DSplayer

I just did some testing both with a lock and without a lock using the same mission. Seems like the 54 will track when there is a lock already and the ACM cover is up. The first couple of tries with the ACM cover up and no lock resulted in a couple of the missiles not tracking but idk if it was a fluke or not. Then I continued to retest but I had 1 time where all the missiles had missed (idk if the target was too far away from the ADL or if it was an actual issue caused by the possible bug). I did seem to discover a bug where if you get an PAL P-STT, drop it (or not), then flip the ACM cover up, it wouldn't actually go into boresight mode automatically. That might've been the reason why some of my missiles had missed but I'm not too sure. F14ACMTestFeb15.trkF14ACMTest2Feb15.trkF14ACMTest3Feb15.trkF14ACMTest4Feb15.trkF14ACMTest5Feb15.trkF14ACMTest6Feb15.trk

I’ve had similar problems but this was before the 54 patch and I had written a bug report a couple months back and nothing came of it.

Considering the speed (which seem low in terms of DCS combat) of the target drones, I think it would be easier for those hits at those distances IRL in comparison to doing those against maneuvering targets going at like Mach 1. Also, did the actual Navy tests actually show that target aspects that the target drones were at? The aspects of the targets are definitely important to the kinetic performance of the 54. I do not think GS server is a very good measure of stuff considering the server does have lag which trashes missiles and tracks since people just warp around sometimes.

The radar’s performance should be on par or better than how the current F-15C’s radar performance. In terms of A2A weaponry, it will be the same with the possibility of 9Xs. Speed is probably the only major factor you’ll see worse since the CFTs are mounted.

I meant like the last time they sent pictures of the Eurofighter cockpit.

Compared to previous images of the cockpit that were posted earlier, did you guys decide to redo the textures from scratch or something? Or were those WIP pics from late 2020 just using some placeholder assets?

Yeah they don't work for AIM-54s atm for some reason. Sparrows Phoenixes

Yeah. The recent updates made the AWG-9 super sensitive to internet issues

In my testing with the Mk60 motor variant, the lofting guidance seems to be wonky (missile basically drifting in an attempt to turn towards the target and sometimes overshooting the target if it fails to exit the loft in time) if you pitch your plane up beyond 12 degrees before firing your Phoenix. It will go a little bit higher but also leave the loft at a super steep angle while also not having as much energy compared to if you fired it at 10-12 degrees loft. Idk too much about the Mk47C’s performance however since that missile, in my experience, has always lofted so high and always had the lowest energy when terminal of all 3 variants. Lofting the missile at a high pitch angle and getting less terminal speed does make sense however. You’re basically trading more altitude for less horizontal distance. There is a certain amount of pitch before what you’re doing becomes basically detrimental to the missile’s performance.

Yeah. Recently I’ve been having problems (while having a human RIO on a stable server with all below 120 Ping) with losing tracks that were just travelling in a straight line. In terms of contacts flying off the TID, Ive had experience where 2 contacts basically get close together (either in closure rate or actual distance) that the AWG-9 can’t differentiate the targets and basically trash the target with erroneous data.

Of course this doesn’t apply to DCS though.

Dats a me. I could’ve committed the missile at around 100nms but I didn’t want to push the envelope of the missile since it’s still unknown against maneuvering targets.

The HB manual.

When will be able to get the full functionality of the TCS on the F-14s like the ability switch to PD-STT and P-STT directly from an optical track by the TCS? I find the TCS to be a pretty unique system that no other aircraft in DCS has without having to mount a TPOD (and those aircraft can't guide their weapons using those tracks) and I would like to see it have its full potential shown in DCS.

I think the max range that a 54 can go is around 110nm if the wind is going the right direction. I think that the 54 is trying to loft as high as possible to try to get to that target, even if it couldn't possibly hit the target.

Would 7 seconds (4 nautical miles) really tack on 8k more feet and 1/2 the impact speed?

The AIM-54C seems to be acting weird in its loft profile still. The AIM-54A-Mk47 overtook it in this test I just did and the 54C hits the target at a measly Mach 1.08 compared to the other missiles that hit when they're higher than Mach 2. I'm going to see if this is a fluke tho. Tacview-20220204-152941-DCS-PHTest1-27-22.zip.acmi

Can you send some Tacviews?

Was having a problem when there was a hostile aircraft nearby, Jester would switch from LANTIRN to TCS all on his own. Was pretty annoying when trying to get some GBUs on target.

I noticed that the Nr_max value for the AIM-54C has dropped down to 18Gs from the 21Gs in prior patches. Is this intended? I thought the 54C’s development had allowed for higher G loading.

Do you mind sending a Tacview? I would like to compare the updated missile to what they do now.

TLDR: Patch might've gotten delayed.

Since I have way too much time on my hands during class.

Just tested it out. The button at least does the function of showing the Mandatory Attack symbol on the hooked target. I don't know if it has or does effect the target weighting tho.

I think it’s apart of a update they did a while back where the changed to cockpit textures for the RIO without notice or accidentally (AWG-9 cooling switch, other CAP panel labels). I think the mandatory attack function is still there but the label is just incorrect.