Napillo

depends on the amount of loft and other factors, I don't think you'll get much of an acceptable answer here. If it's showing at maximum range, that's actually around 80% max range, and so if you loft, that makes it less than that 80%, meaning a more likely hit.

I believe the blue normally signifies training rounds - ie they don't fire.

The average of the two numbers is 10.77nm traveled. Since as you said, the missile was fired from 9.74 nm away, it can certainly travel that distance through the air. He's doing the straight horizontal so you can see when it switches to a ballistic path. Assuming the missile has no power when it goes ballistic, then 9.74 is within the average of 10.77. However, as you said, the target aircraft was coming toward you, thus it likely traveled less than 9.74, and probably closer to 6 or less. At that distance, it still has power to course correct and intercept the target, though not for long. Since the target was unaware, and didn't take evasive action, you scored a hit. One thing about the heaters, if you pop up behind someone unaware, firing at the maximum range does give you a decent chance to hit, if you can remain hidden.

I have no idea about the software updates in the actual JF-17, but I'm sure it's probably acting very similarly to the simulator, which may lag the actual. It would be nice if the JF-17 supported this: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2715206/f-16-receives-in-flight-software-update-during-recent-flight-test/ I imagine some servers could use this to simulate loading locations of SAM sites, changing the WEZ/NEZ for a specific aircraft, or targeting updates coming from AH-64D to a F/A-18 or F-16. I know you can share waypoints with those, but if an apache could send you their whole radar picture for integration into your sensors, well that changes the whole ballgame.

It is at about 80% max range when the enemy is at the 'max range' mark, but with lofting you extend the range quite a bit. If they're at max range and I have to defend or get shot in the face, I'll loft the missile instead of waiting until I'm closer.

There's photos of them mounted on a WZ-10

Deka has already stated that if they upgrade the "Block I" with a HMD they would add it, hence why I am asking. the WS-13E supposedly has 6% more thrust wet, 13% more thrust dry, a higher bypass ratio, and slightly lower TWR. I don't believe it would make it a different block, considering we have some weird hybrid of a Block I and Block II to begin with.

Well aware of that, but it is true the RD-93 parts are hard to come by, just check Pakistan defense forums, other sources. They're not going to come out and say it, but if you don't have spare parts because of the sanctions on Russia, well... you gotta do something.

I can't get it to hit a nasam in passive or active either, so idk man, just leave them be i guess.

that's the one that has laser terminal guidance?

https://defenceaviationpost.com/ukraine-sanctions-against-russia-effectively-put-an-end-to-pakistans-jf-17-fighter-programme/ It looks like it may be hard to source replacement parts for the RD-93. Just wondering if Deka is committed to making the switch if Pakistan does.

ah, you're right - I was thinking about GB-6-100/250, sorry!

So, from what I read, the 250/100 are not launchable, they just release the submunitions. So, you'd dispense the skeets directly from your plane, not that they'd be guided.

no, but I would hope they would simulate that on their development systems and code the missiles to behave similarly.

Well, as I said, it's not true rocket motor physics, just a rough approximation of it. I'd love to see them actually do the calculations.

Idk, you change the size of the exhaust, you invoke Saint Robert's Law. I believe the values were picked based on the flight characteristics desired, as the rocket motor modeling of DCS isn't quite great. ex: the explosive being given in units of weight of TNT equivalent, as explosive components in warheads differing in strength not proportional to weight.

and if it is a mockup, the place where the rocket would go would obviously be filled in with something, thus inaccurate

The diameter of the SD-10 is 20mm larger (about 10%), so it's area should be larger than the AIM-120.

Tired of getting your F-14 shot down by SD-10?

^ that radar systems course is good

oh yea I forgot, IRL you can lock up an aircraft before you even see it, but in game, you have to see it before you can lock it. It's dumb, but until ED fixes it, nothing we can do.

I'd personally try 1 bar rws medium, but try whatever you want.

if they're heading away from you, high profile is not what you want, you want medium. medium = slow rate of closure, high = high rate of closure. This is a slow rate of closure. You're going 279 kts at 36500 ft, they're about 10k ft below you at a range of around 30nm. That means your radar is looking down. That puts the enemy at about 4 degrees lookdown. Yea, you're not going to pick up the contact at a 4 degree lookdown in high profile. I can't see the sky from your screenshot, but judging from the light, it appears to be raining. Rain will decrease your range with the radar. Also, if you put it in tws auto and try to lock someone, it switches to tws hi, so you might as well put it in tws med and hope for the best. They're nearly notching you as well. You should go to radar school. https://www.ll.mit.edu/outreach/radar-introduction-radar-systems-online-course and the playlist...

Depends on what you're targeting - ground targets, it shows you the range the bullets could travel, something like 2nm or so, and if you're not within that range, it's going to be inaccurate. If you're over that range, it will still show you where you would hit if there were something 2nm away from you, which doesn't really help, but it's not like you could hit anything accurate at greater than 2nm anyway.

Yes, it tops off the oxygen and repacks your chute. It doesn't do anything else. Also, refuel and rearm does that too, so you shouldn't have to ever do it.