Biggus

That's a really informative response. Thanks @Naquaii.

I know it's not going to be exactly the same (or perhaps even enough information about the inner workings), but the F-4B/N/J Tactical Manual has quite a bit of detail about how it appeared to work in the Phantom, if you'd find this useful (and don't already have a copy of it) @IronMike.

I think I'm gradually getting my head around it after a couple of dozen passes now, but I'd love someone to show us some technique with the input window on screen. I'd also really like to get a run-down on what we can do to make the burble stronger or weaker in the mission editor.

Well done, guys. Looking forward to angrily swearing at the carrier, the wires, the LSO, the deck crew and the poor unfortunate people who wander into my study over the coming days and weeks.

I very much doubt it's an omission. It's the compromise from prior behavior. There have been many bug reports over the years and ED have said repeatedly that it was a non-issue. And it certainly was a non-issue with the old short legged 120s. The behavior was that at 50% of a missile's maximum range, the AI would maneuver and deploy chaff in order to defend a "possible" inbound shot. They would only do that if a missile had been fired, but with the older 120 behavior by the time that 50% distance was reached, you were nearly within visual range anyway and some maneuvering would be expected. The 54 made the problem more obvious to people flying the Tomcat, but it wasn't until around the time that ED started tuning chaff resistance that they seem to have started to accept the idea that maybe there is an issue after all. I'd expect that there will probably be some more tuning to this behavior but this is probably intentional.

Prior to the latest hotfix patch I was still seeing psychic chaff deployment, and I haven't looked seriously at the current patch. I doubt it has changed, though.

I can't see a way to map it, but I know some people are pretty good at editing the input luas. Hopefully it'll be possible, because I'd like to be able to do that too.

If anyone isn't aware of it, there's a scratchpad mod that passes IC. It's just a text box that you can add text to. I use it quite a bit. You can find it here.

Seeing similar behavior here. They porpoise along their path, generally impacting terrain before they reach their target.

Is the existence of MWS relevant to the discussion if every AI aircraft type behaves in the way described? This psychic AI behavior has been reported a few times before now, and each time the answer has been 'working as intended'. Given the range of the average 120C shot, it probably wasn't that big a deal a couple of years ago. But launching a 54C at 50nm in TWS and then seeing the AI dump chaff as the missile literally leaves the rail is quite infuriating. Within the current implementation of the AI though, I can't see this improving.

I'll buy them all at full price, including the recon birds. I think picking a couple of core models and building modules around them, with a couple of optional extra upgrade models is probably a good idea. An early E main module with a late E or an Arnie bird for an additional fee, for example. A J model, with an S and a J(UK) and possibly even a Super J. C/D module, with some of the later upgrades that some of the Ds got. That sort of thing.

It's kind of tangental to this problem though. It's related, but it's been like that for a long, long time. I probably spoke too conclusively with my 'negative' reply, but from what I have seen, they'll only dump chaff if I have fired in TWS. Not a moment before. They will hold their countermeasures if I hold my shot, down to 25nm if not a hair closer. By that time, the AI tends to become more offensive and I haven't really looked too closely at what happens at that point beyond noting that most of my TWS shots at that range in this patch miss. But this has been happening for a long time and yet it's only the last few weeks that I've been experiencing the problem.

Negative.

Just did a few quick and dirty tests relating to altering target size. My initial impression was that it didn't make any difference which target size I selected, and I was right for the wrong reasons. The behavior I am seeing is that the AI will begin maneuvering at 18-19nm regardless of what target size I select. I thought that this meant that the missiles were going active far earlier than they should. However it soon became clear to me that the missiles certainly were going active at different distances, although those distances did not match up with the manual. Large was close to 15nm and small roughly 9nm. Chalking it up to WIP. The end result is still unchanged though. AI at every instance begins to react as if they've visually spotted the M3.5 incoming missile and begins to maneuver aggressively before their RWR gets a warning. Like I've probably said a few times now, this is nothing new despite being absolutely game breaking. @Callsign JoNay and I initially began discussing this because our results did not match in any way, shape or form in the last patch. I was getting his with the vast majority of my shots in the attached mission. He struggled to make hits just as badly as he is now. We went through every step taken from spawning to completion. At the time, watching his Tacviews and comparing them to mine, his AI appeared to react somewhat more aggressively. We'd reached a point where the only real difference could be hardware or the patching process might be skipping over some files related to AI behavior. Now my PK is as bad as his was.

This nearly matched my experience until the current patch, and the differences are probably due to the scenario I'm testing with being over water against contacts with a reasonably large RCS. I very rarely dropped a trackfile due to chaff. This behavior is unchanged for me. The AI psychic deployment of chaff upon a missile leaving my rail in TWS is abysmal and I don't believe that ED really have any desire to change that behavior based upon previous bug reports, because from their point of view, any pilot seeing nails from an AMRAAM platform is going to take steps to mitigate risk of potential incoming missiles. But for the Tomcat in my experience, the AWG-9 seems to be pretty reasonable at rejecting chaff. The problem for me is that there's some combination of factors in play once the missiles go active. It could be chaff. It could be ECM. It could be bandit maneuver. It could be the radar not providing sufficient guidance. It could be the missiles going active too early (18nm on large targets doesn't match the documentation in the manual). It could be a combination of all of those things. I know that the -120 is a bit buggy at the moment too, it could well be related.

Awesome, keen to hear your feedback. I've added some Tacview files to show some average examples of employment with the older OB vs the current one. The older files were from the 9th of Feb and the new ones were from earlier today. I've shared the mission with @Callsign JoNay and we've been chatting about our experiences for a week or two now after I mentioned in another thread that I was not having any difficulties with the 54C at that time. In this same mission in the older patch, he was struggling to hit the bandits even if he followed every step I performed. Upon spawning and unpausing the mission, I set AP alt hold to on, engaged full burner and began to set up my weapons systems. Set TID to radar, master arm on, select PH. Command Jester to open radar settings menu and set to auto radar, and then again into that menu to set target size to large (I'm not sure this makes any difference in the current patch, but the prior patch it seemed to). Jester will designate the bandits as you'd expect and from that point we've tried a variety of tactics from holding co-alt, dumping the tanks and getting as fast as possible, to climbing, to diving post-firing. It's over water and the contacts are hot, so there are very rarely any dropped tracks. Maybe 10% of tracks will drop following a missile launch. Phoenix oldpatch3.acmi Phoenix-oldpatch.acmi Phoenix newpatch.acmi Phoenix newpatch2.acmi Phoenix newpatch3.acmi Phoenix oldpatch2.acmi Phoenix1v4.miz

I've got a basic mission set up where I engage a group of four ace level Su-33s head on starting roughly 100nm apart, co-alt at 30,000ft. Prior to 2.5.6.61527, I would regularly manage to knock down more than two thirds of them on average. Sometimes it was 4/4, most of the time it was 3/4 and sometimes it was 2/4. I'd typically fire between 35 and 50nm. Today in the current OB, I'm getting close to 25%. No changes in technique or strategy. AI still pumps out chaff as soon as I fire in TWS, and begins to maneuver around 18nm from the -54C. Setting AI to 0 chaff hasn't yet shown to change my hit percentage. Setting AI from ace to rookie likewise seems to do nothing. It's almost like the missiles are running out of energy a bit quicker.

This is really, really hard to answer. The Tomcat is the more complete module. It's not perfect. It's subject to bugs that last extended periods because ED makes unannounced changes that impact it (see the 'delayed flight weight increase' bug for example), Jester can be painful to use until you learn how to manage him and how he uses the radar and it's a little more limited in terms of air-to-ground stuff. The Viper is relatively modern and fairly simple to use once you learn the systems, but carries two fewer missiles and the comparative load of countermeasures is very low. It's an absolute rocket ship but is hamstrung by it's low fuel load to a degree. Both are superficially simple. But they're deeply complex and will both take a fair bit of time to learn how to use them effectively. Sure, Jester is going to mostly manage your radar but you are going to need to learn how the radar works in order to use him properly. Nearly every criticism of Jester by new Tomcat pilots is misplaced and it's the limitations of the AWG-9 that they blame him for. In the Viper, you'll need to work the radar yourself and you'll face some pretty similar limitations but with an added layer of signals processing that will make it pretty simple to use. The Viper is easier to fly due to it's FBW nature. You can really abuse it and it will probably not bite you very hard. The Tomcat, you pull too hard at the wrong time and your wings are going to break off the plane. But it's super communicative if you're attentive enough to the buffeting and creaking sounds. In terms of practically employing them as BVR platforms, I find the Tomcat far more survivable. I am probably more confident in a knife-fight in the Tomcat, too. But I am not as experienced in the Viper and this is probably my own limitation. There's something to be said for launching a Phoenix at 45nm on a slow moving but still hot bandit and having a decent chance at hitting it. On the other hand, assuming I survive long enough to be Winchester, I find it much faster to refuel and rearm the Viper than the Tomcat. I hope this helps. I'd really lean towards the Tomcat if BVR is your thing.

Thanks for the suggestions, folks. I'd still like to see this option in the controls setup at some point though.

I can't vote for either option without more information, and I understand the reasons why there's no further information forthcoming to enable me to make my choice. If there's substantiated evidence that even a handful of our block and year of Viper were wired for four 88s, then I'd like to see the option to use that loadout. If the evidence is not conclusive, then I'd be inclined to leave it with the pair of 88s.

One thing that I've been able to do with the Tomcat but don't seem to be able to do with the Viper is to transmit radio calls without bringing up the communications menu. Flying online and using SRS, it's a little annoying to have to deal with the menu suddenly taking over the function keys and making the menu disappear again means keying the mic switch. I would just unbind those keybinds however I still need to be able to talk to AI assets like tankers. Unless there's already an option to do this that I haven't found?

Seems to be fixed with the new open beta. Well done, guys.

This really deserves some consideration. I think it's a good idea.

Tonight's track and crash log. Human RIO, AIM-54C launched in TWS at a bit under 20nm. Crash occurred just before or at impact on Su-25T. dcs.log

Hoggit record and upload their tacviews, btw.