not a bug A-10C nearly impossible to hit with SARH/IR missiles

[jaylw314]

10 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:

I have no idea if DCS treats both AI and client the same.

That's a fair point.  Still, that thing about "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies.

[Ramius007]

I had similar experiance on BF in F-15C vs Su-25T, missed 3 Sparrows, 2 lost radar lock due pilot flying very low, 3rd Sparrow followed chaff, then missed 3 Aim-9M that liked flares more than plane. But I can confirm A-10 being somehow hard to hit also, think i missed several R-73's, there was a guy on Contention server who made 5 (five) A2A kills in 1 sortie, maybe nobody told that A-10 pilot it's "study level sim"

[Ivandrov]

19 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:

I have no idea if DCS treats both AI and client the same.

Supplying two Tacviews, here. One where I used mostly the R-73, and one where I used mostly the R-27R. Eight missiles shot, Eight A-10's dead in each Tacview.

The A-10s were stripped of countermeasures, and gun ammo.

If you can prove that it matters whether these A-10s are human or AI, then that's something we can explore. But, otherwise, this all seems pretty normal to me.

Tacview-20240213-233641-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20240213-232850-DCS.zip.acmi

[Pavlin_33]

On 2/13/2024 at 10:45 PM, Ramius007 said:

I had similar experiance on BF in F-15C vs Su-25T, missed 3 Sparrows, 2 lost radar lock due pilot flying very low, 3rd Sparrow followed chaff, then missed 3 Aim-9M that liked flares more than plane. But I can confirm A-10 being somehow hard to hit also, think i missed several R-73's, there was a guy on Contention server who made 5 (five) A2A kills in 1 sortie, maybe nobody told that A-10 pilot it's "study level sim"

Su-25T has an IR jammer up it's tail, so if your IR missiles miss from his dead six o' clock, chances are that's the reason.

[Pavlin_33]

Another interesting situation with the "magic" A-10:
three R-27R's missed from 12km and 4km respectively. He was doing 210kph when the first two missed, but radar lock was never dropped and my EOS was off. Same thing with the last one that missed, he was 162km/h.

[GGTharos]

At that speed falling into the notch is very easy.

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

At that speed falling into the notch is very easy.

And the missile and tracking radar are in different locations

[Pavlin_33]

16 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

And the missile and tracking radar are in different locations

Yes, hopefully - otherwise it's called a mid-air collision

[jaylw314]

7 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:

Yes, hopefully - otherwise it's called a mid-air collision

More so to point out that even if your radar is not notched, the target may be in the missile's notch filter

[Pavlin_33]

On 2/15/2024 at 2:57 PM, GGTharos said:

At that speed falling into the notch is very easy.

I think Flanker's capable of tracking targets down to 150km/h in look-down, but I am not 100% sure. I will need to investigate further.

From automatic translation service:
 

Quote

When attacking a target maneuvering at angles of less than 3° and
against the background of the ground in PPS (ZPS), tracking is provided
to closing speeds greater (smaller) than its own speed at 150 km/h,
which at subsonic speeds corresponds to an angle of about 80°.

 

Edited February 17, 2024 by Pavlin_33

[GGTharos]

20 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

I think Flanker's capable of tracking targets down to 150km/h in look-down, but I am not 100% sure. I will need to investigate further.

Yep, so that's the closure component which allows you to easily be in the notch compared to going faster, basically the angle off 90 degrees to the radar opens up significantly.

[Pavlin_33]

7 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Yep, so that's the closure component which allows you to easily be in the notch compared to going faster, basically the angle off 90 degrees to the radar opens up significantly.

True, I would have to re-check the geometry from the TView