FoxAlfa

It has no issue when not looking straight down at same range

Yes, it did see, a huge radar reflector 2 nm in front called ground producing a lot of noise, that is the point. It is like trying to point a flashlight on something in front a wall of spotlights.

nopu, the gun piper jumps.... it means it's getting the range wrong, simple as that.

Altitude and terrain are the biggest factors, something that would work well over flat terrain won't in hill or mountain area. The biggest issue here is PRF, simply in one frame radar pickups target correct, next frame picks the ground, the next frame let say target and corrects.... it's a roulette... it can keep picking the target or keep picking the ground and lose the target. Tomcat clip is good for that, you can see target cue jump is it switches between looking the ground and then next resolving the target. Your graph is also excellent for illustration for it, when looking at the ground noise increases dramatically, and signal strength can't go up unlimited due to emiter output power and other factors. Also note that most of the footage we have is relatively high (5000+) at close target due to safety and even there we can see effects, and based on the manuals we know that radar performance degrades even more sub 5000 ft due to terrain noise.

Ground cutter is underrepresented in DCS, people give too much credit to Pulse Doppler... yes, it can filter some stuff and angles, but if you are low enough or looking at the ground the noise becomes too big to filter anything. Two videos as proof, both Hornet and Tomcat lose lock on cold target when looking at the ground. Both radars are much more powerful then 5 in dish and phone size processor unit of the AMRAAM. video0.mp4 video1.mp4

Similar issue as Generally, all FC3 suffer in lookdown needlessly since the lookdown range is climbing with the aircraft

In a 29 there is a switch that ether combines them or keeps them independent, so, both behavior that EO steps in and keeps pointing the RLK, if RLK losses track... and the one Кош described are correct... it's just if they are combined or not based on the switch. In Close Combat mode, they are always combined.

@NineLine Any news?

Chizh said in the russian part of the forum that they will add the feature when they redo the models, no timeline ofcourse

<64>Fox - Blue Mig-29s or M2000c

Any aspirations on going Full Fidelity with it?

Did you manage to check? Kind regards.

Not correct, fighter is flying 900kmh and the target 700kmh in the first case, and 1100kmh and 900kmh in the second case, so not the same speed. (EDIT, if you ment constant speed, then yes, I guess I misunderstood the translation) But that is not the point, the point is we have no idea at which speed missile arrives at the line? does the missile stall as soon as it reaches the line? What safety margine the engineers build into it the graph? Graphs are recommendation to a pilot with calculation and margins added into so the pilot doesn't have to think about them, not wind tunnel data. I do think ED is doing a respectable job with the missile rework, just doing it one at the time and years apart will cause this situations. When single or two missiles get a rework and get few miles bigger effective range due to more accurate aero or autopilot modeling and without standardization of all missiles insight, people will perceive it as buff or nerf to that missile ,and for sure you are not in the business of nerfing and buffing, but doing world beating realistic stuff My biggest worry is once Devs get back into half of year or year down the line, they are going to do something different on the missiles they will be reworking then, it's the nature of software development... and the vicious circle continues...

I think in end we all agree... I just hope ED's higher up give a go ahead for CFD to be done sooner than latter...

Please keep in mind that this are recommended ranges for the pilots, the factors like speed of the missile at then range, manevre potential and PK, etc are not completely clear for them. The page sylkhan posted is from the Yugo manual, these charts are from Russian manuals, so it just might be that both 50 km range is possible with certain factors and this is for sure possible with other factors... in the end we all agree we need CFD.... Chizh, you, rest of the people.... and this discussion will keep going in circles till it's done...

Since we are talking missiles and active projects, can this atleast be fixed? People are exploting it and it is hurting SARH servers.... https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/260341-aim-7-is-arh-in-multiplayer/?tab=comments#comment-4554516

The only thing I am arguing for is CFD, you don't agree we need it?

I agree, you are correct, but that still doesn't tell us much about the performance of the missile before the timer runs out

Could be, R-27 is a modular missile by design ... so, there could be quite a number of part variation or even upgrades we don't know about ... Russians don't always advertise changes by change of the letter or number ... part of maskirovka ... in the end that is why we need to base the performance on the CFD modeling since that is only same base for all missiles we can trust.

Isn't that radio correction timer connected to the fire control radar of 29? Manual states once the missile is launched, it turns the 60 sec timer for radio correction and that is why it is the same both for R-27R and R-27RE. Limitation is within the implementation of the RL fire control radar, not the missile. We really need that CFD to tell how missile is performing PS I think that is also why missiles can guide even if STT is dropped at close range in quasi-flood mode. Timer resets only after 60 sec, or for a Sukhoi on the 3dr missile launch if 2nd are already in the air.

So are BMW, Mercedes, and Audi, different in reality, but here one is using physics modeling from rFactor other from Assetto Corsa and third Race Room ... and don't get me wrong, you can have a good race, but it will not be about the cars performance since of different physics modeling ...

People keep getting into a war which is better just so they could feel smart or superior ... and keep completely keep missing the point, and the point is ALL the missiles should be modeled under a same standard, which is currently not the case ... Like R530 or R-27 or SD-10 or Aim-120 use completely different premises for modeling and it is causing quite visible differences in behavior ... and it is very feelable in Multiplayer. So please let's just all of us agree that ALL the missiles should be modeled on the same standard with same start premises and kind ask ED to expedite the standardization work

There is a bug reducing it range around 30% in lookdown mode, that is why it feels weak. Also, lack of DL single target display since it is FC3 also is hurting it. And in the end other radars overperforming like in Viper by a margine of almost 100% leaves a bad taste in the mouth, but hopeful once and if we get Full Fidelity Fulcrum, all that will be resolved

Early export manuals clearly list R-60, along R-60MK in the MiG-29 armament, so it would be good if ED add them.

Unfortunately, you keep missing the point, the point is all the missiles need to be modeled to the same standard, if as long as that is not the case people will complain that something is odd. If the R-27 and R-77 got updated and Aim-7(I really hope for LOFT profile updates on the Eagle too) and Aim-120 didn't, I would complain the same. With Aim-120 and Aim-7 update it is like comparing Apples and Oranges... not same parameters were used in modeling them, can't be compared. As far I as recall, I always provide tables and chart within game measurements Per example: Please talk to your bosses and if possible, increase the priority of leveling the Air-to-air missiles modeling to the same standard, it means a lot to the MP community.