dundun92

Not correct in terms of whats in DCS RN. Jammers cover you in a 360° bubble

AIM-120 was already updated like a year ago with the full CFD/Aerodynamic treatment, + moving to the new API. All thats left is proper INS guidance and rework of chaff, and generally making the seeker/guidance more realistic. But aerodynamics are as they should be rn.

The DCS Mirage 2000C only has magics

The bug is that the AWG-9 is completely unaffected by ECM. That being said, knowing HB, I dont think theyd want to half do this; w/e they do Thad probably put the effort into a more complete/realistic simulation rather than the basic "if above X nm break lock" like rn.

I misunderstood that as referring to the chaff interactions caused by the EO bug, sorry.

No, what Max1mus is referring to is that even if you fixed the EOS bug, the ERs chaff resistance is so bad that most of the time it will lock onto chaff while in the notch, only now its RNG with a slight chance of it not happening vs the guaranteed defeat with the EOS bug. But in practice it doesnt really matter. Ultimately, both are bugs that need to be fixed, and hopefully its sooner rather than later.

Seeker gimbals on all ARHs are ±60°. I can tell exactly without the tacview, but this dosent look at all like no gimbal limits, this looks within the gimbals. For the 2nd gif, that was a desynced AIM-54. From the shooters perspectice it guided normally with proper midcourse guidance, but from your perspective it didnt and suddenly snapped onto you, its a knows bug and ED is working on it.

IIRC the V9 was supposed to be 33% better than the V5 (well actually than V7 but the V7 im pretty sure has the same RWS detection range) according to the brochure and other sources. Whether this is 33% better than the V5s VS or RWS IDK, id assume RWS as its the most directly comparable (both all-aspect detection modes)

On the topic of the V9, the paper "On the use of AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) Radar and IRST (InfraRed Search&Track) System to Detect and Track Low Observable Threats" lists the V9 range as 38nm vs 1m^2, or 57nm vs 5m^2. Its supposedly based on "open sources", though the paper doesnt list said sources. It also doesnt specify RWS/VS, however AFAIK the V9 now uses just a generic ERS mode, im not sure it has a specific VS though I could be wrong.

HPRF AFAIK is easier to notch in DCS. But you are right, the range ambiguity is missing, its really just one of many missing things from EDs radar modeling.

you seem to be ignoring though that the KLJ-7 uses HPRF, and the APG-68 does not. If all else is equal (and Im not saying it is), that alone would provide a boost in detection range. How much, IDK. Also, do we happen to know what the peak power of the KLJ is? Peak power is very important as well; its the reason the F-16 can see stuff in MPRF much further than others with bigger radars do in their MPRF (F-18 or Su-27 for example) is its extremely high peak power (18.5 kW for the 68(V)5).

That's fair, again I'm no RF expert, just posting the probable source Deka used (range matches exactly). But to be clear: we know with certainty the F-16/18 were over performing and need to be fixed. Those are pretty clear. What's not clear is whether the JF is over performing, and by how much if that is indeed the case.

JF is absolutely not less than the F-18 rn, its well above. In fact, a JF RN can launch a 60nm SD-10, and get it to A-Pole just as the F-18 is detecting the JF, to illusrtate the disparity. And im not saying its unrealistic, just pointing out what it is in game rn. Now the F-16, yes it does do better than the JF, but not by a whole lot. But as I said above, the question is whether the KLJ was ever OP in the first place, and according to the brochure I linked the answer is no. They havent stated explicitly, but based off of RL sources, the APG-68(V)5 should see a 5m^2 target at 39nm, and I fully expect when ED fixes it it will be in that ballpark

I mean, the KLJ is quoted at 105km detection vs 5m^2 in the manufacturers brochure IIRC, which is exactly where it is in game RN. Im no RF expert so maybe thats not a reasonable range, but that is as close to official info as you're gonna get. But deak definitely didnt pull this out of thin air, or tune in in relation to the other radars: One thing to note though, im skeptical of the KLJ and APG-68V5 having the same/similar detection range. For starters the APG-68 uses MPRF only, the KLJ uses HPRF. And it is a newer radar in terms of precessing, etc. I dont have the detailed radar specs for both so maybe theres something im missing, but personally id expect the KLJ to outrange the 68v5

IR missiles have been able to be radar-slaved for ages IRL, theres no "black magic" involved, and its certainly not a bug. Both US and Russian jets do this. EOS is mainly meant for ECM heavy environments, and as an overall compliment to the radar.

Neither. Says who? You? No. I'm saying that war isnt fair, and you need to stop whining because people find a perfectly legitimate and realistic way to gain a tactical advantage (as has been said and backed up, you can literally program CMs to do whatever you want IRL), and instead spend that effort actually getting good at the game.

They are simply inaccurate, I dont know how to explain other than that. I've tested DCS missile kinematics extensively, and the DLZs just dont match, not even close. Your not wrong, but it wasn't exactly accurate before the update either, and post AMRAAM update it's even worse.

I wouldn't care. They wont have any left after that soo.... It's not relevant, as this isnt some FPS that's supposed to be fair and balanced. Again, you need to get this idea out of your head that this is some fair and balanced game. IRL, again, you can program CMs to do whatever you want. Including 20 chaff per second.

I'll repeat: IRL you can program your CMs to do whatever the heck you want them to do. Including 20 chaff per second. Do they? No, because IRL CCM isnt a dice roll. But the point is, the program it IRL to do what optimally defeats the threat. And in DCS 20 chaff/second happens to be optimal. You need to get this idea of DCS being some fair and "balanced" game out of your head. War isnt fair. Rather than whining about people finding ways to defeat missiles, how about you actually get good at defeating/employing them yourself?

Yes, 39nm vs 5m^2 (the RL APG-68(V)5 detection range) is indeed pretty short, its why fighters like the F-14/15 exist. There was no serious "overcorrection" for the F-18. Maybe ita a tad bit too low, ill grant that, but its well within the ballpark.

yes

DCS DLZs are just... broken to say the least. I never use them, except the Flankers, which is somewhat reliable.

wrong. F-16 CMS for example can do exactly that IRL

It isnt in DCS or IRL.

Yep thats right, I am indeed using a macro to drop chaff, you think pilots IRL drop 1 chaff at a time?