WarthogOsl

Yeah, I get both sides as well. I want the numbers to be accurate, but it also needs to work as expected within the context of the DCS simulation that we have, especially given that we don't know when (or if) ED will fix certain aspects of it. That said, here's a TacView from last night where I took out 2 AI Flankers starting at 73nm away, so it is possible to work with these missiles. Both Flankers tried to evade the first 2 shots, but the first AIM-54C took the lead out. Ended up taking out the second guy with a third Phoenix PD-STT shot where I went cold at 10 miles away. TacView says I first launched at 50,000ft, though it was more like 45,000, I think. Tacview-2-flankers.zip.acmi

Raytheon didn't build it, fwiw.

I think HB has said this mission doesn't really work within the current state of things, and suggested editing it and turning down the skill level of the AI. There's also some issue with the bandits being vertically stacked too close together. I think they are going to revisit all the instant action missions, so I wouldn't feel too bad about it. I've only completed the Jeff one once or twice out of MANY attempts. Yeah, but the Jeff didn't exist in those times either. I think they were cranking by the time Flankers and Flanker variants appeared.

FWIW, I don't think faster is really necessary. I typically try and launch between Mach .8-.9, but I still have success slower than that. As for higher...well, I think that's unavoidable right now. In the past year and half, I've steadily had to increase my launch hight from 25k, to 30k, then 35k, and finally 40/45k (I reserve the 45k for MiG-29's and Flankers). I'm flying an F-14A, btw. There was a recent F-14 pilot interview where he said "the Sparrow likes speed and the Phoenix likes altitude." I've found that to be true in DCS.

Went back and checked this. Initial launch angle was actually only 20 degrees. A second or two after launch the missile increased to around 27 degrees nose up. It then gradually raised it's nose to a max angle of 44 degrees. At 10 miles from the target, the missile was at Mach 2.54, and on impact at 27,000 feet, it was going Mach 1.65.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I'm not seeing any cap in loft altitude. If you look at my TacView screen shots, you can see that my missile went nearly to 100,000 feet.

FWIW, here's what a 30 degree loft assist profile looked like today for me. Bandit was around 65nm away at launch.

I was not implying that one had anything to do with the other. Merely that we know that there still some factors that are artificially limiting performance. I'm not saying that the system shouldn't be made to be behave realistically, but that the timing in actually including them should be weighed against things that currently degrade performance unrealistically (the lofting and API).

I think the problem is that the missile is spending a good portion of it's burn time (like 10%) flying straight and level in the thicker atmosphere before it starts to self-loft. On my last few flights, I've been launching at 45k with a 30 degree loft. The missile gets up to well over 800,000 feet, and gets back down to the intercept at 25k still at M1.5, which I think is better then not doing a manual loft. Side note: I do hope that the jamming features are held off until the missile API guidance/loft issues are sorted out, so we can retain some balance between what is working and what isn't.

FWIW, I started manually lofting again...like 20 degrees nose up. That seems to get the missile going in a profile that's more similar to how it used to be (in other words, the missile isn't flying level for like five seconds after launch). I have not seen it cause an over-loft issue, though I'm not sure it makes a huge difference in the loft altitude either. It makes me feel better though. The whole Phoenix suddenly going nose high on intercept thing bugs me. I wonder if it's actually modeling real behavior...like if the missile loses lock, is it really commanded to go full nose up pitch?

You sure you weren't pressing PLM? The idea with that one is that the pilot holds the button down until a target near the ADL can be found and it locks on. Otherwise if you let go of the button before getting a lock, it reverts to whatever mode it was in (I think).

I feel like the lofting changed before the looping patch, but after the impulse reduction patch. But, good to know they are working on it regardless.

I think it's a bit too far for a prox hit either, but I'd have to recheck the tacviews. UPDATE: It was 215 feet, which I assume is probably outside the lethal zone.

Yeah, it was just recently, maybe on the last Tomcast episode, where they talked about transitioning the AIM-54C to be more of an anti-fighter weapon rather then exclusively a fleet defense weapon. At any rate, in addition to the all knowing AI, I still contend that something very recently made the guidance more wonky. I've seen too many cases where a bandit does a defensive maneuver, but then commits to a relatively constant course. The missile responds to that defensive turn more or less appropriately, but then seems to completely miscalculate the interception point and flies right by on one side or the other.

Same here.

My point being that there was nothing wrong with the mission design when these missions were created. But it seems like the creators may very well have to go back and redesign them now, as I'm not even sure reducing the AI skill level will help that much ("Hunting the Jeff" comes to mind). Were any real life tests done with those launch parameters? Mach 1.8 at 45K seems super optimistic for an F-14A carrying Phoenixes, for example.

I don't play PVP, but I wonder how this is going to affect existing and future single player missions and campaigns. I have a little BVR training mission, and even with the skill level dialed down to veteran (second lowest), fighters are easily evading the Phoenix on 60 miles shots from 40k/Mach 1 launches.. In at least 3 of the 4 single player campaigns I've finished, there are quite a few missions that rely on the Phoenix working. I don't think I could finish them in the current state. I know HB is working on a new campaign, so hopefully this becomes apparent in testing (not that I really know what can be done about it).

I've only recently started noticing the issue of missiles careening off 90+ degrees off course when tracks are dropped, and I know that's a known issue, but I was wondering, is the dropping tracks so often new as well? It seems too often happen immediately after launch. I was wondering if the missile itself was briefly blocking the radar as it passed by the nose and causing it (dunno if that's modeled). Maybe that was happening before and I never noticed it because the system/missile just shrugs it off that brief track loss? And if that's the case, will quickly moving the nose left or right immediately after launch help (until its fixed)?

Do they have to be from the server? I thought client side ones were unreliable.

All the P-STT shots I've taken in the last few days have guided very well. But I did see a couple TWS shots where apparently the track was dropped, and the missile did a 90 degree turn toward nothing in particular.

So, I'm not sure how much this on it's own will help. Taken in isolation, it seems like the kind of miss you'd expect every now and then (talking of my first shot against the MiG-21). The problem is that it now seems to be happening almost any time a missile gets close to an intercept in a TWS shot. Tacview-20220924-175444-DCS-Through_The_Inferno_MI_v1.1.4.zip.acmi

Hmmm...I feel like something happened on the last Wednesday patch, either with the AI or the guidance, that has severely hampered TWS/long range shots (60-70 miles). Since the motor update patch, my Pk was around 50% for those shots vs AI...not great, but not terrible either. However, since the last patch last week, I have fired upwards of 40 missiles (A's and C's) in TWS from ~60 miles, and I've got maybe 3 hits. The missiles are getting to the targets, but they seem to get confused by even minimal maneuvers by easy level AI and I've seen near miss after near miss. Is anyone else experiencing this? FWIW, active/ACM-cover up shots at short range seem to be working fine.

I'm usually firing from 35 to 40,000 ft at around Mach 0.9. Hot targets usually 60 to 70 mi away. I'm very consistent with this profile, so I can go back and look at tac views from before Wednesday and compare them with how they are performing now. Here's a recent launch from around 38k and around Mach .9. Tacview-post-patch-loft.zip.acmi

Was there a change to the guidance or loft profile in the most recent patch (from Weds...I'm not referring to the previous patch that reduced the Mk 60's impulse)? I've noticed my Phoenix's (mostly 54C Mk 60's) are only getting to around 60k ft, whereas previously they'd go up over 70k ft.

Indeed, that was my point. In non-ballistic flight (like a short range ACM shot or when maneuvering), the missile needs to maintain a certain AOA to stay on its desired course, for example. Just like with an airplane, less weight means less AOA required to supply the lift to maintain a given course, which means less induced drag.