Harlikwin

Yeah, I mean you can certainly smoke your hopeium if you got it, but honestly I'd be pretty surprised if it was out in Dec with like 0 hype/marketing. Which I'd assume we would see by now if it was happening.

I just want that FF mig-29

Any chance you guys can have this work independently of the Jeff, i.e. so we could have both the Jeff and this mod?

You got any info on the IFF interrogator?

I'm sure its aerodynamic stability. Same reason for the .5sec delay in the early sidewinders, they needed to be sure it was supersonic before unlocking the control surfaces.

Yeah IDK, I'd personally rather see the FF 25A just cuz it was so much more widespread.

Any historical snippets on how much G was available when it started manouvering and how it went from there till it got full G? Was that linear?

Yup. So it just depends if ED can actually code this correctly. The .5 sec flight delay should be fine since its the same as sidewinder. The variable G authority is gonna be a problem, since we have no info on how much it has to start, and how it gains it. A simple guess might be like 3G to start and then progressively more till 2.5sec Fusing delay. IDK this "should" be simple, but IDK if other missiles have it.

Great. Also, the Aim9P G values compared to the Aim-9J look off, 18 vs 22 respectively. I suspect this might be a legacy issue as in real life the 9P was developed from the 9J and I suspect the G values for the P should not be worse than the J. As the main changes to the 9P series were things like improving seeker electronics reliability, changing fusing types or engine types for some of them. But the control unit/actuators/fins didn't look to change much from the 9J. Also, can DCS model progressive maneuvering gain for missiles. I.e. the R530 should start with a low G capability, and only get its full 12ish G upon motor burnout. But IDK if you guys can actually model it.

Well... The 530IR is a limited all aspect missile so yeah its gonna be FAR easier. Its also currently overperforming in various ways, like no fusing delay and its G rate isn't being limited after launch like it should. And well, the seeker performance is likely not the best modeled RN but its the best ED can do. 9B you need to be within about 30 deg of the tail. it also has a null in the center of the seeker so hold off a bit to get tone, then shoot and realize it won't maneuver for like a half second. Right now as it stands in DCS, the Mirage F1 9B is the only one actually modeled well. The 530 IR still needs some work. I'm gonna assume youre an ECW guy.

So, It seems that the Rb24 and Rb24J are using a different set of parameters compared to the Aim9B and Aim9J. Could this get fixed since they are basically the same missiles for DCS purposes (the 9B and 9J are using the correct ones) the Rb24/24J are using older ones. Main issue being G loads, and maneuver delays.

Well, they have the -34 and SME's from like 3 different time periods of the eagle. Point being that they have those docs, and yeah its basically a 20 year old plane at this point. Do I think everything on it will be right? Nope, my bet again, missing certain systems/capabilities that make it a good gen 4.5 fighter. The one I'm really waiting for from the is the 23, which they have all the docs and SME's for and they can do 100% right within the confines of DCS, which can model Gen3 fighters well. And I 100% agree with 3rd parties doing better than ED for some time now, the F14 is very good and the M2k radar is awesome. That being said, without ED fixing the cloud issue, no one is gonna model an IRST system, cuz it will see through clouds. Same thing for ground reflections and other false alarm issues that FLIR/IRST systems have. The false alarm rate on pirate when it first came out was legendarily bad, and it took some years to fix and thats with a ton of work on processing etc. Now, the job for HB is simpler, they just add some hopefully realistic clutter (not like the terrible job Raz did with the HST (though they couldn't really do better)), but to do that ED/maps need to have some sort of IR information embedded in them, where should that clutter be, based on time of day etc.

I'm not really sure about that. But at any rate, this is good info.

Yeah, that is pretty weak unfortunately. But I don't see ED fixing it anytime soon.

The part you are missing, are all the things that attenuate a laser signal, moisture, dust etc. and the fact the spot will loose power due to collimation issues. And then the seeker needs to see some minimum signal to guide on so the choice of target and how well its reflecting also matter. So there are multiple variables to how far Mr laser goes and is actually useful for things like GBU guidance. For legacy systems 8nm is a decent guess, more modern systems are better.

In terms of radar slaving while the Juli in theory is slavable since it has 9L DNA and therefore SEAM in theory. The problem is all that has to be integrated plane side, and IDK if it was. I haven't seen anything to suggest the 550 had this capability. In fact the French military brochures make a big deal out of the magic2 having this capability so it's pretty likely the magic1 didnt have it. Which tbh makes sense it's a short range dogfight missile.

Yeah who knows which version will come first.

Good to know. IDK if the ED API for missiles can actually deal with how the 530 works, but I'll let em know.

So speaking of the 530. Currently in game it basically manouvers with full G authority right off the rail. Thats wrong per the manuals. It only gets its full G authority after the engine burns out. Should I go ping Chiz about that or you want me to send it through you? Also any ETA on getting the uncage behavior for the 9J/9P/9Juli and the re-cage behavior fixed yet? They need to rework the whole system to actually model how the early limited all aspect missiles actually worked. Currently its about all they can do to make it more all aspect.

Aim-7 doesn't have a DL (at least the early ones, IDK about the last ones like the P). The earlier ones in fact were limited by radar TX power rather then their max aero ranges.

A better SPO-15 model is coming with the mig23. Along with a decent radar model. And hopefully a better IRST model. The FC3 IRST is "not good" to put it nicely.

I'm well aware of what changed between the 9G and H. But every servo figure I've seen suggests there were no changes like this between the 9J and the 9P. Also the fins remained the same between the 9J and 9P (even up to the much later 4/5 series). Its possible that there were some improvements like that though I just have seen 0 evidence of them. Also the USAF had a vested interest keeping the 9P viable for export in a downgraded state, so they wouldn't have used any "sekrit" tech from the 9L/M project. Though I suppose stronger actuators or more gas pressure wouldn't exactly be sekrit. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest the tech base for the 9J/P was ever impacted by the 9L/M program until much much later with the 9P4 seeker section which even then was different in the sense it was peltier cooled and not gas cooled like the 9L/M. The 9G to H switch with the thermal battery meant the gas generator just had more gas available to drive the actuators, it wasn't actually "changed". It was just there was more gas pressure available since it wasn't driving the turbo alternator anymore which tapped off some of the gas. And the 9L/M were built off the 9H tech base. While the 9J was developed off the 9E tech base that diverged from the 9B very early on.

Surprised I haven't seen this till now. Thanks for the write up. One thing if you happen to know it, where were the in-service dates for the various variants?

Yup, and while for that era some docs can be tricky/hard to find, we know they exist and they are generally "gettable" with the right level of research access. For anything modern say past 2000, its pretty iffy on most things, you might be able to find some data for some systems, but mostly the planes we have already have gaping holes in them systems wise and the systems that are modeled are generally not done well depending on the dev.

Not really, The early P/P1 used the Mk17 motor same as the J. The P2/3 used a reduced smoke SR-116HP-1 Thiokol motor. The main changes in the various marks of missile had to do with different fusing, different warhead composition and so forth, so more or less stuff that ED doesn't really model for missiles. Amusingly the notes I have claim the P series had improved maneuverability over the J. But the seeker/fin sections seem to be the same for all missiles afaik.