Standardised Nomenclature

[drspankle]

Can we have the option to select a naming convention for military hardware?  At the minute we have a mix of NATO and Russian nomenclature on the F-10 map, the notifications, and the JTAC menu.  For example, it shows an SU-33 firing an R-73 whilst an SA15 fires a 9M330 missile at an F-16 firing an AIM-120.  Can we have the option to use purely NATO reporting names?  I spent a career learning the range and ceilings of SA6s and SA11s  without ever knowing they were called a Kub or a Buk!  Similarly I know the threat posed by an AA-10C or AA-12, but need to look up what an R-77 is.

Dr Spankle

[av8orDave]

I had the same experience the other day. On a mission where the goal was to take out an SA-6 battery, I glanced at the kneeboard and saw that the target at the waypoint i was referencing was a "Kub blah blah gibberish". I was momentarily very confused until I realized "kub" = SA-6.

[Kang]

I can relate to the wish, but I'm afraid the mish-mash of nomenclature is tied to the very core of what DCS is.

[drspankle]

10 hours ago, Kang said:

I can relate to the wish, but I'm afraid the mish-mash of nomenclature is tied to the very core of what DCS is.

In what way?

[draconus]

16 hours ago, av8orDave said:

On a mission where the goal was to take out an SA-6 battery, I glanced at the kneeboard and saw that the target at the waypoint i was referencing was a "Kub blah blah gibberish".

That's on the kneeboard/mission creator.

I support the wish

Check also this suggestion:

[upyr1]

Agreeed, I'd like a 2 or 3 way swich 

NATO only

Russian only and if these aren't going to be too crowded to be readable

NATO (Russian)

Russian (NATO)

[Kang]

On 9/11/2025 at 8:52 AM, drspankle said:

In what way?

To some extent, in the literal way of the nomenclature being chaotic down to the very files, but more broadly as well, in that DCS plays it very loose with any sort of standardisation for literally anything.