cailean_556

Wags said in the last stream, after EA the next priority weapon was the AGM-88 HARM because flyable SEAD is sorely lacking in BLUFOR's inventory. But as mentioned above, -No advanced AAM -AA radar STT only -No guided AG -No AG radar -No TPOD

Maybe it would be best to have the optional paid ground crew be a part of the carrier-based modules, such as the F/A-18C and F-14. As for those that do and those that don't have/use the ground crew, I guess they just wouldn't see them?

I've not noticed any oil/gas platforms in any of the streams thus far. They do have randomly generated ships though so perhaps they do have the platforms? If they don't, they're easy enough to add using the Mission Editor.

Hi NineLine, thanks for taking the time to clear that up. Not that it would affect me, but I was concerned that unless you bought the Persian Gulf you wouldn't get the new liveries or equipment. I'll have to read up on how to designate map objects as targets - the effect I was thinking of was destroying all buildings within a certain radius as part of a trigger, or specific buildings in a specific (small) trigger radius. Like a refinery strike, for example. I've tried doing that on the NTTR (getting my desert skills up, biding my time :joystick:) but I've not come across an option yet. I'm only fairly new to using triggers in this manner so it's probably there but I'm missing it - or it's a complicated script. I'll find it! Either way, thanks.

Maybe when they get around to improving the ATC (after Carrier ATC) but yeah, while the AI gives you status updates at waypoints, they don't talk to the tower, or let you know they're on approach. But Wags doesn't even use the ATC himself in the Gulf live streams, actually I don't recall even hearing it speak...is there an option to turn that off!?

So it appears that Deka Ironworks are already working on an AI-only J-10 and H-6, as well as a JH-7 - which is awesome news. Something else I thought of this afternoon whilst pondering my existence: MiG-29K. It's two-seat, it's equipped to utilise precision-guided munitions, guided missiles and anti-radiation missiles - it would be a great addition to the REDFOR in DCS. Plus, REDFOR would have some serious naval air capability to potentially counter Hornet and Tomcat. While a full-fidelity module would be great, I doubt that could happen any time this decade. Even an FC-3 model, or if worse came to worse, an AI-only model just to gauge interest as well as add something new.

With all the new modules and associated technology coming into DCS this year, I've come up with a wishlist of sorts that would further add to DCS, both in single and multi-player. I will use the term REDFOR and BLUFOR out of convenience, when I say BLUFOR I mean NATO members/allies and REDFOR being everyone else, as these alliance can change in-game quite easily. First and foremost is the need for a dedicated REDFOR strike fighter and/or all-weather day/night attacker capable of self/buddy designating PGMs. The Su-25 and Su-25T can do this reasonably well during the day in reasonable conditions however once the sun goes down, the BLUFOR own the night. Because of the two-seater AI being built with the F-14 and F-4, I think an Su-30 would add a significant strike capability for the REDFOR. Not to mention Iran is looking at getting Su-30s, and several South-East Asian nations either have them or are getting them - and China's developing/developed their own version (Shenyang J-16). If a Su-30 isn't possible, another option is the Su-24. The model in DCS is distinctively highly detailed, compared to some others. Surely there's a specific reason for that? The Su-24 would add considerable punch to any REDFOR, seeing as while the Su-25T has proven to be more than capable of SEAD and strike, it is slow, ungainly and once a fighter closes, it's almost a certainty the Su-25T will go down on fire. With the inclusion of the J-11A, and the incoming JF-17 module, I hope to see more Chinese-designed aircraft make their way into DCS such as the J-7/F-7, J-8I and J-8II, J-10, J-15, H-5 and H-6 to really flesh out the PLAAF/PLAN. I'd also like to see the PLA modelled, at least partially, so confrontations or joint-operations with China can be conducted in DCS. From a module standpoint, the J-7/F-7 could be a possibility as it's essentially a re-winged MiG-21 with the inclusion of western avionics and weapons. While I don't believe there's enough in it to be a full module on its own, it would make an excellent addition or even-paid addon to the MiG-21 module. The J-10 is essentially the PLAAFs F-16 - a lightweight, multi-role fighter capable of carrying out almost any role. While the chances of a standalone module would be slim-to-none, it would offer a great REDFOR alternative to the F-16 - from a full-fidelity perspective. Another feature I'd like to see is a dedicated Civilian faction. Civilians would be neutral to both sides and their inventory would consist of GA aircraft and airliners, to provide air traffic - especially into and out of Dubai, for example. They would be AI only, consisting of 707s, 737s, 747s, A320s, A330s and A380s in various user liveries - as an example. It could also be expanded to Red and Blue Civilian factions, to allow one side or the other to directly target these aircraft - however given the tragic loss of MH-17 by SAM, I'm not sure that would be palatable. I'm keen to see some more non-conventional, but preferably military, aircraft modules but for the time being, I'm looking forward to the Hornet, followed by the Phantom and JF-17, then the F-14. The F-16 is kind of a ways away, so it's on my list too but I don't expect to see that for some years. With the exception of the JF-17, it should be noted that these aircraft are US-made and provide BLUFOR with a significant strike overmatch, even though REDFOR will also have the F-4 and F-14 (though I'm unsure as to what variant the Iranians have without looking, I don't believe theirs are strike-capable). The JF-17 will do some work to fill that hole but end of the day it's an F-5 on steroids that can't carry as much as a more dedicated strike fighter. The REDs need some loving too. On the subject of the F-5, before I forget, with the JF-17 looking to probably replace the F-5 (as it exceeds the F-5 in terms of weapons carriage especially) is there any scope to expand on the F-5 module to keep it relevant? Even the ability to carry an extra couple AIM-9s would be a start. I know the refuelling boom, inclusion of Mavericks and F-5EM have been discussed before but I fear that with the advent of the JF-17, the F-5 will either cease being used or be so outclassed it's not worth the time and effort. She's old, she's tired but surely she still has some fight left... Just my 2 cents. Bring on Persian Gulf, I've got missions to make! :megalol::joystick:

Afternoon all, As soon as I was informed the Persian Gulf was available for pre-purchase, getting it wasn't even a question. I didn't even know if it had a release date (although given how it looks during Wags' streams, it's obviously close to being finished - at least enough to release). However, Wags' streams and information provided in the Persian Gulf information does leave me with questions - especially from a mission editor point of view. Firstly, I noticed that the Persian Gulf map lists 'new Iranian liveries' as part of its features. Does this mean that those who do not purchase the Persian Gulf will not have access to these liveries? Does that also include new Iranian assets being developed? Secondly, and it was Wags' own description of the refinery in Bandar Abbas that gave me the idea, can strategic targets (such as power stations and refineries) be selected as targets in this map, and thus use their destruction as a trigger without using mods or scripting, or are we still going to have to make our own static buildings and designate them as targets? With that out of the way, I'm looking forward to the opportunities the Persian Gulf is going to open up for all aspects of air combat - land-based and carrier-based, aerial refuelling, SEAD, air superiority, precision ground attack...it's going to get messy over the strait...

First of all, slightly off topic, and I'm not coming at you personally, but who exactly are you to say what should and shouldn't be the mainstay of any game, let alone a sim? That's like saying "Oh, you can only play Poker with blue-coloured dice only, if anyone plays with other coloured dice, they're playing it wrong". You like Multiplayer? Cool! High five! You have over a thousand people on your Discord? Great! Outstanding! You go girl... Or guy. Whatever. The thing about this Sim is that it's set up for all kinds of players. Single player, Multiplayer Co-Op, Multiplayer PvP, realism weirdos (I'm one of them), more "arcade"-style fans, stock purists, modders - almost everyone is represented here. That's a big drawcard few other games, let alone sims, can boast to have. To say that PvP is the ONLY way, or the main way, to use this sim is extremely short-sighted. I don't know the numbers, nor do I much care. As long as people are flying the sim, people keep buying their products and ED and co keep churning out quality modules - that's what I care about. Now, back on topic. I will definitely be buying Persian Gulf. I used to run my missions out of Vaziani (and pop over the hills into a fictional REDFOR country) but I've just switched to Nevada, flying out of Nellis while REDFOR flies out of Tonopah, to get used to desert/sand. I might change tact once the Gulf is released and start flying against, or for, Iran as opposed to a fictional country.

In the mission I am creating, I tried 0645, 0845 and 1045. It is a winter mission and the weather is clear. I had no luck across any of those times and at 1045 it was very much day time. I could see the intended targets (on the Shkval) well before I was in weapons range. Still couldn't get a lock (they're in an open field). I didn't fly Su-25T too much before, but I had completed that particular training mission and never had an issue. I'll record it and put it on YouTube and provide a link - maybe you can pick up what I'm doing wrong (if it is me) and I can correct. If not, likely a bug?

The reason I was avoiding laser guided weapons was I had intended the mission to use fire and forget weapons. I was going to try the Mercury Pod because I'd tried everything else - couldn't hurt, could it? Also, regardless of what light/weather settings or the intentions are in the mission I'm making, the fact of the matter is I can't even get the sensor to lock onto the tanks and allow for missile release in the TRAINING mission provided by ED in DCS World. At least I know it's not just me now - both Lixma and yourself having the same issue is enough for me. Not sure if it's enough for ED though but I feel at least partially vindicated - it's not my piloting skills. :joystick:

What I mean by 'lock' in my previous post is that the Shkval is ground stabilised (i.e. it's locked to a point on the ground and continues to look at the same bit of ground unless I slew it elsewhere) but when I place the target frame over the tank the Shkval won't lock onto the tank, no matter how much I adjust the frame size or aiming point. The 'KC' does not change to 'AC'. Multiple passes, multiple angles and speeds, dives and level, speed brakes on and off, doesn't seem to make a difference. It DID lock at one point, for about a second when I was pretty much on top of the Abrams but I was well inside the minimum range and wouldn't have gotten authority to release anyway. While we're on the topic, the training mission doesn't cover release parameters either - not your or my responsibility to fix but if there are specific requirements: maybe they should be covered? I'm not overly sure about the parameters myself either, but I always put myself in a shallow dive when releasing ordnance - to keep the sensor centred or as close to for as long as I can. I've wondered this myself. Considering the stories I've been reading about how woeful the Shkval (at least in DCS) is (more so in the Ka-50), you'd think they'd suggest equipping the Mercury Pod (which I'm thinking of doing in my missions - at least to see if it works). Regardless, for a training mission, how can you train if the environment is not conducive to allowing weapon release? :helpsmilie:

Sorry for taking so long, got side-tracked with a mission after having some success with the KAB-500Kr - I was able to get it to hit the target without a lock. Without being able to achieve lock with the Kh-29T, I can't progress to the use of the 500Kr so I can't remember if that's how it's supposed to work. I tried a couple times before I went to bed, and again just now - in the training mission regarding the Kh-29T and KAB-500Kr. The Shkval refuses to lock for the Kh-29T. I even bound the auto-lock center target simplified command which did nothing. I'm looking directly at an M1A1 and its inside the damn box, I'm within weapons release range, I've unlocked and re-locked the target point but the Shkval refuses to lock and I can't release the missile. The lock works, because the Shkval becomes ground stabilised, but it won't recognise what's in the target frame. This is becoming frustrating, especially since you claim it's working - so what the hell's wrong on my end?

Hey 159_Archer Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'll go through my controls with a fine-tooth comb and test again, along with trying some suggestions I read concerning the Ka-50 (it can't hurt, surely). I'll let you know the outcome.

I'm trying to make a mission flying the Su25T. At first it was a night strike but I couldn't lock the Kh-29T or KAB-500Kr (the engagement is supposed to be a precision engagement at range). I read several forum posts and discovered that the Shkval doesn't like low light conditions so I made it an early morning (sun not quite up but still plenty of light) mission. Still unable to lock, I made it a mid-morning mission. Still couldn't get the optics to lock. Thinking it was me, I went and attempted the Su-25T guided weapon training (Kh-29T and KAB-500Kr). I can't get the guided weapons to lock at range - IN THE TRAINING MISSION. I can't seem to get the sensor to lock the M1. Randomly it will lock when I'm inside the minimum range - which does me no good - but when I go back around for another pass, I can't get it to lock at any kind of range. I've tried increasing and decreasing the target box. I've tried higher altitudes, I've tried lower altitudes. I've tried slow and fast with speed brakes on and off. I've tried shallow and steep dives. I even put the laser on (not that the mission says to) and still nothing. I haven't flown Su-25T for a while but last time I flew it I didn't have any dramas - especially with the Kh29T. What's going on with this? Is anyone else having this trouble? What am I doing wrong?

In my (mostly default) set up, RAlt + Home is Left Engine, RCtrl + Home is Right Engine. I also tried to start both (RShift + Home, as you already suggested) and no dice. Main power is on (assigned button to my flight stick), RAlt + Home: Left Engine starts, engine light green, left engine gauge moves. Right Engine will not start. The exact same control works on the Su-27, Su-25T and MiG-29A. Canopy open/closed, Nav lights on/off - it doesn't seem to matter. I've reset the throttle prior to start up - I have had one instance of the Su-27, not the 33, refusing to start because apparently my throttle wasn't zeroed. I even tried remapping Both Engine Start to a different key bind (in addition to remapping Right Engine Start) but no joy. I'm going to try the Su-25, F-15 and A-10A, see if it works with them. This is doing my head in. EDIT: Also, thanks for the reply.

Hello all, I've run into a bit of an issue that doesn't seem to have crept up on anyone else yet. I did a bit of Google searching and tried a search here: nothing I found was either current, or didn't help. The issue I'm having is that I can't start the Su-33s right engine. Powers on, left engine's running but the right engine won't fire up. I've changed keybinds and rebound default keybinds (the RCtrl key press is registered so it's not my keyboard) but she won't play the game. The Su-27 starts both engines just fine, as does the SU-25T and MiG-29A. Is everyone else having this issue? Is it a known issue? Is there a work around which doesn't involve simply starting a mission hot or airborne? I haven't seen anything to that effect. Kind of glaring issue when an engine won't light. Thanks in advance for any help you may be able to give. Also, Belated Merry Xmas, virtual pilots.