DSplayer

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.

I don’t think the Iranian F-14’s had a different fuel probe at all, especially since it’s all standardized. Fuel probe door being removed was always an option.

Well the Facebook post does mention that they went to the Slovakian Air Museum to capture this footage and references and that museum has a former Luftwaffe F-4F Phantom.

That's good that an improvement is inbound. A lot of people I've been talking to have had problems with AIM-54s missing recently, especially if they used the lower power Mk47 motor variants. PN coeffs no longer is the reason applying to proportional navigation is why the AIM-120's files no longer mention those lines at all which is nice to learn (and the SD-10 uses parallel guidance still which is pretty interesting). Good thing it seems like its a science and not the guess and check thing that I was doing.

Looking into it, the last mention of a Eurofighter in a weekly newsletter was on the 6th of May this year.

I've dug into the files for the R-3R and R-3S and there are specular maps for the missiles that make it appear more white but these are currently not used (which I assume are older versions). But the diffuse maps for the R-3R and R-3S clearly have a silver/grey color compared to the white color that the R-13M has so I think the bare metal might be intentional. Current Specular Map Other Specular Map

Ok I found out that the PN_gain value and not the PN_coefficient values were the things that drastically effected lead when I decided to redo some tests. And since I had thought that the PN_gain had to be the same value as the number of PN_coeff entries, I had thought that the older PN_coeff values made the difference when I initially ran the tests. Utilizing the "PN Test 3" track I found that a PN gain value (in combination with the current PN coeffs) between 5-20 (maximum number I tested) allowed the missile to hit with a bell shaped curve on how fast the missile was when it hit the F-15 (5 and 20 resulting in lower speeds than 12). EDIT: I've done some testing where I am the defending plane against an F-15 AI firing an AIM-54A-Mk60 and you can dodge AIM-54s with last minute with the current PN gain values vs a PN gain value of 11. PN GAIN 4DCS PLAYER 1.zip.acmiPN GAIN 4DCS PLAYER 2.zip.acmiPN GAIN 11DCS PLAYER 1.zip.acmiPN GAIN 11DCS PLAYER 2.zip.acmiPN Test 5PLAYER.trkPN Test 5PLAYER2.trk Perspective of the missile from both tracks with both versions:

Well it's basically impossible to find information regarding missile flight paths and terminal behavior so I'd assume HB tweaked their PNs in order to squeeze PKs out and ensure the missile is performing the best it can (which I'm sure is what Deka and ED do when they make tweaks to their Fox 3s).

Iirc both the R530IR and Magic 1 have the same detection and CCM values in the files but the R530IR’s seeker does not have a cooled seeker value which is probably causing the discrepancy.

IIRC it fires from left to right, back to front. And since you had 2 Sparrows (which fired the left one first) and then you fired 3/4 Phoenixes, you ended up with your last missiles on the right side of your plane.

So I decided to run some tests utilizing the older PN_coefficients and associated PN_gain from older DCS versions of the AIM-54 (the one prior to June 21, 2022 specifically) since I was rather concerned at the increased amount of defeats from beaming attacks recently and I was able to find that the older PN coefficients have a better chance against targets that are almost beaming as they are faster once they start turning into the targets along with leading more smoothly than the latest PN coefficients. I fired at a Mach 2 F-15 at various beaming angles with an AIM-54A-Mk60 with target size small while active paused at Mach 1 at 30000 ft and utilized the same track for both old and current PN coefficients. Here are some examples from my testing where the current PN values didn't allow the missile to hit the target: Current PN coefficient from "PN Test 4 BEAM4" track: Old PN coefficient from "PN Test 4 BEAM4" track: Current PN coefficient from "PN Test 4 BEAM5" (this barely missed): Old PN coefficient from "PN Test 4 BEAM5" track: Current PN coefficient from "PN Test 3": Old PN coefficient from "PN Test 3": The flight path of the current PN coefficient values also shows that it currently has a slight curve when trying to hit the beaming target when compared to the straight line that the older PN coefficient takes. Old New In conclusion I think that there should be some further testing to improve the PN coefficients of the AIM-54 as they are currently subpar when used against targets that go into the beam (or do a split S) or targets that are nearly beaming already when compared to the older PN coefficients. I've included a version of the modified "Weapons.lua" that I used in order to test the old vs current PN coefficients if you want to test it out yourself (I highly recommend using OVGME or a similar application) for your own scenarios. Here's the difference between the unmodified lua and the lua with the older PN coefficients: https://www.diffchecker.com/39xPQ15T PN Test 3.trkPN Test 4 BEAM4.trkPN Test 4 BEAM5.trkDCS-BEAM5 NEW PN.trk.zip.acmiDCS-BEAM5 OLD.zip.acmiDCS-PN TEST 3 NEW PN.zip.acmiDCS-PN Test 3 OLD PN.trk.zip.acmiDCS-BEAM4 NEW.zip.acmiDCS-BEAM4 OLD.trk.zip.acmiWeapons.lua

A quick mod that allows the usage of Super 530D missiles on pylons 5 and 3, Magic II missiles on pylons 7 and 1, unrestricted centerline R530 usage (ability to mount an R530 on pylon 4 along when you have missiles on pylons 5 and 3), PHIMAT and BARAX pods on pylons 6 and 2, and CATM-9Ms and TCTS pods on pylons 7 and 1. Also permits unsymmetrical loadouts with all wing mounted weapons. I made it since I was pretty bored on launch day. Link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3325091/ Changelog: V1.0 - Initial Release V1.1 - PHIMAT and BARAX added (both are cosmetic only) V1.2 - Added CATM-9Ms, allows the mix of all missiles (you don't have to pair up 2 R530s of the same type on pylons 5 and 3), and complies with OB 2.7.16.28111. V1.2A - Ability to mix ordinance without the need to have the same weapon on the opposite pylon (can have unsymmetrical ordinance). V1.3 - Added AN/ASQ-T50 TCTS Pod for pylons 7 and 1 V1.4 - New file structure that no longer requires an update after new patch drops which changes Weapons.lua (less work for me yay) V1.4A - Simplification of edits to Mirage-F1.lua in an effort to fix controls bug. V1.5 - Allows compatibility with OB 2.7.17.29140. Adds the 580 gallon center tank and adds GBU-27 for pylons 5 and 3. V1.5A - Compatibility with OB 2.7.18.30765 (Thanks to DerRedMax and Grimreaper68 for pointing out that the mod was broken). V1.5B - Compatibility with OB 2.8.0.32066 V1.5.3 - 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). V1.5.4 - Updated for OB 2.8.1.34437 V1.5.5 - Updated for OB 2.8.2.35759: Mirage F1EE capability and pylon position for Super 530D are fixed. V1.5.6 - Updated for OB 2.8.3.37556 (Also rewrote the code since Aerges rewrote the code for the Mirage F1) V1.5.7 - Updated for OB 2.8.4.38947 V1.5.8 - Updated for OB 2.9.0.46801 | Changed the PHIMAT over to the one Aerges made and updated so gunpods work. V1.5.9 - Updated for 2.9.3.51704 | IFF and other things V1.5.10 - Updated V1.5.11 - Updated for 2.9.6.57650 V1.5.12- Updated for 2.9.9.2406 V1.5.13 - Updated for 2.9.11.4686 V1.5.14 - Updated for 2.9.14.8222

I was able to include his texture skin to V1.3 of the mod (along with other changes) since the original mod broke IC, might as well include some other stuff that also would've broken IC.

I always thought that they were supposed to have a metal finish! Also the R-3S and R-3R models are weirdly modeled compared to the AIM-9B (rear fins being shorter in span) so I think a model overhaul is due.

I’d imagine there were some range gating that allowed the Phoenix to differentiate between chaff.