I actually decided to test this.
Basically, what I was thinking was that missiles have a higher FoV post-launch. The way I tested it was by going into a custom match and trying to fire right at the edge of the seeker FoV (before it loses lock) in such a way that by the time the missile “activates” ~1.5 seconds later (starts turning) the aircraft launched at is outside of the “lock” FoV.
It seems like they do have a higher post-launch FoV; however this might be due to how they model “tracking,” which is (I think) by checking what is in front of the missile and assigning a “tracked” or “not tracked” value to it. But it depends on the game update speed, I think, which leads to some things like this:
Very obviously, the AIM-9B should not be able to track at this angle, but that’s besides the point.
I did this in the space of one custom match so it may not be the best method of testing, and I would rather someone go through the code, however I myself don’t know how to do that.
I also tried to take a few pictures from inside the missiles, facing towards the front, so that you can visualize the seeker FoV as displayed on the HUD when you are locking the missile.
Test: AIM-9B (3 Launches)
Launch 1
|
|
|
Launch 2
|
|
|
|
Launch 3
|
|
Test: AIM-9D (4 Launches)
Launch 1
|
|
|
|
Launch 2
|
|
|
Launch 3
The only one that hit
|
|
|
|
|
Launch 4
|
|
Like I said before, it does seem like they have an “expanded” post-lock FoV. Whether that is due to game code or a real property of the missiles, I don’t know, but it exists. At least for some, notably the AIM-9B, it is very obvious it should not be able to do that as the seeker physically can’t point in those directions. But, for others, like the AIM-9D, it at least seems plausible that it does have an easier time tracking post-launch.
The reason I wanted to note this is that I think that the way the AIM-9D is modeled is the way the R-13M should be modeled. There was the one account of having to “point the aircraft toward the target,” but it made no mention of pulling the nose away and retaining the lock, at least not to my memory. Whereas on the AIM-9G, for example, we know that it was possible due to the addition of Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode (SEAM), which I believe was repeated for the subsequent Sidewinders.
It very well might just be not radar slaveable, unlike the R-13M1 which is, but I don’t really know. Regardless, at least for me, I think the way to model it would be as an analogue to the AIM-9D, where it is a caged seeker but “expands” post-launch; either because it’s supposed to or because of how missiles are coded. That’s the reason why I made mention of keeping the R-13M1, since unlike the R-13M (assuming it’s modeled like this) it would be able to make an “off-nose” solution, far easier than doing the same with the R-13M.
