comie1

I can spot where this thread is going... Because I fly in VR

Yeah BUMP! I've pretty much quit playing DCS for now due to this paticular bug and the lack of improvement in AIM 120s over the past few years.

Did some quick testing there Maestro and they have significantly improved. Congrats

Oh cool. Can't wait to test it out

So it was.. my mistake. The file open in ME always throws me. OK so in the new tests within NES they hit. So are you telling me that what is happening is when fired outwith NES an AIM 120 (like in the above tracks) will decided it probably wont have enough energy so just stops tracking? I had no idea that was a thing.

Here are another 3 one more from low and 2 from high. q4.trk q3.trk q2.trk

This one should suffice q1.trk

I changed the AI option to NEZ and it made no difference to the missile behaviour, all had no ability to maintain a sufficient track

Ok I'll set that option now and test again. Any other parameters you would like me to set? "However, above tests not qute correct" There isn't exactly a test mission provided by you guys so I'm just giving examples to help with weird behavior. I only see one example of the last 5 where the energy of the missile is the issue... in the other 4 they go on an adventure to Mordor or somewhere....

My Bad! Did some further testing and it's the same as it was. Two from Low level and Two from higher, each with a defensive shot to get the AI to break lock and one without.

Looks like there has been a potential improvement with tracking?

Any luck with your investigations @maэctpo?

I gotcha. I was just telling these nice people what I had been told as an update. Glad we’ve cleared it up.

Oh! When I asked on Dicord if they were being worked on alongside the F16 Nine said “yes”. Yes means no got it

Thought I’d update with what I learned. Sharing is caring n all that. Apparently the F16 pilot body is being worked on alongside the AH-64D pilot bodies

Thanks for the reply, yes this was understood before I made the post. As I was saying above I appear to be getting more extreme variations to previous patches. The post was made incase something had perhaps changed.

NP I wasn't expecting any fix just wanted to highlight it to you guys. In my short test missions (no scripts) the tracks have significanlty different results in comparisson to prev build.

Same result

I want to convey a concern over the current "META" within BVR in DCS All IRL sources often refer to BVR fights taking place at High alt with Speed!!! and this being the best way to fight your opponent. So much so that jets are (alongside stealth, DL etc) developed to go higher and faster than their counterparts for just these engagements. However... all the current mechanics within DCS produce a simulation where Low vs High wins. My presumption is that this situation is caused by a combination of factors from OVER performing RWR's which will give perfect warnings exactly at missile Pitbull, accurate to the point where notching is aided dramatically by the RWR and making it vital part of your toolset, NOT the hidden away annoying device giving false warnings etc we are let to believe they are IRL. Poor performing missile that are easily defeated without kinematics and the lack of any real EWR system in DCS must also contribute. Tim's recent interview on youtube with Simon Pearson and Ben Whiteley highlighted this issue to me at 14:00 in where an ex RAF instructor suggests that he was in a disadvantageous position against a high fast F16 while he was low. I was watching this shaking my head thinking "If only he knew he was in the safest place he could have been and had no reason to feel threatened in this 1:1 scenario" This has to be wrong! Have a listen... What are the plans for Eagle Dynamics with regards to BVR? I recall Nick Grey a while back addressing the issue stating that poor BVR missiles and helping players get to "the merge" was infact previously engeneered for a more dramatic or exciting game and that he then no longer thought this was the right corse of action. Did he change his mind? high vs low.trk

Track replays have become significantly less reliable since the most recent oben beta. Often the observed results of an engamenent are differnet from those at real time. I understand these are not 1:1 replays but as they certain seem considerably worse perhaps something has changed?

Regardless of altitude the Aim-120 can't seem to track through a simple 360 (while supported or not) The missile gets within 2nm when target is lost and when seemingly within parameters will not reaquire quick enough to utilize its energy advantage. low co 360 5.trk360 to cold.trklow co 360 5.trk

I know and that’s the alarming part for me. Anyway this is derailing and I’ll leave this for another day… disappointing for sure.

I agree progress can be seen although slower than we would like. The lack of prioritisation on missiles however does anger me it’s no secret. That being said… if the scenario in the OP is the intended behaviour and that’s the level of simulation we have to look forward to?…. Then I’m not particularly interested

Obligatory Track post... Wont bore you with the details.. 120s still suck. 1d.trk 2d.trk 3d.trk

So I'm glad to see progress from todays patch, whatever number you changed.... double it plz. I hope to dear god you guys don't leave the rest of the issues for months on end.. Notching has gotten harder to do while 120 is supported however unsupported it's still pretty trash. I'm not convinced notching should be this easy still tho. I've attached some tracks for your viewing pleasure. 1t.trk 4.trk 6t.trk 10t.trk 12t.trk 13t.trk 17t.trk 18t.trk 19t.trk 20.trk