Koty

Mary base would be such a great addition and actually make so much sense to add...

Сложно объяснить, но в принципе это только начальное освещение; в дальнейшем оно будет доработано так, чтобы корректно выглядеть как внешнее освещение но всему свое время

1) small typo, the airborne control was Tu-126 2) You say they never did independent patrols, but that's exactly what that diagram is formation for independent search for when automated control is not available But I will agree, vozduch-1/1m is an important part of not just the PVO, I sincerely hope it will come into DCS at some point.

Well yeah, its part of my frustration - this is why talking about whether the sam is OP/easy to defeat/etc. is pointless. My point is that relatively speaking its underperforming, because of the SAM not being modelled right, which in turn is caused by lack of appropriate code in the engine of dcs itself which makes the SAMs greatly simplified. Hope this makes sense.

And have _you_ presented a point or evidence? I'm not trying to be abrasive here, what I'm trying to say is you've presented an anecdotal evidence and then got assinine, as you call them, responses. And I'm not a fan of those either. Two points to conclude, 1) No, it's not OP 2) It's simply wrong

But will we get a new one somewhere in the future to get our cold-war fix?

Yes, model is 11D (V-750), you can gauge which generation it is by thrust values if you manage to open the files: You are right, it's not this effective. In reality it's more effective due to things I and Okopanja mentioned earlier in this thread. Majority of the playerbase also suffers from profound skill issue. That is no way to gauge if the system is modelled right. What you do need to look at is if it actually works the same way as in real life or not. Which it simply doesn't, for both better and worse. Missiles currently use proportional navigation instead of appropriate method of command guidance. This brings advantages and disadvantages. The missile will lead the target perfectly, but also bleed way more energy on a manoeuvring target and can be simply driven into ground. The system also works as a part of wider IADS system, which is simply not a thing in DCS, in reality you will have your air defence brigade HQ pick up targets and distribute them to subordinate detachments for destruction, who would also coordinate with air defence fighter regiments (though for a lot of the conflicts these systems were in, this was either not used or worked on the basis of people simply relaying information via phone or even radio). Missile proximity fuse does not react correctly to chaff or jamming either. And this is simply down to how the DCS engine works. You are not going to make the system perform correctly using the current missile API. You'd need a custom missile code. And while I'd love to see this rework, all of these "bug reports" which are simply posts about "how come i got shot down in a game" are not helping, in fact it's doing the opposite by filling the forum with clutter. Because conversely, how do you know its overperforming other than comparing kill probability statistics from wartime use with a million different factors coming into them and not accounted for? And for that I'll just quote the following post:

ah, fair enough, to be fair its too new for my taste so I'm not surprised I never heard of the Volga, but looks interesting.

On the last point, as I mentioned, its working around the limitation of current code base. So not just with information available but also with the API available.

As BN mentioned, using other sims as resource is not a great move. Anyway, it's not that the SAM is OP, its just wrong and so the methods you would use IRL do not work, while methods the SAM is specifically designed to not be affected by do work. Let me start by saying the following - in a technical discussion, let's not call it just "SA-2" because that can lead to many problems thanks to not being specific enough, but instead use the actual variant names. In addition to the above, the missile uses the wrong guidance method, wrong tracking logic, its missing half the features that make it work IRL, etc. It's all down to limitations of currend SAM codebase, although as Chizh mentioned in the Ru section of the forum couple months back there is a plan to rework the SAMs so my hopes are high. In case of interest, I do finally have the S-75M manual. This brings me to the next point. Vietnam used mainly SA-75MK; S-75M is not a "1995 version", it's from mid 1960s. They should behave very similar. One - The S-75M we have (at least, the radar of which we already have) would already represent a contemporary to the 1970s F-4E, but I would certainly love an older variant, like SA-75M, we already got the models for the launchers anyway. Two - with how the Dvina/Desna/Volchov work, breaking lock is not enough to defeat the system, as the operator can still manually track you by steering the TWS display onto your mark manually. SPJs are practically useless as well, best you can do is deny range information with a noise jammer or force manual track with angular deception jamming (invese amplitude modulation). S-75M is the answer to both, in theory. I think Iraq also had some older SA-75M(K)'s. However, seeing the inconsistent art assets, it still begs the question, which version is it supposed to be? ^THIS Due to the S-75M in DCS using proportional navigation instead of its correct command guidance modes, its much easier to defeat than in reality. Sorry to put it this way, but skill issue. S-75 is extremely easy to defeat. We have a 1960s S-75M with practically fantasy missiles, using proportional navigation like a SARH missile would. Again, I'd like to know which exact variant is this supposed to be. Again, try being more specific with the variants, you'll see there is a lot more nuance to it than just "vietnamese SA-2" or "inferior model sold to north korea". Not just USSR, the whole of Warsaw Pact at the very least. Keep in mind the oldest phantom HB is planning to make right now is a 1974 standard, Czechoslovakia received first S-75M Volchovs already in the 60s to replace original SA-75 and SA-75M Dvinas delivered in the early 60s. No variant was ever limited to just one missile in the air either. They always could handle 3 airborne missiles. If we do have the SNR-75M3 as Okopanje just sent as I'm typing this, and not just 75M, it pushes the time frame out a little bit. The missile being internally named V755 is interesting, however since the 3D model is already that of the V750, it makes me wonder if the stats fit the 20D (or any of its later derivates). So now, in no particlar order of importance, couple of actual issues with the system: It is not clear which variant of the system it's supposed to represent. At the very least the models and naming are inconsistent, if someone wants to poke around in the files we might be able to figure out if at least the values fit. Missiles use wrong guidance logic - currently they use proportional navigation, in reality they had 3 modes to select from. Three-point method, essentially advanced beam riding (system tries to align the missile with sight line), half-lead (system tries to deflect missile alignment line to point half way between pure lead intercept point and the aircraft), K-mode, which is half-lead in horizontal plane and vertically commanded altitude (this prevents driving missile into the ground). Missiles are in reality also only capale of up to 7G manoeuvres, 5Ya23 for the Volchov might be better as it was specifically designed to deal with low-altitude and actively manoeuvring targets. Site is missing all of its assets, including generators and transformer unit, command and control cabins, computer cabins. System is missing capability to connect to Vozduch-1 datalink. I have not observed the capability to launch on the TV channel.

Well, it seems pretty straightforward? To generate the anti-torque you generate a force on the tail boom. Since the helicopter (with no sideways cant on the rotor) sits perfectly straight in hover, it would imply the torque is getting cancelled, but no actual force is being generated. It is basic newtonian mechanics so probably just something overlooked in the FM code. It really is as simple as F = T/r. ... the perspective might be a bit fucky but the left ski is lower at 3:00. You also tilt the fuselage to counteract the translating tendency...

I'm also hoping for playable heavy sams, at least the ones where information is freely available

For points 3 and 4, you'd need rework of whole Vozduch datalink system; ALL of the strategic sams can use them. Meaning S-75M, S-125, S-200 and S-300. Currently we don't even have correct search radar for S-200 (I know there was a talk about what Syria uses, and no, even if you look at google photo maps you can clearly identify the P-14). The search radars are then connected usually to Senezh air defence computer (this is a system from 80s, if not earlier), can automatically identify and track targets from search radars, including jamming targets. There was a PDF floating around the internet describing its function, original documentation, but since we were on the legal topic yesterday not sure how legal it would be to use. In a very simplified manner (think of the datalink display on Su-27) it would still be a massive jump towards realism. But speaking of missiles and realism, is there a rework of SAMs planned? I already published a report for the S-75M's missile (system uses wrong launcher and missile model for V-755, plus it should be С-75м Волхов, not С-75 Двина - not to mention, it is just not a thing, СА-75/75м/75мк are "Двина", S-75 is Десна. Then there is the fact that all the command guided SAMs seem to use proportional navigation instead of the correct modes of guidance...

Not quite. There was a couple airframes used for weapon testing in the 80s. Gulf war was first regular employment. ER was carried by PVO for standard duties as early as 87.

ER, ET were "in use" since about 1987/88, not fully accepted until 1990. 27R and T would enter service with Su-27 in about 1986, maybe with first examples in 1985. They were still undergoing testing in 1984.