investigating FC3 MiG-29A vs FF Mig-29 9.12A - inconsistant Launch Authorized Distances

[okopanja]

Provided are 3 test cases demonstrating the inconsistencies in PR (LA) given when launching R-27T(ET) and tracking target with radar.

Distances were measured in game by pausing the game:

- (Indicated) Maximal range:  the mid-point of arrow was overlapped with distance marker

- Launch Authorized distance: first occurrence of PR signal on HUD

- Missile launch distance: Missile indicator removal from HUD

Given the fact that both platforms (FC3 and FF) use the same missiles one would expect that there would be minimal difference.

In case of (Indicated) maximal range difference is not too high. 

However remaining 2 measurements differ greatly and affect employment of the weapon in full head on scenarios. In addition FF MiG-29 9.12A is more exposed to enemy action.  

In order to account for 2 second of delay between pressing the launch button and activation of missile, in all cases the button was pressed and held before entering the max range zone. If these 2 seconds would be taken into account and pressed exactly when PR(LA) shows up, the distance discrepancy would increase further. 

The following measurements were taken including the differences (FF-FC3):

Mig-29 at 1100m launching R-27T on F-15C in AB at 2000m head on:
  FC3 MiG-29A:
    Max range: 12.0km
    Launched Authorized: 11.98km
    Missile Launched: 11.75km
  FF MiG-29 9.12A:
    Max range: 11.6km
    Launched Authorized: 9.91km
    Missile Launched: 9.58km
  Difference:
    Max range: -0.4km
    Launch Authorized: -2.07km
    Missile Launched: -2.17km
Mig-29 at 8000m launching R-27ET on F-15C in AB at 8000m head on:
  FC3 MiG-29A PR at:
    Max range: 35.23km
    Launched Authorized: 35.21km
    Missile Launched: 34.95km
  FF MiG-29 9.12A PR at:
    Max range: 34.74km
    Launched Authorized: 23.57km
    Missile Launched: 23.11km
  Difference:
    Max range: -0.49km
    Launch Authorized: -11.64km
    Missile Launched: -11.84km
Mig-29 at 12000m launching R-27ET on F-15C in AB at 12000m head on:
  FC3 Mig-29A PR at:
    Max range: 54.68km
    Launched Authorized: 36.63km
    Missile Launched: 36.19km
  FF MiG-29 9.12A PR at:
    Max range: 53.45km
    Launched Authorized: 23.23km
    Missile Launched: 22.78km
  Difference:
    Max range: -1.23km
    Launch Authorized: -13.4km
    Missile Launched: -13.41km

Supporting files:
  - tacviews
  - mission file
  - side by side video comparison

 

MiG-29A_R-27T_head_on_12000m_Launch_Authorized.trk MiG-29A_R-27T_head_on_12000m_Launch_Authorized.zip.acmi MiG-29_9.12A_R-27T_head_on_12000m_Launch_Authorized.trk MiG-29_9.12A_R-27T_head_on_12000m_Launch_Authorized.acmi MiG-29A_R-27T_head_on_8000m_Launch_Authorized.trk MiG-29A_R-27T_head_on_8000m_Launch_Authorized.zip.acmi MiG-29_9.12A_R-27T_head_on_8000m_Launch_Authorized.trk MiG-29_9.12A_R-27T_head_on_8000m_Launch_Authorized.zip.acmi MiG-29A_R-27T_head_on_1100m_2000m_Launch_Authorized.trk MiG-29A_R-27T_head_on_1100m_2000m_Launch_Authorized.zip.acmi MiG-29_9.12A_R-27T_head_on_1100m_2000m_Launch_Authorized.trk MiG-29_9.12A_R-27T_head_on_1100m_2000m_Launch_Authorized.zip.acmi R-27T Launch Authorization.miz

[AeriaGloria]

Your first video at low altitude I believe is just the 1-2 seconds to get missile ready being simulated. 
 

I don’t know what’s going on at high altitudes if your target is AB the whole time 

[okopanja]

2 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

Your first video at low altitude I believe is just the 1-2 seconds to get missile ready being simulated. 

I picked low altitude and AB target at 2000m, to give it a bit of more exposure. I can redo co-altitude 2000m, but I am pretty sure I will get larger difference.

3 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

Your first video at low altitude I believe is just the 1-2 seconds to get missile ready being simulated. 
 

I don’t know what’s going on at high altitudes if your target is AB the whole time 

All targets were set to high speed. However I set 12000m F-15C to 2500 km/h, maybe I should have set it to 2800 km/h, just to ensure its on the full burner all the time.

Still goal was to compare them under same conditions.

[0minutes]

Yeah, its like they are two different missiles, i wonder if its because the 29FF perhaps prepares the R27T(E) differently? Also, maybe if the seeker is cooled differently on the 29FF since in the Su-27 there is an option to enable cooling on the R73, but im just brainstorming with no actual proof. Overall i hope this gets fixed though, pretty annoying having the most reliable R27 be artifically nerfed on the 29FF.

[okopanja]

2 minutes ago, 0minutes said:

Yeah, its like they are two different missiles, i wonder if its because the 29FF perhaps prepares the R27T(E) differently? Also, maybe if the seeker is cooled differently on the 29FF since in the Su-27 there is an option to enable cooling on the R73, but im just brainstorming with no actual proof. Overall i hope this gets fixed though, pretty annoying having the most reliable R27 be artifically nerfed on the 29FF.

As far as I can tell they are the same missile. There is no second R-27ET. It's just probably the problem on how PR on 29FF works at the moment.

[0minutes]

2 minutes ago, okopanja said:

As far as I can tell they are the same missile. There is no second R-27ET. It's just probably the problem on how PR on 29FF works at the moment.

Yes I know, i meant is as sarcasm/irony, to show how absurd it is that they act so differently while being the same missile.

[AeriaGloria]

I don’t k ow why this was moved to FC3 section. 

According to other modules and know. Calculations of DCS IR seeker ranges, the FC3 module is actually using the R-27T/ET at the correct distances and it’s the MiG-29 FF 9.12A that’s the outlier with shorter distances 

[Ironhand]

What I find interesting is how, at 12000 m altitude, the distance travelled between launch authorization and the actual launch is nearly identical (0.01 km difference). OTHOH, the difference at 1100 m is 0.1 km and 0.2 km at 8000 m. Why is that? Differences in closure rate?

Edited November 3 by Ironhand

[okopanja]

6 hours ago, Ironhand said:

What I find interesting is how, at 12000 m altitude, the distance travelled between launch authorization and the actual launch is nearly identical (0.01 km difference). OTHOH, the difference at 1100 m is 0.1 km and 0.2 km at 8000 m. Why is that? Differences in closure rate?

On each altitude closure rate is the same between FC3/FF. Basically both are 0 km/h, so the only thing there to contribute do closure rate is speed of the target.

I wish I recorded timings, but this would require some coding. 

[Ironhand]

That’s interesting. I was only going by the data you presented and hadn’t watched the videos. You used active pause. So there’s a variable not account for. Either the target aircraft were flying at different speeds within the first two test groups or the “own” aircraft speeds are not identical as assumed. I suppose both could be true, though. The 11,800 m test is the one where they were identical.

EDIT: Maybe I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill. And this isn’t a criticism of your test procedure. It just seems that something is amiss and it might not be the missile.

Edited November 4 by Ironhand

[okopanja]

17 minutes ago, Ironhand said:

That’s interesting. I was only going by the data you presented and hadn’t watched the videos. You used active pause. So there’s a variable not account for. Either the target aircraft were flying at different speeds within the first two test groups or the “own” aircraft speeds are not identical as assumed. I suppose both could be true, though. The 11,800 m test is the one where they were identical.

Launch platforms are at exact locations, heading (including next waypoint), altitudes and speed.
Targets: low targets are set to I think 1500 km/h. 12000 target is set to 2500 km/h. Need to confirm 8000m target. 

One thing I regret was not measuring the time (presently in DCS this would mean 1s resolution). In general for more precise distance/timing measurements I would need to write specialized software.

 

[Ironhand]

Unfortunately I won’t have access to my computer for another week or so. I’d love to take a closer look at some of the assumptions that we’re making. OTOH, it certainly seems that the missile interacts differently with the two platforms.

[okopanja]

15 hours ago, Ironhand said:

Unfortunately I won’t have access to my computer for another week or so. I’d love to take a closer look at some of the assumptions that we’re making. OTOH, it certainly seems that the missile interacts differently with the two platforms.

Made some checks with KOLS: lock range is 26km with same miz file from above at 12000m/2500km/h head on target. 

At first I thought that KOLS silently prevents the PR by trying to lock, but it looks like the IR seeker lock ranges were adjusted at the same time for 29 FF. 

Lock on ranges appear to be modeled not per missile but rather per module.

Also a question: Wouldn't a cooled InSb element in R-27T detect/lock target at further ranges than 14 element of KOLS based on PbSe?

The pylon to which R-27R/T is hanged on features a rather heavy removable nitrogen bottle, so we are talking about cryogenic cooling.

Edited Wednesday at 08:27 AM by okopanja

[Ironhand]

4 hours ago, okopanja said:

…Lock on ranges appear to be modeled not per missile but rather per module…

That seems a bit strange. If the missile seeker is pointing at the target in identical situations, I wouldn’t expect to see a difference.

Concerning the two sensors, I have no idea which would be more sensitive.

Quote

…Lock on ranges appear to be modeled not per missile but rather per module...

Does this include Boresight?

Edited Wednesday at 12:56 PM by Ironhand

[AeriaGloria]

On 11/5/2025 at 4:46 AM, Ironhand said:

That seems a bit strange. If the missile seeker is pointing at the target in identical situations, I wouldn’t expect to see a difference.

Concerning the two sensors, I have no idea which would be more sensitive.

Does this include Boresight?

Yes it includes Boresight. 
 

here’s my theory 

 

Nornally, Fox 2 will lock on AB target at 4-4.4x the range of a Mil target. 
 

What we see now for 29 FF is almost exactly 3.1x range multiplier instead. 
 

If we look at charts for seeker ranges of R-73, R-24T, R-60, this 4x AB multiplier is ridiculous. 
 

I think ED coded MiG-29 FF to have only a 3.1x multiplier for AB for its Fox 2 missiles to “correct” the old IR model into something more reasonable. For example KOLS in The New MiG-29 FF is modeled as having only a 2x multiplier for AB (whereas in FC3 like missiles, it is approximately 4x range bonus against after burning targets). I tested R-73 in 29 FF and it shows the exact same behavior, 3x multiplier for AB instead of over 4x. 
 

In addition when we look at R-27T/ET seeker range it now better matches its brochure against F-15 with almost exactly 70 km AB rear aspect lock range rather then nearly 100 km (for F-15 atleast). R-73 and R-24T graphs definitly do not show 4x multiplier for AB but closer to 2x. 
 

So I think they did it this way so only 29 FF is affected without affecting every other module in DCS (yet) to make its Fox 2 AB ranges closer to reality. 
 

If we look at AB ranges, it is still only less then ballistic range in front aspect. In side and rear aspect seeker range in AB is still beyond ballistic range. 
 

Here is what we have for 29 FF. To get FC3 AB seeker range, simply multiply AB range by 1.33. 

 

R-27T

F-15

Front: 7.5 km,, 22.5 AB

Side: 15, 45 km AB

Rear:22.5, 67.5 km AB

 

F-18

Front: 6 km, 18 km, AB

Side: 12 km, 36 km, AB

Rear: 18 km, 54 km, AB

 

F-16

Front: 5 km, 15 km AB

Side: 10 km, 30 km AB

Rear: 15, 45 km AB

 

 

R-73:

 

F-15

Front: 6 km, 18 km AB

Side: 12 km, 36 km AB

Rear: 18 km, 54 km AB

 

 

F-18:

Front: 5 km, 15 km AB

Side: 10 km, 30 km AB

Rear: 15 km, 45 km AB

 

F-16

Front: 4 km, 12 km AB

Side: 8 km, 24 km AB

Rear: 12 km, 36 km AB

 

Edited 6 hours ago by AeriaGloria

[okopanja]

12 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

here’s my theory

With all due respect: no need for theories, unless you are expert in in IR seekers or a real 29 pilot or ED developer or beta tester experienced in this matter.

Also boresight(radar) is not to be confused with longitudal aiming(fi mode), which is done through missile and without help of radar or KOLS.

I tried to measure the PR/seeker distance in this mode as well and they are not the same as for R-27T slaved to the radar. I will provide the set of trk files for that as well, but this will require the mission to be tweaked and is more difficult since it requires precise positioning and orientation vectors which is hindered by following additional issues:

• Entering same altitude in ME results in different altitudes for FC3 F-15C, FC3 MiG-29 and FF29. The later two end up at lower actual altitude than F-15c
• AoA of FC3 and FF during active pause is also not consistent, with FC3 appearing to behave as expected tilted slightly upward, and FF having 0 angle.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by okopanja

[AeriaGloria]

Sure I’m just saying it’s possible it’s not an error and entirely deliberate for the above reason. I bet your testing will show approximately the ranges I gave. I just wanted to reply to Ironhand and give a probable explanation for the confusion, it makes sense to me after analyzing both IR seeker tables from real life R-60/R-73/R-24T and measuring modeled KOLS range that this is a very likely motivation for ED to correct their old IR sensor model which has many issues. If they did not have such motivation with MiG-29 9.12A then KOLS range would be identical to the FC3 model. 

Edited 6 hours ago by AeriaGloria

[AeriaGloria]

@BIGNEWY 

@NineLine it would be great to have confirmation from the devs if this reduced Fox 2 (R-60/R-73/R-27T/ET) seeker range against After Burning targets in the newly released MiG-29 9.12A FF is an error or deliberately done to make the IR modeling more correct (or for some other as yet unknown reason.) 

Edited 6 hours ago by AeriaGloria

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, AeriaGloria said:

@BIGNEWY 

@NineLine it would be great to have confirmation from the devs if this reduced Fox 2 (R-60/R-73/R-27T/ET) seeker range against After Burning targets in the newly released MiG-29 9.12A FF is an error or deliberately done to make the IR modeling more correct (or for some other as yet unknown reason.) 

We appreciate the passion and enthusiasm some of you put into DCS, lots of people do great reporting here on the forum, making lots of claims about various parts of dcs, and finding information to back any claims up, but we can not take them at face value, some people just want to change dcs to fit a certain play style or for other reasons, so we have to investigate and it takes time. We do not have infinite resources so sometimes those investigations can take time and we have to decide what work gets priority, as sometimes it can be a wild goose chase. I will ask the team, but please give us the time we need to look into all of the many claims being made. 

thank you 

[AeriaGloria]

35 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

We appreciate the passion and enthusiasm some of you put into DCS, lots of people do great reporting here on the forum, making lots of claims about various parts of dcs, and finding information to back any claims up, but we can not take them at face value, some people just want to change dcs to fit a certain play style or for other reasons, so we have to investigate and it takes time. We do not have infinite resources so sometimes those investigations can take time and we have to decide what work gets priority, as sometimes it can be a wild goose chase. I will ask the team, but please give us the time we need to look into all of the many claims being made. 

thank you 

Thank you it’s appreciated 

[Ironhand]

6 hours ago, okopanja said:

…Also boresight(radar) is not to be confused with longitudal aiming(fi mode)…

Which is what I did. I had meant "Фи0" but chose the wrong descriptor.

[okopanja]

Just now, Ironhand said:

Which is what I did. I had meant "Фи0" but chose the wrong descriptor.

Do not worry I understood. Did not mean to be nitpicking. 

[Ironhand]

2 minutes ago, okopanja said:

…Did not mean to be nitpicking.

You weren’t. That it was Фи0 and not boresight that would be involved needed to be clarified.

[okopanja]

2 minutes ago, Ironhand said:

You weren’t. That it was Фи0 and not boresight that would be involved needed to be clarified.

I got some preliminary results i Фи0, but need to modify mission, which makes me unconfortable since orientation/altitude will be slightly different.

[Ironhand]

Just make the best adjustments you can and be consistent in the trials.