Merrek

Using missile POV to infer my maneuvering is brilliant... Enjoy, Sir. Still waiting for your demonstration how to perform it, which would greatly increase your believability factor, that you actually know what you're talking about. I never said high-G. I talked about moderate Gs. You said aileron roll. So do it.

No, you can't tell from my GIFs, how much of vertical maneuvering there is and that's the idea. The last thing I'm going to do is teach blue how to use their planes to dodge amraams. Moderate Gs are pulled in conjunction with the "resonant" roll. If you don't understand, what the key ingredient in the maneuver is, don't speculate or mistify. It has nothing to do with desync, what would I desync with on my computer, not even a dedicated server? And if it's so easy, why don't you repeat it with only the aileron roll? F-16 and F-5 can dodge amraams because they have superior roll rate. If anyone wanted to abuse this, they'd set up a saturation for the joystick Y axis, so maximum roll is held, without any skill or thinking and I'm not going to promote that. Depending on the missile energy, which can be roughly estimated (altitude, speed, lofting or not), you just need to fly directly towards it and set the correct speed, roll rate and Gs. It's really that easy. If I wasn't working 12 hrs a day, I would've posted the "3 amraams in a row" GIF a week ago. It can be studied and practiced. But why spend tens of hours on a maneuver that's banned anyway, because "experts" can't differentiate between the rolls? Yes, the previous maneuvers before all the "fixes", if you can even call that, were only aileron rolls, that any noob could replicate. Now it takes some thinking and practice, that's the only difference. The maneuver can't be performed by chance or luck unlike before. If MP desync was penalized by instant disconnect of the abusing player, then you'd see who can perform the proper dodging barrel roll (won't get disconnected) without sudden AoA spikes, 8+ Gs and unexpected motions performed only to fool the game that can't even plot the next pixel, where the plane is going to be and missiles can't track something that disappears. This proper "synchronized resonant" barrel roll is one single fluid motion with perfect parameters, nothing chaotic or random. There is a huge "displacement" of the current flight path, unlike what you think, and that's why it is possible to create 25m+ separation from the missile at merge, even if it's amraam. The tracks and tacview footage is old news, before the changes in missile tracking logic and proximity fuze range. No information there. And I'm not providing any tacviews to be studied and abused. I merely wanted to: 1. prove it's still doable against AMRAAM 2. prove it's doable against Aim-7 and probably will be doable against every missile on the new API 3. provide an explanation using some kind of physics and logic beyond speculation If you study the amraam closely, you'll identify it switches to the pure pursuit in the very terminal stages of the interception, singles of km. How do you think pure pursuit works, if target is maneuvering nonstop? The tracking delay will always be an issue IRL and also in the new API missiles, if nothing else, then only because of the inertia of the missile itself. Then start including all the electronics and software, etc., I wrote it all before, have you read it? The reason, why the missile misses you, could be best described as follows: 1 - the missile is trying to lead your nose (velocity vector to be hardcore) 2 - you start performing the maneuver at the proper distance from the missile (again, this needs to be judged and practiced, observing contrails, etc.) 3 - missile starts maneuvering with you, after the tracking delay 4 - you're keeping the "resonant" roll rate and tight barrel roll with realistic AoA and Gs 5 - the missile starts trailing you, aims below your belly 6 - if you've kept the roll rate in the ideal window, you create and offset in the missile tracking of about 90-180 degs on the barrel roll circle (front view - missile POV) 7 - if you can keep this to the "merge", you've successfully created a distance offset between yourself and the missile 8 - if this distance offset is bigger than the missile's proximity fuze range, the missile misses you and doesn't explode The missile does track the whole time, but it is chasing the "old" you, where you were 0.7 seconds ago. How much distance does a fighter flying at 1000kmh+ move in 0.7 seconds? How much is the proximity fuze range? What if the maneuver is not "flying predictably straight" but a barrel roll deliberately constructed in such a way, that when you are "up", the missile is "down"? How many words one needs to use to describe it so it's understandable?

And I did it against an AMRAAM flying 2.15M at the merge. Only needed to increase my own speed, otherwise the roll rate and Gs were virtually the same. Do you have any hypothesis at what speed the AMRAAM should be "impossible" to dodge using this particular maneuver?

I don't know. I haven't flown the F-16 in 2 years, I don't fly blue in general and have 0 intention of making this work against the Aim-120. How about you post something how you successfully did it and share, how many attempts it took for the 1st success ? What do you want from me, I'm not sure. 100 different parameter sets, so I can fill in a table, after which you'll dismiss it completely, or what are we talking here? I'm the only one providing any hard evidence. Maybe you could join, so we can have a discussion? And what's your opinion on the legality of this move if it doesn't cause desync? OK or not OK? With the Aim-7 variant? If I practiced for a few weeks, I believe I could get some experience and get success rate in the F-16 over 50% even against the AMRAAM, as it has superior energy management to everything else (especially on redfor). And if I waste any more time on this and manage to do it 5 times in a row against different missile parameters, what then? Will you increase the proximity fuze to 25m ? What's the solution? I thought we agreed it's a legitimate and realistic maneuver. Don't tell me I'm the only one in DCS who can do it when I literally started trying few hours ago. And the sparrow 2 days ago. M.

Ok pal, you've got it. AMRAAM fired at 16km, started the maneuver at 9km, AMRAAM misses by 23.6 metres while having 2.15 mach. Anything else on the menu? And btw, who's got my check? The only thing I missed was adjusting speed. If the missile has more energy, I need to compensate with speed. Other than than, I can confirm, that the AMRAAM is trying a sharp bend at the very end, but if I speed up a little, still has no chance. The resonant dance works just like previously. Always aims for my belly or to the side. One attempt before that I almost got it, 17m and wings again. At that point I knew I was on the right track with the higher speed... I mean you can literally learn those params and adjust them here and there depending on the firing aircraft's altitude, speed and range when the missile is released. If you lock him up, you'll have all these or with human GCI as well. You can see the moment of firing at close range, you can even see if the missile lofts or not. At greater range, missile loses energy sooner and it's less of an issue and you can still dodge AMRAAMs at extreme range using traditional techniques (out cold, notch, kinematic bleed). Distance confirmed in Rstudio One attempt before that, almost got it, but the wings were just enough inside the proximity fuze range. Cheers.

Look mate, I might try this more, but my original intention was to show, that it can be done against Aim-7 without breaking the game (desync, teleport) with reasonable AoA and Gs, so that it's replicable, totally doable IRL and legal. And I will most definitely use that maneuver on a fox1 server when I find myself in a situation that nothing else is possible. I'm even sporting enough to wait until the R-27 family gets migrated to the new API, to give them a fair chance. Anyone accusing me of cheating will get immediately pointed here and will be given an extensive material on missile tracking IRL and DCS, what Maestro shared, etc. I am using AI and I can't force it to fire at a specific range, I can try moving it closer, etc. But the missile still had 1.4M compared to my 0.93, by any and all accounts, it should've hit. I didn't do any crank, the AI launched at a range that it didn't even loft, I'm flying directly towards it, otherwise it wouldn't work (unlike that MP roll cheat that works from every aspect). The issue is not if the missile has lot of energy, but I can tell you from experience (don't wanna go into more specifics), that some missiles in DCS change their tracking pattern/behaviour depending on whether the rocket motor ran out or not. So it's more about the motor running than the energy level per se. Another thing, why this AMRAAM lost more energy was, that I started making the maneuver too soon, because these are my first attempts on it and the F-16 can do the maneuver forever (unlike redfor) and maintain energy. But I don't wanna waste too many hours on AMRAAM, especially if this can still break the game in MP because of the too high roll rate. Then it's completely pointless, if it can only be used as a SP showoff and not save you a$$ in a PVP server if need be. And if I test this with a partner in controlled conditions, I'm risking that the missile will miss because of desync, not thanks to the maneuver. So it's much better to first prove the maneuver in SP against AI and then try elsewhere. I might try it a few more times, trying to achieve later launch or later maneuver start. If I manage it, I'll let you know. Your last sentence - sorry, but I don't know what energy the missile has, because one attempt the AI launches at 25 miles, sometimes at 12 miles or even less. I don't wanna get proficient in this maneuver against AMRAAM, as it probably can't be done in any redfor plane anyway. My point was to prove, regardless of the fuze, you can do it, period.

Oh no, it is not me disputing desync issue. Maybe English is the 2nd language for both of us? It's me disputing cheating allegations when performing a non-desync maneuver that does not lead to teleport, works in SP, works IRL, but to the untrained naked eye it may APPEAR as if it was the infamous whatever roll. That's why I'm arguing there are ways to distinguish between the two. And unless someone studied the difference, they have no way of telling, hence, they shouldn't accuse anyone of anything. I even wrote that if the missile was defeated from the side or from behind, it is a clear-cut cheating. Might wanna read that and get up to date. I read the whole history about 5 times, thank you very much. That's why I'm so happy that the legality of this move has long been established. I can see, however that for the AMRAAM this could still possibly lead to some desync in MP because of the extreme roll rate required to defeat it. However, in my example with the Aim-7, the roll rate is much less extreme and could never (in itself, with the rest of the AoA and Gs being conservative) lead to a desync. Hence, could it be a legal move in PVP MP ? What you and many others fail to see here, is that the issue never was in the proximity fuze. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for as much realistic values as possible and if literature says that 9m is too low, so be it. However, the guys proudly presenting and performing this maneuver, where doing it in a more... let's call it... random fashion. That's why buffing up the proximity fuze worked against their maneuver, but it doesn't work if you put some good old-fashion professional-level data analysis on the table. Because in that case, it is very little problem to send the AMRAAM long way off, creating a much bigger separation than even the current 15m fuze, hence, achieving the very same effect as described earlier with the Aim-7. You wanted it, you've got it. Haven't flown the F-16 in years, it is very sobering to feel how instantaneous the flight model seems compared to the red jets. Now that I've found the "resonant" roll rate, I have no problem creating a separation of >25 metres, so the proximity fuze doesn't activate. Look at that beatiful geometry and separation. That missile never had a chance. It's going completely another way. This is not about the fuze, rather about the timing, synchronization or "resonance" that I'm talking about. The roll rate is not random and it most definitely doesn't mean "push the stick all the way to the left", oh no. I am (on purpose) not telling the maneuver parameters here in order not to encourage its use. However, in the F-16, I can immediately tell you, I'd estimate my odds to be much higher than the 20% in the red jet, as this aircraft can maintain its energy throughout the entire maneuver, unlike the red jet (or the F5), which has only limited timeframe to perform it. Btw I verified the distance between the missile and my aircraft using 1000Hz export. It never got closer than 25.18m - distance was calculated from latitude, longitude and altitude of both myself and the missile. One try before that I thought the proximity fuze must be wrong, because it fired at 17m separation, which I felt I should've dodged. But after reviewing the geometry, indeed my wings were closer to it, so the fuze was right to go off. Once you find the perfect parameters, this is nearly trivial to perform it in an F-16 (imho). And thanks again for confirming the legality of this move. Now let's all explain that to the fox1 server owners so they don't get angry when we dodge their Aim-7s. Or maybe we should wait until they have the same chance against the R-27s, that would seem fair. P.S.: Great to know that AMRAAM has had realistic notch. Maybe now's the time to look at all the other missiles/radars? For us, who don't fly modern scenarios. Have a great day!

Noone is trying to dispute anything. In this thread, among other stuff, you can find, that - only AMRAAM is prone to the maneuver described by GRY Money - debunked. I am also trying to raise the issue that this is NOT a MP AoA roll, as it contains no AoA and happens in SP. How many times do we need to write that down? I am not talking AT ALL about MP AoA roll in any context other than comparing this cheating unsporting unrealistic abused exploitative move (not even working in SP) to something that could and most probably would actually work IRL and also works in game. These are completely different maneuvers, with different techniques and results (dodging missiles from all direction vs one direction only, etc.) Have you actually read what I wrote or are you simply putting words in my mouth? What angers you? I have never ever done the MP AoA in my life and I have just performed one single instance of the "sync" roll and I'm immediately reporting on it! Are you mad that at the moment you can't to this against an R-27 (in a few weeks/months you will be able to) or that I proved something that was deemed impossible? Of course, it's risky. And it works against Aim-7 and will most probably work against every missile in the new API with any reasonable tracking delay. And it is 100x more realistic than the current state of the notch, with which you have no issue at all, right? Jeez. This is honestly the last type of answer, I'd expect. Can you please focus at the thing at hand, instead of attacking me? Imagine someone else's name in the post, if it helps. For the last time: You can dodge missiles in DCS head-on with some expected success probability. This is not due to MP, desync, lag, ping, or teleport. This can be done against AI in SP. This maneuver has its ground in maths & physics and is totally completely different from the infamous MP "loaded" AoA whatever roll, which relies on sudden spike changes in key aircraft performance metrics (I wouldn't know, as I've never performed it, but I read what other people wrote and watched all videos), while beating missiles in the physics-first way, requires an extremely smooth, calculated, cold-blooded approach and some luck. Can we please debate (I'm really interested in people's opinions on this) what do you think of this maneuvre, how do you perceive it and if it can be distinguished from the infamous banned MP roll, could we ever see its use in PVP servers as a last-resort maneuver ? That's the issue, not to trivialize the "old" freakin maneuver. I guarantee you those cheaters would never pull this one off.

Hi guys, I've only recently discovered this thread in conjunction with all my missile research (mainly around Aim-7). I'm a huge fan of realism and simulating things as closely as they possibly could be compared to real life. I love the idea of somewhat realistic missile tracking delay, which will always be present. Radar waves travelling back and forth (fast, but not instantaneous). Electronics processing speed, software/algorithmic processing speed, Kalman filters, other calculations, etc., not to mention the inertia of the missile itself (it "wants" to continue flying straight or parabolically, displays some resistance before every maneuver). All this was discussed here before, so just a reminder. The maneuver GRY Money originally described is indeed in theory (and IRL) doable against any missile. Although in DCS, is it tied specifically to the missiles running on the new API? I don't know, you tell me. Very soon, we should have R-27 family running on this API as well. Currently, it's the Aim-7 and Aim-120. I tested the maneuver against an Aim-7 and it worked using a Flanker and an F5 (gifs attached) in singleplayer. I also tried it once in multiplayer and I'm not doing it again, until the community educate themselves, realize this is not the treacherous AoA MP roll, which leads to desync and intentional teleportation (we've all seen this and hate it) and come up with a solution, how to distinguish between the two. There are many key differences between these maneuvers, so they should be easy to identify and I will present some of them here. But I won't risk being called a "cheater" just because I literally did my own research, practiced for a few hours and made it work, while someone else is lazy to even read and calls it an AoA MP roll (performed in singleplayer with literally no AoA - see the irony here?) Let's call this maneuver a "sync roll". I find it amusing, because it is one single fluid motion, trying to get in sync with the missile tracking delay. I literally pulled raw data from TacView, exported with huge sampling rates (100-500Hz), analyzed in R, visualized in Tableau and came up with a number (fraction of a second) for the Aim-7 tracking delay. You could call it reverse engineering. Then I calculated the parameters of a perfect roll using mathematics and common sense. Only after all this I opted to practice in SP against AI and after a few tries, the first success came. Let me be clear - this is an extremely difficult maneuver to pull off, even if you know exactly, what to do. Success rate (at best) is 20-50% and it only works directly head-on. It's not about achieving some arbitrary threshold of AoA or pulling too many Gs, it's the complete opposite. I've been able to do it with as low AoA as 4 (!) and pulling less than 5Gs in one fluid motion. The key metric, however (as mentioned in this thread already) is the roll rate. Not every aircraft rolls sufficiently enough, for instance, my beloved MiG-29 can't perform this maneuver. Blue planes should have very little trouble doing it. There is no gauge for roll rate inside the aircraft, so it's only about practice, experience and feeling. You need to keep the perfect, "resonant" roll rate with sufficient precision in the correct range, or you will oversteer and run into the missile. If your roll rate is too slow, the missile will catch up. We're talking a max deviation of ~20-30 deg/s from the ideal value (which differs for every missile depending on its tracking delay, so the maneuver needs to be adjusted and practiced independently for every missile type). The smaller the tracking delay, the faster the roll rate needs to be. You see, any id*ot in multiplayer can snap or jink the joystick to disappear in ping/lag/whatever, but I dare the most experienced and best DCS pilots to try out the method described here to dodge a missile head-on in singleplayer in anything else than an F-16. Key differences between the banned/unrealistic/cheat MP AoA roll and the supposedly hyperrealistic SP sync roll: criteria MP AoA roll SP sync roll where only in MP SP and MP why breaking a threshold of unpredictability holding a very narrow roll rate window in sync with missile tracking delay who any loser who snaps a joystick requires study, training and perfect execution without a key gauge - roll rate meter what extreme AoA (20+), extreme G (8+) casual AoA (<6) and G (<5) duration possibly tens of seconds 5-7 seconds character snapping, unpredictable one single very smooth fluid motion result desync, teleport missile tracks, but misses as separation > proximity fuze range missile aspect from any side exclusively head-on, including pitch adjustment to fly directly toward success rate 100% 20-50% at best if practiced and executed to perfection type proper cheat speculative last-resort maneuver if there's no time to even notch The reason, why the missile misses you, could be best described as follows: 1 - the missile is trying to lead your nose (velocity vector to be hardcore) 2 - you start performing the maneuver at the proper distance from the missile (again, this needs to be judged and practiced, observing contrails, etc.) 3 - missile starts maneuvering with you, after the tracking delay 4 - you're keeping the "resonant" roll rate and tight barrel roll with realistic AoA and Gs 5 - the missile starts trailing you, aims below your belly 6 - if you've kept the roll rate in the ideal window, you create and offset in the missile tracking of about 90-180 degs on the barrel roll circle (180 would correspond to the missile aiming directly below your belly, 90 degs is to the side) 7 - if you can keep this to the "merge", you've successfully created a distance offset between yourself and the missile 8 - if this distance offset is bigger than the missile's proximity fuze range, the missile misses you and doesn't explode I've had cases when I did manage to create an offset, but it wasn't enough and the missile exploded damaging the aircraft (although still not killing me completely). Realistic offsets can be created ranging from 15 to 35 metres at the "merge". To sum it up, I totally agree that this is not a bug. Instead, it's a feature. For me, this is actually the most realistic missile behaviour we've seen in DCS so far. It is much more realistic than the dreaded supernotch (so easy to perform in western aircraft) and would most definitely work IRL. The only reason there is no real 1st hand data on such a maneuver is, because no airforce to date and no pilot (who'd want to survive and live) is stupid enough to fly directly into a hot missile's path, if there's any other alternative, such as turning cold, trying a notch or even ejecting prematurely to ensure survival. I'm not judging if this is "fair" (not all aircraft in DCS can do it, not every missile is prone to it) or if it should be "banned" (that's up to server owners). Just please, don't call it AoA MP roll, because it works in SP and contains almost no AoA deviations from 0. There are ways to distinguish between an intentional cheater (sudden, snappy, jinking motions, unrealistic AoA, prolonged Gs, ...) and a legitimate maneuver that must have taken its performer many hours to master and even then contains a considerable portion of luck (one fluid motion, casual AoA, small Gs, consistent roll rate). All these can be seen and verified in TacView. If it was up to me, unless there is video evidence of a teleport, or the aforementioned table is not sufficient to distinguish if it was legitimate or not (frontal aspect, borderline G and AoA, ...), the presumption of innocence must hold. Of course, if you see a player making unexplainable sudden deliberate maneuvers in MP, dodges missiles from the side (or even from the back), can't tell you why/how he did it and can't demonstrate (replicate) the maneuver in SP, you know you've got a cheater on your hands. If, instead, the missile was dodged head-on, the maneuver displays realistic AoA and Gs (achievable IRL, not breaking the airframe or the pilot) AND you get a lecture on missile tracking delay, you may be dealing with a highly curious, speculative individual, always challenging him/herself, learning new things and sharing with others. Cheers! P.S.: attached are my GIFs from SP training (over water), the last one is the single MP attempt - no desync, no teleport, missile tracks till the last moment and displays exactly the same behaviour as in SP training (although after reviewing it, I pulled slightly more Gs, so the missile reacted also with a higher G load)

Guys, I have just realized that all these Aim-7s have run on the new API for some time. https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/tree/master/_G/weapons_table/weapons/missiles I can still see the value 194 in 2 places (client + server) for every missile variant E,F,M,MH,P even in the new definitions. And those params also changed exactly on 11.7.2024 (looking at the commit history) ... M.

Hi, thanks. "It's likely some kind of default number that gets used if there is no mass value defined elsewhere in that variant missile's config. null" That would still be a bug. If variants F, M and P weigh 16% less than they should in cases where (for whatever reason) the proper value is not available, it's not ok. I mean, if the missile has mass of 231, it should have it at all times (before the rocket motor starts depleting some fuel), right?

Dear ED developers, I’ve been your fan since Lock On days and have enjoyed DCS for at least 8 years now. In the past year I’ve detected some strange behaviour on fox1 servers regarding Aim-7 performance. I’ve been more active in recent weeks and the issue seems too severe to be ignored. Being a professional analyst (and ex low-temperature physicist), I know that opinions and feelings count for nothing in these cases. After dedicating 30+ hours to solving this issue, I believe I’ve successfully identified the problem and see an immediate solution to mitigate it. Let us dive right into it using numbers and physical quantities from TacView, as well as known missile parameters thanks to dcs-lua-datamine github by Quaggles. The key date is 11.7.2024 - on this day, everything changed with the whole Aim-7 family. Despite my best efforts, I haven’t been able to collect Tacview files closer to this event, but I can demonstrate the change using one from 03/2023 in the “before” period and a more recent one from 2025 in the “after” period. When we compare Aim-7M performance before and after the change, it is both qualitatively and quantitatively different. I am using Tacview Advanced graphs and the metric of choice is total mechanical energy. Not only is the maximum energy vastly different, but also its time evolution (character). We know that Aim-7F and above are dual-stage. First, the booster lights up, delivering the strongest impulse. After that, the sustainer rocket motor kicks in, delivering the final bit of extra energy. In the before period (scenario A), the Aim-7M missile gets to its maximum energy only after the sustainer phase. However, since the change (scenario B), the missile reaches its maximum energy state already after the initial booster phase. Sustainer then merely preserves this energy for the duration of its burn. This is the qualitative change. There is also a quantitative change. New maximum energy is more than before. So not only does the missile reach higher energy faster, it can also preserve it in a superior way (see attachments). The following thing shouldn’t be considered a “proof” of any kind, merely a supportive argument. I formulated a question for ChatGPT and got an answer, that scenario A is much more realistic for the Aim-7 missile (see attachments). Now, for the actual proof. I was wondering for some time, what could possibly be responsible for such a dramatic change in missile energy management. With the background in physics, a few things immediately crossed my mind. Either the magnitude of the impulse of at least one of the rocket motors changed, or the delivery character of that impulse (its time evolution) or the missile’s mass (weight) itself. I went through the whole changelog since 03/2023 and curiously enough, found that on 11.7.2024 that’s precisely what changed - but for the E and E2 variants. See: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.6.57650/ Look for: “Weapons. AIM-7E/E2 mass decreased.” From that point on, it all started making sense. I discovered this brilliant guy’s Quaggles github, pulled the commit from 11.7.2024 and the earliest one before this date. Started comparing all Aim-7 variants before and after. Soon enough, I stumbled upon the culprit. Link for the latest commit before the change: https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/e57755713d8ae6b59ccf1831b089e3b33aee7633/_G/rockets/AIM-7MH.lua Link for the commit right at the change (11.7.2024): https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/da69a9f560550da346501f4056261e491ac4079a/_G/rockets/AIM-7MH.lua Let’s have a look at some of those missile parameters. Of course, I am not an ED developer and cannot possibly know what these parameters mean, right? There is no official documentation, so it could be air temperature. Well, yes and no. Thanks to your changelog, we do know that the mass of the E and E2 variants did change on 11.7.2024. When we compare the changes specifically in the E2 missile files, we find only 3 changes in all the parameter values. We know that the mass is supposed to change and we can see 3 updated parameters. Can we safely assume that these 3 parameters define the missile’s mass? For the sake of this report, let’s call them “index M”, “fm mass1” and “fm mass2” (see attachments). For your convenience, I have provided a table with all existing Aim-7 variants, changes of these 3 parameters in the aforementioned commits and verified that the parameter values have stayed the same right up to now. We can immediately see the problem: missile param 23.3.2024 11.7.2024 30.6.2025 Aim-7E2 index M 230 194 194 Aim-7E2 fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7E2 fm mass2 230 194 194 Aim-7E index M 230 206.4 206.4 Aim-7E fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7E fm mass2 230 206.4 206.4 Aim-7F index M 231 231 231 Aim-7F fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7F fm mass2 231 231 231 Aim-7MH index M 231 231 231 Aim-7MH fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7MH fm mass2 231 231 231 Aim-7P index M 231 231 231 Aim-7P fm mass1 231 194 194 Aim-7P fm mass2 231 231 231 Aim-7(M?) index M 231.1 231.1 231.1 Aim-7(M?) fm mass1 231.1 194 194 Aim-7(M?) fm mass2 231.1 231.1 231.1 First of all, before the change, for every missile, all 3 of these parameters were kept the same (only difference = 1 with E2 variant). After the change, only the E2 missile has equal values of the 3 params, all of the other missiles have 1 parameter different from the remaining two. The most dramatic difference is 37kg. Not only is the parameter different, but it is exactly the value present in the E2 variant (194). Is it possible that somehow, at some point, the E2 "fm mass1" value overspilled to the other variants? Commiting different versions of the code, copying the value of the params, etc.? I am 99% confident that this is not the change you'd intended to do. Because you did change the values for E2, but kept all 3 params the same. That appears to be the correct approach. It is my suspicion and hypothesis, that this one single parameter is directly responsible for the new buffed-up missile performance of the variants that shouldn't have been changed at all. There is one more supporting evidence for this. E and E2 variants should have different mass according to literature and also according to your changes. The difference should be about 6% (194 vs 206.4). There are more differences in missile params for these 2 missiles in the "seeker" and "autopilot" part and it was my hypothesis that these could be ignored when firing blind without a target lock. We tested it and arrived at an estimated difference in gained energy of 0.6% - this is nowhere near the perceived mass difference. In the "boost" and "march" parameters, they have the same impulse value. So the motors are the same, the impulse is the same, the resulting extra speed should be different by about 6% (p = m.v), but it's barely detectable (0.6% diff in energy) EDIT: I may be wrong at this point. After comparing missile speeds, the E vs E2 may actually have about 5% difference in speed, but it's hard to judge. The aircraft shot one missile at slightly higher initial speed. Combined with drag being dependent of speed etc. this creates a difference. And also the other extra missile parameters, in which these missiles differ, could play a role. Attached, you'll find what I believe to be proof that these missiles actually have the same mass for the purposes of energy after launch. Despite not having same mass in real life and also in the other 2 mass parameters. EDIT: hard to say. They appear too similar. This is all I can provide at this moment, I'm happy to talk more about this. I only have few key questions for you and would be delighted if you managed to answer them: 1. Can you please confirm, that you indeed observe the provided values of the parameters and that 1 ("fm mass1") is different from the other two in all but the E2 variant? 2. Can you please confirm if this was unintended and the idea indeed was, to keep all 3 parameters at same (updated) values? 3. If yes, am I right in assuming this could be fixed as easily as rewriting one parameter value for 5 missiles to match the remaining two parameter values? 4. And finally, if yes, could you please prioritize this in your future updates? If you've survived to the merge (the end of my post), thank you and congratulations. I wish you the very best of luck in improving and maintaining the game that we all love and enjoy so much. Best regards, Merrek

There are MP servers where I've seen Su-33 packed with R-77s or PL-12, can't remember. If you want R-77 on an Su-27, you're talking about the J-11. Can carry up to 6 of them. And also PL-12 with better range. But I've seen it packed with 10 R-77s (ShadowReapers Syria 90s scenario, I think) including the furthermost pylons usually reserved for R-73 or ECM pods.

Good sense of humour. Anyway, I can beat the highest AI (and many human players as well) using just R variant against an AMRAAM. You see - about 90% of blue pilots are lazy, too much used to having superior airframes, avionics and missiles. They can only do a Split-S or an "out" maneuver and launch at max possible range, thereby wasting their missiles. You can evade an AMRAAM launched even at 12-15km head-on, if you know what to do. No mountains, no notching, no cheating (head-on high-G barrel roll bug, exploiting proximity fuze). Only using MiG's capabilities - speed, acceleration, thrust-to-weight ratio, turn rate. I have trained (for years) 1v1 FC3 MiG-29A (2x ER) against F-16C equipped with 6 AMRAAMs, flying over water, starting at same altitude and speed. Trust me, there is a winning strategy. Statistically, I should be dying 90% of the time, but it's the other way around. The winning strategy keeps changing because of updates in the flight model, missiles, AI, etc., but I'm yet to see a case, in which there is 0 chance to succeed. Lately, I've been trying with R variant. The odds are worse, but still doable. Don't even start with ET. You can creep upon an enemy using notching, mountains or flanking. They never expect it. They don't preflare, only top virtual pilots. T/ET is an excellent weapon, but using proper tactics, radar variants are more than enough. I'm not saying it works every time against everyone. Of course not. If the blue pilots were doing the same stuff I'm doing, I'd have zero chance. But they're not doing it. I haven't flown the F-16 in years now. Feels like cheating, once you get the hang of it and possess the same missile as the opposition. The only proper challenge (and satisfaction) is having much inferior missiles, slightly inferior aircraft, no GCI, no AWACS, no EWR and still winning/surviving. Cheers. P.S.: Why doesn't the AI fly faster or turn cold? Because he'd lose even quicker and he knows it. If he turns cold against my 29, he's dead. Faster closure against my ER is also to his detriment. He's doing what he can. BTW this gif is from 2 weeks ago, since then, they changed the AI and the missiles (again). Tactics have changed, the outcome is still the same.

Didn't think we'd live to see the day. Finally the beloved MiG-29 coming to DCS in full fidelity. Personally, I don't care about clickable cockpits, I use Virpil control panels #1 and 2, there is hardly any FC3 functionality I hadn't mapped using them panels. But I do care about the precise modelling of all the sensors and systems. Really can't wait to experience it. Hopefully we'll get the Lazur thing for intercepts, which should be included also in the MiG-23. And let's also hope, they'll model the original MiG the way it worked according to US comparison tests with MiG-29G vs western planes. Real-life MiG-29 should outturn an F-16 (by a negligible 0.2 deg/s, but it counts) and outclimb an F-15 going 70 degrees up from the same initial speed. Forget about the inferior missiles, primitive BVR, useless HDD (heads down display), analog switches and dials, 5-minute fuel capacity, etc. It's the on-par performance against western counterparts while being much cheaper to build and operate (although the engines need to be changed periodically). In a way, it did succeed in its original mission. To be a front-line defender against F-15 and F-16 before AMRAAM. Also, don't pay attention to kill/loss ratios. Who flew those MiGs? 3rd world countries? Questionable pilot training? MiG against MiG? What does that do for the k/l ratio, huh? All the MiGs (not just 29) have terrible record because it's usually USA/Israel against inferior air force or 3rd world countries fighting each other.

Ordered, paid, waiting... My first Virpil product. Next year, I will be adding some throttle from them to mix it up with the control panel.

BuzzU - agreed. But I believe that real Hog pilots don't have a huge "Warthog" sign on their sticks... I haven't flown the Viper in F4 because of my inferior hardware as a kid and it is only now that my career allows me to work only few days a week so that I have the proper time to look into all the procedures, tactics, etc. even with some quality family life. I really liked the Digital Integration's F-16: Fighting Falcon. About 40 or so training missions at Nellis AFB on every type of munitions, I loved that. Especially loft bombing. And the F-16: Aggressor is a bit of a misunderstood undervalued product. Well, compared to DCS they all seem extremely arcade-like of course. But the Aggressor had very interesting types of weapons - 5 variants of the AIM-9, 4 variants of the AIM-7, Mavericks, Harpoons, Penguins... It even boasted a fuel/air bomb! Now that was a proper beast. Tried that once, never used cluster bombs afterwards. The almost non-existent storyline was interesting in a sense that you were a mercenary pilot getting paid in dollars. Something like the "Kadre" squad in TopGun: Fire at Will.

Hi Snake, interesting, I haven't heard about that one. But it seems even more expensive than the Viper add-on from TM. Maybe in a few years when and if the TM's solution gets obsolete or worn out. Good to know it works also with the TM magnetic base. Right now I am thinking of getting some quality replica of the F-16's throttle. Definitely this year.

Hi guys, I don't agree the new TM marketing is for the gullible. Those people don't play DCS. Although I agree that the reviewers (Wags included) somehow tend to "omit" the simple fact that it is the same old Warthog stick, I think you might be missing a point. I have actually ordered one of them new magnetic bases and the rebranded "Viper" stick. By the time you read it, I will have it plugged in instead of my trusted Defender Cobra M5 (23 buttons + hat for 35 euros, you can't beat that). Now why did I do it? Of course I'd done research and swiftly realized it is the same stick. Hence, I don't think TM can rip people off on this. However, my reasons are very simple. F-16 is my childhood dream. I flew DI's F-16 Fighting Falcon (the original CD actually exploded in a more modern 52x CD-ROM mechanic, which the Mythbusters claim impossible), then F-16: Aggressor, never had a hardware for the Falcon 4.0 as a kid, later on played LOMAC and finally now, when I'm over 30, ED came with their F-16 module for DCS which I'd played for about a year before. Maybe some of you had goosebumps as myself, when after 2 hours of trying on the 5th or 6th attempt, I finally completed the proper starting procedure in this amazing bird and got to the skies. My first high-fidelity module. I had dreamt about the F-16 FLCS joystick (only saw 2 pictures of that in magazines) and the Cougar, which is now obsolete without upgrades. To the point - for years now I have hated the fact, that the best TM stick is the Warthog replica. I don't need left and right throttle. And I most certainly don't want the Warthog word written anywhere. Call me stupid, I respect that plane, its gun and durability, but I never liked it and I just couldn't fly an F-16 with a Hog stick, even if the difference was purely cosmetic. So I guess, I am TM's perfect target group. Every single piece of flying hardware I bought separately after weeks of planning and reassuring I will play that game and enjoy my investment. TrackIR was a total game changer. And I expect no less from the "Viper" stick. Since the money isn't an issue, I will gladly pay extra for that 10-year logo and a box saying F-16C Viper. Only to fool myself I'm not flying the Hog stick. Yes, I could've had the same functionality for 2/3 of the price. However, I don't ever want to deal with the Hog and I just couldn't look at it every time I play DCS. I felt compelled to write this here as nobody had mentioned this point before. Functionality is one thing - branding, logos and names are another. I work in digital marketing and know exactly how and why TM got the money out of me. Both sides happy. Good deal. Don't make too much fun of me, please. Cheers, mates.