Tiger-II

Altitude less than or equal to 25000 ft and Mach less than or equal to 0.90 and roll angle less than +/- 30 degrees, and basically not really maneuvering. Essentially, you need to be straight and level to fire it. It's not unreasonable, but the FCC definitely stops you trying to fire it outside of parameters or in a way that could be dangerous. Dropping tanks is similar. There is an envelope you must be within to drop tanks.

I reported this months ago, but I think it got lost. Initially it cycled: RWS - TWS - VS - MAP - SEA - MAP - SEA - MAP - SEA and got stuck in the ground modes.

VIKHR. I don't quite understand why Deka went for form over function. They wanted an accurate rocket, and initially they achieved that, but other things got changed and now the cons out-weigh the pros of their approach. I think the guidance is the most crititcal part. Not so much whether it is spinning.

I know... I think the missiles fly too slowly to the target. At 400 kts you cover 4 NM in 35 seconds...

Done. Tacview-20200526-010221-DCS-JF-17 - Caucus - Kobuleti - Ramp - Training - MP.txt.zip

AIM-9X will slew to the RADAR but you still need to uncage prior to launch. PL-5EII seems to require it be uncaged to slew to the RADAR, which is the distinction. Something is making me think if the AIM-9X is cued with JHMCS and it is fired, it will uncage automatically.

Well... what the hell???? Why do helicopters need protection from RADAR missiles anyway? So beam, chaff, and get very slow - trash all the missiles? My teammate is new to combat flying, so don't judge his technique too much. It was my missile shots that were of interest.

Regarding Cx0 - these calcs are not magic. No matter how simplified or complex they are, the upper bound of drag can be limited. As we see in the charts, the "real" CFD model shows it peaks at 0.03 whereas the sim spikes to 0.08. This can be fixed with a bounds check, whereby if the Cx0 is calculated > than the CFD max, then limit it. That is the most simple way to limit it. There are more complex (but not much harder) ways to model the curve mathematically that result in far more accurate matching of values, but this isn't done in DCS it would seem. Why they are happy for the curve to vary wildly is another unknown. A simple if(Cx0 > 0.04) Cx0 = 0.04; would even fix it!

SD-10 did have 100 second life-time, same as LD-10. If you fire it maddog it will have reduced range because the seeker is active off the rail and draining the battery, but if you support the missile to impact, the seeker is passive, and so the power consumption is lower/run-time is higher. Chaff resistance yes, seeker FoV yes; the rest are new I think (!). This is what drew my attention to it. I set up an AA test flight a few months back and found most missiles were misses when they looked like nearly certain hits. The miss rate was certainly far below expected PK. Check my tracks - it seems that all RADAR missiles are equally affected; not just SD-10. Look also at the speed of the missile when it misses/goes dumb/fails - they still have plenty of energy but for some reason just give up tracking the target. This seems to happen below Mach 2.0. :music_whistling:

Absolutely!

As foxwxl said - you must pitch the aircraft. Accelerate as fast as possible (I aim for > Mach 0.95), climb above the target (I aim for a minimum of 30000 ft), pitch up, fire.

It's great! Thank you! I just always thought high alpha capability was pretty useless unless it could be used at speed, but then that introduces other issues. In combination with an off-boresight weapon however (think AIM-9X with HMCS) it would allow the missile to be fired at a target 150 degrees off-boresight.

If you look at my tracks, you will see most missiles are not spoofed by chaff. Instead, they fly off to the side inexplicably.

While I understand clutter effects with search RADAR, are AA missiles affected in the same way? The RADAR in the missile is smaller, I think they use higher frequencies, and they're looking at a target much closer, and in a narrower field of view. While they may struggle in some situations with ground clutter, I'd suggest it is less than a large RADAR would "see". In all my tests I'm over water for exactly this reason (to eliminate ground clutter).

Please check all the RADAR missiles that were fired and missed (SD-10, AIM-120, AIM-7M). There is no single example. In review, all shots were good. The only genuine example of failure was an PL-5EII shot that I think was below minimum range, and the same for an AIM-9X shot.

Check my TacView files. I'm supporting the missile to impact, and yet it still misses. You see what I see. It's not our imagination. An interesting thing I noticed reviewing the files: if the missile is much below Mach 2.0, it seems to straight-up ignore the target in many situations. In others, it makes a weird and sudden jink away from the target. This seems to apply to all missiles, not only SD-10. I think I'm blaming missile physics incorrectly (wihtout these ACMI files, it just looked like the missiles were falling short due to lack of energy). For that I eat humble pie. There is something else seriously broken.

I just tried it now against some small trucks, and they hit every target. I even managed to get two missiles off per pass. I'll try against other ground target types tomorrow.

Two TacView files; dozens of missiles. The missiles that miss, positively jink away from the target for no good reason. Plenty of energy, and otherwise no reason to miss. Ignore the file names - I'm flying the JF-17 and F-16 from a land base. Worth watching the AIM-120s and AIM-7Ms as well - they miss for seemingly no good reason either, also making this weird jink away from target. There are a couple of times the missiles seem to just completely ignore the target for no reason. At least one SD-10 is still doing Mach 2.5 and just completely ignores the target, and flies right past it as if it isn't there. Tacview-20200522-190937-DCS-Carrier - Caucus - CVN - Training AA Drones - MP.txt.rar Tacview-20200522-212409-DCS-Carrier - Caucus - CVN - Training AA Drones - MP.txt.rar

No problem! Yes, because it is greatly exaggerated to explain what I'm not seeing in the actual data. Where the missile is descending, it is losing more speed in the second example than in the first. This isn't possible (compare the two charts). I'm not expecting it to even maintain speed. I just discovered that all my flights have been recorded by TacView (I thought I disabled it) so I'm looking for the flight from the other night.

Chizh's own curve of the sim (blue) shows it has too much drag (~65% more drag) below ~Mach 1.6. This is hardly insignificant. Also, the CFD models went from Cx0 of 0.8 to 0.03. Huh?! It also fails to explain why the missile falls short the closer it is fired to the target. I have witnessed this several times. I'm not referring to low altitude shots - I mean, if you take the same parameters, except fire at 30 NM and compare to a shot fired at 10 NM or even 8 NM, the missile seems to fire its booster for less time, reach a lower maximum velocity, and fails to reach the target.

Just switching the MFD to MAN was enough, IIRC. You've got me wondering now if anything else was required...

1) It pulls +3.5 g. I didn't say it was wrong because it was pulling g; I said it seems immune to effects of maneuvering. 2) The trajectory (guidance) looks good. The issue is energy conservation. The missile is "going downhill" yet bleeding speed at a HIGHER rate than when level. Subsonic it may have less drag, but it will still die. As it is, it lost about 10 kts in 30 seconds at 550 kts. Really? Suddenly, when the battery expired, does it drop to the ground. Surely the flight controls would just freeze and it keep coasting?

Yes... I'll keep that in mind for the future.

I did. The missile physics are ... non-existent. Did you not see my post on page 1 where I posted two screenshots? https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4349772&postcount=27 and this next one is just nothing short of pure fiction: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4349782&postcount=28

Is the real missile a beam-rider? If not, then this explains most of the issues. If I fly into the target at speed, because of the requirement to fly a straight line afterwards means I can actually reach the target at the same time as the missile. I actually tried this - I crashed into the target about 3 seconds after the missile.