Harlikwin

Not pick nits, but something in that caption is wrong as the aim-9L program didn't exist in 71, or that is not a 9L (doesn't really look like one with that nose). And yeah I'll take it up with the museum. But at any rate, there was a ton of effort invested in the early years of most IR seeking missile programs not having them lock "warm" things on the ground, rather what they were supposed to lock (warm things in the air). So most early IR missiles should have this "feature" even if it was considered a "bug" back then.

Well #1 the aim9B got fixed really nicely (Awesome and thank you), with that null in there it actually works super well (and now has the distinction of being the only entirely working 9b in all of DCS) #2 When I briefly tested it the 9J/P still did the autolock. Basically should work like the 9B but can be uncaged with the (300/600 button) so that they will track within the gimbal limits before firing, allowing you to pull lead for the missile in close combat. And also the seeker IFOV on the 9J is 2.5deg instead of the 4 deg of the 9b. (basically how the 9P works on the F5E) #3 The 9J/JULI, Honestly IDK if the JULI on the F1 can autolock or not, if it can, then that would be plane side weapons computer integration much like radar pointing. The 9L seeker is theoretically capable of both being cued by radar, and autolocking, but I don't know if it was ever integrated onto the mirage F1 that way. Given how basic the F1CE weapons computer is at a guess probably not. Also #4 The 550 should autolock in a wide search pattern, but then when the 300/600 button is depressed it should run a narrow pattern at the boresight. (This is to make sure you lock the right guy in a furball) At any rate if Aerges fixes 1 missile a month I'm a happy camper. Esp if its done well like the 9B was.

Yeah this would be a major boon if it got fixed for MP servers.

Yeah its a real thing and actually what causes the "snake" behavior of the earlier missiles. The optical system is an inverted cassegrain system so the dead center of it has a small dead spot between the secondary and the focus where the "reticle" is (not pictured). That's why there is a null. When the missile guides is basically steering the target lets say left/right through this null which is why it snakes back and forth as you can see in some actual videos. ED doesn't model that but you can see it clearly in the vids. And at any rate thats an ED issue not a Aerges issue, and honestly not a major one, though it does reduce the Aero range slightly for the missile which may be accounted for anyway. Next steps are to fix the Aim9J/P behavior as those should not autolock as they do now (look at the F5E for correct behavior). They would use the (uncage button on the throttle to do it) Also fixing the 550 behavior (which does autolock) but the uncage switch in that case returns it to boresight. And of course fixing the 550 seeker to be rear aspect (PbS seeker), and the 530IR (InSb) to be limited all aspect.

Yeah its pretty common on many missiles to do this as power source since you can also generate gas for pneumatic control of flight surfaces at the same time.

IIRC its 60 secs for the R-24, so not unreasonable. No idea on the ER/ET tho, I'd imagine it might be more, but depends on how its powered.

Yeah so currently its still broken. It should be a limited all-aspect seeker head (useful for head on shots vs supersonic targets). Currently its working like a rear aspect only missile. Seeker range and missile range in that regime is very short unfortunately. Its already been reported (basically looks like the 550 got the all aspect seeker and the 530 got the rear aspect, when it should be the other way around). So hopefully since they just fixed the 9B, the 550/530 thing will be next along with fixes to the 9J.

Awesome work on the aim9b, it works as it should now. The seeker null is a super nice touch as well! Thanks! And I look forward to updates to the other missiles.

I just tested the new patch, and basically the Aerges F1 implementation is correct and how it should work on the F86, F5, Mig19, etc. They even added that seeker null which is a nice touch on their part.

So how it should work for all planes because the 9B wasn't a fancy missile (as detailed in the links) missile has 4 degree IFOV, when in range at rear of target it gets tone within this 4 degree IFOV. Pilot then depress firing trigger, seeker uncages, missile fires .8sec later (as detailed in the additional chart in the F86 bug report). How it currently works on various planes in DCS So on the F86 it auto uncages, i.e. it sees the heat source in the 4degree IFOV, then without firing the seeker tracks it within the gimbal limits of +/- 25 or 30 whichever you have it set to. For the F5E, it actually works correctly aside from the fact you can hit the "uncage" button which uncages it like the 9P/P5 which is incorrect (yes I know what the -34 says, but its wrong since every other tac manual about the 9b says it cannot be uncaged) For the Mirage F1, same as the F86 For the Mig19 same as the the F86 (While the rest of the R3S was modified, the only information I can find in Russian sources indicates the seeker worked like the 9B and the firing sequence was the same) Works correctly on the Viggen pre-launch (Rb24), however post launch the missile doesn't track correctly (same as earlier bug on the 9b that was fixed, I assume since the rb24 is a separate missile it didn't get fixed) As the sources say the 9E was the first USAF missile capable of uncaging (and 9G with SEAM for the navy). ETA Heh just read the change log, looks like Aerges has fixed the 9b to work as it should.

Speaking of missiles and priorities, can you guys take a look at the aim9b, I know its not exactly a sexy missile, but its broken across several modules right now to include 2 of ED's. Basically you guys have it autolock and uncage. Where IRL it only uncaged once the firing sequence started for 9B and for the very early 9A after it was only after it was fired. This behavior is also broken on the F1, and mig19 but I know those aren't your modules.

Yeah I think it got temporarily deleted. I'm sure it will be back soon.

IDK, I flew a bit after the latest patch and I Think the worst spots for me around Ushiao were generally at least better FPS wise.

In general gas ingestion issues are pretty well known and documented for different airframes, the F1 has "protection" for this modeled, or did before the last patch, it seems to be missing currently.

IDK I think turning stuff like the HMD or Link16 on/off server side would be far more impactful for MP servers.

ZOMG how did I not know this was a thing, it looks amazing!

So ED is gonna make us some good F16A Blk10 or 15, and F15A's right?

Yeah I'm not worried. It's like 1 month into EA.

I haven't noticed that. Though I wonder about it overall when compared to other wingtip modules like the F5.

Yeah, so at high alt the light comes on and the plane blows up, but something weird is happening if you get it to low alt fast enough. Yeah IDK at what speed it actually blows up at, but its probably a bit low at sea level.

Yeah 1100 was in a dive per F2 bar, I also hit M2.0 or near it per the internal speedo once, you gotta be careful cuz at some point you do blow up and the speedo doesn't go past 900 or whatever it is but the mach indicator does. I honestly can't remember if the LIM light ever came on. Its pretty easy to replicate, I was doing it on the SA map, start at 30k be supersonic at start, dive like 20/30 deg. you gotta be careful cuz at some point like over m1.4/1.6 you start loosing control authority esp in roll. But if you are careful you can pull it out near the deck if you don't dive too steep. Just starting at sea level subsonic (SA map default settings) (clean full fuel load) you can just put it in burner and get it to 1.4 maybe even higher (I had to back off due to an uncommanded roll to the left). Given that that speed record for sea level is like m1.3 with that race modified F104 IDK, 1.4 seems a bit optimistic (and it was still climbing slowly when I throttled back). No idea on your survitesse bump thing. IDK I figure either something is off with overall drag for the model at high speeds or maybe the engine.

Honestly the aside from the overspeed stuff I quite like the FM, the shakes around m1.2 are interesting, the nose hunting around some near the transonic is intersting, and idk how real or not the lack of stability or "coupling" is but it certainly gives the F1 a very different "feel" vs some other modules that seem far more on rails.

Do you think like 1100 at sea level is too fast cuz it can be done in a dive. I've managed near m2 coming in from a dive and holding at sea level. I've gotten to m1.4 at se level with a clean jet accelerating from subsonic which seems off as well. It does make some scary noises at m1.2 but it will push thru.

Yeah this is basically correct. Its actually a function of contrast at range and the wavelengths you are using and then accounting for atmospheric transmission/absorption in those windows as well as overall target size/emissivity and reflectivity. So for example you are gonna have more absorption in the LWIR band than the MWIR band but you will be able to see "cooler" objects better in LWIR. Typically these days most military TGP's/IRST's are using sensors that see in LWIR or MWIR, or increasingly dual/multiband band sensors (I.e. PIRATE is a dual band IRST) and the tomcat AN/AAS-42 IRST was either MWIR though later LWIR. And of course aircraft signature is going to depend on aspect rather heavily as well as speed which gives rise to airframe heating and at supersonic speeds you also get signal from the bow shock (I've got a neat picture of that somewhere). At any rate anything fast at high altitude is basically the perfect detection case, i.e. you have a perfect contrast background vs "space" which is cold, you have much less atmosphere and humidity to work through, and your target if its fast is giving off a strong signature in the MWIR/LWIR bands. So for example you can see the SR-71 from crazy long distances, but that basically tells you almost nothing of that sensors performance in other use cases. I.e. you get major SNR reductions and false positives when the background is either clouds or looking down at the earth. Or detecting stuff at lower altitudes due to humidity and atmospheric absorption etc. Most early (pre-90's) IRST's had significant issues in look down scenarios or dealing with stuff like clouds because the signal processing tech of the day was basically either non existent or very primitive.

Something on the plane needs to blow up well before 1000kts....