Ramius007

I reviewed tacview from fights, and 1.9M at 20k ft was no problem for J-20A with full weapon load and fuel, thrust vectoring affect manouvrablity, not acceleration or speed, and this look out of charts, beating 4th gen planes

Tried as adversary AI, and J-20A flight performance is very optimistic, same about RCS

We are talking about a bit better systems for even more speed loss, and Hornet C wasnt fast already, so I doubt it would be fun plane to fly, another issues is ttat red most modern assets currently are from 80's, if we not include few ships from Chinese Asset Pack

They are, but getting tone is harder than in platform that can slave aim-9 to radar, so overall performance in a2a will be worse, as it should be.

After latest patch kneeboard pages dont show waypoints data in MP, doesnt matter we use ED preplanned waypoints or markpoints on map, computer work fine, no nav error, but missing nav data pages. Also ATC/intercom sometimes cease to work for no reason, dunno it's just another ED ATC bug or something Viggen specific

Ok then, so current 60's era AIM-54A seeker being on par with 120C is correct as it is. I have nothing more to add.

Regarding Am-9B vs aim-9X, I m not questionning engagment aspect, I m questionning efficiency, if you have only data about aim-9b, how you can proof that aim-9X is better... I can be ridicolous too if youl ike this way better. Now siriously, of course module devs are supposed to work on data and facts, but We both know, that there are plenty of "balancing" taken into account. In grey area, when neither party can give evidence, and it's preety much with all new modern stuff, SD-10 is fine example. There is most likely no documenation about AIM-54A reliaibility in tracking hi speed low altidue threats, yet I m supprised, you want evidence from Me, and not from HB, given fact that DCS AIM-54A radar is more capable in this than DCS F-4 Phantom radar. If I bring you history of AIM-54A kills, and none of them were against target at lower altidue, then would it be evidence for you, or still not? Logically. it wouldnt be proof, that missile cant track low flying objects, right.. btw, where is your PRROF for use of scientific approach by HB or ED, it's your belief, supported by statments, not proven data or fact, and definitely not by You. If really everything in DCS, would be based on data and facts, we would never had so many changesin performance in most modules over years, sometimes those changes were drastic, so talking about facts and data is... sorry, just childish

Can you bring evidence that Aim-9x track better than aim-9b?

I know there is diffrence betwean what you can model, and what can be modelled within current DCS engine, I remember ambitious plans for Viggen radios, or more in depth simulated IFF attempts from HB or RB, but at this point I dont even see comments from other members or HB team regarding those tacview links, that would admit or deny, that current terminal phase of Aim-54A is too good. I know from the past, that HB was going around DCS shortcomings to bring more realisytic battlefield performance, I remember Viggen ASM's warhead get buffed to overcome ship damage model, IMHO same should be applied to AIM-54A is some way, but I dont even know, if anybody from ED or HB agree about missile overperforming, and it's a starting point. Simply solution would be limiting ECCM value

I m not questioning here AWG-9 radar moddeling or AWG-9 mid course guidance, or AIM-54A kinematics, I m not even question missile reliability in situations it should hit, that is very hi ATM, but I m questioning AIM-54A terminal phase guidance using missile onboard radar. If nobody here is going to agree, that AIM-54A onboard radar shouldnt have better tracking capability against low flying objects, than airborne radars of 3rd gen fighters made by US, then we cant make any kind of agreement. Here are some small tacview links attached Tacview-strange relock HOJ maybe-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-target below and hill inside radar cone,still tracking-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-tracking against below target DCS-aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-tracking outside gimbal limit1 DCS-aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-tracking within uncertain awg-9 gimbal DCS-aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-excellent CM resistance-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-no AWG-9 gimbal lock tracking lower target-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-no AWG-9 gimbal lock, but tracking-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-CM resistance-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-CM resistance-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi There are 2 more that look like a fuze bug, and strange miss, of topic Tacview-2nd aim-54A fuze bug-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi Tacview-strange aim-54 miss-DCS-mig-29s vs aim-54a.zip.acmi

It's not just word vs word, We have data or evidence, about 60's or 70's missile technology deviciencies, especially radars struggling vs low alitidue contacts, current AIM-54A tracks perfectly on tree line, targets that are moving mach 1.2 or more, early Harpoon missiles were struggling with picking ship saized targets during pop up attacks, yet our AIM-54A can hit helicopter behind trees. You are right, there will be people who say, missile is underperforming, but it's nature of DCS community that see literally EVERY own weapon underperforming, and every AI asset/weapon overperforming, and AI being omnipotent, it's know psychological phenomena, but from video game of DCS status, I except a bit more than kneeeling to general population expectatinos, and buffing 60's era missiles to level amraam for ill timed balancing or just lack or just lack of dedicated A version moddeling. Currently AIM-54A is a missile only some nerds like Me care, as SP, PVE or modern PVP it's completely irrelevant, Aim-54A was out of stock for post Desert Storm Tomcat we have in DCS, so everybody just take C model, but AFAIK, you guys plan to make older Tomcat version, and A variant will not be availble, and having aim-54A behaving in appropriate to 70's tech level stds usefull, this would be also in HB interest to make missiel behave appropriate to allow servers to include said missile to Tomcat inventroy. If aim-54A would perform IRL, like it's perfrming in DCS, there would be no need for US, to develop any more advanced missile, Aim-54A have it all, it's aim-120 in aim-54A body currently, seems like stats in game files never changed, so ECCM is better than 80's era Sparrows or 530d. And yes, I know that fox 3 works diffrent, but given simplified DCS moddeling of ECM/chaffs, it's on HB, and not on ED to make enviroment where missile performance is not of XXI centaury missiles std. In next posts I include like dozen of short tacview links as a proof how missile is performing for people to judge, just 1vs1 BVR situations against AI at lowish altidues

I found post from 2021, and that AIM-54A had better ECCM than Sparrow M, did you guys needed "help" from ED too for doing this? AIM-54A currently tracks perfecty, is near impossible to notch, like amraam, chaff have 0 effect, ecm have 0 effect. Do you guys "feel" it's realistic performance of 60's era missile? ECCM factor is in ED hands? I also dont care said missile is banned on some server for balance or not, it's 1 server, nobodoy cares, but this fact alone, triggered me to look closer, just as possible future user of Tomcat, and with high degree of certainity, doing tests vs AI with aim-54A, i can say that seekers of C and A behave in a same way, and as long, as we dont have hard coded documentation about missile guidance, and histories of kills, it's impossilbe to base our assumpations on anytihng else, but "feelings", and I doubt, you guys have data confirming IRL, what I see in tacview fighting against AIM-54A is real. IMHO it's just BS. I can flood forum with dozens of tacview files as confirmation, but at the end, it's your word, against mine, guess forum users can be curious about those tracks

If I provide tacview files with Phoenix A, not going after chaffs in terminal phase vs fighter sized target, will this count as evidence of missile overperforming?

I didnt read initial IronMike post, still, even fox-3 missile effectivness depends on quality of TWS radar "lock" quality, and currently it seems, that in similar enviroment aim-54A=aim-54C, and I m finding this highly unrealistic, given how big gap we could see in missile technology betwean time when Aim-54 was developed (60's) and time when AIM-54C entered service, that was mid 80's. Like already said, we dont have data on aim-54C effectivness IRL, but we have data on missile effectivness during Vietnam war, compered to Desert Storm. I understand that TWS could underperform before changes, but It doesnt mean that current missile relation with radar, like target position update for missile, immunity to ECM, give expected combat performance. Also nobody from team answered, if missile was tested internally after changes, and this was My question to HB, becouse I doubt playes did tests themselves.

So you are now saying, that HB didnt made any tests, how Aim-54A behave now, compered to previous seeker, and you ask for feedback/data, or you actully did tests, and Team thinks it's just correct as it is? IMHO, buffing Aim-54 A gives you nothing, missile is dead outside maybe 1 popular pvp server, and buffing to a state, where common opinion is, "it's just some HB BS" leading to server removing missille from inventory, doesnt make any good to You. I know it's easy for both clients and 3rd party devs drop all responsibility for parts of game, where ED is responsible, in that case it's ECM, but it' not like this, it's up to developer to model seeker in a way, it's behavior is somewhat realistic inside current level of simulation of DCS World, 3rd party devs are not living in a bubble.

Su-20 and Mig-27 had similar weapon options, but obviously Su-24 is more capable, also had 80's INS guided cruise missiles, but without GPS nav, would add something new to current roster.

DCS jammers are 2 realms rn, one are FF modules, that are, as you said mostly DECM, and HOJ iis not effective against them, and other are FC jammers, where HOJ is crazy effective, but as already said, sorting ECM influance on missile seekers is on ED, I also agree Aim-54 kinematics is well made, issue I see is, that despite better system moddeling, we ironically, get less realistic combat performance, and in the past HB was rather following letter, just mind you about RB-15 and RB-04 dmg model, to override bad ship dmg moddeling.

We may have here endless debate here about many things in DCS vs how they compere to real live, and HOJ is one of them, but it's not the point, my point is that if only 1 server was allowing aim-54A in 80's pvp setup, and after changes, mods of those server had to limit aim-54A to 1, despite having Tomcat for years, and all those guys of said server have more hours in DCS, than I ever get in all video game in my entrire life. Pvp is minority community, but at the same time, this minority, given nature of pvp is also most insightfull for how things work, spending more hours in tacview than more casual palyers, and IMHO, it's more important than guesses, how HOJ mode WOULD work vs ADVANCED 4th gen airframes with much more mdern ECM. Prior, in pvp setup aim-54A was considered unreliable and hi skill weapon against modern jets, but still forced opposition to flying in more cautios way, yet good pilots was making kills with one, also missile acted like a "scrub filter" vs those who didnt adjusted to Phoenix with tactics you mention, issue is, that currently said tactic not work, and we are talking about system that remember mentioned by me Sa-2 and Sa-3. I have a feeling or estimation, if you dont like this word, that come from history of HB products, that HB fall to laud pve majority crawd that see EVERY opfor SAM, AAA, enemy plane as overperfroming, and EVERY weapon used on own module as underperforming, those are my 2cents

I would love, if you could elaborate... but if not and your age or intellectual properiites not allow this, at least I try I dont own Tomcat, but I'm thinknig about getting one, and sadly I cant share like dozen of tacview links with old aim-54A performance in 80's pvp setup, but my wild guess, based on tens of hours fighting along or against Tomcat, made me think, that missile was modelled decently for like last year of my experiance with Tomcats, it's also based on results I found in my SP scenarios where I fielded AI Tomcats against AI in mentioned by me old planes, it was performing well. Now if I see aim-54A getting kills against ECM equipped 80's Flankers or M2k, it doesnt feel right, similalry, if it would doesnt feel right to see Vipers or Hornets dying to Sa-2 or Sa-3, despite manouvering, chaffing and use of ECM, we have this kind of info based combat history, sadly we dont have combat history about Aim-54A against 4th gen planes, but I think most people agree with me, that currenty missile is overperforming vs threats that were designed 1 or 2 decades after old Aim-54

Aim-54A is most likely overperforming compered to reality after last patch, I know people throw at me Phoenix effectivness during Iraq-Iran war, but keep in mind, that except F-1, nothing what Iraq used had ECM pods, mig's 17/19/21/23 su-25's, now in DCS 80's reality, 4th gen fighters with modern ECM are inefecctibe against 60's designed missile, I dont think previous Aim-54 was perfect, and occasional misses against chaffing tankers looked funny, but what we have now is much worse, I understand that Aim-54C with upgraded ECCM from mid 80's was most likely good missile, but AIM-54A was just antique, that was proven murdering other antiques (2nd and 3rd gen planes) and it's what we had in DCS pre last patch

An If you take a look at number of user missions created for Mig-29 and A-10A, even for new maps, you find they are very close to Eagle and Flankers. Mentioned earlier low number of posts on forum about Fulcrum, rather suggest, there were no issues with this module over time, while in the past, and currently we had little wars over things that were broken in Flanker and Eagle. Same can be said about some FF modules, feature nearly complete and bugs free, dont get people attention on forum that much, but amount of content availble, for each module is real measure of popularity.

I would start with improving current SH-3 and SH-60 models, there are nice mods lying around that provide this, and as mentioned, we need more than just new DCS naval helicopter, like waves and ships moving in ALL directions on water, we need ship-heli comms simulated, then a bit more naval weapons, more ships, and with all thist, we may start thinknig about adding playable module

Issue is not about delivering 9.12, but about delivering only 9.12, without at least 1 version that get MLU, I would love if Fulcrum get same treatment as Hornet or Viper, that have their 2000's upgrades included in game. Of couse, alternative would be current Mig-29C from FC, as another FF variant

thx 4 info, RAM upgrade may be a thing, if GPU is not bottlenecking

I tried version 3 of Grinelli F-22 without "enhancments", and IR signature is lower than those of small helicopter, that are already artificially buffed by ED, is this intentional by mod developer, or rather bug, it's hard to belive that F-22 in hi altidue and afterburner is invinsible for Flanker EO sensor