Xhonas

Uh... at this point i'm reading this as a little bit of sarcasm.. english is not my main language tho. Let's check some stuff in here: Here is an SD-10 missile, similar class to the aim-120, according to dev's it is working on the same API. Despite the miss distance, the missile is able to proxy fuze and shoot me down. sd10 trk1.trk Here is the Aim-120, in the exact same situation. The missile misses. aim120 trk1.trk Is the Aim-120 being hindered on purpose? Why can't you simply tweak the proximity fuze to get rid of this problem?

Any ETA? That should clear the current impression that people have that WT has a way better simulation of IR missiles and countermeasures than DCS. Without knowing specific details it's hard to say, but testing suggests that the implementation of such mechanisms in DCS is rather simplified / non existent.

Could you provide a white paper / detailed explanation on how exactly that (IRCCM) works in DCS..?

Yes please ! Given that DCS tries to be a super accurate flight simulator i don't think "fairness" should be a question. If you have the data to model the Su-27 more accurately, i think it is valid to use it.

Sorry, but 15nm is still far away a hard crank can defeat it without trouble. For the 2nd test, yeah, it is the problem we are talking about and waiting for months for ED to fix. The other missiles don't fall for this maneuver at this range.

20nm at 20k feet is very, VERY far. You don't even need to barrell roll, you can do a simple crank to defeat it.

Yeah guys defeating a missile launched from max range is not the point of this post, we are talking about missiles being trashed by barrel rolls / aoa rolls from the NEZ or very close to the NEZ.

@Chizh Hello, we would like to know what was changed to cause the reported behavior on IR missiles, and if that change was intentional or not, thanks.

The first track shows that the missile is "cracked". The aim9b doesn't have any irccm mechanism, it can only see the engine, any kind of flare on its seeker defeats it instantly, yet on the first track it goes for the flares but keeps reacquiring the jet.

Idk if that would be incorrect, but based on what we know, IR missiles in DCS are way too strong. Also, these changes were not documented in the changelog, so if something important like this was left out then it probably isn't working as intended. If you are able, watch my tracks from previous updates. The missile was already strong in there, but you could defeat it consistently using a certain amount of flares and doing the right positioning. Now doing the same thing results in you getting killed

nullThere are roughly 36 flares in the fov, out of 56 fired. flare innefective4.trk not a single twitch from the missile. aa ir msl dodge.trk F16 flare dodge.trk these two tracks were recorded in previous updates where this problem wasn't happening. The exact same situation, missile will go for the flares with the right conditions, consistently. That is why i believe there is a problem / undocumented change.

They are super strong against flares now. They were strong already, now it is even more. After our last discussion about this topic i tested the missiles extensively and came up with a way to deal with them consistently, even from close range. It took a lot of flares to reach the desired luminosity, but it would work. Now it doesn't anymore, as you can see in the track. Idk if you are able to compare both tracks rn due to the different versions, but on the 2nd track that i sent you can see consistent results. Take a look at this track: i doubt that these missiles have an irccm so strong that could keep up with this: flare innefective2.trk And even from that close range, lots of flares will be in the seeker fov, plus i'm using a cms program that dispenses 3 flares each time the cms button is pressed, sometimes 4 flares. You can do a test, pick a frame, freeze the game and zoom it all the way until you have a 2° fov and see how many flares will be in the fov (many)

Indeed, something changed and flares are very innefective now. Together with the rng... flare innefective.trk F16 flare dodge2.trk This 2nd track is from a previous patch for comparison (DCS 2.9.8.1214.1)

Hello there, problem persists in the latest patch. barrel roll asd1.trkbarrel roll asd2.trk

Not solved dude, let me rephrase it. I want to know what difference these settings actually make in the game. Is it range? is it refresh rate? For instance, using low transmit power the DL will have a range of xx miles, using med it will be xxy...

Couldn't find an explanation for these settings on the manual, does anyone actually tested this to see what these settings do in the sim?

That is not true, it has been proven many times that developers are using this as an excuse to not model certain things, either because it is not financially viable, lack of info or simply because some of them can't stand to be proven wrong. I remember that they used this excuse with the F/A-18 AoA, they said that they wouldn't simulate the Hornet aoa capabilities to its full extent because "classified", suddenly after some time they decided to implement its full aoa capability. (Old FM would reach 34-35° max, New FM: 55°). Similar things happened to other modules in DCS. Now i don't doubt that they might have some source that we dont know about, although very unlikely. To me it looks like they are just using that "restricted source" talk as an excuse because for them it isn't viable to change something to a FC3 product. I would love to be wrong tho.

Since you are considering adding features to the F-5 remaster, please, consider listening to the community requests. Refueling probe, 4x Aim-9s and Mavericks... I know it wouldn't be accurate with the version you are simulating, but still, we have many "frankenjets" in DCS already. Adding the listed features would give more versatility to the module. You did something similar to the Hornet. The Walleye, our version of the Hornet didn't operate with the Walleye, yet, you decided to implement it to give more versatility to the players. So, why not do the same to the F-5? If you are very concerned with realism, a middle term would be creating tickboxes on the ME, that way, the mission designers could adjust which weapon / system would be available for the F-5. Doing that would be a huge PR win for you, just saying.

Hi, excuse me for asking, but this is very weird. Aren't DCS modules supposed to be based on public available, verifiable information? Are you using any kind of classified / restricted information that the public can't access to model the Su27? Because if that is the case... How much of DCS is allowed to be modelled after restricted info? a little bit off topic, but Heatblur also said that they are using restricted information to model the Phoenix. What is up with this trend? i'm confused.

Hey, chill out, no one here is trying to make your Flanker worse than it already is. The R27 is immune to this barrel roll / aoa roll maneuver being described on the thread and we are trying to get ED to fix that for the Amraam. Otherwise, they will continue to implement this kind of logic to the other missiles, including on your beloved R27, and then it will be ruined.

Now we are just missing ED implementing this into the game. However, i still think it would be better to use whatever voodoo the R77/R27/Phoenix are using because they are immune to this kind of maneuver. In every ED attempt to make this simulation more real than real life we ended up with the most arcade-type of gameplay features i ever seen in a simulator (F/A-18 iron dome and now the Spineroo star wars trick). So please try to find a balance and give us a middle term that is reasonable. Thanks.

SA-2 and SA-3 missiles are completely smokeless. SA2 Smokeless.trkSA3 Smokeless.trk

There are 2 major issues that plagues the 120 in multiplayer right now and one of these issues affects all dcs missiles. First issue is, if you do a loaded roll, barrel roll, the 120 will not be able to keep up with you and will miss. Check the video in the thread below. It was performed in single player, current DCS version. The 2nd issue that affects the 120 and all the other missiles in MP is teleporting. When a player starts doing a loaded roll, if he rolls the jet too fast, like in the video in the thread below, it will cause the player to teleport (desync), thus making the missile miss, this is a problem for all missiles and is an issue that is being neglected for a very long time now. Please ignore the notching part of the video, lets just focus on the barrel roll problem for this thread.

I'd rather have a band-aid fix until a more realistic solution can be found than have what we have right now.