tonnes of area for ground combat that's out of reach of even the largest of relevant naval artillery. It's hardly a contrivance. As for several other more interesting locations, if we're talking about the Cold War gone hot, what locations would those be exactly? We've already got Kola and are getting Germany, so that's the 2 primary flashpoints between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. What else? I guess the Baltic and the Med, though they'd also have to be gigantic (especially the latter) and include way more land area (developed land at that) to include all the major players (even ignoring Finland and Leningrad/St Petersburg). Perhaps Cuba - I'd be down for that, but then just Cuba itself is 600 nmi across - the distance from Keflavik to Stornaway. Maybe Bering strait? Though to include any major military airbases it would probably be just as large as the GIUK gap, certainly all the issues you describe for the GIUK gap would apply there. And as for "just use another map" we go back to my point you described as bad and silly, because if you don't care where your mission actually is, every scenario (contrived or otherwise) is doable from just about every map, with only really a few exceptions (NTTR and Afghanistan obviously isn't suitable for naval, Marianas isn't really suitable for land warfare). Everything is possible from Syria or PG... If what your saying held weight, there would be little reason for any other map past the Caucasus. I mean, you're talking about contrived scenarios (as if merely being 20 nmi inland, which is all that would need to happen to be out of range of naval artillery, is a contrivance), but a Cold War gone hot scenario in the South Atlantic, 4000 nmi away (at best) from any relevant NATO vs Warsaw Pact flashpoint is fine? And even that is a Cuba scenario, the figure changes to 6000 nmi if we're talking principal battle areas in a Cold War gone hot scenario and 7000 nmi away from where it should be. Why wouldn't it include Iceland? DCS maps are already pushing past 2000 km across diagonals. What? The distance between Keflavik and Egilsstaðir is about 225 nmi. To put that into perspective, Iceland isn't far off the entire area of the North German Plain - the distance between Gütersloh and Damgarten is around 200 nmi. The Falkland Islands are only 140 nmi across and the main air battle area was concentrated in Falkland Sound and East Falkland. Even being generous, this area is only around 20,000 km2, by comparison Iceland is 5 times larger. But you're telling me that that's barely enough land for an air conflict? How about Frankfurt to Berlin? 230 nmi - which covers all the main battle areas for the Fulda Gap/CENTAG area, same for Ramstein to Magdeburg. Laarbuch to Liepzig? Same distance. What about Senaki to Krymsk? About 240 nmi, barely enough land for air conflict between them? I can go on and on. Suffice to say we have plenty of maps where likely (let alone realistic) battle areas span similar extents. And we're talking about Cold War gone hot - we're not exactly having AIM-174Bs face off against PL-17s now. I think realistic navigation on a game with only flat Earth maps with DCS as it is is neither here nor there - even things as simple as true north are misaligned on every map (they only get around this by rotating landmasses). This a problem with every single map in the game, it's just most exacerbated by larger maps and maps closer to the poles. But aircraft like the Phantom IRL start computing for great circles past 100 nmi, something that would achieve the opposite of the desired result on a flat map (needlessly extending the track).

As I understand it, probably - but I'm not a developer so I'm not in any position to say yes or no. At the moment it's just the way the game is - ideally you'd have one seeker API if you will, that all modules then utilise, what seems to be the case at the moment is that the simulation of seekers prior to launch is actually emulated by the module (if not, what explains the difference in behaviour of the exact same missile across different aircraft).

The funny thing is - the RB 74 is front aspect as soon as it comes off of the rail. It just shows how having modules simulate the seeker prior to launch, instead of having a seeker model that all applicable aircraft then use leads to somewhat of a mess. For instance, in this track, I have no tone, but once I fire the missile still tracks a front aspect, high-altitude, supersonic target. RB74_FrontAspectWhenFired.trk

Oh, when did London, Paris, Calais, Amiems, Tblisi, Sochi, Krasnodar, blah blah blah, lose their city status? No highways or landmarks either? Sure about that? Are you going to tell me there are no forests, bridges or railways next? Uh huh. "There's nothing to set apart the GIUK gap compared to the Marianas or South Atlantic" but sure, I'm the one putting forward bad and silly arguments... Because large NATO airbases (plural) in one of the most relevant areas for the Cold War apparently isn't a difference? The only aerodromes on the Falkland Islands suitable for our aircraft are practically right next to each other - at least with Iceland I could stage blue out of Keflavik and red out of Egilsstaðir and/or Akureyri (ironically, something the light-sim I hinted at also did) and the distances are similar as could be expected on Germany. This way I'd even have more scope for ground combat between them, something that's straight up impossible on the Marianas, unless the ground combat is all concentrated on Rota or something and pretty dubious between Argentina and I guess, East Falkland - I'd argue that Iceland is the more plausible scenario - it's in the right place for a start - not sure what the Soviets are doing in Argentina/Falklands, not exactly sure it's a location with any overarching strategic benefit for them, unlike Iceland or the rest of the GIUK gap, ditto for the Marianas. Going further into the realms of fiction though, I could also set up a scenario between the Faroes, the Shetland Islands or the Outer Hebrides - fairly appropriate distances (similar to what can be expected on the Germany map) and as a bonus, the latter 2 are far more suitable for ground combat than the Marianas. I've got options for long duration missions between islands and short ones, unlike the South Atlantic (unless I'm bombing Isla de los Estados with its 0 inhabited areas, let alone military installations, for some reason). I wouldn't have any issues whatsoever basing Soviet aircraft. I don't think the GIUK gap is as limited as your trying to make out. But hey what about generally? Falklands is fairly similar-ish to Iceland (though less suitable airports), but the season is completely backwards and the main land mass is in the wrong direction. As for the Marianas, the islands are tiny (seriously, Guam is a little under twice the size of Rota, Tinian and Saipan combined and yet, Guam is barely a third of the Faroes) and the biome is completely wrong (not exactly a lot of tropical forest on Iceland) and I'm not exactly sure what NATO vs Warsaw Pact, Cold War gone hot scenario makes more sense on the Marianas or South Atlantic, than it does in the GIUK gap. So yeah, nothing to set them apart? Fractal wrongness. Why, exactly? Have you? Because Stornaway to Lossiemouth is only 100 nmi. 160 nmi to Leuchars. That's about the same as the Marianas, only unlike the Marianas - both are proper military airfields that can base a full squadron of aircraft. I can also set up every other kind of mission on just about every other map - this is such a nonsense argument to anyone who actually cares about where their missions are actually set. Which is why I want Germany, even if I can bomb a Soviet advance on the Caucasus and why I want the GIUK gap, even if I can do blue water (albeit with a completely fictional order of battle) on the SA map. If it were the case that there's no point developing any other theatres if the ones you have already support the same kind of general mission, I doubt we would've moved past the Caucasus. And? Finally something in this post I agree with, but this goes for all maps, just large ones (and large ones with lots of land) suffer more so. At least GIUK mostly consists of islands where changes due to a spherical Earth are less noticeable, apart from really their orientation.

Oh, why do we need a Germany map then? After all if you want huge-ish swathes of green, just load up the Cacausus or Normandy? The same logic applies to just about every theatre in DCS. Ironically one of the ones you named is one of the worst for being fleshed out. The South Atlantic for instance has exactly 0 British aircraft for any timeframe. Argentina only has the MB-339A and Chile only has the C-101CC and F-5E. And there are no upcoming aircraft that fit either. For the GIUK gap, we at least have the F-4E (with an appropriate livery to boot), the E-3 (even if its the wrong variant), the Tu-22M3, the Tu-142 and if you're interested in RSR scenarios, the B-52H (albeit a post 1991 one) and the 9.12 MiG-29. Cold War CVBGs at least have the early F-14A, A-6E and A-7E coming (which represents all of the primary combat aircraft), we are still missing an E-2C, EA-6B, KA-6D and S-3A, but at least for #1 and #4 we have stand-ins. CVBGs for the South Atlantic have 0 aircraft (either present or upcoming). Yes, but there's enough there to work with. Another lite simulator, which ironically had Iceland as a map only came w/ 3 Soviet ships (though it did have 6 US ones) Luckily the GIUK has 4 major airbases for them then - unlike the Marianas which only has one. Another thing is that the GIUK gap is a map that shouldn't take much in the way of resources to develop - the area is less developed than the Kola map and has a fraction of the land mass.

And it really needs to be firing Exocet, not Harpoon.

I've got it producing numbers on my end even with no dive angle (and Dive Toss does support level releases). Perhaps try removing any mods and a full repair.

Pleased to report that in subsequent tests, this appears to be fixed - the AI now proceeds directly to the next turn point before commencing any turns.

No worries. But can the same update also apply to the S-3B?

As expected, it depends on atmospheric conditions: Smokeless (DCS being correct as-is): Significant smoke (though we're looking into the plume here which will make it look thicker than it will from the side):

Unfortunately looks like the new B-52H loadout options aren't present. The Su-24M however did receive the APK-9, which is cool to see

Unfortunately, despite this being in today's changelog: The B-52's available stores are unchanged (ran full repair, tested w/ historical mode on and off).

Hi everyone, Very pleased that missiles now appear on the Mk 13 Mod 4 GMLS of the FFG 7, though there is a minor bug - the RGM-84D that appears on the launcher is misaligned (too far backwards and possibly 180° rotated, the former is obviously more what I'm after in this report). Note that DCS depicts an exercise shot with the red nose, whereas this depicts a war shot with a grey nose (as seen with the AGM-84D in DCS). Note how the radar altimeter is also faces towards the left, in DCS, it faces the right. Mk13GMLS_RGM-84D_misaligned.trk

Most mapping software (open source or otherwise) display these areas as roads, so provided Ugra is accurate to that, they should be present. But yes, otherwise if not, they absolutely should be present for them to be usuable.