Clunk1001

Yeah, on the deck that works fine. And in the air it works too. But it seems to require complete dead stick for autopilot release otherwise you end up with un-commanded roll. In flight it’s too easy to disengage with a bit of control input applied - usually I’ll have already started my manoeuvre and will simultaneously disengage autopilot…and thats when it all goes wrong. For me, it’s now safer to just not use the autopilot at all.

This is definitely not ‘realistic’. Any CWS is designed to have pilot input, and disengaging CWS definitely should not leave you with un-commanded inputs and an uncontrollable aircraft….regardless of how the pilot uses it. I disengaged autopilot when a mig popped up, my aircraft ended up with uncontrollable right roll. I died attempting to correct it. I’m afraid we’re back to an unusable autopilot.

Also noticing odd behaviour in flight when disengaging autopilot. Any roll input during disengage seem to result in opposite un-commanded control input. i.e. if your controls aren't centred when disengaging autopilot the aircraft can become unflyable due to un-commanded control input. Only way to remove un-commanded input is to centre stick and cycle autopilot.

When you fly jets write code long enough, something like this happens.

Hi I'd like to request a single additional wingman command - "Disengage" which would override all other behavior and have the wingmen rejoin. In an environment with multiple bandit groups, the Engage Bandits command results in them going from one group to the next (which could be 40 miles away) until they die. Trying to spam RTB, Get the Tanker, Rejoin is futile. This is how it feels trying to get my AI wingman (callsign 'Fenton') to disengage AI Wingmen.mp4 . Thanks

Goose is gone I'll fly anyway, but I'll hate it.... Goose_is_gone.mp4

Runway start sometimes results in aircraft entering rapid roll to the right or left (I've experienced both - seems random), with a continuous un-commanded input, aircraft barely controllable. Seems that cycling Autopilot Engage then Disengage (in flight or with weight on wheels) resets the un-commanded control deflection. Attached images taken on Cat before launch. Note - Its not trim, because (i) the control input is greater than the maximum trim deflection (and cannot be fully re-centred with trim), and (ii) cycling the Autopilot on/off resets it with any trim deflection you've already applied. A controls full/free check doesn't reset the control input either, only Autopilot on then off seems to correct this. In flight however, so far the autopilot seems to behave well. So nice job! I'd much prefer having a working autopilot and one extra check to do before take-off. (I digress, but....when I flew twin engines, sometimes an aircraft would be left with full left or right trim deflection because someone the day before had been practicing single engine work and had forgotten to reset it.....they'd land on one engine with full trim deflection...you'd spot it on the walk around, or you'd spot it on a similar cockpit gauge.... well, hopefully you'd spot it...). Thanks for the hard work. And I too miss jester

Yes, you’re absolutely right, that bit is a valid point. I hadn’t spotted it.

Thanks. But that's with a LOFT. That's not what I'm testing. My point was to test against the same launch criteria at different altitudes to highlight the difference (a difference is to be expected, my point is that there is too much of a difference to be just air Density).

“There's no particular altitude at which the missile kinematics break.” Not in real life, no. But in software simulation, this is entirety possible. “Break” is not the correct term - becomes noticeable to the point where it seems to be incorrect.

Good question. As mentioned earlier I would expect to a degradation of performance with decreasing density altitude (which we have); the results with the C seems okay at 40,000 (nobody really knows). The reason I’m highlighting 30,000 is that this is where the C seems to break. It seems to go from 85% kill ratio at 40,000 down to around 10% at 30,000 (in my head on test). And it’s that inconsistency which I’m highlighting. I’ve no idea how it should actually perform, but I’m pretty sure that the density altitude variation between these two heights would not account for such a dramatic shift in usability.

THANK YOU!!!! that’s exactly the info that I was looking for! Sorry folks if I was late to the party on that bit of info - I obviously didnt articulate my point well enough to get that reply/info sooner. Anyway, I have found a lot of the info very useful - thanks again. Now…off to the 80s for me…

I disagree, I only need the tactics to be consistent across all the tests for a test to be valid (even if the tactics are wrong). My test was - crank 30, go head on and launch 1 missile each (TWS) at 60 mile, then crank 30 degrees, wait, then re-engage as required. My result is that with the C at 30,000 I'll often watch them all miss. With with the A in the same engagement I'll watch them hit most if not all of the bandits. I can expect these same results, again, and again, and again, and again against the AI. And I can prove it with all the tracks I have. My conclusion is that the C isn't performing as it should at 30,000. And as I've mentioned, every track I've seen posted to justify it's all about use of tactics (yours included) does not show a C being employed at 30,000. They all seem to be either an A at 35, or a C at 40, or an A at 30 (all of which work fine) Anyone else want to join the firing a C at 30,000 club and see what I'm talking about? Or shall I await another track showing an A fired at 40,000ft along with an 'it's all about tactics' comment?

And at 30,000 with a C ? How does that work out for you?

That’s doesn’t make sense with TWS. Fire one missile, see how it goes? - but my next missile is going to target no2 regardless of what missile 1 or bandit 1 does. in my tests, tws on 3 targets the timing between release (3 seconds or 10 seconds) makes little difference (at 30,000). am I wrong?

Yeah, just noticed and corrected that. "you need different employment parameters with different missile/engine verison" Do I? Are saying that the C genuinely performed that bad at 30,000 feet?! And that pilots flew with 2 C phoenix knew that they had little chance employing them successfully at/below 30,000 in a head on? My point is there seems to be a massive discrepancy between deployment of the C at 30000 vs 40000, and it doesnt feel like it's anything to do with 'employment parameters' ….but people keep jut saying use different tactics….but I’m saying somethings not right.

So, going back to my simple tests, comparing the two variants.... At 40,000 head on (same profile/test/launch parameters as lunaticfringe, and my previous test), both seem to perform about the same. But at 30,000 head on, I'm finding the 54A will generally kill at least 2 of the 3 bandits and often all 3 bandits, whereas the 54C will generally miss all 3 bandits. I've seen a lot of tracks with people saying "look how easy it is to kill 3 flankers, it must be your tactics". That's great - but they seem to be either using the A, or using the C at 40,000ft. And that's not what I'm talking about - I can do the same with the A (thanks lunaticfringe for pointing that out to me) and I can do the same with the C at 40000ft. Just like the rest of you. My point is the C at 30,000 does not seem right (in my test scenario). If the motor on the phoenix is modelled accurately then the guidance may be off, if the guidance is modelled correctly then the motor may be off (all subject to the DCS AI of course). The newer 54C missile seems to perform significantly worse below 40,000 (not by a little bit, but by a massive amount, sometimes with 100% kill rate for the A vs 0% kill rate with the C). Anyway, I'm off to fly some mid 80s campaigns now, before the C model was introduced.

Hi, Thanks for this. I have a question, my 'parameters' seem the same as yours, but 30 seconds after launch your 54A is busy accelerating to M4.33 while at the same time my 54C is slowing down from it's top speed of M3.3. Same launch height, I'm actually launching faster than you (I'm at M1.07, you launch at M1.03). Missile speed at target is about 1M difference (and your's hit). As I mentioned above, this speed at target seems to be an important factor when it comes to AI avoidance. Is the speed difference here an A vs C thing? Or is there some update to missile performance which I'm missing?

I appreciate my simple head-on test may not be 'realistic', and there are better ways to engage, but it's a test. I did the same test at 30,000 and 40,000 against the 3 flankers. Launching at around 60nm At 30,000 all 7 Phoenix missiles miss (are avoided) 0% missile hit rate. This is pretty much what I'm seeing consistently below 40,000 (because I fly below 40,000.....or rather I used to fly below 40,000!). I know some of you seem to be seeing other results. Same test at 40,000 all flankers destroyed, 42% missile hit rate. The main difference seems to be the missile speed at reaching the target. around M1.8 for the missiles fired at 30,000, and almost M2.8 for the missiles fired from 40,000. (At top of curve, the difference again is about 1M). There seems no difference in the AI reaction or notch timing to the missiles, simply that they cannot avoid the faster ones. Now, I know what's coming....I know the air is thinner - I have a commercial pilots licence, I know about thinner air - my point still stands that the hit rate of the phoenix (miss rate, AI avoidance rate, whatever you want to call it) feels wrong below 40,000. Someone mentioned earlier about buffs/cheats, and to 'learn' the game - popping up to Angels 40 because I know that the game will make my phoenix kill things if I'm just that few feet higher, feels like a bit of a cheat to me. I would expect to see a drop off in performance below 40,000 consistent with air density (not just missile performance, but the results of that performance). I just wouldn't expect to see 7 phoenix miss like this at 30,000. @IronMike I believe I can guess how high you are in those engagements because of the speed of your missiles (have you tried that at 30,000?). I do like your analogy about the guy ducking his head back into the window when shot at (I am a huge fan on analogies). And my advice for that scenario is that you are obviously shooting from prone or kneeling, you should simply press x on the keyboard to make your player stand up when you shoot (being that few feet higher seems to kill them every time in the game for some reason ). I think I'd agree with you that this doesn't look like a guidance issue. Thanks for all the great work btw, really appreciate it! And really appreciate the help on here too. Tacview-20220218-073921-DCS-Dogfight.zip.acmi Tacview-20220218-074233-DCS-Dogfight.zip.acmi

I'm not suggesting the R27 is superior (that really is my bad flying). I was trying to focus on a consistent test with the Phoenix (regardless of whether I survive or not - I just wanted to test the Phoenix). I was getting frustrated that at 30,000 I see a very high miss rate. My frustrated (apologies if I've taken any out on forum members) is at dying after I've seen 8 Phoenix sail past a target....and that everyone seems to think this is normal.

At no point did I ever claim the engagement was impossible! where did you read that in any of my posts?! My point was, and has been all along, and still is, that 12 Phoenix to kill 3 bandits seems excessive, when a standard loadout in real life often consisted of 2 Phoenix. It seems nobody agrees with me though, I guess people are happy to load up their tomcats with 6 phoenix - a configuration seldom (never?) used - and yet talk and talk on here about about 'realism'? Thanks near_blind, that does indeed change the scenario significantly.

So if I run the same scenario, and release at say 40nm at angels 40 I’ll get I better hit rate with the Phoenix? I will give that a go!

That wasnt my TACVIEW. I made the point that the phoenix had a hit ratio less than 1 in 4. Frostie kindly posted his track which also showed a hit rate of less than 1 in 4, and even 12 Phoenix missiles were not enough to deal with 3 bandits. My point remains, the ratio of less than 1 in 4 hits seems low. Why would a typical real life loadout on the F14 include only 2 phoenix, when it takes at least 4 to down an enemy (at least in the head-to-head scenario I outlined)? I'm not trying to derail the thread, I'm saying I think there's something wrong if it consistently takes more than 4 missiles to down all levels of AI (including rookie) in the above scenario. Whether it's ballistics, guidance, or just AI. Somethings not right. So I feel this is the right thread for that. I'm happy diving in with sidewinders and guns....and if the Phoenix is going to miss 86% of the time then my change in approach would probably be to load up with Sparrows and Sidewinders instead of the Phoenix. Everyone seems to be saying it's 'tactics' , or 'geometry', or the wrong missile. I am always open to suggestion/help/criticism. But can anyone help and offer a solution to the above scenario that doesn't involve using 12 phoenix against 3 Flankers? Or are we saying that it is a realistic expectation to require 4+ Phoenix missiles per rookie flanker (in which case I'll shut up and assume the missile is just fine )?

You fired 12 Phoenix in that last one. So 12 Phoenix for 3 aggressors? And you still had to use guns in the end? So that's less than 1 in 4 hits per missile. And that's the point I'm trying to make. The kill rate of 1 in 4 doesn't seem at all right to me. I don't take a loadout of 4 Phoenix with the sole intention of expending them all on a single enemy aircraft.