Jump to content

Strider21

Members
  • Posts

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Strider21

  • Birthday 06/29/1978

Recent Profile Visitors

3313 profile views
  1. I think we all get timelines change due to unforeseen circumstances but HB had indicated that the F-14 would be out of access in March 2021 which included the AI A-6 and the two campaigns. We are now a over a year later. I can't speak for others, but I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for a simple update from HB on where it sits. Something like: "we plan to release it the next patch, we plan to release it Q2 2022 or we are working on it but don't think it will be released in 2022". Not sure if it is deliberate but HB haven't answered any questions on the state of the AI A-6 for a number of months. The lack of information/updates becomes worrisome particularly when HB has also said they have recently hired/onboarded a larger team and we should be shortly start seeing the fruits of the larger team (paraphrase).
  2. Any update on the AI A-6 as part of the F-14 product?
  3. Not to beat a dead horse but I haven't seen any recent updates on the AI A-6. Is there any update to when the AI A-6E and KA-6D might be released? Thank you.
  4. @IronMike @Cobra847 Any update on two items mentioned back in 2018? 1. Heatblur Forge "also as part of forge we are introducing our new dynamic cockpit system" (Pre-Order/Gameplay Reveal Trailer (Oct 2018)) 2. A-6 AI (Shoulder to Shoulder - A-6E AI for DCS World (Sept 2018). This was also mentioned last year May 2021 in the Heatblur Public Roadmap as the one of the "last remaining feature/content for the F-14" Both of items are coming up to four years since their announcement. Thank you for your engagement and dedication to the community.
  5. near perfect AI notches that lead to hits: In all the misses the notch is not perfectly 90 deg but they miss rate is still drastically increased. I feel this isn't convincing you so with that I will lay it to rest.
  6. Here another 10 shots. First 5 at 40 NM 35K 0.98, crank at launch and skate at pitbull. The missiles went 1/5. This is what the four missies look like. All the same missile passes in front and above. Missile at Pitbull: Missile taking lead in response to the BANDIT: At this point it looks like the lead it is taking puts the target outside of the missile seeker FOV. Point at which the missile goes straight the target definitely appears outside of the missile seek FOV. I then did 5 shots at 25 NM at 35k MACH 0.98 and they went 5/5 hits. This basically what all the hits from 25 NM look like, missile at pitbull: End game of a hit. The Target looks to be in a near perfect NOTCH but the missile takes good lead and hits: Comparing the 25 NM hits to the 40 NM misses it looks like in the 25 NM shots the bandit is in better NOTCH but the hit ratio is drastically better. @IronMike I know I am beating a dead horse but to me the consistent misses where the missiles pass ahead look more like guidance bug than a successful AI notch. TACVIEW attached for critique. Tacview-20220218-071303-DCS-AIM54C Test .zip.acmi
  7. Thank you for you response and examples. Prior to the CFD update and HOTFIX for guidance when the missile was Notch'd it would go straight and level and pass behind the bandit. It now consistently passes in front of the bandit while pulling lead. Is this part of the guidance update? So 30 NM is not a good range? Further out where should I be firing and closer in where should I be firing? How do you figure out the range to fire at various speeds and altitudes?
  8. I should have mentioned these were shots were tests to specifically look at the performance. I didn't crank to limit the change that TWS would loose lock. Either way crank or not should not have changed the terminal homing which seems to be the issue in these shots. Likewise the first 3 shots were done in level flight, the next 6 were done with a 30 deg pitch. A friend had asked whether doing a 30 deg pitch improved performance. Based on the terminal energy being nearly the same when fired in level flight and with a pitch up I don't think it makes a difference. The level launch shots had the same issues as the 30 deg pitch up. That is the missile takes a huge lead and passes in front of the target. . If you look at the terminal maneuver by the AIM-54s that they are pulling 15-18g with plenty of energy MACH 2+ but pass in front of the target.
  9. Care to explain what exactly I am doing wrong here? 2/9 Firing at 30 NNM 35000' MACH 0.98. All 7 misses AMI-54 had plenty of energy and pull G but passed in front and above of the target. Tacview-20220216-144458-DCS-AIM54C Test .zip.acmi
  10. @IronMike Always appreciate your willingness to engage with the community. Having looked at the tweaks to the AIM-54 models it definitely appears from a FM perspective that the AIM-54 is more or less matching the CFD study and matches the known test shots from 1972. The question I have is with guidance. I am seeing a lot scenarios/engagements where the missile appears to have enough energy to connect but does weird guidance. In this case it seems to take more lead that required and will often pass in front and above of the target. Of course, I have no idea if this is realistic or expected behavior but I was wondering if you have any thoughts. Here is a sequence of 9 shots taken at roughly 35K/0.95 MACH at 30 NM against an AI SU-30. 2/9 HIT and 7 passed ahead and over the target. In the past CHAFF interaction was seen as the missile would latch onto the chaff and pass behind the target. Any thoughts on what we are seeing? The target had no ECM in this scenario. Shot 2/9 AIM-54A Mk60 passes ahead and above target: Shot 3/9 AIM-54A Mk60 passes ahead and above the target: Shot 4/9 AIM-54A Mk60 passes ahead and above the target: Shot 5/9: Shot 6/9: Shot 7/9: Shot 9/9: Tacview-20220216-144458-DCS-AIM54C Test .zip.acmi
  11. Sorry you are correct. It wasn't flown that precise and I think it should be a vertical dive and pull out on the same heading. The profile as flown with the heading change was probably more challenging than the 1972 test shot but the AIM54 still seemed to hit consistently.
  12. Not following you. I did fly the test with human in the F-86. The TACVIEW is attached. The exact g pulled in the vertical dive wasn't 100% exact but it was flown more less as described. Of six shots five were hits. Test was flown with a human F-14 and human F-86 target. The target profile was more or less as per the description in the book.
  13. @IronMike In the CFD White paper it references four known shots. The source for these shots is cited as: An Outsider’s View Of The Phoenix/AWG-9 Weapon System, Stephen Thornton Long, Naval Postgraduate School, March 1977 I cannot find that specific paper online but it seems to be referenced in other books. Is it possible to post it for review? In the book Modern Fighting Aircraft, F-14, Salamander Books, 1985, it seems to reference the same test shots and similarly describes High Altitude Intercept, Sea Skim Intercept, Max Range Intercept and Multi-target Intercept. I assume the source of these descriptions of these shots is the same because they are described with a fair amount of detail. (target type, firing parameters (speed, alt range) and target conditions (speed, alt and any maneuvers). One shot that is described in the book but isn't mentioned in the White Paper is described as "Phoenix Maneuvering Trial". The shot is reported to have occurred in 1972 and was a F-14 at 10'000 ft, 0.75 MACH and a AIM-54 fired at 9.5nm against a QF-86 at 15300 ft, 0.8 Mach. Four seconds after launch the QF-86 pulls a 5g vertical dive roll with a 6g pull out at 9100 ft. With a friend we quickly approximated these test conditions and can confirm that the AIM-54A Mk47 largely performed as reported. The conditions weren't exactly flown but out of 6 shots there were 5 hits. The one miss was when the QF-86 turned cold in the split-S which doesn't seem to be what was flown in the test shot. The TACVIEW is attached. Is this one of the test shots you compared the CFD update against? because the performance appears to match. The only discrepency seems that in the test shot the AIM-54 pulled 16g to perform the intercept but in the TACVIEW the 54s only pull about 7-9g. Tacview-20220215-122349-DCS-QF86 Test.zip.acmi
  14. In the HB AIM-54 Simulation "White Paper", four known shots are referenced: High Altitude Intercept, Sea Skim Intercept, Maximum Range Intercept and Multi-Target Intercept. The source for these shots is cited as: An Outsider’s View Of The Phoenix/AWG-9 Weapon System, Stephen Thornton Long, Naval Postgraduate School, March 1977 Is this paper available to view online anywhere? I cannot seem to find it but it seems it would be interesting to review. Having looked through a couple of F-14 books it appears those 4 shots are described similarly. For example, they are described in the 1985 book: "Modern Fighting Aircraft F-14" and details specifically about the target drones and RCS augmentation used. Searching online the only reference I can find is from an old NPS review: "Recent Naval Post Graduate School Publications June 1978". https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA060891/page/n1/mode/2up It appears that the HB reference is incorrectly cited as the author in the above document appears to be P.C.C. Wang with Long as contributor.
  15. I think this is a reasonable take but for the AIM-54C you need to cut your timeline by 40 - 60% shots there were doable at 35 NM now need to be done a 15 - 20 NM.
×
×
  • Create New...