DSplayer

Like what others have said, it doesn't loft within the 21nms or so against a co-altitude target. What I like to do when you're this close to an enemy and need to fire the 54 while also supporting it as little time as possible is to switch the target size to large in order for it to go active at a longer range from your target. Your target will get the warning earlier of course but this does mean that you will be able to defend farther away. Also btw, the AIM-120 when launched at 20nm against a co-altitude target does loft.

What ranges are you specifically encountering this issue where lofting is detrimental?

Yeah it is. Once a weapon leaves the rail, it basically just spawns a replica weapon in the place of the now nonexistent one that was on the pylon (iirc) and that weapon doesn't source its texture files from liveries. A similar thing happened with AIM-54As on F-14 skins representing early F-14s before HB made a separate AIM-54A model which incorporated the early white texture.

If it was posted on the F-14 subforum, you'll probably get some quicker and more responses. Target Size Small does seem to give less reaction time regarding human targets when compared to Target Size Large but my testing isn't exactly scientific and the tests aren't 100% exactly repeatable.

Problem: Currently the SD-10 has a nozzle_exit_area value of 0.025 which translates to 7.024 inch (17.84 cm) diameter nozzle. When compared to its other contemporaries like the AIM-120C-5, the AIM-120C-5 has a nozzle_exit_value of 0.0132 which translates to a 5.104 inch (12.964 cm) diameter nozzle. The R-33 has a nozzle_exit_value of 0.025 as well. Examples: When comparing the nozzles of the AIM-120C-5 and the SD-10 with the model viewer, you can see that the SD-10 actually has a nozzle that is a little bit smaller than the AIM-120C-5's: AIM-120C-5, SD-10, and R-33's nozzles: Performance Data: I decided to conduct a test of the SD-10 with a nozzle_exit_area of 0.012668 (5 inch/12.7 cm diameter nozzle) and a performance drop can be seen if the SD-10 uses this smaller nozzle_exit_area. The same track was used for both tests. Google Sheets Link to Charts Conclusion: The current SD-10's nozzle_exit_area values are too great and cause an abundance of performance at higher altitudes (a maximum difference of Mach ~0.248 at 12km altitude).

R-33's value is 0.025 square meters which means that the diameter of the nozzle exit area of ~7 inches or almost 18 centimeters. In regards to the AIM-7, the nozzle is considerably smaller than the diameter of the missile since the rear tapers inwards a bit and there is alot of area inbetween the side and the nozzle of the motor when compared to the AIM-120. Image of the rear end of the AIM-120C-5, AIM-7M, and AIM-9M (has a nozzle exit area of 0.0068 sq meter which gives it a diameter of 3.663 inches). You can see the visible difference in nozzle exit areas and how the AIM-7 is super small (and just a bit larger than the AIM-9) when compared to the AIM-120. In regards to the SD-10 when compared to the AIM-120C-5 values, it seems like the SD-10 has an incorrect value or the external model isn't exactly correct. R-27ER vs R-33 (R-27 does have a bigger nozzle it seems) vs R-77 EDIT: SD-10 lined up exactly-ish with the AIM-120C-5 (nozzle is a little bit smaller than the AIM-120):

Well the inconsistencies are probably intentional since the missiles do vary in diameter and the nozzles vary with that too. When comparing the 3D models, you can see the nozzle sizes varying greatly from missile to missile. The value is in square meters btw.

My initial reference for the Rb 24J being an AIM-9J equivalent was the Arboga Robotmuseum but it seems like the Rb 24J is closer to an AIM-9P3 according to other sources. Even then the Rb 24J doesn't match the AIM-9P. Outside of that, Imo I think the AIM-9P variants that we have in game are all in due of an update since the AIM-9J outperforms them both in terms of maneuverability. DiffChecker AIM-9P vs Rb 24J

The Winwing F-18 throttle should be better imo. Good amount of switches and buttons you can use and of course you can do split throttle operations.

Bug: Rb24, Rb24J, and Rb74s stats do not match the AIM-9B, AIM-9J, and AIM-9L. Rb24J also uses the AIM-9P5 model instead of the AIM-9J model. Can I reproduce it 100%: Yes How to reproduce/description: Step 1: Use an AIM-9B, AIM-9J, and AIM-9L Step 2: Use an Rb 24, Rb 24J, Rb 74. Step 3: Compare. Result: The AIM-9B, AIM-9J, and AIM-9L have different performance when compared to the Viggen's Rb 24, Rb 24J, and Rb 74 respectively. Rb24J also uses the AIM-9P5 model instead of the AIM-9J model. DCS Version: Open Beta 2.7.16.28157 Mods: No mods are used that change the Viggen's Weapons.lua file. DiffChecker links utilizing stats lifted from Quaggles' DCS lua Datamine: DiffChecker AIM-9B vs Rb 24 DiffChecker AIM-9J vs Rb 24J DiffChecker AIM-9L vs Rb 74

Yeah I can't really change that. Kinda comes with the thing. It's amazing that the mod even worked in the first place.

You have to change the compass to COMP after taking off the carrier since the carrier is a giant metal object to interferes with compasses. EDIT: What Northstar98 said.

Ah I was just saying what another forum author said a couple years back when I first heard of the book. The cockpit does look extremely clean though. The lack of missing paint and scratches is pretty amazing. Here's a lower res image that you were referring to. Wing sweep indicator warning light is on and pretty bright like you said.

The only example of like a super clean F-14 would be images from the book The Cutting Edge by CJ Heatley which were taken during the beginning of the F-14 deployments iirc.

Missiles like the AIM-9B, AIM-9J, AIM-9Ps, and R-60s are missing the nozzle_exit_area value while other missiles like the AIM-9L, R-27s, AIM-7s, and AIM-120s all have a nozzle_exit_area value. Here's a list that I've complied of missiles that I've noticed that are missing a nozzle_exit_area value: AIM-9B/GAR-8, AIM-9J, AIM-9P, AIM-9P5, AIM-9X, R-60, R-60M, R-24T, R-24R, R-40T, R-40R, R-3S, R-3R, R-13M, R-13M1, RS2US. There are most likely some missiles that I am missing that do not have that value.

Little check up since a friend of mine pointed out to me that a value of 0.0068 being in square meters would make sense for a sidewinder. Considering the diameter of a AIM-9L is 5 inches. Shaving a bit off that number for material including casing, insulation, etc. could leave with a number around 3-4 inches (~0.09 meters) for a nozzle diameter that would allow for the 0.0068 sq meter value to make sense.

I get what you mean. We don't know the units of nozzle_exit_area values and that leaves everything in the air and us in the dark. It reminds me of other values in the missile luas as well as War Thunder's (yeah ik) finAoA values being the percentage of a 90 degree angle. Perhaps other people more knowledgeable of the inner workings of the missile luas like @nighthawk2174 can perhaps help out if he knows what nozzle_exit_area's units is and how to calculate it.

That's very possible that due to DCS simplifications that the nozzle_exit_area function is used for different purposes when compared to IRL but other air to air missiles (AIM-7s, AIM-9s, R-27s, SD/LD-10s, AIM-120s, and some of the newer A2G missiles like HARMs and Hellfires) in the DCS library still use that function with a value bigger than 1e-6 so I'm more inclined to think that it's being used to represent the nozzle exit area like it's supposed to. Here is where I got my idea of editing the nozzle_exit_area function anyway: A quick search for all uses of "nozzle exit area" in the forums brings up some posts as well: https://forum.dcs.world/search/?q="nozzle exit area"&quick=1&updated_after=any&sortby=relevancy

That’s true. Fudging the numbers in DCS is kinda the thing to do. Just always wondered since it was the only 3rd party missile that had that low nozzle exit value and was kinda curious after reading a thread that mentioned the nozzle_exit_area value being something that could effect performance. Just some food for thought.

Heyo! Another week, another potentially useless AIM-54 test. This time I tested the straight line performance of the AIM-54 if you change the nozzle_exit_area value. This is after I read a forum thread that said that it nozzle_exit_area value could potentially increase the performance of a missile if the missile didn't have this value previously. Currently the AIM-54s have a nozzle_exit_area value of 1e-6 aka 0.000001. Compared to the R-33E, a rough equivalent that we have in-game, that missile has a nozzle_exit_area value of 0.025. Even the AIM-9L has a nozzle_exit_area value of 0.0068 so I assumed that the 1e-6 value was a placeholder value that never got changed. So I decided to test how the AIM-54 variants performed with the R-33E's nozzle_exit_area value in a straight line test similar to those in the AIM-54 Whitepaper. What I've found is that at higher altitudes, the increased nozzle_exit_area will allow all the AIM-54 variants to achieve an increased speed of at least 0.1 Mach with the largest difference being roughly an additional 0.5 Mach at 12km altitude with the AIM-54A-Mk60. Graphs: Link to graphs on Google Sheets so you can hover over the lines 500m 6km 12km The performance improvement thanks to an increased nozzle exit area was staggering in my opinion. But, of course, that value of 1e-6 could've been intentional the entire time and this test was purely academic on what the nozzle exit area can do. With the upcoming reassessment of the AIM-54 motors by HB, maybe this can be possibly addressed. AIM-54 Normal.acmiAIM-54 New Nozzles.acmi

Yes. Just not any Sparrows newer then Es.

I don't think the AIM-9E was even equipped on Iranian F-14s considering the AIM-9E's age by the time the F-14s were acquired. Modelling the 9E probably will come with HB's F-4 implementation tho.

Considering those air force AIM-9s (starting with the 9E) did have the ability to uncage the seeker, I'd assume SEAM would just enable you to uncage the missile and be on your merry way. Plus the Iranian F-14 we're getting isn't going to get those really improvised weapons mounted on F-14s (Hawk missiles, R-27s, etc.) so it shouldn't be too much of a change.