Strider21

Information on EA features will be available soon? Why the rush to open up pre-orders then? ED should only open up pre-orders when they are ready to provide information on what the product will entail.

Is this statement still true? [bolded text] The newsletter today only mentioned $14.99 as the discounted price.

Your example is contrary to how the fuel ladder in cyclic ops in calculated here (written by a couple hornet pilots): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gCUyoDQ-DGGBCFEOvgpER9L1w7hc0TT5/view In it the fuel on the bottom of ladder is not related to max trap but to tank state (as set by CAG) plus the fuel required for a set number of passes he requires. These numbers do not change with aircraft GW. The fuel ladder is very much about tracking your min fuel required plus a required fuel reserve. Max trap weight plays a factor but two aircraft of the same type on the same mission should have the same fuel ladder and it shouldn't change on the current aircraft payload.

Still doesn't max sense. I do think that max trap plays a role in calculating your fuel ladder but there must also be a caveat for a required fuel for a divert or hold time if operating blue water. What you are saying is that your fuel ladder changes pre and post strike. Which would lead to situations where you could be above your fuel ladder and therefore cruising around at .7 Mach drop you bombs and now suddenly you are below your fuel ladder because your fuel required at the ball just increased and therefore have to suddenly switch to max conserve. There is a piece of information missing in how Reflected has explained the fuel ladder. To be clear what I am saying is it doesn't make sense that you would need to hold a higher fuel reserve the lighter your aircraft weighs which is the implication in how it was explained in the video.

Do tell. An example of my point. If you follow Reflected's procedure and use his cycle times. You launch with a loadout of 2xAIM-9, 1xAIM-54, LANTRIN, 1xGBU-24 and 2x XT you get Max Trap with roughly 4600 lbs of Fuel. So your fuel ladder would be: 30 | 10.1 45 | 9.0 0700 | 7.9 15 | 6.8 30 | 5.7 45 | 4.6 Which means the min fuel you need to take off with is 10.1 and once you get below the fuel ladder you need to switch to max conserve. In this scenario you arrive at the ball with a min fuel of 4600 lbs or roughly 1.0 hrs of flying time at max conserve (not accounting for unusable fuel in the tanks). However if you launch with a clean jet with only two tanks you get Max Trap with roughly 9200 lbs of fuel. So your fuel ladder would be: 30 | 14.7 45 | 13.6 0700 | 12.5 15 | 11.4 30 | 10.3 45 | 9.2 Which means the min fuel you need to take off with is 14.1 and once you get below the fuel ladder you need to switch to max conserve. In this scenario you arrive at the ball with a min fuel of 9200 lbs or roughly 2.0 hrs of flying time at max conserve (not accounting for unusable fuel in the tanks). Why are you holding an additional hour fuel reserve because you are launching with a lighter payload? Why do you need to go max conserve 4600 lbs earlier?

Good video however your explanation of the fuel ladder where you add fuel to the ladder for ordnance dropped doesn't make sense. For example, if you launch on a mission with 2xGBU-10s, then drop them on the mission you add 4000 lbs to your fuel ladder? Or almost an hour flight time at max conserve? Which means you start flying at max conserve almost an hour earlier than if you didn't drop you the weapons? That doesn't make sense for mission planning ie you plan to land with close to two hours of fuel remaining? You are basically saying the less ordinance you have the morel fuel you hold in reserve. If you take off with just tanks you need to hold a larger fuel reserve than if you take off at max take-off weight?

Depending on the scenario you are trying to create the default Liberation loadouts need to be edited. For example, the default loadout for the F-14A CAP is 6x AIM-54. So if you fly against Iran you are going to face a bunch of Tomcats with 6 x AIM-54 which I don't find realistic especially if you are going for a 90s/00s US vs Iran scenario where Iran's AIM-54 inventory would be much depleted. For 1995 Russia, I would recommend you either swap out the Mig-29S for Mig-29As in faction ini or adjust to the Mig-29S loadouts (loadout ini) to be 4xR-73 and 2xR-27. This is what we are seeing the UAF flying on their Mig-29s which by and large date back to the late 80s early 90s. I think this would provide a more "realistic" opposition for the mid-90s F-14. IMHO

IRL the primary percentage threats the F-14A/B faced were the Mig-21, Mig-23, Mig-25, Mirage F1 and to a limited degree early variants of the Mig-29 and Su-27. Comparing the AIM-54 to the R-77 is not really a historical comparison. While the R-77 was developed in the 1980s/90s, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union it didn't enter service in any meaningful numbers until the mid-2000s. Through the 1980s the majority of Soviet fighters would be the Mig-21/23. Compared to the R-23 the AIM-54C offers a massive range advantage likewise against the R-27. The AIM-54 was retired in 2004 and the Tomcat in 2006. Also keep in the mind RWR performance (particularly of GEN III and early GEN IV REDFOR) does not match the historical record from the Iran/Iraq war. Many of the AIM-54A kills made by Iranian Tomcats were against targets that were unaware they were under attack and took no evasive maneuvers, whereas in DCS every AI fighter will have a perfect knowledge of an inbound missile and will evade into a perfect notch or defense within a second of the missile going active. This behavior has a huge impact of DCS missiles percentage kill leading to conclusions that the missile is performance is worse than reality (within the limits of what we know in the open source).

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).

Any update on the AI A-6 as part of the F-14 product?

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.

@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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

@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

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.

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.

@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

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.

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.

Fair enough. Again appreciate your feedback. I ran another 10 shots. Same conditions as before but firing at 15 NM. (AI ACE SU-30, CHAFF, but no weapons). 15 NM 5/10 or 50% That does seem clear that bringing the range down to 15 NM improves the C hit percentage. This performance is what I was seeing from 35 NM for the AIM-54C under the same conditions pre-patch. Admittedly I didn't test shots between 15 NM and 24 NM so perhaps this will hold up on longer ranges short of 25 NM. If you are using the AIM-54C you going to have to bring your ranges down somewhere between 40 - 60% to achieve similar results prior to the patch. (IMHO) Tacview-20220128-105314-DCS-AIM54C Test .zip.acmi

If you are trying isolate the root cause then I agree with you. I am just trying to highlight that IMHO in its current state the AIM-54C is not effective. The test were limited in scope and size but I feel they represent a "realistic" DCS game scenario a player might encounter. An end-to-end system test is usually done to validate the system as a whole against a representative threat to gain a understanding of overall system effectiveness. I have no idea if the changes to the FM are 100% responsible for the changes in system performance but at least from what I guess there seems to be more going on than just a change to the kinematic performance changes.