#3208971 - 02/16/11 08:46 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
If You want to contribute to the SAMsim, You could create Youtube Tutorial videos of the SA5B operation similarly to the earlier ones, and I would link it from the webpage. Documentation translators are also welcome, but that is a huge work. Thanks, Hpasp
Last edited by Hpasp; 02/16/11 08:48 AM.
|
|
#3210645 - 02/17/11 10:07 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 58
Redcoalition
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 58
Brazil
|
What about other sources of interference, like forests and buildings? Are you planning to add that? Very good job, looks great;
Last edited by Redcoalition; 02/17/11 10:33 PM.
|
|
#3211020 - 02/18/11 10:51 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
It might be a bad news, that real-time DEM calculations will require a powerful machine. I rewritten the Volhov graphic engine, to use HW acceleration, but it still suffers. U can expect the following screen...
Last edited by Hpasp; 02/18/11 05:20 PM.
|
|
#3211139 - 02/18/11 02:43 PM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 108
vintorez
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 108
|
Hey, you said that incorporating such terrain would take you a year or so! Or, encouraged by your community, you take double time clicking it out... I wonder why those batteries were so poorly located. If you lay low in the valley, you have "up" positions just on your both sides. Did not Soviet 'specialists' help in emplacement of those batteries? I can imagine that they wanted to avoid shooting at beam elevation below zero and with valley slopes as a background in case Israelis used valleys to sneak between Dvinas - OK, but where were Neva batteries with their short range capabilities and shorter reaction time? I had hard time trying to defend "Dvinas" in scenario 2. For example, 5/11 is at the edge of only Neva 5/14 engagement zone. The locations of Dvina and Neva should be made in exactly opposite way! (elevated positions is another issue) Or, maybe the Nevas were so valuable that it was they that were 'defended' by Dvinas? Or rather Dvinas were put in open as targets in order to probe Neva for the first time without any stress of their (Soviet, I assume) crews? Do these clever Soviet books draw some conclusions out of this situation?
Last edited by vintorez; 02/18/11 02:52 PM.
|
|
#3211813 - 02/19/11 01:08 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: vintorez]
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 106
PN79
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 106
|
I can imagine that they wanted to avoid shooting at beam elevation below zero and with valley slopes as a background in case Israelis used valleys to sneak between Dvinas - OK, but where were Neva batteries with their short range capabilities and shorter reaction time? I had hard time trying to defend "Dvinas" in scenario 2. For example, 5/11 is at the edge of only Neva 5/14 engagement zone. The locations of Dvina and Neva should be made in exactly opposite way! (elevated positions is another issue)
Hi Some time ago I wrote some contribution about czechoslovak SAMs building and one thing I noticed that layout of S-75 (SA-2) and S-125 (SA-3) is not ideal but their disposition was created in such way because at first were created SA-75/S-75 batteries and only later this was supplemented in some areas with S-125 in insufficient numbers. Basically if you want to create "ideal" defense posture you need from the start to think about both SA-75/S-75 and S-125 coverages but in history most of "eastern" nations at first built only S-75 coverages later supplemented by S-125 which was not ideal but too expensive to readjust. Regards
Last edited by PN79; 02/19/11 01:09 AM.
|
|
#3215808 - 02/23/11 08:51 AM
Re: SAM Simulator
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
PLCC
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
|
Sorry, I spoke too soon. The S-75 table is from the document comparing the characteristics of the S-75M, S-75M2, and S-75M3. The S-125 graph is from the study on the reduction of the inner engagement boundary thereof. However, I think it may not be entirely accurate, or applicable. This video shows a 29 kilometer shot (with upgrades to just the radar, not the missile): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT4inkGm2j8Here is the missile velocity telemetry graph for that test: I don't have time right this minute to do a rough integration, but it appears that the powered stage of flight lasts longer than the ~10 km indicated on the G graph. The missile in the video is probably a 5V27D. I am not certain, though, that it has the same characteristics as the V-601PK.
|
|
|
CD WOFF
by Britisheh. 03/28/24 08:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|