UWBuRn

Just in case anyone step on this in the future, the issue has been fixed in 2.9.9.2280 update. Thanks!

Hey, thanks! Tested it right now, works great!

If includes Crimea would be one of the few terrains i would pay for. Completely unrelated to current events, i really miss Crimea from LOMAC days.

Any chance of at least having this confirmed by HB?

Reported.

I'm experiencing some strange (incosistent to my understanding) STT behavior when performing crank turns: I lock on the target, no matter the mode, i have seen this happening from TWS, RWS and PAL Usually i fire a missile (no matter if AIM-7 or AIM-54) I crank left or right, keeping the target near radar gimbal limit After some time, the target track is marked as "trashed" on the TDI (X over it) while lock is still mantained; this is already strange, as i think the X should only appear on TWS target, makes little sense to me in STT After some more time, another track appears on the line showing the antenna position; the old "ghost" track is still there and highlighted, the new one stays on the line As the time passes the offset between the two tracks increases, with the original one still there Sometime even the second track is x'd out and a third one appears This happen more the more aggressively you crank, staying nose on target doesn't let this happen All together, this behavior doesn't makes sense to me, STT should always display a single track. I tried to check some NATOPS for clues, but probably i don't have the one describing PDSTT behavior. This is confirmed by others as well, see: Attached there's a track with that happening twice on a single target. Here's some video, in case the track is not 100% accurate: server-20240623-155939.trk

Will post there asap.

If you look at my videos, the problem is not related to TWS at all. Locking up a target from TWS or RWS works as expected, the track is either correlated or the radar cleans everything up and start with a single track derivated from STT lock (i can't recall which is the actual behavior). The "ghost" track spawns when i'm already in STT for some time, and once it's there it stays, it's never correlated back (iirc tracks are never merged, even in TWS, if for some reason two tracks are generated from a contact one of them will be dropped after some time, but never merged). That seems definitely wrong to me.

I drafted a dead simple mission with a Su-33 (no ECM pods) just to rule out that could be an issue with missions designed with old versions, but happens there as well. The more you crank, the more easily it happens, if you flight straight to target, it tends to not happen.

Happens against other a/c as well. With no ECM i mean just no ECM pod on the F-4E, chaffs and flares are equipped. I've seen this happening regularly, more or less since Phoenix was overhauled, i just never had time and willingness to record this in detail before.

Took a break for a while from DCS, i went back to it and spun up the Tomcat for a flight, after some time not using it i wanted to see if there was some improvement or change. To my displeasure, i see that the radard still behave somewhat strange to me, just like it has been since the changes that reintroduced AIM-54C going active also in STT, IIRC. I looked into the forum to see if anybody else has mentioned this, but found nothing, so i would like to understand if it's just me finding STT to behave very strangely or not. To show that i recorded three videos of firing different missiles in STT: Videos are commented so it's easier to understand all of this by looking at them, bu basically: I'm flying against a single opponent (old AI F-4E, no ECM equipped) STT the target, fire on him After some time on the TID, the track is marked as trashed (X upon it), radar lock is still on After some more time, another track appears on the line showing the antenna position; the old "ghost" track is still there and highlighted, the new one stays on the bar As time passes the offset between the two tracks increases This seems odd to me in multiple ways: Why the track should be marked as trashed? Wasn't that only for TWS to indicate that the track was lost? Thy this does show while STT lock is still on? Can be the FCS trying to estimate that the missile is not going to hit the target? Still odd, as target weren't yet maneuvering Why the track splits? Doesn't make any sense to me... Why the tracks offset increases? It's like if the ghost track shows where the missile "thinks" the target is... I tried to use STT more, as TWS for maneuvering target is not very reliable and STT should be the go-to choice in thoose situations, but it seems to have its share of issues as well. This is on a clean install, latest version. Is anybody else experiencing this? @HeatBlur, is this expected? TBH, i'm not very happy about this, the Tomcat flies great and it's enjoyable in guns and SRMs fights, but as soon as you start its main ordnances it turns out to be rather frustrating. Part of it might be realistic, but some behaviors are rather hard to belive. I don't even think that the missions from original campaign are doable any more in this state. And FIVE years after its release this is rather disappointing.

If, as you say, this was requested by ED, than it's more on their side, but the point still stands: from an user point of view i can't really get the reason why incomplete changes (FM adjustments without guidance) are rolled out, especially on an hot topic like missiles (see what happened on AIM-120s few patches ago). Personally, flying mostly offline i care up to a certain point and for sure i'm not going to loose sleep about it, but yet i think some criticism is needed. I say what i'm saying knowing that in the end everything will just be better than before, that you will work hard to fix the guidance just like a lot of issues before this. And please know that i appreciate it, i know maintaining this kind of product in the long run it' not easy.

I've been taking a couple of shots in a DCS Liberation mission with 54C without loft being involved that showed very poor performance - no real test, just looked for a while at the missile in F6 and it had 500-600 kts lass than usual for that kind of shot while approaching target. Is guidance part of the problem? No doubt about it, but if that wasn't touched substantially then it's hard to believe it's the main culprit. Let's just say it's broken altogether... it just makes me raise an eyebrow on why those changes were rolled out in this state.

With all the respect for your competence and the work you're putting into it, it's hard to belive it's a guidance issue. Guidance was an issue also before, FM just seems to be off now. Btw, any news on moving to the new API?

I even searched, i must be blind...

I'm looking after the correct employment of external lights in different situations from startup to launch, launch to fence in, fence-out to recovery, recovery to shut down, etc. Is this described in any particular NATOPS? I (very) briefly looked at NAVAIR 00-80T-105 CV NATOPS MANUAL and NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1, there is some information, but i couldn't get a complete picture. Can someone point me in the right direction? A resume just like the one for flap/spoiler ops that @Victory205 wrote would be great.

Oh, thanks, missed it.

I tried looking for the failures, but i couldn't find anything related to engines. Were they left out of the update?

Happy to say Sparrows now sparrows works ok in all conditions (distance, target ECM, ACM cover) for all version (F, M, MH). The TID it's a nice and unexepected addition. Just tested briefly but so far the patch looks great! Tomorrow i will mess around with the failures and i also want to spam some Buffalo on some air-quake server, i wanna see if now that desyncs are ruled out something changes in the reaction of the average players or if they're just fine taking the 54s in their face! Thanks for all the effort you're putting into this!

I'm experiencing exactly the same as the OP, discovered this while trying to drop some CBUs at night trying to follow JTAC lase. I created a small track demonstrating it: the SPI is moved ONLY when i exit LSS and manually slew the TGP width the TDC. Honestly i don't know if it's the expected behavior, if it is it's just odd. Thanks. viper lss.trk

I can confirm Sparrows are still quite bugged. Tested against rookie AI Su-27 with and without ECM, always shooting around 18 nm. AIM-7F => ECM: no track - straight off the rail AIM-7F => No ECM: the bigger the distance the smaller the chances it tracks, over about 10 attempts just once tracked correctly at 18 nm, 16-17 nm it's more or less the limit for reliable shots AIM-7M => ECM: no track - only executes loft maneuver then goes straight AIM-7M => No ECM: ok but is lofting AIM-7MH => ECM: ok AIM-7MH => No ECM: ok Didn't test thoroughly ACM cover and flood mode, but for sure 7F don't track jamming targets even there. @IronMike thoose issues have been around for a long time now: are they being actively looked into or there's some blocker before them?

Here we go again... @Csgo GE oh yeah to cut it short, some of your points are valid, yet i think that most of the Tomcat aficionados here can present you a list of what they think it's not fair about other modules - for what it matters, because not everybody it's so interested in PvP. BUT... this is a report for an unconfirmed bug - maybe not even entirely on HB side, as the internals of the missiles API should be on ED side. You're just OT and ranting once again, take your time, open a topic in the appropriate forum section and bring your arguments about PvP balancing there.

Can somebody from HB say something about this? Strange behaviours from AIM-7s have been around for months...

IMHO it does VERY violently. AIM-120 doesn't behave that way, try to look at them in F6 view. Not that it changed in 2.7, it was the same before, but some tweaking is definetely needed. Moreso, more aggressive AI maneuvering and evasion made things worse.

I tested just briefly yesterday evening and it seemed to me that AIM-54 guidance performed worse than before, pulling extreme hard maneuvers and burning up all the energy. Comparing to some 120C there was a very different behavior, just like if they had a completely different FM or guidance. Take this just as something to try out, i looked at them from F6 view after several trashed shots, i didn't make any accurate testing and can be very well related to changes in the AI. On the bright side, internal engine sound in the A are a big improvement IMHO, there's still some kind of repeating pattern catching your ear but they are much better than before, and, at least in the ears of someone that never sitted in such a jet more enjoyable.