Breakshot

Thats the protocol. Hush hush...

One can only dream! I bet its probably an easy fix too... The beta testers F15 pilots can sign off on it... :megalol:

Hmm since when? Perhaps a quiet fix is in the works? Afterall, this is a BUG! :megalol::megalol:

If this ever comes to fruition, I would de-register from these forums and wont bug anyone any longer! The F15 fanboy tears and cries would flood these board! LOL

Were you jamming? ^^

Cool! yeah we all have our phases... there is always something new to learn and discover @Blaze, yeah man I actually preferred it that way, could use my elevation wheel for best effect... Now you have to digital step by step...

Yes, it is modeled differently for the F15. One way to test is to use radar reset button in STT. Then unlock target. For Flanker, the parameters would be reset, for F15 no change. However in TWS, PRF changes do work. Certainly makes flying F15 more intuitive in that sense you don't have to worry once STT is established. But in TWS, you must enter MED at earliest convenience. While basically for RuFor everything is modeled manually. Sent on mobile Android via Tapatalk

Outside of 30km you should stay in HI all the way. ILV won't help you either (because it's rear aspect is abysmal), that's the point I'm trying to make. Besides, when do you see shots taken beyond that range? Only in super high flying environment. 99% of realistic engagements with any chance of a hit happen under 30km, hence MED PRF is the way to go... Anyway, the best teacher is always lots of flight hours in MP, especially in a competitive squadron environment. That's when all those little things are truly put to the test again and again. Sent on mobile Android via Tapatalk

Ironhand, the PRF does change during STT, you can test it by switching to MED at beyond its range, say at 60km. You should lose STT lock... MED will always work better in off-angle conditions with a maneuvering target, providing the range is within 30km. The difference is small but when the SARH are so terrible to start with, every little % counts. Sent on mobile Android via Tapatalk

Here's the thing... it's not! As much as it should be in theory... In DCS, MPRF works perfectly in all aspects under 30km. You can scan, track, and STT perfectly within those parameters. It's faster all around and more 'bulletproof'. Should the bandit get into the notch correctly, the lock will switch to EO regardless of PRF anyway, but your best chance of reaqcuiring is with MED. ILV has abysmal rear hemisphere performance of something like 15km at best (which defeats the point of using it), not to mention about the super slow refresh rate when scanning. In any case, I haven't lost any locks I shouldn't have under those circumstances yet so, not sure where you got that from... You are right about STT not affected by refresh rate however. As for being below the bandit, it is a must for guiding a SARH missile obviously. However you would be surprised with wacky DCS notch modeling since FC2. There are times where you can be 'notched' in a look up situation. It defeats all logic, but happens, speed is the factor here. Sent on mobile Android via Tapatalk

In my experience ILV mode is useless all around... MED maintains lock much better in all aspects providing the target is within 25km range, which is when it usually counts for guiding that ER shot (if it doesn't just go for chaff like a dud... sigh). Also note the significant difference in refresh rates between ILV and the dedicated aspect PRFs. ILV is so agonizingly slow... So keeping it simple, best SOP would be, lock target, switch to MED within 25km. There are other tricks with radar for maximizing scan patterns, etc, but I think I'd rather keep that internally for squad use. ;)

I think it's safe to say everyone knows by now the SIM does not model the PRF stuff correctly as in RL, hence we must improvise and set PRFs manually during STT locks. Perhaps Mirage comes closest to having a RL representation by only allowing Fox 1 launch in HPRF. Anyway, clearly the major issue is CM effectiveness because that's what causes SARH to miss in ridiculous 'perfect' condition shots. Sent on mobile Android via Tapatalk

Precisely what Tek said above. PRF is irrelevant when you have a stable lock in a head on, look up situation at under 10km...

It is the same in the F15! Under 30nm, you should always be scanning, locking stuff up in MED. The effect on STT lock is also the same, but less noticeable given that F15 can keep a more stable lock to further distances in a multitude of different PRF settings. Guys this has nothing to do with ERs going for chaff in head on situations. Even if it's a recent revelation to some... Let's not derail the topic! Sent on mobile Android via Tapatalk

This is a test that doesn't need any sample size, just lock something up, then let it maneuver into the notch, watch the RAD STT lock switch to EOS/IFF. Repeat the same thing this time preemptively switching to MED PRF right after STT is established and watch the lock maintain a stable STT all the way (assuming target is within 25km). I dont think we need to discuss the impact of this on SARH tracking as lost STT lock usually means, lost missile... EDIT: GG pretty much explained it above ^^

Easy to test on your own... Guys lets keep the topic on point of SARH missile tracking!

Glad to be of help! :thumbup:

That is correct, any half competent Flanker pilot would know to do this under 25km. This certainly isn't why ERs love chaff... Sent on mobile Android via Tapatalk

I suspect the .Lua files are extremely limited in their tweak parameters. Is there even a "lookup" value? Perhaps someone with knowledge can explain the current setup and compare say Aim 120 vs ER values. We all know the effective difference in Sim. Clearly the 120 never bites on chaff unless notched, even then it reacquires pretty well. ER bites on chaff in all circumstances heavily. What SARH missiles need is perhaps to be worse in lookdown, notch situation, but at least reliable enough in optimal conditions. Sent on mobile Android via Tapatalk

Good, so whats needed is the exact opposite, the notch should be effective, whilst less chance of a dud on frontal and lookup aspects. Perhaps Ragnarok can shed light on his reasoning for those values?

Easy isn't the question, but when you are dealing with a probability of near 100% as confirmed by many pilots who know their stuff... you see what I mean? Easily should be say 80%... hell I'll take that! As Redcore said above, we can only deal with roll of dice values... Lets at least make them reasonable... for now.

Nice counterargument! check... Will note to fight F15 "side-on" from here on... Thank you, once again you are in agreement, even if its against your will. Good luck with dropping that lock from under 10km in a lookup situation. Thats what we are talking here end of the day. Lets work with what we have MODELLED in the sim, not hypothetical ECM modelling, bla bla. Are you serious? I think I need not reply here, when one has no counterargument.... are 30 ERs missing under optimal headon condition NOT enough to make a point? Not to mention in 3rd ACMI vid YOU yourself is testing it with the SAME conclusions, every first shot misses... How did that happen? :P Anyway, why are we even having this argument. Simple question: Is there a problem with SARH modelling of missile tracking? A: Yes Q: Can we fix or at least amend the problem to the best of our ability within current modelling in DCS? A: Yes Is it too much to ask for it to be looked at, at least until we can get a more advanced model developed by ED? What are you implying? Im assuming you are a pretty new guy, so unfortunately you might not have had the chance to be part of some of the most realistic and immersive scenarios that have been flown over the years in DCS (and by no small part organized by 51st/104th or me personally, take CI or GI as a prime example), but okay no matter, I dont punch below the belt... you are pretty new.

Of course! We are all doing guesswork at the end of the day, based on limited available data (more often non-existent). Oh boy... after being on these boards since just about the beginning of ED, you realise there are people that bring genuine sources of information (with actual backup of hard data), and then there is.... no offense intended, but just look in this thread above on the question of R-27 proximity fuses.... I need not say much. I guess you just learn to take everything with a pinch of salt... Anyway, this thread is getting derailed from SARH discussion to a IR discussion. :helpsmilie:

See, this is the precisely the problem, as the saying goes 'straight from the horse's mouth', thank you! You can be 100% sure that ^^ happens every time with those two easy steps. Are modern IR all aspect missiles that bad? I think not, they should be at least a little bit more resilient to CM, as they always used to be before ED chose to break them in recent years.... even if the odds of survival go down to say 80% in that example, thats IMO a much better representation of reality. Anyway the IR stuff is somewhat debatable... lets stick to the bigger issue of broken SARH, cause they need a serious makeover. I have a simple question: Do any beta testers on these boards actually test this stuff? If so, they must have been well aware of the completely broken tracking model for years... why has nobody ever put that simple .lua fix on the table?

Is it really? When SARH missiles eat chaff head on, lookup and on demand? And heaters eat flares under most circumstances 100% of the time? Surely you would have seen that TACVIEW video... and if you see nothing wrong there that doesn't need fixing, then certainly your bias is indeed (in your own words) about maintaining the current "balance" or complete lack of between ARH and SARH missiles in general. Cmon guys, a little common sense, why such a resistance to obvious flaw that needs to be addressed. Lets fix the problem! Wouldn't it make flying F15 more rewarding when you have to actually defend against a threat of launch?