Isn't the SA2 too deadly?

[Nealius]

6 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

And we all know the Iraqis prided themselves on their all volunteer force, trained to such high standards they shamed even many European militaries.

By that logic all our Russian assets should be substantially worse than they are currently modeled given Russia's demonstrated capabilities.

[okopanja]

10 hours ago, Koty said:

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).

One correction regarding V-755 missile. It appears this is much earlier product, with production starting around 1959. The missile had several modifications and it is difficult to tell which version DCS has.

[Mars Exulte]

10 hours ago, Nealius said:

By that logic all our Russian assets should be substantially worse than they are currently modeled given Russia's demonstrated capabilities.

 By that logic, we should have an option to change crew skills... oh wait. We do. Although to be fair, the options aren't very useful, but that's the idea at least.

 On that note, DCS ground AI is pretty uniformly equivalent to stupid lemmings that drive in straight lines, do not react, and are merely 'moderately capable' of shooting at something. AA can be evaded indefinitely by a slow barrel role, and SAMs basically are on/off and randomly shoot at you with no coordination, strategy, or clue. They're pretty ineffective across the board.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Mars Exulte

[Nealius]

7 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

By that logic, we should have an option to change crew skills... oh wait. We do.

Your arguments have no evidence nor rationale. Not to mention your inability to create valid anaologies. Even at the lowest skill level the SA-2 is being reported as overperforming to known real-world experiences. We have still not been presented with evidence proving that the DCS-modeled SA-2 is this effective in real life.

 

7 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

AA can be evaded indefinitely by a slow barrel role, and SAMs basically are on/off and randomly shoot at you with no coordination, strategy, or clue. They're pretty ineffective across the board.

Your experience doesn't match the majority of the DCS player base. There are currently 7 topics across the forums discussing overperforming SAMs, AAA, and ground fire, some of them acknowledged as issues by ED, meaning your claim of them being "ineffective" is flat out wrong. Come back to the discussion when you have evidence to back up your claims.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Nealius

[Mars Exulte]

1 minute ago, Nealius said:

Your arguments have no evidence nor rationale. Not to mention your inability to create valid anaologies. Even at the lowest skill level the SA-2 is being reported as overperforming to known real-world experiences. We have still not been presented with evidence proving that the DCS-modeled SA-2 is this effective in real life.

  Effectiveness varying due to crew skill is indeed a rationale. A <profanity> crew with a Patriot or Iron Dome is likely to be less effective than a well drilled and experienced crew with an Sa-2. That's just a reality, and the concept applies to virtually everything in life irrespective of context. My argument was, since we already know the crews in 1990s Iraq were probably not particularly high quality, them being relatively ineffective against a large, highly trained, combined arms force fully utilising the electronic spectrum to disrupt defending efforts is not a significant reflection against the system under more ideal circumstances.

Like one or two dip<profanity> gamers yoloing into an AO lobbing HARMs and JDAMs at random targets, let alone the entirely absent EWAR stuff and combined arms support. DCS result do not equal realworld results for a lot more than just ''ED DOING IT WRONG''.

1 minute ago, Nealius said:

Your experience doesn't match the majority of the DCS player base. There are currently 7 topics across the forums discussing overperforming SAMs, AAA, and ground fire. Come back to the discussion when you have evidence to back up your claims.

 AAA aims directly at your plane, specifically your pilot's head. They will lead you, but do not anticipate or coordinate. That is a fact. Unless you're so close you cannot evade the bullet, or the particular arrangement is such that you're being fired on from multiple angles eliminating any ''safe place to go'' AAA is extrememy easy to dodge as long as you do not fly in a straight line.

SAM's are equally simplistic. There is no EWAR or group coordination, they don't even blink their radars on and off. They come on, they lock, and they spam missiles until you die, they lose contact, or they run out of ammo. That's it. Yes, they are more dangerous than AAA for that reason as they don't care about your barrel role, but they are far from realistic. Countermeasures do not work realistically either, each flare/chaff has a percentage chance of making it lose track. So again, not hard to deal with on its own, circumstances permitting and depending on the specific environment.

I've been here 10 years. Yes, you can get killed, and we argue about over/under performing missiles, but the core mechanics driving the interactions are extremely simple and a known quantity. It isn't black magic or techpriest babble.

So, my ''evidence'' is how the game actually functions.

[Koty]

On 2/8/2023 at 9:31 AM, okopanja said:

One correction regarding V-755 missile. It appears this is much earlier product, with production starting around 1959. The missile had several modifications and it is difficult to tell which version DCS has.

Yes, model is 11D (V-750), you can gauge which generation it is by thrust values if you manage to open the files: 

13 hours ago, Nealius said:

Your arguments have no evidence nor rationale. Not to mention your inability to create valid anaologies. Even at the lowest skill level the SA-2 is being reported as overperforming to known real-world experiences. We have still not been presented with evidence proving that the DCS-modeled SA-2 is this effective in real life.

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.  

13 hours ago, Nealius said:

Your experience doesn't match the majority of the DCS player base. There are currently 7 topics across the forums discussing overperforming SAMs, AAA, and ground fire, some of them acknowledged as issues by ED, meaning your claim of them being "ineffective" is flat out wrong. Come back to the discussion when you have evidence to back up your claims.

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:

13 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

  Effectiveness varying due to crew skill is indeed a rationale. A <profanity> crew with a Patriot or Iron Dome is likely to be less effective than a well drilled and experienced crew with an Sa-2. That's just a reality, and the concept applies to virtually everything in life irrespective of context. My argument was, since we already know the crews in 1990s Iraq were probably not particularly high quality, them being relatively ineffective against a large, highly trained, combined arms force fully utilising the electronic spectrum to disrupt defending efforts is not a significant reflection against the system under more ideal circumstances.

Like one or two dip<profanity> gamers yoloing into an AO lobbing HARMs and JDAMs at random targets, let alone the entirely absent EWAR stuff and combined arms support. DCS result do not equal realworld results for a lot more than just ''ED DOING IT WRONG''.

 AAA aims directly at your plane, specifically your pilot's head. They will lead you, but do not anticipate or coordinate. That is a fact. Unless you're so close you cannot evade the bullet, or the particular arrangement is such that you're being fired on from multiple angles eliminating any ''safe place to go'' AAA is extrememy easy to dodge as long as you do not fly in a straight line.

SAM's are equally simplistic. There is no EWAR or group coordination, they don't even blink their radars on and off. They come on, they lock, and they spam missiles until you die, they lose contact, or they run out of ammo. That's it. Yes, they are more dangerous than AAA for that reason as they don't care about your barrel role, but they are far from realistic. Countermeasures do not work realistically either, each flare/chaff has a percentage chance of making it lose track. So again, not hard to deal with on its own, circumstances permitting and depending on the specific environment.

I've been here 10 years. Yes, you can get killed, and we argue about over/under performing missiles, but the core mechanics driving the interactions are extremely simple and a known quantity. It isn't black magic or techpriest babble.

So, my ''evidence'' is how the game actually functions.

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Koty

[Eldur]

On 2/7/2023 at 8:33 PM, some1 said:

Do you create a site using SA-2 template provided in DCS, or just drop some launchers in the editor? They work best when they have search and track radars operating.

I tried putting a bunch of launchers as well as one of each radar types within the same group as well as the template after I noticed there was one, but from that on I dragged the units around a bit (still rather close to each other)...

[EnvyC]

I support making them more dangerous just to watch the meltdown happen when people get slapped out of the sky for being skill deficient.

[Nealius]

So we've gone from "no everything's fine and accurate" to "the game isn't modeling it correctly." Interesting flip-flop there. I'm frankly done with mental gymnastics and assinine arguments. State your point and evidence up front instead of waffling back and forth and throwing abraisive comments. These forums are toxic af and I'm frankly done. Bye.

[Coxy_99]

Sounds like to me your getting far to close and getting whacked.

 

[Koty]

8 hours ago, Nealius said:

So we've gone from "no everything's fine and accurate" to "the game isn't modeling it correctly." Interesting flip-flop there. I'm frankly done with mental gymnastics and assinine arguments. State your point and evidence up front instead of waffling back and forth and throwing abraisive comments. These forums are toxic af and I'm frankly done. Bye.

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

[Dragon1-1]

The real problem is that no matter what the system performance, AI uses those systems incompetently. Except for AA guns, which all behave as if guided by radar, making them accurate but predictable. Though to be fair, realistically anything without radar guidance would not be firing at fast jets 90% of the time, or they'd shoot behind because they couldn't pull enough lead. In general, successfully engaging a fast jet with air defenses is a matter of stealth. Jets, especially in Vietnam era, could not see such fine detail as trucks or AA guns. However, a line of tracers was very visible indeed, and it was not hard to drop some CBUs on the point they were coming from. FACs in particular were very rarely shot at by the Vietnamese, because they'd dodge out of the way and then call for fighters to bring all kinds of hurt upon the gunner. So, the guns stayed silent unless they had a good reason to shoot. Same with SAMs. No SA-2 crew wanted to have their FCR eat a Shrike, followed by a load of CBUs and napalm. No matter how skilled, SAMs in DCS keep their radars up all the time like idiots.

[Exorcet]

3 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

No matter how skilled, SAMs in DCS keep their radars up all the time like idiots.

So very true. I know ED had played with the idea of an IADS module to fix this, but that's overkill (but still a very welcome addition to DCS). Just give the base AI tactics. They don't need to be as smart as a real SAM operator if that's too difficult to code. Just make them look like they're trying to survive, ie flashing radars, shutting down against ARM's, and cooperation with other units like EWR.

[Pavlin_33]

45 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

So very true. I know ED had played with the idea of an IADS module to fix this, but that's overkill (but still a very welcome addition to DCS). Just give the base AI tactics. They don't need to be as smart as a real SAM operator if that's too difficult to code. Just make them look like they're trying to survive, ie flashing radars, shutting down against ARM's, and cooperation with other units like EWR.

Or give us humans ability to operate 'em inside Combined Arms.

[okopanja]

As late as of 1966, the IADS and C2 components were not so widespread, even in Soviet Union. This forced the SAM sites to work independently, leading to situations where multiple SAM sites were shooting at the same target or even at the missile parts that already hit the target.

This had 2 rather negative effects:

- high usage of missiles if the target was in the overlapping zone of multiple SAMs

- SAMs de-masking themselves

 

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

That would suffice for DCS. Even without a proper IADS network, a SAM could act smarter when in isolation, using their search radar to build the picture. The Vietnamese learned that very quickly after the first Weasels started hunting them. For instance, if they see a HARM launch, they should turn off their FCR, even if that means trashing the missile in flight. They should also do tricks like turning the FCR off briefly, with the missile still in flight (this would be relevant to older missiles like the Shrike).

Also, SAMs, like aircraft, are usually tasked with a particular mission, for example protecting an asset or denying a particular airspace. As such, they should not launch at targets that are not relevant to their mission (say, not heading towards the protected airspace) unless that shot has have a very high PK. Of course, sometimes the mission would be "shoot anything that moves into your WEZ", but not always. The mission designer (or the DC engine, maybe also a CA player) should be able to set what the SAM is supposed to be doing and how it should respond to targets of opportunity.

[okopanja]

4 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:

Or give us humans ability to operate 'em inside Combined Arms.

Well this is a bit more difficult, but would be cool. Each of these SAMs had crews each having task specific stations.

[Pavlin_33]

34 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Well this is a bit more difficult, but would be cool. Each of these SAMs had crews each having task specific stations.

Well TOR has some arcade-like interface in CA. Would be great if we had at least something similar in other SAM sites also :D.

[falcon_120]

7 hours ago, Koty said:

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

Nealius is right in that you have simply turned your argument around.

If we look at my OP post I think I was quite clearly expressing how the missile seems to turn too greatly against a high G orthogonal roll defense, specifically that. The answer to that was basically: "1-the missile is alright 2-we have a more modern version and 3-if anyone complain/ask is probably just a low skill floor that skew any assessment"

Some post later turn out that in fact the missile is using a proportional navigation guidance that let him denies an orthogonal roll defense thank to leading perfectly the target) o_o Also we are not even sure of the version and G capabilities of the missile cough cough.

Ofc i did not say is undefeatable (kinematic/out of NEZ and leading it to the ground works) but not what I was told is a known defense to the missile (orthogonal roll of more then 5g with chaff & jamming), which btw could be not effective IRL, my point here is simply that it does not make much sense that manueverability wise this SAM meets or exceeds the sheer maneuverability of a SA11/SA15.

Ofc improved, more intelligent and more complex SAM Behavior would be a lovely addition to the game, better depicting this and other weapons.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk
 

Edited February 12, 2023 by falcon_120

[Koty]

17 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

~snip~

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.

[Morat]

On 2/7/2023 at 10:49 PM, some1 said:

Lol, it's the AI flying in both cases, and not even on Ace level. Still, it smokes the Patriot site, but can't defeat one S-75.

 

Yeah, like it's the case with half of DCS.

Careful, as Bignewy said in the first post, "SA2 has been modelled with the information available".   

Is this the SA-2 Brochure?

(just kidding!)