maturin

Russians are freaking lethal with their acronyms and GRAU index; I can't keep these radars straight. If you have a S-300 site with all radar types, will you get something longer range to supplement the 5N66M SR? Or is the whole site handicapped by its low-altitude focus?

We already have RPG-7 and RPG-16 infantry, but they are pretty useless and the FX are off. I'd rather have recoilless rifles and ATGMs as weapon emplacements, or maybe even infantry that disembark from APCs to engage.

S-300s create enormous amounts of smoke when launched in the game. Surely that's enough. And things like MLRS systems have extremely exaggerated flashes at range. Maybe these FX don't always display properly, but they themselves are quite adequate.

Nowadays it takes multiple S-25MLs to destroy bridges.

I think the altitude was what caused the 50km launches. I wasn't aware that air pressure had such an effect on SAM performance, and supposed that a lowish altitude target would be easier. HOWEVER, the infuriating AI behavior is preventing me from verifying this, as the planes I place tend to hit the deck with all their waypoints on 10000m. Are they reacting to the presence of the SAM, and how can I make them ignore it? Also, if the S-300 can only launch out to 90km even under optimal conditions, that means that player-launched Kh-58s can outrange it, as can the HARM in theory. Doesn't this go against the published literature on the S-300? Either way, the Tunguskas are inadequate, so we really need that Tor to engage missiles.

I always put at least one of every S-300 unit in my SAM sites, and never get them to engage past 60km or so. Could it be that the existence of a short range radar is hogging the launchers and preventing the site from benefiting from its long range radar?

But when you're defending against a SEAD strike, allowing an aircraft to come close enough to launch a fire-and-forget HARM is suicidal.

Giving the AI waypoints that actually result in effective employment of their weapons is a big challenge for a new mission maker like myself. If the HARM has a maximum range of 100km, why will my F-16s only fire it at 40km or even 20km, depending on byzantine quirks of their waypoint and task setup? For that matter, why is my full-skill S-300 battery, with an engagement envelope of over 100km, waiting until targets close within 60km? There must be tricks for making the AI act less lazy, right? Edit: And I'll round out this post with an even dumber question: Where is the button to change time and date?

Hmmn... Currently I can launch on an S-300 radar with just a Kh-58, and it won't engage me at all. I can even launch a flurry of Kh-25s, enough to overwhelm a Tunguska, and survive. Are there mission editor tricks to get SAMs to engage at maximum range?

Well there's Lake Ritsa, where Stalin had a dacha amid some of the Caucasus' best scenery. The Roki Tunnel, strategic linchpin of South Ossetia's separatism, the highest villages in Europe in Svaneti, the Inguri River dam, and Kazbegi with Mount Kazbek, where the Vladikavkaz-Tbilisi Military Highway goes over the border. South of that last is the huge switchback the highway goes down, which is currently a well-known ski resort. There's also that big radio tower overlooking Tbilisi, which otherwise isn't worth looking at because it is depicted as a dreary Soviet town full of apartment buildings. But that's just off the top of my head.

Correct. And I therefore also imagine all those guys walking away with a few paper cuts and sprained ankle.

In short, holy crap, I'd rather go up against an S-300 emplacement.

Well the tall conical towers represent mosques, which obviously don't belong in most of Georgia. The present map is pretty sorely lacking in Caucasian architecture in general, although we've got some Svanian/Ossetian towers.

I've seen Su-27s fly for almost an hour after ejection as well.

It uses an obsolete terrain system with much less detail and quality.

S-300s always knock down my Kh-58s and Kh-25MPUs. At least before the last big patch.

If this question is answered, let this turn into a thread on editor tricks. How can I make buildings and other map objects start a mission destroyed? I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants remove crucial bridges in order to structure ground unit attack routes, or fly over a ruined city, etc.

Because it was fired from a ground attack helicopter, is moving at a fraction of the speed, and doesn't have a smoke trail. I'm talking about a Su-25 wingman, whose RWR (AFAIK) wouldn't pick up an ATGM with no radar lock. So he either acquires the missile visually or doesn't see it all. But since the DCS AI sees EVERYTHING (AFAIK), he will always know that a hellfire is on the way, and dump the weapons. The whole point of this thread was that I can't control the AI's reaction. There is no 'don't dump weapons' button. I have told my wingman to attack Air Defenses. The only unit on the map was a Zu-23 and he dumped all his Kh-25s and bombs and ran away. That's a pretty big derp. I feel like everyone is pointlessly arguing the principle of the thing, rather than considering what will simulate realistic behavior in the majority of situations. The current AI decisionmaking is very arbitrary and prejudicial to their effectiveness with little increase in survivability to be offered. Would you please answer me this: Would any real life pilot spend the handful of seconds before missile impact fiddling with switches to jettison his weapons? No, he would have one hand on the stick and one hand on the throttle, maneuvering hard with his mind on other things. Once the missile was evaded, he would evaluate whether the threat was still capable of engaging him. A chopper would not be able to keep up with a fast jet. And so I would expect the AI to dump weapons only when evading other fixed wings and serious SAMs (and not Zu-23!).

In that case, helicopters shouldn't be flying around at 5000m hunting down jets with such gung-ho efficacy. But I already made that thread. I defy anyone to tell me, however, that a real pilot would ever dump his weapons because a Hellfire was coming his way. You don't dump your weapons seconds before impact, because that time would best be spent evading the missile. Once you enter in a dogfight, you dump the weapons for greater agility. But you don't need agility against a chopper because you don't dogfight a chopper. You just fly away and come back to kill it at your leisure.

Nevermind lethal--wrong word choice. The fact is, no rational thinking being is going to give up on the mission and return home in defeat because a chopper opened fire on him from extreme range with a slow, slow missile that can be avoided with the slightest bit of evasive maneuvering. As a player, I never dump my weapons when targeted by MANPADs and IR missiles (from other short range ground attack planes). Do you seriously think any player would dump weapons just because he saw a Hellfire launched at him? Dumping your weapons is good for dogfighting, not a kneejerk reaction to being engaged. Should the AI also dump his weapons to avoid the Shilkas in the target zone? A better AI response would be to dump weapons when ordered to engage a jet, or when defending from a jet.

Most temperate climates don't have heavy snow on the ground, more often than not. AFAIK, it doesn't snow very much in the subtropical areas of Georgia and the Kuban, so a one-size-fits-all heavy snow texture would be inappropriate. The mountain areas already have heavy snowcaps.

A Vikhr or Hellfire, however, should be treated more as a deterrent or annoyance than a lethal threat. If a chopper engages a jet, it's to dissuade them from an attack, and the jet shouldn't freak out and abandon its ground attack mission.

I couldn't replicate it in the track either, although the loadout and units were the same. If it's not actually a consistent result, I won't worry about it. But maybe the AI will dump all their weapons if a helicopter opens fire on them from 5km with an anti-tank missile? That would be a problem.

Surely you don't need to jettison all your rockets and missiles (effectively mission-killing yourself) just to fire an R-60 at a pesky chopper. Because when the only enemy air on the map is a M-24, and I order my wingman to Engage Bandits, he goes into dogfighting mode and loses all his weapons. Wingmen should only jettison weapons when they are engaging planes, not choppers.

I can understand why the infantry simulation is very limited in DCS. Infantry combat is appallingly complicated, and it's a slippery slope of implementation for little real relevance to aerial combat. However, adding heavy weapons like recoilless rifles, HMGs, AGLs and above all ATGMs should take very little work. They can function precisely like the current Zu-23 nests. In almost every mission I make, I want to be able to blunt enemy vehicle attacks with blocking positions of entrenched infantry. It makes the routes the enemy takes more believable, and would give A10s in particular a good 'clear the way' task.