Lascar12F

Why was this topics merged back on to this one ?? I was specifically told it's an ED problem by an aerges member ! Why is ED ignoring this so hard, i just wanted to report a problem, it shouldn't be this difficult

@BIGNEWY has this been reported to the team yet ? still no word...

bump again, i'm not going to let this go until I get a response from ED, why is it so hard to report something ?

I just need some feedback on this from ED, if there needs more info just tell me that

I have provided numbers from a discussion with an ED tester. I assumed they would handle getting that info from @IvanK internally Also I was asking for ED to take a good look at the missile in general because it's implementation is very half assed. I don't think this is a document issue, even the 3d model is wrong on my layers, basically a copied magic2, so the aim here is for ED to follow their usual process on a forgotten missile. just trying to bring it to their attention

bumping this as there has been no answers, has this ticket been taken into account ? the magic 1's max trackable angle is 63 degrees off tail in the game, but real life accounts that @IvanK has provided talk about "lock at 90 degrees Angle Off on a Mil powered target 700deg C JPT at 2nm at medium altitude". 63 degrees off tail is wildly under estimated, even when compared to contemporary missiles that historically performed much worse. These values need to be changed please. including @fausete for more info.

Done, thanks a lot guys for all the help, info, and time ! hopefully this goes somewhere !

Hi, It seems the magic 1 performance needs to be re-evaluated, as the missile's aspect limitations seems much too restrictive compared to it's real life performance. Seemingly it's a single value that has been put in a bit pessimistically. See @IvanK and @DSplayer

Thanks for the good info guys, and for the time spent reviewing the tracks. So should I do the bug report or is that something you guys do internally ? That aspect angle for it to stop tracking seems very much off, and likely the reason for the very poor performance of a historically very capable close range missile. The thing I feel is lost a lot when talking about "rear" aspect missiles, is that they would only be rear from a distance and with a target at mil. When the missile gets close enough or the target is in afterburner, they should be near all aspect as far as the seeker goes. It's not just a matter of "oh well it's slightly side on, i guess i'm blind" Just visually, a phantom's burners can be seen from nearly all but most frontal up aspects. even very poor IR seekers would be able to home on those. If I remember correctly that even was a problem with the magic 1, it would pass behind jets without fusing because it would home on exhaust 3-4 meters behind the jet and the fuse was poor.

sure here you go, tell me if you require any more tracks. The missile seems to systematically stop tracking the target as it gets close even though it has the energy and the aspect is still rear. In one of the attached track it is compared to a 9J. magic 1 vs 9J no tracking.trk no flare rear close magic 1.trk

yeah what you're saying is in line with what i've been told about the missile and what it should realistically be able to do, which begs the question, why does it perform like a GAR8 in DCS ? It's essentially worthless right now. The 9-J is much much better in the sim, not even the JULI but the J... Is this something that ED is aware of and working towards fixing ? or is the Magic 1 just forgotten because the Magic 2 is there and works ?

Oh understood, thanks for the reply. Is that an issue that has been brought to ED's attention by you guys ?

Hi all, I've been having a blast flying this module but the magic 1 performance seems very off. Looking at tacview files it seems the missile only pulls around 8Gs, which is about the same as a GAR8. Public information available says the missile should be able to do in the neighborhood of 35Gs, which seems believable since the Magic II is known as a very very maneuverable missile, and the two share the same body and fins, the later missile simply having a different seeker and 10% more powerfull motor. Would an aerges dev care to comment on this ? Is the low maneuverability of the missile intended on your end or is it an oversight ?

Hi, Ground units are invisible to petrovich if they are placed near a ME placed static object like a house or workshop. This is a bug that is reproducible 100% of the time. I have included a track file as well as the mission file for you to try. There are two groups of two S-60 AAA. the one on the left has structures next to it and is invisible to petrovich, and the one on the right has nothing next to it and is visible to petrovich. I encourage you to try this .miz for yourself if you haven't experienced this bug. petro no track.trk Petro tracking test.miz

@BIGNEWY @NineLine still no answer, when i've provided the documents you requested. Can we get an answer or what ??

@NineLine I added the document you requested in my post above

That's good to hear, thank you very much for taking the time to respond, and I'm looking forward to seeing it changed in game !

I mean the 9M120 ataka has an air-air proximity fused variant. That would indicate to me a certain willingness to shoot down at least helicopters. @NineLine Also, I've joined a picture of the manual for the export version of the Mi-24P, the Mi-35P, which is virtually identical, and it explicitly states that killing air targets is one of it's missions, and later in Book 2 section 6 describes guiding a missile towards airborne targets. Find pages 6-5 and 6-6 attached. Really hope this gets the "correct as-is" tag removed, and this implemented !

Hi, I believe this issue has been raised before, but I think this deserves another post. The weight of a loaded dual rack of 9M114 missile is 230kg exactly in game. The game itself lists the weight of a single 9m114 missile as 40kg. This doesn't seem too wrong as most online sources list between 31 and 32 kg The weight of an empty rack is 13 kg in game. This seems plausible as it is a relatively small and beefy metal frame. So adding 2x40+13 we get 93kg. Obviously that doesn't take into account the tube in which the missile is housed. There is a 137 kg difference here. So either the tube in which the missile is housed weights 68.5 kg empty, or there is a problem with the weight of the twin rack with 9m114. I believe ED got this info from the manual for the export Mi-35P that is freely available online and very very close to our Mi-24P. Doing a bit of math from the manual's max fuel per loadout you get an individual masse for each loaded twin launchers of 241kg. see attached picture for detailed math. Personally I highly doubt that this weight is correct. I do no know how to explain how heavy the manual thinks these are, but I believe it might be taking additional equipment into consideration. I would love a source on the actual weight of the loaded twin rack by itself and not as a larger fuel calculation for the hind. I don't buy that the weight of the launch tubes is 137 kg. It just doesn't make sense. If ED uses a different source than the one I've assumed, I'd love for them to share it. Here is a video of two men handling empty launch tubes on a 9P149 tracked atgm carrier. I don't think those weigh 68 kg and they are tossing them around like nothing.

just tested it, and even if they don't show up they still make a difference. Flying head on and not maneuvering: - with the suppressor box ticked, stingers will launch at 0.8 nm and go for flares. - without suppressors box ticked, stingers will launch at 0.85 nm and ignore the flares and hit the helo. See tacview files for proof. Without suppressors.acmi With suppressors.acmi

I don't think it's a leftover. the mass is different from the ones on the Hip. You can check for the in the .lua for the hind, all the way at the bottom. My best guess is they don't have a model for it yet, as it is a bit different from the Hip one. Not sure if it actually reduces IR signature right now either, might be a useless toggle. Although it does add the weight right now in DCS even if you can't see them.

It is what I inferred. I was looking for any info. You provided info that it's not a russian modification and hence we will never see it in DCS. I was thanking you for straight to the point, correct info about why this is wrong.

+1 the igla is essentially useless right now. It just flies straight and will never hit even a hovering, non flaring target. Please fix.

bumping this topic so it gets acknowledged by ED. With all the new helos getting in DCS manpads are more important than ever. Igla-s is litterally worse than nothing right now. please fix it. you can't expect to release apache and kiowa with no red manpad can you ?

Thanks for the info Ikaros. This is exactly the kind of knowledge what I wanted.