Default774

Those older missiles are still using the old APIs with simplified flight models and guidance, not really relevant to the AIM-120.

I think you are confusing the viper with another aircraft. You have to do no such thing in the viper

This is already reported. Unfortunately this is old news and has been like this for years. We had some slight improvements several patches ago but I wouldn't expect anything significant to change in this area in the future, I certainly don't.

If you set both gradients to on and max out the deadzone sliders, nothing changes from previous versions. Not much

Replaying F-4_ECM_Hotstart_3.trk on release and ECM still needs to warm up and does not emit F-4_ECM_Hotstart_3.trk

Bump, i believe the missions are still like this

This is exactly whats happening. Hits in tacview are inferred and arent representative of if the projectile actually hit the target. I believe its just some math that makes it a "hit" if an object disappears within a certain radius of another object. Tacview acmis are not reliable for determining hits, use trackfiles instead

Relevant to note are the current limitations in infrared modelling also present. Missiles currently guide to model origin and not the engines in the case of infrared guided missiles. If you fire an AIM-9 at a Tu-95 it will guide towards the fuselage, not the engines. Also is the current two tier ir emissions system. Only two floating point values define the ir emissions for military power and reheat/afterburner, throttle setting has no further effect. I hope these are under consideration for being reworked in the future.

Hi, I just checked on Afghanistan and the tracers appear just fine. Can you check to make sure you're shooting an ammo type that actually has tracers?

Not true, missile proximity fuzes work off of model collision box/3d model, absolutely nothing to do with model origin or pilot pf1.trk

This is also a myth and quickly disproven with a small amount of testing. Try putting down a B-52/Tu-95 or similarly large aircraft and shooting a missile at it from the direct 3/9 o clock. You can clearly tell that the missile guides to the centre of mass and fuzes off of the 3d model/collision box, not the pilot.

Relevant excerpt from the AMRAAM Dev report from 2021. Would have loved some more detail here, but this report is 3 years old at this point, I wouldn't expect anything more at this point.

I put something together for the hawk specifically a year ago. HAWK should benefit a lot from a proper missile flight model. Hope this gets addressed sooner rather than later, but what can you do I guess.

If you take the wikipedia number of 105km/~55nmi at face value, this is perfectly achievable with the in-game amraam provided you have good enough launch parameters. In the future, try to get up to at least 40000ft and manually loft your missile about 20° up. You'll also need something more substantial than a range number on wikipedia without context if you want ED to change the kinematics .

Glad I could help. In the future, please attack a track replay of the issue. It's extremely difficult to reproduce problems like this without knowing the steps and or circumstances needed to cause the problem. It would make everyone's lives much easier haha

This happens when you go from TWS > RWS when in 3 bar scan. Already reported

This is not entirely correct. The AIM-120 works significantly differently from the other ARH missiles. For one, it has completely different seeker/guidance simulations with more realistic limitations. The flight model on the 120 is also significantly more complex. Comparing the 120 to anything that is not on amraam2 scheme is rather pointless. All older ARH missiles are using simplified physics and seekers. All missiles in the game suffer from barrel rolling in some capacity, the 120 is more heavily affected than others.

Everything seems correct here. Your steerpoint is directly in front of you at 16000ft. Try setting the steerpoint at ground level

Default Mirage f1ee

As a quick example, here is the briefing image for the hard landing mission compared to the actual visibility

Callsign: Default Aircraft: F-16 SEAD

Some more details on the hawk in its own dedicated post here. SM-2 is also affected as is shown in the patriot post you linked. I imagine this is mostly an issue with the legacy SAM scheme that will get fixed over time as the SAMs get redone.

If you have any specific examples of this happening I'll try to reproduce it and report it seperately

here is a short track showing the mortars missing with altitude differences mortar_alt.trk mortar_alt.acmi

CATM-120C in modelviewer null