Clunk1001

@Callsign JoNay, you meant Aircraft gross weight, right?

Acceleration, Mach, and endurance should have a marginal increase, without the weight of the pilot.

I’m the opposite. I love the authenticity of the worn cockpit. You know what the button does by its shape/colour/position, any factory text wore off years ago, and the Dymo label stuck next to it by maintenance is now barely readable. I spent some time flying a brand new aircraft, I was literally like the 6th person in the cockpit. It was like a new BMW fresh out of the showroom. Within 6 months it was a complete mess; Knobs and dials had been bent and broken by pilots clumsily climbing in and out, canopy was scratched from items/headgear placed in places they shouldn’t be, unidentifiable stains on the switches, the floor, the seats. Come to think about it, Pilots are disgusting . This is just how planes are (at least in my experience).

Okay, here's the same thing in the F/A18, Caucasus. I'm not so good in the F/A18, but it still only takes about 80 seconds from the merge before the F5E-3 decides to take a bath. Trackfile and Tacview file attached. (I see that Trackfiles work with the F/A18 but not with the F-14 - didn't realize that). And here's a clip.... Swim.mp4 Tacview-20230401-122003-DCS-test3.zip.acmi 1.miz.trk

I changed the loadout slightly: F14A has no missiles, no guns. With no weapons I can consistently (5 out of 5) kill ("dunk" might be a better word )the Ace AI F5E-3. The F5E-3 load was as follows: Whilst I've seen this with other aircraft, I can only replicate it consistently against the F5E-3. Mig29, Mig23, and Mig21, all seem to have better ground-collision awareness.

You just need to get behind the AI, and stay there; It will eventually just turn itself into the ground (seems to be triggered if you sit behind it and then start a high yo-yo, it’ll turn low with no regard to its height agl so collides with the ground). (The track files are useless and neither aircraft perform in the same way as the actual encounter)

This topic is currently marked as "Cant Reproduce", so I thought I'd chip in because in around 8 out of 10 of my engagements today the Ace AI crashed themselves into the sea and died. To replicate, in mission editor, I just dropped an F-14A (player) and an Ace F-5, 10 miles apart (default altitude, default payload). In one flight, it takes just 70 seconds for the Ace AI pilot to smash himself (or herself) face-first into the sea. Mission attached, 4 TacViews attached. I'm finding dogfights in DCS are more a game of "Shoot him before he kills himself". What my RIO sees is coming: What's actually coming: And how I'm scoring my sorties now.... Note: this is just meant to be a bit of light-hearted satire, before anyone get's too upset, I think the team at ED are doing an amazing job. Thanks Tacview-20230331-161729-DCS-test2.zip.acmi Tacview-20230331-162056-DCS-test2.zip.acmi Tacview-20230331-161933-DCS-test2.zip.acmi Tacview-20230331-163334-DCS-test2.zip.acmi test2.miz

I’ve been getting the same issue for a few months. “Forrestal Damaged 1%” message on cat launch.

Just wanted to feedback on this item from older update: Potential fix for mission freeze including F-14 AI. Before patch 1 in 3 flights would freeze about 45 minutes in. I’d never fly more than a 40 minute sortie in case of losing results (I fly DCS Liberation campaigns) Since that patch, the last few months, not had one single freeze, flying sorties of several hours with no issues at all. That fix was a game changer. Just wanted to say well done, and thanks, for finding and fixing that issue!

That’s really useful info. That explains a lot. Is ED dealing with that?

No, I’m talking about the hundred or so tests I’ve carried out, including other tacviews I’ve posted here where the migs don’t even flinch and 4 Phoenix missiles sail right past them. Katsu has asked if there is something wrong with the missile. The replies on here will be : it must be you, or it must be the mission maker, you’re not high enough, wrong model, not fast enough….. Rather than - “yes there’s something wrong, it was working really well about a month ago, HB are no doubt on the case.” There’s no doubt all these things play a factor, i just think people should answer the guys (or gals) question. yes, Katsu, there’s something wrong. HB/ED will no doubt resolve it in time. or you can get a replacement in Bolton:

Having done similar tests with the C against 60s aggressor, I found it makes little difference. All versions seem unreliable.

I agree with you Katsu. But sshhh in case they hear us …. …oh too late

It’s called “primary source”. if you had any form of education you may understand that. Edit…..I think I’m just gonna leave you guys to you computer games …

I’m highlighting the importance of eye witness accounts regarding the real-world effectiveness of munitions and the disparity between official numbers and reality. That is not a poor argument. In this 30 page discussion (by mainly non-aviation/non-aerodynamics experts) the complete disregard of viable information is disappointing to say the least.

To you maybe. statistics from Vietnam (eyewitness accounts like this one) gave the sparrow a 13% hit rate Vs the official “tests” which gave it 90% hit rate. Pilots would ripple all 4 at once in the hope one would hit. And despite being designed for BVR they were generally only used after positive identification because they were too unreliable. You won’t find that information anywhere in the official “tests”. as for the Aim54, in this 30 page discussion on how well the aim54 kills migs (or doesn’t kill migs), you are free to consider the only account (that I could find at least) of actual kills using this missile as “useless”.

I stand corrected, there is eyewitness accounts from Iran pilot taking out Migs: It suggests that the Phoenix worked very well in a variety of altitudes, ranges and situations. Unlike what we have.

Well, the amount of data available from Vietnam about the Sparrow missile is vast. Mission statistics, Eyewitness accounts - from both sides of the conflict, official hit rates etc. enough to give an indication of how the missile actually performed vs all the “test” data. And enough to provide evidence to contradict a simulation based on numbers alone. So in my opinion that kind of information is important, especially given the disparity that can exist between the official test numbers and the reality (lots of information on that available too). Poor parameters at the moment means the bandit jinks, or perhaps farts too loudly throwing off the missile guidance.

I posted a tacview of 4xF14s loosing 12 AIM54s at a single Mig21 and the Mig21 evaded them all with ease. That's my evidence. But I'm happy to be corrected - I'll read all the evidence you have for how successful Mig21s (or indeed any manned aggressor) were at evading the AIM54. I don't believe there is Data! The US never used them, and although Iran claim to have downed a dozen Mig21s with the Phoenix, it's not likely anyone will see that data. If you read my posts properly, I might not have to repeat myself, there is no data for how easy it is for a Mig21 to evade an AIM54. But I'm pretty confident that if you put all the numbers together, and it comes up with a tacview like I posted (1 Mig evading 12 AIM54s) it's clear something's not right. Sometimes you need more than just numbers. Sometimes the numbers don't exist. At that point you need to look for other sources.

So recreating a ww1 aircraft where everyone who flew it, serviced it, or supported it is dead, would be impossible then? That’s a shame, I recon there would be a market for them. I presume you drive a car? Would you be able to comment on the accuracy of a Bentley simulator? Yes, because you know what a car can and cannot do in terms of the laws of physics and your experience in cars. likewise a pilot of say 25 years, with a fairly solid understanding of aerodynamics could quiet legitimately say ‘something doesn’t feel right’. in fact, I’ve seen tech. logs with just that in … “left throttle doesn’t feel right”. It’s not just that this doesn’t feel right - it’s demonstrably not right.

I'm just going to reference the attached tacview - there are four F14s vs 1 Mig21, 50 miles, 330000ft The Mig21 dodges all 12 Aim54Mk60s with ease, and is eventually taken out with a sidewinder. I don't need to hunt around for illusive sources of data from NATOPS to NASA to know that this is just bo||ocks. Well, that's just wonderful. It's pretty useless in the game, but as long as Kinematically it is close to known data points that's fine. It's as if nobody really wants to play DCS, and it's all just about the closeness to datapoints. That's not why I bought the F14. Maybe you're different? If you enjoy a dogfight with your buddies to then only discuss the closeness to known data points afterwards then I'm genuinely happy for you if that's your thing, I personally like to shoot Migs down, but everyone likes different things I suppose I do want accuracy, I do want a challenge, but not at the expense of enjoying an arial engagement or two in DCS. Benny-hill-theme.mp3 Pheinix is just Phucked.acmi

You are right! Hughes?

All good points. it’s a moving target, but what is the ‘target’? Is it to “create an effective weapon in DCS - as real as we can effectively make it”. Or “create a 100% accurately modelled weapon which is ineffective due to DCS limitations”. There has to be a balance - personally I want to see an effective weapon that behaves as one might expect (occasionally hitting a bandit). Rather than a missile with all the right numbers but doesn’t hit a thing in the DCS simulation.

Show me the source to prove that the Aim54 is so bad at hitting bandits. show me the source to prove the missile is so easy to avoid. I’ll wait….. It was never deployed by the US, so, I can’t show you a source that says the Aim54 should be better at hitting bandits. Without any factual evidence, one has to make an educated guess, when the Aim54 reaches a bandit does it (a) fizzle out and die and lose guidance at the slightest jink, or (b) like other missiles would do, make a fair effort to hit the target or detonate in proximity. based on other missiles and technology designed to do the same thing, I’d go with (b). I seem to be in the minority here though. But I ‘feel’ that’s what Raytheon had in mind when they built it, and I ‘feel’ that’s why the US strapped it to the f14. I guess you could say that what we have is 100% realistic - the US had 0 bandits killed with Aim54, and that’s replicated in DCS pretty accurately now.

I agree. if the Phoenix had so many limitations it wouldn’t have been strapped to an aircraft in the first place - and all you get here is “you fired from 31 miles - everyone knows it won’t work at 31 miles”, “you fired at 49 miles - everyone knows it won’t work at 49 miles”, “you fired at 20 miles, that will never work”, “you fired at m0.92 - this graph shows it won’t work at m0.92”, “you fired at an aircraft - everyone knows you can’t fire them at aircraft”, “you used the wrong version”, “you need to fire them above 48000ft”. “Higher”, “faster”, “the bandit farted … that throws off the aim54 - look at this NASA study on flatulence induced guidance mishaps” sounds to me more like unrealistic limitations being applied to the missile to make the PvP experience more “playable”. And if it’s not usable for AI and single player - blame it on the user.