MBot

They did, as mentioned here:

One low hanging fruit for submarines would be submerged subs as ASM launch platforms. No 3d model, no damage model, no sensors, no torpedoes, just an empty "ship" shell to act as submerged ASM platform which can launch its missiles on datalink targets (which all ships in DCS already can). Why you might ask? Imagine the following scenario. A hostile A-50* is approaching the fleet which needs to be intercepted. If the A-50 is not destroyed in time, it will detect the fleet, datalink the targets to the submerged sub which will then attack the fleet with missiles. This mechanic already works in DCS right now with ships instead of subs. The problem is that ships do not usually remain uncontested for long in the vicinity of hostile fleets. A stealthy hidden submerged Oscar SSGN would. *Current behaviour in DCS is that only AWACS (E-2, E-3, A-50) can datalink surface targets to ships. It would make much more sense if that behaviour would be extended to maritime patrol aircraft and helicopters.

To expand on the concept on putting emphasis on ship's interactions with aircraft, I would like to see the addition of at least one class featuring the following SAM systems: SA-N-1 (SAM Kotlin, Kanin, Kashin, Kynda or Kresta I) SA-N-3 (Kresta II, Kara, Moskva or Kiev) SA-N-7 (Sovremenny) We already have at least one class with SA-N-4, SA-N-9, SA-N-6 and SA-N-20. SM-1/2ER (Leahy, Belknap, Farragut, Long Beach, Bainbridge or Truxtun) The Standard SAM in DCS should actually be divided into the SM-1 and SM-2 generations. The Oliver H. Perry class in DCS currently has SM-2MR instead of SM-1MR (should be a lot less effective against supersonic anti-ship missiles).

I am a bit concerned that ED dug themselves into a hole with the graphical details of the most recent generation of ground units and ships. They set an extreme high standard and I fear that they can't/won't back down from this again. Production at this high level takes years and the introduction of new AI units went down to a minimum. The AI Arleigh Burke-class has been in development since at least 2018 and it will even be bundled into a DLC. While these fantastic models are very nice to look at, I don't think they are really needed for a flightsim. I would rather prefer to have more less detailed much needed new units with their unique capabilities. Frankly I would take a couple of new units that look like the old Krivak model over a single new high-detail ship any day. More ships would offer more opportunities for varied gameplay and allow to flesh out scenarios better, while from the cockpit you wouldn't notice the lack of detail much anyway. But I get that you can't release low-detail models anymore. As a compromise, I think that the detail level of the Perry is good enough though. At the simulation level some improvements are needed, but I think this can be limited to the area where ships interact directly with our aircraft or shape the scenario that our aircraft participate in. I am a big fan of ASW, but frankly I think any effort in this area is wasted until someone is doing a dedicated ASW aircraft. Investing development resources to simulate underwater craft that we cannot see nor detect with any playable aircraft makes little sense in my opinion. What I would like to see is the simulation of AA-guns bigger than CIWS that are currently missing on every ship, as well as the simulation of all air search radars. With these radars, every ship should be able to act as EWR, give warnings to players and direct AI aircraft (as 1L13 and 55G6 units currently do in game). With regards to the damage model, I don't think there is a need to go overboard. What is most important I think is individual weapon and sensor mount damage. While the newer models (for example Tarantul-III) already have this effect graphically, destroying a radar will not actually disable the radar in the simulation. This would be pretty important for attacking ships with ARM though. Otherwise I don't think detailed compartmentalized internal damage is needed for a flightsim, the health-point system is probably good enough for the hull. It would be nice touch though if a hull penetration at the rear would immobilize the ship or if the penetration of a magazine could lead to a catastrophic magazine explosion.

You can vote all day long, but I am sure that HB wouldn't go the lengths they do with this aircraft if they didn't have the intention to also make it flyable: This plus F-14A plus this... ... = Ranger's Grumman Air Wing.

Time to get this back to Crusader territory :) My favourite Crusader air wing: USS Oriskany 1971-1976. Two F-8J Crusader squadrons and three A-7A/B Corsair squadrons on a tiny SCB-125A conversion Essex-class carrier. That is a lot of firepower for a WWII ship.

I like your line of thought, I would be on board with any of them. Go Cold War! Personally I think the Tu-16 would be a very unique addition to DCS. It has the beautiful lines of the classic jet airliners.

Thanks, track attached. Salvo.trk

The (empty) Active folder should be there too from the beginning, it is part of the zip file (together with a bunch of other folders, such as Init, Debug, Debriefing etc.). The fact that you do not have it indicates that the zip was not extracted correctly. I suggest you check that again.

Did you do the INS alignment? https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4116515&postcount=2

That strongly indicates that the Battle Group Delta campaign is installed incorrectly. The structure must be: ...\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech\DCE\Missions\Campaigns\FA-18C Battle Group Delta.cmp ...\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech\DCE\Missions\Campaigns\FA-18C Battle Group Delta_first.miz ...\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech\DCE\Missions\Campaigns\FA-18C Battle Group Delta_ongoing.miz ...\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech\DCE\Missions\Campaigns\FA-18C Battle Group Delta\Active\ etc...

No, the bat files are not needed for regular play. FirstMission.bat working is not saying much, as it has nothing to do with running the campaign. Its purpose is to build/update the first campaign mission in case a init configuration change of the campaign has been made. The error you are getting means that a log file could no be created because the folder where it should be created doesn't exist or because the system doesn't have the right to write the file. This could have one of the following reasons: 1. Incorrect installation folder structure. If you can see the campaign on the Campaign page in DCS you probably have this right. 2. DCS.OpenBeta vs DCS folder in Saved Games. If you install it under DCS.OpenBeta you have to do: a) Adjust filepath in camp_init.lua from 'Saved Games\DCS to 'Saved Games\DCS.OpenBeta' (is that how the open beta folder is called exactly? I don't know). b) Edit FirstMission.bat to point to your DCS installation directory c) Run FirstMission.bat 3. Running DCS as admin and having admin rights for all respective folders. Unfortunately I can't think of anything else.

Is there though? There was the introduction of the AN/AAR-45 NAVFLIR pod in 1979 and HARM in 1985. Other than some software revisions, where there any major changes to the A-7E?

Moving DCE to the DCS main folder will certainly not work, it is hardcoded to be installed under your Windows user's Saved Games folder (unless you do some of the Junction Link magic, which I have no experience with).

Can you elaborate on this? You go to Campaigns and it should be listed under the DCE tab. Then you start the campaign by pressing Start or New Campaign or something alike. There is no mission to select.

Has the AI AGM-84D blowing up before reaching the target been acknowledged?

When using the Attack Unit/Group/Map Object tasks, AI will aim to put the first bomb of a salvo on target. If the first bomb misses, all the remaining bombs of the salvo miss too. When using the Bombing task, AI will aim to put the center bomb on the target point, bracketing it with the salvo. This is the correct way to aim bombs. Apparently the capability for AI to bracket a target with multiple bombs exists as displayed be the Bombing task. Apparently, the Attack Unit/Group/Map Object tasks are set up incorrectly. These should bracket their target too.

Can the minimum attack altitude for Snakeye and other retarded weapons can be lowered from 990 ft to at least 200 ft? Currently, minimum AI attack altitude for retarded and slick weapons is identical.

Considering the increasing naval theme of DCS, I would still like to see the dual purpose naval guns currently in game to engage aircraft with AA munition. While this might be less relevant for modern long-range ASM shooting fighters (even though these guns will also engage said ASM), this is still very relevant for the Cold War era. At the latest this will become a must have when RAZBAM comes forward with their Falklands theater. 76 mm AK-176 100 mm AK-100 130 mm AK-130 These guns should be capable of putting up quite a spectacle of AA fire.

The campaigns are under a new DCE tab and not My Campaigns.

Thank you IronMike, much appreciated! May I make a humble suggestion for a VF-21, USS Independence, 1990 livery for the F-14A?

You are not that far off. The Navy had the same idea with the Grumman Air Wing, which had 2 A-6 squadrons instead of the standard one A-6/two A-7 squadons. But this was ultimately only implemented on the Kennedy and the Ranger. I think this was due costs, the Intruder being just much more expensive. The USAF followed a similar high-low mix with the F-15/F-16. I think it is correct that the Corsair, due to its HUD with CCIP/CCRP, was the more accurate daylight bomber of the two. Even the early Hornets did not surpass the Corsair in dumb bomb accuracy, only matching it (while carrying less bombs, less far).

We successfuly played some 10 coop missions about a year ago. If I remember correctly we figured out a procedure to get around most spawn crashes. I think it was something like host unpauses for some seconds and pauses again, then everyone gets into the cockpit and when all have loaded, the game is unpaused again. I am not sure if this was really it, but we got it to work somehow. Ultimately all the spawning stuff will hopefully get sorted out in the future by ED.

If you do not have them yet, you can simply create the "C:\Users\15702\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech" structure yourselve. Simply right click into the Saved Games\DCS folder and select New Folder and name it accordingly.

No, default behaviours is: leader will attack until out of ammo or target is destroyed, then wingman 1 will attack until out of ammo or target is destroyed, then wingman 2 will attack etc. The documentations seems wrong. Group attack means that everyone attacks the same target simultaneously.