33-DFTC

This is great news ! Having a proper flight manual is the only way I can get interested and fly a module. Thank you for the hard work.

Thanks for sharing the link, I just ordered a MCG Pro. It will be sent to Europe within the EU, even with taxes it should not be that expensive. I'll post a message when I'll get the grip.

Well … What's going on with all these Vipers shots ? Is there something happening ? IS IT ?

An excerpt from the FM100-2-3 : --- CAPABILITIES: The SA-2, with a slant range of 35 to 50 kilometers, can defend high-altitude approaches up to 28,000 meters. The weapon is a national-level asset usually found in the rear area with the mission of defending static assets such as supply and command installations. SA-2 units are not subordinate to the ground forces but to the air defense forces at the strategic level. However, the Soviets may incorporate them into the front air defense system to provide high-altitude air defense of front critical rear area assets. An SA-2 regiment consists of three battalions, each having a single firing battery. Each battery has six launchers arranged in a star formation, a centrally located FAN SONG fire control radar, and a loading vehicle. Although the launchers are transportable, they normally deploy in fixed sites. The two forward batteries usually locate 40 to 50 kilometers behind front lines; the third battery locates 80 kilometers behind. The system normally is integrated with other rear area air defense systems to permit redundant coverage. […] --- Another excerpt this time from from the CIA document "Warsaw Pact Air Defense against Air Attack - Doctrine and Objective" (Part II - Section 7 § 29, line 9) : Warsaw Pact field forces will be organised in Front during wartime. Air defense of the Front is the overall responsability of the Chief of the Air Defense Troops of the Front (PVO Voysk). He also will be directly responsible for ground forces air defense systems. The counterair fighters of tactical air armies (TAAs) will coordinate with and support the Chief of Air Defense Troops of the Front as needed while remaining under the control of the TAA commander. The NSWP tactical air defense forces have a structure similar to that of the Soviets and are likely to function in the Front structure as described above. […] --- I'd like to highlight the underlined sections ; it seems to me after reading again the two documents that the WP Air Defense was somewhat flexible. There are a lot more references from the CIA document stating that responsabilities could be shifted depending on the situation and the location. I'd recommand you to read the entire document. I don't know about SAMSim but I'll look into it. Nonetheless, I'll stick with actual official litterature. By the way, I still don't know why we are arguing over this as this was not the original topic of this thread. French people really love to argue for any reason xD

Reading this Field Manual and another document released by the CIA (Warsaw Pact Air Defense against Air Attack - Doctrine and Objective), it seems that the proximity to the FLOT will influence who is responsible for the equipment : PVO Strany (Air Defense of the Homeland) or PVO Voysk (Soviet Ground Force air defense elements). In the case of the SA-2, its employment as a defense point near the frontline will define who controls it. In this case, the Soviet Ground Forces. As such, the SA-2 appears in this Field Manual describing Soviet Ground Equipment. All the systems described in this Field Manual are equipment under ground forces control. Larger Air Defense systems like S-300 will be found nowhere near the FLOT but hundreds of kilometers behind it. This is very doubtful that a simple grunt has a chance to encounter one and has to ID it. This is what I understood from my readings, I could be wrong as english is not my native language but I'm fairly confident about this one.

It's kinda sad for the european dealer but thruth is, Europe is really behind the curve comparing to the North American market. VKB should really look into its partnership with the dealer if their contract allows it. Considering finding a new dealer or expanding the distribution to multiple dealers should be a priority for 2018/2019. We are being told that European Union is a pain regarding customs and it's true. But having experience in buying in the US and Canada and being delivered by ship from China, I never had to wait 3 to 6 months regarding my colleagues in North America. If everything was fine, I'd received my merchandise 30 to 45 days after the ship leaving China. I'm fine to wait the new stick and the upcoming throttle, but there is obviously something wrong about the european market management. At this point, this mismanagement is leading to a loss of profits but more importantly a lack of trust from potential customers. In the meantime I'll keep enjoying my Gunfighter and the KG12 with IL-2 and will wait for the MCG Pro to use it in DCS.

These reactions from grown-ups are fascinating. What a social experiment !

As a manual intended for the army, I think they only listed the equipment in use with the Soviet ground forces. Systems like S-300 are under the Strategic Air Defense PVO ; these systems would not be deployed near the FLOT.

I'm back ! After A LOT of research and reading I found exactly what I wanted in a "unusual" place. The US Army FM100-2-3 "The Soviet Army - Troops, Organization and equipment". From the page 305 to the page 326, the manual provides a description of nearly all systems currently used in DCS. Here's an example of the short - but efficient - description of a system : --- DESCRIPTION The SA-3/GOA is a two-stage, solide-fuel, low to medium altitude SAM. Two ready missiles travel in tandem on a modified truck or tracked vehicle from which the crew loads the missiles onto a ground-mounted, trainable launcher for firing. Both twin and quadriple launchers are in use. The truck-mounted FLAT FACE radar acquires the targets, while the LOW BLOW radar carries out the fire control function. CAPABILITIES The SA-3 has automatic radio-command guidance. The weapon can engage air targets at altitudes between 100 and 25.000 meters at slant ranges of 6 to 25 kilometers. It is principally a point/small-area defense weapon. Along with the S-60 and other AA guns, it may provide low-to-medium altitude air defense of front critical rear area assets as a complement to the high-altitude capabilities of the SA-2. As with SA-2 units, SA-3 units are not normally subordinates to the ground forces, although they may be integrated into the front air defense system. LIMITATIONS The SA-3 system is not mobile. It is movable, but its displacement time is considerable. REMARKS The Soviets introduced the SA-3 into service in 1961. Newer, more mobile systems with improved capabilities (for example, the SA-6 and SA-8) have replaced it in its original role as a low-altitude air defense weapon in support of maneuver elements. However, it has continued in its role as a rear area air defense weapon. The Soviets introduced a quadruple launcher in 1973 for this purpose. --- The others descriptions may include as well the numbers of launchers per battery and more importantly the type of location where the system would likely be found (distance from the frontline, type of targets defended- tactical or strategic, etc. ...). This is quite an interesting read for anyone willing to place some threats in their missions to recreate typical Warsaw Pact Air Defense deployment. I'm just wondering now if the Air Force has the same type of public litterature as the Army does with their Field Manuals. (Edit 2 : Forget this one, I just found their website, have to dig in it now). Edit : I just bought a "Jane's Land-Based Air Defense" book. I hope it will contain useful informations for mission editors nerds.

This is torture. I wish we could fly the F-16 within DCS.

No.

Thank you for redirecting me to your thread, I wish I could find some books too (kind of a bookworm …).

Hi there ! As described in the title I'm looking for books and/or websites regarding SAM doctrine, specifically during the cold war. I spent the last few days looking through countless Amazon and Google results and found nothing valuable to me. I'd like to learn how NATO/Warsaw Pact deployed their assets. What kind of SAM/AAA was picked to defend a certain type of target, how many of them were deployed regarding the objective's importance, but also how the air defense systems were organized (how many launchers for a system, what's distance between launchers and their tracking operators, etc. …). My goal is to recreate more plausible environments in DCS thanks to the Mission Editor. Thank you for your help)) PS : Any books/websites on interaction between GCI and WP Air Defense is welcome too.

I'm eagerly awaiting for the final manual to start flying the Mirage. Thank you for the hard work and efforts.

I'm willing to think that's something wrong on your side too. If the NWS was faulty as much as you describe, I believe this section and this thread would be flood with complaints. Obviously that's not the case. Dave, did you looked at the link I provided in my last post ? You could see what the majority of us experience regarding the NWS. Hope you'll find a solution asap ; it's infuriating to no be able to fully enjoy a module.

On point. I share the same ideas and I wish the community could behave accordingly to their very own aspiration of what DCS should be, a Digital Combat Simulation. From my point of view, trainers have a place within DCS as they are part of the learning process in every air forces. However, and despite Wags own words, I don't see the point to include civilian aircrafts as dedicated modules. Even if the platform is well known for its high fidelity flight models, the sim itself lacks too many crucial features to simulate civ' activities (yes, I'm looking at you ATC and weather). Make the right choice, vote with your wallet.

Take a deep breath. While I experienced the problem you mentionned at TO (problem that I solved by practicing), I never had any problem at landings as long as I didn't try to use NWS until my aircraft reach the taxiing speed to clear the runway. You can find a ton of videos on Youtube of people taking off with the F-5 and not experiencing the drift (just check page, he mostly flies the Tiger lately).

Is that confirmed ? I must confess that I had a very hard time while training my TO during the first weeks. The only solution was indeed, to customize the curves of the rudder input.

Source : DCS Update Patch Notes Discussion Thread

Instead, I'll wait eagerly for QoL updates to the build once released.

Options are always a good thing. An "easy mode" could attract more people to the sim and after a while making the transition to the "advanced/realistic mode". I remember another highly detailed modern sim offering such granularity. However, I'm afraid that such mode would take time to develop while there are so much projects in progress.

Thank you for the work you put into these liveries, they look fantastic ! I can't wait to download all of your work for the Viggen. (Is the PBR Specular mod compatible with online play regarding the Integrity Checks ?)

Well, that's exactly the point of the "Search" field on top of the page you know.

Considering one of the latest SithSpawn’s post on the new Caucasus map thread, your "0% chance" seems a bit excessive. As someone asked if there was hope for a Christmas release, he simply replied : "I have hope." If I remember it correctly, the new Caucasus map will be available with the 2.5, right ? I want to believe

This is not the complete map :music_whistling: