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 yesterday at 10:14 AM 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 5 hours ago 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?