Donau Hans Posted September 10 Posted September 10 (edited) 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 1 2
Harlikwin Posted September 10 Posted September 10 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. New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1) Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).
Donau Hans Posted September 10 Author Posted September 10 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 Posted September 10 Posted September 10 I don't quite understand what any of those pictures really have to do with that. Could you perhaps elaborate that? 1
Donau Hans Posted September 11 Author Posted September 11 (edited) 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 Posted September 11 Posted September 11 Hi, we appreciate the effort but we didn't model the Magic I, it's an ED matter. 2
Donau Hans Posted September 11 Author Posted September 11 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?
Solution fausete Posted September 11 Solution Posted September 11 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 1
Kang Posted September 24 Posted September 24 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 Posted 10 hours ago Author Posted 10 hours ago 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
Recommended Posts