dundun92

doesnt IRL either It has more drag than the AMRAAM IRL too, and ED literally reduced it last patch per CFD data. Ive yet to see a ER defeated by just diving unless you fired it too far away, which is your fault for firing that far, not the missiles. And chaff affects the AMRAAM as well. And as mentioned earlier, I dont think your ER exactly has a 50% Pk against a low flying, non maneuvering head on target with no chaff/ECM

It's kinda irrelevant how good/bad it is compared to the R-27. Deadly? Sure. So is the R-27 when employed properly. But calling the 120 "no easy task" to evade is just wrong. I hate to say it, but if evading 120s isnt easy you really need to practice notching/good missile defense, and as of 2.7 exploiting the new low altitude clutter effects (AMRAAM RN has, on average I'd say a 50% chance of a kill vs a low altitude, head on target due to the random miss distance. R-27, just to add, doesn't have this mechanic likely because it still on the old API) That being said I wouldn't say the AMRAAMs suck. But they ain't hard to evade. At all. There's no need to try and downplay legitimate bugs with useless comparisons to other missiles.

No. It never was, and wont be. Thats just physics, and im not aware of any sources showing otherwise. The F-15 has always had one of the best radars. Thats the absolute limits, not against any specific target. E.g, you cant get the display range past 160nm, nor does it work properly inside 200ft. It does not mean any more than that. On that note, we have sources showing the APG-65 sees a fighter sized target (roughly 4m^2) at 45nm. Which is right around where our APG-73 sees. So, while it may be a tad bit low, its definitely quite reasonable. Also not true. RCS does affect detection range in DCS. And the range for 5.5m^2 is 48nm rn for hot, coalt. F-16's is OP and will be fixed, but the Su-27 literally does have a better radar IRL

No

Yes, the APG-73 was described IRL as being outranged by the AMRAAM, something that was fixed by the APG-79 And just for the record, the F-16s is definitely overperforming, but as far as the JFs... Its quoted as having a lookup detection range of 105km vs 5m^2, according to this brochure, and thats exactly how it is in game: Ill grant i'm no RF expert, and perhaps 105 km is absurd the JF radar, but its definitely not a number deka pulled out of thin air.

you were 5° outside the notch:

How long was the missile in the air? The AMRAAM has an 80s battery life, perhaps that expired?

Its not important. At all. I can notch in the Su-27 with an SPO-10, because quite simply, 15° or w/e the accuracy is useless for any sort of accurate notching. You're fooling yourself if you think you cna hold the perfect notch with the 27s RWR. Looking at the tacviews, its either the AMRAAM ran out of energy, or it just went after the chaff from like 5-10 degrees outside the notch; it only works that well in SP, in MP its much harder to chaff, specifically far outside the notch like here. Try this in MP with a buddy that knows how to employ AMRAAMs and I can assure you its not gonna work that well.

You werent in the notch. Use the relative bearing tool to measure the exact angle, and youll find you were not in the notch. Also, IMO, you're using the wrong method to notch in the Su-27. Your attempting to accurately hold a notch, and do it without chaff. That simply doesnt work in the Su-27 with your limited sensors, and notching without chaff like that reallly shouldnt be a thing period, it only works in blue jets because of their insanely (and unrealistically) accurate RWRs. I made a video on how I notch in the 27 (and really to some extent all jets), but TLDR I dont try and stay in the notch/be super accurate, I drop chaff while turning through the notch, and that works very well to defeat it with the current AMRAAM chaff/notch mechanics, much more than trying to hold an accurate notch:

Id say the same to you, as ive used both the AMRAAMs and F-15 extensively this patch. Perhaps you need to "check" why your missiles are missing, and post actual tracks/tacviews? Not posting them seems to be the latest excuse to rant around here.

Nothing has changed with either the AMRAAM or F-15 radar recently.

Well if that is indeed the case, this is not too far from realistic. It may be ovedone/implementation may not be quite right, but the basic effect of chaff messing with radar tracks is realistic especially for a radar of its era. Im really surprised its modeled though.

I know this has been the topic of many discussions, but IMO calling the paddle cheating is a bit too much. Its a function on the real jet that works in DCSexactly how it works IRL. Do RL pilots use it? No. Do I care? TBH, no. We are flying in a video game. Sure its a flight sim, but its still to some extent a game. ED does not make you uninstall DCS because you virtually die, even though thats the "realistic" thing. For example, do RL pilots intentionally go around notching AMRAAMs at 5nm? No, because it doesnt work too well IRL anyway, and even if it did you are 100% not gonna bet your life on it working every time, because it wont. In DCS? I can go around notching AMRAAMs like nobodys business. Do I get hit occasionally? Sure, but that doesnt matter. My life is not at risk because I get hit by a virtual missile. And that isnt to say I dont train not to virtually die; rather, im saying that the fact that my life isnt at risk fundamentally changes your tactics. TLDR; the environment will drive tactics. You dont use the paddle IRL because there are disadvantages (long term airframe stress to list one) that in all but the most dire situations mean your better off not using it. But its certainly not cheating. In DCS, most of the downsides of using the paddle dont exist (e.g, we are effectively flying a new jet each flight). That being said, this isnt to say theres not anything wrong with not using the paddle. But to call it cheating is a bit excessive IMO.

The problem is that these seeker limits dont matter on the rail. They only take effect when the missile is in flight already, which makes it significantly harder to measure

Ive seen it working in SP. You could in the past test this by making the value in the lua for the kill_distance really big and it indeed worked. What you may have noticed is the fact that if the missile doesnt have a seeker lock the proxy fuze is disabled. So if you notch a missile at the last second, even if it flies within the kill distance it wont go off.

OT but they do have them and they work. Both SP and MP. The poor netcode though makes it look like its broken in MP

to some extent yes; however, many issues may not be immediately obvious unless you do detailed/in depth testing that ideally could have been avoided by just seeing that the value is off. Ill give a specific example: for the HB AIM-7, there was a point where it was kinda broken and not tracking very well. Now this was because it was still on the old API/FM and had not been moved over. I dont think any amount of testing would make this obvious. Instead, the ability of users to quickly cross-check the values for the HB AIM-7 with the ED AIM-7 allowed HB to pinpoint the issue very quickly. Would they have fixed it on their own? Probably, but it may have taken some time. But ultimately, I completely understand, and if this is indeed the path ED is taking, the so be it.

While im not a fan of this change, im not sure how it will be impossible (at least for now) to get those values. As has been mentioned, someone has already found a way to extract the numbers and field names. And by looking at the last version of the missiles_data.lua before 2.7, you can figure out the fields. Granted, if there are major API changes this wont work, but for now Its not really an issue

it wasnt technically, although the practical effect wasnt much different. It had the hardcoded minimum altitude + lookdown chaff effectiveness. But, beyond that, your making this sound like some game balance issue, as if if ED makes CCM better they must "nerf" it in some other way (on that note ED claims the upped CCM during that few months was unintended so make what you will of that). The low altitude aiming errors themselves are realistic, thats just ground clutter doing its job, its not like this is some unrealistic "nerf"; the issue here is that the fundamental way it (and all RF MRMs in DCS) interacts with chaff is wrong. And its really noticeable. And yes the AIM-120C is the best in game in terms of CCM, and thats also 100% irrelevant to the point. Nobody asked whether the AIM-120 is best relative to everyone else, thats pretty clear that it is; the question is whether the AMRAAM, absolutely (not relative to everyone else, as those should be adjusted too) should interact with chaff as it does, or all RF MRMs period. Yes, because most people really dont want to spend a lot of time testing stuff (or maybe dont know what/how to test), and those that do usually dont share much, and quite understandably. But I dont think it takes away from the issues of chaff in game. Nor does the fact that the players supposedly "haven't spent a lot of time doing Air to Air in DCS." mean anything. A bug report is a bug report.

+1. There is zero depth perception over the water, and its far, far too dark. I cant count how many times this patch, for example, i've hit the water notching missiles because I have no idea hew high I am without having to go into the HUD/instruments that just detract from SA in the moment.

That doesnt mean its super effective. All it means is that chaff + evasive maneuvers + likely ECM is better than evasive maneuvers/ECM alone, enough to warrant carrying it. But that doesnt mean its particularly effective on its own, or that even when combined with maneuvers its guaranteed to defeat the track or something (not saying your claiming that BTW). Also, slightly OT but if pyrotechnic flares were really so effective vs modern FPA dont ya think they're kinda wasting money thats being spent into DIRCM and other new forms of CMs?

The problem is that we arent just using this to fix issues. Being a PvP player, I never use it for that actually, as it breaks IC (although I understand that a lot of people do use it for that and I totally understand). In fact, id say overall, thats in many cases secondary to the fact that we use them to find the issues in the first place. Doing this makes bug reports incredibly hard. In addition, from personal experience (and im sure countless PvP squadrons would agree), the missile files specifically were very useful to find out how the missiles work. Whats the seeker FoV? What is the motor burn profile? What is the seeker LOS rate? And so on. These values are incredibly helpful. We can also modify them and see the effect in game so we can get a better idea of how this stuff works. Same for the warheard etc values for those doing A2G stuff. Has MP cheating really been that much of a problem to warrant this? As near_blind suggested above, making even a simple way to view the files, perhaps an in-game "database" that you can view like the encyclopedia, without them having an effect on game is much better than just hiding them like this.

I used the F-18 quite extensively for BVR training yesterday. Zero issues whatsoever (that i noticed anyway). Its honestly the best its worked in ages in terms of bugs (TWS-A fixed, etc). You simply need to get used to the new realistic detection ranges; people (including myself at one point) got way too accustomed to the old F-18 radar that saw targets nearly twice as far as it should. Now when the maximum you'll see someone is 45-50nm assuming their nose hot (that could be sub 40 if they are cranking), it does change the dynamics quite a bit. Yes, you may be fired on before you can see the guy. Yes, thats why heavyweight fighters exist IRL. My bet though is that you arent adjusting elevation correctly @Tree_Beard. Could you post a video? No, there are no hornet specific, game breaking issues in A2A. The issues known are general AMRAAM issues for all AMRAAM carriers.

what im pretty sure happened is that you reacquired lock inside the 4 sec memory mode window (you actually reacquired twice; first time was in LTWS like 2-3 sec afterwards, which likely reset the 4 sec memory then the final STT). If youd waited say 5 sec before your first reacquisition im pretty sure it wouldnt have guided

No there was a change @Quaggles (idk if this is the same one)? on reddit managed to access the missile file while the game is running and heres what he found: To verify I ran some tests comparing to the shot profile I used in the post a few months ago about the last changes: 2.5.6: 2.7: The 2.7 ER/ET can turn pretty much as hard as an R-77, at least down low. (for reference, the ET is the 2nd one to be fired, R-77 is first)