DSplayer

I would like Jester to immediately IFF targets that you have STT'd no matter what. The delay between him actually IFFing the target and marking it as hostile is long enough that in high intensity situations, friendly fire incidents can occur. I know that Jester verbally says if something is a friendly or hostile but it'll call out targets that are hostile as friendly sometimes if they're flying a Bluefor aircraft.

From what I could gather, it's the 120 API (AIM-120 + SD-10) that go changed with the new INS+Datalink guidance, notch filter "improvements", and the new physical seeker limitations. Notching just got worse with all these "improvements".

Jester spotting stuff is a bit inconsistent. Sometimes he's able to spot tanks and ground vehicles that are very hard to see but other times he can miss an entire moving oil tanker that is directly in the FOV. I would also like Jester to be able to use Point track instead of just Area track. Slight suggestion for the future: Jester LANTIRN A/A Mode. Would like to see it be used to spot aircraft and point track them.

Yeah it's absolutely insane. When I was reading up on the changes when they first got announced, I thought it would do the complete opposite and make the AIM-120 super hard to defeat. There is clearly something wrong that made the missile complete crap to use. Sparrows are more reliable than 120s atm.

In me and my squadron's current experience with the new patch, the new AIM-120 API (which should apply to all AIM-120 variants and the SD-10) made the missiles extremely easy to defeat. Is this intended or was this a unintended side effect of the new realistic modelling of the seeker head? Guidance on targets that are going cold or beaming have gone out the window and basically made this missile a medium range paperweight. What do you guys think?

Lol... I know you're reguler player on GS. Why don't you just observe inside its tacview and count how many AIM-54 fired by player that actually hit. Because 90% of the people on the server get their AWG-9's notched and lose the missile or the old missile API decides to do drastic high G turns like it's always done. If you actually know what the limitations of the radar and missiles, you can make the AIM-54 do its job effectively. Anyway, HB has said themselves that the AI is currently bugged in AIM-54 employment and they will overhaul it later.

Nope. That’s the AI F-14’s AIM-54 employment problem. Problem with the AI and not the 54. Player fired 54s are fine. Player and AI AIM-120s are not.

Ah that's understandable then! I kinda have to start circling my target area since I usually get to it first before the pod starts showing up "NOT READY"

Jester doesn't turn on the LANTIRN pod immediately when switching to A/G after taking off. Or it takes 10 years for the LANTIRN to be operational after takeoff.

I absolutely love the new TID cursor antenna elevation limits! I no longer have to have my calculator next to me using the formulas that Karon made.

Maybe 2 weeks is closer than it seems.

It kinda becomes an expensive Sparrow in PD-STT with the AIM-54As and AIM-54C currently. Idk if it might change with the AIM-54C going active on its own implementation but we'll have to wait on that. This is only PD-STT btw and not P-STT. For all the AIM-54 variants currently, no. The AIM-54C will go active on its own in the future though. If the target is within 10 miles yes. But currently in my testing and experience, it feels like the ACM cover up actually causes missiles to not go active on a target within 10 miles 8/10 of the launches I do. Yes and no. This doesn't have a range limitation of 10nms. In DCS it's similar to P-STT (without the hard locking bit since you can use it in TWS) in which it will go active on the target after a predeterminate amount of time and distance. Technically yes. It will go active on the target after a predeterminate amount of time and distance which means that it will fly straight until 10 or so miles and do an abrupt turn to meet the target. This is down to limitations of DCS. Hope this should answer your questions.

Oof that's true!

HB said they’re going to remove the ability for mods like Pilot LANTIRN to work after the implementation of Jester LANTIRN.

Aww it’s all recorded in the F-14A. Was hoping to get a sneak peak of the new F-14B EIGT.

Bug: AIM-54 will launch within 10 miles and not track with the ACM cover up. Can I reproduce it 100%: Yes If not 100%, how often out of 10: 8/10 How to reproduce/description: Method 1: Step 1: Lift ACM cover (regardless of radar lock status) Step 2: Fire AIM-54 Result: The AIM-54 will not track the target even if target was launched near the ADL and hot off the rail which will result in the loss of a missile. My assumption is that it takes perhaps a couple of seconds before the missile starts deciding the track any targets within an FOV which is why sometimes you will get a kill but not others. DCS Version: 2.7.6.13436 Open Beta System Specs: i7-8700k GTX 1080 Ti 32GB RAM SSD Samsung 1TB 860 EVO OS: Win10 Peripherals: Joystick: Saitek X56 Throttle: Logitech X56 Headtracker: TrackIR + TrackClipPro Mission File: See attached. Track: Check attached. Video/ Screenshots: https://streamable.com/jc6d7z (Singleplayer Custom Mission using the ACMTest Mission) https://streamable.com/q43oa2 (On the GS Server) https://streamable.com/7okgfh (Singleplayer Custom Mission using the AIM54RadarTest2 Mission) Mods: Quaggles Custom Keybinds ACMTest1.trk ACMTest.miz AIM54RadarTest2.miz

This means that extrapolated targets cannot get un-X’d out correct?

The thing is that the F-14 never operationally carried the AIM-120A. The F-14, however, was the aircraft that fired the AIM-120 in tests at the Pacific Missile Test Center at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California. Heatblur isn't Gaijin Entertainment, they aren't going to add the AIM-120 to the F-14 simply because it carried it and fired it in a testing environment. Here's what Naquaii said on the topic in January:

Not exactly 100% related to the topic but what does "i motion" or "im motion" mean in the title of the post?

Maybe the whitepaper is out of date for the info they found? That's the only explanation I could think of besides a mistake. Overall its pretty interesting how the AIM-54C is lacking in performance in comparison to it's older counterpart.

Would probably require some licensing from Garmin but I think it could be done and would be a unique addition to the RIOpit.

Looking at the values in Weapons.lua for the AIM-54s' motor data, it appears that the AIM-54C's motor is actually weaker than the AIM-54A-MK47's which makes it the weakest AIM-54 in terms of motor performance. The only advantage it has currently is the better CCM resistance (0.25 instead of 0.3), smokeless motor, and higher Nr_max which allows it to turn more in a turn (not that useful with the 54s since they drain so much energy). AIM-54A-MK47 AIM-54C-MK47 Here's a link to a difference checker with the values that I copied and pasted from the lua for both missiles: https://www.diffchecker.com/xYjSVkL9 These improvements will probably come when the new API comes within the next 5 years.

In my experience, if the person that changes the ALE-39 also rearms the aircraft, the loadout is correct. But if, for example, the RIO changes the ALE-39 but the Pilot rearms, the ALE-39 setting that the pilot chose is used (which is generally the stock setting). This can also happen when you rearm multiple times from both people (RIO changes ALE and rearms and then the Pilot rearms the aircraft at a later time).

Oof. The image was mislabeled where I found it. That is true.

Slightly diverging from this topic but here's an image of a JF-17 carrying maybe a PL-5 derivative on a pylon between the SD-10 double and the wingtip pylon. Idk what block it is tho. And here's an image of a JF-17 model at the AVIC booth somewhere with SD-10s (?) at the inner most pylons and PL-5s on the rest.