[CORRECT AS IS] R-27ET lack of Proportional Navigation

So I gonna take this track to demonstrate this proportional navigation doesn't exist in DCS. So below the first picture show the very first moment first R-27ET leave the rail toward nobody know. Please see the fine red line pointing to a specific position (it is my aircraft heading at this moment as well)

So after about 5sec (see clock on the pictures) the R-27ET start a Proportional Navigation method by DCS only... amazingly this Air-Air missile started to look for interception on the last position the bandit was at the moment of the launch. So basically for the developers in DCS the proportional navigation for R-27ET was engineering made against something on static on the air. (please see the red fine line pointing to the blue trajectory made by F fighter instead of a updated proportional navigation method with target lock-on with aircraft sensors as manufacturer claimed in this missile features. http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html

Please see track. You will see I launched an R-27ER (the missile actually impacted on this picture below) about 15 seconds after my first R-27ET was launched... I mean we are talking 15sec and look picture for the huge differences in distance from the target and speed at the impact moment. While the R-27ER with 15sec delayed already impact on the target. after this 15sec the R-27ER overpassed the poor R-27ET that suffer a devastated waste of energy with that PN DCS simulated for it.

This simulation has an huge impact against Russian fighters because brake the most important factor in the use of different multiple homing head in R-27 family in DCS. So the simulation in DCS for R-27ET is based in two worthless huge trajectories curves, to start a self Proportional navigation method from the moment the heat IR head seeker catch the IR signal (but at this moment this missiles lost huge energy ready for the trash by DCS)

R-27ET on the face-6.trk

Did you launch using the manual LA override?

Did you launch using the manual LA override?

read the manufactured description for proportional navigation with target lock-on. Sensor of the aircraft have already a lock-on. Did you see the track?

So I actually took the time to look at the track, and geez, does it not occur to you the WCS gives LA for a reason? Stop firing ETs OUTSIDE of seeker range. Quit overriding the LA. Its not done in the real jet. Of course it flys straight ahead at launch. THE SEEKER SEES NOTHING. It turns towards the target when it DOES get in seeker range, and follows PN as it should. Stop spreading misinformation.

So I actually took the time to look at the track, and geez, does it not occur to you the WCS gives LA for a reason? Stop firing ETs OUTSIDE of seeker range. Quit overriding the LA. Its not done in the real jet. Of course it flys straight ahead at launch. THE SEEKER SEES NOTHING. It turns towards the target when it DOES get in seeker range, and follows PN as it should. Stop spreading misinformation.

As you are not real pilot of a real Russian fighter your assumption seem useless trying contradicting the manufacturer information.

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html

As you are not real pilot of a real Russian fighter your assumption seem useless trying contradicting the manufacturer information.

Where does manufacturer brochure or manual list lock on after launch for T series?

Where does manufacturer brochure or manual list lock on after launch for T series?

Are you telling manufacturer is wrong and you ask for more proof? Do you want to set a personal standard and rules for Stuff implementation in Russian weapons?

Are you telling manufacturer is wrong and you ask for more proof? Do you want to set a personal standard and rules for Stuff implementation in Russian weapons?

I’m asking where manufacturer say this to give you that idea

I’m asking where manufacturer say this to give you that idea

As you are not ED team and all you post is in opposition against Russian. Tell me... do you really want to know? If yes then good for you...

In other words you dont have to give proof of your claims of fictional features, but you demand it from all those "fanboys" "in opposition against Russian" when they object to questionable/unreasonable claims that you make?

As you are not ED team and all you post is in opposition against Russian. Tell me... do you really want to know? If yes then good for you...

I’ve been posting on Sukhoi and MiG threads since 2018, it was practically all I posted on until JF-17. I love my Russian and Soviet birds more then anything. I have pretty much everything but the American teen series, and have probably spent as much time as you hunting online in Su-27, which was my main fighter for years. I like to think I’ve been not so quiet about how good a full fidelity redfor would be, and it’s not because I want an advanced Russian opponent

So personally no I’m not asking because I want to know, I’m asking because if so it might help you and I explain this whole misunderstanding of why you think someone says to override the launch

Or as you say I can trust the manufacture, thank you Vympel for giving me missiles I always fire beyond seeker range and never hit anything because why else would there be a override

Are you telling manufacturer is wrong and you ask for more proof? Do you want to set a personal standard and rules for Stuff implementation in Russian weapons?

He's literally asking a question on where you found the data because he can't find it...

The source you gave us said the lock-on is achieved while being carried under the plane.

As you are not real pilot of a real Russian fighter your assumption seem useless trying contradicting the manufacturer information.

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html

Says it right there, in your "source" brochure:

I am really disappointed. Nobody here have the right to contradict the official information of a weapon manufacturer. All I see here is personal opinion without evidences. So the improvement here are based on a group supported by management in this forum...? What we got here?

I show an official statement: http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html

User’s judged that official statement. And who support the users opinion? The name of the thread have been change without a single proof by regular Users. All of them mostly players and western support in the forum.

Then we should get in the simulator what a specific geographic users support on top of official manufacturer statements that this group play against?

This is deep. Really deep and disrespectful and unprofessional.

You are being disproved by the same manufacturer and link you seem to quote, but not read...

Just trolling ?