Harlikwin

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?)

One pro tip is to try to get co-alt with targets, change the azimuth to 30 degrees, range to 35 or less. To lock you need to keep pressing the lock button until it locks. Also the elevation controls are messed up, in delta D mode instead of 1 being 1000 ft, its 10,000. Its a known bug.

I bound some of the "panel" controls by the throttle, as well as some of the radar stick controls, since I don't have an actual radar stick. But in general I agree with you philosophically at least.

Honestly, the radar as currently modeled is actually most likely way too good. The main thing to understand is that this is not a pulse doppler radar. It is a pulse radar with MTI filtering, which has a bunch of consequences none of which are modeled, i.e. the radar will be blind to several speeds being a key one and it will have far more clutter than a PD radar (though pretty much all PD radars should have some clutter/false targets in some circumstances). In the case of the Cyrano you can find videos of it in actual use and you would be amazed how terrible that actually looks, its like trying to pick out an AC signal from clutter that is just as strong as that signal, I posed the vid in another thread a while back. Also pilot accounts basically credit the Cyrano with almost no functional look-down capability despite the MTI filtering. To me the "clutter texture" they are using is what it should likely look like at high altitude looking mostly straight ahead with minimal clutter reflections. So it should be way more challenging to actually use than it currently is. From the Update Vibora posted it looks like they will be "improving" some of this, so hopefully it becomes "less useful" in look down. It should be fairly decent in look up modes however and it had a fair amount of success in that regard versus the Iranians. If you are mathematically inclined you can get some idea what the clutter returns/SNR should look like by using this. Though this simulation is likely a best case scenario given that the Cyrano used mostly analog electronics for the MTI filtering. https://www.mathworks.com/help/radar/ug/generate-clutter-and-target-returns-for-mti-radar.html

Yeah I've noticed that it does seem to be excessive versus other modules, but it might be right. I have yet to see actual data either way.

Hopefully thats info to change the missiles to how they should work. On point number 2 so Aerges would have to change the lock behavior on their side as well as changing the seeker info in the missile lua correct? On point one does that apply to both IR and Radar guided missiles?

Sure thing. I also PM'ed you the "top sekrit" documents. (well not really since you can buy them online for a nominal fee) but I don't want to run afoul of your 1.16 rule. These are the "web"/Public cites, there are more in various books and such, mainly a fair number of quotes from the falklands conflict and assorted books that compare the Magic1 to the 9L. Let me know if you need more "proof". But honestly all this stuff is really really really well known to anyone familiar with the field of IR AAM tech. R530 Various citations for it being "limited all aspect" As most InSb seekers developed in the 50's and 60's were, other examples include the USAF AIM-4 program, as well as the British Red-top missiles. And while they are InSb detectors, the primitive states of both dome techonology as well electronics could not give full all aspect performance like the later Aim9L etc. http://sistemasdearmas.com.br/aam/r530.html The R.530IR's SAT AD.3501 IR sensor had every aspect capability that could be fired at targets flying towards the launch aircraft. Also, in general the 530(radar) works far too well in general given its abysmal combat record. The R.530 did not have much operational success. There were only three victories: an Egyptian MiG-19 shot down by an Israeli Mirage IIICJ; and an Indian Hawker Hunter and Su-7 shot down by Pakistani Mirage IIIEPs in the 1971 border conflict. Argentina used it in 1982 without success against British Sea Harriers. Compared to missiles of the time like the Firestreak, Red Top, AIM-4A/D and it wasn't too bad, but in the 70's it was completely outdated. Here is some peer reviewed work. https://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/2552/0000/History-of-infrared-optronics-in-France/10.1117/12.218281.full?SSO=1 "Another wavelength had to be used and the whole technological basis reviewed. Fortunately, the emergence of binary semi-conductive alloys led to the development of the first Indium Antimonide photodiodes (InSb) working in the 3 to 5 microns waveband" "In 1960, the MATRA R 530 ( see figure 3) was the first infrared air to air missile in the world working in the 3 to 5 micron wavelength. The infra-red seeker destined to be used on the first air to air missile was developed in France, using at the very start miniaturized electronic tubes which actually met every requirement, then transistor electronics for the series production. From 1964 to 1979, more than 1500 units were produced" At any rate, model the 530IR as limited all aspect like the R60M and you should be good (and based on my testing that's how the current 550 seeker works in DCS) R550 Magic1 Multiple sources point out this missile is rear aspect only, having a cooled PbS seeker head, meaning its on par with Stuff like the Aim9D/G/H (since its actually cryo cooled properly unlike the 9E/J). Again this is all basic IR detector physics. No PbS seeker is gonna be all aspect. Moreover even more sources point out "hey the magic 2 was actually all aspect, implying the magic1 was not. https://weaponsystems.net/system/516-Matra+R.550+Magic "The Magic uses an infrared seeker and is a fire and forget missile. The Magic 1 employed a seeker which could engage targets from a rear aspect" "Also, the seeker proved less reliable at altitudes above 18 km and at very low level. The Magic 2 has a much improved seeker and allows for frontal engagement as well." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.550_Magic The Magic 2 replaced the AD3601 seeking head by the all-aspect AD3633, allowing frontal fire on the target (the Magic 1 can only be fired from the rear on the target). The Magic 1 has a transparent dome on its nose, while the Magic 2 is opaque. Book: Iraqi Mirages (tom cooper) "The secondary weapon was the Matra R.550 Magic (later Magic Mk.1): this short-range air-to-air missile had an infra-red seeker head that permitted rear-aspect engagements only, a warhead of 13kg, 90kg launch weight and a range from 300 to 3,000 metres. The first R.550s were delivered to Iraq by the summer of 1980: a few were promptly adapted to several MiG-21MFs and the resulting combination then tested in combat. According to Iraqi reports, the Magic quickly proved shorter-ranged than the US- made AIM-9 Sidewinder (the primary short-range air-to-air missile on the Iranian side), but also more reliable and – even if less likely to score a direct hit in combat against a maneuvering target – quite a surprise." "R.550 Magic: while usually guiding very well, this tended to detonate prematurely. The probable reason was that the glass covering the seeker-head in the front of the missile tended to heat up the longer the flight lasted. By the time the missile entered the hot exhausts from engines of targeted enemy fighters, the overheating would prompt its proximity fuse to activate. This problem should have been solved on the R.550 Magic Mk.II," https://en.missilery.info/missile/magic2 referring to the magic1 "The infrared head, which uses sulfur lead as an infrared detector, has high sensitivity. The detector is cooled with liquid nitrogen." http://sistemasdearmas.com.br/aam/magic.html "The first version was the Magic 1 which entered service in 1975. It was considered equivalent to the USAF's AIM-J and the US Navy's AIM-9H." (both of these are rear aspect missiles using cooled PbS detectors) i.e. rear aspect only. "The PbS sensor was cooled before firing. The sensor searches autonomously and is not pointed at by another sensor (such as radar). After the pilot makes the visual acquisition, the sensor is cooled down. When the target is acquired, it generates a sound indicating that it can be fired." PbS seeker again, also apparently cannot be cued by radar (also in the weps manual). Might wanna let Aerges know before they waste their time to "implement" that. (the 530IR could be cued by radar tho) "In 1978 the AIM-9L with "all aspect" capability entered service. It was one of the reasons for creating the Magic 2 version with the same capacity, but not the only one as seen before. The Magic 2 entered service in France in 1985." "The Magic 2 received a more sensitive SAT AD3601 or AD3633 multi-element sensor, with any aspect capability and better counter-countermeasure capability . The sensor could be pointed by other sensors such as radar. Romania's MiG-21 LanceR uses the DASH helmet-mounted sight to aim the missile's sensor." On September 27, 1987, a new skirmish took place with four Mirage F-1CZs facing a group of MiGs attacking ground forces in Angola. An escort MiG fired an R-23/AA-7 Apex missile that hit Captain Arthur Percy's aircraft. The aircraft was severely damaged and destroyed during landing. Commander Gagiano fired an R550 against a Mig without observing the result as he started to accompany his companion. The fighting showed that every aspect of capability was needed. The effective range was 3km due to the sensitivity of the sensor. The IR fuze caused the warhead to detonate prematurely and outside the warhead's lethal radius. The South African Magic were withdrawn from service in 1988 and replaced by the V-3C Darter and V-3S Snake (a batch of 100 Pyton III missiles purchased urgently from Israel. https://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/2552/0000/History-of-infrared-optronics-in-France/10.1117/12.218281.full?SSO=1 For the 550 this: "From 1974 to 1984, more than S 000 units of the MAGIC 1 seeker were produced In 1978, the development of a new more efficient version was launched under the aegis of the DOA for the MAGIC 2. Through the use of a multi-channel detector, the sensitivity attained is one hundred times greater than that of the MAGIC 1. This seeker provides the missile with a target front attack capability at a distance ranging from 8 up to 25 kilometers. This type of seeker has been in production since 1985 with more than 2500 units already manufactured" At any rate, there are plenty more descriptions of the 550 being rear aspect in various books from the Falkland's conflict as well as the Angolan conflict. And the 530IR was "limited all aspect". I've sent you the relevant "sekrit" docs to corroborate. Though honestly, anyone with a passing familiarity with IR physics and the history or IR detectors in AAM's should easily understand this. Also, if you can actually clarify who actually does missile/weapons development in DCS that would be super helpful for the community to understand so we can send the right stuff to the right people. My understanding is that at this point its ED, though in the past it was 3rd parties. So who should we send fixes/issues to?

Honestly the one thing the "new" Kuz model could use is some sort of "visual" indicator of how far fwd to taxi to to engage the holdback ramps. I.e. some static crewman you can align to the right or left. Because doing it by trial and error kind of sucks.

Um well, It seems like this is pretty well known. The 530IR has a cooled InSb seeker (lots of sources) and is limited all aspect according to the weapons delivery manual which also specifies the InSb seeker. I.e. on supersonic targets frontally, much like the early iterations of Aim4 or Red top which use similar seeker designs and have similar engagement limitations (i.e. short range frontal aspect because the seeker can see the heated aircraft and the supersonic bow shock). The 550 (magic1) is described as having a cooled PbS seeker in everything I've read and is described as rear aspect only in every book/webpage Ive seen. Moreover all publications point out the big upgrade from the magic1 to magic 2 is the seeker head that is all aspect. In the general timeline of IR seekers its also pretty unlikely that the 550 (intro 76) actuall beat the Aim-9L (1978) into service as the wests first all aspect missile. Honestly from looking at the missile data it just looks like someone fat fingered the "cooled" line in the lua or maybe some of the other seeker params between the two. From in game testing the 550 seeker seems to work how I would expect the 530 to work and vice versa. I mean I'm happy to Pm you sources if you want but I don't wanna get 1.16'ed. Also as an aside, you guys recently fixed the aim9B to work on the saber and the F1 but not the Viggen which is still using the "old" "bugged" missile model.

Not sure who is actually developing the F1 missiles you guys or Aerges but there are several issues. 530IR and 550IR seeker parameters seem to have been swapped. The 530IR should be cooled semi all aspect (currently rear aspect) and the 550 should be rear aspect (currently all aspect) Moreover the 530IR cooldown times and cooling duration is not modeled at all currently.

One of CMs said there should be some fixes in the next patch. To the reload time at least.

I found one ref that states the magic2 added radar pointing capability to the seeker. So maybe the magic 1 (550) shouldnt have it. It would also be nice if the 550 got fixed to be rear aspect only as well. As that's still bugged.

J didnt have SEAM afaik being derived from the E not the navy models. Even the P4 didnt. It was specifically included on the P5. As for the 550 IDK, I've heard that it didnt but it's pretty nebulous. And the know how was there by that point. So IDK. Most likely contender is the Juli.

Radar slaving of the IR missiles’ seekers. With regard to this which missile seekers will actually slavable? Were the 550 seeker or the juli actually capable of this? The 9b and 9j weren't AFAIK.

I'm gonna guess more like the trainers we have. But honestly IDK.