IronMike

Thank you guys, I will try this mission this week.

I just want to re-iterate that none of these changes have anything to do with CSGO-yeah. Pardon me if I got the username partially wrong. Not once did he present any data or factual reference that would have contained something we could act on. Instead he continuously expressed his feelings and opinions about the Tomcat, the Phoenix and us. His basic reasoning was very simple: "It was developed against bombers, so it should not work against fighters." and: "It was old, so it should be useless." and of course: "Heatblur made it 'op' to sell more modules." On top of that he used his comments to a) express his hate agains the phoenix, b) his hate against the Tomcat and Tomcat community and c) his accusations against us - which continued to show in his impulsive and negative behavior towards both us and everyone around. I use the word "hate" specifically, because he himself used it repeatedly in conversations with me/us/here. This is certainly not the kind of input we listen to, yet we have been patient with him for more than 2 years, despite repeated ban requests by forum users due to his continued negative behavior, which ultimately culminated in a barage of absolutely insulting and inacceptable PMs that led to his ban, after being warned several times, and given several chances, both by us and ED. His opinions had nothing to do with him being banned. The entire process of us refining the phoenix started already in autumn 2019, long before anyone made any such reference or claims towards what it should or should not be, based on their "impressions". And with this I would like us all to close the off-topic convo about CSGO, and return to the issues at hand. Thank you. When simulating such complex matters as missiles, data is what you can go by, and trying to make it achieve what (little or limited) is known from real life that could be achieved. We had to over-power it at first, which btw left it still underpowered at the time. With the missiles in DCS changing in the recent years, this offset its performance such that it became eventually overpowered, upon which we continued to dive in deeper, and with the help of your feedback (factual feedback by so many of you), the help of SMEs and by now years of research, we finally managed to learn what we did not know before, or only knew in a more limited way. But the goal was since the beginning: to make it perform as close as possible to known IRL shots. As @Naquaii said: we change the modeling when we have new data. This has never been, nor ever will be based on opinions, balance, feelings, complaints or any of that kind. But it will of course always happen, when someone presents us with evidence that either shows us what we can improve or what we got wrong or what we can change to make it even more realistic. The impact this has on whether the missile becomes "better" or "worse", is, to put it bluntly, irrelevant. And I, too, second the idea to not over-interpret too much into the pro and contra going forth between "opposing factions". It does not influence our development. What does influence it, is the many great input coming from you guys that for example showed the CFD being off, quirks in the guidance, in lofting, and in many many areas you have and continue to unearth. And we are, as always, very grateful for that. As mentioned at the beginning of this thread: it is a journey of learning, and without you guys being on board, we would never advance faster than we are now. And as long as we stand, I hope this journey will never end.

There you have it, would be just one would you have checked just once!

To get high, you need to climb early on, and step climb is best. Contract climb to 25k (maintain pitch for 350 kts) -> get speed. Climb to 30k -> get speed. Climb to 40k -> get speed. It will cost you fuel ofc, but if you keep above 40k your fuel burning will not be that bad. You need time though. For tests these were mostly airstarts. In most tests I limit myself to either 2 missiles or 1 missile per bandit, except in the tacview I just posted above, I took 6 missiles. The AI is all set to ace, and some iirc to veteran. I can try some on veteran if you like, or also show you a full climb to the danger zone from take off. If you are unsure if an engagement will unfold, cap high by default. I generally do not cap below angels 32. From there it is not so hard to get really high and still remain fast. And I agree with a previous statement: it is better to be at 45k and launch from m1.0 than to be at 40k and launch from m1.1 ... As an example, in the above mentioned instant action mission "hunting the jeff", you start at 32k. By the time of launch I am usually between 46 and 48k. That is in the B. In the A, with the TF-30s, this will take you longer, you will be slower up there and likely not just as high, but you can get above 40k just fine.

@Wolfman289 and @captain_dalan - this particular mission is ultra hard currently, and will be changed to carry -Cs. The main issue with the mission is the 4 jeffs being a single 4ship, which with the new BVR stuff makes them stack hi-lo, and your wingman cannot be really directed to focus on the high or low guys respectively. It is very tough and unfair (while it was completely fine with the old mk60, to which it was tailored when I made it). Do yourselves a favor, and edit the mission to carry Charlies, I made some more changes which will also make it still a hard, but not such an impossible mission. Not that it is not doable, but your AI wingman just lets you down on this one and you have basically 4 Jeffs teaming up on you like hawks. All instant action BVR missions will get looked at again in this regard. I've attached a tacview how a 1 vs 2 fight with Jeffs can work out (not as a guideline, just one possible outcome), and the F-14A still stays on top, but it is hard work. Especially the recommit with Jester looking at the sky or into the water, etc is what makes it tough. As for the AWG-9, it should, if anything hold tracks better now, if it doesn't something else might be up, but for me, during all my tests (including about 20 runs with this marianas mission), the AWG9 did not show any issues - that is not to say there are none ofc. Tacview-20220904-133319-DCS-aim54_vs_JF17.zip.acmi

Very unlikely, simply due to its limited or non-existant use in DCS.

It's due to the current limitations of ARH missiles in DCS going active at a set range (10nm), hence the AI gets the active missile warning at 10nm. Only against players and with the -A, you can make the tgt size switch set to small have an effect of "late surprise". However, given that tgt size switch set to normal is 10nm, and what you would generally use, the AI defending at 10nm always is not as big of an issue as many make it look imo. IRL setting this switch would represent less of a sneaky tactic, but more of an estimate of where you would expect the missile to be able to see its target (hence larger targets further out and smaller targets further in). This however is not reflected in DCS.

Primarily due to the initial phoenix modeling.

Unfortunately it is not as simple as just setting the value to what DSplayer has suggested above. Without going into detail, the gest is: the output from the value is skewed - this is unfortunately a legacy issue from how the phoenix was modeled originally. This value has been intentionally kept as is thus far. If you would feed the correct value now, it would make the missile drastically over-perform. And we are currently investigating with ED how to best approach this offset. So we cannot just simply change a value in the lua, to get the correct outcome, if that makes sense. Please also note: the nozzle exhaust area is not the silver bullet some believe it would be. If you feed the correct value now, as mentioned, it over-performs, so this is likely where some high hopes originate from. EDIT: to redact predictions here again, thinking twice it is a bit premature to make definitive claims, we'll have to see, but I would advise caution against having too high hopes for the NEA to have a massive impact overall.

Never give up, and know we have all been where you are now. Look at this video, it gives you very nice visual references you can use for the various tankers.

Is this any carrier, or precisely the Stennis, like in the campaign?

Please show me once where we said something someone reported does not exist, when it really existed? We may say we do not see it or cannot reproduce it, but never did we not believe a factual report. But, if for example someone says "can't lower the flaps above 250 kts, they are bugged" and we say "that is not a bug, you broke them by overspeeding", and it then gets called toxic, it is creating toxicity in itself, if you'll pardon me pointing that out. No one is trying to shut you down, but you want us to change things we just have no access to. The F-14 is us, the missile guidance not. That's a nuance which is not outrageous to ask to understand. And it is not toxic if we do so. Which is what Fringe was trying to point out, again, trying to help you gain perspective. And while ED may be a meme to you, they are not to us, and to the contrary very forthcoming and helpful, but you will have to forgive us that certain things take a certain time. You say you want these things talked about, but when we talk about it, you say it comes from a - fair enough, as you say, seemingly - toxic attitude. If a discussion means only agreeing with what you say, then it is quite frankly not an invitation to a discussion. Not sure if I come across wrongly here? But I hope you do notice that I am trying to have a reasonable conversation with you. There is a whole lot of claims and accusations, which I am sorry, I do not see all just as substantiated as you put it, and that is something you will have to accept just as much as I have to accept your being displeased with us. We can talk more about loft, if you want, which btw I already acknowledged twice now, and many times before in general. We are aware that it is irrational in certain regimes. But we also mentioned and explained several times in the previous thread that it is the best compromise given with how loft is currently handled in DCS, and why in most circumstances it is not only not wrong, but correct as is. I also acknowledged it is being worked on. In essence thus it is not being worked on fast enough in your opinion, which is fair, but reality dictates the speed, not willingness. We want loft to improve, but we, ourselves, cannot do that. We have no control over that part. And again, imo to ask to kindly understand that is neither outlandish, nor toxic. "Should" is a word used often in air to air, because it depends on so many factors. Anyone who says always "is" instead, I would take with a grain of salt. And again, when the testers do tell you "does", because they did so many tests, which Fringe told you literally in his reply, you fail to see that, you instead choose to see it as a "firestorm of ppl trying to tell you that you are wrong" and to reply "thank you for proving my various points about *testers*" ... I am not even going into the "what information we are missing" thing, because I fail to see how you could possibly know that. We're open for criticism, we are exchanging with the community likely more than many devs out there, and we always meet you guys on eye level. Calling us toxic, or our testers toxic, for trying to provide clarity, is not fair, especially if you just literally asked for that, then don't like the answer and come in barging with accusations in such a manner. I get it, you find it frustrating, and fixes for some issues are not delivered fast enough for you. That is fair. We will try to do better, I mean that. But please try to refrain from accusing our testers to have a toxic attitude towards you, they are not. You are instead being toxic towards them, you really are, so please understand if that is where I draw a line. You can express your being displeased with us, no biggy, but please do not involve those who are willing to give their free time to improve the game I would guess you care about, and on top of that are willing to help ppl on the forums to understand and learn the Tomcat better. Thank you for respecting that.

No one has ever discredited what you said, to the contrary I both acknowledged it and tried to explain it, as well as re-assuring you that we are very much interested in fixing remaining issues. But you'll still have to allow me to disagree, where I disagree, please. Loft being improved is a consequence of guidance improvements, but we have no control over lofting of missiles in DCS, so it is not a changelog item for us. Not sure where you see this inconsistency between what is written, done and happening. We are completely open about everything we do, and everything that has changed. And one also needs to be precise: the over-lofting is a bug happening from mostly over-pitching, which is a bug that is not aim-54 native. The missile going very high as quick as possible, is benefitial to its terminal velocity. Just because it looks like going straight up from the pilot's POV, it doesn't mean it is always wrong. Do we think the lofting is perfect? No. Personally some very pointy lofts at closer ranges seem suspicious to me. But medium to long range the loft does not appear wrong to me at all, neither to our SMEs. But it is also not something we can fix. It is not an aim-54 issue. The aim-54 only illustrates it better, due to its longer range. Same as stuff like flying around the mountain (thank you for the video, btw). We can only make an overhaul of the things we have access to. We cannot overhaul ED's missile guidance. This is not meant to shift blame, but please understand that it is equally not constructive for us to say "yeah it is on us", if in fact it isn't. And as I mentioned, we are working with ED to resolve these issues. If you feel like me trying to be helpful, is descrediting folks, my apologies, but I hope it is clear this is not the intent. However, you will also have to forgive us, that we kind of have to refute misconceptions, wrong impressions or false statements. There is no harm in doing them, but it's not very wise to just let them stand, so naturally there needs to be some back and forth. Also, please forgive me, but I really do not understand where we a) broke the missile (it changed, it didnt break), where testers are denying the change (who also try to be helpful in understanding the new missile better), and why a patch should not reflect community feedback, which is the entire point about it, as long as the feedback ofc is based on facts, and not on opinions or feelings. As for our testers, who spend an enormous amount of their free time trying to improve DCS, and who are actual members of the community and in large parts members who have been active for nigh two decades, with a lot of community work and experience under their belt, including SMEs: it would be nice if what they do would get appreciated. We most certainly have no intention to rotate any of them. And trust me, our testers are far from being blind followers. They give us the same scrutiny as you do. We would not want it any other way.

Let us please not throw around accusations, etc... All levels of skill are welcome here, always, please do not forget that, and all levels of skill will struggle to adjust, from more to less. Which is the main point: to adjust. It is no one's fault, but ours, that folks now compare with the state of before, which slows done the getting to terms with it. Which of course, if you think of it, would not have been the case, would we have known better at the time and released it as is. I cannot blame anyone who finds these adjustments frustrating, irritating or difficult to come to terms with. But the flipside of the coin also means of course that if you treat it as if it just released and as if you never knew the overperforming version from before, you will adjust faster and better. If I may offer a general observation about "skill", too: There are times and situations in gaming, where it really is lack of skill that causes a complaint, although even then I find guiding newer players the most constructive reply to that. But when it comes to changes, it is - in my observation - usually the skilled players who complain the loudest. This is very logical if you think of it: they have a very particular, dialed in set of tactics, skills, workflows that get thrown over bord (in parts) by such changes. Which puts them (in parts) to square one. That is a lot of hard work being forced to be redone, which naturally is frustrating. So simply deducing that loud complaining equals lack of skill, is missing the mark, besides the above mentioned not being very constructive in general. Especially when folks just reached a certain level of skill, changes are a nuisance, always. You start getting more relaxed again, once your (ever changing and ever evolving) skillset has proven and tested through many and above these changes over many years. Really good are those who don't think of themselves as good. The moment you do that, you stop being good. It is about doing something right, and knowing that each time you start something, you start at square one again. When we obsess about skill, we are usually and actually still training. Only later you understand you did not train a specific skill, but actually the method of acquiring skills or skillsets as needed (for the particular area you want to develop expertise in). So then it does not bother you anymore to start at square one every time again (while with growing experience this ofc becomes easier), in fact you appreciate it, and thus also gain a new outlook on really appreciating new and unskilled players and their gripes. Anyway, short novel over.

My apologies if that came across as aggressive, it was not meant to. We just need to be careful to not elevate quick tests and first views and glances to a level of new facts, before having spent enough time with it. I've been using it for about 3 weeks now iirc and it takes a while to get back into the system as second nature is primarily what I meant. I agree on the tgt size switch. It's a nice thing to have. We will see what the future holds in this regard. Nice tacviews yourself btw. The MiG 29 I think will be one of the tougher ones in this regard, because it gets so fast so quick. It was tight, but at the tipping point the missile got below M1.2 and the 29 just above 1.2 ... Very unfortunate.

Indeed, and unfortunately both are limitations of DCS currently. As for the first, there is also rl footage of aim54s going sky high (cant find it now, but it is on these forums), but in DCS the loft is a compromise of sorts, which we have very limited access to, we can turn it on or off and tweak it a little bit here and there, of which the best result is as currently is. I also don't think we can split motor burn stages atm. Maybe this will be possible in the future (that said I do not know if it did at all and never heard of it, though it would make sense to some extent.)

You can't just post 1 result of a test, without showing what happens at the end, too (did the AI crash? -> that is a kill fwiw), and say it is the "main" issue. You need to keep at it a bit more. Check out the tacviews below, it does intercept AI in a split S, at ACE, set to engage at max range, set to engage unit (me). Not all missiles connect, but the vast majority, and the AI always buys it, no matter which aircraft how high, or low. Also, to answer your question: tgt size switch will not matter in the C now anymore, due to how actives are in DCS. This is also why the AI registers the missile going active at 10nm. Whether or not this will be different in the future I do not know. We hope that we will be able to model the guidance - also in relation to PDSTT - more accurately in the future. The A will still offer the benefit of the tgt size switch against players however (but not against AI). In general, not in reply to the above: The post I made earlier btw is not a comparison to what an aim120 does. This is secondary (though natural that it is interesting ofc). There are certainly things the aim120 can do which the aim54 cannot, and vice versa. There are ranges at which the aim120 will not keep up anymore. Yes, these tacviews are AI, which is a fair estimate of how your average to below average player would do online with a poor SA. Bringing into the discussion the highly skilled above average player is a bit besides the point: a skilled player will dodge your aim120 from 5nm. That does not mean the aim120 is ineffective beyond 5nm. Nor does it mean that because a skilled player can dodge an aim54 at this or that range, it is ineffective outside of that. There are so many factors that play into it, but no matter how you twist it: the aim54 remains the longest and also one of the deadliest sticks in game, when used appropriately, to its advantage, etc. That is the whole point. Imagine we had never miscalculated the mk60 motor - and our apology that we did - and would have released the aim54 as it is now. It would not bother your expectation grown out of experience of how the missile used to be. You would simply learn it, use it, experience it, test it, make it work under these or those situations, etc... If you think chipping off performance of our missiles is fun for us, it isn't. But if the numbers we have dictate a correction, we must follow suit. We cannot share the data you are asking, besides presenting it in the form of the missile you now have. I know, anyone could claim such and such. But please keep in mind, and allow me to invoke what else I would absolutely hate to invoke: we're not anyone, we cannot share everything for various reasons, and we've always vowed to abide by a higher standard of quality and realism. Else, we would have left the missile as was, and not reduced its motors to more realistic numbers. Give it some time, re-learn it. It does have a correct place on the history scale now, and that makes it a) something new that we all learned to re-experience the history of the Tomcat more accurately and b) also a fun, yet still capable challenge in the playing field of more modern adversaries. By all this I also do not mean we're unfailable or that everything with the missile is now super duper bug-free, that everything is perfect. It is not, and we will continue to push to improve what we can. But please do not expect any more drastic changes in performance in the future. With what we know now, it is very unlikely. I guess I am saying this, because the sooner we all accept where the missile settles in now, the sooner we can all get good with it again. vs4xMig29low_medium range.zip.acmi vs1xF16_3.zip.acmi vs1xF16_2.zip.acmi vs1xF16_1.zip.acmi vs1xMig31_maneuverkill.zip.acmi vs1xMig31.zip.acmi vs2xMig31.zip.acmi

Nothing to apologize for at all. That's what we're here for.

Here's another scenario: from high to low, vs 4xmig29 on veteran at 2k feet. Shots were taken between 48 and 40nm (due to the long LTE times). There is also a consistent tendency to check how it does around 30k feet. Which, fair enough, we all want to know. But it is not your ideal firing altitude. 40k and above is, always was, always will be for the phoenix. That does not mean it loses all value down low, or can only perform high to high. It is very simply though, the higher you are the further away on the lower targets you can fire. In short: climb! Disclaimer: the AI is veteran, but was set not to react to me until 20nm range between us, or else they would climb up all the way from the get go. They all do defend though and were given ample time to defend from the moment they get the launch warning. In essence: 40-50nm shot from 40k to 2k. Tacview-20220903-032555-DCS-aim54 low 50nm.zip.acmi

Did you try it extensively yet? Did you take the time to adjust to it? To take shots from favorable parameters? Like, don't get me wrong guys, we're here to help you adjust, etc. - but being disappointed or mad from just reading a post or maybe trying it for a couple of hours, or less even, and going "it is all meh now", while others already score successfully online, really leads to nowhere. Take yourselves the time to get used to it please. You can dislike it, and ofc feel free to express it, but it is not leading to something very constructive I may carefully suggest. It can't always be "give more realism" and then "this is not the realism we wanted"... The phoenix is and remains a strong missile and the longest stick in game. The C now is also a very deadly ARH missile on top. But firing it outside of what it gives you, and then going "it's crap", is not on the missile, nor on us. There sure are things that can improve, (the nozzle exhaust area btw will not be the life saving straw some may think it would), and we will improve on the valid items we find. But the fact is, the -mk60 was way off the mark. And we finally found the missing pieces of the puzzle to adjust it. To also make the A's guidance more realistic, as well as the C's, which finally gives a clear incentive to favor the C over the A, as it always should have been. I cannot repeat it often enough: more realism does not mean more or less range or performance for us, it means more realism, no matter where it places the missile in the end. Thank you for your kind understanding.

There's nothing to fix. It climbs as fast as high as it can, which does make sense. It helps it maintain a higher terminal speed by making the most out of the motor burn time in the climb, thus gaining the highest altitude at the highest possible energy. You can also see that irl videos, iirc someone shared that recently on these forums even. If it would not do that, it would lose significantly more energy during the gliding phase through denser air.

You are likely running out of battery life if they are flying just past. At these ranges you need to be high. If you look at the test from 1972/3, it was iirc 40k on 40k, at m1+. If you look at the tacview below, 40 on 30k even works fine at 110nm. But 30k on 30k will run out of battery life just just. 110nm_Amk47_Tu22_40kshooter_30ktarget.zip.acmi

110nm is no problemo with both A or C on high non maneuvering. ACM cover up also works with the mk60, see attached tacview. ACM trumps PAL, but you need to aim the cross at the target, the cone is very small. 8nm on a chase, depending on altitude, will not work. That is way longer than the motor burns, add the missile's drag, and somewhere below 4nm is the range you are looking at. You are not supposed to do full gimbal shots, unless you meant on a beaming target, rather than beaming (or cranking) yourself. But depending on setup, you can fire full gimbal shots from further out than that. However, put the T on the target, preferably. You are else bleeding away energy for no good reason. It's not an eagle with an amraam. Also tested PAL and worked fine with all 4 missiles. Mk60_ACM cover up.zip.acmi

Maybe one more thing to visualize: AIM-54C, turned off the WCS entirely half way of the missile's flight. Launched from the RIO seat, waited for them to reach around peak of their loft, turned WCS off. (So pretty much half way of their flight.) AIM54C_WCS OFF Half Way.zip.acmi

Maybe to visualize it all a bit, here are 4 tacviews, of each variant, approximating a test from 1973. I am not abiding by the parameters, except co alt, around m1, 25k feet, around 60nm. 65nm_Tu160x6_6xAmk47_25k.zip.acmi 65nm_Tu160x6_6xAmk60_25k.zip.acmi 65nm_Tu160x6_6xCmk47_25k.zip.acmi 65nm_Tu160x6_6xCmk60_25k.zip.acmi