Max1mus

Eagle Dynamics is not interested in modern russian equipment, as even staff has clearly stated multiple times.

As far as youre aware no russian missiles ever have anything. The R-73 in DCS had a CCM of 0.5, the AIM-9M which is 2 years older has 0.4 (i.e is better in terms of flare rejection) ED just implemented a new flare logic at some point in the past months which requires you to roll and pull G + drop flares instead of just dropping a few flares to effectively trash it. Original poster of this thread does not know this.

You have to be extremely accurate with it now, and slow. Sloppyness is punished very hard since last patch. Just with 120s though, other missiles are fine like before, apart from the AIM-54 desync at long ranges where you just have to guess the position of the missile and spam chaff.

Full agreement with everything except this: 1. Even before, active missiles could reaquire you despite having previously grabbed your chaff. 2. The autopilot is a good thing, and all missiles that have it should get it in the sim. However the 120s still grab chaff (i.e. you CAN recommit into them before they pass), but ED messed with the coefficients there so they will do so much, much less than before. So the new notching mechanics are not just due to the realistic memory mode of the missile, but also a very significant buff in chaff resistance. From all i have seen so far the current 120B is like last patches 120C in that regard, which as we both know was already considered a very nasty missile mainly due to its strong chaff resistance.

Range and the minimum amount of maneuvering required to beat the missile is measurable at all times, so the effectiveness of the missile there is not so dynamic. If we are just talking about ability to defeat the missile non kinematically (notching/chaff), you can roughly measure the amounts of mistakes someone can get away with relative to other missiles/previous implementations of the AMRAAM. This room for mistakes has massively reduced, and against AI or someone that does not have perfect SA, enough chaff left, isnt prepared to defend (unlike in these test missions), the PK within a few miles head on is going to be pretty much 100% with the new chaff rejection. The amraams last patch were not so flawless at tracking through chaff, especially the B. If the goal of the recent update was to increase the PK at close distance on the average bandit (AI included) drastically to close to 100 percent, then yes, reasonable. PS: I dont think the average casual pilot is more interested in a reasonable effectiveness or a realistic one. Better missiles, especially when the opponent cant carry them (like in singleplayer campaigns) let those players get away with less practice/tactics or knowledge of missiles/methods of defeating them and focus more on easier, (for those players more fun) tasks like managing avionics. So in short, imo if you ask people here about if they like the new missiles, they will give you positive feedback on any buff of their missiles and dislike anything that will require them to do more work instead of the missile.

You could run the same tests with the old missiles and get the same result, given a specificly skilled/unskilled pilot. If youre already beaming slowly, you can defeat 99% of amraam launches at even close distances, no matter how high the chaff rejection is. Overall people in MP have improved their notching skills simply out of necessity due to it being the only method to deal with magic INSed phoenixes etc. So you will get different results on average with the exactly same missiles. The 10nm comment makes no sense. 10nm against a low target is nowhere even near the no escape zone for both 120B and C. For the DCS AIM-54, sure. The new AIM-120 is a wish-you-dead weapon against some players and will practically never kill someone with a ton of practice (and you will need to use an AIM-9+Guns to finish him). Certainly the amount of players that will die to it 100% of the time has multiplied with this new patches chaff rejection. I dont think AI can successfully defeat the new missile within a few miles at all. Or even at longer ranges, since it has not been updated to deal with the new effective ranges and ends up flying right into the missile.

DCS 2.5.4 DCS 2.5.5/2.5.6 -> Мах 5. Быстрее чем ракеты Википедия даже. Нигде эта ракета меньше летит и убивает.

Конечно они прекрасные ракеты, как и были перед разработке. Вы говорили о плюсов и минусов, что шанс попадание останиться одинаковый. А где новые минусы? Ракета ни в одной ситуации хуже стала. Только лучше.

Я не могу представить даже одну ситуацию, где новые AIM-120 хуже чем раньше (несколько месяцев назад). В ближнем бою - маневрируют как Р-73. Нотч - стал на много тяжелее, значит на малый дальности ракета попадает около 100%. Дальность возможных пусков тоже на никакой высоты не уменьшилась, и там где тоже самая (<1км), ракета стала такая опасная на скоростях <М1, что надо остоватся в защите дольше. Русские самолеты сейчас против носителях AIM-120C даже Р-27/Р77 стрелять не могут, даже если стрелок AIM-120 не маневрирует. AIM-120C просто убивает перед попадание Р-27, и до максимальный дальности Р77 добраться не возможно. Против AIM-120B тоже самое, если носители 120B на правильных высотах летают. Несколько месяцев назад было совсем по-другому. Пуск было возможно выполнить против AIM-120B и C. Против C (которая в реалье существовала 10-20 лет после русских самолетах в DCS) конечно тяжело и не честно, ну возможно. Опасности 120B и русских ракет были даже очень сравнимые. Где новые минусы? В практике только плюсы. Раньше стрелять по истрибителе >50км было безполезно, где батарея или потерь корректурах сейчас могут быть факторы.

On my screen, some of the last AMRAAMs were missing. On the hosts (and shooters) screen, the missile was hitting its target. This was while attempting to notch them with the new modelling. Might be connected to https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4369681&postcount=8061 Host track http://www.filedropper.com/server-20200604-211435 Perfect_1v1_mission_V1.1-20200605-033110.trk My track (Spectator slot)

I have seen the named DCS EWRs detect large aircraft from way further out than small ones. I dont think 400km max range has to mean 400km against a fighter sized target.

This patch did not change AMRAAM range at all. SD-10 is maybe 2% ahead in range, way easier to notch and smokey.

To add to this, this was made a few weeks ago. Supporting that missile and surviving there was possible under exactly these conditions >9/10 times with some practice. If you think that the probability is not massively different, then try this shot and maneuver within 10km. I would be suprised if you could even survive this 1/50 times now. PS: This is the new 120B. Notice the earlier and longer defense, slower speed than the one above.

The probability of it missing is multiple times lower, especially with AIM-120B. Either the new calculations do not work and the new, extremely low coefficients are being read like with the old calculations, or the testing was perhabs biased. You can either roll back the version to compare it or just compare the current AIM-120B to the current R-77 (which still uses the old model/chaff coefficient). Start your tests within 5nm at 1000kph and go down to 300. Starting at 800kph (higher practice, higher possible speed) you could defeat the old 120B very reliably. What you will find is that, the new 120B will have practically a near 100% probability of kill on anything moving faster than 500 kilometers per hour, and thats on above averagely skilled pilots. I assume that this is not the intention since Chizh says

When unsupported, the DCS AIM-120 is scripted to find the target at 15km, even when the target is 90 degrees below the missile, so there its infinite. EDIT, I WAS WRONG ABOUT THAT ABOVE PART. They just instantly find their targets. When shot at very close range and many degrees off the nose, the missile will turn to the target better than even R-73, so it seems that after the launch its radar gimbals are also close to infinity. EDIT, I WAS HALF-WRONG. After more testing i found that they just pull 20G at even Mach 1. Comes close to or even outperforms DCS R-73 in a dogfight, but the gimbal limitations are not violated because the missile just instantly snaps towards the target without any problems.

Starting this patch, Su-27 datalink has all contacts suddenly appearing, and dissappearing randomly (hot on AWACS, not maneuvering) irregularly, every 20 seconds on average. This is new, but i have not done any testing to see the exact patterns, but i am 99% sure that its not lag related since it happened on a near empty aswell as on a near full server. It starts right after takeoff in this track. https://gofile.io/d/4u226s

Youre acting as if there are only negatives. There is also ground clutter (windmills, cars, moving boats, birds etc.) that the missile can pick up. In DCS it will not, you need to drop chaff. Chaff will also only spoof the missile from 8 miles. IRL according to ED radars should drop lock due to chaff (even outside the notch), allowing you to notch missiles even earlier and more reliably at times. A lot of chaff in the air should also desensitize missiles, so it should perhabs be even easier to notch in that spot. Also, actives in DCS dont benefit from radar support. By your standpoint this means that after fixed, they should be as good and require as precise notching/chaffing (or a notch at all) on their own, and then be near undefeatable when supported by an STT lock. The truth is obviously that hust like with the Semi-actives (according to chizh), EDs modelling is an average and they took supporting radar into account. So the real amraam/finished amraam in a few months will be weaker, easier to chaff on its own, but harder to notch/chaff with a radar also guiding it in SARH. Although as said before, radars go for chaff too. Ones like F-14B/MiG-29A probably easier than our mid-2000s F-18s/JF-17.

Why do i never see you asking for the downsides of more realistic tracking? Like AMRAAMs not tracking reliably when there are mountains in the backround. It doesnt seem like youre interested in a specific, most realistic set of down- and upgrades, but rather buffs and buffs until the missile is undefeatable. This is generally an issue im seeing with these threads. People seem to want better performing missiles no matter what, and scientific evidence is usually hand-picked to feed the bias. Im glad to see that ED, in these threads often represented by Chizh, is not falling for it unlike some 3rd party developers unfortunately. This doesnt mean ED does not have its own interests, the neglecting of russian equipment, from AI SAM systems to air to air missiles is absolutely ridiculous, but thats a different topic.

But this is not true. With AIM-120B the maximum range at high altitude has increased to pre-2.5.5 AIM-120C level. AIM-120C on the other hand can theoretically kill a target from 200+km and still arrives at mach 3.5. This was not possible before either. This track shows a 200km 120C having by far enough energy to hit the guy, arrives at faster speed than AIM-54. AIM-120C_200km_Mach3.5.trk This track shows an 80+km AIM-120B on a flanking target. Arrives almost at the same time as AIM-54. Completely impossible with the old AIM-120B, even old AIM-120C would have much trouble to achieve this (you can test in versions prior to 2.5.5 to confirm this). This also exceeds the 70km wikipedia sales figure value. AIM-120B_arrives at 80+km.trk It seems to be as Blackpixxel mentioned a little above, at least over 40.000 feet. The only limiting factor seems to be battery life. But why is it 80 seconds if the missiles can reach 200-250km by design? If the reason is truly just INS drift, this creates many more questions. Why is the public focus with newer missiles like meteor the engine, when battery life is really the biggest issue? Why does the 1970s AIM-54A have a so much better battery, is size more important than technology there?

There is no data. At close distances some aircraft radars should even cause an active missile launch warning, among tons of other things. I dont care avout that. Just please model the Jf-17 radar consistently with the rest of the sim. This is by far not the only issue (hot/cold detection/tracking modelling incomplete, undefeatable tracks unless you notch or mask) but still a relevant one.

The JF-17 radar shows up way stronger than all other DCS fighter radars on RWRs that detect range, like the F-15s or more clearly the SPO-15 on Su-27. The F-15 and F-16 go from one bar from full to full bar nails/STT at around 15km on the SPO-15. Even the F-14 does it below 20km. It seems weird that JF-17 radar has such a powerful output when it should be comparable to F-16. Would be nice if this could be investigated.

Read title. Hornet radar STT/nails on SPO-15 for example goes from 1 from full to full bars at 26km. Its below 15 or so for the eagle/F-16, 18 or so even in F-14B. server-20200523-215652 (1).trk This is not the case with the AI F-18C lot20. Seems to have been introduced this update.

Well you can easily recreate it. F-15 at mach 1.5, 46000 feet, headon E-3 at 32.000 or so set to no reaction to threat. Launch at 190 kilometers, missile impacts at 53km distance and mach 3.4. Only misses due to battery life.

It didnt record the track but created a tacview. It doesnt seem like i can share tacviews via the forum file upload. http://www.mediafire.com/file/rgmae7eopzbpnwq/Tacview-20200523-163419-DCS.zip.acmi/file Anyway this is the tacview. 190km DCS AIM-120C with mach 3.4 on arrival.

I just posted one with AIM-120C doing the same. This is weird. Would like Chizh to explain.