The modeling of the Magic 1 missile does not match its actual performance

[Donau Hans]

In DCS, the data for the Magic 1 missile comes from a variant before early-to-mid 1980s, whose seeker head used ordinary glass that hardly transmitted infrared light above 3 μm. Even with a liquid-nitrogen-cooled seeker, the end result would still be similar to the AIM-9B.

However, the modeling uses a seeker head with magnesium fluoride, which is opaque. It should have similar performance like AIM-9D/R-13M

 

Edited September 10 by Donau Hans

[Harlikwin]

What exactly  is your point of contention? The 3D model is wrong? Cuz DCS doesn't model windows and Magic 1 uses a cooled PbS based seeker. 

 

[Donau Hans]

What we have in DCS is Magic I with magnesium fluoride seeker window. However, missile performs as same as early Magic I with glass window.

If you have magnesium fluoride window, you should get about 90 degrees aspect. If not, 60 degrees.

However, in DCS, Magic I had 60 degrees aspect with magnesium fluoride window. This is completely not right.

Currently Magic I should be modeled with pure glass. and we probably need a new magnesium fluoride version.

[Kang]

I don't quite understand what any of those pictures really have to do with that. Could you perhaps elaborate that?

[Donau Hans]

11 hours ago, Kang said:

I don't quite understand what any of those pictures really have to do with that. Could you perhaps elaborate that?

Pic 1 and 2: showing Magic I seeker window with ordinary glasses

Pic 4: showing Magic I with magenesium fluoride window

Pic 3: showing why early Magic I seeker has similar performance like AIM-9B

Edited September 11 by Donau Hans

[fausete]

Hi, we appreciate the effort but we didn't model the Magic I, it's an ED matter.

[Donau Hans]

3 hours ago, fausete said:

Hi, we appreciate the effort but we didn't model the Magic I, it's an ED matter.

Fully understand. So what should I do? pin ED staff?

[fausete]

Yes, or report on their section of the forums. We already have reported to them about a related issue and I think so have other users so they might already be aware about this

[Kang]

On 9/11/2025 at 6:49 AM, Donau Hans said:

Pic 3: showing why early Magic I seeker has similar performance like AIM-9B

I can't say I agree with that. Frankly, I still fail to see where that diagram even mentions the windows in any capacity. But alas, we can leave it at that.

[Donau Hans]

I guess I need correct my word

R-530IR and Magic 1 don't use "normal glasses window", but Lead Germanate

Lead Germanate is worse than Magnesium fluoride（used on Sidewinders, Falcons, late Magic1 and Magic 2） and Single crystal alumina/sapphire on Israeli Python 3

but fine, Lead Germanate can do side-aspect attack

both R-530IR and Magic 1 use coooled InSb seeker not cooled PbS

however Matra introduced a single-cell Detector on Magic 1, to improve resolution(but reduce useable aspect), so Magic 1 become an rear-aspect InSb missile

Part of the reason why the R550 missile performed poorly in air combat was also due to the primitive InSb seeker

InSb cannot handle infrared waves below 2 microns

The infrared wavelength near the afterburner is often around 1.5 microns

The seeker cannot bring the missile closer to the enemy aircraft

The French also do not have a continuous rod warhead that time

missile will explode too early

[Dragon1-1]

Basically, the problem is that the 3D model is a late Magic 1 with an opaque window, but it performs like the early Magic 1 with a transparent window. AFAIK, those two variants do not have different designations.

Either performance or the 3D model should be corrected. Or both, giving us two Magic 1 variants, one with an improved seeker and the early one.

[Bremspropeller]

The 3D model needs to be corrected anway, as it features the Magic 2 notches in the tailfins.

[Harlikwin]

On 11/22/2025 at 5:20 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

Basically, the problem is that the 3D model is a late Magic 1 with an opaque window, but it performs like the early Magic 1 with a transparent window. AFAIK, those two variants do not have different designations.

Either performance or the 3D model should be corrected. Or both, giving us two Magic 1 variants, one with an improved seeker and the early one.

Can you show me these two different versions with different seekers?

[Dragon1-1]

4 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Can you show me these two different versions with different seekers?

Just scroll up to the first post, the second pic shows the original, while the fourth image shows a Magic 1 (no notches in the fins) with an opaque window loaded onto a jet. There, I showed you.

Now that I think of it, since Magic 2 came out in the mid-80s, it might be a Magic 2 seeker stuck on a Magic 1 body, as opposed to an official variant.

On 11/22/2025 at 1:31 PM, Bremspropeller said:

The 3D model needs to be corrected anway, as it features the Magic 2 notches in the tailfins.

Likely the reason for an opaque window, they just reused the Magic 2 model, or worse, modeled it based on a mislabeled Magic 2 pic.

Edited November 24 by Dragon1-1

[Bremspropeller]

8 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Likely the reason for an opaque window, they just reused the Magic 2 model, or worse, modeled it based on a mislabeled Magic 2 pic.

Both the Magics available on the F1 externally only differ in their stencelling, so it's not even just a copy&paste job, but somehow deliberate. There actually used to be a correct Magic 1 model, which makes it extra-weird.

[IvanK]

Accurate RL Magic I circa 1983 Pilot rule of thumb data and Acquistion boundries are with the devs.

[Bremspropeller]

FWIW - here's the two Magic models:

Magic 2:

Spoiler

Magic 1:

Spoiler

Note that both have the notch in the rear tail-fins (Magic 2 only) and the opaque seeker (ok for a late model Magic 1).
The Magic 2 has the a grey area around the yellow stripe.

The earlier Magic 1 model did have a clear seeker (IIRC) and (certainly!) did have the correct non-notched rear fins.

[Harlikwin]

On 11/24/2025 at 3:55 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Just scroll up to the first post, the second pic shows the original, while the fourth image shows a Magic 1 (no notches in the fins) with an opaque window loaded onto a jet. There, I showed you.

Now that I think of it, since Magic 2 came out in the mid-80s, it might be a Magic 2 seeker stuck on a Magic 1 body, as opposed to an official variant.

Likely the reason for an opaque window, they just reused the Magic 2 model, or worse, modeled it based on a mislabeled Magic 2 pic.

Fourth pic is a sidewinder.  Look at the rear fins with rollerons. 

Edited Saturday at 12:49 AM by Harlikwin

[Dragon1-1]

27 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Fourth pic is a sidewinder.  Look at the rear fins with rollerons. 

Yeah, I used "pic" to mean "graphic".  Third (if you want to nitpic, second, as first and last graphics are both scans), in that case, the one where you can see the whole jet. The last one is obviously a Sidewinder, but the one before that has an opaque nose, but no rollerons and no notch in the fins, either, making it a late model Magic 1.

It'd be nice to have the whole family properly represented.