Breakshot

@GGTharos We can speculate all we want about HOJ. But I'm willing to bet in modern ECM environment those missiles might have a hard time guiding at all! In DCS we have perfect guidance on ECM by an SD10. Thankfully 120 is already adjusted. Are you saying the Chinese have broken some kind of ECM milestones with their missiles? Let's stick to what can be the most ballpark implementation in DCS. Remove variable PN. Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk This creates a serious disparity of standards for missiles in DCS.... Could you at least give recommendations to those third party developers? As far as I'm concerned ED missile standards are the benchmark. Everything else should just follow suit as improvements are made. Or is this a case of UFO missiles make better sales? [emoji23][emoji23] Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Supporting the missiles should be a thing in DCS, just as it is in RL. Just as it is dictated in training for all pilots employing them in RL. Why are we even disputing this? Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Bingo! End of argument Thanks Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Bro, we are not here to build missiles. We are trying to bring the current missiles of relatively the same era to behave to a logical standard within DCS limitations! Cmon Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

So for example an STT supported 120 that lost track on a target in the notch, while the support platform has a clear lock from a different angle should just miss and not reacquire the target. Is that what you mean? Are you disputing the information that is clear in the F16 manual as referenced above by Dundun? Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Read my reply again and the subsequent ones from Alfa. I think you didn't understand it. Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

I really hope ED doesn't make missiles based on imagination. Haha You just shut down your own argument right there. Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Once again you aren't understanding the query! ECM prevents range information fed to the missile. No range info = no variable PN. Questions? Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Yes its accurate in current DCS implementation. Which of course suits the fanboys just fine. Lets talk reality here. Or maybe you got some official manual data to prove your point (not!) All RL pilot accounts and manuals/doctrines dispute your so called accurate theory. I think I rather trust their data. But nice try [emoji23] Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Now lets get all missiles to the same guidance standards. ECM = no loft, no variable PN. Why is the SD10 and pheonix still not affected? Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

No. You got it backwards. The active seeker is the icing on the cake should support be lost. Not the other way around. 120 radar needs all the help it can get! Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Bingo. End of argument. [emoji869] Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Exactly! This is how it should be. A supported missile should have much better PK than an unsupported one. Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

@chizh can you please also look into making the relevant PN adjustment and remove variable PN logic and loft for SD10 and Aim54s vs ECM. Because they can just be manually lofted into space with a high pitch angle. ECM makes no difference to those missiles. Thanks Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Its a joke currently because half the 18 pilots don't even realize they are shooting missiles down. They just fox a radar contact and the 120s do the rest. Intercepting M2.5 missiles with 100% accuracy. I guess 120 really has a better radar than a modern fighter to make that intercept. If that was the case, ships would not need CIWS. Just load a stack of 120s on deck. Haha Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Are you even understanding my query? @ED, Is it the intention of DCS dynamics to make the F18 capable of radar tracking and easily shooting down any incoming missiles in any conditions and parameters? If the answer is no, then something needs to be done about this. I was under the impression it was patched recently, but seems its still a thing...

No I am talking about Aim-120

Seems like the F18 is better than Iron Dome air defense that can track and snap intercept missiles off bore, at all aspects and speed. How is this still possible? I can understand a head-on long range shot, but this? I have dozen examples, but this one is from after yesterdays patch. It makes A2A a joke right now. Tacview-20210722-215811-DCS-PACT2021_6v6_GUDAUTA-KRYMSK_2.7_1.zip.acmi

@BIGNEWY Please also check out SD10. It appears its ECM logic is borked too. It is lofting ALL the time vs ECM. The variable PN needs to be removed from it just like 120. Basically something wonky is going on with ECM + Loft logic in DCS rn. Best to check all missiles in MP to see that its fixed properly.

Since the last patch it appears the missile is somehow lofting vs a jamming target whereby it should not. I think this has got something to do with the latest round of ED updates removing this capability from Aim-120 which causes a MP desync. Please have a look into this so the hotfix covers the SD10 as well. Thanks

+1! BIG bug in MP making it basically broken. Needs a hotfix asap

You are so close to normalizing a good standard for A2A missiles in DCS and ER has been worked on recently. Why not finish it once and for all? Fix its PN (to same standard as other missiles) Why leave things hanging in the air for more years? Perhaps ED team can look into this from a general game dynamics standpoint? Introduce new features that affect A2A uniformly and don't leave missiles and dynamics that are fundamental to the MP community neglected (your most hardcore group of customers). People like to pay for complete products. Not a 5yr WIP plans, and having to chase the developer. All these affect the gameplay, hence we are here. Less moaning from customers, more fun! [emoji869] Don't treat everything as just a 'bug report'... Just MHO. Anyway, recent progress brings some optimism. Looking forward to new upcoming patches. S! Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Fact of the matter is, 120 seeker should not insta see everything and anything at 8nm regardless of aspect and rad velocity (btw thats roughly equivalent to a Mig-29 radar in ЗПС in DCS). [emoji23][emoji23] This needs to be addressed so pilots, even at close ranges need to support those actives. Rather than exploiting insta lock feature and turning cold instantly when assuming missile in pitbull range. Missiles need to find the target in the ground clutter first, having them supported aids this (as it should). This needs to be a realistic variable condition. Anyway glad that ED is looking into this matter. Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Does this mean f16 still not affected? As the ECM isnt modelled on it yet? Or will this just be set to a standard 40km burnthrough? Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

Спасибо! [emoji106][emoji106] Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk