I have noticed this behavior too on several occasions, for instance that
1) if a target is within allowed parameters at launch the weapon launched at the target will continue tracking/following the target even if the target for instance for instance drops below minimum allowed target altitude.
2) if a missile with a pop up ability of 4572 m is launched at a climbing target right at the moment the target passes 4500 m above the shooter the missile can still make an intercept at 5500 m above point of launch.
3) likewise a missile that can only pop down 12192 m can be launched from a a/c flying at 13716 m ASL at a target at 2000 m ASL and continue following the target until impact even if the target immediately after the missile is launched launch goes to 30 m ASL.
I think this is something the devs should take a look at since the model now is completely unrealistic.
It also would be nice if missiles, especially short range IR-guided missiles like a AIM-9L, got a severe range (or height, whatever you want to call it) penalty when they were launched at a target that they have to climb 4500 meters to reach. These missiles are not equipped with long burning sustainer boosters and their performance if they have to climb is severely limited by the extreme amount of kinetic energy that is spent being converted to potential energy (I am sorry if this is not the right term, English is my second language).
This is by the way modeled correctly in the case of the NASAMS SAM system, that launches an AMRAAM missile that only has a modified guidance system. The AMRAAM B has a range of 40 nm when launched from an aircraft - when launched from the NASAMS ground-based launcher it has a range of only 16 nm (Which is completely realistic because it has to spend so much of it's rocket boosters pinherent energy making the climb to the target.
The end-game calculations system now is in many cases completely unrealistic - an especially apparent example is the no penalty for a 4,5 km pop-up maneuver from a IR-guided missile with max range of 18,5 km (10 nm).
Also, to the devs, never think that any critique I offer is malicious, although I have probably at least five, probably many more, things I could spell out that by any reasonable standards are completely unrealistic (Just as unrealistic as the MAD system has been found to be in the excellent thread a couple of months ago - I have a thread upcoming on how unrealistic the AAA system is right now but the forum won't let me post it because the forum software thinks there is a telephone number in it so I have to wait until I have 10 posts).
I absolutely love this game and understand that you are a small team developing this with literally hundreds of possible enhancements to realism to choose from and that there just is not enough time. Any criticism I will offer, and there will be some, is only intended to make this game better.
Last, I used to be a "gamer", now I am just a CMANO player. How's that for a compliment?
Good point on how this effects air-to-air weapons as well. It seems that this problem should be fairly easy to fix for surface-to-air weapons by simply not allowing the missile to fly outside of its max and min altitudes, but it might be more complicated for air-launched missiles since pop-up/pop-down has to be calculated based on launch altitude.
Overall, a more realistic modeling of rocket behavior that better takes into account fuel limitations could substantially improve the accuracy of the game (particularly the problem of reliable extreme-range air-to-air shots), but that would likely be a massive undertaking and I can understand why the CMANO team went with the fairly simplistic model the game currently uses.
I'm looking forward to seeing your analysis of how AAA works - that's not a part of the game I've payed much attention to since I mostly play modern/near-future scenarios where AAA isn't that useful. Is there anyway you could creatively edit it so that the number isn't censored?