Harlikwin

Oy that 140 number again. I think this is weird mistranslation/frenchism and it refers to the angle off engagement envelope of the Magic 1. I.e. 70 deg R/L of the rear of the target, which is a very typical engagement range for cooled PbS seekers (i.e. Aim9D-P). And works with that rear 3/4 engagement mentioned as well. As for SEAM, honestly I don't know how typical or not it was. During the 70's it was only a feature on the navy sidewinders (Aim-9G/H and later 9L) the USAF sidewinders totally lacked that capability till the 9L. And soviet missiles generally did not have it at all, with the possible exception of the R-13M1 which ostensibly was designed as a "dogfight" missile. The R60/60M could be cued by radar or HMS though. I have seen a few webpages highlighting that the magic2 could be radar slaved which again implies the Magic1 couldn't. And in the combat employment manual for the Mirage F1 there is nothing to suggest that the 550 is radar cueable or that it has a SEAM type "mode" (it does specifically call out the 530IR as having a radar slave capability).

Yeah it would make sense if they had similar interfaces. But likely you couldn't use all the magic2's fancy tech i.e. slaving the seeker to radar etc without some additional integration work. Or stuff like a SEAM mode. I can't find much on Magic1 if the seeker could be cued by radar or if it had something like SEAM. Like for example the aim9J and most 9P's you couldn't do either.

We don't have the correct variant for it. Iraqi EQ.2 or .4 did. .6 for sure, but those were never delivered. At any rate we don't have an EQ even if the devs wanted to do one, no docs.

Radar performs too well TBH... But the list of coming improvements looks to include some granularity to the "noise" animations which should hopefully make it worse in the situations it should be bad. Its a bit basic relative to what raz did for the m2k, but like go fly that at low alt without the A filter, or look down with it, and thats a bit more of what this should work like. From the few images of the radar I have, it should be worse in lookdown, almost clean looking up, and probably pretty bad at low alt.

Do you happen to know if the seekers were also improved between early/late variants of the 530, either the radar one or the IR one.

Will we get some Aim7E4 and Aim9G/H/D for the older US F14? Same question for the IRAF bird Aim7E2? and Aim9J (no seam on that one)

Raygun raygun ITs coming back on MP servers. Too bad alot of planes in CW don't have much in the way of RWRs

No, thank you for pushing this fwd.

I dropped it in the russian misisle thread. Here is the link. Also sent stuff to Chiz

Its pretty easy/clear to see the new 530 has prox fuse, and big explosion. Maybe just harder to see the smaller missiles do it. I'd imagine the phoenix should be huge as well but maybe there are issues with it going too fast.

So elevation is currently bugged, either get co-alt with targets or use the delta-D mode (not E which is default) and realize that "1" will not mean 1k feet, rather 10k... Best results are on either the 15 or 35nm scale. On high closure rate targets.

Its nice to be appreciated

So yeah the A/G functionality of this is not actually implemented in DCS AFAIK. IRL its basically a fuse setting to turn off the prox fuse and just use the impact fuse since the missile is hitting something, or the ground next to something. As the story goes the soviets tried to use R60 or R60M. In Afghanistan against the Mujahedeen. The use case for something like this is pretty limited but plausible. Basically at night you aren't gonna have a lot of ground signal in that part of the spectrum that these seekers are sensitive to since alot of that is basically reflected in that part of the spectrum. The big thing being that engines or more likely the hot parts of "engine exhaust" will be detectable due to sufficient "contrast" since the ground is now "cold" (so you gotta wait till like right before sunrise for ideal results as this is when the ground will be coolest. So as the story goes the soviets used the seekers to find "trucks" running "dark" and then shot the missiles at em. Or as someone else mentioned they probably dropped flares so they could actually see something first, or maybe both. Similar stories also exist for US missiles in VN as well as other conflicts. Angola comes to mind as well. Also just take anything subs says with Mt. Everest grain of salt... The R60/60M seekers while quite advanced and beating the west to the punch for limited all aspect capability, succeeding where china lake failed. The R60/60M were advanced for the day but in no way do they "image" anything they just detect a "hot" signal and they use a conventional photocell/seeker layout pretty similar to say mid gen sidewinder missiles.

mig 23 on 2-23-23 or maybe 3-23-23

The real answer to that question is "it depends". But yeah skin heating/bow shock are both things that improve contrast for MWIR seekers, not really a big deal for older PbS seekers tho. Engine aspect (where you can see the nozzle from) is also a big deal, if you look at certain "stealthy" designs like the F22/35 etc you will note the nozzle is hidden by the tail surfaces from alot of angles. And then you have more modern stuff having IR coatings to prevent unwanted reflections etc. It would be cool if the new IR model captured stuff like "skyshine" and "ground shine" as well.

Lol indeed. Speaking of IR missiles, when will they stop seeing through clouds? I realize this is related to the fact the clouds don't actually "exist" in the game somehow but its been like over a year at this point.

Awesome, thanks.

I figure someone knows how to do this. But basically I wanna know how to make a throttle curve that will match my physical throttle AB notch for a given AC. Most AC I either have to be "physically" in burner to get 100% mil, or just under the AB notch for it. Is there way to tweak the throttle curves so I can adjust this?

Well I run VR, and finger trackers so clicking in the pit is pretty natural actually. Where it falls apart in some cases is that you have no "haptic feedback" and the tracking isn't quite 1:1. So stuff like that lil switch by the throttle (also obscured by the throttle in some cases) becomes basically impossible to use when IRL its finger flick away. So that's the kind of stuff I tend to "map" beyond just the throttle/stick binds. I actually use the Clickable FC3 mod, and while its not the most realistic thing its also FAR better than having nothing to click in the pit and relying on Kbd commands for FC3.

Its not actually. IIRC the 106 IRST used a PbSe seeker which gave it halfway decent MWIR capability. Kinda like the soviet R60/R60M series.

So. I think there this alot of misunderstanding about the sidewinder family and its development history. I think alot of people assume it goes A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,J, L. etc. And munge features together with the logic if missile A had it surely the next missile did too cuz its "better". The reality is that there was the 9B (and a few different subtypes of it). And then the family tree broke off into the AF and Navy chains (and eventually Army, and foreign chains). Basically the Navy went with the China Lake developed missiles with gas cooled detectors, better motors, and advanced features like SEAM. So you basically have the Navy chain looking like 9B, 9D, 9G (first SEAM), 9H The AF didn't like China lake, and went with a different contractor. So they had the 9B, the 9E, and the 9J and later 9N and the various 9P series. All the AF missiles were peltier cooled and the 9E could uncage the seeker which is a good feature. But no documentation I've seen suggests the AF missiles had the ability to use SEAM prior to the 9P-5. Thats right the 90's era 9P-5 is the first missile of that series that I've seen documented proof that it had SEAM. The 9L and M were derived from the 9H and built by china lake, so in that case those of course do have SEAM. The 9J is specifically called out as not having SEAM on the tomcat which was of course designed to use the Navy versions of sidewinders. And of course the difference between gas cooled missile pylons and adapting those for electrical supplies for the 9J (Peltier cooled) must have been "fun" for the Iranians. And similarly I think adapting whichever version of the 7E the Iranian phantoms had to the Iranian cats was probably not fun either.

Well there is a pretty big difference in IRCM "effectiveness" vs soviet flares between the first few models (up to -6) and then the subsequent ones. It might be nice to split those subtypes out (early/late) or something for 80's vs 90's and onwards scenarios.

Heh, never thought to check the actual 3D skin... 9M-9 it is then

Yeah the mirage is pretty sporty with just the wingtips, surprisingly so given its overall low TWR, but I guess its pointy. But yeah any sort of other stores slow it down considerably.

Interesting, so is there a hit probability difference between say an Aim-9B fired toward a lower alt target at low altitude and an Aim9M? Because I can't think of a time where I've used a missile and it tracked the ground instead of the plane. I have seen them go for the sun though. (also which one of the many versions of 9M are you guys simulating? Pre 9M-6 or after?)