twistking

The castle class boats produce a large amount of smoke. For me it seems excessive for two relatively small diesel engines from the 80s. In fact, i would have expected them to have no visible smoke at all when cruising. I think the Leander-class were oil-fired, so smoke seems reasonable. In DCS the castle-class however produces thicker smoke than the leander-class, which just seems wrong. Is this the right place to report problems with the assets, or should these go in the main dcs bug section to object bugs?

The newly added SON-9 seems to continue emitting 360° while it is tracking a target. When the radar goes into tracking mode it will still be visible on the RWR of aircraft that are on the opposite direction. This seems unrealistic. I would also assume that the RWR of tracked targets should pick up the difference in signal and give some sort of warning or notification...

sooo... the only actual usecase for this feature then would be in a situation without GPS or degraded GPS, correct?

ok. great. thanks for the heads-up.

that should probably the priority, but consider that if we had those already, it would still be difficult to put down realsitic looking fortifications on some maps. caucassus is a great example. i love the map (i think it's very atmospheric, despite the low fidelity), but most of the time, your units will end up on one of those perfectly green grass planes. even having all sorts of placeable objects, berms and revetments, they would still feel out of place. another example is normandy, where you also have two types of spaces. perfect grass planes and agricultural fields. putting anything on them looks wrong, because it misses the damage to the ground. it helps that some maps have some repeating micro detail foodpaths and brown spots in their grass field textures that you can use to place convinvingly, but for bigger isntallations those fall flat too. (photo of a freya radar site. all objects are available as statics already in dcs, but it is not possible to recreate that site realistically in dcs without a way to account for the surface)

Any new on this? Has something already changed with the latest patches?

I don't think deformable terrain is even needed (and it seems out of scope for dcs in the forseeable future). If we had a selection of texture decals as a base and berms/fortifications as static objects (or checkbox in the unit itself), it would go a long way already. I'm not sure that the decals are possible though. I think the decals we have (craters from weapon impacts f.e.) are perfectly flat and don't follow the terrain. Also z-fighting might become a problem. Probably all solvable with reasonable effort, but i don't know of course... Oh... and the remove trees function should work reliably on all maps. That would also help...

Hello, when deactivating the mirrors, they tilt away, but unlike with other modules they still remain in sight pretty much. I wonder if it was possible to change it so that they could be tilted even further or tilted in the opposite direction, so that the actual mirror surface is less visible. I'm sure that this would be possible in the real aircraft if only enough force was applied. In DCS we don't have to worry about warranty fortunately...

+1000 i would also love to see the possibility of user-placeable textures with tire-marks makeshift roads and similar. You'd have some variation with random patterns that you could use as a foundation for a SAM site or other fortifications. I don't know if this is possible with the dcs engine, because those texture would need to follow the terrain and not just be a flat plane. I think this would have a huge impact on realism and immersion. Fortification would look more realsitic and would be easier to spot, since it would not eb the actual pieces of equipment that you were looking for, but general signs of the logistics involved in setting up these sites. It would not be that specific (the roads and tire marks could be more generic or random), but the point is that the sites dominant visual features are not the berms, but the roads and paths. Might do a seperate wishlist entry for that, now that i think about it...

Yes, this bit had me confused. I did read that as "ship course into the wind on launch and recovery" and it kinda implies the same course for launch and recovery. No big deal. I just think the wording is not 100% fool proof. Thanks for the clarification.

i've read the thread again and i'm still not 100% sure. english is not my first language obviously, so it's probably on me. sorry! i don't understand if wind "over the angle" is soemthign that "can be done" or if it's the ideal course for recovery in real life. i think i got confused by jackjack mentioning the carrier "always steaming into the wind", which i understand as BRC into the wind, not angle into the wind. everything else points towards "wind over the angle" being ideal, but since i know discovered that the manual explicitly states BRC headwind, i wanted to ask again to make sure, i got it right.

one follow-up question. the manual clearly states, that i should put the carrier group heading into the wind and not put it at such angle that the deck is pointing into the wind. so what would it be in ideal conditions? would the carrier navigate to have BRC with a headwind or final bearing with a headwind. for now i have put the headwind between BRC and and final bearing as a compromise, but would like to know what the "ideal" situation was.

Dumb question: I thought the arc210 would be an additional radio (so 4 in total), but it seemingly replaces one of the existing ones, so we still have a total of 3 sets. Is this correct? Besides the deeper system integration, what are the actual benefits of the new radio set? Both in reality and in dcs?

i've also seen aircraft flying sideways and turning in strange ways, but it happened only one or two times and i wouldn't know how to recreate. i think it was a german ju-88. it was a simple self-made mission without any scripting going on. pretty sure that it was also channel map and played directly from the editor. this was on stable branch.

Will we get a stable update this week?

Since DCS is Windows exclusive, ED might be able to build on the Windows voice recognition API. That way they would not have to do the heavy lifting themselfes. I think it's considered part of the windows paltform and free to use for devs to implement and users to... well... use.

it was available on steam stable the moment it released on standalone stable. maybe OP forgot to simply download it, since it's techncially a seperate module?

Please make a bug report for it. I'd rather not do it myself, since i'm not on open beta. I will however try to summon a moderator. @Flappie

thanks!

Great work. Thank you. Something like this should be available for every aircraft by default! Quick question. I know how to add these to the aircraft, so that they show up in every mission. How can i add them to a mission, so that the pages only show up in a specific missions?

+1 would also add immersion to have realistic radio effects. also radio range simulation (and effects).

thanks! @Minsky i like to have statics on 1,2,3 and 4 because it's a good way to make the deck look busy without adding a ton of stuff, but it needs a lot of blocking unfortuantely to keep the AI from taxiing through those spots. but your info surely helps! i think i want to rephrase my original wish: better than have markings in the editor would be the ability to block certain spawn for AI and ideally block certain catapults for AI (but then AI would need the option to go to alternative catapult from the same spawn pos).

alright. thanks a lot. one question though: when there can be up to three sub-groups, this means that a sub-group may only consist of a single ship or two? is this correct? what would be a typical distance for ships in the inner group?

cool. this helps a lot actually. thanks!!! are the spawn the same for larger ac like the hawkeye? the only way to force AI to a specific spot would be to block all prior positions with static objects or player aircraft. correct?

The bug section looks rather calm today. Can we expect a push to stable before the weekend? Stable is lacking behind quite a bit at the moment and i didn't see any show-stoppers bug-wise...