Xhonas

Yeah, with that i can agree. Looks like we are missing a range gating feature that would prevent that from happening.

MPRF wont change that, if a target is flying 200 feet of the ground the only way to differentiate it from the clutter is using doppler, which is not happening if a target is notching. We already have a 25kts notch, it is decent. Missile autopilot should take the notch into consideration. If a certain criteria is met, (radial velocity and tgt aspect), the missile should adjust its lead pursuit to expect to reacquire the target in a future point. Either that or switch to LPRF, which no one knows if the 120 is capable of.

Honestly, the only relevant issue that i saw in this thread is the seeker search pattern that could be improved, most here are complaining about the missile being easily notched or having poor range, the thing is the notch will not be removed because that would be unrealistic. At low altitude the seeker radar still needs doppler to differentiate the target from the ground. But ED can implement techniques for the missile to deal with this problem. You can test the R77 and the Aim54, you will notice that they are harder to notch, as they are constantly reacquiring you, this doesn't happen with the Aim120 and its not because of the seeker. Its the trajectory.

Other than the seeker search pattern, what problem is there to solve?? And what i'm suggesting should be one of the techniques employed by the missile to effectively fight a notching bandit. If the missile knows it will get notched, why wait for it when it can go for an agressive lead pursuit trajectory to fly outside of the notch window and reacquire the target?

Hello guys. So, about the Aim120 being "easily" notched. What if PN values were changed so the missile would do a lot of lead pursuit versus a beaming target? that would create an angle offset allowing the missile to fly outside of the notch window and reacquire the target. The Aim54 and R77 behave kinda like this right now.

What does that mean? having to switch from manual to auto to keep the scan centered on the target is incorrect?

Hello @Lord Vader, pinging you since you're more active in the Hornet forum, the issue described by @DummyCatz might be worth looking at. We all know about the exhausting F-18 vs F-16 turn performance debate. Perhaps this is the clue to solve it once and for all? Thanks.

Hi, it doesn't seems like it. Perhaps both of the issues described here are related to the ones reported on the threads linked below.

As title says. I'm pulling roughly 2.5gs and rolling slowly and the radar is unable to STT the bandit if my aircraft is maneuvering. Unable to achieve STT lock.trk The F-16 for comparison (i'm pulling 6gs with the F-16 and i'm able to STT the bandit with no problem) F16 STT lock while maneuvring.trk

As title says. This happens even with targets barely maneuvering, like the A-50 in this track. gunsight jumping.trk

As the title says, both MPRF/HPRF takes too long to generate a trackfile / lock a target, compared to previous updates. Since nothing about the radar was said in the changelogs, i assume this is a bug. MPRF takes a very long time to lock 1.trkHPRF taking too long to lock a target.trk F-15E radar for comparison F15E trackfile.trk Also, when tracking a target, the target is jumping in the B-scope and in the target box, as if it had a very low refresh rate. HPRF-MPRF target jumping.trk F-16C radar for comparison F16 trackfile not jumping.trk I can't say this for sure, but this low refresh rate might be causing problems tracking targets in a multiplayer environment, there are instances that targets flying in a straight line, under optimal tracking conditions, fade from the radar. I don't have a trackfile right now, but will upload as soon as this problem happens to me.

Hello there, as the title says, its been like this for a while. It doesn't happen everytime, so in the tracks i kept locking and unlocking the target several times to demonstrate the issue. In several instances, the radar gets stuck in a "ghost" contact, failing to achieve a lock in the correct target, despite being in perfect conditions to do so. Also, there are some instances that the radar takes a very long time to lock, even against cooperative targets (non maneuvering, high closure rate, high altitude, look up situation). This problem happens in other ACM modes too, and is also happening in TWS/RWS. Helmet mode inconsistency 2.trkHelmet mode very long time to lock3.trkHelmet mode inconsistency 3.trk

Can you elaborate on what is the problem? is the jet underperforming because of that?

I saw your deleted post, based on these calculations, is there any problem? And could you do the same to the F/A-18?

Hello there, as far as i was able to test, the irccm mechanisms of the missiles that have it are not simulated in DCS. IR missile evasion in DCS is just rolling a dice, and i don't mean this in a disrespectful way. In the trackfiles, there are instances that the enemy missile is easily defeated by the countermeasures, and other instances that the missile simply doesn't care for my flares, despite being in the same situation and having roughly the same amount of countermeasures in its field of view. It is not possible for the missile to continue tracking the IR signature of my aircraft due to the high amount of cm's on its FOV. I would understand if the missile lost the lock momentarily and then reacquired, but that never happened. Although a probabilistc event, In the situations shown in the trackfile, the missile should awlays gor for flares, since there is enough distance and time for the flares to heat up, the maneuver being employed together with the distance maximizes the amount of countermeasures in the seeker FOV, i'm flying with reduced power and deploying 4 flares each time i click on the countermeasure release button, so the IR signature of the flares is much greater than the signature of my aircraft. Another issue is that IR missile seekers don't lock on countermeasures prior to being launched, making preemptive flaring a not so relevant tactic. Looking at it now, perhaps this is not exactly a bug, but rather a problem resulted of how the interaction of countermeasures with IR missile seekers are modelled. Nonetheless, its a issue worth looking at that will greatly improve this simulation. And thanks for coming by and taking a look in this thread.

@BIGNEWY @NineLine Hello there guys, can you please take a look at this issue? This problem exists in DCS for a very long time, any news regarding a fix ? thanks.

Will you also introduce ground clutter effect when flying at low altitude? Check this video for reference. It is timestamped, look at the left MFD displaying the FCR screen.

Real life evidence of how much clutter there is in a F-16 radar at low altitude... Curiously, it is very similar to how Razbam have modelled it. F-16 and F-18 (Hornet when using high prf) should have way more clutter than what we have now, which is nothing compared to what we see in this video.

Hi there, as the title says. You can get it down to speeds of ~200 knots and land it just fine. wingless F5.trk

That is true, pre flare doesn't work. Simple test, aim a heatseeker towards a flare. It wont give you tone, regardless of the missile.

Hello there. I was practicing defense against IR missiles and i noticed a problem regarding the way that IR missiles react to counstermeasures. To defend against these missiles, especially the modern ones, i tried to fly in a way that when launching flares, i would put as many flares as possible in the missile seeker fov. It works ! well, kinda. The problem is, sometimes it works flawlessly and there are other times that the missile simply doesn't care about my flares, despite me flooding the missile seeker with countermeasures. I was able to save some trackfiles, i will upload them below. You will notice that i'm putting myself in the exact same situation and dropping a very similar number of countermeasures and there are times that the missile is spoofed and other times that it doesn't care and goes for me anyways. If you watch in Tacview the perspective of the missile you can have an idea of how many flares were in the seeker fov. In all those tracks the missile is the R-73, i chose this missile because it is very smoky and easy to see however this problem affects all missiles, the Aim-9M/L, Magic 2, etc. There is a huge inconsistency when defending against those missiles, there is not a reliable way to avoid them, even when using techniques to exploit the limitations of a IR seeker head. Compare it with how radars are modelled. Notching an airborne radar using High PRF is a very reliable way of breaking the lock of said radar momentarily and it is going to work everytime if you do it right because it is a limitation of the radar. Another example would be pulse radars (like in the F-4), that you can break its lock every time by flying close to terrain because there are no filters so the main lobe gets overwhelmed with clutter. In the case of this report, the missile should go after the flares every time (in the situations shown in my trackfiles) since its seeker is being overwhelmed with countermeasures. irccm test 8 sucess.trkirccm test 7 sucess.trkirccm test 6 sucess.trkirccm test 5 sucess.trkirccm test 4 fail.trkirccm test 3 fail.trkirccm test 2 fail.trk Trackfiles are on the Syria map, sorry. If necessary, i can provide them on the Caucasus map.

I'm 100% with you in this. I expect new low fidelity aircrafts to hold the same flight model quality that our current PFM fc3 does. And i agree that it is not easy to develop a low fidelity aircraft, but still, i believe that it would have a much shorter development time compared to a study level module. The full fidelity MiG-29 was teased in the 2024 and beyond video back in January and officially announced in March, ED says that they are going to reutilize the FC3 flight model, and it doesn't look like the Mig is going to be released this year. This gives an idea on how much time it takes to make clickable cockpits and develop systems in depth.

True, i believe in a very short EA or perhaps no EA at all. However, i still think that the development time would be shorter since they wouldn't have to worry to implement all the switches, circuits, cold start procedures, all the mfd subpages (for modern jets), complex simulation of INS systems (like they have done for the F16C now) and everything else that makes FF jets study level.

Many years probably. The point is, lets say that they choose to develop 3 full fidelity aircrafts. Development would take about 5 to 6+ years (based on previous releases, like the F18, F16 and Mi-24). I'm pretty sure that the low fidelity form would take a lot less time. These aircrafts could be on the game sooner for people enjoy, and after that, they can focus on bringing those aircrafts to full fidelity status.

No doubt they would be profitable as full fidelity moduels. As i said in my OP, ideally those jets would be first develop in the low fidelity form, sold in packs, and eventually developed into full fidelity jets. Like the Mig-29, for example.