Search the Community

Hi everyone, Now that the new S-3B model has been released (albeit in a potentially bugged state), would it be possible for the S-3B's weapons to be corrected, as well as to add some others that are accurate for it (ignoring ASW specific stores such as torpedoes, sonobuoys and mines, as those require additional core functionality in order to work). The model we currently have depicts the S-3B as it was pre-1998 (i.e with AN/ASQ-81 MAD boom and all sonobuoy ports still present, from 1998 onwards the boom was deleted and at least most of the sonobuoy ports were blanked over as its role switched away from ASW). Currently the S-3B has the following stores available: 300 USG drop tank Mk 82 500-lb LDGP Mk 84 2000-lb LDGP Mk 20 Rockeye II AGM-65D AGM-65K AGM-84A Harpoon IP AGM-84E SLAM If the S-3B is to receive Maverick (which was post 2002 according to this, the same goes for SLAM), it should have the AGM-65F, not AGM-65D or K, neither of which is used by the USN. The SLAM should also use the AN/AWW-13 data link pod (EDIT: seeing as cooperative engagement capability isn't currently supported). It should also have ADM-141A TALD available, which was utilised in the 1991 Gulf War. These are mounted on TERs on the wing stations, but I'm not sure if it can equip a total of 2, 4 or the full 6. The Harpoon variant it should have is AGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C (as with the Hornet), it's probably still compatible with the AGM-84A, but the D is more appropriate (and has a far higher-quality model).

Dear ED developers, I’ve been your fan since Lock On days and have enjoyed DCS for at least 8 years now. In the past year I’ve detected some strange behaviour on fox1 servers regarding Aim-7 performance. I’ve been more active in recent weeks and the issue seems too severe to be ignored. Being a professional analyst (and ex low-temperature physicist), I know that opinions and feelings count for nothing in these cases. After dedicating 30+ hours to solving this issue, I believe I’ve successfully identified the problem and see an immediate solution to mitigate it. Let us dive right into it using numbers and physical quantities from TacView, as well as known missile parameters thanks to dcs-lua-datamine github by Quaggles. The key date is 11.7.2024 - on this day, everything changed with the whole Aim-7 family. Despite my best efforts, I haven’t been able to collect Tacview files closer to this event, but I can demonstrate the change using one from 03/2023 in the “before” period and a more recent one from 2025 in the “after” period. When we compare Aim-7M performance before and after the change, it is both qualitatively and quantitatively different. I am using Tacview Advanced graphs and the metric of choice is total mechanical energy. Not only is the maximum energy vastly different, but also its time evolution (character). We know that Aim-7F and above are dual-stage. First, the booster lights up, delivering the strongest impulse. After that, the sustainer rocket motor kicks in, delivering the final bit of extra energy. In the before period (scenario A), the Aim-7M missile gets to its maximum energy only after the sustainer phase. However, since the change (scenario B), the missile reaches its maximum energy state already after the initial booster phase. Sustainer then merely preserves this energy for the duration of its burn. This is the qualitative change. There is also a quantitative change. New maximum energy is more than before. So not only does the missile reach higher energy faster, it can also preserve it in a superior way (see attachments). The following thing shouldn’t be considered a “proof” of any kind, merely a supportive argument. I formulated a question for ChatGPT and got an answer, that scenario A is much more realistic for the Aim-7 missile (see attachments). Now, for the actual proof. I was wondering for some time, what could possibly be responsible for such a dramatic change in missile energy management. With the background in physics, a few things immediately crossed my mind. Either the magnitude of the impulse of at least one of the rocket motors changed, or the delivery character of that impulse (its time evolution) or the missile’s mass (weight) itself. I went through the whole changelog since 03/2023 and curiously enough, found that on 11.7.2024 that’s precisely what changed - but for the E and E2 variants. See: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.6.57650/ Look for: “Weapons. AIM-7E/E2 mass decreased.” From that point on, it all started making sense. I discovered this brilliant guy’s Quaggles github, pulled the commit from 11.7.2024 and the earliest one before this date. Started comparing all Aim-7 variants before and after. Soon enough, I stumbled upon the culprit. Link for the latest commit before the change: https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/e57755713d8ae6b59ccf1831b089e3b33aee7633/_G/rockets/AIM-7MH.lua Link for the commit right at the change (11.7.2024): https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/da69a9f560550da346501f4056261e491ac4079a/_G/rockets/AIM-7MH.lua Let’s have a look at some of those missile parameters. Of course, I am not an ED developer and cannot possibly know what these parameters mean, right? There is no official documentation, so it could be air temperature. Well, yes and no. Thanks to your changelog, we do know that the mass of the E and E2 variants did change on 11.7.2024. When we compare the changes specifically in the E2 missile files, we find only 3 changes in all the parameter values. We know that the mass is supposed to change and we can see 3 updated parameters. Can we safely assume that these 3 parameters define the missile’s mass? For the sake of this report, let’s call them “index M”, “fm mass1” and “fm mass2” (see attachments). For your convenience, I have provided a table with all existing Aim-7 variants, changes of these 3 parameters in the aforementioned commits and verified that the parameter values have stayed the same right up to now. We can immediately see the problem: missile param 23.3.2024 11.7.2024 30.6.2025 Aim-7E2 index M 230 194 194 Aim-7E2 fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7E2 fm mass2 230 194 194 Aim-7E index M 230 206.4 206.4 Aim-7E fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7E fm mass2 230 206.4 206.4 Aim-7F index M 231 231 231 Aim-7F fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7F fm mass2 231 231 231 Aim-7MH index M 231 231 231 Aim-7MH fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7MH fm mass2 231 231 231 Aim-7P index M 231 231 231 Aim-7P fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7P fm mass2 231 231 231 Aim-7(M?) index M 231.1 231.1 231.1 Aim-7(M?) fm mass1 231.1 194 194 Aim-7(M?) fm mass2 231.1 231.1 231.1 First of all, before the change, for every missile, all 3 of these parameters were kept the same (only difference = 1 with E2 variant). After the change, only the E2 missile has equal values of the 3 params, all of the other missiles have 1 parameter different from the remaining two. The most dramatic difference is 37kg. Not only is the parameter different, but it is exactly the value present in the E2 variant (194). Is it possible that somehow, at some point, the E2 "fm mass1" value overspilled to the other variants? Commiting different versions of the code, copying the value of the params, etc.? I am 99% confident that this is not the change you'd intended to do. Because you did change the values for E2, but kept all 3 params the same. That appears to be the correct approach. It is my suspicion and hypothesis, that this one single parameter is directly responsible for the new buffed-up missile performance of the variants that shouldn't have been changed at all. There is one more supporting evidence for this. E and E2 variants should have different mass according to literature and also according to your changes. The difference should be about 6% (194 vs 206.4). There are more differences in missile params for these 2 missiles in the "seeker" and "autopilot" part and it was my hypothesis that these could be ignored when firing blind without a target lock. We tested it and arrived at an estimated difference in gained energy of 0.6% - this is nowhere near the perceived mass difference. In the "boost" and "march" parameters, they have the same impulse value. So the motors are the same, the impulse is the same, the resulting extra speed should be different by about 6% (p = m.v), but it's barely detectable (0.6% diff in energy) EDIT: I may be wrong at this point. After comparing missile speeds, the E vs E2 may actually have about 5% difference in speed, but it's hard to judge. The aircraft shot one missile at slightly higher initial speed. Combined with drag being dependent of speed etc. this creates a difference. And also the other extra missile parameters, in which these missiles differ, could play a role. Attached, you'll find what I believe to be proof that these missiles actually have the same mass for the purposes of energy after launch. Despite not having same mass in real life and also in the other 2 mass parameters. EDIT: hard to say. They appear too similar. This is all I can provide at this moment, I'm happy to talk more about this. I only have few key questions for you and would be delighted if you managed to answer them: 1. Can you please confirm, that you indeed observe the provided values of the parameters and that 1 ("fm mass1") is different from the other two in all but the E2 variant? 2. Can you please confirm if this was unintended and the idea indeed was, to keep all 3 parameters at same (updated) values? 3. If yes, am I right in assuming this could be fixed as easily as rewriting one parameter value for 5 missiles to match the remaining two parameter values? 4. And finally, if yes, could you please prioritize this in your future updates? If you've survived to the merge (the end of my post), thank you and congratulations. I wish you the very best of luck in improving and maintaining the game that we all love and enjoy so much. Best regards, Merrek

Hi everyone, The threat rings associated with the Essex are much smaller than expected. The sensor ring is only 15 km, far below the instrumented ranges of the radars. The SC-2 for instance has a maximum instrumented range of ~120 km [source] and the SK-2 up to 320 - 600 km [source]. The weapons ring is only 4 km, it should be >16 km [source] To fix these issues, change "GT.airWeaponDist" on line 78 to 16000 (on this trajectory chart, the maximum range is ~17000-17300 yards) and change "GT.airFindDist =" to at least 321868.8 (i.e. 200 statute miles).

Tiny Tim rockets should fall freely upon release for a moment in order to clear the propeller. However in-game the rocket fires immediately and they go through said propeller. image.png Video (timestamped) of Tiny Tim launches from a Corsair: https://youtu.be/kHp7OZXrtC0?si=990B0RY7bZ-r_fOw&t=98

I'm sure its been discussed but is there any words that we are getting these cool bad boys? Figured with the F35 we might be getting these.

The radar and weapons of the F1 are something that has been keeping me busy for the past six months. This post isn’t necessarily to prove any capabilities of the plane, I mostly want to get some other people's opinion and maybe a response from the devs themselves on this. I will post links to the sources where I got my information from and add translations to English if needed at the end of the post. Part 1 - The Radar I love the Mirage F1 and I think that Aerges has done an amazing job so far. I very much enjoy the way the Mirage planes have been designed internally; thus, I also enjoy flying the Mirage 2000. Both Mirages we have in DCS have been concepted as interceptors/fighters and both excel when used accordingly. Still, they are not limited to only carrying air to air weaponry. For Example: Low drag bombs, high drag bombs, rockets, runway bombs and laser guided bombs with no self lasing capabilities. Whilst it is more of an art dropping bombs in the F1, the Mirage 2000 is quite a modern plane with the ability of dropping bombs via the radar in CCIP and CCRP modes. From what I could gather the F1M with the upgraded HUD and radar should also be able to drop bombs in CCIP and CCRP mode as well. Now, this pretty much brings me to my first point of discussion. I have been reading into all the different versions of the Cyrano IV radar to get an idea about what to expect from the F1M once we get our hands on it and tried to compile it into an infographic describing the different versions. The functions we currently have with the F1EE are pretty much equal to the Cyrano IV-3 with limited look down ability and ground mapping. It probably comes down to the radar not being finished yet. The manual by Aerges shows all the settings on the function indicator (Page 104) with an inoperable blind penetration mode and air-ground telemetry mode. This makes it seems more like the Cyrano IVM. The description on the Steam page says the module comes with the Cyrano IVM as well. On a Spanish forum I found this description of the different versions of the Cyrano IV and it says this about the Cyrano IVM (translated): This would correlate to the description of the manual except for the air to sea mode. Air to ground telemetry seems to be a different name for air to ground ranging, which should be what is used for CCIP and CCRP (Taken from Chucks guide for the Mirage 2000, chapter 4.1 explaining “Télémétrie Air-Sol” translated as “Air-to-Ground Ranging Mode”). I don’t know weather an air to ground ranging mode automatically enables CCIP/CCRP capabilities though or if some sort of designation ability is needed. Also the F1CE seems to have the same radar in-game. Maybe someone can clear this up for me, also which version exactly we have or are getting. I sadly couldn’t find any information specifically on the Spanish versions of the F1. I could imagine that the F1M would either include all the abilities of all previous versions since it pretty much was the last time the Cyrano IV was used in an upgrade, or a combination of the Cyrano IVM and IVMR which also was used by France in the Mirage F1CT upgrades. Part 2 - The Weapons Now before I get into all the information I’ve gathered about armament the Mirage F1 could carry, I want to say the following: I know that some of the weapons I will talk about have not been used by the versions of the F1 we are getting for DCS. Now, except Aerges decides to do more playable versions of the F1 in the future, this definitely will be the only time we get a thoroughly simulated Mirage F1 in an environment that also simulates usable weaponry in the next years, maybe even for the next decade. There simply will not be a second developer developing a Mirage F1 for DCS. This probably is a whole other discussion about how far you can go into adding weapons not carried by the real plane. Whilst I fully agree that one should not add a targeting pod if there wasn’t one in real life, because you would have to make up a whole page for the MFD, I think that if the capability of a weapon is based on hardpoint wiring (not talking about being a smart hardpoint or not) it simply is so far under the hood that it should not matter for DCS. Obviously, one should not argue about adding weapons that weren’t used by any version of the airplane. But if it isn’t too farfetched technically, I don’t see why one should not add a weapon. I personally would be somewhat disappointed in not being able to enjoy some of the weapons that were used by other F1 versions because of absolute “realism”. For the people interested in absolute realism the DCS mission editor allows to disable certain weapons from use. At the end of the day this is also about me being interested in having a capable, non-American, true multirole aircraft (besides the JF-17) in DCS. I already love the F1 though, this is not about having it as capable as possible. Now I would like to state some information I’ve found online about a few weapons. Again, I don’t necessarily try to prove certain capability for those weapons. I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable source for these kind of things, but I used it anyway to underline a claim if there is another source claiming similar/the same facts. Martel / ARMAT I want to start off with the MARTEL and ARMAT anti-radiation missiles. It is somewhat complicated to find something about which air forces used these weapons on which plane. The Iraqis have definitely used them on their F1EQs. A small Danish website about plane facts claims that the Kuwaiti have used the ARMAT on their F1CKs. A stat page about the Mirage F1CK-2 on CMANO-DB also lists the ARMAT as a used weapon. Wikipedia also suggests that the ARMAT was in use with the Kuwaiti air force. The German Wikipedia article of the MARTEL claims that 25 ARMAT were delivered to Kuwait. The Kuwaiti F1CK-1 are equal to the general F1C model, and the later F1CK-2 are equal to the F1E. This would suggest that the version the F1 we already have in game probably are capable to launch the MARTEL/ARMAT ARM. If I find more information on this, I will add it here later. AS-30 Next, I want to talk about the AS-30 and AS-30L missile. F1EQs of the Iraqi air force used AS-30L during the Iran-Iraq war. The Wikipedia page of the AS-30 links to an external image of a French F1 firing an AS-30L. The F1 in the picture is one of the later F1CR or F1CT as it has a laser spot tracker below the cockpit. I would think that the AS-30L does not have any special launch constraints and will simply track a laser after launch with a pre-set code as most laser guided weapons. From what I could gather, only the South African F1AZ/CZ used the regular AS-30 with MCLOS guidance. I don’t know how farfetched (probably a lot) this one would be, as especially the F1AZ were specifically made for ground attack with heavy modifications to the ground attack suite compared to all other F1 versions. The laser guided version seems to be technically possible though. AM39 Exocet This last one has been discussed a lot. The AM39 Exocet. I found this to be a rather complex one. Only the Iraqi F1EQ have fired Exocets and these have a version of the Cyrano IV with a special designation, namely the Cyrano IVM3. On a Spanish forum there was a post made by someone about the Cyrano radar in the Venezuelan Mirage 5 and he said the following about the Iraqi F1EQs and the Cyrano IVM3 (translated): Interestingly the late upgrade of the Mirage 5 of Venezuela, the Mirage 50EV, was upgraded with the Cyrano IVM3 radar as well and was fully capable of launching Exocets as stated on Wikipedia. Though, not only did the radar get replaced, but the inertial navigation system (INS) as well. It was replaced by one made by SAGEM. Coincidentally SAGEM is the company producing the Uliss INS. This makes it likely that in the case of the Mirage 50EV there also was a link between the INS and radar. Coming to the F1M upgrade made for Spain. The Wikipedia page mentions that part of the upgrade was “…added anti shipping capability with a modernised Cyrano IVM radar…” suggesting again that this last version of the Cyrano IV does incorporate all functions of previous versions (Cyrano IVM, IVMR, IVM3). Besides, right afterwards Exocet compatibility gets mentioned. Here the full paragraph: To double down on this, I found an article from 2011 in the “Archivo Mirage” about the Cyrano IV radars history and it states the radar of the F1M being “…digitised, as its readings can be displayed on a colour multifunction display … replacing the old monochrome display”. Further the following is said: This should basically be it. The “digitised” Cyrano IVM can communicate with other systems and thus probably also with the INS. This possibly brings it down to being a wiring issue first and foremost. Because of all this I don’t think it would be that farfetched to add the Exocet to the F1M. Again, this could be disabled in the mission editor by the people that don’t like it. Also, this probably is out of the scope for the DCS Mirage F1, but another article on “Archivo Mirage” about the Mirage F1 MF2000 by ASTRAC mentions Exocet capability. Yes, it has a different radar and a "GPS-upgraded SIGMA 95 laser gyro intertial navigator" but also uses the 1553 data bus for the systems. This also somewhat reinforces the claim that Exocet capability is dependent on a link between radar and INS. Again, I am first and foremost interested in opinions on all this and maybe a response from the devs. I may or may not have missed something as I am finishing this with a headache. Source as links and translations as PDF files: Archivo Mirage Cyrano Article: https://archivomirage.blogspot.com/2011/01/radar-thomson-csf-cyrano-iv.html Archivo Mirage on MF2000: https://archivomirage.blogspot.com/2009/07/le-bourget-2009-astrac-presenta-el.html Zona Militare about Cyrano IV: https://www.zona-militar.com/foros/threads/caracteristicas-tecnicas-del-cyrano-iv.3313/ ARMAT Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARMAT MARTEL German Wikipedia page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS.37_Martel Mirage F1 Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_F1 Mirage 5 Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_5 Kampfly.dk on Kuwait F1: http://www.kampfly.dk/Flysiden/Fly/Dassault/MirageF1KW.htm GermanMARTELWikipage.pdf ArchivoMirageCyranoArticle.pdf ArchivoMirageMirageF1ASTRACArticle.pdf ZonaMilitareCyranoPost.pdf Kampflydk.pdf

i bought this plane 'cos i like it a lot in IL2. But in DCS it seems f.i. the whole weapons addressing IS ONE BIG MESS. Sometimes they work, but more often not, after a game restart with the same mission and controller settings. Of course in RL you got only one chance to fire rockets, but its frustration with target practicing they wont just reload. For an expensive plane module it's a shame that all seem rather unfinished business. I am now really reluctant about buying any new plane module for DCS. Got a few planes on my wish-list, but this selling policy IMO sucks. Also the reason i tested the i-16 trial version, but decided not to buy it having other issues.

Hi everyone, its nice to see an improvement on SA2 and SA3 guide methods to an accurate model, but after the latest patch the kill radius of SA2 seems a bit bigger than it should be, is this correct? Some pilots stated that those SAMs tend to explode far from the target due to poor eletronics, does this mean that the plane will be destroyed?

Hi everyone, as the tittle says, the second stage of SA5 is still smokeless. despite the proper correction on SA2 and SA3, even adding atm temp to the equation, the SA5 missile still remains smokeless in all temperatures and altitudes.

This issue is on since the last patch where aim120 and sidewiders started to levae smoke trails based on its altitude, but HARMs does not seem to follow the same rule, this is not correct right?

Hi everyone, attached are two trackfiles that shows SA2 and SA3 missing the target, but the problem here is that despite the proximity to the target the missiles does not explode, acting like some kind of contact fuze and not prox fuse. Some reports from 70s, 80s and 90s says that those old SAMs are prone to explode in proximity to the target, not always a killing the target but due to their poor elotronics it simply explode. I think that those poximty fuzes or proximity equations should be tuned to better represent those SAM systems. SA2_PF_1.trk SAM_PF_2.trk

These are quick and simple F/A-18C weapon practice missions. They are designed to get you quickly in a position to practice the use of a particular weapon. There are multiple targets generated randomly so normally each flight should be different. There are now 22 missions, but I will be adding to these as time goes on. 1 GBU12 laser guided bombs, Target located and lased by JTAC, Day time. 2 GBU12 laser guided bombs, Target located and lased by JTAC, Night time. 3 GBU12 laser guided bombs, Target located by JTAC using IR beam only, Pilot to locate and self lase, Night time. 4 AGM65E laser guided Air to Ground Missiles, Target located and lased by JTAC, Day time. 5 AGM65E laser guided Air to Ground Missiles, Target located and lased by JTAC, Night time. 6 AGM65F IR guided Air to Ground Missiles, Target located by JTAC using IR beam only, Pilot to locate and designate using TGP and Mav screen, Night time. 7 Cannon attack on Unarmed Convoy, Target located and marked by JTAC (WP), Day. 8 Cannon attack on Unarmed Convoy, Target located and marked by JTAC (WP), Night time. 9 Cannon attack on Armed Convoy, Target located and marked by JTAC (WP), Day. 10 Cannon attack on Armed Convoy, Target located and marked by JTAC (WP), Night time. 11 Hydra 70 Rocket attack on Unarmed Convoy, Target located and marked by JTAC (WP), Day. 12 Hydra 70 Rocket attack on Unarmed Convoy, Target located and marked by JTAC (WP), Night time. 13 Hydra 70 Rocket attack on Armed Convoy, Target located and marked by JTAC (WP), Day. 14 Hydra 70 Rocket attack on Armed Convoy, Target located and marked by JTAC (WP), Night time. 15 127 Zuni Mk24 Rocket attack on Unarmed Convoy, Target located and marked by JTAC (WP), Day. 16 127 Zuni Mk24 Rocket attack on Unarmed Convoy, Target located and marked by JTAC (WP), Night time. 17 127 Zuni Mk24 Rocket attack on Armed Convoy, Target located and marked by JTAC (WP), Day. 18 127 Zuni Mk24 Rocket attack on Armed Convoy, Target located and marked by JTAC (WP), Night time. 19 Mk84 2000llb Dumb Bombs on Chemical Plant, Located by JTAC with no mark, Radar only no TGP, Rain Overcast with Fog very poor vis, Day. 20 Mk84 2000llb Dumb Bombs on Chemical Plant, Located by JTAC with no mark, Radar only no TGP, Rain Overcast with Fog very poor vis, Night. 21 GBU31 2000llb JDAMs on Chemical Plant, Located by JTAC with no mark, Radar only no TGP, Rain Overcast with Fog very poor vis, Day. 22 GBU31 2000llb JDAMs on Chemical Plant, Located by JTAC with no mark, Radar only no TGP, Rain Overcast with Fog very poor vis, Day. Available from the User Files here : Badger633 F/A-18C Weapons Practice, Multiple Quick Missions. 16 Dec 24. NOTE: Be sure to set in settings, sound as in helmet and easy radio off. When this is the case the '\' key will only work on the ground. If you are using Radio 1 (Pri) the standard binding is 'LCtrl + /' If you are using Radio 2 (Aux) the standard binding is 'RCtrl + \' . If you do not use these bindings you will not be able to communicate. Check that these are your current bindings in the controls menu under HOTAS. Enjoy Badger633

Hi everyone, At the moment, when a ship comes under attack the AI makes no attempt to manoeuvre defensively and accelerate, be it to try jinking to avoid fire from naval guns or trying to make a bombing run just that little bit harder, or to unmask defensive weapons. This not only makes ships easier to hit, but it also is something that's very easy to exploit and game to increase your chances of successfully engaging a ship, sometimes significantly so, simply by attacking from a direction where the ship's more effective defensive weapons are masked. It would be better if ships would accelerate and jink to avoid weapons fire and to manoeuvre so to unmask defensive weapons systems. The same could also apply when engaging surface targets with guns (and some AI ships already manoeuvre to engage targets with anti-ship missiles or torpedoes). Ideally, there would be some decision making logic for the AI, so that it can deal with multiple threats, taking into account the speed at which the ship can turn, the direction of the threat, the arcs of weapons and the threat's ETA. Perhaps how fast the AI reacts and how effectively they open up firing arcs could be determined by the skill level. Like aircraft, there should also be a setting in the advanced waypoint options/triggered actions to control whether the AI should react or not. As an example, I've got 2 tracks below where I have an OHP firing an RGM-84 at a single Tarantul III. In the first track, the incoming missiles[note 1] approach from its port quarter and the AK-630s successfully manage to defend the ship (despite the FCR for said AK-630s being masked). In the second track, I have the missiles approach from directly ahead - despite the ship definitely detecting the threat (when the Tarantul III switches from alarm state green to red, shutters close on 4 of the bridge windows) it makes no attempt to unmask its defenses. Seeing as the AK-176 in DCS, like almost every other naval gun, is only capable of engaging surface targets[note 2], this renders the ship as good as defenseless from attacks from this direction. Numerous ships also have blind zones where certain defensive weapons cannot engage, or would improve their chances of successfully defending themselves: The Grisha V has a close-in weapons system and a naval gun on the stern, which cannot engage directly forward. The ship would be able to better defend itself if it would turn to unmask these weapons (especially when the SA-N-4 only has a single target channel and only 2 missiles ready to fire before needing to reload, making it relatively easy to saturate). Conversely, the SA-N-4 system cannot engage targets approaching from astern. The Oliver Hazard Perry and Invincible have SAM systems that also cannot engage approaching from astern. The OHP also has a CIWS (and a naval gun) that cannot engage targets directly ahead. Incidentally the STIR is masked when firing SM-1MRs (the SAM the OHP should be firing) directly forward (though the Mk 92 FCS can also provide an illumination channel forward and the STIR doesn't even exist in DCS, when it absolutely should if the OHP has Mk 13 GMLS). The Krivak II could perform double the number of intercepts with its SA-N-4 systems, if it places the target on the ship's beam. It would also unmask the 2 AK-100 guns (if they would engage airborne targets). The Slava's close-in weapons systems have an aft blind zone and the SA-N-6's FCR is masked directly forward at low altitude, the SA-N-4 is also masked directly forward. Placing the threat on the ship's beam allows all 3 weapon systems to engage, maximising the chances of interception. Notes: While the behaviour has changed somewhat, AI ships still don't respect weapon release settings in terms of quantity, attack quantity or group attack. See this thread. Nearly every naval gun currently in DCS should have dual purpose capability, often firing dedicated rounds. The AK-176 can fire the ZS-62 projectile, which contains 400 g of AI-X-2 explosive, with an AR-51L radar proximity fuse that functions up to 8 m away from the target. The AK-100, AK-130, Mark 75 and Mark 45 guns all have proximity-fused rounds available. Unfortunately, with a single exception, they all are only capable of engaging surface targets, with a high-explosive, impact-fused round. See this thread. Tarantul_III_RGM-84_attack1.trk Tarantul_III_RGM-84_attack2.trk

Hello everyone, I want to create triggers that will activate when any kind of weapon is in the zone - any missile, any bomb. What I want to do is activate the trigger whenever a runway is hit with a bomb or missile, but I don't want to create triggers with a gazillion lines. I'm hoping there's an easier way to do this than I know of. I don't fully understand all the trigger options, although I've been reading through the documentation. I considered LUA scripting but if you knew me you'd know I should stay away from that - I could very well start a real war. So does anyone have a direction they can point me? I'm happy to do the work as long as I can get a general idea of what options to use. Thanks, Dave

Hi, after some time playing on the weapon operator seat, I am not able to fire ATGM from pylons 5-8, usually when you select any pylon from station 1-4 you hear the ready to launch tone, but nothing happens when stations 5-8 are selected. UPDATE: when carrying only the ATGM there is no problem, things go wrong when carrying MG pods combined with ATGM, maybe it is bugged

When using the payload restriction feature(btw great feature guys) I noticed it takes a lot of time to find specific weapon. What if there was a search bar to make finding specific weapons easier.

Current behavior in-game: the AN-M64 bombs used by the F-86F in-game are apparently different from the AN-M64s used on the P-51 and P-47, and cannot accept custom fuzes the way the same bombs carried by those aircraft can. It also features the older weapon image on the loadout panel, further suggesting it is coded as a different weapon. Expected Behavior: the in-game bomb should be the same as that used on the P-51 and P-47.

Hi ED, With ground crew being an area that's going to be worked on, would it be feasible to implement arm-disarm pads for airfields, FOB's and FARP's? Whether they are set locations on airfields, or users can place them in the mission editor? This would add another degree of realism and tie into the ground crew functionality you are currently working on. It could also be selected as a tick box in missions if Arm-Disarm Pads are required or not. It would mean players would need to taxi to the pads prior to departure to have their weapons armed, and safe any unused weapons on return to an aerodrome. It would be great if scripting and animations occurred where ground crew approach and arm the weapons, but I appreciate this would be a rather intensive task; it could just entail groundcrew taxing you onto the pad, instructing you to hold, your weapons are armed, and they simply shoo you on your merry way. EOR pads could be implemented as well, but I don't think there's much of an argument or game improving mechanic for them. Interested on your thoughts on this, and if there's any interest from the community to adding this. Appreciate this is niche, but thought it would make a cool little game mechanic considering DCS World's realism aims. Note: the attachment is from publicly available information https://buildingcriteria1.tpub.com/ufc_3_260_01/index.htm

was wondering if we'll get to see the BME-330s, the retarded versions of the BR.250s and the BR series of bombs itself on the centerline CLB-4 rack in our DCS mirage F1, as they were used in this plane by the spanish airforce and i dont believe they've been mentioned in any upcoming weapons list some examples of them in this aircraft below BME-330 BRP/BRPS.250 BR series in CLB-4 rack (BRP.250s specifically in these pictures)

I've been playing for a few days now. I've done all the training for the SU-25 and have pretty good understanding of how the plane and weapon systems work. I loaded into my first mission which is a escort/search and destroy mission. first time I couldn't get the LA for anti radar missiles no matter what range I was at and then lost my lock and couldn't get it back. figured I had done something wrong. I have replayed the anti radar training multiple times and know I'm doing everything right. everything works well in the training but when it comes mission time I still cant get the LA to fire. I figured out the lock issue but I still cant get weapons the fire. step by step I fly for 20 minutes on auto pilot. get enemy radar contact. turn off auto pilot. switch to air to ground mode. turn on targeting pod. make sure Anti radar missiles are selected. lock on radar signature. make sure range carrot is within parameters. squeeze trigger and nothing. idk what's going on. I'm sure its user error but idk what I'm doing wrong I'm following the training to a T and its not working. thanks in advance.

Yes please in the next beta update, slide in the AGM-88 HARM as it's now an official Ukrainian MiG-29 Fulcrum weapon. Be so awesome even if I could only fire in "Self Protect" and/or "Pre-Briefed" mode.

Hi everyone, The 2 Condell-class ships we have have a couple of errors in their weaponry: On either side of the hangar, there are 2 launchers for MM40 Exocet Block 1. Currently, these fire the RGM-84D Harpoon Block IC. The MM40 Block 1 has roughly half the range of the Harpoon (powered by a solid rocket motor as opposed to a turbojet) and a smaller warhead (165 kg HE as opposed to 221 kg penetrating blast-frag). On top of the hangar there's currently a Mk 15 Phalanx Block 1B (PSuM) CIWS. On real images this is actually a Mk 15 Phalanx Block 0, which looks like this (I believe this is an image taken from Invincible post Falklands): Note the shorter, unclamped barrels, lack of Phalanx Thermal Imager and the smaller magazine. Compared with the Block 1B, the Block 0: Has a lower rate of fire (3000 rpm as opposed to 4500 rpm) Has a smaller magazine (989 rounds as opposed to 1550 rounds) Takes far longer to reload (~30 minutes as opposed to <5 minutes) Lacks Phalanx Thermal Imager and so lacks surface-engagement capability (aerial targets only) Has a far smaller elevation range for the acquisition radar (0-5°) as opposed to 0-75° for Block 1 onwards. Has a smaller elevation range (-10°/+80° as opposed to -20°/+85°) Has a slower traverse rate (100°/s as opposed to 115°/s) Has a slower elevation rate (86°/s as opposed to 115°/s) Has shorter (1520 mm as opposed to 2000 mm), unclamped barrels (likely slower muzzle velocity and higher dispersion - though all Phalanx systems have the wrong dispersion in DCS), note that the current muzzle is inaccurate, even for the Block 1B. Fires Mk 149 APDS as opposed to the newer Mk 244 APDS (though, once again, all Phalanx systems fire the wrong rounds in DCS). [source]

Hi everyone, I've got a few requests for the controls: Firstly, it would be good to see a "toggle sight selection" bind added, which when pressed switches between available sights, where applicable (so it starts on say, a day sight, press the bind and it switches to thermal, press it again and you're back to day). At the moment we only have discrete bindings for toggling night sights on/off and toggling thermal sights on/off. Secondly, I'd like to rework how weapon and ammunition is selected: At the moment there are a few keybinds: there's "turret select", "turret weapon select" and "select ammunition feed 1/2". While "turret select" is typically consistent, sometimes "turret weapon select" will cycle between ammunition types and sometimes "select ammunition feed 1/2" will select different ammunition types. Personally, I'd replace these with the following: "Select next/previous weapon" - this should select between wholly different weapons (i.e cannon/coaxial MG/commanders MG/bow MG/missile launchers etc, regardless if they're on the same turret or not). This should not reach and end point, and should cycle back to beginning with subsequent key presses. "Select ammunition type 1/2/3/4/5" - this should select ammunition types for the same weapon (i.e for tank cannons AP/HE etc). Thirdly, would it be possible to assign mousewheel up/down to zoom in and zoom out for sights? Even better is if it would work as it does currently for numerous cameras, and when using fixed sights it adjusts zoom in/zoom out as described.

There is no general wishlist thread si I will add it in Mi-24 section. Currently our HE S-8 is OFP2, a 2007 prototype that never entered service. It would appear that it’s integration into Black Shark/FC3 was from a time when ED was less rigorous in their standard of realism and more open to such things. For example, while the S-8OFP2 in DCS does have the warhead size of the OFP2, and the graphics, it’s motor is identical to S-8KOM/OM/Tsm, whereas OFP2 was suppossed to have much more powerful motor to make up for its around 50% increase in weight. The result is the OFP2 we have is not only a weapon that never entered service, it is arguably the only air launched rocket in DCS with incorrect ballistics. These ballistics being so poor is especially noticeable in Mi-24P, where it’s auto ranging CCIO system measures based off where boresight points. With the poor ballistics of OFP2, pipper is so far below boresight the range is overestimated, and your rockets got long at modest to maximum ranges. This led me to research, and find that not only there was S-8D/S-8DM, an S-8 with thermobaric warhead Worth 5-6 kg equivalent TNT, and around same weight and ballistics as S-8KOM, but it was used in Afghanistan, even if it appears that KOM was and has been the most common and most widely used S-8 variant. Adding it would give Mi-24P, Ka-50, Su-25, Mi-8, MiG-29, Su-27/33/J-11A, and now the HL B8M1 technical an actual accurate HE S-8 rocket that was in service and actually used, as well as it’s large explosive potential making up for the lack of fragmentation modeling that the KOM suffers from (being capable of 400 3 gram fragments). I have a feeling ED is happy with their OFP2, the prototype with incorrect rocket motor that it is. But adding S-8D/DM would go along way to simulating period accurate conflicts and loadouts, and providing fictional scenarios with an actual weapon that was used in service. i know that ED also plans to add flechette version of Hydra rocker, the modeling of witch would be a great opportunity to apply to the S-8 flechette variant. Thank you for reading, my only hope is to see increase the breadth of our simulation EDIT: I guess it has been asked before, more broadly wishing for more S-5/8/13 warhead types. However I think adding D/DM would add the most of any new rocket warhead

The Flight Model of the BGM-109 Tomahawk is broken. While I was operating my mission on the current version(DCS 2.9.3.51704) of the DCS world, I found that the BGM-109 Tomahawk missile was flying at a weird altitude (launched > start level flight at around 3000ft > climbing > hit 8000ft then dive with a shaky maneuver to hit the target) and trajectory compares how it used to. It used to fly at an altitude of ASL 164ft and then pop up 7NM before hitting the target. (please check the 4.9 Mb attached Tacview file / Game version : DCS 2.7.15.26783 ) I attached the test mission on the latest version of DCS World to this post. (1.5Mb Tacview file, 117Kb track file, 9Kb mission file) Please check this problem and I hope this bug is being fixed soon. Tacview-20220709-212501-DCS-Operation Be the Maverick v.06 by 8KIDD8.zip.acmi bgm109 fm test 001 .trk Tacview-20240409-064053-DCS-BGM109 test 001.zip.acmi BGM109 test 001.miz