dundun92

I should also add, the ER got a big lift boost. It can turn much more sharply, and turn while bleeding less speed than before.

The R/ER has LOAL. Thats been knows since forever. What there is no evidence for is that the T/ET have LOAL. The manufacturers website confirms the R/ER having LOAD, and the T/ET is LOBL: R/ER: T/ET: Source

Tested vs JF-17, range was 55nm in HPRF RWS, coalt. So no change from my end.

?????????? Another squadron member also confimed its missing for him, even after a repair... this really is weird

howd you get the mass flow numbers? I cant find the missiles_data.lua file anymore.

So, BIAS is the only way to adjust the TWS scan centering in azimuth now?

Same; the missiles_data.lua and missiles_table.lua files (along with all the luas in Scripts/Database/Weapons) are gone. @BIGNEWY@Chizh why were these files removed? They were very useful to find information on missile seekers, motors, etc. Plus it helped in making bug reports, or if you wanted to mod missiles.

ARe you referring to the F-18? Or did any of the FC3 jets get any changes

Nope. Nothing about MiG-29 radar either

Exactly how long has it taken for ED to do a CFD for the R-27ER? Yea, I think you very well know that this is simply how ED operates; the MiG-29 radar bug was reported for just at long and it still hasnt been fixed. So yea, no, just stop trolling honestly.

yes

Yes. The notch is always an issue for PD radars. Chaff (in DCS that is) allows you to notch then immediately recommit (which isnt realistic but w/e). Without chaff you have to stay in the notch until the missile flies by else it will recommit

Im assuming a reference to PL-12s, though it doesnt appear that the MKKs carried it until very recently

are you like a mod or something?

There is a difference between different RCSs in DCS FC3, ive tested this, and its been tested by others

Your point is valid, but "nobody" complained because in practice the Magic INS wasnt that big of a game breaker (at least for AMRAAMs, AIM-54 was a whole other can of worms), if one at all. 20nm was like the furthest youd shoot the old AMRAAMs, and thats from like 35K M 1.2+. Realistically shot ranges were under 10-15nm 99% of the time where the missile went active like under 5 sec off the rail, so the presence of Magic INS was nowhere near the level of breaking gameplay as this ECM bug is. Whereas now, you have loft enabling longer shot ranges, the effects of not having any sort of INS are much more problematic than when they had magic INS. That being said, this is really just quite simply a case where we need to just sit back and let ED do their work. Making a new "AMRAAM Broken" thread every week, or bumping old ones is not going to make ED move any faster. They will fix bugs as they see fit. What looks like an "easy fix" on the surface often is acually a lot more complicated, especially accounting for spaghetti code.

You mean like Max1mus from Gryphon Squadron? Interesting, he's on these very forums, perhaps we can DM him and ask him some questions about his spaceship?

If that is indeed the case it would be because they left it off in the lua. However, looking in the .lua, the F-14s AIM-7Ms do have HOJ enabled (note the HOJ =1 at the bottom). So IDK. model = "HB_F14_EXT_AIM-7", --Name = AIM_7, --AIM-7M display_name = _('AIM-7M'), --name = "AIM_7", mass = 230, Escort = 1, Head_Type = 6, sigma = {5.6, 5, 5.6}, M = 231.1, H_max = 24400.0, H_min = 1.0, Diam = 203.0, Cx_pil = 2.21, D_max = 20000.0, D_min = 1500.0, Head_Form = 1, Life_Time = 90.0, Nr_max = 25, v_min = 140.0, v_mid = 500.0, Mach_max = 3.2, t_b = 0.0, t_acc = 3.3, t_marsh = 11.0, Range_max = 50000.0, H_min_t = 15.0, Fi_start = 0.4, Fi_rak = 3.14152, Fi_excort = 1.05, Fi_search = 0.1, OmViz_max = 0.35, warhead = warheads["AIM_7"], exhaust = {0.78, 0.78, 0.78, 0.3}; X_back = -2.0, Y_back = -0.0, Z_back = 0.0, -- -0.1, Reflection = 0.0366, KillDistance = 12.0, ccm_k0 = 1.0, -- Counter Countermeasures Probability Factor. Value = 0 - missile has absolutely resistance to countermeasures. Default = 1 (medium probability) rad_correction = 0, hoj = 1, ------------ seeker = { delay = 1.5, op_time = 75, FOV = math.rad(120), max_w_LOS = math.rad(20), sens_near_dist = 100, sens_far_dist = 30000, ccm_k0 = 1.0, aim_sigma = 5.5, height_error_k = 100, height_error_max_vel = 138, height_error_max_h = 300, hoj = 1, },

No. Rear/all aspect is defined in the missile .lua, specifically whether its a cooled seeker IIRC

The DCS issue is the way missiles fundamentally interact with chaff

While I agree that there are many bugs in need of fixing for the AMRAAM, do we really need a new thread every week about it? ED is well aware and working on the said issues

depends on your definition of "fine". If fine = useable sure its fine. But by that logic the AMRAAMs lacking INS is "fine" because its useable. Or the broken F-18 TWS AUTO is "fine" because TWS MAN is still useable. Or the F-16 underperforming in BFM is "fine" because its still useable. The list goes on. The point is, the fact that is "works fine" doesnt really matter. If its underperforming 30+% in detection range, it absolutely should be fixed. And its not an insignificant difference either.

its been like that for almost a year now ;(

Not rly. From time playing "that other sim", which does simulate this, I can assure you that its is definitely not useless. Sure, a 15° FoV isnt super big, but its not that small either.

Thats true of every missile, ever. You simply arent going to get a BVR kill against a guy who has SA and knows what to do. If one of these is not met, thats when you get a kill.