Lace

Here is a google maps link to a selection of fixed site DMPIs I collated. Given the limits of google maps layers, I will create another for mobile positions soon. I have only processed the information into a visible format, The data is based on the 'Command: Modern Operations' database. I cannot take any credit for its creation or verify the accuracy of the data. It is meant purely as a starting point for content creators to have something on which to base their missions. I am also in the process of creating a 1991 .miz template with fixed SAM site positions, which should be ready soon* https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1Mpgn-fTBUxToUqsZMYORpQ_cW4L8gQs&usp=sharing Anyway, hope it is of some use. *(two weeks!).

Yep, eagerly awaiting another excellent development report.

I've been thinking more about which major releases are still un-hinted and un represented in DCS. There aren't many left really, especially modern US fighters (lets face it, they make up the bulk of the sales and are the most popular releases). The Carrier air wing is pretty much complete (A-6 and USN F-4 already in the pipeline). The most prolific aircraft of of the last 40 years are already here (F-16, 15C, 15E, A-10, F-5, with A-7, Tornado, Typhoon, on the way. There have been numerous Vietnam-era aircraft announced, and we are all familiar with the problem of modern Russian aircraft, but nevertheless the MiG-29A is incoming. Rotary wing still has plenty of mileage, with the various Blackhawk variants, Cobra, Seaking, and plenty of others. Regarding logistics, the C-130 is in development, might we see a C-17 from ED, the current lack of an updated AI model (which wouldn't look out of place in FS2004) could mean it is part of of bigger project in the background and will come with the full module? The big names most notable by their complete absence are the F-111, the Rafale and Gripen, lacking even AI models. The F-111 could be even more important if we lose the F-15E, which currently is the only true all-weather attack aircraft in the whole game (at least until the Tornado arrives). There are loads of core upgrades we could list, but the big reveal has always been a new airframe, and almost always (only the F-4 AFAIK) direct from ED rather than a 3rd party. So lets see some more unfounded wild speculation please.

Yes, placeable runways would add a huge amount of value. In many cases the non-modelled air bases are visible in the satellite terrain imagery, so a placeable runaway, some aprons and HASes etc. and you could include all the basing options ED decided to leave out. Even if it is just somewhere to launch and recover from, and not necessarily anything in any great detail or particularly close to the real installation.

Anyone had a look down south yet? I had a bit of a fly over Kuwait last night, and while there are no buildings, there is a surprising amount of visible detail on the textures, and the terrain mesh seems complete. Almost like one could just plonk down some target units and start flying some DS missions...

Is there not a 'Unit Detects' trigger, or am I thinking of another game (C:MO)? That would cover all criteria - detection range, altitude, LOS, etc? Place a search RADAR unit for your interceptors scrambles, and allow the SAM units to do their own detection and engagement logic?

@Northstar98 I totally agree that the system is far from perfect, and can be improved in many ways, I am simply explaining why ED chose to deliberately implement it in that way. It's not a mistake or a bug, but nor is it 100% right. You absolutely should be able to make tweaks, change local settings, etc. The whole atmospheric modelling should be completely reworked into something like XP12, as what we have currently, is a massively oversimplified model with some nice eye candy effects.

Because to get a decent pitching deck you need an unrealistically high surface wind speed. How often would you see real-world aviation ops (never mind carrier ops) in sustained 100kt winds? In order to get the desired 30kts over the deck the carrier would have to be going 70kts astern!!

Oh, for sure, one could manually make the adjustment. My issue is that it is often reported as some sort of bug or mistake. Where it does fall down however, is with EDs insistence to linking sea state with wind, which really is unrealistic, and results in people having to set a ridiculously high surface wind speed to get a pitching deck scenario, which then makes the coupled winds even more problematic. The solution to that is to have an independent swell setting, and have small waves (chop) a function of surface wind speed.

The way DCS does it is a bit backwards, but does make sense if you want to define conditions on the ground for airfield ops. Really, you should define the wind at 1600ft and it should automatically adjust for the surface, but the link still remains. It is realistic that winds 'slack and back' (in the Northern hemisphere) when approaching the surface due to friction and the Coriolis effect, so should be about 50% reduced, and backed by 30degrees (veer by 30 in the Southern hemisphere) compared with those at altitude. This is even more noticeable at night where the slacking and backing effect is increased due to colder, denser surface air, however DCS doesn't take this into account*. The effect is reduced over water where there is less surface friction. Again, not modelled in DCS's atmosphere*. Having these independently configurable wouldn't make sense from an atmospheric modelling point of view, as which ever one you choose to define will effect the other. It is just not realistic** to have the wind speed and direction the same at 1600ft as it is at the surface. Perhaps ED need to place a note in the manual explaining this to prevent this confusion. It isn't a bug, and it isn't wrong. People don't intuitively understand it because unless you are a pilot or meteorologist, it is not something you will encounter day-to-day. * AFAIK ** 99% of the time. As always there are some unusual cases where this might not be true.

It's obvious that some people don't understand how winds work.

After Afghanistan I decided I would give Iraq a miss. However, after the positive comments here I unsurprisingly relented and installed it last night. I was not disappointed. Way better than Afghanistan at launch, and non of the harsh texture changes and odd placement of objects and textures. It seems pretty good at altitude and down low, and the mountains to the north on the Turkish/Iranian border are really well done. Personally I'm more interested in the southern part for Desert Storm/OP Granby missions, but if it is as well done as the first half I'll be very happy. Performance is decent, though I do get some stuttering over Baghdad, I might have to dial the settings down a little, but I can live with that. Hopefully there will be some optimisation to come, as I have generally found that new maps have this issue, and improve over time.

The coupled winds is based on real-world conditions, it is not there by accident or oversight and it is well understood by real-world pilots that winds slack and back as you get closer to the ground (in the northern hemisphere - they slack and veer in the southern). It should be less pronounced perhaps, and is a gradual rather than step change, but it is a real thing. I agree there needs to be a way to set the swell independently from winds though. This has been discussed in many threads and asked for many times. IRL swell is not dictated by wind speed, chop is. Swell can be the result of a weather system hundreds of miles away and it is possible to have a big swell even on a day without a breath of wind.

The fog is an excellent update. The Strike Eagle really comes into it's own now with auto-TFR low-level IMC missions. It really suits the Kola map. I only wish we could get some way to disassociate and independently set swell from the wind speed, so we can set up some authentic winter North Sea 2nd Fleet carrier ops. The mission editor copy/paste is a very welcome addition, Honestly, I'm struggling to see a huge difference in the F-5, though I admit it is not my most flown aircraft.

It usually goes live mid-afternoon in Europe.

Will Fulda be the 'big reveal' though? It's already been teased in several videos and stills. Might it be something from a 3rd party? It isn't always an ED module (Phantom was teased in a 'beyond' video).

DCS players refreshing IFR procedures & approach plates this morning.

Yep, it would be great if the mission editor could generate PLOGs and briefing packs, with calculated magnetic headings, drift, GS, fuel burn, etc. It shouldn't be hard as the numbers are all already in there somewhere.

I think those of us who regularly inhabit this forum are a tiny minority of DCS players. There are many more causal players who don't spend their time here discussing the game. It must be this 'silent majority' who drive the decisions on which content to produce, as it often seems at odds with the general consensus on this forum. ED have the sale figures for each module, and I guess the data says modern tech is what people buy.

Yep. My only reasoning is that the 'latest and greatest' has the wider appeal to the customer base, whereas the older 'A models' are more of an enthusiasts choice. I'm sure they do their research but I would also much prefer more relevant older versions. I'd love an F-16A (biggest export model), FF A-10A (cold war and Desert Storm icon), AH-64A (also DS), F/A-18A (DS... you get the theme here...), etc. An xx-60 Franken-Hawk would be fine for me, generic steam gauges, and able to sub in for a Sea-Hawk, Pave-Hawk, Black-Hawk etc. and far preferrable to a modern single-variant.

+1 Yes, I remember being very disappointed when the Hind launched and this was not the case. I had rather hoped it would have been introduced by now, but I guess it is not something ED are planning. It's a real immersion breaker in VR as it is currently implemented.

The biggest thing I changed to reduce the workload and control assignments to memorise is to have as much commonality between modules, and don't worry too much if the cockpit or HOTAS controls are in the correct place or not with reference to the 'real' aircraft. This solves, or at least reduces the need for a physical control map nearby. As for the HUD/cockpit view FOV, I've not really done anything in DCS with multi-monitors, so I don't know if you can achieve what you really want. With your proposed setup, how would you check-six for example? It sounds to me that a VR pass-though might be a good option for you, which allows you to blank out areas from the VR display, allowing you to see your simpit and docs monitor, but again, this isn't something I've tried. Honestly, I don't think the perfect solution exists, short of flying the aircraft for real. Any setup will be compromised in some way, such is life.

It's nearly that time of year again, what do we expect to see? Any predictions for the final reveal? What do we have rumoured but not officially announced? Central Germany map? Any new fixed wing modules in the ED pipeline? It would be nice to see some progress on the dynamic campaign, though I'm not sure how well that will work in a cinematic context. Some of the legacy 3D models being updated would be appreciated too.

'Better' is very much subjective and there is no right or wrong answer here. I do all my flying in VR. I have a half sim-pit, with MFDs and a Viper ICP, all of which I can use with muscle memory and a bit of careful prodding. I know I am compromising some performance and visual fidelity for immersion, and that's fine with me. The one big disadvantage of VR IMHO is the inability to quickly look at briefing docs/manuals/kneeboards etc. I know there are some mods and PDF readers etc, but they are a bit clunky and certainly not as convenient as simply glancing at a printout or iPad as you would with a single or multi-monitor setup. If I was exclusively doing civvy flying, then I would consider a three-monitor setup, but for more dynamic combat flying, then there is no way I would abandon VR, unless it was for some kind of 360 projection full-motion simpit, which is just not feasible for me.

Forgive my ignorance here, but why couldn't the fog layer just be treated as it is in real life, i.e., a cloud layer in contact with the ground? Why does it need to be rendered differently?