Northstar98

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.

I agree, though the only thing I'll say is its possible to create a static template (though it handles all unit types) and then reuse this template an arbitrary number of times, at least then this work only needs to be done the once. But yes, to facilitate the AI, the highway strips would probably need to be actual airfield entities.

Considering that sensor fusion is still absent on the Hornet (MSI), I somehow doubt it. And has for the most detailed, I'm pretty sure the F-4E will take that place for a long while yet. Then there's the simple fact that in terms of fidelity, ED are behind third parties and that's for comparitively simpler mechanically scanned radars. Their ground radar model is the lowest fidelity model present in DCS - it doesn't account for beam geometry or antenna elevation whatsoever (which even leads to cases where radars can see behind themselves), they're magically immune to jamming, they're magically immune to sea clutter, they're magically immune to civil ground traffic, they magically filter out (or otherwise don't detect) aircraft etc.

Just tested again - "FARP", "Helipad Single" and "PAD Single" automatically remove scenery objects in their vicinity. Invisible FARP on the other hand (which is the one most suited here), does not.

@Bremspropeller Just tested - the invisible FARP no longer removes scenery objects like streetlights, barriers/fences, bridges, overhead wires etc. It also doesn't remove trees either - it leaves everything untouched. This is the case, even when the invisible FARP is placed at the same location as a scenery objects. I've tested in single-player on the Cacasus, Syria, South Atlantic, Normandy, Marianas, Straits of Hormuz and the Channel maps. So apart from AI (which needs dedicated airbase entities), highway strips should be pretty suitable for players as-is, so long as the roads are accurately depicted.

As an addendum to this - for EWR sites with radomes, it would be better to model these without the radome (leaving a flat base/tower with a flat top), which would then be a static object. This way, we would be able to place functional radars on top and then place the radome static object (and yes, this is something DCS already supports as is - see the spoiler for a very crude example). We also already have the ability to make templates allowing this to be made once and reused an arbitrary amount of times. In the past, maps with decorative radomes usually results in rendering the sites unusable as working EWR sites (especially sites which have radar mounted on a tower or elevated platform). There is the scenery delete action in the mission editor, but it usually causes unintended collateral damage (and in this case would delete the tower the radar is mounted on). Doing it the suggested way, a functional radar unit could be placed and the sites be usuable in the way that they should be, instead of only being decorative.

Considering the Hornet we have is a TAWS-equipped aircraft (we have ground collision callouts representative of a TAWS aircraft and TAWS is an option present in HSI A/C page), ours is modern enough for DTED. And DTED in general (or at least maybe a more rudimentary version) have been available since missiles using TERCOM have existed.

If that's the case - it doesn't look like it at all. It looks dug up.

Agreed, but with a catch (and this goes for every EWR site). The sites should be suitable for placing functional units on, in this case, we'd ideally have the towers without the radome (just a flat base) - allowing us to place a functional radar on top. We could then have a static object for the radome, which could then be placed over the top. This way the sites can actually be used in missions and directly impact gameplay, in the way they would have IRL, instead of only being eye-candy that's non-functional. Previously, we've only ever had purely decorative EWR sites that were non functional (unless they were completely empty). We could use scenery object-deleting zones but they would delete everything.

Ironic that they call Nike Hercules not timeframe appropriate (what research are they doing exactly?) when their Patriot is a PAC-2 system which wasn't introduced until the early 1990s (so obviously, not the 1980s and after the fall of the Berlin Wall and during reunification). As for the HAWK, it's maybe a more minor point (as they haven't modelled the differences), but it's inconsistent to one variant (HIPIR called one thing (AN/MPQ-46), but has the model of something else (AN/MPQ-57 w/ HEOS) with a missile with a designation that fits neither (MIM-23K, the missile appropriate to the former is the MIM-23B and the latter, MIM-23C. The MIM-23K is incidentally from the mid 1990s when the Cold War was over).

Here's the same site circa 1986: Overall, pretty impressed with the accuracy, though if anything there's too much in DCS.

Can't say I agree - looking at most airbases in summer satellite imagery, you can find the odd bit of brown but they're non-existent compared to the screenshots. For me it's a minor point, but yeah, it would be great if this airbases were as accurate as feasibly possible.

Pretty sure there are: Though it's already perfectly possible to make road bases for player aircraft (AI however are difficult), with the use of invisible FARPs

Should definitely be included, they're not exactly easy to miss.

Tag says later in 2025, barge full of salt at the ready though.

Hi everyone, The E-2D Hawkeye is defined with the wrong radar which has far less range than it should have (even for the radar being depicted). The E-2D is currently defined with the AN/APS-138 (see line 292). This radar actually belongs to the E-2C Hawkeye Group 0 from the mid 1980s. In DCS this radar is defined with a detection range of 330 km (or ~178 nmi). The radar actually appropriate to the E-2D (which despite the name of the .lua, is what's depicted in DCS) is the AN/APY-9, which has an instrumented range of 350 nmi (or 648.2 km), almost double of what the -138 is currently defined with and very nearly 250 km greater than the maximum detection distance (see line 371 of the first link). IRL, the AN/APS-138 has an instrumented range of 300 nmi (or 555.6 km), so already we're over 200 km short (we're significantly short, even the 250 nmi range for the AN/APS-125).

The CEC functionality is only really relevant for the AIM-120D and SM-6 - neither of which we have yet (though the Arleigh Burkes depicted in DCS are new enough to receive the latter). And given that we still don't have CEC functionality for the Mk 23 Walleye II ERDL, the AGM-84E SLAM or the AGM-84H SLAM-ER (despite it being announced for the former). Another thing is that the E-2D is currently defined with the AN/APS-138 radar (which belongs to the E-2C Hawkeye Group 0, the version appropriate to the Forrestal). The E-2D should have the AN/APY-9. Unfortunately, said AN/APS-138 only has a range in DCS of 330 km (~180 nmi), the real thing has an instrumented range of 463 km (or 250 nmi) and the APY-9, 350 nmi (or ~650 km).

Hi everyone, A long standing request of mine and one I hope you'll all agree with - please include empty air defence sites, suitable for placing units in. Ideally, we'd get a close to 1:1 recreation of the real sites, in their real locations. The closest example I can name in DCS is this example of an Egyptian S-75 site, which is an almost 1:1 recreation of the real thing and is the exact thing I'm talking about. However, even if Ugra were to pick a generic HAWK layout, an S-75/SA-2 site layout, an S-125/SA-3 site layout and an S-200/SA-5 site layout, then copy and paste them in the right locations across the map, that would definitely be better than nothing and would absolutely suffice. There's plenty of resources out there for finding where each one goes and most are still clearly extant in modern satellite imagery (many of the sites have however been converted, but historical imagery is still readily available). Just for some examples: Here's a HAWK site near Fulda, circa 2009. Everything about the site is clearly visible, including launcher and radar positions, revetments etc. In present day imagery it seems to be some chemical/POL facility. Here's a NIKE Hercules launch site near Arnshöfen. In present day imagery all but the western launch position has been dug up, but in historical imagery (such as this from 2008), everything is clearly visible (though note only the western launch position has its storage shelter visible, they're removed from the other positions, though where they would've been is clearly visible). The IFC site is located on top of a hill, in a forest to the north-west (and is empty save for a tower) - there's even a shot of the IFC site from a drone. Here's an S-75/SA-2 site just south of the large Wittstock Bombing Range. Unlike most imagery, these site shows everything (the central revetments for the FCR and associated equipment, the 6 launcher revetments arranged in a circle centred on the FCR, as well as other reveted positions for the acquisition radar and other equipment). If this was copied and pasted at every SA-2 site, this is would be perfect. Here's an S-125/SA-3 site adjacent to Storkow, close to Templin airbase, here's another historical image, again clearly showing the layout. Everything is clearly visible. Here's another near Möckern, again everything visible. This site appears to be defending an S-200 site in the forest to the east. Here's an S-200/SA-5 site just south-east of Gransee, to the north of Berlin. Everything about the site is clearly visible - the 2 launch battalions (with central launch control centre (which would have generators and power distribution), with 6 launch positions each. The technical batallion to the east, and to the north, the guidance area (with positions for fire-control and acquisition radars). Here is where an S-300PMU/SA-10B sie would've been, immediately to the west is an S-75/SA-2 site. Here's a 2K12/SA-6 site to the south of Erfut. This site is mostly just roads, but there are a couple of reveted positions (you can see the 4 positions for launchers in a rectangular shape, with a 5th inside the rectangle for the Straight Flush. In the development screenshots, there's this image: I'm almost certain that this is Damgarten (an airbase the MiG-29S has a livery for). This airbase has an S-125 site immediately adjacent to it. It's most visible in this image (the grey object is where the FCR and associated equipment would've been located and there are 4 circular revetments for the launchers to the west, though the southern one is only just visible, but nonetheless there are 4), EDIT: here's an image showing the site (3). There's also another site near Saal to the north-east, which this site has historical imagery of. Unfortunately however, the former site seems to be absent in this screenshot. Previously, on the Syria map, Ugra did take a crack at doing some air defence sites, though only really so with the SA-2/S-75 and while the revetment models were perfectly accurate, the site however wasn't (only 5 launcher revetments - should be 6, no revetments for radars or other equipment). I've attached SAMSiteOverview.kmz by Sean O'Connor of IMINT & Analysis below, which can be used to find just about all sites (though is missing British Bloodhound and Rapier sites). SAM Site Overview.kmz

Just reading the newsletter and I'm delighted with the scope of the map: But please, please, please include empty air defence sites (this being a near perfect example) - even if its only a generic site for each type that's copies and pasted in locations where appropriate. The Syria map had some attempt at this, but only did so with an SA-2 and even then, apart from the revetment models, it wasn't that accurate (and some sites weren't accurately placed).

Not really - it fits the GWOT and imagined scenarios and not much else. HH-60G if one could be done would fit so much more (end of Cold War, Gulf War, Iraq War and GWOT), as well as being a contemporary to the DCS AH-64 (which predates UH-60M introduction by almost half a decade) and Mi-8MTV2. But if the HH-60G cannot be done, I'd personally prefer a UH-60L (fits the same scenarios as the HH-60G (and by extension the UH-60M), but can cosplay as Cold War UH-60A better. I don't really understand why ED are so seemingly adamant on only doing an M.

Despite being as relevant as it is, I wouldn't place money on it happening within the next 5 years. We still don't have Cold War MANPADS and the SA-5 is still without a proper search/acquisitionr radar.

Hi everyone, As I understand it, FlyingIron are utilising ED's ground radar API - while understandable as this is FlyingIron's first attempt in DCS, it does lead to some unfortunate drawbacks, many of which have a significant impact on gameplay. ED's ground radar API is currently the lowest fidelity model present in DCS (surpassed even by the Viggen, released nearly 8 years ago and was the first true air-to-ground radar) and radar models subsequently (and even one prior) developed by 3rd parties significantly raise the bar in terms of fidelity, offering raycasted models that more accurately depict radars. This all results in ED's radar model having inaccurate limitations, both in terms of not modelling limitations that should be present and introducing limitations that shouldn't exist. ED's radar model: Doesn't account for beam-geometry at all, meaning: They can unrealistically map from basically 0 out to the instrumented range of the radar, regardless of antenna elevation or aircraft altitude (see here and here). Antenna elevation or different beam settings (for instance, the pencil/fan beam setting in the Hornet) are functionless/broken. To compound this, if you take the picture seen at default elevation and gain, then elevate the radar to its maximum above the horizon and increase the gain, you see very little difference in what's displayed. Conversely, if you depress the radar to its maximum below the horizon, the brightness falls off to 0, despite the fact that the radar should still be illuminating a portion of the ground. In vertical/near vertical climbs the radar can see behind itself, something that's obviously impossible. Will not detect aircraft (even low-speed, low-flying ones). While obviously surface-directed radars/modes are obviously not optimised for detecting aircraft - aircraft that are caught in a lobe of the radar producing a skin return powerful enough to be detected should be displayed, espeically when the A-7E's APQ-126 is a pulse-only radar and has no motion filtering (like the F-4E). Is completely immune to jamming. While ships don't feature anything EW related (apart from radars), low-flying bombers can currently be used as semi-functional approximates (though their jammers aren't powerful enough to completely hide ships). The RDI's ground-mapping mode (Mirage 2000C), the PS-37/A (AJS 37 Viggen) are all affected by jamming and produce jamming returns. Is completely immune to sea clutter (Heatblur's F-4E even takes polarisation into account here). Doesn't model sidelobe returns.