ShadowFrost

It was for testing purposes between the current SD-10 scheme and the new seeker/scheme. I'll let Uboats say any specifics, but it was only for testing purposes AFAIK.

The explanation is... They probably should have similar. Except you now have many modules to cross check against and ensure appropriate functionality. This is not a R-27 only issue. Its more the rule than the exception. Some missiles/airframes may behave differently however.

The radio correction is doing nothing for the R-27R other than trying to get the close enough to the target that it can detect a return. (Late SARH weapons tend to outrange the seeker acquisition range) The loss of lock, is desynchronizing the radar from the passive seeker on the R-27. Just before launch, the R-27 receives reflected sidelobes which it tunes to. If this is changed (broke lock) sync is no longer established and it will miss. That is from a Su-27 manual AFAIK. The Mig-29 has a alternative operation, which is flood mode also activates during STT and can be used as a backup guidance method upon loss of lock. (27 guides on CW regardless) Just STT is better. However, without an overhaul of the SARH missiles within DCS. It would be very difficult to make an accurate simulation of flood currently. There are very good reasons you would not want to use flood over a STT track and AFAIK none are implemented in DCS at the moment.

Oh agreed. A lot of items done IRL are to make an engine last many more hours than were needed to per wartime.

There's also good reason, besides the aerodynamic concerns, not to go to idle, especially with radial engines. (It can apply to all engines) Allowing the prop to drive the engine (and not the other way round) puts significant stress on the crankshaft + rods, and other components in a way it wasn't precisely designed for. Likely a non-issue for DCS, but a no-no for real life. The major issue is engine dependent as to how critical it will be, when the prop drives the engine, it slides marginally backwards away from the thrust bearing and can significantly alter or prevent oil from getting to certain places. This can, if applicable to the engine, cause catastrophic damage in a hurry. I do not have time in a P-47, or T-28, but for the friends I do have that fly T-28s. The interruption to oil distribution to a key component is reportedly something they are majorly concerned about, moreso than most warbirds, but obviously not the same engine.

Track please, also as far as DCS is concerned. The LD-10 has no ability to differentiate friend from foe, or select precise targets. It will go for the first emitter within it's FOV. If its making a 180 and attacking things outside of its FOV, track please.

ACT mode is a very good option and significantly increases the range of the missile in practice.

@Aries101 I'm unable to watch the track as well. If you don't mind, please resubmit and in the smallest duration possible.

The new API has not been applied to the Aim-54.

R-77 is on an older scheme so CCM comparisons may not be useful.

The test series will be redone with additional data, it was still valid. However, due to the apparent changes in HOJ, many of the longer range test shots timed out only a few seconds short of their targets. So its not entirely fair to compare that alone. I will build in some additional medium ranged shots as that should be a more correct comparison.

Also for the record, the PRF change shouldn't effect anything unless host radar lock is lost. I ran something like ~780 tests to regression test this and there was no difference between the old and new missile on release for fully supported shots. However, if you have a scenario you believe that it isn't functioning in the same way, I am more than happy to take a look and compare again, because something could have changed. But for the moment, a decrease in PK is only expected if the host radar loses lock. Past that, it should be the same as before.

Removed, new test series will arrive later.

If I had to guess, its mostly sensor related and how the game itself handles the "new" sensor/api compared to the old. Just look at the differences between the Aim-120C-5 and the SD-10/Aim-54 currently. Aim-120C-5 has predictive guidance for lost targets, and, unknown to us (not shown through datamining), different variables effecting the sensor and the environment itself. The predictive guidance part... probably being the most obvious (if that applies). Thats at least as far as I'm aware.

What is the bug that causes instant STT lock loss? As it is currently implemented, if you break lock for any reason it will trash the missile, however, entering memory mode and recovering (not fully breaking lock) is fine. So you have around ~6 seconds of loss of lock (memory mode) in normal circumstances before the missile goes dead. Obviously, if the bug prevents entering memory and just straight up breaks lock, this significantly hurts the missile's performance.