dundun92

I havent seen a missile (Radar or IR) that switched to anything but the sun or CMs while being locked onto a target. When they loose track however, they can go after different targets.

They can in DCS as well, ive had plenty of IR missiles switch targets. Also they will track on the sun as well. There was one case actually where I fired an R-73 at a dude but for some reason went after his incoming AMRAAM and shot it down Because they are radar missiles, and they are already locked on the correct target, they dont switch targets in DCS once locked afaik unless the lock is lost. But if they got within proxy fuze range, they will blow each other up. Also, i have had AMRAAMs ive shot decide to go after the bandits incoming AMRAAm instead of the bandit himself haha.

Yes, if the missile is right above you youll notch it, because in that case your VV is pointed forwards level at w/e heading, and the LOS to the missile is 90° (straight up). Cos 90° is zero, so yes youd be in the notch regardless of TAS*. But if its say even 5° from vertical, and you flew "away" from it (putting it behind you), youd have cos 85 * 520 kts or 42kts of closure, already enough to put you out of the notch. Again, the simple way to tell if you notching is to measure the angle between the LOS to the missile (pointing from you to the missile) and your velocity vector (straight ahead where you are going)., and multiply its cosine by your TAS You are either trying to minimize cos X (by flying closer to 90°) or your TAS flying slower, or ideally both. *in the diagram above I meant TAS not GS. Point still stands though EDIT I think I see what your saying. It is not 90° relative to your POM. Your POM, aka bank angle, has nothing to do with this. Its 90° between your VV and the LOS. Think of it like your radar's off-boresight/antenta train angle (not quite exact as thats not your VV but your nose position, which differs from your VV by your AoA but it illustrates the point)

Yes the AIM-120 suffers for notching quite a bit actually, its far from being a super weapon. BTW, what you were doing isnt notching. Its not about putting your lift vector on him. Its about making a 90° angle between the LOS of the missile and your velocity vector. Your roll has nothing to do with it. Essentially your trying to do this: Annotated version of the tacview linked: Here are some videos:

That simply isnt true, in our squad PvP sessions we evade R-73s all the time with good power modulation + proper flare usage. What you need to do is do a test in SP and repeat it in MP with conditions as similar as possible

Your whole argument is based on the assumption that the game is about balance first and realism second. The fact is, if the Flanker indeed cannot 1v1 joust AMRAAM carriers on equal grounds IRL it should be like that in game. Period. If it can, it should be like that in game. If people who want overperforming missile for the sake of "balance" and "competitiveness" leave the game, let them leave, this is a SIM first not a game first, idk where you are getting that idea from. The fact is, for some people, being in an inferior plane and coming up with smart tactics is "a reward that entices them to keep coming back.". If that werent the case you wouldnt see people using MiG-21s on public 4th gen PvP servers, or people using anything but F-16s and F-18s. The fact is if you need superior equipment to win every fight to get "a reward that entices them to keep coming back." then a sim like DCS isnt for you. And im in no way implying that the R-27 isnt underperforming in game, it is. But pepin wasnt arguing using factual information to get a realistic R-27 (probably because ED already knows whats wrong and has the needed info), hes simply comparing it to the 15-20yr newer AIM-120C, and because he couldnt win the 1v1 (which he likely isnt even after R-27s get updated) he makes up conspiracy theories about ED intentionally making russian equipment obsolete (this isnt the only thread he's done it in). So no, this is a sime first, game second. Also calling peoples arguments "insane" and "autocracy" because they present actual facts? I think you need to "SLOW down"

Wrong thread @Fri13?

Is this even serious? Yes, all of us who actually want a realistic sim actually do care about facts, unless of cource you want DCS to become Ace Combat . YOU may not care about facts but a lot of us here do

Exactly what are you so upset about that you felt the need to bump a several month old thread to call me a "conspiracy theorist" for pointing out facts? The guy IS talking about conspiracy theories, he wasnt factually reporting anything. He was complaining about how ED has supposedly made the AIM-120 better/make ECM nonfunctional to intentionally made the russian equipment obsolete. Literally taken from the OP "...Just to have an idea of the impact of this new bias..." "...Also seem at low altitude the missiles behave worst so at this case will be better keep low flight. Seem developers want to set an air dominance in very high altitude since ECM keep in the unrealistic 50km not affected then the only option left if terrain cover..." You can argue about culture all you want; the fact is that this was FAR from an actual bug report and is just another in the long list of missile complaint threads with no supporting info other than the fact that he expects his 1980s R-27ER to somehow take on a 2000s AIM-120C on equal terms. So now youre gonna tell ED how they have to to run their company (and its not that I dont fully disagree on the balancing point, but srsly calm down)

The bandit notched that one, and it went after the chaff.

...since when has this been about majority and minority lol. And again, without showing something as simple a a YT vid of a few your "plenty of tacviews" it means nothing as far as ED is concerned.

Heres a diagram for the F-15A HOTAS, the only thing its missing is the castle switch, and I dont have any C model documentation for the new HOTAS, though I have one for the E. Heres one for the E:

Without tacviews/tracks or some way of specifically documenting what the missile is doing differently, threads like this typically dont go anywhere, as theres no way to tell whats wrong, as often there isnt. From my experience, the 120s have gotten better in almost every way since the FM/New API update, due to the increased lift, less drag, loft, etc. Plus, again if you are using the shoot cue to time your shots you will get inconsistient results as the shoot cues have changed, and arent particularly accurate either.

you cant (yet) edit posts from before the update for some reason

RWS/TWS isnt constant illumination and it gives RWR pings. Obviously wouldnt be a spike though.

As I said, you really should ignore all DLZ cues, LOST cue included. Ive had LOST shot for 40nm shots at 40kft (well within the WEZ), and it not show up for 90nm shots from 20k with a displayed TTA of 120sec (which is longer than the battery life...) As far as the bug with the radar scan beam freezing, moving the TDC around and/or switching between AUTO and MAN quickly usually fixes it. And I wouldnt quite say they nerfed the AMRAAM. Kinematically it never changed from when it got the new FM, the complaints were about chaff resistance. It had increased chaff resistance one patch which supposedly was unintended, and a few months later they put the resistance back to the original values.

The Hornet and Viper use the exact same AIM-120s, so that isnt a problem here. I also havent experienced any of the issues here (note that I purely do PvP, so there could be some AI weridness going on such as detecting missiles off the rail). I think the first thing is that you simply cannot trust any of the DCS DLZ indicators. They, simply put, are very innacurate, and if you are using them to judge shot range unfortunately you will find a lot of "valid" shots missing because they in actuality were way out of WEZ. Its best to read up on DLZ definitions and test the missile yourself and find how they actually perform in game, until ED fixes them. Second, there is also a somewhat unrealistic expectation of shots fired outside of the Kinematic NEZ to hit defending bandits. As an example, at 40kft the NEZ for the AMRAAM is 14nm, and this drops to just under 4nm on the deck. Almost all of the avaliable RL BVR documentation (for instance, NATOPS P-825) makes it clear that if you want to make sure the bandit cannot defeat the missile kinematically you need to shoot inside the NEZ. Anything outside the NEZ and your giving the bandit a chance to kinematically defend it. You really shouldnt expect shots outside of the NEZ to hit a defending bandit. However, there definitely are some bugs with AMRAAMs, but these universally apply to all AMRAAM carriers. For example, with lofted trajectories, if you drop the lock before the peak of the loft it flies into space for some reason and doesnt guide towards the last known position. Also, if the bandits have ECM they may be abusing the ECM blinking bug.

SARHs cannot guide on buddy illumination in DCS. What you are probably experiencing is either a) the 4(?) second radar memory mode bug, or b) the missile HOJ'd. Alternatively, it could be the bug everyone has been experiencing.

...because it isnt? Its an unintended bug, as it does not happen in all situations

Used to use a forum with this layout, really like it. Good work ED!

Alamo 1-1 | dundun92 - F-15C

Heatblur uses their own AIM-7s; you can find them in the entry.lua in CoreMods/F-14/Weapons(?), along with the AIM-54s. However, they basically copy the code from EDs AIM-7s so usually isn't much of an issue.

Me and a few squad mates did some tests both with jester and with a RIO on how they guide and the associated warnings. JESTER: PD-STT, Supported until impact: Guides like normal SARH, with launch warning and no active warning. As expected PD-STT, Switched to TWS by telling Jester to break the lock then switching back to TWS: Missile stopped guiding and did not reacquire. Bandit had SARH missile warning throughout entire engagement. SARH warning after lost lock not expected PD-STT, Switched to TWS by telling jester to switch to P-STT (to which he replied with an "I lost the lock", switching to TWS): Missile reacquired when TWS track was regained and guided as in SARH. Bandit had SARH missile warning throughout entire engagement. Not expected P-STT, Supported until impact: Active off the rail. No datalink corrections (unsure if intended behavior). With active warning pitbull range. Pretty much as expected. TWS, Supported until impact: No launch warning, with active warning at pitbull. As expected TWS, switched to STT before active: Missile stops guiding, does not go active. As expected HUMAN RIO: TWS, Supported until impact: Missile guided. Unsure if in SARH or ARH guidance logic. No missile warning. Not expected More potentially to come

Yea, its almost like flying ASL reduces your missile range by a factor of 4 compared to high altitude... seriously, stop valley sneaking. It simply doesnt work against half competent pilots. If it "worked" all it means is that you faced a low skill opponent, or a good player who simply lost SA. Nothing notable has changed over the past few months in regards to this. Its all fun and games until a Viper just shoots into your "sneaky" little valley from 50k and M1.5. No, the mountains arent big enough to hide you from a Viper at 50k. Get high, and get fast, its the only way you stand a remote chance vs AMRAAM carriers. The other option is to get REALLY good at notching, which is tough considering the RWR but definitely doable. Im in no way implying that an R-27ER is equal to a 120C at alt. It isnt. But flying low and "sneaky" makes your missile disparity about as big as you possibly could. I made some videos about Flanker tactics of supporting high and fast ERs and notching in this playlist: I would also advise you check out this tacview replay from some fights we had vs the 51st PVO/100KIAP (pretty much the top flanker guys out there). They arent sneaking, they are getting high and fast, and it works pretty well: Also I should add, get a wingman. It will really help as well.

Slightly curious, whats the source for this?