Max1mus

tempMission.miz.trk Well, like here for example. A 190km AIM-120C arrives at mach 3+ (higher speed than AIM-54 btw). And this is still a somewhat moderate altitude and speed, F-15 can go higher and faster and the target could also be higher. Is this normal?

Why is all the talk going on about ramjet motors etc. on newer missiles when the real issue is battery life then? The (NEW, not old) DCS AIM-120C can achieve official ranges given by Meteor manufacturers without any ramjet engine or delayed motor burn of some sort. At least over 40.000 feet.

My very uninformed guess is that at altitudes above 40.000 feet weird stuff starts happening and ED needs to use battery life to limit ranges so missiles dont reach targets at Meteor/R-37 ranges there. Im probably wrong. Would be nice to hear it from ED since these missile changes are an ongoing process that is not logged in the changelog mostly either, which is quite annoying since it requires the community that doesnt want to get left behind to re-test/know people on discord that test and look for possible changes each update.

Question: Do AIM-120 have a similar issue right now? You can easily make them "kill" things 250+km out, only battery life prevents that. Is the 80 second battery life the limiting factor of AMRAAMs at extremely high altitude in real life or is this a current DCS limitation?

From the streams it seems that you guys were among the most well prepared. Your positioning alone made the difference and forced blue to make decisions (and allowed the center and north groups to hit hard). Since it was 18v12 at least 6 people were going to end up with no kills one way or another. I guess by chance it just happened to be you.

Title says everything. I land at Tunb airbase on an MP server - game crashes, twice in a row. BlueFlag - Persian Gulf v0.939 - F14 red.miz-dynamic-20200504-022423.trk [ATTACH]234718[/ATTACH] 2 Tracks are attached. My callsign ingame was Gryphon 33 | Maximus. BlueFlag - Persian Gulf v0.939 - F14 red.miz-dynamic-20200504-032208.trk

3 m^2 is tiny compared to all other DCS World modules. The F-16 and Mirage have 4. The F-15 has 5. The F-14 has 6. From my testing the RCS value also directly affects chaff rejection of missiles, so a too small value is not just a small influence on the detection range but can increase survivability quite a bit. Same with the infrared signature. The IR_emission_coeff_ab is 2.0. Thats the engine in afterburner. In the F-16 its 3.0. Is that intended? The coefficient for outside burners is exactly the same as F-16 (0.6), so that makes me wonder. Should the JF-17 be superior to the F-16 and more stealthy in those regards?

Gryphon 33 | Maximus GCI (red) If not allowed: MiG-21

League: SATAL Cold War Edition Squadron Name: Gryphon Squadron Discord: https://discord.gg/XUDr2FwD Discord Contact IDs: Maximus#4848, infected#3285, Amr#5906 Aircraft Selection: Su-27, M-2000C, F-18 Roster: Gryphon 5 | jerkq Gryphon 7 | infected Gryphon 8 | Lynxx Gryphon 11 | Phantom Gryphon 33 | Maximus Gryphon 45 | Themastrofall Gryphon 77 | Gandalf

League: Gold Squadron Name: Gryphon Squadron Discord: https://discord.gg/XUDr2FwD Discord Contact IDs: Maximus#4848, infected#3285, Amr#5906 Aircraft Selection: F18, J11, Su-27, F14, Jf17, F16. Roster: Gryphon 5 | jerkq Gryphon 7 | infected Gryphon 8 | Lynxx Gryphon 11 | Phantom Gryphon 33 | Maximus Gryphon 77 | Gandalf Gryphon 84 | Fish

(Public Source https://de.topwar.ru/163650-rakety-ili-muzejnye-jeksponaty-chem-rossijskie-istrebiteli-budut-voevat-protiv-zapada.html ) ( Public Source http://www.rusarmy.com/forum/threads/semejstvo-su-30.13065/page-27 ) ( Public Source http://www.rusarmy.com/forum/threads/semejstvo-su-30.13065/page-27 )

R-77 in DCS is the RVV-AE, and is very worthless relatively speaking. It was ready in 1994, same year as AIM-120B. AIM-120C is from the 2000s and another class of weapon. Take AIM-120C range in any given situation and divide by about 2, thats your R77 equivalent range. If you compare it to AIM-120B, you will find DCS R-77 to be about 65-70% of its range in any given situation. Chaff / notch resistance is roughly on par with AIM-120B, inferior to 120C. It is very smokey compared to both AIM-120, so expect people to spot the launch. R-27ER and R-27ET are your main weapons, use R-77 only together with them or in spots where neither are an option for some reason. If you are in such a spot, launch it within 8 kilometers hot, maybe a few kilometers higher if you have a tremendous altitude advantage (many thousand meters). If you want a good active missile (like R-77-1), ask ED to model russian fighters. Until then deal with soviet equipment that can not hold its own vs anything past the 90s.

Its off topic although you started it, but this list is incomplete. - Smaller radar cone - Difference in chaff resistance when supported in STT (properly) and unsupported (i.e. the thing not magically tracking everything, but possibly more like some SARH missiles that just go unrecoverably ballistic vs a barrel roll+chaff) - Different active seeker detection range, i.e. the missile never even finding the target if not supported with STT in some cases + missile going for chaff while looking (Su-27SK guide quotes difference in seeker lock on range between 40km for hot high bomber vs 1.5km for cold, lookdown, low RCS target). The way ED models chaff resistance from all i have seen is just an estimation, where Multiplayer or AI (programmed by ED) PK stats are used as evidence. The things you listed may make it overall more realistic, but if the 120s become undefeatable silver bullets you will see ED adjusting the other ECCM features like chaff accordingly to represent what they think are accurate hit chances. If you think that the missiles will somehow become more effective at doing the work for you, i am very certain that this will not happen as long as such changes are applied to all DCS missiles. I agree with previous posts pointing out things much more important than missile ranges. This 10-20% change in range that ED dedicated resources to has not changed anything major as far BVR combat goes, except that it has elevated 2 missiles (-7,-120) to a different standard, which for example makes all russian flyable fighters incapable to even fight back at all until ED adresses the russian missiles similarly. To name a few features DCS is missing that i consider much more important: - Finishing the missile API so that Deka Ironworks/HB can make their SD-10 (secondary boost stage)/54(seeker/F-14 radar support) more realistic and thus more in line with the simulator. - More MODERN russian/chinese AI air units to counter the 2000s DCS modules/missiles. - More MODERN SAM AI units along with better AI, overall organization to make JSOW/JDAM less of a point and click adventure (latter can currently not be shot down at all!) and require things like saturation attacks + SEAD to be used effectively.

I want to add that the ER also doesnt just keep following its course towards last known intercept point even WITHOUT chaff OR Jamming. This means that the missile can not hit a slightly flanking, not maneuvering target (with it being unsupported inbetween) even though it easily could if it just kept flying ballistically. I know that fixing the AIM-120 satisfies more customers, but in a simulator both sides need missiles modeled to the same level realisticially, or else DCS will be at the same level as a certain F-16 turkey shoot adventure. PLEASE fix this bug, unless the missile going pure when unsupported on a flanking target is intended.

League: SATAL Cold War Edition Squadron Name: Viper Squadron Discord: https://discord.gg/egEEhxN Contact person Discord ID: Viper 9 | Дефектор#8218, infected#3285 Aircraft Selection: Su-27, M-2000C, F/A-18C Pilot Roster: Viper 9 | Defector

To add to the topic: AIM-9P5 is smokeless, while the newer AIM-9L is not in DCS. Why so? Will this be corrected?

Viper 33 | Maximus - MiG-21

Viper Squadron JF-17, F-18, F-14, F-16 1. Viper 9 | Defector 2. Viper 11 | Phantom 3. Viper 13 | Le Hai 4. Viper 14 | ArkAngel 5. Viper 17 | Ruskov 6. Viper 52 | Fishmonkeh

Viper Squadron Blue side Viper 11 | Phantom F-16C/F/A-18C, ping 60 Viper 33 | Maximus F/A-18C, ping 131 If more of us want to participate, they will sign up in an additional post.

2 questions: Should the SD-10 have equal speed, but be less draggy than this AIM-120C-D shot in this F-35 demonstrator sim? It is identical to the same shot tested in DCS, you can easily replicate it: https://media.giphy.com/media/Su1B6wyiTCKkPAiMMO/giphy.gif Second question, during testing the SD-10 within <1km has shown to have off bore sight capabilities comparable to AIM-9X, making it a significantly better missile for dogfights than PL-5E II or R-73. Is this supposed to be this way?

I would like to criticise that contradicts from https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4006691&postcount=6

I believe you misunderstood my question. I referred to chaff resistance when i said tracking. I would simply like to know what reference you are using to decrease chaff effectiveness against the missile. Performance relative to the other DCS missiles, or some kind of real world reference. What do you exactly mean by:

Even the 1970s A version tracks significantly better than the AIM-7M, in some situations where AIM-7M supported by a massive radar dish up close fail to track at all, and thats even without accounting for desync making the missile appear in an entirely different spot, complicating defense for the target. It would be interesting to know what kind of sources heatblur uses to decide that both AIM-54A and C (without STT support by the launcher, only relying on their own small radar dish) should track more reliably than other, more modern missiles in the sim.

Simple question. Should the SD-10 outperform this AIM-120C/D shot? Because the current DCS version does, test it and count down the time and distance on impact if you want. And its not just AIM-120. It plays in an entirely different league drag wise than all DCS R-27, the Matra 530, the 77. It has a cold no escape zone on the deck between R-27ER and AIM-54. Somethings wrong.