St. Agre

I'm fully aware of how they work in DCS, what I'm asking is if this is correct. As far as I can tell, the S-300 and Patriot shouldn't change their radar signatures enough during a missile launch for your RWR to distinguish between, say, an S-300 that is locking you and an S-300 that is supporting a missile toward you. I'm pretty sure DCS modelling of these two systems is incorrect, is what I am saying.

Both the S-300 and Patriot use TVM (Track-via-Missile) guidance instead of Command Guidance or SARH. I've been lead to believe that this method of guidance means it is not possible to detect a launch vs. just a normal hard lock, and as such the S-300 and Patriot systems should not give a launch warning when engaging a target, only a lock warning. Is this true?

I've noted some specific errors: Right-front nose number is reversed Left side tail number repeats the last digit twice instead of the middle digit. However the right side of the tail works correctly:

Just today I was requestion a Udaloy or Sovremenny and you guys answer fast! can't wait! 新年快乐！

Yeah they do, and I've been trying to work with them but one of the things that prompted me to post was that a lot of the roads have powerlines or other totally unrealistic addons that kind of ruin the aesthetic (especially the Al Dhafra patriot site and the Bandar Abbas SA-2 site). Also, of course, if we want SAMs to be mobile then it would be nice to be able to make semi-realistic infrastructure anywhere on the map.

Even more reason to add these units to the game, as it's basically impossible to create empty or disused SAM sites right now.

Some of the pictures I posted here are from Syria, so not exactly peacetime setups. Also, if you look at SA-2 pictures from Vietnam they're also extremely visible from the air for the same reasons. Either way, the vehicles driving around to setup and maintain the systems would quite quickly wear into the landscape and create a a visible site, as shown here. That said, of course more mobile systems like the Tor, Buk, Rapier and the like could hide much more easily, but even then they still have visible support networks, they're just smaller and more temporary. For example, here's a relatively hasty looking SA-6 site: Definitely a lot less obvious, but still significantly more visible than 4 launchers, a radar, and a couple transports just sitting in a field.

In DCS, SAM sites are often just clusters of vehicles on the ground, making them difficult to spot and identify, especially as mission makers often place them unrealistically or incorrectly. In real life, SAM systems are laid out in specific ways with easily identifiable layouts and support infrastructure surrounding them unique to each type of SAM. In DCS, it's very difficult to recreate these setups without raised platforms for radars, revetments, and placeable roads. So basically I'm just adding these myriad objects and templates to the ever growing DCS wishlist. Some picture examples of various SAM Sites: S-300 Missile Site SA-2 Guideline site Patriot Missile Site Hawk Missile Site As you can see, each type of SAM has a unique and easily identifiable network of roads, revetments, and other support structure that make them readily visible from the air, as opposed to the random assortment of vehicles that make up most SAM sites in DCS. P.S. It would also be nice to have a non-mobile early-warning radar, pictured below, instead of the ancient mobile EW models we have in game. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to listen :D

Posting to bump this thread, I'm experiencing the same issue where a Rapier will not engage without a blindfire unit in the group.

I think those updates didn't make it into the hotfix today.

Well, a GBU-16 since it's a 1000lb class bomb.

I found doing a repair of my DCS Install significantly reduced the crashing, if you haven't given that a try I'd suggest it.

The PL-10 isn't an SD-10, it's an IR missile. The PL-12 is what you're looking for.

Hi, Just wanted to suggest that the "sensor up/sensor down" keybind zoom the WMD-7 instead of move it up and down, since the TDC already does that and sensor up/down changes the radar elevation, it seems like it makes more logical sense this way, since otherwise it's a doubled-up keybind and most of us don't have many absolute axes to use. Thanks!

Also just had a crash on Blueflag, log attached. dcs.log.zip

No because it's not IR guided like a Sidewinder, it's an Infrared camera acquiring a contrast lock on the jet. A flare wouldn't be any more useful against this than it would be against a Tunguska.

Not to derail this thread but the chord you see around the canopy is det-cord that shatters the canopy glass during ejection, like in the Harrier.

It's a SACLOS missile like the Tunguska, though AFAIK the Tunguska merely uses a TV sensor while the Crotale (and HQ-7 since it's based on it) uses an IR sensor to maintain track.

I think a Q-5L (or at least any Q-5 with self-lasing capability) would be a really cool addition, providing a full fidelity CAS aircraft for Red that could compete with the Harrier or A-10C. If the only Q-5 we could do would be an older one without PGMs, then I'd rather have a J-8F.

Ah yeah, I knew about the payload list, but I didn't remember the GB500 being on it. I thought it had also been added like the GB-6.

Oh nice, happy to see we're getting some more Chinese weapons. Is there an updated list? or were these just mentioned sporadically by DIS?

The J-11 was never officially included in FC3, it was added as a bonus for testing but it's not mentioned on the FC3 product page nor is it considered anything other than a bonus.

Well the devs are Chinese and it seems they're getting most of their information from China, not sure how much info Pakistan has been interested in giving them. On that topic though, any chance we'll be getting Chinese dumb bombs/Laser Guided bombs as well? Or sticking with the Mk82/3/4 and Paveways?

I know this is an old thread but I would also love a land-based HQ-9. :D

I disagree, it'd be something very special in DCS since it's basically the capability of an F-15E or SU-34. It'd be an absolute beast at a/g. That said, I would guess it falls into the same category of aircraft as the J-10/J-11B/J-15, it's too new for them to be able to make. Maybe a late version of a Q-5 would be a lot more likely.