LetMePickThat

I just stumbled upon this and bought one as well. Order #6454. We'll see how this goes.

I'll look at that tomorrow and report. EDIT: from what I can see, your SA-10 is lacking a command post. Try adding it.

Thanks for the new tracks, I'll take a look at them. However, before even doing so, I find it peculiar that you "saw is that all these systems are only firing below 100km, whatever the aspect angle or altitude or type of the target". See the image below, from previous testing, which shows an AWACS engaged at various ranges by the different systems. You might have ran into an interesting edge case (that, or you're expecting the S-300 to overperform. If your target was barely above 3000fts, a 40km shot would be stellar). Anyway, I'll look at what you sent and report. EDIT: I can't open the track and miz files because I'm lacking a bunch of mods. Can you rerun your test without them?

You now can.

On the F-16C, all S-300Ps (PMU1, PMU2, PS) are using the same codes as the S-300PS from the base game, and can be targeted using the same HARM IDs. The S-300V is labelled as follow: 9S19 High Screen: RWR "HS", HARM ID#106 9S15 Bill Board: RWR "BD", HARM ID#105 9S32 Grill pan: RWR "12", HARM ID #112 Hope this helps.

I think you misunderstood the role of these long range SAMs. For starter, the acquisition range and kill zone is vastly superior on the V, VM, PMU1 and PMU2 than on the PS, both ED and the mod's. These parameters are defined in the system and missile performance files, and are hard-coded. Secondly, your mission is a clear example of why you're encountering this issue. I see various problems. 1- The long-range variants of the S-300 aren't meant to enforce a 200+km no-fly zone around them, they're supposed to force potential targets to fly lower, hence in range of lower-tiers systems. At more than 130-ish kilometers, LOS issues caused by radar horizon alone prevents any system (be it a PMU1, a PMU2 or an S-400) to acquire and track a target if it flies below approximately 1500 feets AGL. Your targets being figthers, they are able to change altitude very fast, so the air defenses must wait for them to be closer so that this radar horizon problem doesn't come into play should the targets decide to go for the deck. Similar kinematic limitations exist as well, see point #2. 2- You put the plane on an almost perpendicular path relative to the SAMs. The systems will not engage high-agility targets coming with such angle unless they're relatively close (a behavior you can also test with default units). Taking these two points into account, I suggest you set up two SEAD missions, one again the default S-300PS and the other against the 300VM or the 300PMU2. You'll see the difference in performance between those systems. If that't too long to put in place, just altering the target aspect and speed will make the SAMs much more active. See for instance below this 91nm shot against an F-16 flying at FL400 and Mach 1.6 (interception occurred at 79nm). This is basically as far as it gets for a Mach 1.5-class target engagement. Had I used a faster plane or a less maneuevrable one (say, for instance, a B-1B), then the range would have been even larger.

No, these units were written from scratch and imported in DCS via an entry.lua file. We reused code (and even some 3D models) from other units but we did not unlock unused items. We did however used old RWR codes still in the game butr unused because the units needing them got cut at some point. For instance, the SA-12 has the right RWR codes and HARM IDs because an SA-12 used to be present in LOMAC and the bits we needed were still in the game. It works as any other AI unit. All players need to have the mod installed though: if a player doesn't have it, he or she won't be able to see the system (and be engaged by it). The mod does not break the IC. I know that Auranis spoke of upgrading the default Patriot system, but I am pretty confident that this won't come any time soon. On my end, I have been working on the SAMP/T and SAMP/T NG french-italian SAM systems. I am still writing the code as of now, but most of the 3D work (done by ERO) is done. Below are a few WIP images. Of course, in the end, it is up to Auranis as the original mod author to decide what makes it to the public release and what does not, so apart from the SAMP/T, I won't tell you what I am working on as I can't guarantee that it will be released. Unfortunately, DCS SAMs can't engage artillery rockets or shells at the moment. I've been wanting to make an Iron Dome for quite some time, yet I wasn't able to figure out a way to have it engage the threats it was designed to counter IRL.

I'll be happy to take a look if you guys send me a .miz file. Without it, the issue is quite hard to find. @flag02004What do you mean by "the DCS one"? Are you refering to the S-300PS from the mod? Also, are you guys using the Main or Dev version of the mod? EDIT: I ran some testing on the Main version, and it works fine here. See enclosed pictures: SA-12/S-300V SA-20A/S-300PMU1 SA-20B/S-300PMU2 SA-23/S-300VM

Send me a screenshot of your site. :)

@Admiral189 Hi ! Just FYI, I'm working on an improved Aster 30 Block 1NT (new flight mode, new warhead). Do you want me to send the relevant files by PM so that you can update the PAAMS on your Type 45?

Hello ! Does the F-16C currently supports buddy lasing for the Mirage 2000? We had a few problems with that last night, although it worked with the Hornet... Thanks !

Thanks for your investigation. I think that you need to declare your custom units with a custom code for it to work. For instance, we managed to get RWR alerts for the SA-12 by using the old 105 and 106 codes that date back from LOMAC, when we had an SA-12 ingame. I reckon we need to use a custom code, e.g 999 for the SA-17 for instance, for it to work. Then, declare the system as you did in SymbolsBase.lua. The code will be used to fetch the exact system type, and will also be used by the HTS to target HARM missiles at the site.

Hi all, Working on a SAM mod, I was wondering if it is possible to add custom RWR codes to the modules, ideally without breaking IC ? I have a vague idea of how to add weapon system codes in the sim, but then using these custom codes to trigger RWR warnings is above my skillset... Has anyone ever tried to do this? In the meantime, we resorted to using older, sometimes unused codes when these matched with the systems added by the mod (e.g 105 and 106 for the S-300V/SA-12). Thanks !

For the PS, PMU1 and PMU2, use the default codes from the S-300PS. For the SA-12, codes 105 ans 106 should work. I'll make sure that all codes are working as intended tomorrow. Thanks. @Auranisis the one who has been doing the heavy lifting, and deserves all credit.

I am writing the code as we speak.

You can use all the systems from the mod like any other SAM from the base simulator. Skynet only adds more challenge by simulating a complex IADS network.

Duh. I write SAM mods for DCS, I (kinda) know how to troubleshoot a recalcitrant SA-15. For some reason, it just doesn't fire. I'll perform a full repair and try on another scen.

I know that. Still no difference on my end.

The SA-15 isn't engaging HARMs on my end.

Me too, the mod is more of a placeholder until ED releases things.

I can't say for ED's SA-5, but I can try to squeeze in some SA-2/S-300 support vehicles and props in the next HighDigitSAMs mod release if you want. I could even add our SA-5, although the FM is still a SFM for testing purposes.

This is clearly a HARM issue, as the problem occurs not only with the base S-300PS and SA-15, but also with SAMs from the HighDigitSAMs Mod and with Skynet. I would love to dig into the HARM files to see what they changed, but since they locked it this isn't an option unfortunately.

Thanks for the answer. While I'm at it and annoying you, what are the plans for supporting modders in the future ?

Thank you for the heads up. When you say "right now", does it means that a fragmentation model is considered for the future?

Hi, I'm having CTDs instantly when clicking the "fly" button in the mission editor after today's patch. I an currently making a slow repair to see if that changes things, will edit this message if it solves the problem.