well we can hope that one day flares will get overhaul one day
It is not known what version of the AIM-9M we have in game. Until that is disclosed, we can not be sure if slow-rise type like flares would be effective or not. Maybe it’s a later block solely so that Gaijin doesn’t have to add different flare types.
But considering the R-73 we have is the earliest type (judging from 45° OBS capability), referred to as RMD-1 by some, it should be fair to say we also have an earlier block AIM-9M.
1 Like
Irony is, if slow rise flares are implemented then they would be largely useless again missiles like the 9L which shouldn’t be breaking lock from a reheat plume anyway. This would largely impact some nations over others as well.
The effectiveness of slow rise flares against 9M was a bug not a feature. You don’t want a slow rise time, that leads to less IR emissions for the limited time the flare will be in the FOV of the seeker increasing the chances the emissions from the engine will be more intense than the flare.
3 Likes
Are we sure about this? I see sources claiming the baseline R-73 was 40° OBS, later upgraded to 45° which is what the R-73E is based on.
I have a suspicion that the R-73 were getting ingame is a later model, particularly with its flare resistance and seeker FOV though i havent been able to find exact documentation about its seeker yet
I have not really come across the 40° figure before. Overal my R-73 knowledge is a bit lacking and most sources that look useful are in Russian, so I can’t even read it.
From my understanding, R-73A/M, R-74 are names made up by the west and there were only 3 major types of R-73.
- R-73 (RMD-1), “R-73A” has 45° OBS with gimbal of 75° post launch, basic IRCCM ? (this one matches game model)
- R-73 (RMD-2), “R-73M” has 60° OBS with gimbal of 75° post launch, improved IRCCM supposedly
- R-73 RVV-MD, “R-74” has I think 90° OBS, probably vastly improved IRCCM, idk more about it
Yea I understand that. The US didn’t take into account basically for the “poor” quality of the soviet flares, which made 9M not detect them as flares, hence failing to engage the IRCCM. I noted that slow rise flares would make all other missiles more effective, especially in side aspect as they don’t burn bright enough to fool the missile during this short time period.
So it’s a mixed bag, either Gaijin implements slow-rise flares and it would nerf Soviet/Russian flares overal except against AIM-9M, in which case AIM-9M just acts very similarly to an AIM-9L anyway. I think Gaijin sees no reason to nerf the soviet flares and I agree, it would not be good for balance overal. But still in my opinion 9M is too strong, but it may just need some time for people to grow accustomed to. I remember when SARH missiles were super strong and near 100% kills but then the majority of the playerbase learned about notching, using chaff correctly and using ground reflection.
I really think the Aim9M is being overblown by some of these players i mean just watch the first 2 launches of this video you can counter it the only times he dies is when he is too slow to maneuver when fox 3s come they will have to learn the hard way
1 Like
he also has 60° OBS with gimbal of 75° post launch
RVV-MD2 ( Izdelie 760 ) also 60° OBS and 75°? post launch but with LOAL 360°
Ah right thanks. I knew there was some change to the OBS capability, I guess it was LOAL that I was forgetting which “allows” 90° (or more) OBS shots.
RVV-MD is 60°/75° according to Rosoboronexport: https://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/air-to-air-missile/rvv-md/
Their stated target load factor is up to 12G as well, which means its likely in the ballpark of 40-45G pull as a missile (3x target is the rule afaik with the bit of extra pull seemingly being a safety margin I suppose?)
I mean “up to 12G” would suggest an upper limit. Rather than “approximately 12G”. So 36G? I know it’s a case of correct use of English, but 4-9G over is pretty generous.
Im trying to find other examples, but Im pretty sure ive seen things like the R-27ER quoted to be “up to 8G” which would indicate 24G, but its overload is 30G ingame iirc. I know the general rule is that you need roughly 3x the targets G load to intercept it, I think (and this is just my assumption here from what ive seen, so take it with a grain of salt) that the rule of thumb for the quoted max target overload is 3x plus a bit of extra. That’s me giving them the benefit of the doubt tho.
This rule is nonsense and doesn’t work, maybe only as “at least” required overload. R-27 is 35G and R-73 is 60G missiles irl.
I mean, if we go with this argumentation, both the AIM9L/M and the Magic 2 under perform as well, with for exemple the Magic 2 being quoted to 50G
If I remember correctly The R-73 we have now is rated at 40-50G, the R-73M is 50G, the R-74M 50G and later were much better.
As of 2.29.0.17 all flares have these new lines:
What it exactly means, I don’t know. But it could be spectral emission values or perhaps some emission over time profile. Though I think it’s the former. This could be here to improve the IRCCM of some missiles which have seekers that can detect in multiple spectra. Supposedly the Magic 2, but I’m not sure if the R-73 could as well. Overall, I haven’t found much of an indication how it works. It might be baked into the FoV gating type IRCCM.
On the other hand, we have some changes to the AIM-9M:
These two lines are added to the file. Reaction time speaks for itself but “signalRelRejectedThreshold” I’m not sure about. I hope Gaijin will make an official statement on how this works.
1 Like
Imo (educated guess)
It’s to model time rise of flares, the AIM-9M needs to decide to reject track only when it sees a sudden rise in emissivity (indicating a flare is in fov)…
To model the magic 2 better they’d basically make it immune to non-spectral flares iirc.
I thought about that, the rise time. But the exact same values apply to all flares, though it might just be Gaijin standardizing things again instead of splitting up flares into different types. Your guess it as good as mine.
So either the three values are the brightness modifier values for 3 signifcant emission lines (though idk if the values would make any sense in that case… would need to look into flare materials). Or indeed rise time, where the first value might be the start brightness modifier, second value might be end brightness modifier and last value the ramp up time in seconds.
The value discussing visibility is “1” for small caliber and “4.5” for large caliber flares. They’re still separate, but currently with the same rise time it seems.