dundun92

I see you didn't bother to read any of the posted sources, or do any research (such as actual videos of 9X test shots vs flaring targets). W/e, ED has the 9X where they want and its gonna take more than a rant about PvP balance to change it.

source that any do that?

..Which is as issue of turn rate which as I established is perfectly reasonable

even better, the faster the more avaliable Gs and better turn rate Im giving this as a very reasonable example. But, to give a missile specific example, heres a G force vs speed chart for the AIM-9L: If you do the math, the AIM-9L can pull around 15-20G at M 1.4-1.6, which translates to a turn rate well over 20dps. So no theres no issue getting an SD-10 to turn that quickly, or any modern AAM for that reason.

Source that RWRs are tuned for IFF frequencies (no that fact that I makes sense to you doesnt count)?

no

NCTR only works front aspect, as it has to see the intakes

Warheads do have different damages tho, it's not a true/false. It also depends on the DM of the target; F-18 DM is like paper, pretty much anything will disable it, while F-15/F-16/F-14 DMs are a bit more rugged and will sometimes absorb missile hits. As an example, ive never got killed by a single R-60M in the F-15, it always took 2 or more.

Alamo 1-2 | Dankguy, F-16C

11 DPS turn rate at M1.4? That's perfectly reasonable. Most fighters can do double that at half the speed, so im not sure whats even wrong with this "bug". Plus, this is tacview, and can have desync etc

During squadron testing, we have discovered 2 bugs with the F-18 FLOOD mode: 1. FLOOD mode does not work until 5nm. This is incorrect according to the manual, which states a 10nm max range on FLOOD in terms of the missile guiding. If you launch outside 5nm, the missile will fly straight off the rail until the distance between the 2 fighters is around 5nm, at which point it begins FLOOD guidance. Inside 5nm, the missile guides as normal with one exception; even with the LOFT switch set to NORM, the missile still lofts off the rail, though it quickly corrects and impacts. 2. Even more problematic, however, is that the F/A-18 FLOOD does not give proper RWR warnings to the target aircraft. Although the missile may not be able to see the reflected returns past 10nm (RN it is 5nm), the RWR is able to "see" these signals further than the missile due to the radio waves having to travel only one direction. However, this isnt the case in DCS. In DCS currently, FLOOD shots outside 5nm, until the 5nm mark, give absolutely no RWR warning (nails, spike, or otherwise) even if the target aircraft is inside the FLOOD circle and within the stated 10nm range. Once the range hits 5nm, the result depends on the RWR; F-15 RWR only gives search nails even after hitting 5nm, and the F-16/18 RWRs will show an SARH launch as normal; however, the missile is already just seconds from impact. If the AIM-7 is supposed to detect reflected radar signals out to 10nm, there is absolutely no reason the RWR shouldn't be able to detect this PDI flood out to 10nm at the very least. Shots inside 5nm have similar behavior to the last case above; F-15 RWR only gives search nails even while the missile is guiding, while the F-16/18 RWR behave as expected, giving RWR warning off the rail. For 1, the expected behavior per the manual is that FLOOD should guide missiles out to 10nm, not just 5. For 2, the expected behavior is that from at least 10nm the RWR should give at the very minimum a spike, and not nails only inside 5nm (F-15 RWR), or launch warning only inside 5nm (F-16/18 RWR). Attached are 2 tracks: the track labeled (shooter) is from the PoV of the F-18 shooting the AIM-7s; the track labeled (target) is my PoV as the defender. The shots, in order, are F-18 FLOOD vs F-16 RWR at 10nm, F-18 FLOOD vs F-16 RWR at 5nm, F-18 FLOOD vs F-18 RWR at 10nm, F-18 FLOOD vs F-18 RWR at 5nm, F-18 FLOOD vs F-15 RWR at 10nm, F-18 FLOOD vs F-15 RWR at 5nm. F-18 FLOOD (shooter).trk F-18 FLOOD (target).trk

It does, it just takes more than 2-3 chaff, if you drop like 10-15 chaff from an mildly accurate notch youll spoof it almost 100% of the time, and im pretty sure you can bring that down if you want: At 4:52 I do agree though, the AIM-54 is definitely nowhere even 120B levels of CCM, and if that is the intent for the C than CCM needs to be improved

@DanielNLI would highly recommend you actually educate yourself on how IR missiles work before making baseless bug reports. Here are some sources: http://www.mediafire.com/file/nq6i1ja0ds9gqi4/Histoy_of_the_Electro-Optical_Guided_Missiles.pdf/file https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=697101 https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a566304.pdf BUT as a TL;DR, FPA seekers (even simple non-FPA dual band seekers) can easily reject pyrotechnic flares like we have in DCS. Against pyrophoric flares its a bit different, but even that FPAs can reject under certain circumstances, but irrespective we do not have pyrophoric flares in DCS. So no its not too flare proof, if anything the 9X isnt flare proof enough especially at closer ranges thanks to the RNG CCM of DCS but thats a whole other topic.

Unfortunately that is not the best way to test missiles, and is not representative of the missiles actual performance, though it is a good effort. The best parameter to compare missiles is the stern WEZ, or max tail chase range. I have done quite a bit of testing, and this doc contains some of the results: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1In3JaNj17IRoTlVFrM3AWy7JLO2OEMcZ/view?usp=sharing Pay particular attention to the "NEZ" parameter, as i measured it using the stern WEZ.

I really dont get why people thought the AIM-120 was totally resistant to chaff. It wasnt. Far from it. Yes, if you were used to the old "put missile in vague direction of 3-9 line and spam chaff" meta yea that may make it look chaff proof. But if you focused on being accurate with your notches than depending on chaff spam it was far from completely chaff resistant. The biggest issue actually was the desync induced by the chaff, which made it impossible to know where exactly the missile was.

Thats not the bug, the bug is when you drop the lock before active

Thanks for hosting 104th, it was a really fun event! Merry Christmas to all!

this was recent yes

that missile was clearly notched, he was slow, in lookdown, chaffing, and passing through 3-9 line

For the AIM-54 thats how it works IRL, it cannot be recovered from a lost track, HB has stated that. As for the AIM-120, according to one of the testers/staff this is intended behavior from ED, I do not know if this is how it works IRL. SD-10 uses same AIM-120 scheme so its gonna do the same as an AMRAAM.

no, the AIM-54 was always less chaff resistant than the AMRAAM. Just because at one point it had a lower ccm_k0 didnt matter, because it still used the old chaff code. Id recommend you actually get in the sim and test this stuff.

@104th_Fallengetting this error:

AIM-120 is much more chaff resistant. Its still easy to notch, but its gonna take more than 1-2 chaff. More like 10-15 chaff.

I can confirm, in the Su-27 sparrows were not giving launch warnings for m.e

The first part is correct afaik, though I could be wrong. And I personally havent seen much of a difference detection range wise, you may want to test this yourself. The second part I agree, but because of FC3 things it doesnt work like that, IRL this stuff is set with buttons and knobs so resetting radar modes should have no effect.