Overhauling DCS' display names

[Northstar98]

Hi everyone,

 

Something I've never been satisfied with is how DCS names units in the unit listing. It often doesn't use full names, or specific variants, won't include things like NATO reporting names, or even occasionally gets the name wrong.

2.7 did change things a lot, and it largely made things a bit more consistent, but for me it still missed a few things and in some cases it changed for the worse IMO.

What I was in the process of doing, is editing the default .lua files in the database folder of DCS and changing the display names I was then going to bundle them into a folder for a mod, and see what people thought of it. Unfortunately in 2.7, all of those files got hidden and so I'm now unable to do that.

At the moment I've only done the ground and naval units, and for English localisation. I'm pretty much okay with the aircraft as they are, and if I were to make any changes they'd be more minor. The only other one I was going to do is the weapons so it's a bit tidier and more consistent, but I'm going to gauge that on this thread. Another thing I might do is propose a change to the sub categories too, but I'll leave that to a new thread.

I still might tinker around with it, so watch this space for edits, what I currently have in mind is rearranging NATO reporting names and native names for ships, as well as putting the approximate year the ship is a representation of. Anything I've marked with a square bracket and a number is in the spoiler below.

Spoiler

[*1] - GRAD MLRS FDDM from what I can remember this used to be known as the MTLB-U BOMAN, and the best fit I can find online is the 1V12/1V13/1V14/1V15/1V16 "Mashina" KSAUO (probably the 1V16 Battalion Fire Direction Centre) which is based off of the MT-LBu

[*2] - HUMVEE JTAC - I guess this is supposed to be the M1145 HMMWV? Which is the HMMWV designed for FAC role, but then why is this in artillery? Shouldn't an unarmed JTAC vehicle be in 'unarmed'?

[*3] - Unsure on what the project name should be for the Grisha V, some places say Pr. 1124.4, some say Pr. 1124M. Incidentally, and this is a side note, the Grisha V only has a single (starboard) RBU-6000, in DCS both are installed.

[*4] - Our Ticonderoga class has liveries that are for Baseline 3 and 4 ships AFAIK (though going off cmano here, not sure what the differences are), and represents a post 2000s/maybe even 2010s era ship (owing to the presence of Mk38 Mod. 2). Incidentally, should I add in the year the current ships represent where applicable?

[*5] - Our Arleigh-Burke is a later vessel, but it's kinda a hybrid of different members of the Arleigh-Burke Flt. IIA 5"/62. It has the flat funnels found on DDG-89 and onwards, but it has 2 Phalanx which are only found on DDG-81 to DDG-85 (later ships only have the one in the rear). Some members of the included liveries also lack the port on the stern for a towed-array SONAR system. From the included liveries and given the ships have Mk38 Mod. 2, this places them as being ships from 2008 and onwards.

[*6] - Our Oliver Hazard Perry is technically a post 2000s vessel (mid 2000s?) - the STIR is removed, which coincides with when SM-1MR was removed.

I know this is a very nitpicky, rivet-counter-esque request, but let me know what your thoughts on it are, do you like what I've done and prefer it? Do you prefer the current system? Do you prefer the old system? Is there anything you'd do differently?

And of course, if you notice any mistakes, please let me know and I'll make an edit.

Spoiler

Changelog:

• v.1 - initial proposal.

Rename Overhaul (Ground and Naval Units) v.1.xlsx

Edited April 5, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Frederf]

I see a habit of trying to put encyclopedia information into labels, in DCS and elsewhere. The label shouldn't attempt to teach you anything.  The label should be to concisely and accurately inform you what the object is and nothing else. The NATO reporting name should not appear in the designation. That's trivia and is not the job of the label.

 

I think that labels should be the common name potentially preceded by the alphanumeric designation of the originating country if appropriate. A lot of times the designation is unnecessary trivia. It should not include any description of what it is categorically (e.g. truck, helicopter, etc.) the exception being objects which are a system of several objects. Objects of a single system should be preceded by the system name. Ideally the designation helps the readability of the alpha sorted list although the new subcategory system makes this less important. It's clear that extra words were added previously to help the alpha sort group objects by category and should be removed. If a shorter name is sufficient and doesn't risk confusion with another item also modeled in DCS, use the shorter name.

 

Take example:

SAM SA-2 “Guideline” LN

 

Remove "SAM" because it's a categorical description. Change "SA-2" to "S-75" because SA-2 is not the Soviet/Russian designation. Remove "Guideline" because that's not a name from the originating country. Change "LN" to "Launcher" because let's just say it in plain language.

 

S-75 Launcher

or

S-75 Desna Launcher

It's a toss up between calling the system "S-75" or "Desna". More people will know S-75 and it sorts well with S-25, S-125, S-200, etc.

---

 

MANPADS Stinger to Infantry FIM-92   --   SAM Patriot CR (AMG AN/MRC-137) to Patriot Comm Relay Group or Patriot CRG   An example of a good current label is CVN-74 John C. Stennis. It's the alphanumeric designation which fits well in an alpha sort list followed by the common name. Boom, perfect, done. On the other hand HMMWV is not a Jeep, just why.

[Northstar98]

On 4/24/2021 at 12:07 AM, Frederf said:

I see a habit of trying to put encyclopedia information into labels, in DCS and elsewhere. The label shouldn't attempt to teach you anything.

Well it's not so much trying to teach you anything but trying to accommodate people who might be familiar with one or the other (as I was). If they know it via it's native designation, it's there, and if they know it via the NATO reporting name its there too. I'm simply trying to be more precise about it.

This however is solely opinion.

I can only speak for myself, but when I first started, I was clueless about native designations, GRAU index etc, but I was very familiar with NATO reporting names as that's what I was essentially brought up with.

The way I've done is more similar to how for instance, C:MANO/C:MO and SF2 goes about it, giving the full name (C:MANO does both, SF2 used NATO reporting names only).

Quote

The label should be to concisely and accurately inform you what the object is and nothing else.

Well, that's part of what I was trying to achieve, though it isn't concise. But it does inform you accurately, and precisely what the object is, and refers to it by what it's actually called.

I've also been particular about the variant, as I think it's important (particularly if we get additional variants).

Quote

The NATO reporting name should not appear in the designation. That's trivia and is not the job of the label.

I'm going to disagree, but I'll appreciate the feedback.

Quote

I think that labels should be the common name potentially preceded by the alphanumeric designation of the originating country if appropriate.

Sure, but sometimes that originating country's designation isn't what's familiar. When I first started I had no idea what a 1135M Rezky is, but as soon as I looked at it I immediately recognised it as a Krivak II.

I'd expect however that a Russian player is much more familiar with their own native designation, and not the NATO reporting name, so I've included both so both are facilitated.

Quote

A lot of times the designation is unnecessary trivia. It should not include any description of what it is categorically (e.g. truck, helicopter, etc.) the exception being objects which are a system of several objects.

I agree, I think using the prefix SAM, AAA, MBT etc is redundant as that can be handled by the sub-categories or some other category. Plus we can see what the object is in the ME as is, where we can immediately tell what kind of thing it is.

Quote

Take example:

SAM SA-2 “Guideline” LN

 

Remove "SAM" because it's a categorical description. Change "SA-2" to "S-75" because SA-2 is not the Soviet/Russian designation. Remove "Guideline" because that's not a name from the originating country. Change "LN" to "Launcher" because let's just say it in plain language.

I agree with removing SAM for the same reason, a category can take care of that, and the ME 3D view for the loadout makes it clear what it is.

I don't agree with removing the NATO stuff for reasons expressed above - I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here, but again, thanks for the feedback.

Quote

S-75 Launcher

or

S-75 Desna Launcher

My problem with this is it's very ambiguous, if you wanted to check the performance, we'll need to know the exact variant.

There are at least 6 major variants of the S-75 system and at least 20 missile variants (not counting experimental/test missiles, and excluding the naval M-2 Volkhov-M system).

We know that the missile it fires is the V-755, which corresponds to the S-75M Volkhov [SA-2d Guideline Mod 1], the launcher itself is called SM-90 and AFAIK it's common to both - all I've done is put them together to reduce the ambiguity to a minimum while facilitating players who know either of the 2 predominant designations.

To further highlight it, I've never heard it called Desna, and not only that AFAIK it's the wrong name for it (from what I can find). We have a variant of the S-75M which is called "Volkhov", (and we're using what NATO refers to as Fan Song E (SNR-75M3?), and the V-755 missile which corresponds to what NATO refers to as the SA-2d). Dvina refers to the original S-75 variant [SA-2a Guideline], using the original RADAR (SNR-75 [Fan Song A]); "Desna" refers to an upgraded S-75 variant, using the SNR-75M [NATO: Fan Song B] TTR/FCR.

Quote

It's a toss up between calling the system "S-75" or "Desna". More people will know S-75 and it sorts well with S-25, S-125, S-200, etc.

This really depends on where they're from though doesn't it?

NATO members (particularly native English speakers) are probably going to be more familiar with the NATO reporting name (as I was), and players from ex Warsaw Pact countries are probably going to be more familiar with the native designation.

By including both, both types of players are covered - neither is at the expense of another, and it should be convenient for both.

Quote

MANPADS Stinger to Infantry FIM-92

Again, I don't like the ambiguity and imprecision, and it would be especially problematic if we got a different stinger variant. On my list I used MANPADS to differentiate it between the Stinger commander.

Quote

SAM Patriot CR (AMG AN/MRC-137)

to

Patriot Comm Relay Group

or

Patriot CRG

Well here the real thing is actually called the AN/MRC-137 AMG, where AMG stands for antenna mast group. I don't like the idea of calling it Patriot CRG, I'd look at it and go what the heck is that? The AN/MRC-137 is what the system is actually called (going further I could call it Patriot AN/MRC-137 GRC (OE-139 AMG)).

Quote

An example of a good current label is CVN-74 John C. Stennis.

Yes and I left it the way it is. This is because it's a unique vessel and as such it should be referred to by it's unique name.

Quote

On the other hand HMMWV is not a Jeep, just why.

Agreed.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Northstar98]

Updated for 2.7.2.7910.1

Spoiler

[1]Instead of having several different ZU-23-2s (i.e just on its own and in an emplacement), why not just have 1 ZU-23-2, and then have the emplacement as a static object? (Kinda like the Freya LZ and it's concrete and brick bunkers). For insurgent variants, wouldn't this be better if it was just a unique unit for insurgents, with the same name, but different operators? Everything else is identical apart from the crew modules.

A better solution would be to just have an empty unit and then group it with a couple of soldiers, and who you group it with determines the operator.

[2] -- The 9K38 Igla uses the same 9M324 missile of the 9K338 Igla-S MANPADS, so technically, this is just a renamed Igla-S.

[3] -- There isn't a single Ural-375 unit in DCS, they are all Ural-4320s.

[4] -- The tank depicted is not a Mk. 3, the best fit is probably a Mk. 7/L. See here for more details.

[5] -- Unsure what variant our M60A3 is, it would make the most sense if it was an M60A3 TTS, in which case TTS should be appended to the proposed names.

[6] -- Unsure exactly what vehicle this is, but the 1V14 sounds like the best fit, though it (and the series it's based on) is for gun-based artillery, not sure if it can command rocket artillery.

[7] -- Why is there a dedicated unit for the exact same vehicle firing a rocket with a different warhead? Shouldn't it just be a loadout option (i.e select between the cluster munition dispenser and HE)

[8] -- Not sure what exactly this vehicle is called, but it's definitely based on the MAZ-543.

[9] -- This is actually a KrAZ-238B (unsure if a baseline B or a B1).

[10] -- This is actually a duplicate of the above as there isn't a Ural-375 in DCS - they are all Ural-4320s. In DCS the -375 just has a flat-bed, and the -4320 is covered. Ideally the covering would just be a configuration option (so you start off with a base vehicle, and then in the ME you can change the configuration (flat-bed empty, tented, KUNG etc).

[11] -- As with [10] with regards to the configuration options should we get other ZIL-131s (should be a configuration option).

[12] -- The Grisha V IRL only has the single (port) RBU-6000, our one has both.

[13] -- Our Arleigh-Burke, despite having liveries of the 1 CIWS variant (DDG-85 to -112) and restart ships (DDG-113 to -115), is actually somewhat of a Frankenstein ship. See here for details.

[14] -- For some reason, ED decided to do a post 2000s OHP, with the STIR removed. IRL the STIR was removed at the same time as the Mk. 13 Mod. 4 GMLS, so the ship shouldn't even have any missile capability to speak of. I'm unsure if STIR is the only source of CW illumination (needed for the SM-1MR's SARH only guidance) or whether the Mk92 CAS can provide it too, with the STIR acting as a second fire-control channel. Also, in DCS, the ship is firing SM-2MR, IRL USN OHP's only fired SM-1MR (RIM-66E SM-1MR Block VI from.

Rename Overhaul (Ground and Naval Units) v.1.5.xlsx

Edited April 5, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Northstar98]

Updated for 2.7.5.10869

Spoiler

Corrected names

Rename Overhaul (Ground and Naval Units) v.1.5.3.xlsx

Edited April 5, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, updated

[upyr1]

On 4/23/2021 at 6:07 PM, Frederf said:

I see a habit of trying to put encyclopedia information into labels, in DCS and elsewhere. The label shouldn't attempt to teach you anything.  The label should be to concisely and accurately inform you what the object is and nothing else. The NATO reporting name should not appear in the designation. That's trivia and is not the job of the label.

The names need to provide enough information to be useful.

Let's take your example

On 4/23/2021 at 6:07 PM, Frederf said:

Take example:

SAM SA-2 “Guideline” LN

 

Remove "SAM" because it's a categorical description. Change "SA-2" to "S-75" because SA-2 is not the Soviet/Russian designation. Remove "Guideline" because that's not a name from the originating country. Change "LN" to "Launcher" because let's just say it in plain language.

 

S-75 Launcher

or

S-75 Desna Launcher

It's a toss up between calling the system "S-75" or "Desna". More people will know S-75 and it sorts well with S-25, S-125, S-200, etc.

I think it would be better to have both the NATO and Soviet/Russian designations as proposed. Though a toggle where we can switch between native, NATO and both might be nice as well.  

[Sonoda Umi]

Personally, it should provide options for different players.

I.e. for Soviet/Russian equipment, it should provide 2 choices to display names at least: Original Russian Names and NATO codes, for preference of players.

[upyr1]

On 6/21/2022 at 11:15 PM, Sonoda Umi said:

Personally, it should provide options for different players.

I.e. for Soviet/Russian equipment, it should provide 2 choices to display names at least: Original Russian Names and NATO codes, for preference of players.

The only disagreement I have is that I think there should be an option of both. I figure some people might know the NATO designations better, some might know the Russian designations better but then there are some people who know both equally as well or poorly and get things mixed up. 

[upyr1]

On 4/23/2021 at 4:43 PM, Northstar98 said:

Hi everyone,

 

Something I've never been satisfied with is how DCS names units in the unit listing. It often doesn't use full names, or specific variants, won't include things like NATO reporting names, or even occasionally gets the name wrong.

2.7 did change things a lot, and it largely made things a bit more consistent, but for me it still missed a few things and in some cases it changed for the worse IMO.

What I was in the process of doing, is editing the default .lua files in the database folder of DCS and changing the display names I was then going to bundle them into a folder for a mod, and see what people thought of it. Unfortunately in 2.7, all of those files got hidden and so I'm now unable to do that.

At the moment I've only done the ground and naval units, and for English localisation. I'm pretty much okay with the aircraft as they are, and if I were to make any changes they'd be more minor. The only other one I was going to do is the weapons so it's a bit tidier and more consistent, but I'm going to gauge that on this thread. Another thing I might do is propose a change to the sub categories too, but I'll leave that to a new thread.

I still might tinker around with it, so watch this space for edits, what I currently have in mind is rearranging NATO reporting names and native names for ships, as well as putting the approximate year the ship is a representation of. Anything I've marked with a square bracket and a number is in the spoiler below.

  Hide contents

[*1] - GRAD MLRS FDDM from what I can remember this used to be known as the MTLB-U BOMAN, and the best fit I can find online is the 1V12/1V13/1V14/1V15/1V16 "Mashina" KSAUO (probably the 1V16 Battalion Fire Direction Centre) which is based off of the MT-LBu

[*2] - HUMVEE JTAC - I guess this is supposed to be the M1145 HMMWV? Which is the HMMWV designed for FAC role, but then why is this in artillery? Shouldn't an unarmed JTAC vehicle be in 'unarmed'?

[*3] - Unsure on what the project name should be for the Grisha V, some places say Pr. 1124.4, some say Pr. 1124M. Incidentally, and this is a side note, the Grisha V only has a single (starboard) RBU-6000, in DCS both are installed.

[*4] - Our Ticonderoga class has liveries that are for Baseline 3 and 4 ships AFAIK (though going off cmano here, not sure what the differences are), and represents a post 2000s/maybe even 2010s era ship (owing to the presence of Mk38 Mod. 2). Incidentally, should I add in the year the current ships represent where applicable?

[*5] - Our Arleigh-Burke is a later vessel, but it's kinda a hybrid of different members of the Arleigh-Burke Flt. IIA 5"/62. It has the flat funnels found on DDG-89 and onwards, but it has 2 Phalanx which are only found on DDG-81 to DDG-85 (later ships only have the one in the rear). Some members of the included liveries also lack the port on the stern for a towed-array SONAR system. From the included liveries and given the ships have Mk38 Mod. 2, this places them as being ships from 2008 and onwards.

[*6] - Our Oliver Hazard Perry is technically a post 2000s vessel (mid 2000s?) - the STIR is removed, which coincides with when SM-1MR was removed.

I know this is a very nitpicky, rivet-counter-esque request, but let me know what your thoughts on it are, do you like what I've done and prefer it? Do you prefer the current system? Do you prefer the old system? Is there anything you'd do differently?

And of course, if you notice any mistakes, please let me know and I'll make an edit.

  Hide contents

Changelog:

• v.1 - initial proposal.

Rename Overhaul (Ground and Naval Units) v.1.xlsx 15.88 kB · 104 downloads

 

Over all I like it, 

 

[Seaeagle]

Just to chime in;

In my opinion, there is no need for complicated solutons such as optional display modes or drop down boxes. Its quite possible to make short and concise display names that include both "native" designations as well as the NATO reporting names. 

For the Russian naval units I would propose the following format;

Rus type & designation [NATO type & reporting name]	Optional individual unit name(s) for singletons/mirror entries
TAVKR 1143.5 [CV Kuznetsov]	"Admiral Kuznetsov"
TAKR 1144.2 [CGN Kirov]	"Pyotr Velikiy"
RKR 1164 [CG Slava]	"Moskva", "Marshal Ustinov",  "Varyag"
SKR 1135M [FFG Krivak II]

 

 

 

 

...etc.

Sub variants of a class would simply be separate entries - e..g.

SKR 1154 [FFG Neustrashimy]	"Neustrashimy"
SKR 1154.1 [FFG Neustrashimy]	"Yaruslav Mudry"

 

 

For US ships it could be something like;

DDG-51 flgt I [Arleigh Burke]	DDG-52 "Barry", DDG-61 "Ramage"
DDG-51 flgt IIA [Arleigh Burke]	DDG-82 "Lassen", DDG-85 "McCambell"

 

 

..etc.

[Northstar98]

17 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

Just to chime in;

In my opinion, there is no need for complicated solutons such as optional display modes or drop down boxes. Its quite possible to make short and concise display names that include both "native" designations as well as the NATO reporting names. 

For the Russian naval units I would propose the following format;

Rus type & designation [NATO type & reporting name]	Optional individual unit name(s) for singletons/mirror entries
TAVKR 1143.5 [CV Kuznetsov]	"Admiral Kuznetsov"
TAKR 1144.2 [CGN Kirov]	"Pyotr Velikiy"
RKR 1164 [CG Slava]	"Moskva", "Marshal Ustinov",  "Varyag"
SKR 1135M [FFG Krivak II]

 

 

 

 

...etc.

Sub variants of a class would simply be separate entries - e..g.

SKR 1154 [FFG Neustrashimy]	"Neustrashimy"
SKR 1154.1 [FFG Neustrashimy]	"Yaruslav Mudry"

 

 

For US ships it could be something like;

DDG-51 flgt I [Arleigh Burke]	DDG-52 "Barry", DDG-61 "Ramage"
DDG-51 flgt IIA [Arleigh Burke]	DDG-82 "Lassen", DDG-85 "McCambell"

 

 

..etc.

This is all well and good for naval units (though personally, I prefer including the native name, not just the project number (and for the latter, I'd include Pr. to denote project, as I feel that makes it more obvious for people completely unfamiliar with them), I also would omit 'DDG-51' and just call it "Arleigh Burke Flight IIa DDG" (in the system proposed, the square brackets are solely for denoting NATO reporting names or export variants (only really for the HQ-7b) where applicable).

But what about SAM systems? Under the current system - in order to tell you which goes with which, they include the system designation (and an ambiguous one at that) onto every individual component, lengthening names unnecessarily IMO, sub-categorisation where the system is the title of a collapsible menu and the components listed below would make it look much cleaner.

E.g SAM SA-10 S-300 "Grumble" Low Alt SR 5N66M

Which, aside from having to include the system it belongs to is also formatted weirdly:

• Personally I feel like "SAM" is redundant, it's located in the air defence category and its 3D model can be previewed in the mission editor.
• Why does it go NATO, native and then back to NATO? Surely native, native, NATO, NATO (where applicable) makes more sense.
• This one in particular has the radar type before naming the radar - everything else has the radar type after. On a related note, this one uses the GRAU index (which I otherwise support), but everything else uses the NATO reporting name.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Northstar98

[Seaeagle]

14 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

This is all well and good for naval units (though personally, I prefer including the native name, not just the project number (and for the latter, I'd include Pr. to denote project, as I feel that makes it more obvious for people completely unfamiliar with them),

The rationale behind my suggestion is to keep display names as short as possible, while providing accurate unit designations.  I am somewhat out of the loop as far as DCS is concerned, so I don't know exactly how they are used now. But earlier on, the display names where used in all sorts of cirdumstances like in-game action labels, debriefings etc, where those very long winded ones were awekward and  looked silly.

So I left out "Project"(or "Pr.") from the Russian designation and also " - class" from the NATO reporting name for the above reason. IMHO they are not needed, and I see no reason for including Rus codename either - same way as I don't think we need "F-15C Eagle" or F-16C Flying Falcon" for aircraft  . 

Anyway, the above proposal is the user friendly version - Ideally I would just ditch the NATO part entirely and just use  native designations for everything regrdless of origin......but I doubt that would acceptable.

 

14 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I also would omit 'DDG-51' and just call it "Arleigh Burke Flight IIa DDG" (in the system proposed, the square brackets are solely for denoting NATO reporting names or export variants (only really for the HQ-7b) where applicable).

Why? - I see no reason for US display names to be less accurate than the Russian ones.  AFAIK the official US designation system doesn't use the name of the first ship in the class(like in "Arleigh Burke class"), but just "DDG-51", so putting "Arleigh Burke" in brackets has the same function as NATO reporting names for the Russian units - unnecessary for those in the know, but helpfull to those who are less familiar with the world of warships.

14 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

But what about SAM systems? Under the current system - in order to tell you which goes with which, they include the system designation (and an ambiguous one at that) onto every individual component, lengthening names unnecessarily IMO, sub-categorisation where the system is the title of a collapsible menu and the components listed below would make it look much cleaner.

E.g SAM SA-10 S-300 "Grumble" Low Alt SR 5N66M

Which, aside from having to include the system it belongs to is also formatted weirdly:

• Personally I feel like "SAM" is redundant, it's located in the air defence category and its 3D model can be previewed in the mission editor.
• Why does it go NATO, native and then back to NATO? Surely NATO, NATO, native (where applicable), native makes more sense.
• This one in particular has the radar type before naming the radar - everything else has the radar type after. On a related note, this one uses the GRAU index (which I otherwise support), but everything else uses the NATO reporting name.

Well my main interest is with the naval units, so I haven't thought about other unit types like SAMs, except when they relate to ships as well  .....like considering that naval- and land-based SAM systems often share the same missile type, the display names for the missiles shouldn't contain referencecs to a particular launch system.  But I agree that the above example looks both excessive and illogical....following the system in my proposal, it would probably be something like..

S-300PS[SA-10] - 5N66M SR

..as an example. I agree that the "SAM" bit is redundant, while the exact variant of the S-300  shuould be specified (I cannot remember if that search radar is used for the S-300PS though). 

[Northstar98]

46 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

But earlier on, the display names where used in all sorts of cirdumstances like in-game action labels, debriefings etc, where those very long winded ones were awekward and  looked silly.

Yeah, that's why I'd include a far condensed, shorter name for the F10 map/brief/debrief etc.

46 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

So I left out "Project"(or "Pr.") from the Russian designation and also " - class" from the NATO reporting name for the above reason. IMHO they are not needed, and I see no reason for including Rus codename either - same way as I don't think we need "F-15C Eagle" or F-16C Flying Falcon" for aircraft  . 

Fair enough, but I hope you see where I'm coming from when I included both (my rationale behind Pr. is to make it more obvious for those completely unfamiliar and for the native name, I figure if I'm going to include the NATO reporting name, I should include the native name for the sake of completeness).

But yeah, I've also omitted -class and -subclass from my more recent revision (yet to be posted, wanted to also get them grouped with the collapsible menus idea, which IMO is the best solution to having precise names while keeping it consistent (both in terms of information provided and formatting).

46 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Ideally I would just ditch the NATO part entirely and just use  native designations for everything regrdless of origin......but I doubt that would acceptable.

My rationale for including both was that it's likely that people know at least one system, but maybe not the other (certainly the case for me early on, whereI only knew NATO reporting names and had no idea of project numbers or native names etc).

46 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Why? - I see no reason for US display names to be less accurate than the Russian ones.  AFAIK the official US designation system doesn't use the name of the first ship in the class(like in "Arleigh Burke class"), but just "DDG-51", so putting "Arleigh Burke" in brackets has the same function as NATO reporting names for the Russian units - unnecessary for those in the know, but helpfull to those who are less familiar with the world of warships.

When looking online I more frequently find just "Arleigh Burke Flight IIa" (such as here), but looking further (specifically on navy.mil), it does seem that DDG 51-class is more frequently used in that case: DDG 51 (Arleigh Burke) Flight IIA.

46 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

  But I agree that the above example looks both excessive and illogical....following the system in my proposal, it would probably be something like..

S-300PS[SA-10] - 5N66M SR

..as an example. I agree that the "SAM" bit is redundant, while the exact variant of the S-300  shuould be specified

Only thing I'll say here is that, if we're naming the native designation precisely, we should do the same for the NATO designation (in this case SA-10b), also if we're going to use NATO reporting names (like you've done for ships), we should be consistent and do it for every applicable unit - just keeps it consistent.

46 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

(I cannot remember if that search radar is used for the S-300PS though). 

It's kinda difficult because I'm not sure what the actual difference is between the 5N66, 5N66M and 76N6 (I assume the latter is just modern parlance for 5N66M). Most references I find don't specify a particular version (only exception is C:MO, which uses 5N66 (though has 5N66M and 76N6 in parentheses)).

In any case, we have the S-300PS, we should have radars that are appropriate for it (i.e 5N63S [Flap Lid B], 5N59S [Tin Shield B] and 5N64S [Big Bird B] and whatever Clam Shell version).

Edited November 2, 2022 by Northstar98

[Seaeagle]

7 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Fair enough, but I hope you see where I'm coming from when I included both (my rationale behind Pr. is to make it more obvious for those completely unfamiliar and for the native name, I figure if I'm going to include the NATO reporting name, I should include the native name for the sake of completeness).

Yes I understand, but I think this is better suited for the encyclopedia(which BTW is another aspect of DCS that could do with a major overhaul).

7 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

My rationale for including both was that it's likely that people know at least one system, but maybe not the other (certainly the case for me early on, whereI only knew NATO reporting names and had no idea of project numbers or native names etc).

Yeah thats also why I included the NATO names. But it is actually a little bit of a "flight sim bias" - I mean they are not used for aircraft and the missiles they fire don't come with display names like; "MiG-29 Fulcrum A - R-27R Alamo A"

7 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Only thing I'll say here is that, if we're naming the native designation precisely, we should do the same for the NATO designation (in this case SA-10b)

Yup. 

7 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

also if we're going to use NATO reporting names (like you've done for ships), we should be consistent and do it for every applicable unit - just keeps it consistent.

Yes I agree. 

7 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

It's kinda difficult because I'm not sure what the actual difference is between the 5N66, 5N66M and 76N6 (I assume the latter is just modern parlance for 5N66M). Most references I find don't specify a particular version (only exception is C:MO, which uses 5N66 (though has 5N66M and 76N6 in parentheses)).

In any case, we have the S-300PS, we should have radars that are appropriate for it (i.e 5N63S [Flap Lid B], 5N59S [Tin Shield B] and 5N64S [Big Bird B] and whatever Clam Shell version).

Well I am no good with land based SAM systems, so I don't know much about their composition.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Seaeagle

[Northstar98]

43 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Yeah thats also why I included the NATO names. But it is actually a little bit of a "flight sim bias" - I mean they are not used for aircraft and the missiles they fire don't come with display names like; "MiG-29 Fulcrum A - R-27R Alamo A"

Oh absolutely, I wouldn't want that.

I'm sat on the fence about whether I should include NATO designations and reporting names with missiles. Perhaps include it for the infobar, but only use the missile designation (i.e R-27R) for the debrief.

So here R-27R [AA-10 Alamo A], another example is say 9M33M3 Osa-AKM [SA-8b Gecko Mod 1] and 9M33M3 Osa-2M [SA-N-4b Gecko].

[Seaeagle]

18 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Oh absolutely, I wouldn't want that.

I'm sat on the fence about whether I should include NATO designations and reporting names with missiles. Perhaps include it for the infobar, but only use the missile designation (i.e R-27R) for the debrief. So here R-27R [AA-10 Alamo A]

That could work, but...

18 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

, another example is say 9M33M3 Osa-AKM [SA-8b Gecko Mod 1] and 9M33M3 Osa-2M [SA-N-4b Gecko].

See this is where reference to a launch system/NATO designations becomes a problem  . Because when a missile is shared by both a land based- and a  naval SAM system in DCS, the same missile entry is being applied -so if e.g. the 9M330 comes with a display reference to; "Tor-M [SA-15]", then this will also be displayed for a 9M330 launched by the Kinzhal system onboard warships......which is not ideal to say the least.

So with the current system, the only solution would be to ditch those system/NATO references and just use the missile designation alone. Alternatively we would need mirror entries for those shared missiles, but then that would probably also be required for more accurate naval SAM systems in the future - i.e. from them dark corners of my mind(when modding these in the past) I seem to remember that, when shared, the naval SAMs are employed using the radar/system properties of the land based "cousin".

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Seaeagle

[Northstar98]

On 11/3/2022 at 4:52 PM, Seaeagle said:

That could work, but...

See this is where reference to a launch system/NATO designations becomes a problem  . Because when a missile is shared by both a land based- and a  naval SAM system in DCS, the same missile entry is being applied -so if e.g. the 9M330 comes with a display reference to; "Tor-M [SA-15]", then this will also be displayed for a 9M330 launched by the Kinzhal system onboard warships......which is not ideal to say the least.

Yes and I'm fairly sure this is the case already for things like the 9M330 - it's called "9M330 (SA-15 Gauntlet)" in DCS.

On 11/3/2022 at 4:52 PM, Seaeagle said:

Alternatively we would need mirror entries for those shared missiles, but then that would probably also be required for more accurate naval SAM systems in the future - i.e. from them dark corners of my mind(when modding these in the past) I seem to remember that, when shared, the naval SAMs are employed using the radar/system properties of the land based "cousin".

That would be my preferred solution - it's not like these entries take up a lot of space either (you could even do it for the Mi-8MTV-2, which AFAIK is called Mi-17-2 outside of the Soviet Union and Russia).

And yes, especially when you consider that some naval fire-control systems and radars differ significantly from their land based counterparts. Notable examples being the 3R95 from the Kinzhal system and the 3P87 from Kortik (though both of these fire missiles designated differently from their land based components - 9M330-2 (which according to this supports 2 missile channels) and 9M311K respectively).

It gets even weirder when things like Sea Dart (Type 909) and Sea Cat (MRS-3) are guided by Mk 95s used to guide Sea Sparrows, same thing for the Mk 92 CAS and AN/SPY-1 both use the AN/MPQ-53 from the Patriot.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Northstar98

[Seaeagle]

On 11/3/2022 at 7:22 PM, Northstar98 said:

Yes and I'm fairly sure this is the case already for things like the 9M330 - it's called "9M330 (SA-15 Gauntlet)" in DCS.

Yes and for several other as well. 

On 11/3/2022 at 7:22 PM, Northstar98 said:

That would be my preferred solution - it's not like these entries take up a lot of space either (you could even do it for the Mi-8MTV-2, which AFAIK is called Mi-17-2 outside of the Soviet Union and Russia).

And yes, especially when you consider that some naval fire-control systems and radars differ significantly from their land based counterparts. Notable examples being the 3R95 from the Kinzhal system and the 3P87 from Kortik (though both of these fire missiles designated differently from their land based components - 9M330-2 (which according to this supports 2 missile channels) and 9M311K respectively).

It gets even weirder when things like Sea Dart and Sea Cat are guided by Mk 95s used to guide Sea Sparrows.

Exactly.