Hobel

Well maybe, but without going into it further, is that wrong and does that exceed the capabilities of IRCCM? the examples in the video are from your track and the situations are very easy for the missiles especially at close range. as it looks, but whether this is global or intentional i can't say. if the behavior is similar for older missiles it seems clearer that something is wrong here. but the examples shown and this is just my opinion is an easy thing for IRCCM. I even posted a video that I took from the tracks I took control and compared to the other missiles, the B can be fooled with just a few flares. here a video where you can also see the behavior of the missile In your original track you didn't move at all, but I don't know if that should be enough against the old Aim9B with some flare, but in any case it's much easier to do flare. agree

Yes of course the flares are much brighter but that is exactly what IRCCM is there for. It compares the target's position to the position of the flare and can distinguish the constant position of the aircraft from the separating position of the flare and so on. If older missiles are just as difficult to Flare, this should of course be investigated. tracks would be helpful here

now the missiles you are testing have more or less IRCCM or not? maybe there have been changes and you have to pay more attention to the aspect now? What about older missiles? here is an example from your tracks. The first missile was fired very close, so many potential flares fall out of the Seeker FOV. In addition, the missile seems to fight against the flares, but since the aspect is good, it always catches you again the 2nd missile comes directly from the front, and the flares are behind the plane, so no wonder the hit follows here. 3rd missile, apparently no lock idk. 4th missile similar to 1-2 try to adjust the tests or compare older Missiles, but to my understanding it looks like IRCCM is doing its job now and not more so Easy. to my subjective impression, this even looks like an improvement. https://streamable.com/tiy2ch

Share your feeling. I also find the trajectory strange in places. If you laser with a delay, the results are better. Now you just have to know the procedure for the irl shot with or without delay? If it should be without delay, there is certainly something strange, with this guidance you could not use the missile from ground vehicles because otherwise the missile would always fly into the ground.

It would be interesting to see a track or video to judge your operation. because the way you describe it basically works. Actually, everything is there for efficient and fast use, especially in the F16. I'm surprised as it wasn't always like this. It's also strange that the point is updated on the SA/HSD page but not in the HUD?

Personal taste. I always have HSD on the right. TGP and HAD are on the left and I switch with DMS as required.

If you have a PT with the TGP and then select Maverick, PRE is the default mode that is directly active and the TGP slaves to the selected Steerpoint. Then simply try "TDC Press" then bore and then VIS, the TGP should automatically jump back again.

The thing is. Some of the reports speak of minor damage. Now the question is from what distance did the Aim120 explode to cause such minor damage? 5m or 15 or even 20? That's not clear. And how cool would it be if this were possible in DCS, the Aim120 triggers at 15m and you can still fly your damaged bird home.

you don't even need the TGP, it also works with the FCR

Now with the symbolism that Raptor mentioned you can directly distinguish between PP and SEAD-Link16 symbols for my taste Also not bad and can also be good for the SA.

You misunderstood me, I meant that it is a pure DTC and therefore Pre Planed thing, it is mentioned in several documents that the threat ring is a PP thing and also no threat ring is Created or sent , Raptor has summarized and explained it perfectly.

You mean the F16 should compensate for the parallax error, because the system always knows the exact distance with the help of the TGP and especially with a laser measurement and thus always adjusts both sensors to each other. So it wouldn't really matter at what distance you carry out the BSGT?

I haven't read up in that much detail yet, but threat rings are more a matter of DTC being loaded into the aircraft. Therefore, on the one hand, it is correct that it is not displayed in its own aircraft. At most there could be another symbolism that stands for "ground units", something similar to the X for example, which the transmitter does not see either, there is more in this direction. And I think as the module progresses we will see more in this direction in the future. It is rather questionable (but I am not sure) that the receiver will get rings, as I said it is basically a DTC thing and it would be best to wait for the DTC first.

Does this also apply to DTOS/VIZ? (Haven't tested it ingame yet) Because: -Attack steering on the HUD and MFD is release point. -Navigation steering is IP coordinate

Gimbal limits exceeded? otherwise please post a track of your situation.

No, it is not tied to the LOS of the TGP, the result is just more precise Because both sensors initially look at the same thing. Before, there were always fluctuations, as I call it. Yes, and the consequence is that it works with moving objects.

it is not a Voodoo it is basically exactly what Default demonstrates whether new or old API the miss distance is quite similar. The biggest difference is the proxy fuze. Test the mentioned missile with 9m proxy fuze and you will get a similar result as the aim120. Because this "abuse/exploit" is very very very annoying and we wouldn't be having this discussion here if it A few meters more. See the example videos. And to the 2nd point, I agree.

Unfortunately, it didn't make it into the OB, but I can say that it works brilliantly. Now both sensors TGP and Maverick are Aligned, which makes it even more accurate from the first feeling. Previously it was the Maverick and SPI that were aligned which led to the problem here and a small inaccuracy

Yes with the RWR thing the notch meta could be reduced immediately, in addition you will not know in the future if you hit the notch, as long as you are in the aim120 seeker cone the RWR gives warning.

Yes, but it depends, a few updates ago the ground units got an update and depending on the status even the FOV in which the units can scout varies. So if you shoot, you give away your position, if you dive down again and disappear from the LOS and reappear at another position, the units should not shoot at you.

first of all, the main problem is that the Aim120C with an energy state of 2-3.5m can be defeated very easily by this maneuver, with a PF of 15m the problem would be almost solved. if the missile flies over 15m or even several 100m the energy state is usually already very low. It is certainly possible that it will still work, but the risk is too high for it to be worthwhile to roll against a missile and it forces the pilots to turn out. before the last update that really broke it, the results were very good, the missile always came very close to the target at a good energy level, but the problem was always that the PF was too low. @Default774 had tested it here, Unfortunately, the videos are no longer available.

What mods do you use for the F18

So the problem is that the ME is not able to include height differences of buildings or bridges?

Nothing different from missiles that already have 11-15m PF. Other missiles such as the SD10 have more PF, otherwise the SD10 etc. would also miss more often. Test it out At the same energy state. How far misses the SD10 and then Aim120. The Aim120 has also been tested with a higher PF and the results are very similar to other missiles.

Keep in mind that the tracking radar in DCS has a Small cone, if the missile is not in this cone the AGM-45 will miss. this can cause some confusion. i don't want to rule out a Bug but please test all situations with a Search radar Tracks or tac View would therefore be very helpful.