stefasaki

took a bit of time but here's the track, it's a bit longer than most bug tracks but it's the first engagement anyway so I think it should work for you. I think I found the culpirt anyway: in this case the missile exploded exactly as the lateral distance was 15 meters, the total distance was higher however as the missile was offset also vertically (and above the stated proximity fuze limit). Let me know if you need another track but I'm pretty sure this is the issue. I've been able to routinely perform this maneuver in both the flanker and the mig-29, you just need some rudder input to increase the roll rate. aim120_proximity_fuze_range_bug.trk

I also do that but that only applies to WVR, they don’t seem to pre-flare in BVR, they just react upon launch.

The su-27 is 22 meters long, the picture is taken in a way that distances are not distorted. It’s definitely not 15 meters or less…. I will provide a track anyway

@NineLine I'm sorry for the delay but I thought it could have been sorted out quicker. Here it is, hoping it helps. The moment I release an IR guided missile at BVR, AI reacts by dumping flares, rendering any launch at long range useless. Here the distance is 35 km but I'm pretty sure it would have worked even at longer ranges assuming I could get a lock (recalling that famous manual, 35 km is a bit low against a twin-engined, afterburning target at mach 2 but this is a separate issue...). The enemy AI logic is set on CAP, I specify this as if the enemy is not looking for me it won't react in the same way... is it seeing my missile on its radar (and assuming it's an IR missile because the RWR is silent, just a guess)? either way, it is not realistic and it needs to be fixed because the gameplay is quite a bit influenced by this, especially if playing REDFOR. Thank you for your help AI_flaring_bug_at_long_range.trk

I noticed that avoiding AMRAAMs with this technique has become increasingly hard after the latest patch... the reason being a proximity fuze that triggers at 30 meters. I don't think this is accurate...

That is an asymmetric loading test conducted at high altitude. Shouldn’t happen with a clean aircraft and low altitude, as it’s now the case in DCS. It’s a typical airshow maneuver, which never resulted in a deep stall to my knowledge

Something drastic definitely happened, I came here specifically to check if anyone else noticed it... I went from comfortably avoiding any IR missile, including -9X's, with careful positioning and flares dispensing to dying consistently and unavoidably to IR missiles. This is breaking all my missions, please ED do something.

We’re not talking about the famous AOA-roll here related to syncing issues in MP, this also works in SP.

I think it’s a delay in the tracking logic. They did talk about introducing a delay in tracking some time ago, likely almost a year. I bet it works since then, even though I discovered it only a few months ago. Then it would be working as intended, or they need to tweak this delay.

I won’t be home for a few days but I do have a video on my phone if you can’t wait. Works perfectly even in single player, it’s just harder to pull off.

This has been an issue for quite some time. A 9g loaded roll will trash a head on AMRAAM even without using chaffs. It’s simply not needed. Works best at high altitude and speed against any AMRAAM with whatever energy, it actually works better if the missile is above Mach 2, so that it will be g-limited while maneuvering. I’ve actually been exploiting this glitch for a while, I was hoping that no one would report it it’s been a fun trick to master.

Hello, I've been having this issue since the 2.9.7 update even though no one else seems to be noticing it, or maybe it's just my pc for some reason. Anyway, enemy AI reacts to Fox 2 missiles in BVR fights unrealistically, dumping flares as soon as the missile is launched (again, beyond visual range), even though they could not be possibly aware of the launch. For those who have been here for some time this is nothing new, it's a recurrent issue that some DCS builds have. This bug basically renders the R-27ET useless in a PvE environment. Is anyone else experiencing this problem? If it's a widespread problem it'd be nice to have it resolved swiftly (as ED did multiple times) as it's a pretty bothersome nuisance. I could provide a .trk but I'm pretty sure you are all familiar with the problem. Thank you and keep up the good work!

I understand that this airport is very far from important areas and it's not even easily shown in the F10 map, however there's some beautiful terrain around and I love to fly there. Well, since the last update, there's trees in the middle of the runway and what used to be a river just before the runway is now a river colored hill. Aerodromo O'Higgins has a similar issue, albeit less serious: some trees are very close to the runway and I am pretty sure that's not the case in real life. I don't think these issues have already been reported but I do apologize in case they have. Keep improving the map and happy new year! below two screenshots for reference

It’s most likely at ISA +5 which is the standard dcs day. However temperature does not have an effect on the eagle in the game and its performance is mostly consistent with a -10 day on the charts. This also explains the mach 2.606 max speed that we have on a clean eagle in the game. The eagle’s flight envelope is accurate enough I think, there are much bigger differences for other airframes. It would just need a dependency on temperature (which has a huge influence)

Please turn down the passive aggressiveness, I was not attacking you in any way. I just gave an example about fatigue in aluminum, the main material for fighter jets. I just stated the fact that if something breaks at X force after about 10^5 cycles then it should break at 2X at the first cycle (18 is the double of 9 and forces on the airframe scale linearly with g's if the weight and configuration is the same). @Spurts Yes I was implying 10 cycles per hour, seemed reasonable for a fighter jet... I guess it depends on what we agree a cycle is. My comment was merely there to put numbers about fatigue stresses, it is not directly related to any aircraft but it applies well to a wing spar for instance. If we were to consider 10^4 cycles then the ultimate strength should be about 30% lower than the original.