Hobel

hm Eurofighter is faster and has the Meteor?

Eurofighter vs F35?

yes you could fire on Datalink contacts like this, but especially with the Aim120D Aim120C must remain in the host radar FOV for the M-Link

Why not both? In this case, the TDD triggers at 15m because it registers an object. The other cases remain dynamic if zero/negative closure can be registered.

From a friend:

A Korea paper where the PK and its effect on different ranges is investigated. Original: Development of a Air-to-Air Missile Simulation Program for the Lethality Evaluation (5)-1.pdf English translation: Technical Paper-2.pdf okopanja has uploaded several reports in the Mig29 forum where pilots have survived an Aim120 hit and were able to land with some minor damage, possibly a hint that it is not always 9m but a little more PF range so that the damage is less. DCS it is always 99% dead and complete destruction of the aircraft Mig 29 Forum 159 (11-7) in the p-825 manual (public) NAVAL AIR TRAINING.pdf (all other missiles have the same PF and kill radius as in DCS only exception Aim120) I don't know what flying object the kill radius stands for, jet maybe drone in any case, the system seems to recognize something at 15m and also kill it? I don't know but if the kill radius of 15m is there wouldn't it be a plausible assumption to set it to 15 fuse? why keep PF artificially smaller than the kill radius for whatever? @Default774 has also tested 15m PF and it would drastically limit the bug or explioit discussed here, the roll would still be an effective maneuver, the difference would be that an Aim-120 with enormous energy would no longer be so easy to defending, as I said currently it is very easy to replicate with 2-3m. There is an irl shot where the Aim-120 explodes on a very small object if you go through the video pixel by pixel you get to ~9m. It is a drone the RCS or the reflections were sufficient from this small object that the missile exploded at 9m, a jet like a F16 or Su27 are much larger and therefore much easier to detect by the TTD in old SA-2 documents(I can send you if you want) this aspect is discussed where the reflections have an influence on the PF fuse. also that generally Searchhead and TTD work together for a good PF solution. Why not Zero or negative closure == detonate? and why should a modern Aim120 have worse TTD than a 27R ER or other old missile with more PF range?

It is stated in many public documents that the PF triggers at 9m if you search you will find a lot about Aim9. It may not always be lethal at 9m but any damage no matter how small is welcome , hence the confusion as to why the value is the same for a double weight warhead.

Aim120(~22kg Warhead) and Aim9(~9kg) have both 9m because? But with all due respect, it's no longer about maneuverability. Маэстро has already explained to us why the missile behaves the way it does, and that's fine. Hence the question about the PF to compensate for this weakness. The Aim120 can be rolled out head-on every time even though the missile is 2-3M fast at the moment of passing. in addition, there are some pilot reports who were hit by Aim120 and sometimes could only land with minor damage an indication that the PF range was greater hence the minor damage? in DCS it is 99% of the cases always a total destruction of the aircraft

not yet implemented, hopefully it will come with the Sniper

I haven't seen the tracks yet but from the comments and pictures. You have to compare the same energy level. The Aim120 still flies past the target easily with 2-3mach test and compare this. A 27ER,SD10 or R77 hit with such an energy state.

Exactly And that is the problem with PP. The topic is discussed here. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/347411-f-16-pre-setting-jdam-accuracy-steerpoint-in-free-server-after-april-patch/

The correct alt has been entered.

Could be the usual drift of the F16. Actually it shouldn't be a problem if you drop the JDAM anyway, the bomb would fly to the correct coordinates by itself. Unfortunately this aspect is not yet implemented and attacking PP coordinates is hardly or not possible in the F16.

Can you send a track? I'll test it again too.

It could possibly be due to the new Fog setting that the lock is more unstable. But I would have to test that first

No, there has been no change in this regard.

you misunderstood me on that aspect. that is not the case, it >ONLY< shows you the direction not the distance. and then when you slew over it with the TGP you can use the TGP to determine the distance The F-4 from HB uses the same principle. the information from the AGM-45 is displayed in the cockpit with the ADI, which also shows you >ONLY< the direction, only when I point the radar in that direction is the distance determined, the accuracy here also depends on how well the pilot aligns the aircraft with the ADI. maybe it's too fast. but even if it's a little less accurate as mentioned before, the principle remains the same in the end you get the direction which is still quite accurate and have to point the TGP at the target. I don't know if the speed is correct as it is, but even in DCS the F-16 with the HTS pod still has a clear advantage. with the HTS Pod you basically get an overview of all emitters that are emitting and also always quite accurate positions and can attack them. With the Harm you only have a forward view and have to measure the distance each time with the TGP to determine the distance. have you ever shot in HAS/TOO mode? the Harm does not fly loft, but direct because it does not know the distance

Correct me, but wasn't it already 20FPS before? shouldn't it be more if the patch notes say that the refresh rate is now higher?

Invitation has expired

I agree. But as already mentioned, let's wait for an answer.

Absolutely, it depends. And in DCS, the aspect, FOV and thus also the range are very important, all of which have a strong impact on the missile seeker. here are a few behaviors, (the last one was probably Maverick)

The core of the discussion was mainly about modern IR missiles. if an Aim9B is too strong or Flare is too weak, and it seems to be at the moment, a friend and I have done more tests, then that should be investigated.

The inverted flare is there to fill the FOV of the missile with as much flare as possible otherwise the flare will fly out of the seeker's FOV too fast. With Su27 you don't have to do this as the flare is thrown upwards in this scenario. So why is it unrealistic that many flares in the FOV have a negative effect on the seeker, that's what you're trying to do to best fool the missile. Otherwise you could take the trouble to show a few demos. In the last thread people complained that aim9x is too easy to flare now it seems to be harder and now others are complaining again. Just respect the NEZ with modern IR seeker and there will be no problem. Do you also not care about IR missiles irl? Because you always have Flare with you and the right program and you're safe...? I used to have a Flare program and I didn't worry about IR Missile in DCS and almost ignored it, Flare still has an influence but now I have to respect the NEZ more.

It is not perfect. But it's no longer just a dice roll. Aspect And how many flares are in the FOV also has a strong influence on it, in another thread I have also demonstrated this. See here: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/353582-problem-regarding-the-way-that-ir-missiles-react-to-counstermeasures-irccm-inconsistency/page/2/#findComment-5525579 No idea if flare cooling, but the missile seeker more or less always moves to the "new/hot" flare. Also demonstrated in the video when I stop the flare stream the Aim9b does not follow more but stays on the last flare as seen in the video.

Well, why do you think these missiles are too powerful? does it exceed the capabilities? here in the video the first missile misses. and you shoot the 2nd one at ~1km! The FOV is already enormously small here and the flares fall out of the relefvant FOV extremely quickly. that doesn't seem unusual to me for IRCCM at such a short distance. Now we need to know in detail how much the flares in DCS cool down or whether this happens at all. the airplane continuously sprays new hot flare and does not move, the missile therefore leaves the cool flare and follows the “hot trail” to the airplane. can you check this up to a certain point? yes here i have taken control from exactly the point where the missile "cracked" out and thus stopped the flare stream, the missile stays there and does not follow the new hot flares to the Plane. you can see how The Missile followed the last flare and stayed with it as there were no new ones the example without manipulation: