dundun92

Noted, will correct nexr revision

Question about this loadout. Right now, the MHs on the F-15s are broken and loft at any range, making basic F-Pole fights near impossible. Will there be an option to use AIM-7Ms, which do not loft? It would very much be a handicap to be stuck with MHs.

Quoting from another post of mine

[Alamo] dundun92 F-15C [Alamo] Darkthroian F-15C [Alamo] Prez F-15C [Alamo] Dankguy F/A-18C No Supercarrier potentially others TBD

Public revision of aBVR manual I have been preparing for my squadron as an overhaul of the one I posted here about a year ago. It doesnt cover any tactics as of rn, its currently just BVR fundamentals, though there will be later revisions including tactics. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r3vEbiLWu_riHekhnd8JVUUw-cYqHoif/view?usp=sharing All future revisions will use the above link. As always, feedback/criticisim welcome!

The aerodynamics of the AIM-54 is fine. The loft is an entirely separate issue.

Set the ageout to 8 sec as Tholozor mentioned. Whats happening is that the default ageout time is 4s, but certain TWS scans take over 2s. If you are using ILV, it means it is often >4 sec before the radar scans the target with the appropriate PRF. With ageout to 8 I have zero issues with the F-18 TWS.

do you have a source for this?

The specific reference in the HAF -34 is for the B, yes.

The HAF F-16 -34 lists that the data link to the missile is terminated after 80s due to "time of flight/max flight time constraints", or something to that effect, and battery is pretty much the only hard TOF constraint like that

Our AMRAAMs have 60+nm range in DCS, more than the 40 listed here. But contextless range numbers are pretty useless anyway

Its the aiming error mechanic. Turns out, besides the low altitude aiming error, theres an overall error for new API missiles, the aim_sigma value, the standard deviation. Assuming a normal distribution curve, I calculated that the probability of a miss outside proxy fuze range was 3.5%. Low, but not zero. That may be what you are experiencing.

I know that, thats not the point. To rephrase the question: why does the 120C-7 have more range than the 120C-5? We know why the C-5 has more than than say the B; it has a well documented motor upgrade. Theres no such publically available info on the 120C-7. Like, what do you even start to "guess" at? Motor improvements? Trajectory shaping improvements? Battery life extensions?

ED isnt gonna "guess" at the improved range. The fact is, theres no real conclusive unclassified reason to why the C-7 has more range. Unlike the C-5 there is no mentioned motor upgrade (though I will grant it could be classified, but usually simply the fact that it has a new motor isnt classified, e.g 9X Block III). Plus, the missile didnt get physically any bigger; you could make the electronics smaller, but again, you are not gonna get like double the range, or anything close to that from the motor alone. Maybe 10-15% more at best, looking at the 120B to C-5 improvement. What we do know is that the 120C-7 "incorporates an upgraded antenna, receiver, signal processor, and new software algorithms to counter new threats." These new software algorithms could easily contain improvements to trajectory shaping, which would extend max range. Having longer battery life is also a way to increase max range. But that being said, all of the above is speculation (though I think reasonable). And likely, EDs not gonna have much more available info. And they simply arent gonna guesswork it and just like slap 10-15% more "range" (i say "range" because we dont know all the conditions under which range improved). TLDR; dont expect a C-7. If we did get it, it would be either guesswork, or just a C-5 that rejects chaff better.

±60°, total FoV of 120°

I do have the hornet, but I havent done any fuel flow testing, and cant test rn. Unfortunately, F-18 fuel flow is actually off rn, burns too little so you unfortunately cant use RL numbers for comparison. You could look at some videos and see from there.

By that logic, youd load an F-14 with negative fuel to compare. Though id agree that same fuel % isnt perfect, but its not terribly bad either. In some BFM competitions, they use a constant time to empty to judge fuel weights, which is probably better than same %.

I think illustrates whats trying to be conveyed:

It doesnt. Thats objectively demonstrable. Is it a difference skill can overcome? Sure, but thats not the point of the thread.

Because it has a huge dish and high peak power. If it had modern processing it would be even better.

I mean, posting a PvP BFM fight from a YTer that flies against random people of various (usually low) skill levels and that literally disables GLoc the last time I checked isnt exactly a very good way to "prove" plane X can beat plane Z. Ofc an F-16 CAN beat an F-18 if the F-18 pilot doesnt fly well. Same way I can get an overall 3:1 KD with the MiG-21 vs F-18s on GS server. It really doesnt have any bearing on a technical discussion about known FM issues. Nor does it change the fact that the F-18 is better than the F-16 at turning, in places where it shouldnt.

Thats... a mod. Using that to prove anything here doesnt make sense

Id like to know why the thread was reopened...

Ya IK, DCS EW is really that shallow

Havent tested the 16, but the F-18 i know for sure cannot be notched in lookup, and TBH you shouldnt be able to, or at least it will be a very, very small notch gate