homepage Forums Air Combat & Civil Aviation SAM Simulator

The usual transliteration would be Ashuluk.

SAMsim Version 921c is available:
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

It contains more than 20 fixes.

That was quick. One question; what exactly is UPR Half-Lead? Is this the original version that could half-lead it's self into the ground?

One question; what exactly is UPR Half-Lead? Is this the original version that could half-lead it's self into the ground?

Half lead guidance of the Volhov.
page 34.

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

Wish I could help with the videos, but my good computer burnt out a few months ago. The spare computer I'm currently using might actually FPS lag running solitaire. If anyone else is interested in making tutorial videos, but doesn't have the recording software: http://camstudio.org/

SAMSim utilizing NASA Digital Elevation data...

What about other sources of interference, like forests and buildings? Are you planning to add that?
Very good job, looks great;

Awesome!

At least some of that will be in the SRTM heights - the reflection tends to come from upper edges of forests and BUA.. but that does mean that ground levels are poorly represented. However the difference is usually only 5-15m depending on what type of cover is present (large city centre buildings excepted).

More significant to LOS/noise might be the linear features that will not really show up at all - powerlines, walls, hedges, fences etc, as these are both more prevalent (in the UK I'd estimate around 50% of most 'long distance' fields of view will terminate in some form of linear feature (or linear feature around a wood/BUA) rather than the ground surface - and a lot of ridgelines are bisected by roads/paths/field boundaries).

OTOH, most long range antenna are mounted significantly higher than ground level - so it might be sufficient to just reduce the antenna 'height above ground' by a position dependant factor to account for local man-made clutter and ground cover. This might mean no reduction for flat hard steppe, and a reduction of 'most' of the antenna height for western European wooded/built up terrain. Of course YMMV - this is just off-the-cuff and no more than supposition.

Another Digital Elevation Mash battle-space...

I think it looks better with out the 'paper' behind each character, as in your Sinai rather than Hungary shot.

What does it look like with white/gray backgrounds in the text fields - some of the writing can be obscured where contrast is lowish.
Small change, compared with adding in a realistic noise function, but still...

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...

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?

I think Hpasp meant it would take him a year to implement the NASA terrain and the two new SAMs. Iirc, it usually takes him around 4-6 months to fully create a system.

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

As each battery is in a pre-designated location it should be possible to sub-set and pre-process the DEM to eliminate unnecessary 'real-time' calculations from the whole dataset... only once the mobile SAM/AAA positions are modelled in a tactical situation where they can move is true real-time processing essential.

Each battery would then have a minimum elevation for no interference and then unique patterns of interference for main and side-lobe noise for their elevation/azimuth ranges. OTOH the storage requirements for a full detail pattern might be prohibitive, but it may be worth considering??

As each battery is in a pre-designated location it should be possible to sub-set and pre-process the DEM to eliminate unnecessary 'real-time' calculations from the whole dataset... only once the mobile SAM/AAA positions are modelled in a tactical situation where they can move is true real-time processing essential.
Each battery would then have a minimum elevation for no interference and then unique patterns of interference for main and side-lobe noise for their elevation/azimuth ranges. OTOH the storage requirements for a full detail pattern might be prohibitive, but it may be worth considering??

It is done that way.
The units are elevated to their realistic height, to be able to look-down, and a pre calculated "panorama" picture is applied.
The target planes flying under 3000m got their terrain following radar to realistically fly above terrain.

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=yT4inkGm2j8
Here 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.

SAMSimulator version 0.921d is released
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

It contains HW accelerated graphics for the Volhov system, some other minor improvements, and Japanese documentation.