Minsky

I'm sure it will be integrated into DCS Retribution/Liberation sooner or later. In a way so that we could create campaigns centered around logistics.

Probably to this video where Wags promises to remake it eventually.

It doesn't seem to be implemented, and the NWS cannot be disengaged.

I probably misread the report, thanks for correcting me. Worthless or not, it seems to be the only numbers we have. Excluding this never disclosed, but always correct data at ED's disposal, of course.

In addition to the official specs sheet published by the manufacturer of the Pantsir? Don't think we can do better than that, considering that there are no public records of it hitting anything above 10 km (the last year's tragedy of Flight 8243). But something tells me that they wouldn't risk engaging that airliner flying at 30.000 ft (9.1 km) with a missile that tops at 10 km (33.000 ft).

That is strange, because the Pantsir manufacturer explicitly says that the missile's max engagement altitude is 15 km. Not the radar tracking altitude; the engagement altitude.

This never stopped most other SAMS in DCS from engaging you, especially when encouraged with triggers/waypoint actions. Our in-game 57E6 have more than enough energy to reach 12 km when launched at max range. And it reliably reaches 15 km when launched from shorter distances. So why the unit doesn't even attempt to track targets above 10 km is a mystery. Given the missile's erratic in-flight behavior, and that it can magically accelerate at the end of its envelope, I'd say something is either bugged or needs further tweaking.

After digging deeper into Russian-speaking sources, it turned out that only the first generation of Pantsirs (pre-2006) had this 10 km altitude limit (or 8 km when using the 9M335 missile). Later model, partially funded by UAE, has better radar, so the altitude cap was bumped to 15 km. At least according to the official manufacturer's spec sheet: https://web.archive.org/web/20070228142229/http://www.kbptula.ru/rus/zencom/panzr.htm

Yeah, and also: https://www.deagel.com/weapons/57e6-e/a000921 https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/pantsyr.htm Do we have any confirmed hits at 15 km? Because all these sources - both yours and mine - are just making assumptions and educated guesses without citing anyone in particular or referencing any hard data. Seems like the author (Currenthill) went with the more conservative numbers.

I wouldn't trust Wikipedia on that without cross-checking with other sources. https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/pantsir-s-1/

You can ask the author directly in the appropriate thread:

You mean Liberation discord? Or Retribution now has its own? (Sorry, I'm not in the loop. Left Liberation discord a while ago since it was half-dead, and been downloading Retribution from github.)

The most epic way to steer the thread back on track!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

My apologies! What I'm saying, there can be many variables at play. And it would be much easier to help if we could look at the mission file or a track replay.

In DCS you can communicate with the ground crew via intercom, opened canopy or hand gestures. It may sound like a radio transmission, but it doesn't mean that your actual radio (the one used to contact Tower for startup & takeoff clearances) is working.

The manual says that all the needed units must be in the same group. Not that the group must contain all of the available units. Your suggestion of grouping them together is correct, of course; it's just me nitpicking.

Whoever tagged your thread with "missing mission file" is right.

No, not really. Out of the six available Patriot vehicles it only requires three to function (STR, ECS, LN). Same goes for the S-300: it needs Flap Lid (either one), any SR (Big Bird or Tin Shield), and any launcher.

I don't get it. First you name the modules that already have this (or similar) feature implemented, and then ask for it to be... implemented? I think ED's answer would be along the lines of "the means are there, it's up to developers to use them". Much like with the icing, functional windshield wipers, and other neat peculiarities.

You answered it yourself: the extraction part can be avoided. Some unarchivers, depending on their settings, may extract the archive into another folder which contains the folder you need to use with OvGME. So it could be confusing to some people, and would require extra steps and cleanup afterwards. Compared to just moving whatever you've downloaded to wherever your mods folder is. As I said before, my suggestion to make this mod's archive OvGME-friendly is just that, a suggestion. Not a demand or criticism. It's just unusual that the creator made everything inside the archive ready for OvGME, and then decided not to take the very last step and name that archive appropriately.

As I said in my earlier post, the only requirement is that the name of the archive must exactly match the name of the folder inside that archive. If you download this particular mod and rename it from "bandit648_Weather_Mod_v2.0.zip" to "bandit648 Weather Mod v2.0.zip", OvGME will pick it up just fine.

No.

They can do what ED did with the Warthog: replace the current module with version 2.0 with increased price, and offer upgrade discount for current owners. And no, it won't be "effectively a new module, built from scratch". They already have documentation, references, blueprints, tons of effort put into R&D, models and sounds to improve upon, and years of priceless user feedback. Indeed, a lot of code will have to be rewritten, but considering its age, this will substantially ease their technical debt. So I believe it's perfectly doable - if they have time and desire to do it, of course.

It says you can install your own OS. But what's the point? With 16GB RAM and 8 GB VRAM, this rig is on the lower side of mid-range for DCS needs.