cailean_556

An ongoing issue with the Persian Gulf map has been the inability to enable larger aircraft (C-130s and larger) to start from the ramp at some airports/airbases in the Persian Gulf. When C-130s (or larger) are set to start from ramp on certain airfields, they default to Kerman, Shiraz or the major airports/airbases in the UAE depending on what (appears) is closer. After doing some research, I have come up with the following information regarding aircraft capabilities at certain airfields and measured some of the airbases in the Persian Gulf by using the available tool in the DCS mission editor from threshold to threshold - which is not the entire runway of some airfields. The C-130 is reported to need a take off run of up to 1500m, the Il-76 is reported to need a 1600m - or greater - take off run. Both of these figures are in unspecified weather conditions with unspecified weights. Information regarding aircraft such as the Tu-95 and Tu-160 varies, however it is understood that the Tu-95 requires under 3500m, given the Ukrainka bomber base (which is, or at least was, home to a Tu-95 squadron) has a reported runway length of 3500m. The Tu-160 reportedly requires a runway length of 3050m, this is assumed at maximum weight. Al Bateen in the UAE exhibits this behaviour despite having a 2500m+ runway in DCS (more than enough for UAE AF C-130s and C-17s) and being the home of the UAE AFs C-130/transport fleet in reality. Bandar Abbas, Kish International Airport, Lar Airbase, Sirri Island and Tunb Island AFB in Iran also have this behaviour. All of these airfields have runways that are large enough to support C-130s or larger aircraft such as Il-76/78s. Especially the international airports, such as Bandar Abbas and Kish International. Bandar Abbas is a major international airport and IRIAF airbase. While its dual runways are just under 3500m in length, this airport plays host to aircraft as large as the 747 and is also more than adequate for C-130 and larger aircraft (though perhaps not a fully laden Tu-95/Tu-160). Kish International has two runways both over 3600m - more than adequate for a C-130 and Il-76 and, while I don't have verified numbers for the Tu-95 or Tu-160, at over 3500m it is likely these aircraft could also take off from Kish International also. Lar Airbase, as it is portrayed in DCS, has a runway length of over 3100m. Again, this is more than adequate for military cargo aircraft. Sirri and Tunb AFB both feature runways over 1900m (Sirri Island is over 2000m). While this is not suitable for larger strategic aircraft, it is more than adequate for military cargo/transport aircraft such as the An-26, C-130 or Il-76 (and/or derivatives). Basically, if an airfield runway is over 2000m in length, it *should* be able to handle military cargo aircraft. If a runway is over 3200m in length, it *should* be able to accommodate strategic bomber-sized aircraft. While this is true of Al Dhafra, Al Minhad, Dubai International, Shiraz and Kerman, it is not reflected accurately (according to available information) for other airfields in the Persian Gulf map.

I've discovered that I am unable to pick up F-5Es on radar in the Hornet despite being at comparable altitudes. I was able to lock up TGT 1 and 2 with Boresight, TGT 3 using Vertical Scan as I overshot while testing a different radar setting as discussed on the DCS Discord. This mission was originally against MiG-15s and, without doing anything special, I was able to detect the MiGs out to 70nm+, yet when I change them to F-5Es I am unable to detect them on radar at any range. Track attached. FA-18C_Stealth Tiger.trk

Deka is doing amazing work, as are all the third party developers. I intend to support Deka further when they release the JF-17 so they can continue developing quality assets and aircraft modules. I was not aware of Heatblur's intent to improve Sweden in DCS, but that's certainly interesting - is it tied to any particular module? Mag3 is developing the F-8, and I'm led to believe it's a US Navy F-8. I'm also VERY aware that the F-4E module on hold/in development is the land-based variant used by the USAF and a number of other countries around the world. We will get there, eventually, I believe. What I was suggesting was a way for ED is finance this work. Maybe even expand to assist in development. This is the 'Wishlist' after all. If I had the finances and knowledge required, I'd throw my hat in the ring without a second-thought. It'd take me far longer to gain the required skills and generate the finances and development studio from scratch - it would likely take me the better part of a decade to get up and running. By then, maybe even the Eurofighter Typhoon will be a DCS module. :megalol:

You raise a good point there, sirrah. I suppose, on an MP server, you would be able to see said asset but you wouldn't be able to utilise them in the Mission Editor unless you had the requisite module. Somewhat similar to how the WW2 assets pack is handled, although with that one - if you don't have it, you can't access missions or servers that include those assets. At least from what I understand. I suspect that's how the South Atlantic map will also work. Happy to be proven wrong, but I was under the impression that the assets being developed for the South Atlantic map were only going to be available to those that bought the South Atlantic map.

Who's complaining? Nothing about my post was a complaint. I wasn't complaining, I was suggesting that ED make Nation modules for DCS that fill out their ORBATs with assets applicable to a time period - it's a way for them to develop extra assets while also getting paid for them. People are almost literally demanding this, that and the other be put into DCS. I believe you yourself were demanding that ED flesh out Italy some time back. I said nothing about improved AI, unless you mean "improved' as in they have access to applicable weapons, platforms and equipment.

I'd support a full-fidelity anything 'REDFOR' but seeing as the Su-25T is DCS World's 'intro' module, perhaps not that particular variant. The original Su-25 is an FC3-level aircraft and I believe that should not change. A full fidelity module should be a different variant, though granted there aren't many more variants to go with. Potentially there's scope for an Su-25M1 (Ukranian) which is an upgraded base-model Su-25 though I don't know the extent of the differences. But that could satisfy that full-fidelity itch for an Su-25...one day.

Adding AI assets for free can be a bit counter-intuitive - it costs time and money to develop a model, code the flight model and then texture it and code it into the base sim. We have aircraft modules, we have Combined Arms and soon we're going to have a module dedicated to aircraft carrier operations. We have a World War 2 asset pack. The Falklands/Malvinas map being developed will ship with Falklands War-era assets for the UK and Argentina. All of which are positive things. All these assets and liveries take up HDD space and make the sim larger and larger depending on how many assets and liveries DCS includes. It got me thinking on how ED could potentially make more money whilst also adding content to the sim that generates income for ED. Russia and the US are, more or less, well represented so they could be considered your 'base sim' nations. Other countries are more or less represented but are either lacking in one area or another, or they lack accurate aircraft liveries. A module that adds period-accurate known aircraft, helicopters, vehicles and ships (as well as corresponding markings) for a particular nation to DCS as at a certain year (example 2006), with some scope to add assets from newer/older eras if there are modules already/being developed from that period. France and the UK are, in DCS, under-represented. They lack aircraft and vehicles to a degree but their navies are non-existent. ED develops the required assets to flesh out the UK as it stood as of 2006 (AI only, with associated weapons and Combined Arms functionality where appropriate). ED bundles all of those extra assets into a module and charges $20 (example) for it. The UK then has Type 23 frigates, Invincible-class carrier, Trafalgar-class submarines, Sea King helicopters, Sea Harriers, Tornado IDS and ADV (for example). You could also add the Audacious-class carriers and associated embarked aircraft (given that the F-4 will be a DCS module eventually). The UK would then also have access to the Blackburn Buccaneer and Phantom FG1 (though not an F-4E variant - perhaps some consideration could be given and some 'creative licence' taken to enable a carrier-based variant at some point) along with support helos and other aircraft such as the Gannet AEW and COD. France, given an F-8 Crusader module has been announced, would also benefit from such work - by adding a period-specific carrier to operate from (the Clemenceau-class) as well as the addition of aircraft such as the Super Entendard. From the 2006 time period, the Du Gaulle and its Rafales, as well as AdA Rafales (AI only), would make flesh out France. These are just examples, of course. And this would take quite some time but it would allow users to customise their DCS experience based on their nation/nations of interest without demanding stuff for free. It also limits the size of the install to that which a user desires, based on what nations they wish to have and the size of the base-sim. It would also allow for a more varied mix of aircraft in the sky as opposed to predominantly a US vs Russia scenario. There wouldn't be a requirement to get these Nation modules, just like there's no requirement to get all the aircraft modules. But it would assist ED with funding (maybe even expanding) as well as add period specific equipment for each nation so we're not seeing a nation's aircraft flying around in default US colours or completely missing assets from their navy or army. For aircraft that overlap (used by another nation), the aircraft is selectable for that nation but uses a 'default' livery (like an all-grey, unmarked livery or something). What does everyone else think?

It is indeed possible to 'hide' radar-guided guns in forested areas. Realistically, after a few bursts, the 23mm rounds would have cut down the trees in the way to the point where the firing unit has basically made themselves a bespoke firing position. That aspect is not modelled in DCS. Especially in the case of a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun platform like the ZSU-23-4, however a lot of work would need to be done for it to be effective as allowing it to hide in said trees as well as be able to engage aircraft. You would need to 'keyhole' the firing position (felling trees to allow the radar to see through a particular area or in a particular arc), elevate the firing platform (which increases its chances of being detected) or have them hide close to clearings and drive out into said clearings to engage when aircraft were near (which requires Early Warning from a higher command). Admittedly this approach works better when used with manually guided weapons, such as laser, visual or electro-optical. Radar clutter would complicate the issue considerably. In regards to suggestions, if you have the TPOD equipped, perhaps carry some GBU-12s and drop them from a height above 10,000 feet provided you can designate the target's location. Other than that, only option I can suggest is to wait until the missions have been tweaked or make your own.

I will add a disclaimer to this by stating that I do not own the Normandy map, though I am eagerly awaiting the Syrian AO. However, the ED description for Normandy is as follows: I refer to the underlined. Up until reading this thread, I interpreted "multiple seasons" to mean winter was included. I had no idea that Normandy didn't have a winter texture. This certainly influences my decision NOT to purchase this map. Mind you, I'm only one person so that isn't going to sway Ugra Media in any way. Perhaps, because that particular line in the description is rather ambiguous (as it doesn't specifically mention winter) it should be amended to state that a winter texture is not included. Arguably, going by just the map's title 'DCS: Normandy 1944' implies the entire year is modelled in-sim.

What part of "expanding the arsenals of all countries in the Mission Editor with (more so existing) DCS assets of an identical or similar type (including their liveries - kinda weird flying a Cuban, Czech or Slovak MiG-29 with a Russian livery, for example)" made you think otherwise?

The issue here is that accessing the documents required to build a DCS-level module of the Tornado currently out of the question. It's probably not that ED or 3rd parties don't WANT to model a Tornado, they're hamstrung by governments not wanting to provide information or not having reliable access to documents/companies/ex-pilots/maintainers. The reason there's so many US aircraft in DCS is partly because the US views platforms like DCS as a credible recruiting tool and their 'Secrecy' laws are, in some ways, less stringent than other countries. You'll get your wish (ala F-16) in a year or two (hopefully sooner, but you can't rush these things) and I'd be right there with you in line for an F-104 (preferably F-104S, but any variant would be awesome). But...this thread is mostly about expanding the arsenals of all countries in the Mission Editor with (more so existing) DCS assets of an identical or similar type (including their liveries - kinda wierd flying a Cuban, Czech or Slovak MiG-29 with a Russian livery, for example) as well as capabilities (such as the IR strobe in my original post) that would greatly assist Mission/Campaign Creators.

Even now, air bases would have no or very little light if there was a threat BUT, I do agree with you. Even if there's a tick-box setting (All NEUTRAL on/off, All BLUE on/off, All RED on/off, All on/off) 'on' being the lights remain on regardless, 'off' being what they are now. Or, if you wanted to be THAT GUY, each air field could have a tick box on/off for lighting. so you could have air fields far from the front line lit up like Christmas, and ones closer observing more stringent light controls...

You have a point. If you're tuned to the (correct) frequency for your target airfield (or any airfield), it would be nice to have the airbase that corresponds with the tuned frequency set as your F1 regardless of distance, with the closest airfields after that being F2 and so forth. If you're too far away for radio calls, despite being tuned, you just get static. If you're close enough, you hear it. Happens when I fly missions over Vladikavkaz - I can still reach Vaziani on the radio, it's just faint - but Vaziani (which I am tuned to) is NOT the first station on the list. Typically Beslan or Nalchik is.

I've checked its orders compared to the F-14Bs (all seems fine, just like every other aircraft I've ever set to bomb something). I've added commands "No Reaction to Threat", set the aircraft to use bombs, all, against a point on the ground. I added another Hornet with a different load out (which worked) then tried the same load out on the problem Hornet - it refused to drop. I've not tried deleting and adding a new Hornet but if I can't reproduce this bug and it doesn't happen again for me, how are we to know what's going on? I'll try it now that I've reported it though. The AI Tornados fire their Sea Eagles. The S-3 fires its Harpoons. The enemy ship sinks, triggering the F-14s attack run. F-14 practically lobs its single bomb from 20000 ft, which triggers the F/A-18s attack run. It breaks from its orbit, travels to its waypoint and then...nothing. It does a series of turns, heads back to the carrier without dropping its payload and lands. This is despite being set to "No reaction" to threat, "Bomb -Bombs- All", "Restrict Jettison" "Chaff/Flare in SAM MEZ" and "Dive Bomb" (was just experimenting last time I saved, trying to figure it out. It was doing it prior also). Initially I thought the Hornet felt the area was too dangerous (so added the No Reaction), it did it again. Moved the waypoint closer to Sirri Island. Same thing happened. Set 'Dive Bomb'. Nothing. All I want it to do is drop 2 x Mk 83s on an Insurgent MANPADS team - it doesn't even need to kill them all, just injure them which will trigger the call for the player to enter the AO, clearing the way for (what will eventually be) a player-led strike package to destroy every Insurgent owned asset on the island (over a series of missions). If this is somehow my doing (and I'm not ruling it out) what have I done? If this is a bug...yay? PG_IRANvNATO_Gulf War 3_M01.miz

What Baco is saying is that there are fictional scenarios or "what ifs" that mission designers might want to implement. For example, one of my campaign ideas has Cuba in place of Abkhazia, Australia in place of Georgia, Algeria as Russia and Insurgents in place of South Ossetia. Now, WHAT IF, Australia decided to buy a new aircraft carrier (they did have plans to buy a dedicated carrier however that dismissed due to budgetary concerns). Australia's Navy (in DCS) doesn't even have the frigates (that are already in DCS) it operates (that are being phased out of service). It would be NICE to be able to add the Stennis or Vinson as a carrier for Australia. Or add F-14s to Australia's arsenal - if it made sense (it wouldn't, even in my fictional world, but still). I'd like to see each nation represented accurately in DCS (by default) however I'd also like to have the ability to assign an aircraft type to countries 'on the fly' to create different scenarios. Such as: Maybe Australia became a Soviet state instead of a Western ally and they bought Su-33s instead of F/A-18s and leased the Varyag (Kuznetsov's sister ship, which is now the PLANs aircraft carrier Liaoning). Without modding, that's not possible currently. I could make Russia, China, Iran and Australia 'BLUFOR' and the US, UK, France, Germany and North Korea 'REDFOR' (something that is likely impossible to EVER happen - at least in our life times) with no trouble, but I couldn't assign specific asset types, or extra assets, to countries. If we could get back on topic, that would be great... One the subject of Country additions: Australia: Hawk 127...As an AI module. Oman, Indonesia: Hawk 200 (technically Hawk 203/209) A possible flyable module (to build off the now defunct Hawk T1) could be either Hawk 127 or 200, though the Hawk 200 is more capable with a radar, IR, SARH and BVR AAMS, Mavericks, Sea Eagle, FLIR and LGBs.

That's your point of view and your opinion of course, Xilon, and you're not wrong. However I wouldn't say that Italians using an F-15 or a Tomcat (two premier - IRL - fighter aircraft of their day) would be stupid. ;) This is a non-exhaustive (key word) list of things I'd like to see included in DCS based on what I'm currently working on (and have noticed is lacking in certain countries arsenals when making missions/fictional scenarios). I would certainly like to see each country receive their accurate military assets however, for some, there just isn't an asset modelled (such as the Tornado ADV, or an F-104S Starfighter - in Italy's case) however where there IS an asset modelled, and a country has (or had) access to it, it would be nice to see it included. I've been looking into the Czech Republic and Slovakia recently, and they share many of the same systems - at least before their modernisation efforts - such as the MiG-29s (though Slovakia held theirs for longer), T-72s and BMP1/2s (which they call BVP, not BMP however they're externally similar). However neither the Czech or Slovak forces in DCS have proper land forces and both nations lack access to the MiG-29 (and livery) despite both owning/using the MiG-29 (exact variant is irrelevant for the moment) at some point in their history. Where the EXACT type isn't available, the option to assign a newer or lesser type that COULD be used to fill that gap (such as a MiG-21bis in place of a MiG-21 Lancer, for example) would be nice (from a mission creator perspective).

Thanks for the support Baco. I agree, in principle, that it would be nice to "pick and choose" who has what equipment but that would likely require a massive rewrite of how coalitions work. For the most part, each nation is relatively well reflected in DCS based on their current or past capabilities. However when it comes to ground and naval equipment especially, there are some nations (notable ones) that lack such assets. Notable examples are the UK (which has no naval assets, and very few air assets - especially fighters) and China (which has no Army, despite having the largest standing army in the world).

In the ME, I'd like to see the addition of an IR Strobe that can be placed on units (visible through NVG). In the context I'd use it currently, I'd set it to a vehicle in a convoy to allow said convoy to be tracked at night by fast air. I'm using a signal flare on unit in the interim but this is only as it passes through various trigger points I create - the option to trigger a continuous IR Strobe would be great. Also, the ability for JTACs to designate structures - specifically static structures placed by mission creators. In terms of Country additional capabilties: I'd like to see the UK receive the F-4, with associated liveries. Granted, the RAF never used the F-4E however it gives the UK an aircraft of a type (just not variant) it used to use - no longer just fictional F/A-18s or F-5Es (especially now that the Hawk has gone the way of the Dodo). I'd like to see the Czech Air Force receive access to the MiG-29 - giving the Czechs a tactical fighter - and a livery for the MiG-21 and MiG-29. With Cuba's addition to DCS as a proper faction, I'd also like to see the MiG-29 (and associated livery) made available, as well as liveries for the MiG-23 (though these will likely come with the MiG-23 being developed by RAZBAM), An-26, Mi-8 and Mi-24. I would also like to see the Algerian faction receive a MiG-21 livery. I'd like to see Australia have access to Oliver Hazzard Perry class frigates, as they use these vessels in reality (the Adelaide class FFG). While the RANs FFGs are modified substantially (compared to the DCS variant), it would give the RAN a surface combatant. I'd also like to see Australia's C-130 and C-17 receive a RAAF livery, as well as the UH-60 receive an ADF livery. In regards to liveries, I know there are mods however I'd like to see ED either make these liveries part of the sim or make their own liveries. In terms of new capabilities: I would also like to see Russia receive an AI subsonic strategic bomber capable of 'carpet bombing', such as the Tu-16 (which would then also pave the way for a Chinese H-6). I'd also like to see the UK receive the Tornado ADV (as an AI). I've suggested it before, but I'd like to see a western-influenced 'Insurgent' faction (call it 'Militia' or 'Rebels') so that there can be a REDFOR and BLUFOR paramilitary force operating at the same time, if creators so desire. Lastly, on the Persian Gulf map, I would like to see Bandar Abbas, and other adequately sized airfields, be able to handle medium and large aircraft, such as C-130 and IL-78 aircraft, starting from the ramp. This list is not exhaustive but, given my current mission narratives, these additions would greatly help me - and if I'd like to see these things become a reality, surely someone else does too.

I don't necessarily feel that pilotable airliner modules should be a thing in DCS, especially considering there are other sims out there that are far superior to DCS in terms of civil aviation, however short and medium range transports could very well fill that hole as well as provide something interesting and useful for sim-pilots to do. Low level, high speed flying in a C-130, C-27, An-12 or An-26, for example, would definitely being something different, yet combat related, to the sim. It would also encourage team work (fighters protecting a transport while it drops troops over an enemy airfield, for example). It could also pave the way for AWAC and AAR pilots/multi-crew platforms - another indirect combat role. I'd like to see an AI airliner (B737 at least - they're EVERYWHERE: name a major airline that hasn't used at some stage or doesn't want to use any variant of the 737, I'll wait...). Something to put in a mission to make the airspace feel more lively, as an asset to protect, something to intercept/escort or to confuse a pilot searching for enemy aircraft at long range, or in certain circumstances - a target to shoot down. That last part may not necessarily be palatable to everyone and it tends to be a touchy subject, not without reason.

I'm aware that Jester currently does not possess the knowledge to utilise the LANTIRN pod, so these suggestions are based on his intended future abilities. My suggestion is that the pilot (assuming human pilot in both SP and MP) be able to tell Jester what targets to prioritise using LANTIRN based on sub groups - Infantry, Light Vehicles (Trucks, APCs), Armour (AFVs, Tanks), Artillery, Structures or Any. Selecting 'Infantry' would, obviously, see Jester looking for, prioritising and directly targeting single or grouped infantry targets over any other enemy target. Selecting 'Light Vehicles' would see Jester looking for, prioritising and directly targeting light skinned vehicles (jeeps, cars and trucks) as well as APCs and other light armoured vehicles (such as BTRs/BRDMs/LAV-25s/M113s for example) over other enemy targets. Selecting 'Armour' would enable Jester to look for, prioritise and directly target armoured fighting vehicles (BMPs, Bradleys, Marder etc) and MBTs over other enemy targets. Selecting 'Artillery' would, as the name might suggest, see Jester looking for, prioritising and directly targeting Artillery targets including vehicles such as the 'Scud' (which I wish was put in already). Selecting 'Structures' would allow Jester to target enemy structures (ones placed in the ME, not ones on the map). This is also a limitation of the JTAC (at least in my experience) and I'm yet to be able to use a JTAC to lase a building so I can drop an LGB on it. But if Jester could be coded to 'see' Structures that have been placed in the ME as targets that can be engaged, the Tomcat (and hopefully in turn JTACs and other TGP-equipped aircraft) could be used for precision strikes on enemy buildings. Selecting 'Any' would see Jester prioritise targets based on their distance to the aircraft, their air threat level, their ground threat level and the relative ease of hitting said target (a stationary target versus a moving one). I'm really enjoying the Tomcat thus far, even though I'm having to use a JTAC or AFAC to designate targets for me currently. Looking forward to what's next.

I was a bit confused there for a second, but then I remembered... You're quite right. NOW they're a VFA squadron, they weren't when they had Cats... My apologies. :thumbup:

Cool, I must have missed that little tid bit if it was made public. I'll just wait until the A model is released to fly the flag for VF-1. :thumbup: I'll just use the VFA-143 Pukin Dogs livery for my B model antics instead. :pilotfly: Look forward to taking her up when she's done! :joystick:

I came here to see if there had been a solid date given - I flick back the last few pages and all I see are people whining about how long it's taking and demanding refunds. Some people may be over-reacting just a tad. Clearly, there's no hard date yet (which is disappointing in my case because I go away for the whole month of March next weekend so unless the F-14 releases before then, I miss the release and won't get to fly the Tomcat until late March, early April) but we're not outside our prospective date range. Heatblur have a bit of time up their sleeve. If anyone wants the Tomcat release to be sooner, rather than later, then it's me - for selfish reasons. If that can't happen - that's how the cookie crumbles. My question to Heatblur, regarding Jabbers' latest 3 hour stream, is there wasn't a VF-1 Wolfpack livery for the F-14... Granted, as far as I know, VF-1 only operated F-14As but are we going to see a VF-1 livery for the B model? Again, for selfish reasons. - Not a demand or request, just a question.

Last time I tried adding ground units for the USAF Aggressors (a while ago), the Mission Editor wouldn't detect that the Aggressors had any ground units. Haven't tried it since. Will do that tonight, maybe it was an Open Beta thing at one point, or my install was cracking the sads. But what I was getting at was as much for immersion as it was anything else. If you have the USAF Aggressors on the Red side, the briefing tells you it's the USAF Aggressors. It's up to you to 'fluff' it by stating 'Oh, the USAF Aggressors are actually Western-backed fighters...' in your briefing. By having either another version of the Insurgents (but called 'Militants') or having a faction using older US/Western gear that mirrors the Insurgents (in terms of vehicles and capabilities) it increases immersion (as far as 'rebel' units are concerned) and has the added bonus of allowing for more complex scenarios for both Red and Blue forces in campaigns/missions. Depending on your realism settings, it would also make attacking ground units you think are 'the bad guys' more complex - which could be a good thing, depending on your mission.

My suggestion is simple. We have the Insurgents faction, using predominantly Russian/Soviet equipment. Could we have a 'Militant' faction that mirrors the Insurgent faction but uses mainly older US equipment? Or, alternatively, a copy of the Insurgent faction called 'Militants' so we can have Insurgent-style factions fighting for both Red and Blue at the same time. Admittedly this request is kind of selfish as it fits the narrative of a campaign I have in my head, but surely I'm not the only one that is wanting to replicate a civil war against two less well-funded groups with opposing ideals, one being backed by Red, the other by Blue?