ShadowFrost

Track please, also as far as DCS is concerned. The LD-10 has no ability to differentiate friend from foe, or select precise targets. It will go for the first emitter within it's FOV. If its making a 180 and attacking things outside of its FOV, track please.

ACT mode is a very good option and significantly increases the range of the missile in practice.

@Aries101 I'm unable to watch the track as well. If you don't mind, please resubmit and in the smallest duration possible.

The new API has not been applied to the Aim-54.

R-77 is on an older scheme so CCM comparisons may not be useful.

The test series will be redone with additional data, it was still valid. However, due to the apparent changes in HOJ, many of the longer range test shots timed out only a few seconds short of their targets. So its not entirely fair to compare that alone. I will build in some additional medium ranged shots as that should be a more correct comparison.

Also for the record, the PRF change shouldn't effect anything unless host radar lock is lost. I ran something like ~780 tests to regression test this and there was no difference between the old and new missile on release for fully supported shots. However, if you have a scenario you believe that it isn't functioning in the same way, I am more than happy to take a look and compare again, because something could have changed. But for the moment, a decrease in PK is only expected if the host radar loses lock. Past that, it should be the same as before.

Removed, new test series will arrive later.

If I had to guess, its mostly sensor related and how the game itself handles the "new" sensor/api compared to the old. Just look at the differences between the Aim-120C-5 and the SD-10/Aim-54 currently. Aim-120C-5 has predictive guidance for lost targets, and, unknown to us (not shown through datamining), different variables effecting the sensor and the environment itself. The predictive guidance part... probably being the most obvious (if that applies). Thats at least as far as I'm aware.

What is the bug that causes instant STT lock loss? As it is currently implemented, if you break lock for any reason it will trash the missile, however, entering memory mode and recovering (not fully breaking lock) is fine. So you have around ~6 seconds of loss of lock (memory mode) in normal circumstances before the missile goes dead. Obviously, if the bug prevents entering memory and just straight up breaks lock, this significantly hurts the missile's performance.

I will add a comment, (I'm not associated with the 399) but in my previous testing I encountered this issue, but ultimately did not bring it up because after looking at the manual and accounting for tip tanks (removing them) I found it to have a significant safety margin. I do not recall the specifics, but at around 50% fuel and without tip tanks I could exceed 9 g's. Possibly higher than 10 for differing periods of time. But adding fuel, tip tanks, or weapons will rapidly decrease the allowable critical wing loading before failure. Though with pylons, tip tanks or similar additional loading, the safety margin that was originally there rapidly decreases.

Thats probably a DCSism, side lobes and reflection off the ground could also trigger the RWR even if the target aircraft's RWR isn't within the exact FOV of the missile's seeker. I would not be anywhere near 100% confident that the seeker emissions are not making it to the aircraft RWR in some manner when at such close proximity both to the missile (possibility of sidelobes) and to terrain of which the missile is actively looking at (reflection). There is a video out there on youtube of F-15s getting warned about ~130 degrees off an SA-3? radar and the actual target's azimuth. IE, the non-targeted F-15s were northwest of an SA-3 and the SA-3 engaged another group to the east. Both flights got the warning.

Shadowfrost Mig-29A (I may only be able to commit to 2 hours, and not 2.5)

As to the original bug, it is known and reported internally.

I don't have any wind tunnel testing on the P-51, correct. I do however have seen substantial wind tunnel testing on race cars, and even we do similar. A certain series removes the roof on their cars to increase drag to make the show better. I have never seen an example of a windshield (only) performing better than a fully enclosed canopy/roof or similar design in regards to drag. If you wish to redefine your argument as "we don't know how badly the canopy being missing would effect top speed performance" that is far more reasonable. However, you said "...We cannot know if the total drag is higher, lower or equal without actual flight or wind tunnel ( real or sophisticated computer modeling) testing." and "Is drag different after opening or ejecting the canopy? Yes. Is it more or less drag? Unknown as is the degree of change." which indicates you believe it could be either which is incorrect. It will most certainly add drag, how much specifically, will require data.

Actually, Dawger suggested both. "...We cannot know if the total drag is higher, lower or equal without actual flight or wind tunnel ( real or sophisticated computer modeling) testing."

A windshield alone, absolutely produces more drag than a bubble canopy. A bubble canopy reduces drag compared to a windshield only, however, a more streamlined concept further reduces drag than both the bubble canopy and windshield only. And yes, the turbulence in the video is important aerodynamically. It shows you the disruption of airflow compared to with the roof on which in turn is increasing drag. Why would this not happen for the P-51 if you removed the canopy? Why is the P-51 special?

I disagree, a bubble canopy adding more drag is in reference to an "inline" canopy or other design, not to no canopy at all. A windshield with its edge exposed will create turbulence and increase drag compared to a full bubble or other design. Removing the bubble canopy would only further increase the drag, not decrease it. Given that it goes against the conventional understanding of aerodynamics, I would say the burden of proof is on you to say that no canopy reduces drag compared to having a canopy. Overwhelmingly, a partial windshield or open canopy will be more draggy than a fully enclosed canopy. However, of the fully enclosed canopies and fuselages, there are designs between the two that have better performance at the cost of visibility. Now, canopies do add drag overall to the aircraft, but you must have them. An aircraft with only a fuselage (no exposed pilot or canopy) would be much more clean of a design aerodynamically than any of the relevant canopy designs for WW2 aircraft. The bubble canopy adds drag in comparison to the earlier P-51A/B canopy. If either design were open or missing it's canopy, it would add drag and be extremely uncomfortable for the pilot at higher speeds.

How much pitch up did you add? There are several missiles on the scheme that can have issues descending (they never do) if they are "manually" lofted significantly. I would try firing at exactly 9/10 degrees. If it still encounters the issue, send us a track please.

While there are certainly some aspects that I would like to see improvements on in the WW2 side of things, I cannot speak to modern aircraft. However, I would highly recommend setting curves both in brakes and rudder. DCS allows you to press the brakes excessively hard compared to IRL which leads to over controlling very easily in most aircraft. So you must tune your hardware with this in mind. 10 lbs of force to the joystick may equal >100 lbs by the pilot within DCS. With proper curves it tends to do quite well in my opinion, but certain aircraft like the F-14 you will always need to be careful with as the ABS needs some work.

I await a track, but do not manually loft in ACT otherwise you will encounter issues. However, with a track, the issue might be separate to the manual loft. How high are we talking? I know I did a test on the new LD10 scheme around 40k previously.

Yeah, the LD-10 used to suffer from it even more in previous patches. A few small changes were made to the guidance to mitigate it. But its always been more prevalent in the LD-10 due to it having less energy which means it often arrives at a lower angle in practice than the Harm. Edit- After even more testing, I've seen similar encountered even with high angles of impact in PAS mode. Will pass it on.

I will take a more detailed look at the first track, but otherwise, the missile encounters significant control authority issues below 600-700 knots which is probably just missile limitations. Anything less than 600-700 knots I personally consider out of range. I will have a more detailed look and pass it on still. Personally though, I recommend using ACT for everything that isn't very close range as missile PK drops rapidly lower than 700 knots. You don't have to have a perfect idea of where the emitter is with ACT (provided the emitter is not too close). The loft really helps the distance the missile will go and also changes the angle of descent so the missile can fly to slower speeds in practice. Edit- Also, feel free to try more manual loft in PAS. A 30-45 degree PAS shot found its targets in the above tests.

I am not personally aware of any issues at the moment with the LD-10. The above changes/problem discussed should have been pushed a couple months ago. Provide a track file?

+1