Xl-45

You will need to add it manually by editing the default.lua file (Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\F14\Input\F-14B-Pilot\keyboard), simply add the following line : {down = device_commands.VDIG_VDI_filter, cockpit_device_id=devices.VDI, value_down = 1, name = _('VDI Filter Toggle'), category = _('Additional Keybinds')}, Furthermore, if you wish to add other keybindings that are not currently present, you can search for them in the clickabledata.lua file located at Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\F14\Input\F-14B-Pilot\Cockpit. After locating the desired keybinding, add it to the default.lua file while respecting the correct format. If there is an update, you'll need to repeat the same process all over again, that's why i recommend saving a copy of the "default.lua" file in another place once you are done with the editing, or use a mod manager like Ovgme.

I had the same issue, i decided to edit it myself to make it work : You can add : {down = device_commands.ENGINE_Crank, cockpit_device_id=devices.ENGINE, value_down = 0, name = _('Crank Center'), category = _('Engine Control Panel')}, Inside "default.lua" in : "Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\F14\Input\F-14B-Pilot\keyboard" Then In-Game, you can search for "Crank Center" keybind. You'll have to repeat this with every update or use a mod manager like OVGME.

I compared it to this video : And it seems like the direction of the light may be wrong ? nullHere's one screenshot from the video: The light seems to reflect on the probe and the basket even when the probe is on its left. That isn't the case in DCS, even when closer. The light seems to reflect on the basket only when the probe is higher than the basket and on its right.

Here is some information about the behaviour of AI-controlled Flankers and Fulcrums in DCS: If your jammer is ON, the AI will not engage you until you're within 21 nm with R-27ER, even though your jammer's burnthrough range is 29 nm. Therefore, one can approach within a relatively close range before being fired upon. However, it is important to remember to deactivate the jammer when within the Flanker's weapon employment range, like it was said before. To engage a single target, I recommend using PD-STT rather than TWS, as the AI does not seem to care about the Phoenix unless it is within 10 nm. Nevertheless, locking onto a target with STT can be challenging if the Flanker is equipped with ECM pods. Typically, the AI will only use its jammers when being targeted in STT, unless ECM options are manually set in the Mission Editor. In these conditions, one can fire in TWS mode to avoid activating the jammer, or fire in STT-JAT mode with manual loft, while keeping the lock until impact or until the Phoenix is close enough to see the target with its seeker. Finally, AI Flankers will not engage with R-27ET (the IR version of the R-27ER) until within 5 nm if Afterburners are not used. If flying with Afterburners, they will engage at 21 nm if the targeted aircraft is HOT, and 25 nm if it is Flanking. I hope that'll be useful for you! I know that these behaviours may not be realistic, but they are currently present in DCS, and as such, can be utilized to help balance engagements, especially with the current state of the Phoenix.

I apologize if there were any misunderstandings regarding the information I shared. My focus was on how the jammer affects the AIM-54, and how the RWR behaves against HoJ AIM-54 in DCS, and I do not have sufficient expertise to speak on the topic in a real-life context. Allow me to clarify my points in a more precise manner: I used a JF-17 equipped with the KG-600 jamming pod as the jamming target in my testing. The JF-17, when equipped with this jamming pod, can jam in all conditions, even when not locked on. This is also true for other aircrafts such as the F-14, M-2000, FC3 aircrafts (F-15C, Su-27, etc.), and JF-17. So even if I do not maintain a lock on the target, it continues to jam, providing the AIM-54 missile with a jamming source to track. I want to emphasize that I am not sure if this is realistic or not but it's in line with the HoJ implementation of every missile in DCS. As an example, the M-2000C's R530D missile have the same behaviour and track passively (without RWR warnings and M-2000's radar support) on a F-14 that's jamming, you can try it out. I want to make it clear that I am not discussing how the AIM-54 missile should or should not behave against jamming in real life, I am discussing how it behaves in DCS compared to other missiles. I am reiterating the same point as previously stated. Most fourth-generation aircraft in DCS are equipped with internal jammers or pods that can jam even when not locked on. Whether this is realistic or not, I cannot say, but I am only discussing how it works within the DCS, which is known to be simplified in comparison to real-life. When the AWG-9 radar loses a track, it does not consider it to be "dead". In the case of the AIM-54C missile, it even goes active. The issue here is that when the target starts jamming, the AIM-54 should similarly go active (or switch to HoJ) as it would when losing a track in TWS, because in both cases the AWG-9 is losing the track. Currently, the missile is not behaving in this way. It may be realistic, but I want to be sure and would like Heatblur to look into this if they haven't done so already. I am aware that the P-STT mode does not guide Phoenix missiles. However, I am curious to know if the AWG-9 radar is able to provide at least heading and/or altitude information to the Phoenix before it is fired, thus providing it with a direction to follow even if it's active. This is simply a question and I do not intend to suggest that it should be implemented in this manner.

I tested the AIM-54 HoJ capacity, here is what i found: - Target doesn't JAM initially but JAMS after the AIM-54 is fired: -1) Missile fired in TWS: Missile gets an initial loft since the target is not jamming at the time, once the target starts jamming, the missile is trashed (it will try to get to the last known position of the target before it started jamming, but it will never go active). -2) Missile fired in PD-STT: Missile gets an initial loft since the target is not jamming at the time, once the target starts jamming, the missile goes in HOJ mode, keeping its initial loft and making path corrections using target jamming emissions and impacts target if within good parameters. - Target JAMS initially but stop JAMMING after the AIM-54 is fired: -1) Missile fired in STT-JAT: The missile does not launch with a loft (unless manually lofted) as it is unable to determine the range of the target. If a lock on the target's jamming emissions (STT-JAT) is not maintained, the missile tracks the jamming emissions passively. When the target stops jamming, the missile is unable to detect any emissions and becomes active (it does not make any course corrections until it detects the target at a maximum range of 10 nautical miles, which is the maximum detection range for the Phoenix missile in DCS). If the target begins jamming again, the missile will not regain a lock on the jamming emissions. If a lock on the target's jamming emissions is maintained, the missile can transition between HoJ and PD-STT depending on whether the target starts or stops jamming. PH Active / Norm doesn't matter when it comes to HoJ, the behaviour is the same: the missile will use target's jamming emissions to determine its trajectory. - RWR Behaviour of jamming target: Based on my personal testing in multiple multiplayer environments, utilizing both the F/A-18 and JF-17 aircraft, I have determined that the RWR behaviour is consistent between the two aircrafts. It is reasonable to assume that this behaviour would be similar for all fourth-generation aircraft. When locking the target in STT-JAT, it will get a lock warning like in P/D-STT. Once an AIM-54 missile is fired, the target will receive a missile launch warning, EVEN if the STT-JAT lock is no longer maintained and the AIM-54 seeker is passively tracking the target's emissions. Conclusion: It is possible to fire passive-tracking AIM-54 at jamming targets, but the use is extremely limited since the target will receive RWR warning of a missile launch and could just deactivate and reactivate the jammer to trash the missile. However, it's a particularly useful tool if you keep your STT-JAT / PD-STT lock since the PH will make transitions between HoJ and PD-STT automatically depending on whether the target is jamming or not, thus making you able to push jamming targets well beyond their jammer's burnthrough range, especially with manual lofting. TWS firing is weird, the PH doesn't get into any kind of HoJ if target starts jamming and is trashed directly when the target starts to jam, the missile doesn't even go active. I hope that the TWS issues will be fixed (unless that's realistic) and i would also have some questions about PH behaviour in P-STT: When firing in P-STT, the Phoenix isn't capable of being guided by the radar. However, i thought that it would receive at least target's heading/altitude. In my testing, it will just go active, and if it sees the target within its gimbal (and within 10nm), then it goes at it. If it doesn't, then it just continues the path is being fired on, even if the target is 30° on the left as an example. Is it a normal behaviour? I have another question. In my testing, the TgT Size Switch did not have any effects on the AIM-54C missile, which is consistent with what IronMike stated when the last major update for the AIM-54 was released. However, when flying the JF-17, I noticed that there is a TgT Size option that can be selected (large, small, or normal) which affects the range at which the SD-10 missile becomes active. This may be different for the AIM-54C variant? But in the case of the AIM-54A, the maximum range at which the missile could track a target is 10 nautical miles, and this is a limitation imposed by the API. However, the SD-10 missile can become active at a range of 13 nautical miles, and it can track targets at this range, not just become active. Can we expect a similar capability for the Phoenix missiles, specifically the A variant?

Hi, I know that a jester overhaul is planned, i would like to know if it would include a feature that makes Jester use Pulse Search in close / medium ranges (-35nm), please? It has a major use, especially when getting close against targets that are defending close to the ground and that are inside the MLC / ZDF. Currently, we can only use PAL at -15 nm, or wait in RWS / TWS and only get a STT lock when targets are out of those filters, or switch to the backseat (which is dangerous since iceman takes control of the aircraft and fly it level until new orders come from the backseat). I know that it can be hard to implement realistically; putting Jester at the same level as a human, without making him under/overperform in all conditions, is surely hard to code.

Hi, for instance you can add those keybinds from the RIO to the PILOT (copy past these in "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\F14\Input\F-14B-Pilot\keyboard\default.lua", i placed those additional keybinds just under ILS section, you can do the same if you want): --************************************* Additional keybinds ****************************************************************** {down = device_commands.TID_range_knob_step, cockpit_device_id=devices.TID, value_down = 1.0, name = _('TID range +'), category = _('TID')}, {down = device_commands.TID_range_knob_step, cockpit_device_id=devices.TID, value_down = -1.0, name = _('TID range -'), category = _('TID')}, Should look like this: Then you can map those keybinds in-game. Remember to always ask Jester a fixed TID Range before using those keybinds, otherwise, he'll change it by himself a few seconds after your inputs.

Thanks, it was an interesting read, i understand better why bombers can have such a low burn-through, especially with noise jamming it seems. I am still surprised that there are two ECM Burn-Through default values for fighters (dictated by ED like Naquaii said) and it seems unlikely to me that other devs proved that "A" jammer has better power input and integration than "B" jammer to ED thus having lower burn-through values, but i may be wrong. I just hope that we'll see better integration in the future, along with Chaff overhaul.

Some more numbers: Those comparisons were made using AI told to "ECM = Always Use" F-14 Burn-Through against jamming FIGHTER 1 (F16/F18/MiG-29/MiG-21/F-14): 29 nm F-14 Burn-Through against jamming FIGHTER 2 (F-15C/JF-17/Su-27/M-2000C): 23 nm F-14 Burn-Through against jamming TACTICAL BOMBER (Tu-95): 12 nm I just find it weird that a target as big and as old as a Tu-95 can jam the F-14, which was built to counter it, until 12 nm but i don't have any evidence to say the contrary and that's DCS. It's also interesting that F-15C's / M-2000C's internal jammer are more efficient than F-16's ECM POD and i can't see any reasons behind that.

I said "it seems", i didn't shout it as if it was a fact, no need to be aggressive there, and like i've said, it is only an issue if the AI goes into a split s then turns cold, it does not happen everytime, sometime the AI prefers to just flank/beam/Split S ... and in those cases, the 54C works great, like what's shown in your tacviews. And my apologies if i was misunderstood and for not giving a full tacview (the AI did not crash). Your tacviews are nice, but with all due respect, i think that those speed and altitudes are too optimistic for most flights (mach 1.2 at 46k ft is not easy to obtain). I did a few tries flying at Mach 1.05 40k FT against an ACE MiG-29S at 40k FT Mach 1.0, 70 nm: The Phoenix succeeds most of the time, the only time it didn't, was because the AI dragged it all the way down without trying to turn hot into me (as you can see in the tacview attached to this post). Having the possibility to use Target Size Switch (btw, thanks for the information, i didn't know that it wasn't functional anymore with the C) again with the 54C and a proper AI reaction to it would even more improve the effectiveness of the AIM-54, because as for instance that's the main issue i could find with the AIM-54 against AIs, that's what i meant since the beginning. That's just a pitty since the guidance is amazing now, as you can see in the tacview below, where the 54C is able to follow a downhill cranking F16 easily and even score an impact at 900 FT AGL. Anyway i know that it isn't only about HB, specially when talking about missiles and AIs, i hope that'll be done sometime and congrats for all the research you have done. drag2.acmi High-low.acmi

The main issue against AI seems to be their ability to see every missile at 10 nm, even if fired in TWS with TGT Size Switch in "Small". It results in good level AI (Veteran/Ace) being able to beat any incoming long range phoenix as long as they turn around and drag the missile, even when flying at 40k FT. As for example, 1 Phoenix fired at 42.5k FT Mach 0.90, TgT Size Switch Small, against a Veteran F16 flying at 40k FT Mach 1, 50 nm away. The Phoenix goes active at around 5.2 nm from the F16, but the latter begins to defend at 10 nm ! This results in the missile missing by 0.65 nm, thus making long range shots, even against "perfect" targets, low PK. It also happened with the older AIM-54, but the missile was able to reach its target anyway (if the latter was flying +30k FT) since the terminal velocity was higher. Do we know if ED works on that issue ? AI Drag.acmi

Is this with the new update ? It also seems like your engine is burning 30s instead of the new 20s. I tried with both Mk47 and Mk60 motors and the most i can obtain, shooting roughly at your parameters are Mach 3.75 at 66.7 k FT. Please correct me if i am wrong or if i misunderstood.

Thanks for all the hard work, looking forward to all the changes !

Hello, do you know when we can hope for a changelog about the AIM-54 changes coming in september please ? I am really excited to see if the AIM-54C Mk47 will become a better choice than the AIM-54A Mk60 !