IASGATG

Just have to interject here and politely disagree. All of these missiles will be able to pull 35g within the first couple of seconds of launch. This is more than enough to get the missile into lead pursuit of a non manoeuvring target at any range longer than about 1.5nmi. The days of jets out manoeuvring missiles ended in the 60s.

They just changed the shoot cue ranges. The missile hasn't changed.

A completely clean, low fuel F-14 is a bit different to a loaded with bags F-15.

Transonic = not your friend.

Yep, Wags brought this up on a stream pre-Nevada release.

Actually most of the data you need for most of the missiles in the game is publicly available, or at the least unclassified. The question is more what your philosophy on the data is and how you want to interpret it.

Comparing expectations of how a in game missile should perform in comparison to another missile in game missile is useless. It works off the assumption that your expectation of missile a is correct, your expectation of missile b is correct, and the assumption that missile a is modelled correctly to make the comparison to missile b. The only comparisons that should be made is in game missile to real life missile counterpart. You reduce the assumptions to one, that the data you have for the real life missile is correct. If it is and the in game does not reflect that, then there is where things must be changed. Madness lies the other way.

An English copy of the MiG-29 pilots handbook? Probably not.

In a test vacuum sure, but in reality is meaningless. One missile might have a 30km max range and one has 35km max range. But if missile b has been subsonic for 20km of those 35 and missile a is subsonic for 3km, the missile a is a far more combat effective weapon. It's really important!

In the missile data debate we're having about a page back. Where we talk about max range? What do you mean by max range? We aren't fudging the numbers a little Frostie are we? I know that high Mach number high altitude AIM-7 shots still result in a <M1 speed after about 25 seconds. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the R-27R is any better. I'm just saying that "max" range is a bit misleading if the missile has been a subsonic glider for the past 20km. The more useful data is how long the missile is above Mach 1 and distance it travels from launch to Mach 1. I'm sure it'll still support your argument, but it gives a much more accurate portrayal.

Can rephrase it please?

There are a few things going on. There is a philosophical argument over what the data means. One side suggests that the data represents the maximum point the missile can reach at stall, regardless of any other fact. (Such as battery time, loss of hydraulic fluid, self-destruct timers, etc). With this philosophy, if you have a DLZ chart that you trust and know is reliable, and that chart states that Rmax is 60km at 10km alt at M0.9 head to head etc; then you build the missile such that the missile stalls at that intercept point. You then have other speeds and other altitudes and build the curve such that it stalls at all of those intercept points. The competing philosophy is that DLZ charts only tell part of the picture, and typically aren't stall criteria (typically called Raero). You instead build a curve off of other data and then compare that curve to the DLZ's. If it's close then it's a good curve. Now what do I mean by close? The missile could still be doing Mach 2, which seems like it has a lot of energy left in it, so how can that be Rmax? Well if the self-destruct timer goes off in the next second, then it is Rmax. If the missile is still Mach 1+ then it is still maneuverable and able to make make minor intercept jinks in the final seconds of flight. How does this all tie back? Well the R-27ER is coded to fit the R-27ER DLZ chart from (I believe) a Flanker pilot's handbook. This is a strongly reliable source and so I don't doubt the validity of the data. However, because it is a stall criteria at each point, the missile doesn't actually fit the tail chase curves on the following page as the missile doesn't have the necessary energy. Moving onto the AIM-7. From memory, Chizh has said they based the AIM-7M off of the DLZ chart from a USAF SMC of the AIM-7F. This is fine, from a aerodynamics point of view they are the same. However the chart they use states that Rmax for a 24nmi at 40kft with a head to head shot of M1.4 for target and fighter. Ignoring how we feel about this and assume it's right, why might this not be be a stall intercept point? Well the chart on the same page states that the Rmax for a Sea Level shot at M0.9 is 20nmi. It's impossible for the missile to do both. The reason why the Rmax is 24nmi at 40kft, is that it's being fired from an F-4 Phantom, and the max range it can lock the RCS stated is 24nmi, which is stated. In the same SMC, it states that the Raero for the AIM-7F is 57nmi. The problem is we don't know from this page what the shoot criteria are for this Raero shot. It does also state that the AIM-7E2 has an Raero of 27nmi. In the F-4 Phantom manual, it states the same thing and provides the shoot criteria, 40kft at M1.4. Logically it follows the same shoot criteria for the AIM-7F. With that information, that means that from launch to stall is 57nmi, this is a huge distance that feels very uncomfortable for the first philosophy. The previous philosophy said that the point that an R-27ER stalls for a 33kft shot is about 65km. How can a missile that has less thrust stall at 105km? You see the dilemma.

Did some pretty preliminary sparrow testing. I started with the AIM-7E2 first as the AIM-7F (which is aerodynamically the same as the 7M). The 7F dlz chart looked a little extreme so i followed the 7E charts from the F-4 manual. At 5kft M0.7 co-alt co-speed head to head, DLZ states RMax at 12nmi Vanilla: hits the target at 42s, M0.49, the missile was subsonic 14s after launch. My 3.0 missile mod: hits the target at 34s, M0.67, and was subsonic 21s after launch. Even my mod seems to make the missile still too slow. The 7F Sea level M0.9, co-speed, etc. Vanilla: ran out of time. 3.0 mod: at 51s the missile ran out of energy, was still 3.3nmi from the target, more over was subsonic 18s after launch. Considering the motor has a 15s burn time this isn't well modelled, but the vanilla will be even slower.

This is where we disagree Rage. You're making the statement that you want the game to be less realistic to make it more fair for some pilots. As certain levels of realism the balance swings back and forth. But ultimately if you have a step towards realism you have to take it and let the metagame sort itself out.

The numbers above differ from my missile mod because i didn't put much work into the 27ER. I made it fly similar to the aim-7. This was sloppy but it fit the dlz chart okay. The new numbers are better because the missile flies faster and holds the higher speed better but at low speexs suffers mire. It fits the data better. I'll do the aim-7 soon.

I don't have a real aim-120c5 DLZ chart. I can do it for the aim-7 if you like?

It might make combat more unrealistic, maybe? But it will make the game more realistic. As for adjusting the values, it is. Feel free to look yourselves, the missiles_prb_coeff.lua is the variables that govern all the missiles, and then each missile has it's own modifier in the missiles_data.lua. Increase or decrease the modifier and it changes the % chance. What you're asking for requires actual engine recoding. I don't want to speculate how much work this is as I'm not a coder. I did a little bit more testing too comparing the vanilla missile to what I generated. I used the ED sacred DLZ chart for the R-27ER. Please bare in mind the missile has a 60s battery timer. At 5km alt, 900kph head to head, the missile is meant to have an Rmax of 38km. Vanilla: Hits target at 43s, Mach 0.8, has been subsonic for 7s prior to impact. Mod: Hits target at 35s, Mach 1.25 At 10km alt, 900kph head to head, the missile is meant to have an Rmax of 60km. Vanilla: Missies the target by almost 2km, hitting the 60s battery timer, Mach 1.08. The launch and target were actually 885kph so this may have caused the missile, but it shows how small of a knife edge it is tuned to. Mod: Hits at 53s, Mach 1.6. I don't feel like this make the missile some all killer super weapon, it just makes it more reasonable and makes the DLZ chart make sense.

The guidance is buried in the core code. Moreover it's so hard to get around that even third parties have to come up with convoluted ways to make their weapons guide how they want them to. As for an official response from ED. There was a Wags video pre-Nevada that said "Yeah the missiles aren't great, we're working on it."

You are right. The guidance problem does such and the countermeasure problem sucks more. Fixing it will make things scarier for both sides. That being said, i still feel like this problem should be addressed first. It's an easy problem to fix as it requires no new code (well a little more code would be nice but we can fudge it for now). The navigation problem is harder because the maths has to be rewritten and coded, but shouldn't take that long to fix. Reworking the entire radar and countermeasure system requires an overhaul of every vehicle that uses a radar. This is a huge task. Right now they have fudged it by treating chaff like flares and are doing the best they can with that.

My best guess is two things. One is that the modifier number for the 120C is less than the 27ER so that gives the dice roll a lower percentage. The guess is that because it's active and locks onto a chaff bundle, once that bundle despawns after about 6 seconds it can lock onto something else.

Sorry I was being vague about the tail chase stuff, I was trying to lead a horse to water. Let me get into the details. Whilst most of this thread is about nagivation and radar/chaff capabilties, I'm staying clear of this because a. it's not my area and b. it's a huge fix that would require the reworkings of large parts of the DCS engine. I must sound like a broken record, but I'm changing the track to talk about inadequencies in the Russian missile modelling. ED believes that the graph below is accurate, and state this is what they are modelling the R-27ER on in combination with a R-27ER DLZ diagram. The problem with this chart is that DCS doesn't actually reflect it. If we take the 5km alt at 400m/s, you won't hit a target at 14km in 40s. Feel free to test any of these shots, the missile won't make it's target. I've change the aerodynamic performance of the missile to achieve these shots, and the difference in missile performance is quite telling. The graph below is for a 200m/s (close enough) shot at 5km. The drop off once the missile hits the transonic region is quite stark, however this is to be expected. I haven't compared it to the DLZ chart yet, and I'm a bit hesitant to do so as we do not know the parameters for a successful kill in their philosophy, but for completion sake I'll do it later. For now, I'm just curious to hear your thoughts.

Can i turn this topic slightly towards something that is easier to test and fix? Can a skilled flanker pilot tell me what the max range of a tail chase, co-alt, co-speed, 5km alt, non-manevuring target shot for a 27er is please?

Having done a quick test in DCS, a 5km shot at 350m/s resulted in the missile falling back to 350m/s in 31s and 26.5km. A second test where the data states a 600m/s shot should slow back to 600m/s in 45s and travel 35km. In contrast a 550m/s launch in DCS (which is basically the max speed a flanker will do at 5km), will drop back to 600m/s in 26 seconds and travel 24km. This means that the missile is losing it's top end speed too quickly and retaining its low end speed for too long.

Is there a problem with tacview recording distance traveled?

From the graph you're referring to, a 300m/s launch at 5km alt will travel 28km in 40s before falling back down to 300m/s again. There is plenty more data points but that is enough to think about for now.