WarthogOsl

I'd think the weight would matter when the missile starts maneuvering, and the induced drag becomes a factor (or if the missile is launched in ACM mode and doesn't loft).

Okay, well I guess I'm already doing that already so I'll keep doing it.

Straying a bit from the topic at hand, but I was wondering what speed you be flying at after you launch and crank to gimbal limits to reduce closure rate? I've heard some say to keep the speed up, but the above implies that should not? I'm not sure how the geometry works out.

Puck Howe seemed pretty convinced that activating the extinguisher ruined the engines when he talked about delivering an F-14 to a museum. Not sure if this is the case for the Tomcat, but apparently an agent like C02 can cause the turbine case to shrink enough to damage the turbine section, possibly to the point where it disintegrates.

I think it was "Puck" that recently said something along the lines of "the Phoenix loved altitude, the Sparrow loved speed."

This probably isn't what you are talking about, but when the yaw SAS is turned on, the rudders do tend to move back and forth a bit by themselves, even on the ground.

Every once and a while I'll get the signal to spread wings...it's a minor miracle.

Here's an example of the "head-nod" that just happened. Was the missile that missed notched? It seemed to be tracking okay well past when the bandit was at a 90 degrees course to the missile. In this case, I actually wonder if the missile was putting so much lead on the target that it went past it's gimble limits, as the bandit is just about at the missile's 9 o'clock when it suddenly pitches up. Can that happen? And again, why does it pitch up when it happens? Tacview-20220906-231924-DCS-Through_The_Inferno_MI_v1.zip.acmi

So, lets assume it is a notch...I still wonder if the pitch up is intentional behavior by either HB or the ED API. Because often it seems like if the missile just continued with no further guidance, it could potentially still intercept rather then flying over the bandit. I dunno, maybe the API is so limited that the only way to simulate a Fox 3 notch is to make the missile swerve hard enough that it loses lock and doesn't have time or space to reaquire, but I am curious.

FWIW, I've had issues with the Hunting the Jeff mission with every incarnation of the Phoenix since Marianas was a thing. Which leads to my next question: What I call "the Phoenix head-nod." I've seen this with every incarnation of the Phoenix as well, including the most current one. This is where the missile seems right on track for a good intercept, but when it gets right near the bandit, it pitches up 10-15 degrees, diverging from the intercept course, and going dumb. I don't know if this is because of chaff, or notch, because I never see other missiles exhibit this behavior. For example, if a Sparrow gets chaffed, it just seems points back along the bandits flight path, presumably looking at the chaff. The Phoenix, with its pitch up, seems to be very deliberately doing....something with its guidance. Is there some default behavior that says "if you lose an active radar contact, pitch up?"

Indeed, I tend to focus on the fuel pylon. You want to be able to see just a bit of the left side of the pylon, and keep it in the upper right corner of the windscreen (this may vary depending on your seat height). You can watch the basket in your peripheral vision, but don't look right at it. Typically I'm concentrating on my up/down alignment first, then using my peripheral vision to make small left/right corrections as the basket gets closer. As you've probably found, staying hooked up can be just as difficult as getting there in the first place, especially if your just stabbing into the basket too fast. But this will become easier as you get smoother.

I feel like since the update, I'm losing way more tracks and having AIM-54A's never go pit bull then previously. I'm often going against a pair of bandits, and one missile will track just fine, while the other will just continue straight on, and I never get an active indication on the TID. I've attached a track file of one of these engagements against a pair of F-5's that just happened, and wonder if someone could explain what is going on. The lead gets hit by my first missile. The trailer starts to make a defensive maneuver when the second Phoenix is over 16 miles away. This raises a few more questions: If I never got an active indication, what is the bandit responding to? And why is he reacting to the missile beyond the 10 miles out that AI usually reacts at? Then the turn he makes seems hardly enough to notch the missile (though I guess that doesn't matter if the missile never really turned his radar on). Anyway, I'm not sure what's up. noactive.zip.acmi

Why not...it's not an axis I'm using in this case....it's a separate increase bind and a decrease bind, exactly like a radio channel one. It actually works perfectly fine throughout the flight once it "catches" the first time you use it.

I have the VDI brightness inc/dec bound to a rotary encoder's up/down. One thing I've noticed is that the first time I try and use it on a flight, I spin and spin the encoder, and it seems to take a while to "catch" and actually change the brightness. It's almost like there's some lag.

"Fixed mach buffet not dying off beyond M 1.3. " Yea!

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this"......

You could always try a deck run. That's about equally as realistic.

I don't think I've ever seen an image of a real F-14 launching a Phoenix in anything but level flight. Who even knows what it would do in real life if you tried lofting it. That said, even with a bit of nose up attitude, I've never seen the 54 do this straight-up/backwards behavior. I'd assume you really need to have nose very high to do it.

Well, speaking of visual, there is still the matter of the missing VF-14 AB103 texture.

If mission 6 is the one where you intercept bombers coming over the border over-land, I also had that crash while on the way back to the carrier and I was cycling through external views.

Yeah, that's what I'm referring to, though. Like if you are at M.5 and you need to run away, you should not have the wings immediately at 68 degrees if you want to accelerate as fast as possible, at least in level flight. But again, perhaps he's in an unloaded dive the whole way with no AOA on the airplane, in which case swept back wings might be faster (since the induced drag...the drag created from making lift...is minimized).

I'd take that with a grain of salt, as plenty of other pilots have said they kept in auto most of the time in most of the other interviews I've heard (not counting trying to fool people about your energy state by tucking the wings back on the merge). Also, he mentioned immediately sweeping the wings back manually when disengaging and running away. The thing is, I don't see how this would be the best thing to do, as at less then transonic speeds, you're actually going to have more induced drag then with the wings more forward (I suppose if you were unloaded the entire time that would negate the induced drag, but I dunno if that's possible). It almost seemed like a case of "well, it seems like it'd be faster that way."

FWIW, I just started replaying this campaign, and got 3 crashes in a row on Cargo. First two were on the way to way point one. I thought maybe it had something to do with compressing time, so I didn't mess with the time on the third time. This time I completed the objective and was RTB. The game crashed just as I was crossing the coast to go feet wet. Also, I should note that I did one thing different from the first time I played this campaign last year...I equipped with the Lantrin pod and GBU's. Not sure that'd make a difference.

I watched this video when it originally came out. I recall there was a bunch of criticism, in that some of the stuff he pointed out was just wrong. I'm not an expert so I don't know.

I'm guessing if they could have, they would have aligned the whole gun on the centerline, and have it fire out of the top-most barrel to be closer to the vertical CG. But even offset to one side, there's barely enough room for the nose gear, which is offset as well.