DSplayer

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.

Here you go: HARM + AIM-9JP + AIM-7E Mod for F-14.zip

I made a mod that uses the this mod along with adding other weapons that Iran mounted on the F-14A: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3325290/

Allows the AIM-120A AMRAAM to be mounted onto the shoulder pylons (1B and 8B) for the Heatblur F-14 Tomcat with either a single (Sparrow pylon) or double rack. This mod is based on the images of the PMTC F-14A during the AIM-120 development along with the image of the unused double AIM-120 rack mounted on an F-14. The AIM-120A in this mod uses the older API and has a higher susceptibility to countermeasures than the AIM-120B. Mod Link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3325289/ Bugs: The missile uses the older missile API so it might miss or do super harsh turns. When using the double racks, the missile count will be incorrect since the missile count is determined by used pylons. Missiles on the double racks fire in a weird way. AIM-120Bs and Cs are not supported since they will crash your game once you attempt to fire them. Changelog: V1.0 - Initial Release V1.1 - Updated for OB 2.7.17.29493. V1.1.1 - 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). V1.1.2 - Updated for OB 2.8.3.37556. V1.1.3 - Updated with HB weapon loadout limitations. V1.1.4 - Updated for TARPS and other changes made in previous OBs. V1.1.5 - Hotfix to actually make the TARPS usable. V1.1.6 - Updated for latest DCS patch (as of 2024-03-05) V1.1.7 - Updated for 2.9.6.57650 V1.1.8 - Updated for 2.9.9.2406

A weapons mod that allows for AIM-7Es, AIM-9Js, AIM-9Ps, AIM-23 (MIM-23) Hawks, and R-27R missiles to be mounted onto the Heatblur F-14 Tomcat. AIM-7Es can be mounted on all pylons except 1A and 8A, AIM-9Js and AIM-9Ps can be mounted on 1A, 8A, 1B, and 8B, and the R-27R on 1B and 8B. Mod Link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3325290/ Big thanks to @bennyboy9800 for the AIM-23 Hawk missile texture. Bugs: Currently the R-27R is mounted on an APU-68 pylon that's mounted on an AIM-54 shoulder pylon since there are no independent R-27 pylon models. The AIM-7E currently uses the AIM-7M/MH/P model (ED issue). Changelog: V1.0 - Initial Release V1.1 - Updated for OB 2.7.17.29493. V1.2.0 - 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). V1.2.1 - Updated for OB 2.8.3.37556. V1.2.2 - AIM-23 Hawk missile drag increased, HB weapon loadout limitations added. V1.2.3 - Hotfix: Fixing the AIM-7E so it can actually be loaded and isn't duplicated. V1.2.4 - Updated for TARPS and other OB additions. V1.2.5 - Hotfix to actually make the TARPS usable. V1.2.6 - Hotfix to allow AIM-7Es to be loaded on the tunnel pylons. V1.2.7 - Updated for latest DCS patch (as of 2024-03-05) V1.2.8 - Updated for 2.9.6.57650 V1.2.9 - Updated for 2.9.9.2406 V1.2.10 - Updated for 2.9.14.8222 | Updated AIM-23 FM to match new MIM-23 FM.

I could make a version and post it here later today.

Tbh even War Thunder has slightly more complex IR modelling for their IR seekers compared to DCS iirc.

IIRC Naquaii mentioned that the AAA-4 IRST (might be wrong with the designation) on the early F-14As had symbology similar to an oscilloscope and were basically more beefed up IR missile seekers of the time. Compared to the F-14D's IRST, (which could give FLIR imagery) it was ancient. Even though I would want a piece of trash like that IRST, HB probably wouldn't spend their resources doing something like that. Maybe if HB does an F-4B down the line that has an IRST then they could put some of that implementation into an F-14A.

This is the hottest dumpster fire in the F-14 subforum that I’ve seen in months.

Mod is updated to Version 1.4 and no longer directly edits the Weapons.lua file but stills edits the Mirage-F1.lua along with the entry.lua file. It makes it easier for me as I don't have to update the mod every time a patch drops.

I updated the mod to Version 1.1 so it the mod no longer directly edits the Weapons.lua and only F-14B.lua and entry.lua which allows for me to no longer requires me to update the mod every update.

I updated the mod to Version 1.4 so it the mod no longer directly edits the Weapons.lua and only F-14B.lua and entry.lua which allows for me to no longer requires me to update the mod every update.

Just going to tack onto this thread since I just remembered that the F-18 and F-16 in mid-2021 had an update where they got a new flare type and by extension, the F-18 received more flares that can be used. This new type of flares used on both aircraft is slightly less effective compared to the older style of flares found on other jets (JF-17, A-10s, FC3 Aircraft, etc.). If ED were to do this for chaff to simulate the basically a 1/4 charge that BOL chaff has along with implementing a BOL-IR style of flares, it would be pretty cool and could allow for a better LAU-138 implementation in DCS.

It's an AWG-9 thing since he basically just presses the P-STT button. Same thing happens if you're a human RIO.

When I was testing with the САУ-РАКЕТА values that Маэстро had suggested, I did notice that the AIM-54 was able to pull rather violent and abrupt Gs once terminal that could drain it of energy. The current САУ-РАКЕТА values really help smooth out the flight path when it's active (at least visually), especially when a target is notching or the missile loses lock momentarily since the missile won't do super hard sudden pulls once it regains lock and will do a smoother transition. In my opinion, this should require further testing but my opinion is coming from a minimal understanding of what the three САУ-РАКЕТА values do and with my handful of tests that possibly aren't 100% representative of real gameplay. I could probably run a similar test for the AIM-120s (and probably SD-10) but will have to drop the range of course.

Could be a bug with the previous patch (center R530s wouldn't fire for some reason). Yep! V1.2A should permit that ability (along with the ability to have unsymmetrical loadouts for other weapons too)

Like what @Wingmate said, utilizing the USAF's requirement for boom air to air refueling would require an extensive redesign and would probably be much more difficult to retrofit onto a jet than retrofitting a fuel probe like on the F-5s or F-4s. Doesn't sound very economical to me. I also think the Iranians removed their fuel doors for a similar reason that the US Navy did for theirs. Especially since Iran no longer has a supply of F-14 parts, it would be understandable for them to be cautious when trying to keep their jets flying. An Iranian F-14's TF-30 eating a fuel door would be a pretty big problem for their maintenance guys. Also the refueling probe on the F-4 shouldn't differ too much from the F-14's considering they're using the MA-2 or MA-3 standard.

Yo, I'm back with a rivet counting AIM-54 test. This is a test where an F-16 going Mach 1.1 zigzags (but not AI set to no reaction to threat) in an effort to make the AIM-54 lose energy since it now uses proportional navigation and an AIM-54A-Mk60 is launched at maximum detection range (missile falls off the rail at 83.9nm) with target size small at Mach 1.0. What I've found is that PN_gain values below 5 cause the AIM-54 to not hit the F-16 while using parallel navigation allows it to hit with no problem (this is due to the rather less aggressive flight path that it takes in order to steer towards not exactly hot targets). Parallel Navigation (Hit) (PN_gain line missing an using current PN_coeffs): PN_gain = 4 (Missed with closest range to F-16 being 5,342ft) PN_gain = 5: PN_gain = 6: PN_gain = 7: PN_gain = 11: In conclusion, with the limited capabilities of DCS, I think that a PN_gain value between 5 and 6 (learning towards 6 since even with a decimal value of 5.80 resulted in misses in 3/5 of the previous tests) will be the best. Maybe in the future, the missile speed gate knob in the RIO pit could be used to get rid of these issues relating to proportional navigation, Here's an image that visualizes the differences in PN_gain PN GAIN 4 DCS-PN Test 6-1.zip.acmiPN GAIN 5 DCS-PN Test 6-1.trk.zip.acmiPN Gain 6-DCS-PN Test 6-1.trk.zip.acmiPN GAIN 7 DCS-PN Test 6-1.trk.zip.acmiPN GAIN 11 DCS-PN Test 6-1.trk.zip.acmiPN GAIN NO DCS-PN Test 6-1.trk.zip.acmiPN Test 6-1.trk

My results with these new САУ-РАКЕТА values (with PN_gain =4) concluded that they didn't really improve the overall PK with the tracks that I had previously tested with since none of them hit but they did get a bit closer (couple of hundreds of feet) to the enemy aircraft. New САУ-РАКЕТА-DCS-PN Test 4 BEAM4.trk.zip.acmiNew САУ-РАКЕТА-DCS-PN Test 4 BEAM5.trk.zip.acmiNew САУ-РАКЕТА-DCS-PN Test 5PLAYER.trk.zip.acmiNew САУ-РАКЕТА-DCS-PN Test 5PLAYER2.trk.zip.acmiNew САУ-РАКЕТА-DCS-PN Test 3.trk.zip.acmi My initial hypothesis was that if these САУ-РАКЕТА values were combined with a PN_gain value of 5, it would improve the PK but that didn't happen most of the time. It actually caused the AIM-54 to miss and hit the same amount when compared to if the PN_gain = 5 just by itself. There were only 2 times out of the 5 tests where the AIM-54s with this combination of new САУ-РАКЕТА values and PN_gain = 5 actually hit: "PN Test 3" and "PN Test 5PLAYER2". New САУ-РАКЕТА + PN GAIN 5-DCS-PN Test 4 BEAM4.trk.zip.acmiNew САУ-РАКЕТА + PN GAIN 5-DCS-PN Test 4 BEAM5.trk.zip.acmiNew САУ-РАКЕТА + PN GAIN 5-DCS-PN Test 5PLAYER.trk.zip.acmiNew САУ-РАКЕТА + PN GAIN 5-DCS-PN Test 5PLAYER2.trk.zip.acmiNew САУ-РАКЕТА + PN GAIN 5-DCS-PN Test 3.trk.zip.acmi EDIT: Here are the tests with only PN_gain = 5 and no other values changed (2/5 tests resulted in a hit): PN Gain 5-DCS-PN Test 4 BEAM4.trk.zip.acmiPN Gain 5-DCS-PN Test 4 BEAM5.trk.zip.acmiPN Gain 5-DCS-PN Test 5PLAYER.trk.zip.acmiPN Gain 5-DCS-PN Test 5PLAYER2.trk.zip.acmiPN Gain 5-DCS-PN Test 3.trk.zip.acmi EDIT 2: The lowest non-decimal PN_gain value that allowed a hit in all the tests was a 6 (no new САУ-РАКЕТА).

IIRC the pods when not in salvo, fire 4 rockets from each pod that you have selected. The RedKite video regarding the rockets and other air to ground weaponry is good and provides some good info.