Magic 1 performance

[Lascar12F]

Hi all,

I've been having a blast flying this module but the magic 1 performance seems very off.

Looking at tacview files it seems the missile only pulls around 8Gs, which is about the same as a GAR8.

Public information available says the missile should be able to do in the neighborhood of 35Gs, which seems believable since the Magic II is known as a very very maneuverable missile, and the two share the same body and fins, the later missile simply having a different seeker and 10% more powerfull motor.

 

Would an aerges dev care to comment on this ? Is the low maneuverability of the missile intended on your end or is it an oversight ?

[fausete]

Hi, the behaviour and performance of the armament once it leaves the aircraft is ED's responsability.

[Lascar12F]

Oh understood, thanks for the reply.
Is that an issue that has been brought to ED's attention by you guys ?

Edited May 26 by Lascar12F

[IvanK]

The Magic I min range versus Angle off was at the time of its introduction perhaps the best in the world with the Missile and gun envelope inside the turn overlapping.... like an Rmin at 55deg Angle off 4Hm with a 7G target.

Edited May 26 by IvanK

[Lascar12F]

yeah what you're saying is in line with what i've been told about the missile and what it should realistically be able to do, which begs the question, why does it perform like a GAR8 in DCS ? It's essentially worthless right now. The 9-J is much much better in the sim, not even the JULI but the J...
Is this something that ED is aware of and working towards fixing ? or is the Magic 1 just forgotten because the Magic 2 is there and works ?

[DSplayer]

8 hours ago, Lascar12F said:

yeah what you're saying is in line with what i've been told about the missile and what it should realistically be able to do, which begs the question, why does it perform like a GAR8 in DCS ? It's essentially worthless right now. The 9-J is much much better in the sim, not even the JULI but the J...
Is this something that ED is aware of and working towards fixing ? or is the Magic 1 just forgotten because the Magic 2 is there and works ?

Please provide a short SP track of the situation you're encountering. The Magic 1 last had a change in May of 2024.

[Lascar12F]

sure here you go, tell me if you require any more tracks. The missile seems to systematically stop tracking the target as it gets close even though it has the energy and the aspect is still rear. In one of the attached track it is compared to a 9J.

magic 1 vs 9J no tracking.trk no flare rear close magic 1.trk

[Bremspropeller]

On a tangent: When loading Magic 1 missiles, a Magic 2 model is actually loaded (with a notch in the rear fins).

[DSplayer]

On 5/27/2025 at 12:51 PM, Lascar12F said:

sure here you go, tell me if you require any more tracks. The missile seems to systematically stop tracking the target as it gets close even though it has the energy and the aspect is still rear. In one of the attached track it is compared to a 9J.

magic 1 vs 9J no tracking.trk 395.1 kB · 0 downloads no flare rear close magic 1.trk 288.62 kB · 0 downloads

In the first track ("magic 1 vs 9J no tracking.trk") the Magic 1 loses track because the target moves such that it isn't rear aspect anymore. The AIM-9J tracks because it has better side aspect performance than the Magic 1 (max trackable aspect of ~103 degrees vs ~63 degrees off tail respectively).

I personally don't know what's being demonstrated in the second track ("no flare rear close magic 1.trk") but if it's the target aspect thing, I would expect it to be the same as the first track.

Edited May 29 by DSplayer

[IvanK]

IRL Magic I can still  track front quarter as long as the IR source is still there and gimble limits are not exceeded. Fusing is obviously the issue with Magic I.

Magic I seeker sensitivity was good enough to get lock  at 90 degrees Angle Off on a Mil powered target 700deg C JPT at 2nm at medium altitude, so not sure what the 63deg aspect thing is about.

[DSplayer]

2 hours ago, IvanK said:

IRL Magic I can still  track front quarter as long as the IR source is still there and gimble limits are not exceeded. Fusing is obviously the issue with Magic I.

Magic I seeker sensitivity was good enough to get lock  at 90 degrees Angle Off on a Mil powered target 700deg C JPT at 2nm at medium altitude, so not sure what the 63deg aspect thing is about.

Perhaps it would be good to write a bug report on that issue of it underperforming in-game since the values I used are pulled from the lua definitions.

Edited May 29 by DSplayer

[Lascar12F]

Thanks for the good info guys, and for the time spent reviewing the tracks.
So should I do the bug report or is that something you guys do internally ?
That aspect angle for it to stop tracking seems very much off, and likely the reason for the very poor performance of a historically very capable close range missile.

The thing I feel is lost a lot when talking about "rear" aspect missiles, is that they would only be rear from a distance and with a target at mil. When the missile gets close enough or the target is in afterburner, they should be near all aspect as far as the seeker goes. It's not just a matter of "oh well it's slightly side on, i guess i'm blind"

Just visually, a phantom's burners can be seen from nearly all but most frontal up aspects. even very poor IR seekers would be able to home on those. If I remember correctly that even was a problem with the magic 1, it would pass behind jets without fusing because it would home on exhaust 3-4 meters behind the jet and the fuse was poor.

[fausete]

Hi, if you write the bug report we can use it together with comments from @IvanK to report it internally.

[Lascar12F]

Done, thanks a lot guys for all the help, info, and time !
hopefully this goes somewhere !

[IvanK]

The max "trackable" angle off of 63degrees (as in the LUA) is demonstrably wrong as based on RW  seeker tracking numbers.

Having said that a very Broad brush Pilots employment rule of thumb that covered Fuzing and manoeuver capability in the BFM environment was:

Rmax 1nm, Rmin 4Hm, Launch Angle off max 60degrees inside the turn, up to 70degrees angle off for belly shots ... bandit turning away from you.

Edited May 30 by IvanK

[Bremspropeller]

On 5/28/2025 at 10:13 PM, Bremspropeller said:

On a tangent: When loading Magic 1 missiles, a Magic 2 model is actually loaded (with a notch in the rear fins).

Did more digging into this - they're two different models, but the Magic 1 has the notches in the rear fins.

Magic 1 on the right wing.

Spoiler

Magic 2 on the left.

Spoiler

 

They're two different models. M1 does, however, also have M2's opaque seeker window, which is wrong.

Magic 1, however should look like this (seeeker cap in place, no notches in tailfins):

Spoiler

Clear seeker glass:

Spoiler

The Magic 1 in game used to have the non-notched tailfin, but it always had the opaque seeker.

Does anybody know the reason why it was changed?

 

Sorry for the hi-jack, but I guess we're talking about Magic 1 issues anyway

[IvanK]

Magic I also had opaque seeker head ... ours certainly did

 

[Oesau]

6 minutes ago, IvanK said:

Magic I also had opaque seeker head ... ours certainly did

 

love the message on it - was this part of a live fire exercise (assuming its a live round with the yellow band?)

[IvanK]

Yes

[Bremspropeller]

12 hours ago, IvanK said:

Magic I also had opaque seeker head ... ours certainly did

 

Oh boy, what a rabbit-hole

Thanks for pointing that out!

I've gone through a couple of photos of jets with M1s and they're all also showing opaque seeker domes. All of the shots are mid 80s (86-87) at N'Djamena (hence live missiles).

https://www.airhistory.net/photo/780491/279

https://www.airhistory.net/photo/780245/265

https://www.airhistory.net/photo/777453/214

https://www.airhistory.net/photo/781985/632

I take this to be an old Magic 1 training round (?) (early 80s).

https://www.airhistory.net/photo/772915/37

There's also this (86 - more modern?) training round, looking closer to the later M2 training missiles:

https://www.airhistory.net/photo/763059/10

Is it certain that the M1 had the opaque seeker from the beginning, or was that just a mod some time into production? Or was the transparent dome even just a thing on inert training missiles other than the blue one shown above? 

Spoiler

Not trying to be right, just genuinely interested.

@Aerges: Do you think it's feasible implementing some training/ ACMI missiles for the Sidewinders and/ or Magics on the F1? I know the effort going into that is probably not going to pay off, but it would be a nice touch nonetheless.

Edited May 31 by Bremspropeller

[IvanK]

Both our live and Training missiles had opaque seeker heads. Time wise 1983.

Edited May 31 by IvanK