Whiskey11

That is indeed the Nike Integrated Fire Control site!

To add to the SAM-tism, the HAWK sites on the map are also wrongly modeled. They look more like SA-2 sites than HAWK sites. I'll be doing a bug report for it later, but it was one of the more disappointing things when so many valid examples of the HAWK sites still exist. Would also be nice to have SA-2 and SA-3 sites like they had in East Germany with the full underground command bunker modeled, but I get the "open top" revetment style sites are what the CIA always showed in their documentation (for new built sites... that makes sense, for the established ones? Naaaah). Overall, I'm happy with the map even though I've only flown around it with the free camera and not actually flown from it.

Respectfully, you are telling me something I already know and have conveyed to ED. Like you, all I can do is hope ED or Ugra will change their mind... sadly, it seems ED is NOT interested in doing so at this time. I'm just relaying the message from them, here.

Link can be disabled in the ME... the HMCS can be removed and NVG's equipped by default, but I think it can be added by units on the ground. As for the Link stuff, the biggest issue with disabling it in the ME is it ALSO disables the F-14's Link4... which isn't realistic.

I'm just happy I'll be able to drive an Abrams around the Nürburgring because everyone wants to truly know just which is faster, it or the Leopard 2A6

ED has said they will not be adding Nike Hercules because "it's not time frame appropriate" but when I pointed out these systems remained operational until 1988 in West Germany, they said it will focus primarily on IHAWK and Patriot. Hopefully a modder will pick it up and build it... even if the launchers aren't connected together. I'm just hopeful we'll get some generic copy-pasta Nike sites as 3D assets in addition to the numerous SA-2, SA-3, SA-5 sites dotted around East Germany....

I'll have to recheck the data I uploaded to Git, but my personal KMZ file of this has Husum Air Base. It might not be in that picture because of the way Google Earth displays pin names when zooming out. We used an official airport publication for West Germany which listed all of the airbases, so I'd hope a fairly major airbase would be there given the absolute nitpicky detail the publication had about army heliports! As with everything, verify any non double pins before deleting. I have the Sam Site Overview KMZ file from another person, and there are a few places where I flat out disagree with the Pin locations for things... as a perfect example, it labels the ammunition bunkers near Hosum Air Base as a former Patriot site, when it's quite clearly ammunition bunkers. Mine is also not perfect... some things are missing because cities have overgrown them, some of the headquarters locations of some of the AD units in East Germany are also best-guesses because of urban growth and the de-sovietification of East Germany.

I would also concur with this request... the large sites MUST be on this map as they did so much "damage" to the earth they are still visible today... SA-5 sites, due to their size (and there only being five of them in East Germany) should absolutely be modeled individually. Generic SA-2/SA-3 sites, HAWK sites and Patriot sites would probably be fine. The biggest issue Ugra had on Syria was the terrain elevation mesh interfering with accurate placement of sites... things such as the SA-2 sites having huge changes in elevation so that the Fan Song was at the lowest point in the site and obstructed by the revetments for the missiles. Ugra, there are enough of us SAM Site Rivet Counters here we'd be willing to help out with explaining how these sites work and their common layouts if you want us to, we can do the break downs like I did for the Homs SA-5 site in Syria. There is enough historical imagery floating around for a number of these bases that if you REALLY want us to get into the nitpicky details, we can, but I'd really like to encourage you to at least consider the "basics". I know you have access to the IADS Project KMZ as Recoil is a tester and he helped me build my KMZ file, but if you need it, here is a link: https://github.com/Whiskey-11/The-IADS-Project Plenty of examples of various site layouts to chose a generic one to help speed along things, and us SAM Site Rivet counters are here to help along the way!

Going to dump this here and see if it helps you any... while the scope of The IADS Project is a bit more broad than Germany, we DO have most of the air bases and heliports in West Germany circa like 1991 pulled from an aviation airport publication for Europe. https://github.com/Whiskey-11/The-IADS-Project We also have a few of the more prominent missile bases (Pershing launch sites) and a few of the training ranges in Germany labeled, but it's not complete as that was a little out of the scope of our project. West German NATO bases: East German Bases: Obviously the IADS project includes as many of the known locations for SAM sites in Germany in this time frame except some of the more mobile SAM systems. ED has said Nike isn't coming from them, so hopefully modders can fix that... The chaos (Without Nike):

Ahh the inevitable duel between SEAD and DEAD... Shrike is... with default DCS and without the SAM Site react to ARM feature... a terrible weapon. Their usefulness is significantly lower than if you used Skynet IADS scripting or the React to ARM feature where you can get the radar to turn off. Remember the Shrike, while capable of damaging radars, is a suppression weapon. If the SAM Site stops emitting, that's a successful deployment. If it happens to destroy the radar in the process, it's a REALLY successful mission. If you want it dead, you'll have to actually hit it with something guaranteed to find the target. As with all ARM, the hit rates for a Shrike, STARM, or HARM, are really low relative to other weapons. Plan accordingly.

Honestly, the F14D IRST is a bigger issue. At a minimum you know the APG-71 is more capable than the AWG-9 and about a good as the APG-70 in terms of range and fidelity since the control/processing unit of the APG-70 was effectively merged with a modified AWG-9 antenna to give us the APG-71. You can approximate the rest well enough to suspend disbelief at its capabilities.

Ahhh gotcha. My bad! As you can tell, I spent a LONG TIME fighting this fight with another game developer who, in spite of OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, refused to change it... made worse by the 3D model used here is that company's 3D model (not saying you did anything wrong, just it's exactly their model, which is why the bloomers are the wrong color). Just love my Iowa Class too much.

Not sure what you mean by this. When I fought this fight on the World of game forums, I pulled nearly every historical picture of the Iowa's from the 1940's into the end of their active service in the 90's and counted a ground total of zero pictures in which the barrel bloomers were any color other than black/faded black. One of the more famous photos of their reactivation SINKEX excursions. Historical Photo:

The order shouldn't matter unless you are running a modified Skynet-Compiled LUA with this setup in it, in which case, the search radar (P-14, etc) should be first. Without Skynet, the order shouldn't matter. As for multiple search radars in the group, I'd obviously caution against it as I can't predict how DCS will handle having two search radars there... I imagine it shouldn't cause problems, but I can't guarantee it either. =\ Such is the life of DCS! I haven't tested it with multiple search radars, so your mileage may vary!

And as great of a mod as HDSM is, the problem still remains that you cannot join a multiplayer game without also having the mod, which means your community is going to be seriously limited. DCS needs a multiplayer mod temporary download functionality or a way to dynamically load mods into the game while it is running and an option to download certain mods which have been "vetted" by the DCS community for HDSM to really take over. The sad part is that ED could implement the S-300 PMU-2 quite easily into the game as the missile is in the game, the radar is in the game, and the TEL is in the game. They could even use the 3D model of the S-300PS and 98% of the DCS community wouldn't notice how it's wrong. A few of us with SAMtism would notice, but the vast majority wouldn't. The same is roughly true of the Patriot PAC-2 variants which are mostly the same launcher/missile body as the PAC-1 we have in game with better range and guidance. The currently modeled AN/MPQ-53 supports PAC-2 missiles and the PAC-2 GEM+ gets you to ~2003... And the same is true of the NASAM's ability to fire AIM-9's... and the SA-11 being able to guide SA-6 missiles... and the Tin Shield from the SA-5 not being able to be used with the SA-10... most of these changes are single line code changes and would take a programmer a day to accomplish... maybe not the SA-11/SA-6 cross play, but most of the unit dependency ones.

You have to be going at a constant velocity and perfectly level. Generally speaking, I set autopilot and dish the throttle back quite a lot. The needle WILL move to show the variation from the carrier's magnetic influence.

This is still a thing in the current version. Played a Retribution Campaign mission with my squadron and an SA-8 intercepted a Tomahawk. No track file, since multiplayer and massive mission, but the two above should work.

Here you go. SA8PointDefense.trk dcs.log

I haven't been able to play DCS since this occurred. Hopefully Monday I'll have time to dig into it further.

The problem is a system with no point defense capability suddenly has point defense capability. This is an old command guided system engaging a low observable munition it has never been able to engage in the past in the game. If it's intended then cool, I'll have to update my Kneeboard, but the variant we have is from the early 1970s using a command guided missile (this is significant for a number of reasons). I doubt highly this is an intended change. Finding data cards on the 1S51M3-2 "Land Roll" radar which show radar sensitivity isn't easy. I just know that since the "bombs can be engaged" patch, this is the first time I've seen an SA-8 engage any incoming munitions. It happened twice in one mission.

I don't have a track for this because it occurred in a Multiplayer event and occurred towards the end of a nearly hour and a half long mission. HOWEVER, the SA-8 has acquired the ability to engage the GB-6 glide bomb from the JF-17. It does hit and kill the glide bomb. I don't personally own the JF-17, so I can't give you a track either =|

That mod will do what you are asking, but because of the way ED changed ws.type handling in the LUA code, it will always show up as an "Unknown" on RWR... There is more holding the SA-5 back than just the Tin Shield they paired it with in the base code... even with the P-14, the max engagement range only extends out about another 10-15nmi.

As with many things, the lack of proper IADS comes to make things difficult for us SAM nerds! I can count on probably two hands the number of times I've seen a proper search radar that isn't a Clam Shell at an S-300 site... most of the Tin Shields/Big Birds are placed away from the actual launchers. Doing this in DCS causes some really strange behavior. One of those search radars could support multiple S-300's. Maybe some day!

I don't have a track, however a squad mate sent me a Tacview of an SA-2 doing the same thing on Caucuses. I'll try and do some testing this weekend to get a track file.

UrPeaceKeeper