Search the Community

Hey Everyone, I am Working on a Nike Hercules Mod, Missile+Launcher is already working. Base is the Mod of Acidpro08. And Thanks to CH for allowing the use of his code as A base. Rightnow working On The Lowpar Radar .Greatings From Germany

Howdy, I have been working on making my first mod for DCS for the last 2 weeks, decided to go with the Nike Hercules launcher and Missile. So far I have been able to create the Missile and Launcher model within blender with animations on the launcher that works (roughly) and have been able to get those models exported in EDM format and working in game replacing the SA-2 models. I then started to work on creating the custom mod folder for my mod and getting the lua files set up working with other existing sam mods and their lua codes. All the lua code just to get it to run is done and in the mod folder but I am stuck at the game not wanting to launch if the mod is in the mod folder so somewhere the code is broke and I have not been able to get any help from the DCS forms or on modding discords. Because of that, I am releasing my models, blender files and broke mod file for anyone to work on and play around with. It's pretty basic but the missile still looks cool in game. Please let me know if you decide to work on it and get it working or are able to help me with the coding issue. Thanks! Nike Hurcules Mod BROKE.rar

Here is the "first" video, it is the cont. of the series about the Soviet SAM systems. Move video will come about this and many other topics soon.

Hi everyone, Would it be possible in the future to add some more Cold War era MANPADS? Namely systems such as: 9K32M Strela-2M [SA-7B Grail] - early 70s FIM-43C/D Redeye Block III/IV - late 60s 9K34 Strela-3 [SA-14 Gremlin] - mid 70s FIM-92A Stinger Basic - early 80s FIM-92B Stinger POST - late 80s Blowpipe - mid 70s RBS 70 Mk. 1 - mid 70s Javelin - mid 80s The 9K32M Strela-2M [SA-7B Grail] in particular was/is incredibly prolific, if not probably the most prolific MANPADS, with absolutely tonnes of operators (both former and current) with a lengthy and rich service life in many conflicts around the world. It's also a staple air defence system for Cold War REDFOR. The FIM-43C/D and FIM-92A are more appropriate BLUFOR contemporaries for a Cold War setting. Blowpipe and FIM-92A/B would also fit the South Atlantic map (former used by both sides, latter used by British SOF). EDIT: Now that an Afghanistan map has been formerly announced, the FIM-92A/B and 9K32/32M would also be perfect for Afghanistan missions (where we already have 2 helicopters that more or less fit). Though the Afghanistan map will likely be a modern day one. At the moment we only have the following MANPADS: 9K38 Igla [SA-18 Grouch] (though unsure of the missile used in DCS, though both the Igla and Igla-S fire the same missile, see here) - early 1980s 9K338 Igla-S [SA-24 Grinch] - mid 2000s FIM-92C Stinger RMP (which is also the missile fired by our M1907 Heavy Avenger and M6(A2?) Linebacker) - early 90s So out of all of them it's only really the Igla that fits the Cold War, only it's just a copied Igla-S with a different name as far as I can tell.

Hi everyone, A long standing request of mine and one I hope you'll all agree with - please include empty air defence sites, suitable for placing units in. Ideally, we'd get a close to 1:1 recreation of the real sites, in their real locations. The closest example I can name in DCS is this example of an Egyptian S-75 site, which is an almost 1:1 recreation of the real thing and is the exact thing I'm talking about. However, even if Ugra were to pick a generic HAWK layout, an S-75/SA-2 site layout, an S-125/SA-3 site layout and an S-200/SA-5 site layout, then copy and paste them in the right locations across the map, that would definitely be better than nothing and would absolutely suffice. There's plenty of resources out there for finding where each one goes and most are still clearly extant in modern satellite imagery (many of the sites have however been converted, but historical imagery is still readily available). Just for some examples: Here's a HAWK site near Fulda, circa 2009. Everything about the site is clearly visible, including launcher and radar positions, revetments etc. In present day imagery it seems to be some chemical/POL facility. Here's a NIKE Hercules launch site near Arnshöfen. In present day imagery all but the western launch position has been dug up, but in historical imagery (such as this from 2008), everything is clearly visible (though note only the western launch position has its storage shelter visible, they're removed from the other positions, though where they would've been is clearly visible). The IFC site is located on top of a hill, in a forest to the north-west (and is empty save for a tower) - there's even a shot of the IFC site from a drone. Here's an S-75/SA-2 site just south of the large Wittstock Bombing Range. Unlike most imagery, these site shows everything (the central revetments for the FCR and associated equipment, the 6 launcher revetments arranged in a circle centred on the FCR, as well as other reveted positions for the acquisition radar and other equipment). If this was copied and pasted at every SA-2 site, this is would be perfect. Here's an S-125/SA-3 site adjacent to Storkow, close to Templin airbase, here's another historical image, again clearly showing the layout. Everything is clearly visible. Here's another near Möckern, again everything visible. This site appears to be defending an S-200 site in the forest to the east. Here's an S-200/SA-5 site just south-east of Gransee, to the north of Berlin. Everything about the site is clearly visible - the 2 launch battalions (with central launch control centre (which would have generators and power distribution), with 6 launch positions each. The technical batallion to the east, and to the north, the guidance area (with positions for fire-control and acquisition radars). Here is where an S-300PMU/SA-10B sie would've been, immediately to the west is an S-75/SA-2 site. Here's a 2K12/SA-6 site to the south of Erfut. This site is mostly just roads, but there are a couple of reveted positions (you can see the 4 positions for launchers in a rectangular shape, with a 5th inside the rectangle for the Straight Flush. In the development screenshots, there's this image: I'm almost certain that this is Damgarten (an airbase the MiG-29S has a livery for). This airbase has an S-125 site immediately adjacent to it. It's most visible in this image (the grey object is where the FCR and associated equipment would've been located and there are 4 circular revetments for the launchers to the west, though the southern one is only just visible, but nonetheless there are 4), EDIT: here's an image showing the site (3). There's also another site near Saal to the north-east, which this site has historical imagery of. Unfortunately however, the former site seems to be absent in this screenshot. Previously, on the Syria map, Ugra did take a crack at doing some air defence sites, though only really so with the SA-2/S-75 and while the revetment models were perfectly accurate, the site however wasn't (only 5 launcher revetments - should be 6, no revetments for radars or other equipment). I've attached SAMSiteOverview.kmz by Sean O'Connor of IMINT & Analysis below, which can be used to find just about all sites (though is missing British Bloodhound and Rapier sites). SAM Site Overview.kmz

It would be nice if all the different SAM Site positions and other different important military objects like ports training ranges etc. would be marked on the map (atleast in mission editor). This would make mission building on the germany cw map more comfortable.

Anyone noticed anything different with HARM behavior within the last couple updates? I'm seeing a lot more misses lately, and it seems like unless there are actively missiles in the air, the HARM won't track the emitter and it definitely wasn't like that before. This behavior persists regardless whether the weapon is employed via HTS pod, HAS display or PB to a steerpoint. I've tried it on SA2s, 11s, 15s and 10s (maybe a couple others) and it's the same for all of them. Missile is defeated, HARM sails over the target. HARM evasion is not switched on. These are as 'dumb' as SAM sites can get. In the past, you could stay well outside of range and lob HARMs at them and get consistent hits, now I'm seeing hit rates of 50% at best. I've been flying the Viper and making missions for 2.5 years and things definitely seem different within the last couple weeks. My squadron-mates are all seeing the same thing, in both the Hornet and the Viper. Anyone else notice this? I'm not necessarily complaining either. This change makes Weaseling a really fun challenge, but if it was a change I didn't see it in any of the patch notes, unless I just missed it, which is absolutely a possibility.

I would like to see the option for DCS terrain tech to allow mission designers to modify the ground texture and grass properties. This would enable them to paint in tire marks or "used" zones around SAM sites or logistic assets placed in ME. One big visual problem - mostly on "green" maps - is the lack of possibility for the terrain to react to placed assets. When placed on grassland, these assets look out of place. At the same time, the lack of tire marks makes logistic-heavy sites (Long range SAMs f.e.) more difficult to spot from the air than they would be in reality. I propose a system where the DCS terrain engine could take info from the ME to create areas that override the default ground properties. With this mission editors could "paint" in small dirt roads, foot paths and areas "beaten up" by heavy vehicles. It would be desirable to have this system working during mission runtime also, so that moving units could create these areas dynamically, but i think a "static" system that is fed from ME input solely is "good enough" for most situations. Technically it should be less difficult than it may perhaps seem. Texture blending/masking is surely already possible in DCS. This feature would dramatically improve the visual footprint of editor-placed ground assets and create a much more realistic visual representation of military installations of any kind... If you like the proposed improvements, please rate this thread 5 stars: Thanks!

Hi everyone, and happy 2025! I was scripting a mission, trying to get a SEAD group of F/A-18C controlled by the AI to suppress a SAM SA-10 site, using both ADM-141A decoys and AGM-88C HARM missiles, while I was occupied bombing some vehicles out there (yeah, the easy part for me...) When trying different weapon loadouts in the AI SEAD group, I think I found something wrong: if the weapon loadout is mixed (and with that I mean the loadout includes both decoys and HARMS in the same aircraft, regardless of any other weapon) decoys do not behave as expected or the group does not attack the target at all. I have prepared a set of examples (see attached file). Sit down in the spanish F/A-18 and watch the canadian colleagues do the hard job in the following scenarios: Mission 1: Pure decoy loadout / Waypoint orders: attack only with decoys. This works fine: the guys launch the decoys in the target direction. Mission 2: Mixed loadout (HARMs & decoys) / Waypoint orders: attack only with decoys. This does not work: the F/A-18s do not perform any attack at all, and continue with the flight plan to the next waypoint. Mission 3: Mixed loadout (HARMs & decoys) / Waypoint orders: attack with auto weapon choice. The F/A-18s attack the target, but they launch both decoys and HARMs at the same time (therefore the decoys arrive terribly late to the show). Mission 4: Mixed loadout (HARMs & decoys) / Waypoint orders: attack only with HARMs. This works fine, only HARMs are launched. Mission 5: Pure HARM loadout / Waypoint orders: attack only with HARMs. This works fine, although some planes release all their missiles while others keep a couple onboard (I guess this must be right depending on the target). Mission 6: Pure HARM loadout / Waypoint orders: auto weapon choice. This works fine, although some planes release all their missiles while others keep a couple onboard (I guess this must be right depending on the target). From my humble point of view, the right behaviour should be: When having a mixed loadout, and when instructed to launch decoys, the AI should launch the decoys at the target instead of doing nothing. When having a mixed loadout, and when not specifying the weapon of choice (AUTO) the AI should launch the decoys at the target first, and then launch the HARM missiles later, so they could arrive more or less at the same time at the target (maybe some expert can provide more options here, but it is clear that launching everything at the same time is a nice way to waste the decoys). Hope you can try it as well and shed some light. It will be wonderful to be proven wrong, but I think this is a classic bug Thanks in advance! Decoy_tests.zip

Hi I noticed that the ["detectionDistanceAir"] for the SA-6 is the same for Lower Hemisphere and Upper Hemisphere (46811.82421875). I`m assuming Lower Hemisphere is low altitude and Upper Hemisphere is High altitude, if that's the case, I would think that lower hemisphere would have a shorter detection distance than Upper hemisphere due to the curvature of the earth?

Does anyone know the approximate percentage of old SA-2 and SA-3 systems failing? I've heard that many of these old Russian SAM missiles can fail to launch or track quite often and I was trying to implement that failure in DCS as a trigger percentage to replicate Syrian bought, Russian made SA-2s and SA-3s. If anyone has any information it would be greatly appreciated.

When driving the Roland SAM system, it takes 10 seconds to acquire the target. This seems way too long to be realistic. It leads to surreal moments where a target is slowly turning towards you while you are unable to react even when the perfect shot is lined up. Is reducing it to 4 or 5 seconds possible? (similar to TOR) roland aq time.trk

HI everyone, As of the 2.7.4 update to the OB, the Tin Shield radar has incorrectly been given the name "SAM SA-5 S-200 Gammon SR". IRL however, the Tin Shield is actually associated with S-300/SA-10 system (or used a general purpose EWR). Given that we have the S-300PS [SA-10b Grumble], we should have the 5N59S [Tin Shield B] (though it has a host of other designations which use different rules - I prefer the 5NXXX for radars as it's cleaner to work with). It's especially puzzling because the 5V28 missile of the S-200V "Vega" [SA-5b Gammon] has a maximum range of 240km, but the Tin Shield RADAR only has a maximum instrumented range of 150km, 60% less range.

Why are the SA-10 search radars so underperforming compared to the Patriot search radar? According to the DCS encyclopedia, the SA-10 5N66M has a maximum detection range of 120/90 km... but in-game it's more like 60 km and the 64H6E Big Bird has a detection range of 300 km in the encyclopedia, again only 170 km like in-game Patriot AN/MPQ-53

I dont see much a diffrence of Detecting, locking and firing of SA-2 against Tiger, Viper and Hornet Tacview-20220907-170302-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220907-165846-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220907-165406-DCS.zip.acmi

So about the estimated coverage area of the Patriot STR. And, the radar body being static, not sweeping 360 deg. Do I need to add 4 search/track radars to one single Patriot site? Or, do you have to place 4 separate full sites in order to cover all 360 deg? Or, do you use an EWR in conjunction with the Patriot site, to perform the initial detection and pass it to the Patriot STR to take over? Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I don't know how it should be, and I want to learn to do it right. Thanks for any help.

as per title, isn't that strange ? is it the correct behavior ?

I'm pretty sure that this must have been asked and answered a zillion times, but I'm totally unable to find a word about it. If so, just please point me to the relevant answers. My question is... that: how far apart can the units of the same SAM group be and still operate coordinately? And, will they operate even if the LOS among them is obstructed? Thank you in advance.

BLUF, I would like to see SAM’s better modeled within DCS. I’ll be speaking primarily about the SA-2 but the points I bring up apply to other SAM’s in the game. There are a few things on the in-game SA-2 that are modeled but not function such as the trough antennas on the Fan Song Target Engagement Radar (TER) that allow it to do its own limited search function. These antennas can scan a fixed area at a time or be combined with the rotation of the whole unit to provide 360 degrees of search. Another thing missing on the Fan Song is its optical tracker. This allowed crews to track targets without the use of the 2 parabolic dish antennas mounted on top. Since the missile guidance was accomplished using Command Guidance instead of Beam Riding the target aircraft wouldn’t get a missile launch warning until the beam from the missile uplink antenna also encompassed the aircraft. This is also true for when crews tracked targets using the Radars, the aircraft would be alerted via its RWR (Radar Warning Receiver) that it was being locked onto, but the missile launch alert would not be given until the aircraft was in the same beam as the missile. For a brief explanation of why this happens continue reading this paragraph, if you already have a grasp of it feel free to skip to the next one. On radar's like the Fan Song that use command guidance, there will usually be antennas dedicated to tracking a target and antennas dedicated to missile guidance or, "talking to the missile." Because the radar's goal is to get the missile out in front of the aircraft to pull lead and not waste its limited energy, it will be fired with lead and the narrow beam of energy pointed at it to give it commands during flight will likely not encompass the aircraft until the missile and aircraft are very close (this scenario assumes a side aspect shot). The aircraft will be kept in the beam of a tracking antenna that works with a computer or the operator to tell the uplink how to guide the missile. The optical tracker is seen on most "E" models of the Fan Song radar which is the variant modeled in game, this is evident by the placement of the 3 parabolic dishes as well as the trough antenna's. From what I have read the SA-3's Low Blow radar includes similar trough antennas however it does not utilize them in the same search function, instead they act as receivers. These Trough antennas are fixed in place so they are limited in azimuth and elevation in terms of search capability, however the inclusion of these antennas mean systems like the SA-2 are not completely useless if the search radar is offline. Something to note is the choice of search radar for the SA-2 and SA-3 being the P-15 Flat Face in game. In real life as far as I've read the P-18 Spoon Rest was the intended Search Radar for at least later model SA-2’s such as the “D” model we have in game. It was also used with the SA-3, however the SA-3 also used a later version of the P-15 called the P-15M Squat Eye. Both the Spoon Rest and the Squat Eye include better performance over the Flat Face. Something that I cannot confirm (as I do not know how the guidance is modeled) but suspect to be inaccurate is the flight path taken by missiles using command guidance. Rather than being fired and leading the target they seem to lag behind it or travel directly to it as if they were beam riding. My final point on the SA-2 specifically is the maximum range of the system. The Target Tracking radar is the SNR-75M4 Fan Song E (it could also be the SNR-75M3 Fan Son E I have not been able to distinguish between the two systems based on our in-game model). The variant of SA-2 to use Fan Song E’s was the SA-2D which used the 5Ya23 missile. This missile has a maximum range of 76,000 m or 41.04 NM. The missile in game has a maximum range of 28 miles, which while being a more realistic firing range as it's much closer to the "no escape" range of the missile, is still short of the maximum range. It's important to note that the statistics for the type of missile used in game seem to be relatively accurate, I believe it is just the wrong missile being used for the variant of SA-2 we have. To conclude, I would like to see track radars have expanded functionality to match their real world counterparts, the variant of SAM specified (like SA-2B, SA-2C, SA-2D etc...) and the components and missiles of SAMs used in game synchronized and their specifications brought in line with the appropriate variant. Thank you and Happy Holidays Sources: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagement-Fire-Control.html http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-75-Volkhov.html Both sources include other links to information

There is not one good official description of how exactly SAM sites need to be set up, how they communicate with other groups (if they do at all) what types of groups they can communicate with. What do the skill levels in SAM systems actually do. I've been setting them up for a while now and understand how to make most systems work but there just isn't information on what the game is actually capable of doing with SAM sites. I don't know how much of the real world capabilities DCS actually models and based on my struggles trying to research this for the past years, I'm not so sure that anyone else really knows either. Most videos on explaining how the mission editor works give of the vibe of "Well I do it this way and it seems to work" This is also true with the logistics system, I would love to make use of this, but how the hell does it work? It's not in your manual which looks like it goes back like 10 years when the only aircraft was the Black Shark. There are also not any videos that describe the whole system. If you don't want to update the actual manual then maybe wags needs to do a series on like, actually using the editor, like a big series, that explains every part of what DCS is capable of from a mission editor point of view. I think a lack of good and accessible documentation on the game generally is a contributing factor to the game being hard for new players to get into.

So me and 5 others flew an Elint flight but we didn't pick up the ELINT data even if we flew over the radars at 4000-6000m and they pinged us with search and tracking radars. Is the elint in the Viggen outdated? or what is up with it?

is the AI really Scan the Area and Air inorder to find hostile AC or it coded as it already knows where to look at ?

So the S300 detection/tracking range is still very low...at my example it detects a F16 at ~30k ft, Mach 1,7 only at 22km and engages at 18km an that over bone flat terrain..the patriot SAM for comparison detects and engages the F16 at 52 km regardles of skill level....something seems still wrong here with the S300 Performance. S300 detection attack at 18,4km.acmi S300 low tracking distance.trk patriot SAM.trk

In the current state of DCS, capable SAM batteries such as the SA-15, SA-11 and S-300 are able to counter air-launched weapons such as the AGM-88, AGM-65, cruise missiles,(which is expected and it was as such since I tried AGM-88 for the 1st time back to 2018 by hornet) and these systems can engage with CBUs(such as 97 and I have no idea if it can/should engage with bombs) and INS/GPS guided. However, it seems the AI knows which weapons it should intercept and which it should not. It recognizes that it shouldn't engage with weapons that can't harm the site, such as the AIM-7, AIM-120, BDU, and practice weapons. This is strange! How can it differentiate between a CBU-97 and a BDU, or an AGM-88 and an AIM-7? Maybe each SAM system should have its own thread! (which is very much possible depends on internal team and implementation)

Hi everyone, A smaller one, the 5V55 and 48N6 missiles seem to leave 2 smoke trails. This is most visible just after launch, when performing pitch-over. One smoke trail appears to emit from the rear of the plume as expected, but another appears to emit from the missile itself, leaving 2 distinct smoke trails. The 2nd trail emitted from the missile seems to cut off before motor burn-out (when the plume and its smoke trail disappears). S-300PS_smoke.trk S-300FM_smoke.trk