Old viewers know that one of the aspects of DCS that I dislike the most is the implementation of Radar Warning Receivers in most modules. I can think of at least four videos where the issue was well demonstrated. The most eloquent were the full intercept shown almost three years ago, and the newer demonstration included in the recent video discussing Realism in DCS.
There are too many reasons why this is a problem, some of which have already been addressed in the mentioned videos. As a “too long: didn’t watch”, perfect Radar Warning Receivers create a free huge situational awareness boost, they are more effective than radars for certain aspects of intercepts. They also make notching and defeating missiles a matter of seconds, making missile performance poorer, partially offset by making loft the de facto mandatory modus operandi and pushing the gameplay towards a ridiculous sense of forced stealth, further incentivised by poor radar simulation. Looking at you, TWS!
The last two videos I released, the mentioned Realism in DCS and the one about buying the MiG-29 or not, opened, or better put, reopened some channels with the devs. One of the most significant issues I raised with ED is the lack of communication, and the topic of the new Soviet Radar Warning Receiver implementation was also mentioned. Implemented along the Mi-24P “Hind”, this brand-new piece of tech was relegated to a very small paragraph in a newsletter. Instead, it should have been celebrated as it marks the first step towards what seems to be a more scalable and efficient development process. As someone who has played this game and LOMAC since 2003, this is a massive step towards realism, innovation and, hopefully, quicker and simpler development.
The tech underlying the SPO-10 has been expanded into the SPO-15, and the newsletter released on 11/07/2025 gave us a peek into how the new implementation works, and the many factors and parameters considered. This is the kind of information many of us love to read. Although perfectly aware that newsletters cannot be so detailed every time due to the development pace, I look forward to seeing more of this.
As someone who does not shy away from raising discrepancies between sources, bugs and issues, “Caésaris Caésari”: I commend ED for this brilliant newsletter.
Before wrapping this up, the questions collected via Discord, and only there because there are too many places to monitor otherwise, have been forwarded to the devs. I should hear from them “soon”.
Also, although the recent two videos about the MiG-29 and Realism reached vastly more viewers than videos about intercept techniques that took months of study and research to make, I do not plan to do this often.
Although I don’t mind writing about different topics, I would prefer to be remembered for my hopefully useful content than for a cacophony of complaints. Still, let me know what you think. I am sure your ideas are easily better than mine.
Speaking of old topics, I’m wrapping up another intercept technique for the Phantom II and contemporary fighter jets. I also bought a few books about air defences over the years to better understand the threat. This is useful for the next phases of the Low-Level study and my campaign.
This is a simple test of a “DCS-scaled” AAA regiment, inspired mainly by Soviet and Egyptian organisation between the 1960s and 1970s. There are 40 guns there, augmented by radars, searchlights and a pair of SA-18 playing as SA-7. I just need to add a bunch of Shilkas, and it’s done. This structure should be placed under the broad umbrella of SA-2 and SA-3, with SA-6 and others moving across the frontline.
All in all, this AAA regiment is about 10% of the air defences I plan to deploy and that players will face. The only question is whether DCS will manage.
FlyAndWire 