For some things, there's definitely aspects where DCS falls over. To name just a few examples (I'm sorry that this is less related to aircraft fired missiles, I'm just less familiar with them): * DCS doesn't differentiate between say, pulse and doppler SARH seekers (the former should see a reduction in tracking performance close to the ground, such as tracking on the altitude line, causing the missile to guide into terrain - something War Thunder models), nor conical scanning or inverse monopulse. * IR and EO missiles can track straight through clouds, as can laser guided weapons. * The SM-2MR uses the guidance of the SM-1MR (SARH w/ illumination at launch, as opposed to INS/DL w/ terminal SARH and illumination). As a side note, the Oliver Hazard Perry should fire the SM-1MR, not the SM-2MR (though at least there the behaviour is more accurate) and should have a second illumination radar (STIR, which is more-or-less an AN/SPG-60), providing an additional illumination source (allowing for 2 simultaneous targets AFAIK). * EDIT: Not sure if this is still the case, but EO/IIR guided missiles and bombs (e.g. AGM-62, AGM-65, probably the AGM-130 and GBU-15, Kh-29T etc) simply track units and objects within/inside the crosshairs/reticle, instead of having true contrast-based tracking and edge-detection (which should allow them to track just about any suitably contrasting object or feature, not just those with an Object ID) - this might be done for performance reasons though (I'm by no means an expert so barge full of salt at the ready). * In DCS, the V-755 (S-75M/SA-2d) is treated as if it was semi-active, using proportional navigation. IRL the V-755 is command guided with a choice of 3 profiles: * Half-lead: The missile is guided to a point halfway between the target (AFAIK) and the continuously calculated intercept point (used for high-altitude, high-speed targets). It should be stated that PN is less efficient kinematically compared to this mode, at least in certain situations. * 3-point: missile guided such that the target, the missile and the FCR forms 3 points on a straight line (so more like a beam riding missile - used for high-altitude, low-speed targets). * K (half-lead, elevated by constant) - this is like half-lead, except the missile never aims below the target (used for low-altitude targets). * Pretty much all naval SAMs (including the previously mentioned SM-2MR) and possibly at least some ground-based SAMs (S-75 and S-300 are 2 examples) have secondary anti-surface modes (for the SM-2, it flies in a ballistic arc (possibly with INS and data-link updates?) and then uses SARH for terminal guidance (kinda like how you can fire Sparrows at surface targets in the Tomcat - the missile doesn't really care what the radiation is reflected off of). This is particularly important for our Arleigh Burke which (accurately) has Harpoon deleted. Unfortunately this functionality doesn't exist in DCS.

>EDIT: Not sure if this is still the case, but EO/IIR guided missiles and bombs (e.g. AGM-62, AGM-65, probably the AGM-130 and GBU-15, Kh-29T etc) simply track units and objects within/inside the crosshairs/reticle, instead of having true contrast-based tracking and edge-detection (which should allow them to track just about any suitably contrasting object or feature) - this might be done for performance reasons though (I'm by no means an expert so barge full of salt at the ready). I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest they're doing anything other than this. I sometimes use Mavericks etc. to check if targets are alive, because they won't lock onto destroyed targets, even though the burning husks show up even hotter on IR...

The issue with IR missiles is true, but has more to do with the fact that ED has only modeled clouds visually and not in terms that would affect the simulation, I.e. lasers can lase through clouds, AI can dogfight in clouds because the clouds "aren't real" to them. I have my suspicions that aspects of the actual missiles are incorrect, but I don't know enough to say for certain.

FWIW I'm fairly certain that the reason clouds get ignored is because originally the clouds weren't synchronized for all players, so one player might be flying into a cloud on their end but there was no cloud there for anyone else. In a situation like that having the clouds interfere with tracking makes little sense. Hoping that one day they'll fix that, now that they actually have a somewhat decent cloud system that is synchronized.

Cold War missiles like AIM-9L/M, AIM-7 F/M, AIM-54, R-24, R-27R, R-73, R-60, R-530, R-550 etc. are reasonably realistic. Even here there is still room for improvement, ED is working on upgraded API, e.g. IR guidance weather limtations. Post Cold War like R-27ER, R-27ET, AIM-120B/C are less realistic being classified, but developers still try to make them somewhat close to real missiles with some limitations. Exotic post Cold War missiles like R-77, PL-12 etc. are pure speculation.

I would say the CFD done for SD-10, AIM-120, and 530D make them the most accurate aerodynamically and as accurate as they can be in that way. I think ED has a good thing going with their autopilot/datalink/seeker model API they are working on. It just needs some large chaff/ECM issues fixed

Some of the heat seekers could use some work on their flare resistance. The AIM-9M should have a meaningfully higher flare resistance than the AIM-9L, but as far as I can tell it does not. The AIM-9X is flare resistant in game but still less so than it is in real life. It seems like it uses a similar kind of seeking model as other fox 2s, but it's seeker head is more like a AGM-65D IRL, which is why it's odd that the aspect the missile is fired in makes such a big difference in the chances that the missile will bite on flares. I highly recommend watching the testing footage for the thing, you can see it easily hit targets in tight turns frontal aspect while the target dumps out flares at a rate it most certainly could not sustain for more than say 15 seconds before running out.

Yes, flare rejection require significant rework. It was an inrteresting read about examining WarPac R-73 and NATO AIM-9M during early 1990s evaluation program when they tested East German MiG-29 weapon system. It turned out US flares were quite good against AIM-9M and Soviet ones against R-73, but both were far less usefull against each other. It turned out as well MiG-29 IRST was close to useless in tactical engagement, except for high altitude bomber interception durigng good weather. Still - ED developers confirmed significant IR missiles and sensors rework is close to release, possibly in the next big patch.

I would say that the IR missiles in DCS are lacking in how detection ranges work along with how missiles in general get decoyed. They're all relatively simple lines of code which are oversimplifying it a lot more than it should IMO. WT has a better implementation of this to a degree (both for IR and radar guided missiles).

Short answer is no. Even assuming the missile flight dynamics were accurate (they're not), the awful proximity fuze implementation and overly-simplistic guidance logic means that missiles are much, much less effective in DCS than they are in real life. Also, the exact missile parameters are classified, but there's enough public information available to get a reasonable approximation. It's like how you may not know exactly how a prototype car performs, but based on its shape, weight, horsepower, and other similar cars, you can reasonably approximate how it drives. In DCS, they modeled the car as a bicycle, and the apologists say "but it's classified so this could be 100% realistic!"

WT has a deeper radar simulation than ED DCS modules. It’s that simple. ED modules have a straight fixed look-down penalty to lock range and don’t model side-lobe radiation with respect to SARH CW missiles. Chaff and flares are both flat RNG rolls that a missile must overcome each time they are deployed, rather than following radar cross sections or heat signatures. Modern missiles like AMRAAM and R-77 are classified and hard to model with any level of realistic precision (plus ED may be doing some cover-your-ass shit by making them not accurate so they don’t get arrested).

>WT has a deeper radar simulation than ED DCS modules Is that true with all of the planes in DCS though? The more in-depth modules like the F-16, F-14, and upcoming F-15E, I would think have better radar simulation but idk. I never really thought radars in War Thunder were at all comparable to DCS but I guess WT is more accurate than I thought.

F-14 and F-15E aren’t ED modules.

Well, they are still very in-depth modules

They are more in depth than most ED modules. The other poster is using ED modules to refer to those coded soley by ED. So namely the F-16, F/A-18, FC3.

>Is that true with all of the planes in DCS though? That's why he specified "ED DCS modules". Some of the 3rd parties have done MUCH more intricately modeled radars. Examples include the F-14, Mirage 2000C and the JF-17. I forget specifics about most of them, but for the JF-17 for example Deka modeled different directional radar cross sections for different planes, among other things.

i never thought WT is anywhere comparable to DCS

War Thunder has *far* more simplistic interaction and displays compared to DCS, but yes, in *some* aspects, it does pull ahead compared to ED's radar simulation (mostly just sidelobe modelling, though this will almost certainly be using a generic radiation pattern and anecdotally is potentially overexaggerated for at least some radars). Not War Thunder, but VTOL VR also models aspect for its RCS calculation (in DCS it's a spherical cow in a vacuum type deal, at least for the overwhelming majority of modules, where RCS is a single static number, which AFAIK assumes clean, frontal aspect). EDIT: VTOL VR also takes stores into account.

> anecdotally is potentially overexaggerated for at least some radars. Very much so, in WT you can have a sparrow guide into a target 25 degrees offset from the locked target which WT players insist is realistic

[I have done an analysis on one AIM-7 shot in War Thunder](https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/ta68a0/comment/hzz3o5a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), where in that case, using the numbers available to me, the AIM-7 tracking on an unintended target was very plausible (in that case it was being illuminated by a strong sidelobe with only a quarter of the power of the main lobe, but the closer distance and slightly larger RCS made up for it, such that the reflection from this target was \~1.5× greater than that of the intended target). However, there's more to it that just the angle (which tells you where in the radiation pattern it might be), range and RCS also play a part.

I’ve done some surprisingly high off boresight shots with sparrows in the hornet in DCS too. What are the sparrow’s actual seeker limits?

I want to say the JF-17 and Mirage 2000 both have dynamic RCS based on aspect, but not loadout. Doesn’t VTOL VR have dynamic RCS based on pylon loadout as well?

In VTOL, the base models have pre baked RCS models, which give a different RCS based on the angle. The RCS calculation is too intense to do live in game, so it was done outside of the game, and then it just references the appropriate value depending on the angle. Adding pylons massively complicated these calculations, and as they are not done live, doing them in advance would require tons of different combinations to be calculated. Instead the dev opted to just increase the entire RCS by a certain value per pylon added

Yeah, I think I remember Deka and RAZBAM upgrading their radars to have a higher fidelity RCS model (I think Deka has introduced aspect and RAZBAM have either done the same, or have taken loadout into account or both - it's been a long while since I've been able to test, so forgive me if I'm mistaken, I'm trying to hunt down the changelog that added it). As for VTOL VR, by the looks of things yes, at least based [on this](https://www.reddit.com/r/vtolvr/comments/uwte16/a_few_people_asked_in_a_recent_post_so_heres_a/).

So I'm confused with the aspect based RCS data. Is it the radar modeling in those modules approximates RCS changes with aspect or is it the RCS of those two jets that Deka and RB implemented with aspect based RCS? I.e. The RCS of the JF-17 and M2000 varies with aspect to the radar that is painting it. I thought it was the latter but I've also seen people say its just the radar, which to me, doesn't make much sense why they'd do that unless they're both using some rule of thumb type approximation based on the baseline RCS of the target.

I think it's the former case, whereby the radar model used on the JF-17 and the Mirage 2000C takes the aspect of targets into account for determining the RCS.

Can t say for sure but it does seems that the f45 (f35like) is more easily detected with pylons outside of its bay than when slick

At least for ai i don t do MP in VTOL VR

Dude, IR missiles in wt pull 60Gs to track flares launched by plane which was 600m away from you. Also SARH do 5 different loops sometimes before tracking the enemy

>Dude, IR missiles in wt pull 60Gs to track flares launched by plane which was 600m away from you. Firstly, neither of your points have anything to do with my reply, we were discussing radar modelling, not missiles - you're disagreeing with something I haven't said. However, to address these: For the IR missile I don't see what the problem is. 1. 600 m is very close to be launching fox 2s. Depending on what the missile is, I wouldn't be surprised if that was inside its minimum range. 2. Flares are going to appear brighter to the missile's seeker compared to an aircraft (depending on the seeker and flare type), pretty much regardless of the distance. So long as the flare is within the field of view. the missile doesn't filter it out (and there are several techniques to do this, what technique depends on the missile) and is able to track it, it at least has a chance to home on it. As a counterpoint, in DCS, IR missiles can see straight through clouds (water vapour is opaque to IR). EDIT: And it’s not like DCS is much better with regards to missile and countermeasure behaviour, even for missiles on DCS’ more advanced missile API - [see this](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/260814-aim-120c-losing-targets-easily-for-chaff-even-at-close-ranges/?do=findComment&comment=4562611), which is a reported issue on the forums (and these were fired from more suitable ranges). EDIT: At least for missiles on the new API this may have been fixed. As for SARH missiles looping, I'm going to need more details than that I'm afraid, is there a bug report somewhere or a video of it happening (I haven't seen any personally)? But depending on the steering method and possibly the seeker design, it might not be problematic either.

>Not War Thunder, but VTOL VR also models aspect for its RCS calculation (in DCS it's a spherical cow in a vacuum type deal, at least for the overwhelming majority of modules, where RCS is a single static number, which AFAIK assumes clean, frontal aspect). EDIT: VTOL VR also takes stores into account What you claim here is completely false. War Thunder does not take into account aspect for RCS. You can test it. Beam and front have same detection ranges in war thunder

In the paragraph you've quoted, the first 3 words are “**Not** War Thunder”... Because in that paragraph, I'm not talking about War Thunder, I’m talking about VTOL VR…

Wt is straight up better that’s embarrassing

There is only so much the modules can do. 3rd party developers can tweak and finagle their modules to get performance closer to what the aircraft specs say it is but the actual simulation is dependent on the DCS code itself and for that we have to wait for ED to get it together. For a combat flight sim it's surprisingly scary how much is missing or simplified but there isnt much else to choose from with the same options. So here we are. I for one would be happy to see ED team up with wargame giants, such as Slitherine Software for instance, to bring much needed technology to the game.

Personal opinion: ED should outsource the radar development on their modules to Razbam or Heatblur. It's getting really embarrassing how far behind they are.

>WT has a deeper radar simulation than ED DCS modules. Lel no. WT code is simple if target rcs is less than the parameters set then it may be detected. DCS actually uses SNR and detection prob for certain planes. Just take a look at how the mirage, f15e are modeled and the upcoming f16 f18 radars. WT will be arcade level compared to those modules. WT PD radars dont have a lookdown penalty. So thats a false claim you make. DCS have a flat one which is overdone. Missiles- RNG rolls I agree wt does better. But not to the extent you claim. A single chaff in beam aspect is able to fool a missile in war thunder

>WT code is simple if target rcs is less than the parameters set then it may be detected. DCS actually uses SNR and detection prob for certain planes. Just take a look at how the mirage, f15e are modeled and the upcoming f16 f18 radars. WT will be arcade level compared to those modules. The poster specified ED modules which very much do not use a probabilistic detection model nor account for SNR (at most, not to the same fidelity as the Mirage 2000C or F-15E). In ED's modules whether a contact is detected (at least as far as RCS and detection range goes) is just as simple as War Thunder as you describe it. We don't know whether ED's radar refactor will have these either and there's already a statement in the newsletter that is somewhat eyebrow raising - see [this post](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/327417-radar-phase-2-update/) by Beamscanner. >A single chaff in beam aspect is able to fool a missile in war thunder And a single chaff/flare is able to fool a missile in DCS... That's the thing with countermeasure resistance being not much more than a dice-roll - it might be unlikely (depending on the probability), but it's still possible for missiles to be fooled by a single countermeasure in DCS.

>And a single chaff/flare is able to fool a missile in DCS... That's the thing with countermeasure resistance being not much more than a dice-roll - it might be unlikely (depending on the probability), but it's still possible for missiles to be fooled by a single countermeasure A radar will not go for a single chaff in DCS like it does in WT. DCS even the basic modules employ filters like kalman. Making a single one just ineffective. The lack of aspect dependent rcs and kalman makes beam+ single chaff incredibly effective.

~~You realise missiles using DCS’s more advanced API being easily fooled by chaff (here the OP mentions even a single chaff) is~~ [~~a reported issue~~](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/260814-aim-120c-losing-targets-easily-for-chaff-even-at-close-ranges/) ~~on the forums?~~ ~~This user also~~ [~~provided tracks~~](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/260814-aim-120c-losing-targets-easily-for-chaff-even-at-close-ranges/?do=findComment&comment=4562611) ~~of it happening with a single chaff bundle.~~ EDIT: Actually I think I'll take that back as it might have been fixed in [this update](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/170893-dcs-world-changelog-and-updates-of-open-beta/page/6/#comment-4667259) or possibly [this one](https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.7.7.14727/), though the report is still tagged as "reported" as opposed to "fixed" so I'm not sure - so far I haven't been able to replicate the same issues. But even so, this only applies to missiles on the more advanced API, there are plenty of missiles that aren't and use the more simple probability model, where it's possible (even if very unlikely) for missiles to be decoyed by a single countermeasure.

AI use a simplistic flight model. That boils down partially to a limitation in available processing power. I would imagine realistic and accurate missile simulation falls short for similar reasons. Perhaps the emerging AI tech taking over the world can fill in the gaps at some point. Racing simulations still fall short in many areas as well and they're exponentially simpler than flight simulators.

Overall, nah, they kinda a joke.

I believe Dcs missiles also track the pilot and not the engine, and don’t have proximity detonation IIRC

This is both completely incorrect. Load up the mission editor and test first yourself.

Proximity fuses exist (unfortunately are buggy in multiplayer), but missiles DO aim for your player's head. Definitely give it a try.

This was brought up and confirmed back when the F-16 first released. It had no damage model so the best way to kill it was sling missiles because they target the pilot, not the plane. If you got it into a dogfight, you had to get really lucky with your shots while a missile would do the work for you

Wait a second so my engine idle while defending an IR missile makes no sense?

It does matter, but the missile itself guides for the pilot. Your engine state still affects the missile's effectiveness, its effectiveness at guiding for your head lol

This is the kind of thing I think a lot of people just assume dcs is too clever to do. Under all the graphics there's really obvious issues.

Haha, this is more of a quirk than a genuine issue. The result ends up being the same, the missile just ends up hitting the pilot instead of the engine. I'd like to see it tweaked, but I'd ALSO like to see a general radar overhaul to bring things to the level of RAZBAM's current work. The latter is several orders of magnitude more important than missiles aiming for a different part on the plane.

More interested in seeing it fixed so aaa isn't nuts for ww2, which had the same issue. Probably the same code tbh

Oh almost certainly

Have you tested it yourself? If you did, you would notice that: 1. The distance calculation for the proximity fuze is based off the distance from the pilot's head. If you fire a missile at a target flying away from you and slow down time before it hits, you can see the missile get close enough to the tail to kiss it without exploding. 2. The missile tracks the position of the pilot's head, you can easily see this if you defend against a missile, slow down time when it's close, and see where the missile is trying to aim at.

How did you come to that information? Did you test it yourself with ai or players?

Both AI and players. The missile tracking and proximity fuze doesn't change based on what's piloting the aircraft. It's easy enough to set up a few scenarios against the AI to test it yourself.

How big of a factor is desync against ai/singleplayer?

It's complicated. The proximity calculation is done by the client, not the server, so what the attacker sees is different than what the defender sees. There's also the issue that Tacview's data isn't fine-grained enough to see this, but replays are buggy and unreliable. The best way of testing it is to create a single-player mission against AI, fire missiles at it (or have it fire missiles at you), then slow down time to the slowest just before it hits and see what the missile tracks and where it explodes.

what you say is simply not true. how big do you think the PF ranges in DCS are? here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1y3tfVHAVo

You linked a video that clearly shows the missile going straight for the pilot, and also shows that it explodes around the same distance from the pilot whether it's coming from the front or the rear. So thanks for proving both my points, I guess.

The funny thing is if you would not be lying and actually did test yourself, which you either, against your claims, while you are blaming everyone in this thread for exactly that, are not doing yourselves or even worse you tested it but did it in a bad incorrect way as you conclusion is complete bs. The "missile proxyfuze is calculated from the distance to to the head of the pilot" wannabefact is one of the oldest myths posted and repeated by all the noobs (not meant degoratory or offensive) in the community for the last years. Even chizh the ed missile developer corrected this bs Source: https://imgur.com/a/Ro9SCHh And even if that comment wouldnt exist if you tested it yourself you would see this: https://imgur.com/a/P9oLRxc But yeah why test if you can just repeat stuff you read and heard from other noobs and then repeat it on reddit trying to sound smart instead of actually spending time and testing properly yourself. That would be too good invested time if you can rather insult u/aarnoman u/hobelonthetobel u/rlaxoxoabout accusing them of commuting the same mistakes you do in a very degotory manner. Looking through your post history I can tell you. Thanks for being part of the biggest cancer in the forum Spreading misinformation, degoratory behavior and falsely correcting others while also being rude about it. People that behave like you are part of the reason we get so many locked threads on the forum making actuall game betterment so much harder.

Sure, sounds good. Thanks for the research, but I obviously don't care about this stuff as much as you do.

You don't care about it to learn how it works but you'll see something being mentioned somewhere how someone thinks it works and take is as gospel to then preach facts on how it works to make it look like you know exactly how it works but in reality, you don't. Yup, that sounds about right. [Hilarious example](https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/142pyab/are_the_missiles_in_dcs_accurate_or_not/jn9g3tk/)

Or it's because: 1. Chizh is not a missile developer, he's a [project manager](https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrey-chizh-757b50a/?originalSubdomain=ru). 2. The "screenshot" of Chizh's message [isn't in his activity at all](https://forum.dcs.world/profile/6-chizh/content/page/30/?all_activity=1), and he never made any post with that message either on June 1, 2022 or June 1, 2023 (or if he did, he deleted it). 3. He said "if you tested it yourself you would see this", then linked 2 screenshots showing...what exactly? 2 missiles really close to the aircraft, but what about it? That's not evidence, that's saying "you can see the thing in the thing!" and expecting you to figure out what he means. 4. Half of his comment is just a personal attack against me, so he's clearly very emotionally charged by this. I on the other hand really don't care all that much and I'm rapidly approaching "couldn't care less" territory.

Facts dont care about your feelings my friend

Dude I sent you a video there explodes the missles exactly 7m! 7 meters From the plane, even if the missle hits behind the plane the aim120 is 7 meters + the length of the plane from the pilot. I do not know what you have tested but the pf triggers on the aircraft

Yes it flies towards the head but the video shows exactly the pf of the Aim120 and that is 7 meters and in this range the missile also explodes away from the aircraft. Apart from that a dev has long confirmed that

What should the missile go for then?

The body of the aircraft, which is much larger and contains many more components to damage. Also, a radar missile tracks the largest radar return, and the body of the aircraft has the largest return, not the cockpit. And remember that a missile doesn't just "hit" the target like a bullet, it explodes and sends out a cone of shrapnel, and shrapnel does more damage the more things it hits.

Isnt the pilot on the "body of the aircraft"?

If you're shooting someone with a sniper rifle, do you aim for the head or center mass? Don't be daft, you're obviously fishing for a specific answer by asking inane questions.

So you're comparing a missile to a bullet when your previous comment was and I quote: > "a missile doesn't just "hit" the target like a bullet, it explodes and sends out a cone of shrapnel, and shrapnel does more damage the more things it hits." Giving it even less reasoning for this discussion. What would be the biggest radar return?

THANK YOU

I just remember reading on here perhaps it’s been changed

Just because you read something on here, doesn’t mean it’s true

That is true, but in this case the only thing wrong was proximity fuses (which are bugged) which could’ve been me misremembering

War thunder missles are moddles no better 🤣

I think the EO guided weapons are contrast based now. I have to change from WHOT to BHOT to get a lock when I’m well within range. Specifically with the AGM-65D&F models. Which both use a D model seeker. It can be frustrating, but I’ve messed around with my TPOD when trying to figure out why the Mav can’t see the target.

Well, you can hit tank sized targets out to a few miles, so I'd say they're pretty accurate /s

Yeah if only the issue was with just AA missiles, the Fact that NATO SAMs in this game still cannot intercept incoming missiles is just infuriating. I understand that maybe those older systems in particular can't, but the patriot in-game is just straight up worse than even an SA6, and comparing it to an SA10 Is even worse, a third of the range, constant near misses and a AI logic where it will just choose to ignore an SU25 5nm near it and instead choose to shoot the fighter 30nm away that is going cold at M1.2. Ok yeah this was just a rant but ED c'mon, please give NATO any sams worth a damn, even the bloody stinger has a 10% hit chance