red_coreSix

I've heard that as well, makes perfect sense. The radar doesn't care that the targets are cars, if it's a point target above doppler notch it will be displayed.

I haven't flown much Mirage lately but I'm pretty sure medium PRF gives you better tail-aspect detection performance at low altitude. If it doesn't then there's something wrong with the radar.

The F-15 only has medium and high PRF. You use high PRF for long range head on detection and medium when flying low under influence of clutter and against cold targets. Low PRF doesn't have much use in a fighter. And as jojo said, both the Mirage and the F-15 don't show clutter on the screen, even F-15As didn't. There is no use in that as the radars are dedicated to track aircraft.

The 120 also, most likely, goes off RTR. As in whether the target is inside or not. No point in lofting below RTR, really.

IIRC, pitching up enables the loft to begin with. Not applying any launch elevation will have the missile fly in a simple PN fashion. At least that's how it works for the AIM-7.

TAW_redcoreSix MiG-15

What makes you think that?

4 slots for TAW: TAW_redcoreSix (F-15C) TAW_STRYK3R (F-15C) TAW_CougarNL (F-15C) TAW_Sineg (F-15C)

Also the F-15C has its guard antenna mounted on the gimbal system, where as they're fixed on the Su-27, for whatever reason. IIRC the effect of that is actually represented in the sim, with the flanker loosing targets when rolling above a certain limit at low altitude.

Where did I say that? People see these videos and conclude "IR missiles must be super vulnerable to flares" and jump to conclusions. It's not as simple as that. Just forget the idle thing. If anything, flying in burner (at close range) makes you look more like a flare.

In-game it's always rolling a dice ;) What I'm saying is, yes it does matter IRL as reducing your throttle will decrease your overall signature and therefore the range at which you'll get picked up by the missile initially. But when you get to closer ranges, where some missiles will actually pick up heat from skin friction too, it doesn't make a difference anymore.

The whole "going idle" thing won't make a difference against all-aspect missiles. As long as the reduced IR signature doesn't cause a break-lock, which it shouldn't at close range, it won't affect the missiles ability to track you. In fact, against certain IRCCM techniques employed by these missiles it may actually increase your probability of getting hit while flaring. Point is, flares should work whether you go idle/cut burner or not. Now, how well they should work is a big subject that I'd rather not get into. I doubt that, at least for the 120C, not because there's anything particularly great about it, but just because microprocessors improved drastically between 1991 (N001) and early 2000s (120C).

IIRC the chaff values and all that stuff is encrypted.

Also leading edge tracking pretty much nullifies chaffs head on.

The OLS-27 laser range against airborne targets is referenced as 4 km (or 7, I can't recall).

That, the m-link is unlikely to provide accurate enough angle tracks to generate a sufficient miss-distance. The AIM-120, I understand, "ignores" the m-link after the seeker has taken over, question is whether it would switch back to it after loosing track.

Chaff decelerates rapidly following release, after even only one second it should be slow enough to be rejected by the seeker. That doesn't meant it won't have any effect but what we see now with missiles basically "locking chaff" and flying through them shouldn't be the case.

Even though the FCR is illuminating the target the missile is still self-guiding, which means that even if the FCR isn't affected by chaff the receiver in the missile might. A point blank ER shot should be pretty deadly but not a "death sentence". Also, if the chaff blooms fast enough it will affect the missiles miss distance. The current model is very simplified indeed but I wonder if it's ever possible to model something accurate while respecting every parameter there is, and there are a lot.

It certainly does, all air-air missiles simulated in the sim use lead-pursuit to get to target. The geometry is different, but it can be done.

The "driving missile into terrain" works against simpler SAMs like SA-8/15 but bigger SAMs (SA-6/11/10) have systems in place to keep the missile from impacting the ground. It will sometimes still happen but I've had multiple occasions where I thought the missile was defeated when it was still on target.

Is not having them at all more realistic than having them in the same conditions as aircraft do? I don't think so.

There are plenty of videos that document missile contrails: around 5:15 I don't see how it would be hard to implement, just say "as long as motor is burning, produce contrail" right? I'm no software guy but seems simple enough.

Honestly, I don't see what the problem you're having is? Maybe try turning up your graphic settings? When I'm on the receiving end of a close range AIM-120 and have tally on the shooter I have no problem seeing the missile and trail, nine times out of ten. I do agree on missile contrails though, it baffles me how such an easy thing hasn't been implemented yet.