Hobel

This has not been possible for a few months. There used to be a situation where the missile would go over the gimbal limit as you say and miss, but this has been fixed, the Aim120 now tries to keep the target in the gimbal limit if it reaches the limits. If the missile is not rammed into the ground or notch not really. At best with a roll, but in my opinion the risk has become far too great since the pf enlargement that it is no longer worth it.

this is also discussed here with interesting irl pictures. as already mentioned, the video shown is very old and many missiles in DCS have received a drastic increase in proximity fuze range in the last few months. I no longer know the exact number, but it should be ~75m now

This is still an old video and the proxy fuze of this missile seems much too small, in the last few months there have been some fixes where some missiles have gotten significantly more PF range and something like in the video is no longer possible.

Gimbal Limit also?

As far as this aspect is concerned, both devices are not synchronized. So you also have to enter it again in the Abriss That's why I use the ingame tool or shark planner from @okopanja

I think it depends on which aspect of pre flare you mean. But in general, preflare has been working for a long time, even if you didn't see it in the cockpit before. Here is an example: This is when the IR missile on the rail didn't react to flare, but preflare still had an effect. The missile here goes to flare which was thrown long before launch. In the example, the atacker is slightly higher in the scene where the missile misses, but the distance and flare program was always the same. That alone shows that the aspect already has a big influence and I don't really move much. But maybe I can make a clean example, but according to my observation and the tests it has a clear effect if the flare is between the airplane and the seeker and on top of that there are still many flares in the FOV of the seeker, so you should make sure to throw the flare in the direction of the seeker so that it fills the FOV as long as possible. This was also confirmed by a dev that this has an effect I could perhaps test it even better with the AV8 because i can control the direction where the flare is throw and the plane can stay perfectly straight.

Even if flares have a certain dice roll, it plays a big role which aspect and how many flares are in the FOV of the Seeker and consequently the distance. Here is an example when I throw the flares towards the seekers and thus fill the FOV, there is a clear difference in behavior than if you do not do this, pre flare is also effective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJJi-0hOYuE

As always, a track or tacview would be helpful.

Ouh okay that's interesting.

Which settings do you use? the F15E can do more than 40nm and up to +80nm the resolution is still quite good. but the F18 seems to be limited to 40nm in DCS with the EXP modes.

can you upload a track of the situation please?

have you tried pressing “numpad5” as a workaround? then you get into the radar view, maybe it fixes the problem

What exactly was the problem? When the host aircraft is fed with information via the network, it simply passes it on to the Aim120 without the host radar seeing the actual target. only M-link needs to be provided. But this works in a fairly large area as long as you don't go completely cold. I remember a discussion about Russian M-link aspect limits for the 27ER on manual lofts and that you can't exceed them, I think on STT it was ~50° which is still quite generous. Now of course I don't know exactly how it is with western airplanes, but looking at the currently known modes of operation these margins should be quite generous. When it comes to the pure M-link issue, which is already big if you are lofting and the TGT is below you.

I'm not that familiar with the F18. But does the wording in the context mean that I can shoot at MSI tracks without the host radar seeing the target?

Oh nice thanks! Yes, I think so too. The only question that remains is can our F4 carry Lau-88A? Currently I see no reason why not and the possibility of this feature seems to be getting closer. I'm looking forward to HB's assessment