GGTharos

You don't know what you're talking about.

I didn't say it doesn't continue, I said that the missile does not process it while homing. They do not. They illuminate the target, the missile guides itself - ie. homing.

It doesn't. I mean you can call it listening or processing, it's largely irrelevant. The DL has no impact while the missile is homing. No it isn't, which is why the missile must home on the target.

Ever head of this 'internet' thing? Me either. It's new

We're not allowed to post those here. Find yourself an F-15E -1 and check it out. These aircraft are limited by physics. NASA did fly their F-15B (with special engine mods) to M 2.69, but that's NASA's F-15B special. Limits for flying those aircraft at those speeds include: Overheating engines Lack of correct airflow into the engine (the ramps can only do so much to shape the airflow, their ability to do this is not unlimited) Heating of the canopy IAS/CAS limitations have to be respected or you might find that your aircraft will start falling apart Engines lose thrust as air pressure (so with altitude) decreases This is before we even get to drag preventing you from reaching such speeds. Vague references from brochures are usually quite meaningless, get the -1 and you'll learn much more. The -1 is your basic reliable technical data. Correction, here's a source: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/645693/

Not accurate enough for a direct hit in either TWS or STT, but accurate enough to choose a target among many (hereto referred to as 'the correct target'). In the -34s it is mentioned that the 120 Pk does not change whether it is supported or not once pitbull, which implies that the 120 stops processing the DL once locked on. It may start listening to it again if it loses the target (the phoenix certainly does) but otherwise it's on its own. No missile should be shot into a furball, as it can be aimed at the wrong target to begin with or it can switch to the wrong target under certain circumstances (the former demonstrated so well in SATAL ) regardless of the guidance being used (SARH, ARH, IRH). But the other caution here is that despite what's written in these almost 3-decade old manuals in some cases, with the 120 this is all mostly software. All of this behavior could change with a software update, subject only to the missile's hardware limitations.

This depends very heavily on the specifics of the entire system, by this meaning the combination of AWG-9 capability and the missile's hardware. Ignoring the AWG-9 issues for a moment, the goal is to shape the missile's trajectory in such a way that you have a sort of best balance between time-to-target (and constrained by the missile's own maximum TOF) and missile speed at intercept time. More speed=more maneuvering. Shorter time to target means the target has less time to do whatever it wants to do to make the missile miss. So, shaping the trajectory is pretty tricky: The missile has to fly where you can still receive the guidance commands from the AWG-9 (may not be an issue), while balancing a high lofted flight to maintain speed in the cruise phase and minimize speed reduction in the terminal phase. At the same time, the 54A must be able to see a target reflection in SARH (SADL) mode to be able to steer it since it didn't have an INS mid-course capability. In other words, the AWG-9 tells it where to look, the 54A looks there for reflections from the target as the AWG-9's TWS sweeps over the target, and adjusts its trajectory accordingly until it's time to go active. So here a lower RCS (ie. a fighter) reduces the TWS launch capabilities. The same is true of bombers but at much longer ranges. In both cases shooting in STT gives you longer range because more energy is reflected from the target. It's just one of many issues. But yes as said above, the 54 was quite capable against fighters ... just very expensive to be used that way, until it wasn't.

Regarding the demonstrated tacview, was ECM involved? @Chizh there are definitely problems, but they appear difficult to test. I think a formal test structure/cheat-sheet to help us report missile issues would be of real use here. I understand that you want to keep missile algorithms and all that internal (or if you want to tell us about it in detail, that would be great - some of us are very interested!) but as you can see, things are getting missed. The tacview in this thread demonstrated 12 AIM-120 launches, 10-11 of those within the heart of the envelope, all of which miss horribly, as if the missile stops guiding or fails to correctly apply acceleration commands or is delayed in doing so. I know that MP is more difficult because it introduces extra problems, and I know you need tracks from both clients to help diagnose correctly but at some point I think your internal testers (or even beta testers) should respond to this by trying to test a few scenarios themselves.

Not to mention those RWRs not being 'ultra precise' means they have up to a 3 degree error which let's face it ... easy to notch with.

While a lot of complaints are about the AIM-120 as it is a popular weapon, we have sparrows failing to track on relatively short-range (inside 10nm) high-aspect contacts as well. So this isn't confined to the 120, it may affect the new API generically although the actual causes may be different for the different missiles.

For trolling, and you just fed the trolls.

It's possible that the closure/doppler gate is failing to track properly. Given the number of things added, like kalman filters etc, it could be anything.

No one's going to look at it if you don't present a track. Sent from my SM-A705W using Tapatalk

I haven't had any issues either. Maybe your flying just isn't that extreme.

GLOC is a completely different part of the simulation with completely different behavior. Some airframes will break before you ever have a chance at GLOC.

That's not what happens with the aircraft. And now they won't be able to. Do we really have to go over this again? We'll have every virtual pilot who does this come by your office for the appropriate dress-down then. IRL you also brief for hours before you fly. And nothing will ever happen, which is why we'll send them to you for a dressing-down. Yep. And it does, but you might have a hard time. But really not relevant here.

Not actually a fact as shown in real life combat. We know it reduces airframe life, and the amount of trouble caused depends on how long the loads were applied for as well. So you have a problem with an airframe capable of experiencing 12g without self-destructing under certain GWs, is that what you're saying? What about them? Do you know how to model them, which ones to model and how? Which aircraft in DCS has it modeled? FC3 ones obviously do not since they don't have a whole lot of systems simulation to play with. Please don't tell me that I'm taking things out of context - the fact that IRL pilots aren't going out of their way to test limits, while game pilots do is just that, a fact. This is well and truly in context; virtual pilots will always get a new plane, so they'll pull more g, they'll never die really so they'll stay heads on to hit you with their own missile even when they know they're going to eat the one that's coming at them. The airframes are capable up to a limit, the limit was implemented, so what are you really arguing about now? Are we talking about DCS, or are you talking about IRL aircraft? Or is this still some sort of veiled complaint that the flanker can't get up to eagle style g-shennanigans?

People also casually kamikaze themselves as a matter of routine in the game...because it's a game, so

I'm sure it was, 12g is nothing to sneeze at.

Fun IRL fact: Pilot overstressed the airframe (12g) and then blew up some miG-25's. So the gist of it isn't quite the gist of it.

+30% before damage occurs and +50% for reaching the ultimate load (things break right away).

Couldn't tell you, all I can tell you is that this sort of maneuver is practiced and no one wants to stall so ... anyway, like I said the actual details exist but not in any document we can access. Things like exact effect s of rudder - like say how fast cna you turn with just the rudder, assuming you use aileroon to remain level, the wing's critical parameters etc. All that is not available to us. Maybe if someone feels like it they could find some sort of FCF record or something that goes into testing high AoA handling.

54 deg was a spike in a defensive maneuver. The book which describes the exact capabilities is nowhere to be found for the public unfortunately. In other words I couldn't tell you that you can 'walk' the eagle at 54, and you probably can't. Also as I said, that spike led to a spin due to asymmetric airflow over the nose cone combined with lack of longitudinal stability due to the high AoA (vertical stabs are washed out, low airflow, etc).

Yeah my calc prof said 'never do arithmetic in public, it could be embarassing' ... do math instead, no one will be able to tell Above 35CPUs (20-25 in some cases) the aircraft becomes very sensitive to yaw, which isn't really well represented in DCS. Very high AoA excursions (like the 54 I mentioned) can then result in problems, in this case it was an accident due to a deformed nose cone, causing the aircraft to spin out because the moment arm is huge while stability is reduced. So you can fly very high AoAs but you have to finesse it a lot.

29 degrees (I assume that was a typo) and the highest spike I've read about was 54 CPUs or about 54deg in this case oddly enough.