Northstar98

Hi everyone, I've noticed that the HQ-16 SAM is behaving quite oddly: After burnout has occured, so long as the missile is unloaded, it will continue to accelerate (even in a climb). The HHQ-9 missile also suffers from this issue, though to an even more extreme degree. The missile continues to climb despite aiming downwards, even at fairly significant pitch angles (in excess of 15° below the horizon, even its rocket engine still firing). HQ-16_HPJ12_bug.trk

Reproduced, I've personally observed them accelerating to beyond orbital velocity (reaching >23000 knots), after burn-out. HHQ-9_FM_bug.trk

And as I said before, this is never going to happen, it is never ever going to be a reality. There's nothing to prevent. I never said it was a rule, that is obvious. But it absolutely wouldn't be unprecedented as this very thing has been done before, with the examples I gave. In an ideal world, it would be far better for there to be multiple variants of an aircraft rather than just one. That way you can cater to the people who like modern aircraft and historical aircraft fairly equally and neither has to make compromises one way or the other. We don't live in that world, but should extra variants be considered, ED would probably make more money going from older to newer than newer to older, something that has never been done before (and as I said, the only one that comes close has the variants bundled in as one, so it doesn't really apply). And that's absolutely fine, it's a perfectly valid preference to have. I'm not sure about people being triggered, but so far nobody has asked for the "earliest" version of an aircraft. The primary reason why people ask for an earlier version of an aircraft is usually either for historical reasons (i.e. they want to recreate or at least make/fly missions inspired by historical conflicts/eras. Vietnam seems to be a pretty big one (where earlier Chinook variants fit), Cold War (where everything up to the D potentially fits), Gulf War (where the C and D fit) etc) or they just prefer an older version for whatever reason (it might be than an older variant fits better with contemporary assets that are already present, operational history, number built, number of operators, preferring steam gauges over glass cockpit etc). Of course, you don't have to care about any of that, but those are some valid reasons why some people might prefer to go older rather than newer, at least in some circumstances. And those reasons don't necessarily have to apply to DCS. There's also a reason (as I laid out) to go historical rather than latest and greatest. But of course, you have your preferences, I and other have ours. As it stands, I'm not really interested in a CH-47F, the simple reason being that the scenarios I'm interested in end in the 1990s (Operation Deny Flight/Deliberate Force), where it doesn't fit. A CH-47D would fit that (and given its use into the 2000s/2010s with the US Army) the current Apache as well.

Because it's almost certainly easier to sell a later version as an upgrade, than an earlier one. They've done this with the Ka-50 twice and again with the A-10C so it wouldn't be unprecedented. What hasn't been done yet is going newer and then selling an older version later. HB comes close with the Tomcat, but the older variants are bundled in as one. ? I have no idea how you figure this, DCS is never going to be exclusive to older aircraft.

Yeah, there probably would be alignment issues, but that can be fixed by altering current geometry. But the point is that it doesn't necessarily need to be made spherical. Possibly. It might also be that the technology just isn't there or a number of things I haven't considered. It almost certainly will, but I'm hoping we can get smaller, spherical, add on maps that overwrite the areas they cover, allowing not only higher-detailed maps, but historical maps as well. This kind of thing has been used in other flight simulators (lower resolution base map, with addon maps that are higher detailed) for decades, so it wouldn't be unprecedented, personally it's easily the ideal option.

You wouldn’t - it would be distorted (which all flat maps in DCS necessarily are by virtue of them being flat), but barring anything else, the lack of spherical geometry shouldn’t be a prerequisite for joining them. That said, moving forward it would be better if future maps were made with spherical geometry, not only would it be more accurate, but then, hypothetically, they could go on the world map currently in development.

Yep, I’m not saying it’s a bad map per se, but one that could’ve been so much better. The assets we have available for it doesn’t really help either (the complete lack of Iranian naval assets is a pretty big omission IMO). As for the name, ironically that’s what it was called initially, IIRC the reason given for the change to Persian Gulf is due to players being unfamiliar with the Straits of Hormuz.

+1, a couple of third parties (RAZBAM and Deka) already have their own implementations that (at least in RAZBAM’s case, not that familiar with Deka) do everything that would be necessary. Though the other important aspect is having this apply to the AI, not only with the ability to assign codes, but also to have the AI perform interrogations as part of their identification process. Right now they appear to be able to instantly identify and classify everything they detect with perfect accuracy. With hostile/friendly being a simple coalition check and not accounting for things like IFF or other means of identification (e.g. visual, even if approximated). This would also open up doctrinal considerations when against unknown targets - for instance, whether the AI should only fire at contacts positively identified as hostile, or whether they should fire at anything not identified as friendly.

Definitely - it simply lacked scope to include them. Frankly the scope of that particular map seems not only very limited, but also quite odd from the outset. Suffice to say I really hope ED won't make that mistake again with Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be a royal shame if they did.

It would be absolutely lovely. A couple of years back (IIRC) there was a 3rd party IADS module planned but it seems to have been abandoned. ED had plans of their own but no details as of yet. Personally though, and I'm sorry to say this, but I feel like it should be said, I find it quite difficult to believe that we'll be seeing significant changes in this area for the forseeable future. I mean, it's nearly been 2 and half years since the S-200 released and it still doesn't even have the right search/acquisition radars. Let alone have the right guidance profiles. What's worse is that we've had a 3D model for a radar, of perfectly adequate quality, appropriately animated and in the right format, that's not only more suitable for the S-200, but fits a decent chunk of our maps and was very prolific, being a staple Cold War Eastern Bloc radar. Yet, for over a decade, it's been relegated to wholly non-functional eye candy on the Caucasus map alone. Sticking with radars, it's been more than 2 and half years since the trailer mounted Tin Shield released and it still can't be used with the SAM system it's actually accurate for. It also cannot be used in the role that it's more commonly utilised IRL, as a general purpose EWR. Both of these are items that would be fixed with just a small addition on a single line in 2 .lua files, something that should take no more than a minute or 2 at most. If it's taking this long to just get these items (which, apart from 3D work for the former, should honestly be trivial), how long is it going to take for say, FCRs to get their respective modes modelled? For the S-75 and S-125 to be treated as command guided with their proper profiles (i.e. half-lead/lead and 3-point, instead of SARH with proportional navigation)? For backup optical modes for applicable systems to be implemented? For the SM-2MR to actually behave like an SM-2MR, instead of an SM-1? And on and on and on. Let alone stuff like tactics, IADS-like functionality (I mean, even there the purely cosmetic EWRs on some maps are problematic enough) and electronic warfare. Looking at the title, when it comes to SAM sites, battery components for all but a select few are quite thin, for the S-75 it's the minimum and the S-200 isn't even that. There still aren't things like placeable revetments and for the Caucasus and the SoH/PG map, real-word SAM sites (such as what's seen on Sinai and at some sites in Syria) aren't even present! Okay, rant over. I'd love to be proven wrong here, but given that the absolute basics, that should be the bare minimum are taking multiple years to implement (if they're even still planned) it's really, really difficult to be optimistic about this.

Isn’t this already implemented by way of keybinds for the lights? All aircraft (at least last I checked) had flashlights for interior lights, it’s not the same thing but it does allow you to find switches even in total darkness. Some aircraft do have a master lights switch for external lights, allowing them to be turned on/off with a single switch (so long as the individual lighting systems are on themselves). As I understand it, the aircraft setup system in development will allow you to specify the state of switches at mission start which would also be useful here (though please make it something that can be set on a per mission basis).

Difficult one, if I were to pick my top 3 from this list it would be Mil Mi-6 - we already have 2 helicopters it would fit fairly well with, it's relevant for the Sinai, Syria and future Iraq and Afghanistan maps, it was fairly prolific (though not as many built as the Mi-4, nor the number of operators) Mil Mi-4A/AV - prolific, staple helicopter of the mid-Cold War, would fit on many of our maps, but unfortunately is kinda lacking other units it would fit with. Mil Mi-26 I would've been very interested in the Ka-27PL and to lesser extent the Ka-25BSh, but these helicopters are practically entirely dedicated to ASW and IMO ASW in DCS is frankly as good as absent. Heck, naval warfare as a whole in DCS is sorely lacking IMO and unfortunately I don't see it improving in a meaningful way within say, the next decade. Especially when you consider the amount of work needed for aerial and land warfare as it is and that the amount of functionality and content missing from naval warfer and ASW could easily justify an entire game. Mil Mi-10 - I don't know, it feels perhaps too specialised and kinda lacking a practical purpose within DCS World (though not to the extent of the Ka-15). I think I'd rather have the Mil Mi-6 which is more relevant to DCS as it currently stands. Ka-31 could be good, but I think it would make much more sense as an AI aircraft. For the Ka-15 I'm not really interested - we lack Soviet air and naval assets from the period and it would largely be without a practical purpose in DCS, if we had a more comprehensive showing of Soviet helicopters, I might be more open to it, but seeing as we don't it's difficult for me to be interested in it. As for Soviet aircraft not on this list, I think I'd be most interested in the following: Mi-8TV/TVK - an earlier version more applicable to the Cold War and the Soviet-Afghan War. The TVK incidentally has a 12.7 mm bow machine gun and 9M17 ATGMs, which could be more interesting. Mi-24V - quite similar to our current P, but replacing the GSh-30-2K with a turreted 12.7 mm YakB. Only really because it's a bit more prolific and iconic IMO. That said though our Mi-24P is missing features that would be perfectly accurate for it, which would also apply to the V: PKT door gunners, single-rack ATGMs, removable PZU, reduced-load S-8, L-166 (even as just a 3D model). I'd also include the Mi-24D here. Ka-29TB - while a naval helicopter, it's designed for assault and so is less affected by the issues of naval warfare.

The closest contemporary right now is probably the Mirage 2000C, followed by the F-14A and F-15C. Mirage 2000C has similar weaponry, but a post-Cold War (albeit only just) radar, the F-14A goes further into the mid 1990s, having some of the MMCAP upgrades (namely the radar). The F-15C is supposedly early-mid 2000s with the AN/APG-63(V)1, but being simplified, weapons restricting gets you pretty close. Once the F-14A-135-GR early releases, that'll be the first true 1980s, 4th generation NATO fighter and the best contemporary to the MiG-29. This would also be perfect if Red Storm Rising-like scenarios are your thing (F-14A vs MiG-29 is exactly what happens in Chapter 31). Personally, what we're really missing is the F-15A/early F-15C and F-16A to really flesh out late Cold War gone hot (as well as the most relevant theatre for it - Germany).

For the models themselves, they're already in-game. They can be found in your main DCS installation folder, under Bazar\World\Shapes. The model names are RLS_p-37.edm and PRW-11.edm for the P-37 and PRV-11 respctively. I have had a go at making a .lua for the unit and sensor, these can be found here. But these alone won't cause it show up in-game. Bear in mind though that I'm not a modder, I don't really know what I'm doing and the 2.7 .lua lockdown has made things much harder. If anyone who actually knows what they're doing wants to improve them or point me in the right direction so these will show up in-game as a functional unit, it would be greatly appreciated. I mean, the only thing IMO that would need to be done is to remove the grass mound - it works well enough on grassy maps (such as the Caucasus and upcoming Kola), but isn't appropriate for Syria and the Sinai. The 1L13 and 55G6 though definitely are in need of replacement, those 2 don't look like they've been touched since LOMAC or possibly even Flanker 2.0. The trailer mounted 5N59S Tin Shield I'd say looks perfectly adequate, all it's missing are animations to support it being towed around (such as with the 5N64S Big Bird). The mast-mounted version though (and the aforementioned Big Bird) are missing higher-quality models, though those will likely come in a new paid-for pack. The AN/FPS-117 also looks perfectly adequate (as it would being one of the newest additions to DCS), I just wish the radome version wasn't an entirely separate unit and that it could just be an option in the additional unit properties. But absolutely agreed with these 2 being obvious additions - the part that entails the most work has already been done, which has been the case for over a decade. They only need .lua definitions for the unit and sensor (something that should take single-digit minutes to write) and an addition to the db-countries.lua for the respective countries (which for the the .lua files in the post above would be the addition of cnt_unit( units.Cars.Car, "P-37"); and cnt_unit( units.Cars.Car, "PRV-11"); in the Grveh list of each applicable country (USSR, Russia, GDR, Egypt, Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, Vietnam etc). I have given that a try, but it doesn't seem to work.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, as it currently stands I can't bring myself to be interested in an Iraq map, without at least 1 relevant BLUFOR airbase for the Gulf War or subsequent campaigns. Expanding the map south to include Prince Sultan would be very nice though, it would also encompass Dhahran (King Abdulaziz) as well as airbases on Bahrain and Qatar.

This is false, the 9S35 on the SA-11s TELARs is capable of acquisition and has a dedicated acquisition mode: From Ausairpower: This also applies to DCS - a single TELAR operating completely autonomously is able to search for and engage targets completely by itself, so long as those targets enter a certain sector (though with 4 TELARs, it's trivial to arrange them such that they cover 360° of azimuth). And in general every track/fire-control radar will have secondary acquisition capability, albeit much more limited than a dedicated acquisition radar. I am though with you on general SEAD vs DEAD as SEAD in DCS (at least natively, without resorting to triggers and scripts) is somewhat of a misnomer and only DEAD really applies - there though the OPs request of getting the AI to target multiple threat emitters simultaneously (as could easily be the case with the SA-11) is desireable. Though maybe what we're really missing here is what @Exorcet described above: some finer control of AI doctrine/tactics and weapon release parameters, so we can control how many weapons get released at what target if otherwise unspecified by, for instance, the attack unit/group tasks. You could even break it down by the category of threat (for instance, as with C:MO's Weapons Release Authorisation settings).

I wonder if HB would consider just duplicating respective files so there is a separate IDF F-4, only available to Israel. Allowing the probe to be functional (maybe this could also apply to available weapons and applicable liveries as well).

We already have it on the helicopter that can "reasonably" launch it - the SH-60B (albeit AI). Well, the only operator (at least AFAIK) who both operates Penguin and Apache is the US and they already have a far more appropriate helicopter to do the job than an Apache - again, the SH-60B. If I need a helicopter to do light anti-shipping duty and my choice is the SH-60B or the Apache, I'm going to choose SH-60B every single time. Not only is it more accurate, but it makes way more sense; the SH-60B has a long-range, surface-search radar, so it's far better suited to finding ships. As far as I can tell, I'm not sure it has a land-based variant. I'm sure the surface-ship launched version could be adapted, but in that case I'd rather have the ship, such as an Oslo FF, which would fit perfectly on the upcoming Kola map. Though if you're after a coastal counterpart to the Seersucker, surely the MM38 Exocet Block 1 is a better fit? We already have a map where it would be accurate (even if somewhat anachronistic), we're probably getting a few naval assets that also fire it (Type 12I Batch 3A, Type 21, 22, County-class batch 2 all fire it) and for nearly 3 years we've had a naval unit that should fire it, but inaccurately fires Harpoon.

I'd agree if we had an appropriate F-16A (though I guess the AI could be a stand-in).

Yeah, I'm with WinterH and Grunfreak here. If our current theatres were fleshed out with applicable historically significant units, then I'd definitely be open to it, but as there aren't (and we're far from it) I don't think I can say that I am.

This wishlist isn't really for a module (especially considering the Viking's primary role (at least prior to ASW deconfiguration) was ASW, something that's frankly as good as absent in DCS. Here, I'm more concerned with getting the current AI S-3B's weapons corrected, fortunately all the weapons DCS supports are already present in-game, just not on the S-3B.

Bit off topic here, but sure, why not.

It's not the same, there are quite a few differences. It's missing a way of inputting fuel by weight. Yes, it's trivial to work out, but the mission editor has both, most aircraft work in weights, not percentages, the warehouse works in weights, so why should the rearming and refuelling menu not use them too? Surely weights is the one that makes the most sense to use?

Again, since you apparently didn’t read it the first time, we have both options in the mission editor and it doesn’t seem to be a problem for you there, so why is it a problem here?

It's got nothing to do with maths ability... We can input fuel as a weight in the mission editor, there is absolutely 0 reason why we shouldn't be able to in the rearming and refuelling window. It's not only a more realistic way of going about things, it's also more consistent.