dundun92

Im not saying 80s BVR is less intensive. Im saying that both, in a proper coordinated scenario are intensive and require far more than just having the 1% advantage in range to win, its not just SARH thats skill based. And SP SARH combat is hardly satisfying, you can beat it so easily by basic F-Pole tactics as it has no idea of when to optimally fire/defend. And the whole AI WVR thing, that equally applies to any combat era. SP is just a bad reference. Its not. Not being able to fire outside 10nm means you cant F-Pole above 20kft, and loft means no F-Pole jousting at any altitude. AKA you are forced defensive 100% of the time and either have to run/notch to merge. Meanwhile, with the AMRAAM, as long as you support it until active, which isnt hard, you can still largely fight like normal. Im not saying it has no effect, but the sparrow bugs are far worse Depends on the variant. 9M, if we ignore CCM, is OK. 9X is not. Even accounting for RNG it likes flares way too much, and it has too much drag and has less range than a 9M. Theres a reason the 9X block II has loft/DL IRL. I suppose if you only look at the 9M its acceptable but its not like the 9X issues have anything to do with it being newer.

The AMRAAM bugs have about nothing to do with it being new, and everything to do with EDs testing/dev style. I also wouldnt say the AIM-7s are in any better of a state. MHs are still broken (loft at any range), making AIM-7/F-pole BVR in the F-14/15 impossible unless you use 7M/Fs that like chaff more. F-14 AIM-7s are broken outside 10nm and wont guide. AIM-7s also like to eat chaff well outside the notch, as do all SARHs. And for the AIM-9, well ill grant there isnt much "wrong" with it but thats just because of how insanely simple an IR missile is. But the gamey IRCM/IRCCM really needs to be overhauled. So again, a bit better, but its not in much better of a state. Also, lack of range gating affects the SARHs too, not just the AMRAAM. Really the lack of INS guidance is the main problem with the AMRAAM, and it can be countered by supporting to active anyway. (You could include its addiction to chaff/notching, but that affects all missiles). And that low altitude aiming error you mentioned, the AMRAAM got it at the same time as the Sparrow. So not an AIM-7 thing. TBH, the reason there are so many AMRAAM bug reports is because its quite simply the most used AAM in DCS, and that heavily biases the bugs that get reported. And another note generally on the thread in general, IMO, the constant calling AMRAAM BVR "low skill", to be blunt, just shows how much people dont understand it. Sure, solo airquake PvP is, always has been, and always will be gamey meta cheesing. 80s servers are no exception (and I say that as someone who flys on BF 1980s quite a bit, I have nothing against it). And if thats your standard of AMRAAM BVR sure you may think its low skill (though thats still quite an understatement. You can know how to skate all you want... doesnt do you any good if you dont have the SA to know theres someone to shoot at, or to know when to defend, or to keep track of the 5 planes within 20nm of you). But as soon as you start coordinating 2, 3, 4, or even 6 ship ops, it is as far from "low skill" as it gets, and not based on who has the absolute best missile, its the tactics, pilot skill, and pilot SA that matter. And again, I dont hate 70s/80s BVR, far from it, I find it quite enjoyable. But IMO there doesnt need to be this polarization of 80s BVR good AMRAAM BVR bad.

By default, the F-16 radar did not have a CW illuminator needed for AIM-7E/F, and AFAIK did not have PDI illumination capabilities for the AIM-7F/M/H (F is dual PDI/CW), which is probably just one reason most variants couldnt carry them.

yes

Chaff isnt supposed to do much outside the notch. Its pretty easily filtered out. Whats unrealistic is all the other missiels going after chaff when well outside the notch

Also add the silent unnotchable TCS guided AIM-54s...

At least in the lua, its listed as having HOJ.

Yea, but the point is this is how all HOJ works in DCS, this isnt an AIM-7 thing as it was made out to be earlier. The complaint should be about fixing broken core game mechanics, not labeling specific missiles OP. Any HOJ missile will do this (which, hint, is anything but the AIM-7E and Super 530 [for some odd reason])

The odds are very high, thats the point behind HOJ. And the F-14 jammer certainly works, it just blinks very quickly, which doesnt stop HOJ. Its also possible that some weird F-14 radar memory mode bug existed, but that has nothing to do with the AIM-7 being OP. Im pretty sure it doesnt in DCS

PN doesnt need range, just LOS rate. The myth that missiles go pure pursuit in HOJ needs to die. The loft thing, that is a reported bug. But the bigger issue is that the AIM-7 shouldnt be lofting here, it should only loft when pitched up; ironically, it hurts its F-Pole

Wrong thread?

No. Theres no OP, AIM-7 is absurdly easy to notch, as are all the "BLUE" missiles that are supposedly OP. Your pretty much the only biased guy here. Also, the ER isnt 90s. ER specifically is late 80s but its the same seeker as the R from the early 80s. AIM-7M is mid 80s, MH is actually 90s.

No. You, in fact, are supposed to pitch up to loft AMRAAMs at longer ranges IRL. Its the DCS steering cue thats wrong.

Ehh theres no reason to space out flares, in fact getting as many in the FoV as possible has been shown to increase effectiveness (e.g, 5 flares at once has a higher effectiveness than 5 over a 2s period, even when the missile TOF is over 2s). Also, MIL vs IDLE doesnt actually matter for IRCM. In DCS, its either your in AB, or you arent. And aspect is similar; your either ahead or behind the 3-9 line as far as the missile is concerned.

The F-16s got less effective flares this last patch, so that may be playing into it. I personally used programs of 6 flares pre patch and it worked decently well, but ive had to up it to 10.

Umm.... the 120C loves chaff as normal this update. IDK what your testing is composed of, but its still insanely easy to notch/chaff. What changed is that it no longer pulls 40G turns to track on stationary chaff outside the FoV, so it did end the notch immediate recommit meta. You need to stay in the notch until impact. But notching with or without chaff is quite effective rn.

Nope, thats not any sort of official source

Yeah, no. R-27ET and R-73 as mentioned above have the exact same CCM as the AIM-9M, and only take about 5 flares to spoof under normal conditions.

Pretty sure you cant do that vs fighter radars in DCS.

Nope, still not fixed. Its been reported several times, for almost a year now.

The APG-68(V)5 should detect a 5m^2 target at 40nm. For reference, the APG-65 can detect about 4m^2 at 45nm, and 5m^2 at ~47nm, which is about where our Hornet is. While there may have been some range improvement between the 65 and 73, I doubt it would be very significant. So while you could make the case for a bit more range on the 73, I think its very reasonable as is RN. Combine that with the fact that aircraft RCS (specifically large ones like the F-14/15/Flanker) are too low, I dont think the radar is going to be the determining factor between them, I definitely dont think one will "dominate" the other.

DCS R-73 proxy fuze range is 5m. And speed has no effect on proxy fuze chance. What happened was the missile got too slow to maneuver within the 5m proxy fuze range. Nothing abnormal.

All the old API missiles. ANything but the AIM-120 and AIM-7 as of RN.

Incorrect. Although visually the TD box moves off the target, the missile is being fed perfect target info.

No. Never seen an ER miss a straight flying, non maneuvering non chaffing target within the WEZ. If you'd bothered to spend 2 seconds reading what I said in detail I said it *was* not a game breaker previously for the listed reasons, but once it got loft and the drag changes, it did become an issue. EDIT: and just to set the record straight, the most memory Ive ever used is 8s, and thats only to fix the issue of TWS constantly loosing track in interleaved, and the various TWS-A issues. I do not intentionally go around exploiting this or other bugs (especially obviously wrong ones like this), as any pilot ive flown with extensively knows. Im not out here to get "easy kills".