Max1mus

I have not seen the pilot get killed either as much (if at all) as you would expect from a missile hitting the front of your aircraft. It never rips a wing off or anything. There is no way this is the desired, final result, right? The time it takes for systems to fail is long enough to kill the one who fired at you.

I have noticed that the F-14 has a very tanky behaviour when it comes to the damage it takes from air to air missiles. I have been told that the F-14 damage model is superiour to others because it does not immedeatly explode on impact, but instead looses parts over time. However, the way this is implemented seems a bit off. For example, a direct hit by a single AIM-120B or C will not disable the tomcat beyond combat effectiveness pretty much 99% of the time and often not even produce smoke. It is common practice for F-14 pilots in multiplayer to survive the deadly shot to then merge with the opponent and take him out with an AIM-9. A second 120 however will always damage it sufficiently. This may not worry the ones who fly it in singleplayer, it may actually please them since they can survive engagements more often than in any other aircraft. However, for the very active multiplayer community, the majority of which does not exclusively fly it or has to deal with this problem despite not even owning the airframe, this is a game-breaking issue. Are there plans to change this? Is this something ED has to fix (like the ghost AIM-54 that are created upon breaking radar support)? Is this something you could temporarily change until ED has fixed it?

How do you know the chart is for the A/B? It would certainly make sense to brief MiG-29 pilots to expect the most modern versions, even if they are perhabs still in development at the time (which would be the case for the 90s). EDs point of view on the issue seems to be that the chart represents the 120C5 since the DCS missile exactly meets the rMaxes shown in the chart.

rMax is defined in the chart at least in the headon section. It shows all POSSIBLE launches of AIM-120 against a slow or fast target. But even when ignoring it, it still does not add up. If our 120C is a -5, it should have a maximum range of 105km. With lofting with current DCS drag however, this can possibly be extended beyond that, making the maximum ranges at high altitudes lean more into 120D range. As far as IASTAGs work is concerned, he does not have more knowledge about missiles than ED and does not provide any clues about how the actual 120C-5 lofts, but instead tests specific scenarios and what ranges and results could be achieved. And his results provide a similar problem - the maximum range of 105km for the 120C5 would be greatly extended if the missile was modified to fit his imaginations.

Not really related to the R-27, but i found that the rMax of the DCS AIM-120C fits at least the frontal aspect ranges shown in the chart. If it would loft, the current DCS AIM-120C would surpass some of the ranges shown in the chart, as for example at 5000m. Have not tested at higher altitudes, but it seems highly likely that even the official 105km maximum range would be surpassed then. Does this mean that the chart does not take lofting into account, or is the DCS AIM-120 currently overperforming in some areas to make up for the missing loft? Or does the AIM-120C (block 5 im assuming) and 120B not loft at all?

<51P>Maximus <51P>Krippz Su-27, Maykop

In case you are a PvP-Player: Servers like blueflag give trainers special purposes. You are able to land and deploy crates, or collect intel and call in bombers, making them part of the logistics chain and therefor as important as any other aircraft. Their "benefit" there is that they are faster than helicopters.

<51P>Maximus Su33

If they are updating all missiles, there should be no reason for the R-27 family to not see some upgrades. Its possible that the ER and ET wont profit much, however the 27R and T should at least see some improvement. At the moment their no escape zone lies below the minimum range in most situations, making them practically worthless (although their maximum ranges are simulated properly).

<51K>Maximus MiG-21

Maximus - MiG-29S

Displaying PK as a % is bullshit, heres why. Missiles arent magic and have a random chance if they will hit or not. Nothing (except quantum particles) is random. You will never die to a BVR missile if you know all the parameters do everything correctly. Part of the issue is that you get to fly all aircraft you want in DCS, so you know the weaknesses of the missiles and how to abuse them. IRL, you often have no idea what an enemy missile type is actually capable of. IRL a flanker pilot doesnt know the range of an enemy AMRAAM and that he needs to turn cold at 15km to survive. But in DCS, good flanker pilots have flown the F-15 alot aswell and know exactly how the AMRAAM works and how to counter it. One example: An AIM-120 (It could even be the D type) is fired at a MIG-31 at <20 miles which is traveling at almost Mach 3. The AMRAAM developers would say: 90% PK. The 120 accellerates to mach 3-4 in the few seconds, then its out of fuel and glides. All the MIG has to do now, is turn cold. It will simply outrun the missile, a few turns will bleed enough energy off so it is below mach 3. TL;DR: DCS Missiles are O.K. they are not perfect but they come close to their IRL performance (kinetically, we have no idea how exactly modern jammers and countermeasures affect missiles). What really defines the chance if a missile will hit or not, is the enemy pilots skill.

I have seen the Aim-7 do loft maneuvers when i fired it... by my experience though, unless its a phoenix, when the missile is far enough away to loft, it is not going to hit a defensive fighter (unless he is AI or getting a sandwich).

The R-27R is simulated very well range-wise. Both videos show an rmax of 10-16km. Of course, the aircraft (especially the mig29) were traveling at a slow speed and lower altitude, but its comparable to what we get get in DCS. Another proof are german MiG-29 pilots (there is an interview on youtube with one of them aswell) described the R-27R as a low range, relaively useless weapon. Now why does the R-27R and T suck so hard? Well, when they were developed, most fights still happened WVR due to IFF limitations. So it just made sense to focus on superiour maneuvarability and the R-73 missile. Why do the russians use them in syria? Because due tp many countries aircraft operating over syria, the ROE are most likely limited in a way that makes long range missiles useless. Russia is not interested in shooting down an israeli or US aircraft by accident, and will most likely require pilots to visually confirm the targets before even THINKING about weapon use. So if all (possible) fights are limited to visual range anyway, why not just take only short range weapons anyway? If you are still in doubt, google the ethopian-eritrean war. Out of many air to air kills and launched R-27s, the R27 is only known to have hit a single mig29. Rest of the kills were made with the R-73. PS: Regarding missiles in DCS and why the mighty AMRAAM seems to be useless above 10 miles, remember that a missile with rMax of 50 miles doesnt actually travel 50 miles. It gets launched at mach 1.5 on an aircraft traveling towards the missile at mach 1.5. It also explains why the SLAMRAAM (Aim120) SAM variant has such a low range.