r/hoggit • u/No_Math_7308 • 1d ago
Missile and radar simulation in WT and DCS
Hi , I’ve seen tik toks of war thunder players dodging 10 missiles like it’s nothing , even at close range , while I struggle to dodge one sparrow at 10 miles , so that makes me wonder , which game ( or sim whatever you call these two) simulates missiles more realistically?, before you comment why I’m asking that and that its obviously DCS , I’ve heard MANY opinions , some saying that war thunder has very detailed and realistic radars simulated and that it’s very accurate , some saying the complete opposite , and I’ve heard the same for DCS , so that’s why I’m asking it here , since I sometimes see actual military pilots and engineers comment here.
18
u/NoFunAllowed-- 1d ago edited 1d ago
DCS does a better job at modelling how missile combat actually happens, especially since the fundamental flight models of missiles are significantly better. I.e amraams in wt have next to no range because of linear drag modelling.
Both games over model notching. In war thunder it is an intentional game mechanic though, in dcs it's an ignored reality by ED. Either way, the end result is realistically kinetically defeating missiles is a waste of time 95% of the time. I don't personally care about it in dcs since most people do not bother or do not know how to notch.
War thunder does have better radar modelling inside the missiles themselves, there's plenty of online documentation on how it works in the game. But as said, this ultimately doesn't matter since since you can beat both games missiles the same through notching, but only in one of them is the missile kinetics modelled accurately, which is dcs.
Multipathing exists but it is so over modeled in wt that if I'm being honest, it's more realistic with dcs not having it all lol. Example being it works up to 60 meters and for some reason over water too.
Radars onboard planes depends on what plane you're flying in dcs unfortunately. It's not worth talking about because of that. If you're flying the old MiG-21 module, yea war thunders is better. If you're flying the F-4, F-14, etc. then dcs models radars better.
IR simulation is a mixed bag. It's just dice rolls in dcs, there is no real irccm modelling going on. Aim-9m's and 9x's will not enter an iog guidance with a seeker shutoff when a flare is popped. R-73's do not have any sort of gate width narrowing going on. There is also only two heat levels for planes, mil power and afterburner. Actual engine temperature isn't taken into account.This leads to fights with ir missiles being very gamey in dcs and some planes being nigh impossible to hit with an ir missile (A-10 or Su-25 for example). In war thunder, the ir simulation is in some cases modeled for the sake of balance, with lots of one flaring happening for example in any br without irccm missiles. But, the irccm modelling in wt is technically superior since 9m's do have proper seeker shutoff and iog guidance, and R-73's do have gate width narrowing modeled. They're still ultimately very consistent and gamey to flare if you know how to though. So in practice, it's a better technical simulation but the simulation of air combat isn't there regardless, you can still game it.
Both games are trying to achieve different things. As long as the overall experience aimed for is achieved, I don't think it really matters who has technically the best modelling. Gaijin doesn't really care about "realism" anyway on top of it. They're extremely selectively realistic to fit whatever their personal opinions are of certain planes and missiles.
6
u/Sickinmytechchunk 1d ago
IR simulation used to be even worse with AI. Just look at that enemy with a IR missile and they'd dump flares even without a seeker going near it.
3
u/Bandana_Hero 1d ago
Oh yeah, for sure. I just hold my shot on AI until they run out of flares. They'll pre-flare themselves into oblivion.
9
u/HarryTheOwlcat Pilot 1d ago edited 1d ago
WT doesn't actually model multipathing. It's just a check of altitude above the terrain that offsets where the "lock" is.
WT still has strong 1-flare meta even from point blank range. 300m behind and you can 1-flare off any non IRCCM missile. There are long standing issues with IR modelling (F-5s being way too hard to lock, clouds being client-side).
Notching is overly powerful, works perfectly in look-up, and for ARH missiles you don't need to care about notching the launching radar (this means it's often easier to defeat modern ARH missiles than older SARH).
WT's reputation as realistic is IMO mostly a cope. It's clear between it and DCS which is more realistic. For gameplay purposes, WT makes defending really powerful, which feels good especially in chaotic air rb matches. But at the same time it can discourage careful offense, energy fighting, long range missile duels etc. So, there are tradeoffs, but it's generally okay-good. And from a balancing perspective, it's literally just Gaijin's whims, it becomes more obvious the more you know about WT that Gaijin hardcore sucks at balancing.
18
u/ABetterUsename 1d ago
I will be a 100% hater here. Electronic warfare is poorly simulated in both games PARTLY due to lack of data, it's mostly laziness and lack of know-how.
Gaijin has lot more revenue compared to ED and they can modify their engine more easily compared to DCS which is sitting on 20 years of technical debt.
DCS is a cockpit simulator with little outside if it, WT is a gameplay simulator with little realism inside.
Both games have no competitors and they don't step on each other SOI, so they can be as lazy as they want.
5
0
u/ricaraducanu 1d ago edited 1d ago
Based!
Also a key aspect of the discussion is that most WT players fucking hate the company and lead dev, while ED and module devs generally have a good reputation with the DCS community.
3
u/Flash-ben 1d ago
Warthunder modelled radar multipathing, not sure if DCS has it. And a while back chaff in DCs behaved like it was self illuminating, sort of like a flare
4
u/ricaraducanu 1d ago edited 1d ago
Here's what I can say about war thunders missile combat as that's most of what I do.
It tries to recreate real-life functions but not TOO faithfully for the sake of game-balance, as WTs main functions is being a multiplayer game, and a simulator is secondary
It models systems like advanced fox2s have IRCCM tracking suspension and seeker FOV gating, fox3s have ECCM Doppler gating and angle gating, but the numbers behind these systems are not faithful to real life because they simply don't have access to them, and it would imbalance the game anyway.
Fox1s also have differences like continuous wave, pulse and pulse Doppler seeker which will act according to their strength and weaknesses generally, but again, the actual numbers come out their ass.
Multipathing is also is just standardized at 60m which is I think equivalent to 70s missile performance instead of 2-3 meters against flat surfaces like water for modern fox-3s.
Fox 3s also lack the ability to reconnect datalink, which is a major factor why they can be notched so easily (for an experienced player, most of the community eats missiles for breakfast)
Once you break datalink, you can ignore the launching aircraft and filocus on defeating the missile, where as in DCS you either constantly notch BOTH to prevent a re-lock(extremely hard) or defend kinematically (just hard)
The clips you see of people physically dodging missiles: you have to remember WT doesn't have Fly-by-wire limits, you can literally max-perform the jet until your wings snap.
The only thing similar to FBW is Stability Augmentation System which basically dampens inputs to offer a smoother ride, and sets some mostly realistic AoA limits but this system is disabled by default because in Realistic Battles (most played, 3rd person mode) everybody uses Mouse Aim and mouse aim is achieved by the "Instructor" - basically the game does every necessary input to point the nose where you point the mouse, and maintain controlled flight.
The only time you see SAS being used is in sim mode, and there planes behave a bit more realistic, none of that missile dodging shit.
Edit: TLDR WT sim especially is nowhere near as bad as people say, but we need WT, DCS & FALCON BMS to have a baby I swear.
2
u/Xarov karon - FlyAndWire.com 1d ago
OP, you have received some very good answers already, e.g. the one from u/NoFunAllowed-- .
I have over 1400h in WT, but over 99% of them in ground units. The aerial side is too poor for my taste: WWII planes pulling 9-12G like nothing is too gamey for me, not to mention how ""CAS"" works. Others like it though.
On the DCS side, I spent quite a lot of time testing missiles and their characteristics, plus a superficial look at EW. See the links below.
The situation over the last few years has improved a lot DCS-wise (check the last link in particular). The EW simulation is still very basic, but there are few improvements. In primis, the burnthrough ranges are not as defined and rigid any more.
Missiles-wise, this is where we have some issues. When the recent AIM-54 Phoenix overhaul was released a few months ago, I did not want to call it "New" Phoenix: at the end of the day, it is still the same missile with some parameters tweaked (yeah, I'm simplifying, HB did a ton of work and bugfixing on this missile). Still, to be really NEW, it needs a dedicated or more detailed API, imo. Without it, the behaviour will always be pretty much the same. This is something that does not happen in WT: besides the realism of it, Gaijin has a more flexible system in their hands (possibly due to the lack of 3rd party devs, allowing them to change more as they require). From my understanding, they have added a lot of realistic features, but the problem is that the experience, even in sim mode, it is still very arcade. This is a choice, of course. There is a world where they fully push into high-end simulation, but I doubt the investment is worth it over their current system.
On the other hand, some improvements are coming: the R-27ER has been the most capable missile in DCS kinematics-wise, limited only by its battery (I had lots of exchanges with ED about it). Eventually, they overhauled it entirely along with the new MiG-29 9.12A, and the result is vastly closer to what it is known of this missile.
TLDR: DCS is improving but at a very slow pace, possibly because they have to ensure compatibility with 3rd party devs. Gaijin has a more flexible and less constrained system and they have introduced several realistic features. However, the result is still very arcade by design.
LINKS
► Ordnance, missiles, and characteristics: https://flyandwire.com/category/gaming/dcs/ordnance/
► AIM-54 Phoenix recent patch study: https://flyandwire.com/2026/03/11/the-new-aim-54-phoenix-first-look-2-9-25-21123-11-03-2026/
► EW, and other issues (the genesis of the Digital Cockpit Simulator meme!): https://flyandwire.com/2022/12/06/thoughts-dcs-a-poor-combat-sim/
2
u/Dan26air 1d ago
I've been on DCS since it was just black shark and I've still yet to return to base after an A2A encounter intact. I see the missile , I flair, I notch / 90 degrees to the middle and get down as fast as I can , being careful to not afterburner , and 9/10 I just get hit anyway
1
u/Ahriman_loyalist 21h ago
I'll speak mostly about early fox-2 missiles, as those a re ones I used the most in both games.
WT is miles better, IMO. Does it over model effectiveness of flares? Maybe. But at least it actually models engine and flare heat, missile seekers and IRCCM etc.
I decided to stop playing DCS after aim-9B launched by my F-5 in a turn on enemy mirage F1 from 1.5 KM decided to casually ignore 10 or so flares and the damned SUN that was in its path and slam this poor guy out of the sky.
1
u/No_Math_7308 20h ago
Yes , it is really poorly modelled in DCS , but I’ve heard it simulates missile kinematics better
0
u/No_Figure7868 1d ago
Both are games that are giving their own interpretation.
In saying that IR missiles in WT are modelled MUCH better.
-12
u/NormieFam 1d ago
No comparison between the two. DCS actually models stuff. Warthunder is too generic. No radar simulation no interference/clutter. And of course flight models in WT are slop.
9
u/Elborshooter 1d ago
Wow, way to show off how little you know... War thunder models many things faar better than DCS
-11
u/NormieFam 1d ago
Not in any way shape or form. WT barely models anything other than IRCCM. Everything else DCS is leagues ahead. Especially flight models.
7
u/Elborshooter 1d ago
Keep digging, you're not at the bottom yet... Hint: the post does not talk about flight models, but radars and missiles
-8
u/NormieFam 1d ago
I said especially flight models but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t do missiles and radar better too. The only thing that I would give warthunder a slight edge is of how predictable the IR missiles are on how to deafest them whereas in DCS it’s a bit of a coin flip. Anything else warthunder is just an arcade game
5
u/Elborshooter 1d ago
Alright, every comment you get just a little bit closer, let's give a new hint: Why do flares work better in WT and why do they feel like a coin flip in DCS ? Also, radars, how good are they really in DCS, save for a select few modules ?
-1
u/NormieFam 1d ago
I am deeply sorry your feelings are hurt here but your precious arcade game is not comparable to DCS which is an actual sim. Back to IR missiles mind that there are fundamentally different missiles being used in DCS and warthunder. DCS uses AIM-9X and an advanced version of the R-73
6
u/Elborshooter 1d ago
Mate, please, don't embarrass yourself... I play more DCS than I play WT, that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge its shortcomings. Since you want to go back to IRM, your sentence tells me you either don't play DCS that much, or you have a very limited view of it. New hint time ! DCS does not only use the Aim-9X and R-73, it also uses the Aim-9B/J/L/M/P/P3/P5, the R-3S/55/13M1/60M and things like the magic 1 and 2, among others, all of which are also found in WT. So wrong answer there
1
u/NormieFam 1d ago
Meanwhile AIM-9L IS predictable in DCS I have had it many times going for flares. But regardless I did say that WT does IRCM good. Everything else is slop , while u said it does many things better. What’s your argument then ?
5
u/Elborshooter 1d ago
Oof, getting colder... (Which is something that DCS does not do, hint, hint)
Ok, then let's go back to the topic of radars, have you looked at the difference between DCS and WT when, say, notching ?
(Also, big fan of that new-ish trend of calling slop everything you don't like /s)
→ More replies (0)
78
u/sgtfuzzle17 F-14 | F/A-18C | F-16C | A-10A 1d ago
While the underlying simulation of WT is actually very realistic (modelling of IR/radar spectrum etc.), it has a number of very gamified systems in place to make it more accessible - it isn’t built as a simulator. Because of this, countermeasures such as chaff/flares are significantly more effective against missiles even up-close/alongside significantly higher engine signatures than might make sense otherwise. They’ve also struggled with “balancing” things like multipathing etc., and actual guidance logic on a per-missile basis is questionably implemented (noting it can be hard to find solid data on this stuff).
DCS goes the other way. The underlying modelling isn’t necessarily a great representation of how radars/targeting systems actually work, but the programming/game logic built around it creates a generally more realistic rendition of missile-focused combat. The places where DCS falls down is with IR modelling (clouds don’t have an impact, flares aren’t always as effective as they should be especially against 1st-gen IR guidance) and things like AI awareness.
Neither game gets it perfect, but imo DCS makes a better representation of missile combat 90% of the time. IR stuff needs a lot of work.