Veritech

We are missing a number of components of Soviet/Russian SAM systems, that we should have available to make them complete. These are the following: Regarding the Sa-6 Gainful / Kub System: We're missing the Target Aquisition Battery radars, these would be: P-40 Long Track radar (replaceable with the P-15 Flat Face in some cases). PRV-9 Thin Skin heigh finder radar. (We only have the PRV-11 heigh-finder which is related to the Sa-2/3/5). Sa-12 Glaidator / 9k81 - S-300V We're completely missing this one out. The current S-300P (and variants) we have in the game was designed for strategic defense (PVO manned) while the S-300V would be the Army-tier SAM. Sa-3 Goa / S-125 Missing the P-12 Spoon rest for the Target Aquisition Battery PRV-11 is on the encyclopedia, but currently unselectable in the ME. Sa-5 Gammon / S-200 or Nike Hercules/Ajax Any plans to include this system at all?

IIRC curvature is applied to NTTR as well.

+1

The height-finder radar of reference is listed in the encyclopedia but it's absent in the ME from any selectable country. Interestingly enough, is a radar associated with the S-75 Dvina (Sa-2 Guideline) which as of this post is not available as a SAM unit.

Spotting is one of the Achilles Heel’s that I find with DCS. It’ll be amazing indeed to have it improved vastly somehow.

It's called Maskirovka.

Plus avoids the whole thing becoming a 50 feet circle fight and becomes more of a tri dimensional thing.

Have you guys thought about establishing a hard deck for these events? It would add more complexity (and fun).

+1

MP needs a re-work since forever. Is it so hard to see? It’s kind of insulting to be treated as a lunatic by a “moderator”. You pay for their products, but have no right to complain when something is unfinished. Pure malarkey.

Resolved! Thanks

As the title says, any type of AI aircraft will activate inside the hangar and attempt to taxi out without its doors being opened, resulting in the ejection of the pilot. Hangars AI Bug.trk

-1 There is a Game Mode already. And other “simming” options as well.

=RvE= Veritech Mig-21 Bis

+1

Batallion sized forces are insignificant on a large scale war FEBA. Regiments cannot be managed currently with good performance, and regiments (in a Cold War environment) do not engage on independent operations. The smallest unit would be a Division. And a Division would have a frontage of between 5 to 10km. FUBAR situation I'd say.

And Better AI BitMaster. I sometimes find frustrating AI can't do a simple instruction...

"DCS is a real time battle simulator". That's the thing, it can't even simulate a battle. The size I'm talking about it's just minuscule in a full scale war... by no means I want to have a sim who is simulating what's happening a logistics mission 400km away; I'd be happy to have action just around the FEBA. I made missions where I activate/de-activate batallion size units in order not to have minus 45 FPS, but even in those cases is hard to have a proper fluent running simulator. I'm sure it can be optimized by some factors (like the ones you mentioned, multi-core usage and Vulkan API). I'm just afraid that optimization will be forgotten on the grounds of getting better visuals, therefore defeating the purpose of having a true simulation of a war environment.

Thanks for the answer David. My aim is not about the generation of the environment (I'm not sure how Moose works, what's its aim and if it can "generate" FEBAs realistically), but how the engine manages it. There is no way it can manage a regimental engagement, let alone a divisional one (which is what you would see if you engage with enemy forces). The single-core/multi-core is 5 years old. I'm worried about them going to cope with a dynamic campaign if they don't solve the issue about two basic tactical units of an army engaging each other (plus the air units on CAP, CAS, etc). However, I'm looking forward to what the so-called Vulkan API can do.

Hey, I do not have a “problem” with that. You just gave a bad example. Chill.

While we (well... most of us!) are happy by how DCS improved visually in the last years, there are other things that would need a heavy hand on them: i.e. software optimization. It's not possible to make a mission within a full-scale war: even if you just "script" and design the ingress-egress (as not fill the map with units that will not have any incidence on your mission because i.e. distance), hardware can hardly manage a regiment vs brigade engagement (soviet formations are of 95MBTs plus IFVs, supporting units, engineering, artillery bat, reconaissance bat. etc vs a NATO equivalent), because is literally unplayable. Don't get me wrong, I do like most of the campaigns available to us nowadays, but I do miss the feeling of "being there", in a proper war and not in some low intensity conflict. The example stated above is actuallly, still, unrealistic. If you want to make a "realistic" Cold War era scenario, (or a fictional extended Cold War in the mid 90s), engagements in a FEBA would include a minimum of a Division equivalent unit on a width of 10kms. So, I'd personally think that while future graphic and visual enhancements are welcome, a greatly improved optimization of hardware usage would make a very positive impact, not only in the Multiplayer server day-to-day basis environment, but in some of us that don't mind creating missions as realistic as possible and share them with our fellow pilots/users! :) What do you guys think?

Well... the Mig-21 was designed to carry and drop the RN-24 and the RN-28 after all...

+1

SP or MP?

Are you planning to expamd the array of ground units? We could use a bigger variety of SAM systems (S-300V, S-200, Redeye) ground units (T-64, more T-72 and 80 subvariants, AMXs, Chieftains) as well as mor diverse infantry units. It’s AI would neee improvements as well. It would definitely help to create more complx and realistic combat scenarios IMHO.