Sam sites

[Miki011]

Hi, i will keep this short as it isn’t a big problem and it’s solved easily. Most maps either don’t have sam sites at all or have them done terribly. Kola map has many of them but they look nothing like in real life and worst of all the models for real ones are easier to make than the ones we currently have. Only map that managed to do this well is Sinai. Iraq map as well, looks amazong but there are no sam sites at all, just a small glance at google earth you can see many and they look all the same so it would be super easy to make. Syria has them ok kinda but still they look unrealistic and ugly. Sorry for the rant.

[Lace]

The problem with embedded sites is that it limits mission creation options.  How do you deal with different dates, different operations, different (upgraded) versions of the installations, destruction of sites during earlier stages of a conflict? etc?

Maybe a better solution would be to ship the maps with better templates for different time periods, but the community is usually pretty quick to create these even if the map makers don't.

[Miki011]

59 minutes ago, Lace said:

The problem with embedded sites is that it limits mission creation options.  How do you deal with different dates, different operations, different (upgraded) versions of the installations, destruction of sites during earlier stages of a conflict? etc?

Maybe a better solution would be to ship the maps with better templates for different time periods, but the community is usually pretty quick to create these even if the map makers don't.

How would it limit missions tho? It would be the same as it is now it would just look more realistic. They don’t really change over time. I’m kinda autistic and i spent a lot of time looking at these on google earth and they really never change. Destruction models are also super easy, revetments don’t get blown up just the buildings if there are any and if there are they are usually a small bunker type building or a small warehouse type building. 
 

i don’t know if you have the Kola map but here is a good example. The site in the picture is a S-300 site 8km north west of Olenya airbase. Compare it to the one we have in the game and you can see how simpler the real revetments are and next to all that is a couple of warehouse buildings and a few small bunkers.

[Lace]

Therein lies the problem of maps based on satellite imagery.  It is only a snapshot in time.  The installations in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s would have looked very different.  I know it is not the case for every map, but contrast the IADS of Iraq during ODS, then later OIF, or Sinai 1960s vs Sinai 2000s.

[Miki011]

That is not an issue as all maps are all set in one period. Kola for example is set in current year so why not just look at how they really look and make them like that instead of pumping out plain circular concrete revetments that don't exist. Sinai is amazing and even tho they look copy pasty that is because they really look like that irl.

 

Not sure how fucked the Iraqi air defense was but sam sites weren't really destroyed. I think they were demolished mostly after Americans came in the last time.

[Kvek]

Totally agree with this. We get full details of statues, old ruins, hotels but no military structures, sam sites, strategic sites (factories, refinary, etc).

[upyr1]

On 1/20/2025 at 5:09 AM, Lace said:

The problem with embedded sites is that it limits mission creation options.  How do you deal with different dates, different operations, different (upgraded) versions of the installations, destruction of sites during earlier stages of a conflict? etc?

Maybe a better solution would be to ship the maps with better templates for different time periods, but the community is usually pretty quick to create these even if the map makers don't.

Agree sams could at least change by type 

I'd love to have map templates which have airbases assigned to different nations and coalitions as well as pre placed SAM sites as for placing your own on a SAM sites on the map, I'd love the option to have AI assist with the placement 

Edited April 27 by upyr1

[dmatsch]

On 1/20/2025 at 6:09 AM, Lace said:

The problem with embedded sites is that it limits mission creation options.  How do you deal with different dates, different operations, different (upgraded) versions of the installations, destruction of sites during earlier stages of a conflict? etc?

Maybe a better solution would be to ship the maps with better templates for different time periods, but the community is usually pretty quick to create these even if the map makers don't.

the main problem is the lack of working pre-made static templates.  One for each time period.  It would be nice if the users didn't have to create all that content manually.  It would be really nice if it just had a ton of vanilla game (no mods) pre-made templates for armor groups, infantry, CAG groups, sams, airports (with RAT!!), etc.  That way DCS would be more modular out of the box.  Or even several pre-made maps from each era.  But they have to come from vanilla DCS so that they continue to work.

Downloaded static templates work for a while (thank you Rudel_Chw!), but eventually crap out with DCS updates.  And when they crap out, they corrupt the entire mission so that it's not loadable, editable, or playable.  Start from scratch again.  

In this day and age, I should be able to create a full mission with just a dozen or so clicks.  Click - map.  Click - era.  Click - add template(s) for entire map.  Click - mission choice (any type of mission).  Click - player aircraft and loadout.  Click - start mission.  Maybe a few more for weather and such.  You get the idea.  The technology already exists for DCS, but third party stuff is barely maintained.  I've never completed a campaign in Liberation since inception without it crashing on me.

I shouldn't literally have to take half a day trying to make even a simple multi-plane mission perform the way it should.  Even then, I've created the mission.  I know where everything is and when it's going to happen.

[Northstar98]

On 1/20/2025 at 11:09 AM, Lace said:

The problem with embedded sites is that it limits mission creation options.

How does it do anything of the sort?

Just because real-life sites exist, it does not mean mission editors are forced to only put air defences in them. This even represents real life doctrines, where some pre-prepared sites are unoccupied and the system relocates to another site. This is especially true of mobile systems like the SA-4, SA-6 and SA-10.

If anything it only enhances mission creation options, because without these sites present, the sites aren't usable, so the only mission you can do is where you have air defences not in their pre-made positions as it's usually the case that the topography is otherwise unsuitable - e.g. Caucasus, South Atlantic, Persian Gulf (at least in some cases). If they are present however, usually the map developer has made them so that they're suitable for placing units on - that way you can still use ahistorical or relocated SAM sites and you can place them in the IRL locations.

On 1/20/2025 at 11:09 AM, Lace said:

How do you deal with different dates, different operations, different (upgraded) versions of the installations

Well, seeing as many of these sites span >50 years at this point and many are still around decades after being abandoned, in their original configurations, probably fairly easily. 

But even for the ones that have changed - if we have accurate revetments/berms etc as static objects then you can use the scenery object remove zone to reconfigure SAM sites. So if we had those objects, that would be pretty easy too.

Again though, the problem is on maps where SAM sites haven't been made, the terrain is often unsuitable for placing them in their real world locations, so building them yourself (assuming we even have the objects required, which we don't) is somewhat fruitless. However, if the map creator has added SAM sites, they usually make sure the topography is suitable for placing functional units on.

On 1/20/2025 at 11:09 AM, Lace said:

destruction of sites during earlier stages of a conflict?

Again, there is a trigger that does just that - scenery object destruction.

On 1/20/2025 at 2:17 PM, Lace said:

The installations in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s would have looked very different.  I know it is not the case for every map, but contrast the IADS of Iraq during ODS, then later OIF, or Sinai 1960s vs Sinai 2000s.

You can substitute "based on satellite imagery" to "in DCS" and still be just as true - because every single map in DCS represents a "snapshot in time" and none of them change based on what year you set. Sinai 1960s vs Sinai 2000s is already an issue on the current map, even if none of the air defence sites were present.

Ironically, as I described, there is already a mechanism in place for you to alter, edit or remove these air defence sites, so long as we have static objects to do so (and I don't know why maps don't contribute scenery objects to static objects - yes it's a different format, but surely it's the same original model, just re-exported?) - there isn't a way to edit say, edit the layout of airbases, nor is there any way to remove them (even if you remove all scenery objects, all surfaces will still be present). 

Just for an easy example, the Falkland Islands in the early 1980s wouldn't have Mount Pleasant on them (which is also in a mid 2000s - early 2020s configuration), Stanley would have a smaller runway, the JCUFI wouldn't be there, the wind turbines wouldn't be there etc. The latter I can't even remove with the scenery object remove tool.

Edited June 23 by Northstar98