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 3 hours ago Author Posted 3 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