IR SAMs never going for pre-released flares, even if they are 999999 all together

[Maverick Su-35S]

I've been testing this a lot to confirm. When pre-flaring against AA IR missiles, yes, even after you stop dropping flares, the air to air IR missile might go for the flares, but if a an IR SAM is launched, it will never go for flares that were pre-released. It's simulated that the IR SAM will only start looking for flares only after it gets launched, NEVER before. On the other hand, if an IR SAM is launched, it can go even for 1x flare that you release after the missile is launched at you and it will go for that single flare if you are 3-4kms away from the launch point, which seems pretty plausible from that distance. I don't even need to post a track, everyone can check this out.

[Tom Kazansky]

37 minutes ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

I don't even need to post a track, everyone can check this out.

Although that's right, the devs don't like setting up test environments that may or may not match yours and look for issues that you might have. Especially with getting dozens or hundreds of those claims in a week.

[Maverick Su-35S]

On 10/16/2025 at 9:37 AM, Tom Kazansky said:

Although that's right, the devs don't like setting up test environments that may or may not match yours and look for issues that you might have. Especially with getting dozens or hundreds of those claims in a week.

So what do you propose? Can I propose you then to put a track here with you flying the Su-25T and avoiding IR missiles with DIRCM alone? Of course, it should work with ZERO FLARES to blind the incoming IR missile, otherwise we misinterpret what it does and veer off realism!

[Tom Kazansky]

I propose setting up a mission on Caucasus map with an aircraft starting airborne at the distance you like from an IR SAM you like and making a short track of what you've described in OP.

I'm sure every dev can also manage to do this, but it takes less time to just load a track and jump into the aircraft.

There are lots of examples here where devs can't reproduce people's claims, and it's even harder for them to find the issue with searching for a situation matching yours. Imagine devs facing dozens of bug reports without tracks, I guess your chances of getting help are better with a track.

Sure, everybody says, "it's easy to reproduce" but often it's not. So if it's easy, why not make a short mission and a track for them?

I've no problem if you choose not to follow this advice. I just wanted to show a way to increase the chance to get your report recognised.

The fact you got no answer since Thursday from devs or other people supports this, I guess.

 

Edited yesterday at 07:24 AM by Tom Kazansky

[Tom Kazansky]

I just want to add that I appreciate what you've found out here and I'm looking forward to reactions from the developers. That's the reason for my advice to make a track.

[Ramius007]

Be awere, that IR SAM's we have in DCS, are on avarage more advanced than system entry date suggest, and more advanced than ir a2a missiles on avarage. Sa-13 is using missile from 1989, Chapparel is mid 80's late upgrade, Avenger and M6 are using Stinger version from 1989 as well, even all manpads we have in game are not first generation either. There should be some flares rejection implemented.

[Maverick Su-35S]

20 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Be awere, that IR SAM's we have in DCS, are on avarage more advanced than system entry date suggest, and more advanced than ir a2a missiles on avarage. Sa-13 is using missile from 1989, Chapparel is mid 80's late upgrade, Avenger and M6 are using Stinger version from 1989 as well, even all manpads we have in game are not first generation either. There should be some flares rejection implemented.

You "believe" that the IR missiles should be more resistant to flares because they are newer gen missiles. Ok..., then what about the AIM-9X fired from an F-18 at some Su-22 in Syria and which was rapidly trashed by the Su-22 dropping flares (maybe preventive) and so the F-18 pilot got a little mad to see his wonderful AIM-9X go for flares and so he fired an AIM-120 to make sure he hits that Su-22? Was that AIM-9X from the 70s? What we think is sometimes and maybe most of the time very different from reality!

Edited 7 hours ago by Maverick Su-35S
small type corrections

[Maverick Su-35S]

20 hours ago, Tom Kazansky said:

I propose setting up a mission on Caucasus map with an aircraft starting airborne at the distance you like from an IR SAM you like and making a short track of what you've described in OP.

I'm sure every dev can also manage to do this, but it takes less time to just load a track and jump into the aircraft.

There are lots of examples here where devs can't reproduce people's claims, and it's even harder for them to find the issue with searching for a situation matching yours. Imagine devs facing dozens of bug reports without tracks, I guess your chances of getting help are better with a track.

Sure, everybody says, "it's easy to reproduce" but often it's not. So if it's easy, why not make a short mission and a track for them?

I've no problem if you choose not to follow this advice. I just wanted to show a way to increase the chance to get your report recognised.

The fact you got no answer since Thursday from devs or other people supports this, I guess.

 

I understand that they are very busy with many other things, I imagined that too and now I get it that they don't have time to prove me wrong and make a track proving the opposite of what I say. So I did this track now.

Indeed, I haven't tested enough two things:

1. The preventive flares drop before an IR sam is launched indeed works. I've made topic about it and I'll quickly post this same track there to prove I was wrong about that as I've only got that feeling while playing missions and never took time to do a thorough test like I did now!

2. The DIRCM indeed works giving some 90% chance of avoiding an SAM IR missile coming from the back, but NOW (after some update) the DIRCM's effective cone is reduced from some wider angle (maybe it was 90 degrees in the past) to just around 20 degrees (10 degrees left, 10 degrees right and up/down). This was the reason why I had the impression that it's not working anymore, simply because I didn't find out during casual play that the missile must fly almost straight from the back in order to be somewhat affected by the DIRCM. Besides the fact that the DIRCM doesn't rapidly heat up the missile's seeker (I'm aware that this isn't simulated at all, like a function of lock loss over time), the effective cone on the DIRCM seems absurdly low in degrees of field. like I said, some maximum 10 degrees offset from the aircraft's centerline.

On the other hand, speaking of DIRCM, the IRIS-T at the moment is not affected at all by the DIRCM's laser, no matter the angle and alignment with the Su-25T when chasing it from the back. Also the AA missiles behave the same like IRIS-T and never get blinded/heated and never loose lock on the target. Tracks provided for this as well.

Thanks!

AA missiles are unaffected by DIRCM.trk DIRCM limited to only 20deg from around 100deg.trk IRIS-T also unaffected by DIRCM.trk

Edited 7 hours ago by Maverick Su-35S
references correction