nighthawk2174

This is my suspicion as well hence why it doesn't re-acquire after being chaffed.

Question will the SA5 being made by ED getting the variable thrust modes that the irl has? Or will it be simpler in its implementation?

As was discussed in the other thread on this the AMRAAM should be incredible resistant too chaff. I just don't see how it could defeat the missile outright based on all the documents i've read on this. Beyond this there are pilots on various discords who have talked about this and the opinion is always the same chaff has very little (likes less than a .01% chance according too one guy) chance of ever outright defeating something like an amraam. Helping get into the notch sure. But not what were seeing right now.

I don't know about this being accurate it just doesn't make much sense, why would the FCR drop a contact when coming out of DGFT mode? There is even footage of a CCIP blk 40 (yes not our jet but as far as i'm aware all the CCIP jets are similar) where he locks someone in dgft then goes back to nav and it still keep him locked. I see no reason at all the blk50 would not be the exact same:

Yeah I mean its been like this since the very start as well so I'm not expecting much progress either.

+1 , its more than just this though, the amraam should be able to filter it out based on its Vgate, Range gate, filtering all returns outside the rescell, and its even possible to deteermine when there are multiple targets in the res cell and 'weight' the radar towards one or the other, and if its still getting datalink updates that should prevent it chasing false targets as well. ; Don't quite feel like posting a full write up but my opinions and supporting dcs are here: this is defintly an issue that needs to be fixed.

If possible use dot labels, while not perfect they will help.

Its this exactly, while some missiles will be quite steady irl with their sustain motor it won't be in most situations. In DCS however the majority of SAM's have a super simple FM and as such they just accel up to a set speed and maintain that speed for a set time.

Hmm maybe not be set in the cockpit but on the gun itself perhaps in pre-flight?

Often these manuals set these conditions to maintain the life of the engine but aren't hard limits. This has been an issue in IL2 for years. What kills engines quickly is a lack of oil or detonation. If you have proper fuel, good oil flow, and a working coolling system all of these quick kill conditions won't happen. Bellow are a punch of docs saying as much. There are more but these are just the ones I had quick access too.

Just wanted to bump any updates?

Just to get the F15 out of the way compared in game to the -1 manual we have. Below is for a clean aircraft, 75% fuel, 40000ft starting from 250kts indicated. Well within margin of error Additionally the video is of very little value as we don't know the air-temperature or pressure. For example as shown in the 15-1 this can lead to big differences.

rog have they specifically said this is a thing? And also for the older stuff though it isn't which is what the R27 is currently on.

I thought the Russians used something called SAGG or is that the patriot?

Hmmm that'd explain a lot

I've never seen any references state that the 5V55R was anything but SARH. With SAGG/TVM coming latter on in the 48N6. OFC unless they were upgraded mid-life to have TVM.

I know its the equivalent of arguing with a brick wall but let me try to break this down as well: Not during midcourse guidance though where it bleeds a full mach of airspeed as said above it should be more like a lower g value over a longer period. Just go in game and fire the AMRAAM then the phoenix and observe how they behave. The phoenix should do the exact same thing as the amraam during the midcourse phase. They really are comparable, while the amraam in all probability received more advanced guidance. From what's out there the 120A's guidance system was based off of the 54C's. Right but this should be a smooth transition not a sudden 11g jerk. No not really for the time it came out it was quite advanced and remained so for quite some time. Better than anything the Russians had for a VERY long time as well. I think you don't quite get how guidance algorithms work, it doesn't just adjust its capabilities based off of the target it will fly to null out LOS rate based on a number of factors may I recommend as a starting point: And your source on it being just for bombers and not capable at all of hitting fighters? I mean... it was the first a/a missile to hit a target pulling more than 6g's. Hitting an F86 being used as the target. The missile is capable of ~18g's which should allow it to rather quite easily hit every type of airborne target. Again in the worst case geometry you may need up to 2x the g of your target. But most often you will not need that much. You can see this in DCS with the amraam. ???? Yes it can, and with its rather large warhead it just needs to get close within 20'ish meters. Which if your moments from getting hit its unlikely a sudden very high G maneuver would be able to through the missile off enough for you to escape the proxy fuze (irl in DCS well proxy fuzes don't exactly work like they should) ????

1) Currently DCS can't take this effect into account so I didn't even investigate this. 2) Yes, I used the cross section area as seen from the front, this is what most sources I have on the subject did and as such I used this value as well (Cd0 value). 3) Yes 4) Real and unknown but in all probability real iirc ideal gas models start to fall apart quickly as you get to supersonic flow. 5) Not 100% useless as often there is only one set of fins that moves, additionally it'll get you a reasonable lift value if you can't individually model the control surfaces. To get an accurate enough model where it makes a difference you need to model each control surface. Make it so it has an associated lift value based on the current airflow. Currently i'm unsure if DCS does this for the new model and if it does how to adjust these values. In short its good enough for our purposes but for more complex models you would want to take this into account.

What is the current status of moving the phoenix to the new missile code as can be seen in the missile_table.lua? Even if the exact AWG-9 interaction is still iffy i'm just more concerned about it getting APN and the smoothed out loft curve.

They were identical at first in game due to the sheer simplicity of the system and as such were the same minus drag and thrust values. But in terms of IRL this doesn't mean they are totally dissimilar, fundamentally they should have very similar features guidance wise. While irl the 120 in all probability uses optimal control irl; in game it uses APN with lofting which is what the 54 uses irl and what it should use in-game as well. (I do have a suspicion that the 54C was upgraded with optimal control but no firm documentation based evidence of this). IIRC the 54C guidance system was even used as the foundation for the AIM-120A's system irl. The difference is that the 54 isn't truly fire and forget as it needs the host radar to tell it when to go active and i'm sure it also has limitations in ECCM compared to the 120 as well.

For more modern versions of the SA10, the one we have uses the earlier SARH missile.

Yeah I've noticed that from time to time as well I have no clue what causes it for sure. But my current working theory is that for some reason its going in and out of the loft profile. I've seen it happen as many as 6 times the up and down oscillation. Or as little as once but not going into the loft in the end.

The fact the rising squall campaign can sort of do this with checkpoints just shows how much of a QOL feature this really is.

Sure if there's a lot of civilian traffic it may get cluttered. But if not then I can't see how it wouldn't be a useful tool. Especially farther back where its a lot more likely for large convoys to be using the roads.

+1 This would be a very nice thing to have.