SA-18

[Caldera]

Hey all,

 

Probably the wrong place to put this, but as to the correct forum I am clueless.

 

This is one version of an SA-18.

 

 

 

Look at the bottom picture showing the launch.  This picture shows no smoke just yet.  The launch angle is very high.  And as a sideways comment, the missile size seems a bit oversized. 

 

Realizing that this is a game...

 

In reality:

Is that launch angle in even possible?

What ejects the rocket from the tube?

When does the rocket motor ignite?

 

Caldera

Edited September 24, 2021 by Caldera

[Caldera]

A neat trick for your repertoire.

 

 

 

 

Pictures are at 7000 AGL with 2 flares @ 2.5 second intervals for the attack on 7 SA-18's.

 

You can fly right over...

 

Caldera

Edited September 24, 2021 by Caldera

[Northstar98]

The SA-18 in DCS is kinda weird and wonky, I'll explain below:

 

For the missile, DCS seems to have mashed the Igla and Igla-S together, so even though there's a separate Igla and an Igla-S, in DCS they're both the same, - they both fire the same missile.

As for that missile? Here's where it gets confusing

The DCS infobar refers to it as "Igla-S", presumably referring to the 9M342 missile which is the missile the real Igla-S fires. However, the 3D model of the missile has 9M39 written on it, which is the missile for the Igla, and DCS' encyclopedia agrees.

What missile has it actually been modelled with? No idea.

As a side note, DCS gets the DoD designation and NATO reporting name for the Igla-S unit incorrect, it is not SA-18 Grouse (as with the Igla), but SA-24 Grinch.

As for the rocket motor, there's a tiny small one that burns for a small fraction of a second, which ejects the missile out of the tube, after a short delay (to prevent injury of the operator) the missile's main motor ignites.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Gierasimov]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The SA-18 in DCS is kinda weird and wonky, I'll explain below:

 

For the missile, DCS seems to have mashed the Igla and Igla-S together, so even though there's a separate Igla and an Igla-S, in DCS they're both the same, in that they both fire the same missile.

 

As for that missile? Here's where it gets confusing.

 

The DCS infobar refers to it as "Igla-S" referring to the 9M342 missile, but the 3D model of the missile has 9M39 written on it , which is the missile for the Igla, and DCS' encyclopedia agrees.

 

As for the rocket motor, there's a tiny small one that burns for a small fraction of a second, which ejects the missile out of the tube, after a short delay (to prevent injury of the operator) the missile's main motor ignites.

 

I'd blame this on a fact that these are very old units. Hopefully, we will see those fleshed out and brought to the modern 3dfx standard. As DCS mainly focuses on aircraft simulation, I would also hoped that all SAM systems have higher priority over other ground units. 

[Northstar98]

On 9/24/2021 at 5:58 PM, Gierasimov said:

I'd blame this on a fact that these are very old units. Hopefully, we will see those fleshed out and brought to the modern 3dfx standard. As DCS mainly focuses on aircraft simulation, I would also hoped that all SAM systems have higher priority over other ground units. 

Agreed, and as far as updating old models are concerned, we should focus on the most out of date units first.

 

For example we got NASAMS II (which is great and all, though no idea why they decided to depict it as used by Norway, when we don't have a modern map anywhere near Norway), but the S-300PS still looks like it came from HL1, fortunately the SA-6 got a major update (and they made it look basically perfect, only thing is graphical damage model).

And personally the priority should be:

• Aircraft
• Weapons
• Air Defences
• Combat ground vehicles (tanks, artillery, APCs etc)
• Ships (as used by whatever Navy)
• Other ground units (namely unarmed units)
• Static objects
• Civillian units

And we should focus on replacing outdated stuff, before adding completely new stuff.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Northstar98

[LetMePickThat]

On 9/24/2021 at 10:03 PM, Northstar98 said:

 

Agreed, and as far as updating old models are concerned, we should focus on the most out of date units first.

 

For example we got NASAMS II (which is great and all, though no idea why they decided to depict it as used by Norway), but the S-300PS still looks like it came from HL1, fortunately the SA-6 got a major update (and they made it look basically perfect, only thing is graphical damage model).

 

And personally the priority should be:

• Aircraft
• Weapons
• Air Defences
• Combat ground vehicles (tanks, artillery, APCs etc)
• Ships (as used by whatever Navy)
• Other ground units (namely unarmed units)
• Static objects
• Civillian units

And we should focus on replacing outdated stuff, before adding completely new stuff.

 

About the S-300PS, you could take a look at this if it really bothers you:

 

 

We've replaced not only the 3D model, but also did a few tweaks to the radars and missiles themselves to make them behave more realistically.

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, LetMePickThat said:

 

About the S-300PS, you could take a look at this if it really bothers you:

 

 

We've replaced not only the 3D model, but also did a few tweaks to the radars and missiles themselves to make them behave more realistically.

 

You guys should also "low digit" garbage sams like the SA-7 and redeye  for the 70's...

[Northstar98]

7 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

You guys should also "low digit" garbage sams like the SA-7 and redeye  for the 70's...

 

 

[Paladin1cd]

Wait... That's a thing?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!? OMG YAAAAAS

 

Son of a gun. Reread it looking for the link... 

 

Disappointed Paladin. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Paladin1cd

[Harlikwin]

9 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

 

I added a vote for this. Hopefully ED does something about it at some point. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Rongor]

On 9/24/2021 at 10:03 PM, Northstar98 said:

For example we got NASAMS II (which is great and all, though no idea why they decided to depict it as used by Norway

Probably because it is used by Norway.

 

The Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System was designed and is assembled by a Norwegian manufacturer and used by Norway and only a handful of export clients, among them the U.S.

[Northstar98]

On 10/11/2021 at 11:14 AM, Rongor said:

Probably because it is used by Norway.

 

The Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System was designed and is assembled by a Norwegian manufacturer and used by Norway and only a handful of export clients, among them the U.S.

Yeah I know, but absolutely none of maps go anywhere near Norway, and we don't have any other Norwegian assets.

It probably would've been better to use the US HMMWV based version, as this better fits our current maps, modules and assets.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Northstar98