Mirage F1 Sidewinder lock

[Cab]

It is much more difficult to get a lock with the Sidewinders on the F1 compared to the other jets. Anyone know why?

[BluTuthNinja]

Can you be more specific? Range? Aspect? MIssile version?

[Cab]

Really all versions and ranges but I'd be happy to focus on the AIM-9B as a control since it is commonly used by so many aircraft in DCS

I freely admit it could be something I'm doing wrong, however, I experience no problem getting a tone with the AIM-9B on the F-5, F-86, A-4, etc. But under similar circumstances with the F1, getting a tone is very, very rare. Also, I am accounting for the two-minute requirement after turning the "MATRA 550 or sidewinder missile switch" to M.

So basically it comes down to this: In the F1 I rarely ever get tone using the AIM-9B, while in other aircraft I have no problem getting a tone. But for all I know, maybe the F1 is correct and the others are too easy.

[gnomechild]

The long and short of it is, the Mirage F1 has the most realistic implementation of the Aim-9B, J and P seeker heads in DCS. It models a lot of things especially in the 9B that make it particularly hard to use including the inability to uncage it, the seeker null center, and the very limited FOV. Combined with the high aim point (the wingtip missiles center of fov is the very top of the HUD glass) this makes missile employment in the F1 much more challenging than almost any other module. But it is realistic and pretty damn cool from Aerges 

[Iron Sights]

Seems like that would be a disadvantage if all other planes don’t follow that model.

[Cab]

14 hours ago, gnomechild said:

The long and short of it is, the Mirage F1 has the most realistic implementation of the Aim-9B, J and P seeker heads in DCS. It models a lot of things especially in the 9B that make it particularly hard to use including the inability to uncage it, the seeker null center, and the very limited FOV. Combined with the high aim point (the wingtip missiles center of fov is the very top of the HUD glass) this makes missile employment in the F1 much more challenging than almost any other module. But it is realistic and pretty damn cool from Aerges 

Ok, thanks. I’ll try using the top of the HUD as an aiming point when I get home today

[Cab]

21 hours ago, gnomechild said:

The long and short of it is, the Mirage F1 has the most realistic implementation of the Aim-9B, J and P seeker heads in DCS. It models a lot of things especially in the 9B that make it particularly hard to use including the inability to uncage it, the seeker null center, and the very limited FOV. Combined with the high aim point (the wingtip missiles center of fov is the very top of the HUD glass) this makes missile employment in the F1 much more challenging than almost any other module. But it is realistic and pretty damn cool from Aerges 

This was the ticket to success. Thank you.

 

[USA_Recon]

On 8/7/2023 at 7:57 PM, gnomechild said:

The long and short of it is, the Mirage F1 has the most realistic implementation of the Aim-9B, J and P seeker heads in DCS. It models a lot of things especially in the 9B that make it particularly hard to use including the inability to uncage it, the seeker null center, and the very limited FOV. Combined with the high aim point (the wingtip missiles center of fov is the very top of the HUD glass) this makes missile employment in the F1 much more challenging than almost any other module. But it is realistic and pretty damn cool from Aerges 

I followed a bandit all over and couldn’t get the tone, tried everywhere including the top of the glass 

[Cab]

4 minutes ago, USA_Recon said:

I followed a bandit all over and couldn’t get the tone, tried everywhere including the top of the glass 

Yeah, still hit and miss for me too

[USA_Recon]

No explanation of cannon600

nothing even in chucks guide.  Care to elaborate on this poorly named binding ?

obscure binding names makes it hard to use your module 

[Vibora]

4 hours ago, USA_Recon said:

No explanation of cannon600

nothing even in chucks guide.  Care to elaborate on this poorly named binding ?

obscure binding names makes it hard to use your module 

It is named "Cannon 300-600m and missile lock/unlock button" in Mirage F1 controls binding.

We have explained it in our changelogs as we implemented it after F1 inital release. We'll eventually add an explanation in our Flight Manual.

This is en extract of the said changelog:

• Sidewinder missile will not perform SEAM (scan pattern) anymore as this mode was not implemented in the real F1.
• 'Cannon 600/Identification P' throttle button will now uncage Sidewinder missiles (except AIM-9B). If no target was detected at this moment, the seeker head will drift randomly following the background IR heat. The seeker will return to the boresight once the 'Cannon 600/Identification P' button is released. I.e. if a target is tracked, the button must be held pressed to keep the seeker on the target.
• AIM-9JULI launch delay was reduced to 0.4 seconds (AIM-9B/P/J still have 0.8 seconds).
• Magic 1 and 2 scan now is a 5 degrees wide rectangular pattern.
• Fixed Magic missile scan pattern. Sometimes the scan pattern size was excessively increased.
• Updated Magic missiles instantaneous seeker FOV. It is now 3.4 degrees wide.

The two first points is probably what you are looking for. Replace the naming 'Cannon 600/Identification P' for 'Cannon 300-600m and missile lock/unlock button'.

[Harlikwin]

On 9/24/2023 at 3:25 PM, Vibora said:

It is named "Cannon 300-600m and missile lock/unlock button" in Mirage F1 controls binding.

We have explained it in our changelogs as we implemented it after F1 inital release. We'll eventually add an explanation in our Flight Manual.

This is en extract of the said changelog:

• Sidewinder missile will not perform SEAM (scan pattern) anymore as this mode was not implemented in the real F1.
• 'Cannon 600/Identification P' throttle button will now uncage Sidewinder missiles (except AIM-9B). If no target was detected at this moment, the seeker head will drift randomly following the background IR heat. The seeker will return to the boresight once the 'Cannon 600/Identification P' button is released. I.e. if a target is tracked, the button must be held pressed to keep the seeker on the target.
• AIM-9JULI launch delay was reduced to 0.4 seconds (AIM-9B/P/J still have 0.8 seconds).
• Magic 1 and 2 scan now is a 5 degrees wide rectangular pattern.
• Fixed Magic missile scan pattern. Sometimes the scan pattern size was excessively increased.
• Updated Magic missiles instantaneous seeker FOV. It is now 3.4 degrees wide.

The two first points is probably what you are looking for. Replace the naming 'Cannon 600/Identification P' for 'Cannon 300-600m and missile lock/unlock button'.

Are you guys going to implement the "smaller" search pattern for the magic1, it had the larger one by default and then could be set to a smaller "point" scan by using the "uncage" button. 

On 8/7/2023 at 9:05 PM, Iron Sights said:

Seems like that would be a disadvantage if all other planes don’t follow that model.

Welcome to DCS, where we actually like realism instead of warthunderisms. And yes its lame that there is alot of variability in missile modeling, especially for the older ED modules like the F5 and F86 that never seems to get fixed even when its been reported for years.

 

On 9/19/2023 at 6:54 AM, USA_Recon said:

I followed a bandit all over and couldn’t get the tone, tried everywhere including the top of the glass 

With the aim9B it basically needs to see up the tail pipe. The9J/P are somewhat more forgiving but still very much rear aspect.

I suppose, be glad that ED doesn't model any of the problems with the SARH missile seekers. Otherwise you'd cry alot about the 530EM. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Vibora]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

Are you guys going to implement the "smaller" search pattern for the magic1, it had the larger one by default and then could be set to a smaller "point" scan by using the "uncage" button. 

Yes, the lack of the smaller pattern is a known issue, it is still pending. Now BE is taking a lot of effort as we are close to its release.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Vibora said:

Yes, the lack of the smaller pattern is a known issue, it is still pending. Now BE is taking a lot of effort as we are close to its release.

Cool. No worries, you guys will get there. I also hope that eventually the radar model also is world class.

[Cab]

On 8/7/2023 at 6:57 PM, gnomechild said:

The long and short of it is, the Mirage F1 has the most realistic implementation of the Aim-9B, J and P seeker heads in DCS. It models a lot of things especially in the 9B that make it particularly hard to use including the inability to uncage it, the seeker null center, and the very limited FOV. Combined with the high aim point (the wingtip missiles center of fov is the very top of the HUD glass) this makes missile employment in the F1 much more challenging than almost any other module. But it is realistic and pretty damn cool from Aerges 

I fly the Mirage a lot and still struggle to get a tone, even from directly 6 o'clock. Quite frankly, it seems unlikely to me that the real Sidewinder behaved this way, especially the J and P versions. Quite the contrary, most (if not all) historical references I've read told of missiles getting lock and being fired out of the envelope, not a frustration that lock was difficult to achieve in the first place.

I am, however, willing to be convinced otherwise if there is some documentation to support the claim above. 

 

[Harlikwin]

On 5/13/2024 at 5:43 AM, Cab said:

I fly the Mirage a lot and still struggle to get a tone, even from directly 6 o'clock. Quite frankly, it seems unlikely to me that the real Sidewinder behaved this way, especially the J and P versions. Quite the contrary, most (if not all) historical references I've read told of missiles getting lock and being fired out of the envelope, not a frustration that lock was difficult to achieve in the first place.

I am, however, willing to be convinced otherwise if there is some documentation to support the claim above. 

 

The 9B should basically only really see REALLY hot stuff like the inside of the flame diverters/compression stages of the engine, basically right up the pipe. It should also go for clutter and alot of other things in DCS, but hey we don't actually have an IR model in DCS. Its probably too generous in DCS. 

J/P should mostly see the ass end i.e. (external parts of the engine, i.e. the feathers) etc. 

Again, IRL its entirely based on the geometry of the aircraft, in DCS its not because there is no IR modeling going on. 

Also realize where the seeker is looking is basically the top of your hud not the center.

null

 

Edited May 14 by Harlikwin

[303_Kermit]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Again, IRL its entirely based on the geometry of the aircraft, in DCS its not because there is no IR modeling going on. 

 

Probably we play different games then. I find F-5 and AJS37 drastically harder to lock, (not mentioning MiG-15 or F-86) as for example MiG-21 or (extreme example) B52.
Bollocks... With all the respect

Edited May 14 by 303_Kermit

[IvanK]

If and When the R550 Magic I  default 30 x 30 scan an 5 x 5 scan is implemented life will be much easier

[Harlikwin]

23 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

Probably we play different games then. I find F-5 and AJS37 drastically harder to lock, (not mentioning MiG-15 or F-86) as for example MiG-21 or (extreme example) B52.
Bollocks... With all the respect

 

Thats because there is an IR coefficient for the engine for each plane which is a lazy way to do it. And often hilariously wrong because seeker models don't exist, i.e. a 9B seeker doesn't see the same part of the spectrum as 9J seeker or 9M seeker. And also doubly wrong because in the case of some missiles they minimally care about things like the afterburner and plume at long range. 

For example a 9B should have a huge problem locking the F86 cuz its literally got to see up its tailpipe (which is smol). A 9J should care less and if it can see the rear aspect probably good enough. And finally the 9M lol, doesn't care. 

Edited May 14 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

14 minutes ago, IvanK said:

If and When the R550 Magic I  default 30 x 30 scan an 5 x 5 scan is implemented life will be much easier

So I realize its likely a bit political, but there are 2 versions of the magic II in the game, your's/ED's and Razbams, maybe since they are IRL the same missile they should be the same in game. 

[303_Kermit]

13 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Thats because there is an IR coefficient for the engine for each plane which is a lazy way to do it. And often hilariously wrong because seeker models don't exist, i.e. a 9B seeker doesn't see the same part of the spectrum as 9J seeker or 9M seeker. And also doubly wrong because in the case of some missiles they minimally care about things like the afterburner and plume at long range. 

 

If ED will modell it like you wish, you'll probably whine about how your high end PC produces barely 15 fps during Fox-2 lock, and freezes during look into a lake. Beware what you wish for.

Edited May 14 by 303_Kermit

[Cab]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

The 9B should basically only really see REALLY hot stuff like the inside of the flame diverters/compression stages of the engine, basically right up the pipe. It should also go for clutter and alot of other things in DCS, but hey we don't actually have an IR model in DCS. Its probably too generous in DCS. 

J/P should mostly see the ass end i.e. (external parts of the engine, i.e. the feathers) etc. 

Again, IRL its entirely based on the geometry of the aircraft, in DCS its not because there is no IR modeling going on. 

Also realize where the seeker is looking is basically the top of your hud not the center.

null

 

 

As I wrote above, I more often than not get no tone even from directly behind and well within range with the target at the top of the HUD and a radar lock.

I don’t know enough to say it’s wrong, but I haven’t seen anything to convince me it’s correct. However, I will try one more time using your diagram above. 

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

If ED will modell it like you wish, you'll probably whine about how your high end PC produces barely 15 fps during Fox-2 lock, and freezes during look into a lake. Beware what you wish for.

 

Brother if Razbam and HB can do a whole decent radar sim on one core, this is vastly easier.

Edited May 15 by Harlikwin

[303_Kermit]

On 5/15/2024 at 3:50 AM, Harlikwin said:

Brother if Razbam and HB can do a whole decent radar sim on one core, this is vastly easier.

 

If you say so - you shall immediately show, that you can do it all by yourself.
Either one say "Look that is the proper algorithm, I've tested it, it is better, it is easy". Else... one say nothing at all. I mean... that is common behaviour where I live...

Edited May 16 by 303_Kermit

[Jenrick]

With the 9B null seeker center, when it gets quiet does that mean it's got a lock then?