All Activity

[FEEDBACK/BUG REPORT] F-14 Supersonic Performance & AIM-54 Missile Speed Module: DCS: F-14A/B (Heatblur) Version: [DCS 2.9.20.15010 (not open beta)] Date Tested: [September 19th. 2025] Environment: Single Player, Caucasus maps 1. Issue Summary The F-14A and F-14B appear to accelerate far too slowly at supersonic speeds compared to both historical reports and available engine data. The AIM-54 Phoenix consistently underperforms in maximum Mach compared to declassified NASA test data and operational reports. Both issues may stem from excessive modeled supersonic wave drag. 2. Detailed Description F-14 Supersonic Performance In DCS, both the F-14A and F-14B struggle to accelerate past Mach 1.1–1.2 at altitude, even in afterburner and at reduced fuel weights. Sustained acceleration from subsonic to Mach 1.5 is unrealistically slow — in some cases nearly impossible. Historical reports (e.g., Iranian Air Force accounts during the Iran-Iraq War) describe the F-14 rapidly accelerating from Mach 0.4 to Mach 1.5 while climbing from 35,000 ft to 45,000 ft, closing distance on a MiG-25 that was already at Mach 1.8-2.2. In real-world service, the F-14 was considered exceptionally fast at altitude, often leaving F-4s and F/A-18s behind. This is not reflected in DCS, where the jet feels drag-limited. Notably, the F-14B in-game sometimes appears slower than the F-14A at high-altitude acceleration, despite having significantly more powerful F110 engines with better engine specifications. Engine Comparison (sourced via NASA / manufacturer / Wikipedia data): TF30-P-414A: ~20,900 lbf thrust, BPR 0.878, PR 19.8. F110-GE-400: ~28,800–29,000 lbf thrust, BPR 0.87, PR 30.4. The higher thrust and pressure ratio of the F110 engines should give the F-14B a clear supersonic acceleration advantage, which is not seen in-game. AIM-54 Phoenix Maximum Speed The AIM-54 in DCS rarely exceeds Mach 3.4–4 in optimal launch conditions. NASA test data confirms the AIM-54A routinely exceeded Mach 5 in development launches. Multiple operational/training reports describe Phoenix reaching Mach 4+ in real-world firings. The in-game missile performance, particularly in maximum Mach achieved, is significantly under-represented compared to these sources. 3. Steps to Reproduce F-14 Load clean F-14A or F-14B (>12000lb of fuel). Climb to ~35,000–40,000 ft. Accelerate through Mach 0.9 → 1.5 in full afterburner. Observe acceleration rate vs. expected performance and historic documentation. AIM-54 Load F-14B with AIM-54C. Climb to ~36,000 ft, Mach 1.2. Fire Phoenix at long range (>60 nmi) at target with similar altitude and speed Track missile speed via F10/Tacview — note maximum Mach achieved rarely exceeds ~3.4. 4. Expected Behavior F-14 The F-14A should achieve Mach 2.3–2.34 at altitude clean, per NATOPS. The F-14B, with F110 engines, should outperform the A in high-altitude supersonic acceleration. Rapid transonic/supersonic acceleration should be achievable under favorable conditions. AIM-54 Test and operational data indicate Mach 4+ routinely, Mach 5 in some cases. In-game performance should reflect this in high-energy launches. 5. Actual Behavior F-14 struggles to pass Mach 1.2 in a timely manner; feels drag-limited. F-14B often does not outperform F-14A in supersonic regime. AIM-54 rarely exceeds Mach 3.4-4, well below documented real-world performance. 6. Evidence NATOPS & NASA propulsion data (TF30/F110). NASA AIM-54 flight test data (public domain). Iranian Air Force operational accounts of F-14 vs MiG-25 encounters. DCS Tacview/track files with a notepad file with data (The F-14s in the tacview will all have a loadout of 2xAIM-54C-mk60s, 3xAIM-7P sparrows, and 2xAIM-9M Sidewinders with no droptanks at 12200lb of fuel). 7. Additional Notes Both issues suggest possible overestimation of supersonic wave drag effects in the F-14 and AIM-54 models. This may affect not only top-end performance but also intercept mission viability (especially vs. fast, high-flying threats like the MiG-25/31). 8. Supporting Sources Iraq-Iran War National Interest – “When Russia’s MiG-25 and U.S. F-14 Tomcat Fought to the Death”: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/when-russias-mig-25-and-us-f-14-tomcat-fought-death-172204 Aviation Geek Club – “Tomcat vs Foxbat: The story of how IRIAF F-14 crews learned to shoot down the MiG-25 Mach 3 fighter jet”: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/tomcat-vs-foxbat-story-iriaf-f-14-crews-learned-shoot-mig-25-mach-3-fighter-jet AIM-54 Maximum Speed NASA:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070025193/downloads/20070025193.pdf Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix INSTRUCTIONS - READ ME.txt Fighter aim-54 launch data.acmi Mig-25 aim-54 launch data.acmi SUPERSONIC ACCELERATION DATA.acmi

My Ultrawide is about to ship and I had the G2. Will let you know. I might also get the 57PPD. Stay tuned...

Bye Phant

I did on a topic I started but I'll still attach it. This log file is from this morning and the last time I tried to open her up. The game was working fine last weekend when I played before the update but this morning after the update, nada... dcs.log

One does not equal the other

Not really. Just did a high altitude test with the 29A and F1CE - both with two heaters and a centerline tank plus pylons. The route: Pferdsfeld - Jadebusen - Damgarten -due south- Erzgebirge - Pferdsfeld. MiG-29A flew at 40.000ft and Mach 0.85 (~250KIAS). F1CE flew at 34.000ft and Mach 0.9 (~300KIAS) - the F1 can't go much higher without blowing the alternators below 300KIAS. MiG-29 started up with 10.000lbs of fuel and landed with about 2750lbs => 27.5% fuel remaining F1CE started up with 9370lbs of fuel and landed with 3770lbs => again about 40% fuel remaining The gap closes somewhat in relation to the numbers at low altitude, but that's also with the F1 flying 6.000ft lower and 0.05 Mach (~50KIAS) faster. While the fuel economy improves a lot at high altitude, the 29 is not a range wonder up there either.

The switch I believe is like the coop switch. It's either TWF "on or off" if using the radar. Or it's FHS or RHS if using the IRST sensor. The coop switch is labeled the same way.

I would assume this would be sold as a seperate module based on how different it is, but i think it could work very well! Some Redfor naval planes are always needed allthough i would prefer some variant of the Flanker to be the next Full Fidelity redfor Aircraft to tackle

I had a similarish problem and "trimer - reset" fixed me up. Hope it works for you dude

It seems pretty straight forward to me when I use it. TWF FHS will enable the track-while-fly that tracks the computed highest threat target. Selecting TWF to the RHS turns off TWF. It's like the coop switch that has seperate functions. Coop mode on-off, and low drag and high drag bombs depending on the position, while this switch also covers 2 different functions TWF on or off when using the radar, or FHS and RHS if using the IRST sensor. TWF can work in the auto, head on, and pursuit mode. If you want to lock the target you still press and hold the lock button, or you wait till your in weapons range where it will auto lock if your in TWF. Currently I use it to reduce work load a bit, and to help lock, or to see if a contact is real or just a false contact.

You sure your AWACS isn't just giving you distance and altitude in metric system? By your description sounds like it. Russians use metric system in aviation, unlike any bluefor nation

Mi-2 Any version.

Ah good point, I keep forgetting to post weapon issues to the ED general forum as well. Thanks for the reminder. I'll report to there too.

It's a know issue why no fix.And not see this on change logs page.

You need to assign it to anything but the spacebar. The spacebar and the backspace are reserved by ED for user input, which is used in my campaigns.

This seems to be way more of an issue on the current contention server. Not sure if it is a scripting thing but playing 80S blue flag the SPO-15 is mercifully quiet in comparison. For some reason on contention everything including on your side is locking you basically at all times it seems. 80's blue flag you also are able to cold start the plane properly, so I wonder if most of the issues are currently due to specific problems on the contention server right now related to the new release.

is player controlled doorgunners on the UH60 roadmap? amazing work always!

Even if you load a Tomcat mission before and select the TCS? -Load any Tomcat mission -Select TCS (blank) - Exit - Continue the campaign BTW you can load them directly from the missions menu, but again please report to Heatblur, they’re the one who need to fix this

Hmm. There seems there is an interface between Radar Modes/PRF and the position of the TWF switch. If you are head on with the radar mode switch in High PRF and the TWF switch in FHS you get TWF . If you are head on with the radar mode switch in High PRF and the TWF switch in RHS the radar remains in Range while search. So if you want to stay in RWS it seems the TWF switch must be in the opposite position (PRF wise) to the current Radar mode selected PRF. Vice versa as well. In addition something I have noticed is PRF selection changes the shape of the Acq cursor in the HUD. there are 2 thickness rectangles that change with PRF selection. AUTO (Intl PRF) = Thick Rectangle HEAD ON (High PRF) = Thin Rectangle Pursuit (Med PRF) = Square A square ACQ box does NOT indicate TWF. For instance if you have RDR mode head on (High PRF) with TWF switch in FHS you still get the thin rectangle that snaps to the highest threat target.

who voiced the pilot in this campaign?

It’s way past midnight where I live, and I’m about to go to bed, but if it helps I can check tomorrow in my profiles and let you know what exactly is different in my F-4 and MiG-29 profiles. I have a “up to third gen jet” profile which I use for the F-4, Mirage F1 and as you might have guessed, all other jets up to third gen. For MiG-29 I use my “fourth gen non-FBW” profile, which I also use for F-15E for example.

Likely an ED topic. The tone is based on the signal strength reported through the DCS SDK. This part of the Sidewinder logic is controlled by ED. (I personally dont know enough about the weapon to comment on this being correct behavior or not)

yes, I have tried. same result you are right and maybe onto something though. Because If I use a FFB profile that I use with the F-4, the AFCS test moves the stick (physically, in game and IRL , but only back and left). If I use a Mig-29 profile I created , based on the F-4 profile but with only 60% of the force applied, then the stick doesnt move at all. So clearly the FFB software and certain settings are influencing that AFCS test and its failure. I think I will create a profile with NO effects at all, and try the AFCS test. if that works, i can always switch to profile for flying afterward (I can easely switch profiles in game)

My suspicion is that the the AFCS test uses the trim system in the background. That’s why I brought it up: if something interferes with trim forces somehow, it may prevent the test from successfully completing. But perhaps I’m mistaken. Did you try trimming to neutral and then hitting the AFCS OFF switch on the stick, as the training mission suggests in case of test failure? I had no issues with other modules either, but trimming in the F-4 felt weird until I fixed the settings I was referring to, and it also helped the F-14. In fact, it even made some helicopters easier to fly.