Matrix Games Forums

Bug Report
Game Version: 1.10 Beta 1892

Subject
Air-to-Air missile (AAM) No-Escape-Zone (NEZ) no longer working as advertised.

Description
High-performance aircraft like 4.5 Gen Fighters are commonly able to survive BVR missile shots, despite the NEZ Weapon Release Authority (WRA) being in effect, with ~7 AIM-260As and Meteors needed to kill a single Su-35 Flanker. The problem is even more apparent against a quasi-5th Gen fighter like the Su-57 Felon where 102 AIM-260As were needed to kill one jet.
The situation is even worse for the Russian weapons like the AA-12 and AA-13 where they failed to kill a single F-15EX or Typhoon. I understand that the AA-13 is better for targeting wide-body aircraft like AWACS, tankers etc, but a 80 missiles to 0 kills for it across the three engagements is terrible.
The issue primarily seems to be that the fighters descend to low atlitude, bleeding the energy of the missiles; this a very valid tactic that is working as designed. Therefore, the problem appears to be that the game engine isn't taking this into account.

Evidence (scenarios are attached in the zipped folder)

Typhoon FGR4 vs Su-35S Flanker M:

AS OF: 09/09/2026 16:34:17

SIDE: BLUEFOR
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
2x 27mm Mauser BK-27 Burst [30 rnds]
3x AIM-132A ASRAAM
1x Brite Cloud Active Expendable Decoy
1x Generic Chaff Salvo [8x Cartridges]
57x Meteor



SIDE: REDFOR
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
8x Su-35S Flanker M


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
2x AA-12 Adder B [R-77-1, RVV-SD]
32x AA-13 Arrow [R-37M, RVV-BD]
19x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]
3x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]


BLUEFOR expended a total of 60 air-to-air missiles, killing 8 targets = 7.5 missiles expended per kill.

--------------------------------
F-15EX vs Su-57 Felon:

AS OF: 09/09/2026 16:54:49

SIDE: BLUEFOR
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
102x AIM-260 JATM



SIDE: REDFOR
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x Su-57 Felon


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
15x AA-12 Adder C [R-77M]
30x AA-13 Arrow [R-37M, RVV-BD]
11x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]


BLUEFOR expended 102 AIM-260 JATM missiles to secure a 1 kill against the Su-57s.

--------------------------------

F-15EX vs Su-35S Flanker M:

AS OF: 09/09/2026 17:01:40

SIDE: BLUEFOR
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
66x AIM-260 JATM



SIDE: REDFOR
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x A-100 Premier [Il-476]
8x Su-35S Flanker M


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
18x AA-13 Arrow [R-37M, RVV-BD]
11x Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]


BLUEFOR expended 66 AIM-260 JATM missiles = approx 7.33 missiles expended per kill.
Needless to say, it is difficult to find real-world examples of the amount of missiles needed to shoot down a 4+ Gen Fighter, but there is a quote from a news article on the 2021 Atlantic Trident that suggests it takes ~3 missiles to shoot down a modern fighter.

"Thus, referring to Exercise Atlantic Trident, conducted in May 2021 from Air Base 118 in Mont-de-Marsan, with Rafale and F-35 aircraft, he indicated that during a 1.5-hour mission, "75 missiles" were "simulated firing and 25 enemy aircraft shot down."

Source: https://www.opex360.com/2022/02/09/le-n ... -boisseau/

The issue primarily seems to be that the fighters descend to low altitude, bleeding the energy of the missiles; this a very valid tactic that is working as designed. Therefore, the problem appears to be that the game engine isn't taking this into account.

That's an interesting point. To my knowledge, the "industry standard" assumption for the NEZ concept is that the enemy aircraft turns and runs at AB at the same altitude.

Should we exceed this and make the NEZ logic assume that the enemy will not only turn and run, but also go low? This will make the NEZ "bubble" even smaller than it currently is.

Dimitris wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2026 7:57 am

The issue primarily seems to be that the fighters descend to low altitude, bleeding the energy of the missiles; this a very valid tactic that is working as designed. Therefore, the problem appears to be that the game engine isn't taking this into account.

That's an interesting point. To my knowledge, the "industry standard" assumption for the NEZ concept is that the enemy aircraft turns and runs at AB at the same altitude.

Should we exceed this and make the NEZ logic assume that the enemy will not only turn and run, but also go low? This will make the NEZ "bubble" even smaller than it currently is.

Personally, I'm leaning towards yes, the logic should include countering the "go low" evasion profile. This is due to the following thoughts:

1- As seen in my scenario tests, even modern AAMs take 7+ missiles fired within NEZ parameters to kill a fighter. I'd absolutely understand this if the units were firing from maximum range to suppress the enemy, but when shooting at NEZ ranges, I'm expecting the enemy aircraft to at least not be able to out-run the missile (of course terrain clutter, ECM, countermeasures etc, will still affect the engagement).

2 - The player having other range options in the WRA to shoot from longer ranges under the assumption that the fight stays high.

There is a significant slowdown in the simulation when the fighters approach, before launching the missiles. And also later. Felon's scenario.

Do you notice it?


I see this line in the past fixes, perhaps is it back?

FIXED: Severe slowdown in salvo creation with AAW missiles when the WRA-range setting is "No Escape Zone"

TempestII wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2026 1:14 pm

Dimitris wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2026 7:57 am

The issue primarily seems to be that the fighters descend to low altitude, bleeding the energy of the missiles; this a very valid tactic that is working as designed. Therefore, the problem appears to be that the game engine isn't taking this into account.

That's an interesting point. To my knowledge, the "industry standard" assumption for the NEZ concept is that the enemy aircraft turns and runs at AB at the same altitude.

Should we exceed this and make the NEZ logic assume that the enemy will not only turn and run, but also go low? This will make the NEZ "bubble" even smaller than it currently is.

Personally, I'm leaning towards yes, the logic should include countering the "go low" evasion profile. This is due to the following thoughts:

1- As seen in my scenario tests, even modern AAMs take 7+ missiles fired within NEZ parameters to kill a fighter. I'd absolutely understand this if the units were firing from maximum range to suppress the enemy, but when shooting at NEZ ranges, I'm expecting the enemy aircraft to at least not be able to out-run the missile (of course terrain clutter, ECM, countermeasures etc, will still affect the engagement).

2 - The player having other range options in the WRA to shoot from longer ranges under the assumption that the fight stays high.

We can discuss this with our pro user base but I have a suspicion about which way they are likely to lean.

Nikel wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2026 1:51 pm There is a significant slowdown in the simulation when the fighters approach, before launching the missiles. And also later. Felon's scenario.

Do you notice it?


I see this line in the past fixes, perhaps is it back?

FIXED: Severe slowdown in salvo creation with AAW missiles when the WRA-range setting is "No Escape Zone"

No, that's a different cause. The DLZ calculations have progressively become more sophisticated (especially WRT drag calculations), and there is a lot of them running concurrently in this case. There is no easy-to-fix hotspot anymore. It is what is.