And I'll still keep stating they are poorly modeled; on the other hand, that their performance is not what /we/ expect it to be is -not- a bug. Basically, the software works as designed, so no, it isn't a bug. :P
So while I do want the situation rectified, I don't feel it's worth any frayed nerves on my part if it doesn't happen.
On the other hand, if you ask ED, probably no one bothers them about this subject more than I do ;) (Though I believe D-Scythe is a very close second, and there's probably some guys on the Russian side doing the same).
And I'll point out again - ED /does/ want to fix things. This is why they said they will try to do the 1.13 patch. Again, it's dependent on when they can dedicate resources to the task, and frankly, I have no reason to doubt them - to me the world of software development is -not- a black box, and I've seen what happens in a software shop when resources get scarce.
I've done my homework when it comes to missiles, and when the time comes to present data for the patch, that's when I'll say my piece again. Right now I'm focusing on the 'Shark.
One thing I will suggest is this; if the community wishes to decide on some of the parameters that those weapons should fullfill WITHIN the realm of doing parameter adjustments to the missile code AS IT IS (ie no new code), that might be just dandy. But we're talking at a minimum -all- missiles used by flyables in the A2A arena, and if at all possible, some of the SAMs (personally, I think S300 and Patriot should be pretty much blind to chaff)