ricnunes

Thanks for the feedback, @ruxtmp! That's exactly what I'm experiencing here! This only diference is that I don't own F-16, AV-8B and F-14. But the rest is the same. With F-15C, Mig-29, Su-27, A-10C I can always survive the scenario that I previously set. With the F/A-18, I can't survive any single time! And yes, I'm flying/experiencing this in Single Player. Don't know if this makes a diference but I don't play in multiplayer. It's simply impossible that no-one on the dev part notices this. This is one of perhaps few issues that I found in any computer game which I (and not only, it seems) can reproduce it 100% of the times!

After an hiatus from playing DCS and therefore after a few new updates, the issue that I reported here still persists! Moreover, I see that at least another user reports the same. Are you (from ED) going to continue to ignore this issue? Do you continue to say that there isn't any diference in pilot survivability after being hit by a missile between the F/A-18 (pilot always dies!) and the Mig-29 (pilot almost always survives)? Please, fix this issue.

@Smashy, I agree! I also noticed what your described in missions such as the "8 vs 8 BVR" quick engagement scenario that comes with DCS F/A-18. Often when I open the F10 map, I see that for each shot down (AI) Mig-29 or Su-27 there's often a corresponding ejecting pilot but when it comes to each AI F/A-18 shot down there's rarely or almost never an ejecting pilot. And of course, when I'm (the player) shot down by an enemy missile, I always die has well in that same scenario! Thanks for your feedback!

Ok, one more attempt: I recorded tracks of 10 attempts in a row with the F/A-18, always being hit from behind by a AA-11 and again and without surprise the pilot always died! I recorded tracks of 10 attempts in a row with the Mig-29, always being hit from behind by a AA-11 and again and without surprise the pilot always survived! I attach here in this post the 10 tracks from each aircraft (20 in total) together with the respective log files, compacted in two (2) .zip files. And I hope that this finally shows and proves without any possible doubt what I've been saying here even because it took me quite some time to perform these tests and put the files together! And again, this not a normal or expected behaviour! Not even by a long shot! F18_pilot_Always_Dies_when_hit_even_from_behind_10_tries.zip Mig29_pilot_Always_Survives_when_hit_even_from_behind_10_tries.zip

I could continue to add tracks but they would be exactly the same and like I said, this is something that happens me 100% of the times (it's not even 99%)! If you change the parameters of my tests then it's possible that some end results may present themselves differently but even then I'm astonished how you can claim that you don't see any different survival rate with the F/A-18 compared with other aircraft like for example the Mig-29. This is clearly not the case as other users also reported the same here. Anyway, I just showed you examples that CLEALY proves my post: - AA-11 hitting a F/A-18 from behind -> Pilot always dies! - AA-11 hitting a Mig-29 from behind -> Pilot always survives! This is NOT "normal behaviour" no matter what you may say! I don't know what else I must do because I proved this here and did it with a 100% certainty.

I guess it's now my turn to say "sorry". Sorry but that scenario you're playing is not mine or at least it's a modification of my scenario and/or its conditions! 1- For instance the F/A-18 in my scenario is Ukrainian (nation and paint) and in your case is US. Not that this by itself matters by any way but it shows that's not my scenario (or if it was then it was edited/tampered with). By the way, I also edited the scenario by having a US F/A-18 (instead of Ukrainian F/A-18) but and as expected the results were exactly the same as I always had (pilot always dies after being hit by enemy TRAILING missile) providing that everything else continued the same. 2- Another indication is that your F/A-18 is basically going away from Batumi. In my scenario and the condition that I urged you to replicate with the F/A-18 (as well as with the Mig-29), the plane is going directly towards Batumi! So either you performed evasive maneuvers in order try to avoid the enemy missile or the scenario was edited/tampered with for example planes starting from different positions and/or "god knows" what other type of editing/changes were made? Anyway, this clearly shows that there were considerable changes of my testing conditions. And I really wonder why you seem to "refuse" to play the scenario the exact same way with the exact same conditions that I reported?! Honestly, this is frustrating because this is not a matter of happening to me or reproducing "sometimes". It actually happens to me ALL THE TIMES, with no exception! It's not even "only" 90% of the times that I get killed, it's 100% of all times, as you can see in the track and log that I sent you in my last post! And don't get me wrong but I'm starting to feel like that this is another "AMRAAM issue" which for some odd reasons took you like 10 years to acknowledge plus something like 5 years more to actually improved it!

In the meanwhile, I was able to do some new tests sooner than I expected - which without surprise had the exact same results - and as requested, I'll send here the tracks and logs. I send here one track and the respective log one the F/A-18 test where the pilot always DIES upon being hit by a AA-11 from behind. And I also send here one track and the respective log one the Mig-29 test where the pilot always SURVIVES upon being hit by a AA-11 from behind (and manages to eject). I hope this helps and that this is what you requested. F18_pilot_Always_Dies_when_hit_even_from_behind.trk F18_pilot_Always_Dies_when_hit_even_from_behind.log Mig29_pilot_Always_Survives_when_hit_even_from_behind.trk Mig29_pilot_Always_Survives_when_hit_even_from_behind.log

What do you mean with being "correct"?! Are you saying that when you fly with the F/A-18 in the scenarios that I hosted that you die 100% of the times? Are you saying that when you fly with the Mig-29 in the scenarios that I hosted that you survive 100% of the times? Because that is what's happening to me, 100% of the times! If your answer is Yes to both questions, how can this be "correct"?! Anyway, I'll try to send you track replays in a later/next post as soon as I can.

But I have already provided you with evidence! I built two very, very simple scenarios which I hosted in the original thread but I'll host it here again in this post (just in case). Just download both files/missions, place it in your DCS install and play each of them an X number of times. NOTE: All you need is to keep flying the aircraft straight (don't turn, don't use countermeasures, don't accelerate too much, etc...)! This will ensure that you always get hit from behind (and therefore as farthest as possible from the cockpit position) by the enemy Mig-29 (which is armed with 2 x AA-11s) behind you! Both scenarios are equal with the sole diference that in one the player flies the F/A-18 and in the other flies the Mig-29. Honestly, I don't know why haven't you tried these scenarios yet? With them I (and anyone) can replicate 100% of the times the behavior that I'm reporting here (while flying with the F/A-18 you always die but while flying the Mig-29 you always survive!). Missile_Test_Mig29_FA18.miz Missile_Test_Mig29_Mig29.miz

Hit by what? It makes all the diference. - If I get hit by a gun then yes, I can survive most of the times and eject (with the F/A-18) - If I get hit by a very weak missile like the AA-8 (or perhaps MANPADS), sometimes I can survive and eject (with the F/A-18). But only sometimes! - If I get hit by a relatively weak missile but more powerful than the ones above like the AA-11 up to something quite more powerful like the AA-10 then I can NEVER survive and eject (with the F/A-18).

Sorry but that cannot be true. Did you run the scenarios that I shared in my original post? Because I did and after patching the game the results are exactly the same: - 100% of the times when the F/A-18 gets hit from behind by a AA-11, the (F/A-18) pilot dies! - 0% (ZERO) of the times when the Mig-29 gets hit from behind by a AA-11, the pilot dies or more precisely the (Mig-29) pilot ALWAYS SURVIVES! Honestly I don't know how you cannot see or replicate this, I really don't since it's so obvious!

In the sequence of this topic which is now closed: While opening DCS today, I noticed that there was an update today - DCS 2.9.13.6818 - and I was pleasantly surprised to learn that this update was supposed to fix this problem as it's stated in the changelog: Fixed: Damage model - Pilot cannot survive any explosive hit. And this fix not only applies to the F/A-18 but also to the F-16 and F-5E. Actually and since I own FC4, I can confirm that this problem also affects the FC F-5E. But and unfortunately after updating DCS and then making some extensive tests with the F/A-18, I didn't notice any changes/improvements at all regarding the pilot survivability when being hit by missiles. It's exactly the same as it was before the update! I didn't have the opportunity to test the FC F-5E and I don't have the F-16.

Greetings, About the subject at hand, it makes absolutely no sense to model Block 2B! IMO, the earliest Block of the F-35A that makes sense to model is obviously Block 3F for several reasons: - No F-35A Block 2B ever entered in service, not even as IOC. The only F-35 that entered in service as IOC with Block 2B was the F-35B (STOVL variant) with the USMC. The first F-35A version that entered in service as IOC was the Block 3i. Granted that there isn't much of a diference between Block 3i and Block 2B but then again there isn't also a big diference between Block 2B/3i and Block 3F apart from some extra weapons integrations, bug fixes and "one or two" added capabilities. As such modeling a F-35A in service with Block 2B isn't realistic and regarding Block 3i, it was only realistic for a period of 1 year (between 2016 and 2017 when Block 3F entered in service). - With the point above in mind, it makes just as sense to model the F-35A Block 2B as it would make to for example model the YF-16 instead of the current F-16C Block 50 (I'm exaggerating a bit here but I hope you understand my analogy). - I also remind that the 25mm gun GAU-22/A internal gun only became operational with the Block 3F. So this means that a realistically modeled F-35A Block 2B wouldn't have a working gun (it would carry the gun internally but it simply wouldn't work)! So, if the 25mm gun GAU-22/A internal gun is to be modeled (and according to the FAQ it is and IMO, rightly so!) then Block 3F is the way to go. - Moreover, all these F-35 Blocks are basically software updates much similar to how an application such as for example DCS gets updated. Resuming, the diference between Block 2B and Block 3F is basically software only which allows the aircraft to have more capabilities such as using new weapons including again, the gun. Apart from this, the capabilities between Block 2B and Block 3F are quite similar. If there's a capability or two of Block 3F have which for some reason can't be initially modeled then this shouldn't be a problem because the same happened and happens with all other DCS modules (for example, remember when DCS F/A-18 module came out that it didn't even have a TWS radar mode? This doesn't mean that for example a YF-18 should have been modeled in the place of the current F/A-18C lot 20). - Block 3F allows modeling more weapons (and realistically so) such as GBU-39 SDB which IMO is among the most important weapons of the current F-35A inventory. Another weapon that can be modeled is the dual mode (GPS and Laser) GBU-49, another important weapon of the current F-35A inventory (similar in capabilities to the GBU-54). - Block 3F was the first version that have full warfighting capability to the F-35. The F-35 entered in full service (as opposed to IOC) with Block 3F. It we want to use a more traditional line of thought, the Block 2B and Block 3i were more like "prototypes" or more accurately, early production aircraft instead of full service aircraft (like Block 3F). Well, for what's worth and IMO the ideal would be a F-35A Block 4 (should be in service by the time the module comes up) with GBU-53 (a.k.a. SDBII) besides other weapons but if this is not possible then Block 3F all the way! My 2 cents, anyway...

Yes, that's very telling indeed. Thanks for sharing your logbook records! Please, tell me one more thing: During those 42 ejections of yours in the Hornet, do you remember if you still had some degree of control over the aircraft just before ejecting? (note that I'm not asking if you could bring back of land the aircraft. I'm only asking if at least one of the control surfaces of the Hornet still worked after you've being hit and survived in the Hornet)

So you're saying that when playing the F/A-18C scenario that everytime (100% of the times) you get hit from behind you don't get killed while with the Mig-29 in the same scenario you'll survive 100% of the times?? Or, if you're having the same results as I then why would this be an expected performance? Do you believe the Mig-29 is a "fully armored" aircraft while the F/A-18 is "made of paper"? Don't get me wrong but that's extremely hard to believe (and I'm not the only one noticing this). Yes, that's basically what I've been trying to say. Please, feel free to try the scenarios that I shared above (you can even edit and change the player's aircraft) and test. I strongly believe that anyone reach a simple conclusion with them.