Discrepancies in DEFA and Magic II performance

[spikef22]

Hey yall, Unsure if this has been talked about before but it seems that the DEFA and Magic II underperform in Client F1s. Ive had some strange limitations on all aspect performance. Often only getting rear aspect locks at >1mile and sometimes no front aspect locks at all. I compared with the M2K in magic lock on mode and the performance is WILDLY different. I had a similar situation doing gun runs on enemy aircraft in both cases Mig-21s were used. In the F1 I kinda felt like I was shooting a nerf gun. The performance reminded me alot of using the cannons in the community A-4. Just didnt seem to do much unless I had a sustained shot. Compare this to the DEFAs on the M2K which mortally wound on the first pass usually. Im hoping other users can corroborate this so a defined issue can be reported and later fixed.

A few disclaimers/Biases. I understand the F1 still has alot of WIP features in this specific area, Such as Magic slaving. With that being said I think this is still a warranted thing to report. Secondly I did use the MIG-21 as a test target as I stated earlier, the 21 of course has a fairly small IR signature and some wiliness with its damage model atm. Lastly the M2K and F1 are of course made by different module makers so we cant expect one to act exactly like the other, with that being said I think issue skirts on the ED core level and should be something looked at. 

 

I look forward to hearing some feedback from the community on this. 

Thanks 

 

Update: the issues seems to be caused by the fact the F1 uses the lack luster ED Magic II instead of the Razbam one. Hopefully we can see this changed eventually. 

Edited February 10, 2024 by spikef22

[BonerCat]

Checked the files, looks like the F1 makes use of the {FC23864E-3B80-48E3-9C03-4DA8B1D7497B} refrence code, for the base game Magic II, while the 2000 uses the {MMagicII} or {MMagicII_DDM} for the MWS variant changing the rail, which i belive are the razbam custom ones

Interestingly enough, the F1 for the Magic 1 uses the internal naming system of {R_550_Magic_I}, and {AIM-9JULI}, suggesting that those missiles were developed in house, while the Magic II was added later, in a rushed manner simply taking the already available base game Magic II

I dont think that RAZBAM will simply let Aerges have their own Magic II, they dont have a really good reason to do so, other than being nice, so i m not gonna hold my breath, but it would be good to see 3rd party devs cooperating like that.

As for guns, i'd have to guess its just a matter of implementation from each dev again, but considering one aircraft is from the 60's and the other from the late 80's, you could say its the difference in ammunition and simulated well, tho that's mostly just conjecture on my part.

Edited February 10, 2024 by BonerCat

[spikef22]

5 minutes ago, BonerCat said:

Checked the files, looks like the F1 makes use of the {FC23864E-3B80-48E3-9C03-4DA8B1D7497B} refrence code, for the base game Magic II, while the 2000 uses the {MMagicII} or {MMagicII_DDM} for the MWS variant changing the rail, which i belive are the razbam custom ones

Interestingly enough, the F1 for the Magic 1 uses the internal naming system of {R_550_Magic_I}, and {AIM-9JULI}, suggesting that those missiles were developed in house, while the Magic II was added later, in a rushed manner simply taking the already available base game Magic II

I dont think that RAZBAM will simply let Aerges have their own Magic II, they dont have a really good reason to do so, other than being nice, so i m not gonna hold my breath, but it would be good to see 3rd party devs cooperating like that.

As for guns, i'd have to guess its just a matter of implementation from each dev again, but considering one aircraft is from the 60's and the other from the late 80's, you could say its the difference in ammunition and simulated well, tho that's mostly just conjecture on my part.

 

Good points, Tbf everything in the F1 is still up in the air. Its a great module but there is still alot of polishing needed here and there. Funnily enough this conversation started on the razbam discord for me so maybe some kind eyes might be willing to pull some strings. Either way, not holding my breath either 

[spikef22]

Oh just fyi, if anyone from aerges is reading this....

[fausete]

Hi guys,

For both the missile and the cannons we use the DCS standard model (which is what we should use in principle, keep in mind the M-2000 was released before ED took control of weapon implementation and the F1 afterwards).

The missile seeker while the missile is still on the aircraft is our own model and DCS' model the instant it is fired. We will contact RB to see if they have info, what if any different design choices they took...

This might be something that doesn't need a fix, something that we can change (in the case of the seeker) or something that needs ED's intervention.

Just to reiterate and be clear. None of the weapons behaviour themselves have been developed by us, irregardless of the internal naming, ED is now in charge of weapon modelling.

[BonerCat]

Interesting insight right there
never considered that seeker behavior would be developed separately from the missile behavior after launch

In any case, i feel like this isn't high priority, I didn't even notice the missiles acting that differently between the 2 aircraft (tho that might be because no radar slaving yet)
Good to hear a dev chip into the discussion