DCS FIGHTER PILOT

Honestly I don't find the Jf-17 to be all that challenging anymore in any of the full fidelity US aircraft right now since the Jeff's radar and SD-10's were appropriately nerfed. The Viper, even though it has a weaker radar, has far better acceleration and top speed than the Jeff allowing it to more or less control the fight (i.e. it can engage and disengage as it pleases for the most part). When it comes to the Hornet its a similar story. Even though its slower than the Viper by quite a bit, its still quite a bit faster than the Thunder. In addition to this, the F-18 does appear to have a radar nearly equal in strength to the Jf-17's currently, (though the Jf-17 will detect the hornet first since its bigger but only by a few miles). I will mention however that the Jeff does currently hold one unfair (and likely unrealistic) advantage. It is able to operate its SPJ and radar simultaneously without either one affecting the other. As we have seen in the Hornet, Viper. and recently the Mirage, activating an onboard jammer will at best weaken the strength of the radar if not shut it off completely due to the power its drawing. FC3 aircraft and the Tomcat can also currently use their jammers and radars simultaneously but I would imagine that has to due with the simplistic modeling of them. I once tried bringing this issue up in the designated Jf-17 section of the forums but the fanboy's went somewhat ballistic.

I have heard somewhere on here (I will not quote anyone as it may very well be wrong), that the PL-12/SD-10 was based off of the sparrow (and likely the AMRAAM). If the Aim-7 was such a "crappy missile" why would anyone want to base their tech off of it?

Additionally, I would also like to add that when launching an Aim-MH and E in game at 35,000ft and Mach 2 under standard atmospheric conditions, the top speed of both missiles is only around 1950 knots TAS or Mach 3.4, still quite below the brochure number. If I was to guess, it seems as if the initial burn of the motors in both missiles is far too short, only allowing the missile to get up to mediocre speeds before it cuts out completely (like the E), or transitions to the sustain burn (like the MH). For reference, the total burn time for the Aim-7E and initial burn for the Aim-7MH in game is currently, around 3-3.5 seconds. Fast Aim-7E Launch .trk Fast Aim-7MH Launch .trk

Please see, https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-7.html As one can see in the table towards the end of the page, according to the article, the Aim-7A and B have a maximum speed of around Mach 2.5 while the Aim-7C, E, F, and M/P have a top speed of around Mach 4. Clearly, these are just brochure figures and that the actual top speed of the missiles is most certainly lower during most (non-ideal) engagements. However, when testing the Aim-7's in DCS, one finds that their top speeds during "ideal engagements" are much lower than expected (according to the article). As one can see in the first image below, the top speed of a lofting Aim-7MH when fired at 35000ft and Mach 1.2 under standard atmospheric conditions is around 1530 knots TAS or Mach 2.67, slightly higher than the top speed of the A and B (according to the article). In the second image, under very similar launching conditions and parameters, the top speed of an Aim-7E is around 1515 knots TAS or Mach 2.64, similar to the MH. According to the article, the similarities in top speeds are to be expected however the value of them are at least a Mach number lower than one would expect. Aim-7MH Launch .trk Aim-7E Launch .trk

In addition to RWR's being too accurate in DCS currently, I would also like to bring up the fact that when an ARH missile is notched, it vanishes from the RWR allowing the defender to know that they have successfully notched the missile. Seeing as how the missiles radar would still be on, and that the target would still very likely be within its FOV, how is this possible? Is it because the missile is no longer "hard locking" the target or is this a bug?

When I used to fly Falcon BMS, I remember routinely taking AAA fire while at 30,000 ft plus. In DCS I have never experienced such a thing (at least in a modern scenario). I am no expert on this topic but I think the weapon shooting at me in BMS was Russian 100 mm anti aircraft gun aided by the SON-9 "fire can" radar, both of which are currently not in DCS to my knowledge. Are there any plans to add these in the future?

It certainly seems like you guys had the right intentions for this patch but it appears like there may be a bug somewhere. For as of now, notching the AMRAAM has never been easier, just take a look. Though I am very glad to hear that the team thinks that even in the last patch (when it was very difficult to notch an ARH missile) notching was still too easy. AMRAAM NOTCHED.trk

Being that the Hornet is one of my favorite aircrafts in DCS, it pains me to post this but as someone who desires realism over fun, I figure it has to be done. With that out of the way, I posted a similar topic several months ago questioning whether or not the pylon drag on the Hornet was too low. I was told by @BIGNEWY that the pylon drag was "fixed" back in August. Though it was "fixed" I am skeptical as to whether or not it is correct along with the overall drag in general. This time around, I have attached two tracks, one where I accelerate with full afterburner for three minutes from Mach 0.8 to around Mach 1.45 at 30,000ft under standard conditions and the other where I descend down from 45000ft to 30000ft in full afterburner (this is a little move I like to use to get the Hornet up to high speeds while conserving fuel in A2A scenarios). In each case, the outer pylons were removed and I was carrying 6 AMRAAMS (2 on each inner pylon and 2 on the belly), 2 sidewinders on the wingtips, and a pylon for the center fuel tank. In each case, its surprising how fast the Hornet gets seeing as how bulky those LAU-127's with AMRAAMS seem. (Perhaps the drag on the LAU-127 is incorrect?) Anyway, it would be nice if all of this was correct but I can't help but feel that it is a bit too optimistic. Is_The_Hornet_Too_Fast_1.trk Is_The_Hornet_Too_Fast_2.trk

I should have mentioned that I figured that’s what it was. The question is, is it intended? Seems to me like a loft would make the missile quite a bit more lethal and thus the optimum firing option to use.

Aim-120 Loft.trk Aim-120 No Loft 2.trk Aim-120 No Loft 3.trk Aim-120 No Loft.trk SD-10 Loft .trk SD-10 No Loft .trk

I know this is not the first time I have posted about this topic but are there still any plans to address the Aim-54's lofting issue towards the end of its flight? For those of you who are not aware, towards the end of its flight, the missile will abruptly change its flight path to get on an intercept course with the target costing the missile hundreds of knots of airspeed. It seems as if the faster the target is, the more pronounced the issue is. Aim-54 Lofting Issue.trk

In the tracks provided below you can see that I ran a test in which I had an f-16 coming at me at 30,000ft and Mach 1. Flying an f-16 myself at the same speed and altitude, I was able to pick up the target on radar at about 41 nautical miles out. In an f-18, I was able to pick up the target at around 44 nautical miles. In the Jf-17, I was able to pick up the same target at around 53 nautical miles and bug him at around 51. Now I am no expert on radars, but is the Jf-17's radar performance still too good? Perhaps I am wrong, but I find it somewhat difficult to believe that the 17's radar can best the 16's radar and especially the 18's. Additionally, in the final track I provided, I was able to pick up the f-16 at the same range in the Jf-17 while I was jamming him. Again, perhaps I am wrong but wouldn't the jammer at least steal some power from the radar if not turn it off completely like in the f-16 and f-18? Things just seem a bit odd here. F-16 Detection in F-16.trk F-16 Detection in F-18.trk F-16 Detection in Jf-17.trk F-16 Detection in Jf-17 With Jammer On.trk

I have been hearing rumors that the F-18's pylon drag (and drag in general) is too low and needs to be fixed. Can someone confirm if this is true?

As Jester would say, "HERE WE GO AGAIN!" NOTCHING_THE_120.trk Tacview-20211120-183827-DCS.zip.acmi

Welcome to DCG lads.

The question is, do they really want to figure this out?

Whether or not the missiles are more or less efficient in this patch than in last is not the point we (at least myself) are trying to make here. The point is, there is an underlying problem that has plagued these missiles for quite some time and it has not yet been properly addressed. Many updates ago, (and I cannot remember which one exactly), notching radar guided missiles became extremely easy to do. Now some patches may have improved upon this slightly since then but overall, the problem persisted and continues to persist. The fact of the matter is, when you see behavior like in the tracks I provided below, the BVR/ radar guided missile experience is completely ruined. It is my crazy suspicion that it is ED's goal to always force players into dogfighting scenarios, or to save ground pounders who would not know a Sidewinder from a Phoenix from hot shot BVR aces, by nerfing as many BVR tools as possible such as the radar (i.e. the current look down problem on hot, fighter sized targets currently plaguing the Viper and Hornets radar) and the missiles (whether it be their kinematic abilities or CCM abilities). Now with all of this said, returning back to the topic at hand, notching and distracting radar guided missiles with countermeasures should not be impossible. However, from what I understand and have heard from people on these forums who are much more knowledgeable in this subject area than I am, making modern missiles like an AMRAAM, R-77, or SD-10 go haywire from notching and countermeasures, should be very hard to do (certainly much harder than it is now). As @Hotel Tango put it in another post, "Notching one missile should be a fluke, not a rule...". Well right now, it is pretty much guaranteed if you just turn 90 degrees away from any incoming radar guided missile and hit the brakes a little, it will miss. I think these tracks will highlight just how bad things are. The third one is actually quite hilarious. NOTCH 1.trk NOTCH 2.trk NOTCH 3.trk Right here!

Clearly you did not watch my tracks. Wonderfully said!

I guess the folks over at ED just really like dogfighting?

Yeah that's what I figured. No skill required to completely trash a 21st Century missile.

Current behavior after the patch, you guys be the judges. NOTCH 1.trk NOTCH 2.trk NOTCH 3.trk

As with the Hornet at the moment, the Viper is unable to detect low flying fighter sized aircraft at high altitudes regardless of the targets aspect. Since this has been labeled a "bug" for the Hornet, I would imagine this is a bug for the Viper as well. F-16 No Detection.trk

I’m not worried about that at all. What concerns me the most is what happened in the first track. I posted the other two just to hammer home the point.

I think the tracks will speak for themselves. When a WWII plane can tank several sidewinders and an AMRAAM, you know something is off. Bf-109 Damage Model.trk Bf-109 Damage Model 2.trk Bf-109 Damage Model 3.trk

I’m glad I am not the only one noticing this. Some aircraft, like the Jf-17 for instance, can’t even be picked up and can sneak right under the Hornets radar.