Hobel

And where in your source does the GMT representation contradict that in DCS? It is a symbolic simplification to make the moving target more recognizable to the pilot amid the noise. The representation in DCS is correct.

However, this does not contradict the fact that Shrike-45 could see Sidelobe. It is and has always required precise planning, but in DCS, even if your planning and firing is close to 100% perfect, the Shrike-45 misses because no SL is simulated when it comes to this aspect.

Timestep pls?

Very exciting thanks, but why? SL has the same frq, why should this not be seen, strange.

In that case, wouldn't a normal STT suffice, and would CW only be switched on during the last way?

Yes, and I also said that it is possible. But statistics would be helpful in this case. How many times can you do it in a row, The problem with the roll before was simply that even an Aim120 with 3+M could easily be rolled out and not only that, multiple Aim120s in a row and that was up to 95% safe in any altitude. I then repeated the tests and also played old routes with the new PF and the chances of survival dropped significantly, so much so that in my opinion it is no longer worth taking the risk and these are also tests under perfect conditions.

Yes, what do the statistics say about how often do you achieve this with the parameters in succession?

I haven't read through everything yet, I'll do that later. But there's one thing I'd like to point out using the example gifs. First, I see in your gif aim120 with very low energy status far below 2m... adjust your tests and try to roll out missiles over 2-3mach. And that's one of the sticking points. Before the PF update of the aim120, the energy status was completely irrelevant, you could always roll out the missile, even the altitude was not decisive. Now the whole thing has become much more difficult and the risk is simply too high if the missile has a lot of energy. Your example shows it very well - the missile flies very close with low energy. Test the same thing again against missiles that have more energy You test under laboratory conditions and know approximately what energy status the missile has in PvP this overview is quickly lost and you just don't know whether the missile has too much energy and kills you.

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