Prez

The mission editor says otherwise, but I'll take your word. I had not known that the weight was modeled yet.

I don't believe the weight for the pylons are modeled yet

For me, I normally just calculate max fuel weight allowed for the trap. Max landing weight on the deck is 54,000lbs, and the F-14A(my main version) has an empty weight of about 42,000lbs. So I just add the fuel weight and ordinance up in my head always rounding up for safety. Example: 2xAIM-9 (200lbs each), 2xAIM-7 (500lbs each), 2xAIM-54 (1000lbs each), 2xEXT (150lbs empty each) would come out to about 4000lbs of ordinance meaning I've got a max landing fuel weight of 8000lbs. Don't know if that helps, but that's how I do it without a calculator. Could help to just have a kneeboard page with ordinance weights on them to just reference to help do the calculation. I don't have that, but since I literally just thought of it typing this out, I should probably try it out.

TWS IRL(and as modeled by HB) is a very unreliable form of tracking as it relies on data extrapolation to maintain a track. RWS is much more reliable as it doesn’t require much computation and just displays the radar returns. TWS should really only be used when you are sure you want to focus the radar on that target or group

Well then I'm confused here. Why allow the Vc scale in STT to go that high or low when the radar is, from what you guys have modeled, cannot physically detect or track something of those speeds?

If the DDD is supposed to automatically subtract your own ground speed and just display the target's ground speed then would the display no long be closure? It would just be the literal ground speed of the target, would it not? The TID will already display the target's component of GS if you ask for it while still displaying absolute closure. So would that mean the closure displayed on the right of the TID when hooking a TWS contact or when in STT is no longer absolute, but just the target's ground speed? Lastly, I don't think this was the issue to begin with. It honestly would not have mattered so much if the DDD scale switch worked. AFAIK, that switch opposite to the Aspect Switch doesn't work. To me, this just seems like a work around for a different issue.

No, the missile straight up launched with no guidance whatsoever. It just flew into space in a straight line.

Switching into STT on a target no longer guides AIM-120Cs. I was doing some practice with a friend and normally we just use SAM, but I wanted to do an STT lock, and when I looked at the tacview the missile never guided, and my friend said he never got a missile warning on his end so it does not seem like desync. I also noticed the displays flickering to look like I dropped the contact and then flicker back to tracking. I believe the fix to STT where pilots could not unlock a target within 3NM have broken guidance for STT. Shot Parameters: ~Mach 1.0 ~35kft ~32NM Manual pitch to loft at 30 degrees Target was ~35kft traveling at M1.1 Map: Caucuses Multiplayer Custom mission with no triggers or anything fancy, just player jet spawns. The bug is displayed in the very last fight of the track file. Don't know how to shorten it, sorry. Alamo_Training (1)-20210922-122851.trk

Yes, there is even a specific "Surface Target" waypoint type that you can use

As far as I can tell, the TA calculation is not working properly. I've been spending a lot of time since the patch dropped trying to figure out how the calculation is working, but it makes no logical sense unless the axis the calculation is using is wrong. I think the TA is being measured from the abeam rather than the nose of the target aircraft, but I really have no clue how it's being measured. The TA it should present is not what is being given at the moment

Squadron: Alamo Squadron Aircraft Selection: F-16, F-18, F-15, F-14 Timezone: 1600-2000z Pilot Roster: [Alamo] Prez (Zulu-4) [Alamo] Emperor (Zulu+2) [Alamo] TrueMetroMan (Zulu+2) [Alamo] JustMrak (Zulu+2) Reserves: [Alamo] Masterchief (R) (Zulu-6) [Alamo] Thompson (R) (Zulu-8) [Alamo] Jinx (R) (Zulu-6) [Alamo] Crusada (Zulu-6) [Alamo] Sam (R) (Zulu+2) [Alamo] Dryst (R) [Alamo] Blind (R) [Alamo] Thermos (R)

Squadron: [Alamo] Alamo Squadron Timezone: US/EU (around 1800z is best) Maps: Cauc, PG, maybe Syria

Sparrows are very simply missiles. The literal only difference between them that is super important to understand is the MH has the ability to loft. There's of course a bunch of technical differences between the models, but they aren't complex like the AIM-54 is.

I've haven't seen any talk about fixing the sparrow on the F-14 since maybe early June. At this time they are still very much broken with the F not guiding when launched at distances greater than 6-7NM and the M still lofting on targets. Also with both the M and MH lofting at very short distances such as within 10NM. I never got a reply when I reported the issue some time ago, and the sparrow has been broken for an unbelievably long time now. So yeah, I just want to know what the status is on fixing the missile's behavior with the F-14. Thank you.

Leagues: 4v4 Squadron Name: [Alamo] Alamo Squadron Discord/Guilded: Prez#6839/Prez Contact Person: Prez

I haven't seen much reporting of this issue, or at least no reporting of it as of late. These problems have been affecting the F-14 for several months now. 1. The AIM-7F does not guide when launched outside of 5-6NM from a target. They will never guide and just come off the rail as if they're dead.AIM-7F test.acmi 2. The AIM-7M lofts at most ranges even though it of course shouldn't be lofting as the MH is the only one that should be. AIM-7M test.acmi So I want to know where in the pipeline are the fixes for these bugs are? I can understand that this has not been a top priority as everyone would rather use a phoenix missile and I know you guys at HB are working on further improvements to it. But the bugs on the sparrow make them essentially useless on the Tomcat when they are a mainstay of the jet. Are there fixes in the works? Is this at least being considered? Or am I simply way off base here by asking HB about this and should instead direct it to ED?

It sounds like a little bit of self-promotion, but I have a youtube tutorial video on the specifics of tomcat missiles if you would want to check it out. It's here if you want to watch it. I have information like practical range capabilities of all the missiles depending on altitude and all that. Video

It’s not implemented at all regardless of radar modes. As far as I am aware of the behavior of the sparrow, the effect of one missile launch trashing the previous one would only happen for a Pulse Doppler-STT due to the way the AWG-9 operates and communicates with the sparrow missile. If you’ve ever been in the back seat then you would notice the Missile Channel and Transmit Channel dials in the top right of the DDD Panel. That was for PD launches of sparrows(and possibly even A variant phoenixes) because unlike in Pulse, Pulse Doppler requires a special code that the radar emits during a PD launch. If you want to know how this works then think about the Tomcat’s ability to launch 6 phoenixes simultaneously on different targets. In order for it to do that without missiles mixing up their targets, each one is given a specific code for its radar track information. TWS is done in PD and so therefore the same functionality carries over to PD-STT launches for both sparrows and phoenixes.

The 135/Early has the old ALR-45 RWR. Other than that they are pretty much the same. Same batch of aircraft, its just that half the block 135s came out before the introduction of the ALR-67 (i.e the Early model) and the other half came out when the ALR-67 was introduced.

As much of a blackhole of conversation this thread is probably going to turn into, I do believe there is a much needed rework to the C variant of the phoenix seeing as the digital electronic suite made such a major improvement that the US Navy actually admitted the use of the C variant against fighter targets where the A variant in the Navy was limited almost strictly to use as a fleet defense missile for bombers and the like. Obviously, Iran put their 54A mk47s to good use, but the US Navy clearly saw the reliability of the A as bad enough to trash its offensive use until the C came out.

The image in the manual shouldn't be wrong. Even if the range gate image isn't supposed to actually be displayed on the DDD, the functionality is still supposed to be there. That's how real radars keep track of targets in STT, but it clearly isn't modeled yet.

I haven't seen any reports on the lack of a range gate during single target tracks for the AWG-9. In the Heatblur manual they clearly display range-gate images on the DDD, however, they are completely absent in game both visually and functionally. Above you can clearly see that the range gate for the target image is visible in the Heatblur manual diagrams. However, here in the game as of the latest patch 2.7.0.5118 the STT lock images still lack a range gate image displayed around the radar image. Again, this affects the radar in more than just visuals. In the P-STT the entire background of the target can be displayed if against the ground as if it were simply a very narrow Pulse Search. and cause a loss of lock in some cases. Here, with the MLC filter switched to OFF the AWG-9 starts to pick up background returns in PD-STT and displays them on the TID as if it were a TWS image with the MLC off. I've noticed that this issue actually causes the AWG-9 to lose the actual target image during a lock however still somehow tracks the target. So, I want to know if this has been a known issue and if there are plans to fix this problem with the radar. Thank you, and you guys do great work.

As far as I am aware, this is a realistic limitation of the AWG-9 and its WCS. You need to remember that the AWG-9 is 60/70s technology and there’s only so much it can do. It certainly capable of correlating consecutive pings as the same target for a track, but once it’s lost track of something it doesn’t have the computation power to ask itself if that is a new track or the same one.

It obviously depends greatly on how early the track is lost. A track lost 30 seconds prior to timeout is going to have a lot less success than a lost track only a few seconds before the missile goes pitbull. Honestly, I would say that unless you're shooting at someone on auto-pilot or an AI without RWR, you should consider anything with more than 10 seconds of flight time until pitbull a dead missile. There's just too much room for error. However, I have seen memory mode correlations work out pretty well as disappointing as it is to see that lost track come up even moments before a pitbull activation.

I'm not a Hornet pilot so I will make a lot of assumptions from what I know, but I know a lot of people with the Hornet are not very experienced in these technical aspects. Most probably just see no friendly return and deem it as hostile. In the Tomcat, unknown IFF returns aren't differentiated with hostile IFF returns, but since in most servers there are no neutral aircraft flying around people will just shoot down whatever isn't giving a friendly return. IFF codes aren't a thing in DCS yet, so I would still say this is simply an issue from the lack of experience and trigger happiness.