requested Early MANPADS missing, a critical flaw in game

[Richrach]

Respectfully, there is no rank in the debrief of a flight/mission.  Time to debrief.

It is beyond time to fix this.  SA-7 (Strela-2) and its generation of shoulder fired SAMs is a blight on DCS.  It has been for a long time and it needs to be fixed.

***The reality is this threat (the early versions of the SA-7) are still viable in the world because so many were made and there was a time they were handed out like candy to all manner of bad actors (countries and terrorist vermin).***

Modern jets still have to contend with them as a potential threat due to their proliferation.  It is accepted their accuracy, lethality, and performance may well be questionable, but a slightly damaged 5th generation aircraft from one of these is just as worthless as one shot down.  The threat remains because the missiles still exist.  Obviously, those of us who prefer to fly earlier aircraft (MiG-15, 19, 21, F-4, A-4, Mirage, Huey, Hind, etc.) are highly interested in this part of the game being accurate.

 

***16 of the 36 fixed wing modules offered for DCS and 5 of 7 helo modules have a vested interest in this part of the game being accurate.  This affects EVERYONE who is paying to fly these modules.***

In reading the threads it appears exactly zero has been done about this for some time.  Lots of lip service, no action.

We are about to get a new module, the F-4 Phantom.  I have pre-purchased it because I am excited about flying a plane I have very personal and ongoing ties to.  The lack of motivation to fix a glaring problem in the threat library this aircraft will face is not good.

What value is there in having these great models of aircraft and helos that are meticulously researched and built, only to put them in fantasyland environments? The claims DCS is realistic is laughable without fixing the underlying issue(s) in the game code.  It is not about the new-oh-I-have-to-have-it-modules with wonderful graphics and fancy cockpits if the world one puts them in is so bad.  Fix the field before signing up an all-star team to play on your pitch. 

I have personal experience with SAMs, on the receiving end. I have also operated many of them from the ground.  The unclas fixes are simple.  So fix them.  Dedicate a programmer or two to this and do the following.

Steps to fix this problem.  For SA-7:

- Clone "MANPADS Ilga - Shooter".  Call it "Generic First Generation MANPAD", "Strela-2", "Redeye", or all three.  Actually, all three names make sense.  Make it available to all countries.

- Reduce effective range by 50%, elevation and horizontally

- Reduce damage by 50% (There is plenty of data on this out there.  Very few fixed wing aircraft were ever brought down by a single SA-7.  The vast majority were damaged and limped home.  Airliners have been hit by one of these and it could not bring them down.

- Prohibit lock-ons from front hemisphere

- No shots within 45 degree cone of the Sun

- Individual flare effectiveness set 33% (by the second flare, Pk = 10%, by three flares Pk = 4%).  This is not at all unreasonable for IR SAMs of that era.  This also reinforces the reality that preemptive flares work and even flaring a locked-on missile of this generation was highly effective.

This is a very simple solution, based on unclas data, literature, and historical engagements.  C'mon guys.

Richrach

[Silver_Dragon]

Early SAM was on Lomac times, but no was implemented on DCS W. On fact, the old 3d models of many manpads has present on the EDM files (Sa-7, -14, -16)

[Richrach]

The visual presentation is not really relevant if I understand your post.  The lack of any fix for a problem that impacts such a high percentage of DCS patrons is amazing.

The solution I outlined above is not difficult.  It will go a long way to giving credibility to the idea DCS holds out that it is a simulation instead of an eye-candy game.  Simulation is in their name, for heaven's sake!  So, get to simulating.

If DCS does not address issues of fidelity of their modeling, eventually they will be usurped by someone else who will.  Either stay at the forefront or be overtaken by someone else who will.

Richrach

[Northstar98]

[Richrach]

Northstar, love the callsign.  So, as I read your post and others, this issue has been going on for YEARS, and DCS does nothing about it.  THAT is worth the stream of fluid that comes out the relief tube of a Grumman Ironworks F-14.

So, they can spend inordinate amounts of time to work on and add a whole string of air to air missiles, some of which have NEVER seen actual combat.  These can be defeated by maneuver and countermeasures.  But they cannot even add a primitive system some of us have actually had to defend against in favor of a system they created that is unbeatable?

Ilga has a Pk higher than Iron Dome and SA-20.  More fluid coming from the relief tube.

I like the idea of posting your modules.  Here are mine:

Modules: A-4E, F-4E (pre-order), SU-33, T-45, Sinai, Syria, Supercarrier

I have flown or crewed in 12 of the military aircraft modeled in DCS in addition to another 7 that are not.  This includes actual combat time with junk getting shot at me.

I will not be buying another module until they fix this.

Richrach

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Flappie]

That is not a bug, but a wish. This thread will be moved to the wishlist section.

By the way, the SA-7 was asked internally before, and I've just bumped the report.

[Richrach]

Flappie, thank you for the attention.  I respectfully disagree with the "wish" vs "bug" issue.  When the only system provided to model a basic threat that is real but counterable (SA-7) has a Pk well over 90%... that is a bug.  That bug spans from the early 70's to today.  In my opinion that makes it a bug the size of a pickup truck.

Since it has been reported for years it is apparent treating it as a "wish" will never get it addressed.

It is more important to get grass that flows and bends in rotor wash than have a realistic model of something the helo simmer guy may have to contend with in a realistic scenario?  How much programmer time went into that or dozens of other nice-to-haves?  This akin to polishing the car and never changing the oil.  One makes the car look good, the other is what makes it a car instead of a shiny obelisk that does not move.  People buy a car to have a car.

I pre-bought the F-4 Phantom because the claim is it will be a high fidelity model.  One cannot call it a sim if it does not at least attempt to accurately represent the world it is trying to simulate.

So, since accuracy and fidelity are lower priorities to DCS, I am working on solving the problem the US Navy way.

Trivia: A standard government issue pen is 200 NM flight distance on the standard nav chart found in mission planning at every US base in the world.   This applies to Grumman Aircraft (E-2, F-14, A-6, EA-6).  We used to do flight range planning at air force bases by putting a pen up to the chart and dot, dot, dot, we can get there from here.  It drove the USAF guys nuts because they would calculate down to the pound their fuel burns like the silly guys they were.  Grummies, of which I am one, never ran a jet out of gas doing this.

I/we-the-community, are not asking for a mega high fidelity model.  Honestly there are VERY few out there who would see the difference.  We are asking for reasonable accuracy in replicating a historical threat that is the most proliferated MANPAD on the planet.  Copy Ilga basic and give it the parameters I listed in an earlier post.

Thank you if you have read this in its entirety.  Have a superb weekend!

Richrach

 

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2024 by Richrach
Accuracy

[Flappie]

For a very long time, DCS and its predecessors (Flanker, LOMAC, FC) have mostly been centered on the late Cold war era and more (80s-90s), which is why the arsenal has been missing a lot of deprecated -yet still in-use- SAM units.

Now that a lot of 60-70s modules are coming to DCS, ED has been working to fill the gap (SA-5 is here at last), but they still have some work to do regarding this period, I agree.

I understand your disagreement about classification, yet neither me nor ED crew could classify a missing unit as a bug (unless a unit would disappear from the sim by accident). By definition, a bug is a piece of program which fails to work as it intended. Since the SA-7 does not exist, it cannot be affected by a bug yet.

Classifying the addition of SA-7 as a request instead of classifying the lack of it as a bug won't change anything, though. If the internal request gets enough traction, it will be given the right priority.