Maverick Su-35S

I consider this topic should be moved to the scientific or research part of the ED forums! I've always wished the best for DCS through ED, although I've gotten tired over the years of being mocked by those with little intelligence and knowledge, ignored, whatever, so I'm used to it now!

Agree, but by what margin would the missile's interception error build up? Even 2 meters away from the ideal detonation distance from the target could make minimal to no damage on the target, especially if the target is faster and the missile detonates behind. There was that funny interesting fact with that Saudi F-15 which was flying straight, was warned that a missile is coming (dunno how the pilot knew), the pilot did the dumbest things possible..., put full AB, dropped just 2 pair of flares, continued to fly straight, didn't even budge to pull up or do a turn or anything, and the blinded R-27T SAM blew up somewhere to the left and above that F-15, so..., just many meters away and did little damage on it's frame and skin and elevators if I recall correctly. So, that pilot escaped ejection or death even though he did what was dumbest of all, putting AB in full blast and still escaped by luck as the missile blew up and to the left, enough meters away to cause anything critical. So..., drawing from that example, if a DIRCM is able to make the imaging seeker have errors in it's final trajectory and intercetion, EXACTLY AS IT ACTUALLY IS SIMULATED NOW IN DCS on the SU-25T, but unfortunately only on the non-imaging seekers which should otherwise be losing track on the DIRCM emitting target maybe at least half a mile before reaching their target, the way these non imaging seekers missiles behave in DCS should be the way the IRIS-T and AIM-9X imaging seeker heads should be affected, just like that, by starting to lose interception precision and most logically detonate meters away from the unaffected initial detonation distance or simply just fly by if their detonation system only activates the detonation if the target is below X meters away and if not, the missile goes flying by. What do you think?

Just from reading now from that article, this aspect may have been overlooked by most of us: the outside temperature=)). Heh..., indeed it matters a lot in affecting an IR seeker but we usually focus on other complex details and forget this: From that article's text: Environmental Thermal range 0° to 30°C Relative humidity 0% – 50% RH And also: " The upper level was selected to avoid and damage to the detector." This can tell (at least I'd do that if I were to design a military DIRCM, to save an aircraft with) that the military DIRCM uses higher intensity laser to make sure that it does all the havoc to the incoming missile's seeker, burn it out if possible, not just affect it's precision. I don't know, now I may ask the dumbest question: Does that mean that over 30C of outside temp, the seeker looses it's tracking capability? Besides this question about what does that temp limit want to say,, I understand that the article was based on a simulator that they've created for research and it does not represent the real performances of a military IR missile seeker, but still, it's a research and how far from the military thing can it go? Just common sense!

Wow..., just stumbled upon a person who has some knowledge. Nice to respectfully salute you then! "Isn't the IRCM on the 25T just like a stroboscopic infrared light that interfere signal gain of spinning seeker reticles? So imaging seekers like IRIS-T / AIM-9X just track you normally." Just learned it from you know. I only knew somewhat about the DIRCM. But still, so it means that the DIRCM should still have an impact in tracking performances of missiles like IRIS-T and AIM-9X, by giving false information into the seek head, as you've said. I AM INTERESTED. As an ex-aerodynamicist and aerospace engineer with more than a decade of experience in flight dynamics and aerodynamics, I'm interested of everything I may learn for myself and others (when helpful) about any other subject, not only aerodynamics. Many thanks for the effort to put that link.

There is a bug regarding the login. Of course, it was built in mind with the idea to stop the thieves from playing DCS without buying a product, but it's so sensitive that if you login ONLINE and the internet has a disconnection..., only after it reconnects (you can play for days and nothing bad happens) it will throw you out of the sim with that nonsense LOGIN SESSION EXPIRED error, although YOU ARE THE SAME CLIENT, not someone else all of a sudden. The authentication server should f@#@# check this out! But this ONLY happens once the internet reconnects. So if you find out that the internet had disconnected, you'd better keep it disconnected and save your work, cause once it connects back... VOILA wonderful error! It's like there is a gap in the programming of this login feature. The sim should connect to a master server to rejoin and continue the connection session so that error should not come up again, but idk, I'm not a programmer, I'm just using common sense and logic.

Hi, Although these are not the only missiles suffering from the too high drag at low AoA syndrome which is quite common among DCS missiles, I've made a short track regarding the SEAD missiles KH-58 and KH-25. Although the KH-25 by some miracle glides at a very low speed towards the target, although unrealistically slow and manages to hit it doesn't mean that "IT'S OK, IT REACHED IT'S TARGET". Being far from having a closer to realistic drag vs AoA tables doesn't just cut a lot from the missile's real possible flight max range (if unlimited by passive radar signal strength), but also looks odd to see how it decelerates like it has some small parachute behind. The same goes with the KH-58 which actually falls short of the target due to exaggerated low AoA drag almost 10kms away from the target after being fired with LAUNCH AUTHORIZED confirmed and also that LA range is much shorter than it should normally be. I know that the aerodynamics problems subjects are a piss-off for some, but there are some passionate guys strictly on that subject and they can tell when something is quite off and truly put some passion into it. I hope the devs will find a day to try reducing the drag coefficients vs AoA on most missiles (the differences between a missile and another are not so great as most people who don't know might think) to levels seen on AIM-120s and IRIS-Ts would already be a great step towards more realistic drag vs AoA even if the particular numbers are not found. Simply by putting the same tables on the other missiles already brings them closer to realism, the max speed, range and deceleration mostly depending on engine/motor burn data and fins area, which are more accurate to get than an exact drag coef. KH-58 and KH-25MPU (not the only ones though) have too much drag at low AOA.trk

Hi, I've been playing around a bit against radar SAMs and what I found after the latest updates is that if you add an advanced waypoint action to these SAM groups to AVOID SEAD missiles by setting "Evasion of ARM = ON" and the RADAR SAM that is targeted by a SEAD missile turns off, the SEAD missile goes haywire towards the sky or starts going ballistic into the ground, instead of trying to hit the ground within a given precision near the last known location/coordinates of that targeted radar. Doesn't "IN & PAS RDR" attributes of a SEAD missile mean that it can track a radar either passively (normal mode) or by inertial navigation which basically means calculating the last known coordinates of the target? Or what does IN mean then? I searched a bit regarding the AGM-88 HARM and indeed the newer models also have a GPS correction (for better last coordinates accuracy), but the inertial guidance doesn't do the same thing with somewhat reduced coordinates precision? Also, the targeted radars that turn off to evade ARM are never turning back on. They get so scared? The only radar that turns back on to search is the one which moves/relocates to another position after it turns off and from where it stops it turns back on, like for example the Roland EWR that I've tested before this track. Maybe there is a bug which requires the radar to mandatory switch position before turning back on and if it doesn't change position, it will forever remain OFF or there's a bug by which mobile radars don't start moving to a new position and thus it never turns back on. I've attached a track. Thanks! SEAD missiles IN (inertial) mode not simulated and AI SAM radars that turn off and not move afterwards, won't turn back on.trk

I was wrong about the DIRCM not working at all. It does indeed not work at all on IRIS-T and AA missiles for no reason, but maybe this will hopefully be corrected in the future, cause all IR missiles are badly affected by a heating laser on their seeker. The DIRCM's field of work has been drastically reduced though (after some X update) from some 90 degrees (45 left/right/up/down) to just some 20 degrees (10 left/right/up/down) from the back of the plane and that's why I initially had the impression that it's not working anymore. It does, but it's almost useless as it only works on SAM IR missiles (except the faulty IRIS-T and AA missiles) if the incoming missile is within some maximum 10 degrees offset of the Su-25Ts centerline when closing in from behind. Here are the tracks: Thank you! AA missiles are unaffected by DIRCM.trk DIRCM limited to only 20deg from around 100deg.trk IRIS-T also unaffected by DIRCM.trk

I understand that they are very busy with many other things, I imagined that too and now I get it that they don't have time to prove me wrong and make a track proving the opposite of what I say. So I did this track now. Indeed, I haven't tested enough two things: 1. The preventive flares drop before an IR sam is launched indeed works. I've made topic about it and I'll quickly post this same track there to prove I was wrong about that as I've only got that feeling while playing missions and never took time to do a thorough test like I did now! 2. The DIRCM indeed works giving some 90% chance of avoiding an SAM IR missile coming from the back, but NOW (after some update) the DIRCM's effective cone is reduced from some wider angle (maybe it was 90 degrees in the past) to just around 20 degrees (10 degrees left, 10 degrees right and up/down). This was the reason why I had the impression that it's not working anymore, simply because I didn't find out during casual play that the missile must fly almost straight from the back in order to be somewhat affected by the DIRCM. Besides the fact that the DIRCM doesn't rapidly heat up the missile's seeker (I'm aware that this isn't simulated at all, like a function of lock loss over time), the effective cone on the DIRCM seems absurdly low in degrees of field. like I said, some maximum 10 degrees offset from the aircraft's centerline. On the other hand, speaking of DIRCM, the IRIS-T at the moment is not affected at all by the DIRCM's laser, no matter the angle and alignment with the Su-25T when chasing it from the back. Also the AA missiles behave the same like IRIS-T and never get blinded/heated and never loose lock on the target. Tracks provided for this as well. Thanks! AA missiles are unaffected by DIRCM.trk DIRCM limited to only 20deg from around 100deg.trk IRIS-T also unaffected by DIRCM.trk

You "believe" that the IR missiles should be more resistant to flares because they are newer gen missiles. Ok..., then what about the AIM-9X fired from an F-18 at some Su-22 in Syria and which was rapidly trashed by the Su-22 dropping flares (maybe preventive) and so the F-18 pilot got a little mad to see his wonderful AIM-9X go for flares and so he fired an AIM-120 to make sure he hits that Su-22? Was that AIM-9X from the 70s? What we think is sometimes and maybe most of the time very different from reality!

So what do you propose? Can I propose you then to put a track here with you flying the Su-25T and avoiding IR missiles with DIRCM alone? Of course, it should work with ZERO FLARES to blind the incoming IR missile, otherwise we misinterpret what it does and veer off realism!

Guess what...! F@#@ this <profanity>! It now says login session expired every single time the internet reconnects. Basically I login with the account on the initial DCS start menu, enter the game, enter a mission, disconnect the internet, reconnect it and wamm.."login session expired".=)) When I thought that I escaped the first problem this happens now. Why can't the game just recognize that it has been RECONNECTED TO THE SAME ACCOUNT and says login session expired like if I entered in single player with no internet to verify the modules, which indeed has a limited play time? Why does it do this confusion?

I've been testing this a lot to confirm. When pre-flaring against AA IR missiles, yes, even after you stop dropping flares, the air to air IR missile might go for the flares, but if a an IR SAM is launched, it will never go for flares that were pre-released. It's simulated that the IR SAM will only start looking for flares only after it gets launched, NEVER before. On the other hand, if an IR SAM is launched, it can go even for 1x flare that you release after the missile is launched at you and it will go for that single flare if you are 3-4kms away from the launch point, which seems pretty plausible from that distance. I don't even need to post a track, everyone can check this out.

Lol..., I thought that there's something related to the missile's flight performances or something, but for him, underperforming meant about the explosive damage. Don't confuse performances with explosive power. Nonetheless on an immortal AI=). Of course, you later found out that small mistake!

No! I didn't generate anything! It's the game that did things by itself over the years of updates. I had installed Open Beta when it was, then later on DCS's updated did the rest and voila..., it didn't take care of that folder, it remained named Open Beta and perhaps other files were messed up in the main game folder as well and we may never know exactly if it was only a file that needed replacement or a bunch of other. I've just reinstalled +500GB of game files and that was it. Now it works. No more crashes after reconnecting to the internet during a mission. Thanks!