DSplayer

Yeah after doing some testing with a friend to simulate a PvP type scenario, we had the same problem and we were able to make the missile miss almost 100% of the time for planes that had barrage jammers combined with the extensive usage of chaff. Starting a dive and then pitching up abruptly will cause the missile to continue to lose track and basically guide on a predicted path as if I didn't pitch up or it will try to pull up and track the target aircraft but then will twitch out resulting in the missile losing track. Anecdotally I've noticed that the AMRAAM of OB 2.7.18.30765 to be degraded in performance when compared to OB 2.7.18.30348 outside of the missile pitching up when it doesn't have a track on a target. The missile in the 2.7.18.30348 patch seemed to track better against cold and beaming targets (not losing track or twitching), especially when the parent aircraft had continued to hold track against the target aircraft when compared to the latest patch (2.7.18.30765). I, however, didn't test a situation that was similar to what you present in the previous patch. Maybe I or someone else can download that version and give a it a test another time.

Maybe I'll make a mod like "DSplayer's Ultimate F-14 Weapons Pack" or something that compiles all the F-14 weapon mods I have made into one thing.

An amalgamation of my AIM-120A and AGM-88 mods for the F-14 while also adding some other modern weapons that would bring the Tomcat into the modern era. Feel free to report bugs, ask for help, and post screenshots here! Link to Mod: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3326478/ Bugs: The HARM pylons are untextured because the stock EDM files do not have that pylon textured. The JDAMs (GBU-31, GBU-38, and GBU-54) are basically their unguided equivalents and cannot be guided via GPS and require manual pylon and weapon type selection. AIM-120 double racks do not properly show up when you fire the 2nd missile off the pylon and results in one missile to appear to be there visually even though you had fired it. Disclaimer: Please at least credit me when you make derivative mods when you post them on places like r/hoggit or the DCS forums (and maybe also tell me that you did make a derivative mod which is preferred). Thanks! Also, the majority of this mod is basically fictional with some amount of historical basis. Changelog: V1.0 - Initial Release V1.0.1 - Zipped with OvGME so you can just drag and drop the zipped mod into your DCS mod repo (zipped folder no longer has the version number in filename). V1.1.0 - Added AGM-84D Harpoon, AGM-65E LMAV, and AMBER Racks for the AIM-120Cs (which allows a total of 12 AIM-120Cs that can be carried) thanks to Spino from the F-15EX Mod. V1.1.1 - Added AGM-123 Skipper II. Be advised that it's a bit buggy at the moment and could potentially crash your game if you fire it. V1.1.2 - Updated for OB 2.8.3.37556. V1.1.3 - Added AIM-54C+ ECCM/Sealed so you can carry AIM-54s on the shoulders without the tunnel pallets, added HB weapon loadout limitations. V1.1.4 - Added Laser Guided Zunis in LAU-10s (same pylon loadouts as regular Zunis in LAU-10s) (the rockets still appear in the LAU-10 after being launched), fixed bug where LANTIRN and other weapons on B stations were missing. V1.1.5 - Updated for TARPS and other changes made in previous OBs. V1.1.6 - Hotfix to actually make the TARPS usable. V1.1.7 - Updated for latest DCS patch (as of 2024-03-05) V1.1.8 - Updated for 2.9.6.57650 V1.1.9 - Fixed MP Crash. AIM-174B added V1.1.10 - Updated for 2.9.9.2406. Updated SM-6 to current definitions. To Do List (Planned Additions, etc.): - Adding laser guidance to the JDAMs for at least some guidance (Not Possible) - AGM-84D Harpoon on 1B and 8B Added in V1.1.0 - AGM-62 Walleye on 1B and 8B - Fix AGM-123 Skipper II to be less buggy? - Add the CBU-87/97 to the F-14 - Laser Guided Zunis (Added in the V1.1.4 update).

Yeah the kneeboard for some reason seamingly uses the CLSID instead of the display name or user name values for certain pylons.

Yeah any ACM mode like VSL or PAL to drop the lock. In terms of the radar scan volume switching, it snaps because the WCS has decided to reconsider the target since you can see it on the TID. If you don't see it on the TID, the target isn't weighted. It's sort of similar to how it is when you drop the range down to prevent targets like 100nm out changing your antenna elevation when you're trying to guide against someone at 50nm. Then when you switch back to ATTK mode, it still takes time for the WCS to basically "reset" (go back to 0 degree azimuth). In terms of using the Jester wheel to switch radar modes, I think if you try to switch from TWS Auto to RWS while a PHX is in the air with the keybind, it might work but I can't check that now. The ACM mode workaround seems to be the best at the moment.

I’m going to bump this as improvements are still happening for the FLIR systems in DCS and I hope we could see the FLIR point track range get extended.

I haven't had any problems with the latest version of the mod (V1.5).

I guess they can be physically mounted and if they were wired (which probably varied from squadron to squadron and aircraft to aircraft), you could use the pylon for extra countermeasures and in emergency circumstances, AIM-9s because of the ease of access for the coolant bottle. EDIT: I just reread the F-14A/B/D A/G TACTICAL MANUAL NWP 3-22.5-F14A/B/D VOLUME III NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1T-2 and it does say that carrying AIM-9s is not authorized on LAU-138s mounted on 1B and 8B.

Smh well like at least ED has that “R-27 Missile Family Aerodynamics” document. And iirc, it’s actually lacking in range and there’s a forum topic on it. But yeah, when I first encountered it, the hypersonic capability of the R-27E up high was pretty surprising to say the least.

That do be an R-27ER though and that thing has a super high specific power due to the pretty high thrust and total impulse.

Going to slightly necroing this thread by stating that within both the F-14 NTRP 3-22.4-F14A/B/D Store Limitations (Appendix A) and the F-14A/B/D A/G TACTICAL MANUAL NWP 3-22.5-F14A/B/D VOLUME III NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1T-2, they mention the LAU-138 can be mounted on pylons 1A, 1B, 8A and 8B for ALE-39 equipped aircraft.

The SD-10 actually had an incorrect nozzle_exit_area value that gave it a little more extra thrust and speed at higher altitudes up until the recent patch after I reported it. It should be pretty reasonable in terms of speed atm. You just gotta keep in mind that the SD-10 has a ~20mm larger diameter and ~100mm longer than the 120C-5 with probably a different internal layout. AIM-120C-7 for DCS when ED smh /s. Seems like its an older API/scheme thing along with maybe induced lift and drag? The SD-10 on its pre-INS datalink AMRAAM scheme doesn't have that issue and flies in a straight line until it regains lock and the AIM-120s with the INS datalink basically tries to follow predict where you'll be next when it loses track.

Should be updated already.

For those that are curious, this is what happens when you try a 45° pitch, zero battery, and ~250lbs of weight shaved off of the empty missile weight. Peak speed of Mach 4.97 with an extremely different trajectory however.

Actually making the missile go ballistic, by setting the battery life to zero, allows for the AIM-54 to match the curves of the actual ALSM document. Previously I had used ACM cover up and the missile still tries to guide itself in an optimal manner, especially at 0° pitch, so that it tries to maintain the original pitch it was launched at instead of a ballistic arc. So previously the 0° missile it stays at ~45000 ft for the majority of its life, pulling 1 G, until it eventually runs out of speed and hits the terrain. If launched at 0° pitch, the AIM-54 will start a 0 G dive towards the ocean. This, of course, causes it to plow through thicker and thicker air and the drag will increase until it slams into the ocean. A similar thing happens for the 30° pitch launch since it also proceeds in a 0 G trajectory until it hits the ocean. It seems to fit the bill relatively accurately I'll have to say that. Here I've included both Tacviews. ALSM First Test.acmiALSM Test 0 Battery.acmi

For those who want to compare DCS to the NASA simulations results, you have to keep in mind that the NASA simulations seem to use the AIM-54C+ (AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed) which has a heavier initial mass than the AIM-54C that we have now. The AIM-54C we have now seems to be an earlier C variant that is ~23 lbs lighter than the AIM-54C+. When launched at approx. Mach 1.2, 45000 ft, and at a 30° angle, the AIM-54C we have currently hits a peak speed of Mach 3.62 which is a bit shy of what appears to be Mach 3.7-3.9 on the ALSM graphs. The missile launched at 0° was able to actually go faster than the 30° missile by ~0.6-0.7 Mach but according to the ALSM graphs it should be going a bit slower but this could be down to the more complicated simulation that they used when compared to DCS. 30° pitch launch: 0° pitch launch:

Ok it’s just odd how other missiles that use the older FM scheme/API like the R-27s and some of the AIM-9s are able to maintain an accurate nozzle_exit_area while maintaining a thrust and total impulse values that, in the AIM-9L’s case at least, matches up with now declassified SAC/SMC documents that describe the motor’s performance at sea level but I can assume that limitation comes from the older missile API and older Phoenix modeling like you said.

In first and last shot you mean the 3 missiles that I fired in each Tacview, they were fired at 12km, 6km, and 500m altitudes respectively since this was initially a test on motor speed. If you're referring to the 3 different tacviews, the things that are changed from each tacview to the next were a different controller and nozzle_exit_area (at the time this wasn't changed yet), this was the stock missile at the time (18th of August), and this was one I conducted today using the same track. The mode that the LD-10 was fired in was PAS at a waypoint that was directly ahead and at the same altitude.

The change in altitude for the LD-10 seems to be something regarding the guidance (which I had set to PAS in these tests) while the SD-10 was maddogged. These aren't directly effected by the controller since the controller only effects the motor.

M = Mach and that uses the scale on the left. ASL = Altitude above (mean) Sea Level and that refers to the scale on the right. I put 3 different graphs to show the differences between the 2 missiles which should have generally the same kinetic performance at generally the same conditions.

Bug: LD-10 uses an incorrect controller for its motor Can I reproduce it 100%: Yes How to reproduce/description: Step 1: Fire SD-10s and LD-10s in the same parameters Step 2: Observe Result: The SD-10 has a lower peak speed but higher average speed than the LD-10. This is due to the controller for the LD-10 firing the march stage of its motor at 1 second instead of the 6.5 seconds that the SD-10 has. The boost stage for the LD-10 also fires at 0.0 seconds instead of the 0.5 seconds of the SD-10 which allows the missile to get to a higher speed faster but still has the shortcomings of the incorrectly timed march stage. LD-10 Controller: SD-10 Controller DCS Version: Open Beta 2.7.17.29493 Mods: No mods are used that change the performance of the LD-10 and SD-10. Charts: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTsRrA95O5pcV5TTAZAaJQQh1HRGkrKPbhZc_hy3VZQLpThb1AEPsbd3jwfeWHvuuj1n6Y5kx7fVGeP/pubhtml?gid=0&single=true 500m 6km 12km EDIT: I had done a some similar testing back in August where I swapped the controllers for the SD-10 and LD-10 out for each other to see what performance changes there would've been. Feel free to read:

IIRC, the oscillations seemed to only happen with the missile that I fired at 500m and, at least in the 3rd person, appeared to be severe. They appeared when the missile started to decrease in speed after its peak Mach speed and lasted only about 1 second. Also the LD-10 still features the weird motor controller which makes it have a higher peak speed but a lower average speed when compared to the SD-10. Here are some tacviews that show the oscillations to a degree from tests in August. I haven't reconducted tests on the most recent patch though. LD-10 Different Controller and NozzleExitArea.acmiLD-10.acmi EDIT: I redid a test with no modified LUAs and this what I have. It seems to still have the weird oscillations: Tacview-20220904-221258-DCS-WhitepaperTestLD10.trk.zip.acmi