okopanja

Well the pictures show a hump, which means this departs from 9.12a airframes...

Location near the coordinates from that photo: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ubDt8mW4G665RFSL8 Looks like hangar from 2021 pics.

@NytHawk

I would prefer first completely functional basic 9.12a. As for Mig-29MU1/MU2, I am kind of skeptical, since cockpit looks exactly the same and it appears they have used "hacked" avionics to place those missiles in place of R-27P. Over the years UKR did offer lot's of upgrade marketing material for soviet stuff (ewr radars, missile seekers, SAM upgrades), but we saw very little substance of those upgrades in reality. Given the level of corruption in ex-Soviet republics (including Russia), doubts arise over actual scope of work. All things I found so far mostly pointed out to improving reliability of avionics (e.g. radar) + adding limited multi-role capabilities, similar to Russian upgrade packages offered around 1996 minus the R-77. Around that time they may have been even collaborating together on this. Maybe the existing software got some improvements over the soviet one, but if this is MU2, then we are not talking about large functional differences, hence it may be a low hanging fruit once the 9.12a is completed. Also, ED might decide to offer this as paid upgrade to a basic module.

One brief digression question: will you also take care of the existing non-CH assets or is this something ED would need to do?

Not a bug, but rather incomplete unit. Even among ED SAMs there are many examples of missing sensors. Examples include KUB, Neva, OSA, Tor, Hawk... Along sensors goes often wrong behavior. And if we are talking human controled units you quickly arrive at conclusion that further extensions of human machine interface is needed. I hope that wit CH inclusion Combined Arms will get more love from ED in future.

This later is difficult, since pilots are entitled to their flier's supplement.

maybe we can remove the bottle since it's mass is stated in the manual...

This would indicate HOJ mode launch. Also the jammer itself could affect RWR, but not sure if either of these are modeled in DCS.

Problem: At the moment ground units placed into single group can not be moved from F10 individually. Attempt to plot the path from F10 leads to whole group being moved in pre-selected formation. Individual movement is possible only by jumping directly into the unit and then driving it manually, which is often impractical. Why: achieve better tactical usage of units. E.g. if commanding larger group the default formations will place them in sub-optimal positions, thus often causing the units to be completely useless. E.g. you do not wish to place radar in a ground hole where it can not see anything. Proposed solution: Introduce additional formation called Individual, represented as a singl3e white dot in drop down menu. When this formation is selected and specific unit is selected, plotting the route shall be applied only to selected unit. The player should be able to plot each of the units individually without affecting already moving units. I hope this would be a low hanging fruit, as long as the order of formations and their corresponding identifiers are not changed.

Any news?

The list goes like this: Air base Željava, near Bihać. Demolished by crew once enemy forces closed near (fuel and ammo burned for more than 6 months). Air base Slatina, near Priština. 1 entrance hit one side, causing rocks to collapse and cover entrance. Left unrepaired intentionally to give the pretense of being fully destroyed. A the end of the war the Mig-21s exited the on the other side and flew to Batajnica airport near Belgrade. The base was inside intact, but currently not in use. Air base Golubovci, near Podgorica, hit by NATO, blast doors were not closed and Mig-21 , filled with 3t of fuel and parked at entrance caused the burning fuel to spread inside. Demo team G-4s got destroyed in resultling fire. Airbase commander got trialed for this and kicked out (the bombs used by NATO would not penetrate the base if blast doors were closed and buffer zones kept clear of flammable stuff. Today this is a wine cellar. This is the only one you can freely visit without knowing somebody to take you in. Air base Divulje, near Split Also along the coast (e.g. Boka Kotorska) and islands in the Adriatic See.

I was wondering have you compared the radar ranges given in soviet, german and yugoslav manual as well as number of radar modes?

There were at least 23 more such bases.

Yes m, but stritcly for tracking there are 2 variants, and they can be hood-ed thus giving them rather unique appearance.

Yes, but it is not the best.

No radar, no distance information. TV channel could not be used, since most of actions for SA3 occured at night and small number had thermovision. Gen. Jovica Draganić stated actual numbers of missiles launched using different tracking methods in this book(500+ pages): https://delfi.rs/knjige/63397-vazdusni-rat-nad-srbijom-1999-godine-knjiga-delfi-knjizare.html Same authors also published 2 booklets in English, but with naturally reduced set of information. It was actually my error, I meant missile not seeker. Btw distance fuze reading is transmitted back to the guidance operator f1/f2, each having fairly large single niddle based instrument to indicate measured distance. At the end of the day despite being way less advanced than Kub and not as mobile, Neva did perform way better. Still not all of the crews were of equal training quality. E.g. 3 r.d. had professional crew in key positikns, while some others were composed from reserve. Maybe digressing too much. KUB itself made passive launches(no prior radar illuminaton) on A-10s but not truly passive, since guidance had to be provided. I believe they got RWR warnings. Once the missile was in the air, illuminator was turned on.

Nice to see this, there is a huge gap in blue SAMs of cold war. Does it model all 3 radars functionally?

This is SNR-125 (SA-3 target tracking and fire control radar). It does have TV channel IRL, as well as thermovision on later upgrades. The TV channel can be used for silent tracking, but the SAM itself requires the radar to lock and track target afterwards. The SAM itself transmits the commands to the seeker, which arms ~450m before the impact the fuze gets activated and will trigger explosion within the 45m of the target. Only small number of batteries had thermovision in 1999 (possibly only 1), since the already purchased upgrade kits were resolved before the war to Egypt. I am curious to find out who was the person who pushed and authorized this. However in DCS this SAM has no TV sensor implemented (checked in LUA). Also missing is the control cabine as well as power supply which are deployed in close proximity of the SNR-125. Other SAMs which should, but do not have have this DCS: - SA-6 (e.g. capable of passive LOAL launches IRL!) - SA-8

I am certain he can add some more colorful description next time. @tavarish palkovniknadam se de se ne ljutite zbog mog komentara: možete da obeležite mišem deo legende u gornjem tekstu i potom odaberete boju sa ovom ikonicom: Siguran sam da će to smanjiti broj nesporazuma.

Read his comment. He mentions them sequentially, plus later 2 have 2 time designations that you can spot on the diagram. And yes legend would be graet, but text can do as well.

Its not possible to manipulate SAMs from server side scripts, available options that can be set are rather limitted, and some are even missing compared to CA UI. RWR can show false readings if there is a desync between server and clients.

I think this is not modeled for neither BUK nor KUB. Btw KUB is capable of LOAL launch IRL as well as fake launches (SA-3 can do this as well). As for visual/ir things are still half baked there with corner cases, but ED makes incremental improvements.

While the colors would help, the text with basic understanding of motors provides enough information to conclude which use case: 1. red 2. green 3. blue

Super precise INS for this missile would mean that it does not need expensive seeker, once the position of the target is determined (e.g. pre-launch on carrier), it would simply be enough to use it's INS without GPS if this was a real thing. Sadly, this is not the case and even the later version you mentioned had to have GPS updates for this particular reason. Depending on the mode the trajectory can be calculated based on the rough distance or without it in which case only the angular position can be used. Furthermore range/azimuth estimation is very rough at the start and requires to be constantly updated with the corrections based on the seeker readings. E.g. firing HARM at long distance and loosing signal earlier would result in much higher miss distance than e.g. firing it from just 5km away. As the distance at which the HARM is fired is longer, the time required to reach the target is also longer, and the drift of the INS will be progressing and cumulative. At the current state in DCS you can fire HARMs for 100-ish km away and still get it to hit the target with accuracy, simply this is not realistic. One additional note: thanks to this change HARM now also hits objects that move. This involves e.g. Tor (features ability to move and shoot), but e.g. very maneuvering Su-27 while it is jamming. To conclude this change was half baked and results in yet another departure from realism.