UWBuRn

What is the expected behaviour for a 54C fired in SARH mode when the lock is lost? Should it steer in some direction or just go straight? I just fired a 54C on a PvE server (that's why i have no track or ACMI) in PDSTT at 25 miles, lost lock, couldn't reaquire, started looking at the missile, it was more or less following the bandit with a 1.6G turn, then it did some left right "wobbling" and then lost the lock and went straight: i had the impression it went pitbull and then went after some chaffs. I was expecting the missile just to go straight unless the lock could be reacquired. I also have the impression that AIM-7 (used M version) are still somewhat off, on two occasion i fired at around 12 miles and they just went straight. On the bright side, TTI is working fine and it's very helpful in engagements.

Thanks for the explanition, it confirms more or less what i was thinking of. ;)

Can you point me out the most critical points to keep stable locks, in your experience? I admit i fly mostly in the front seat, leaving Jester playing with the radar, but when i tried it by myself i found out there's not much you can do when you have missiles in the air, it's mostly how you fly the aircraft in relation to target. Did i miss something big? Then there's another question that i have over my mind, in relation to missile effectivness: the distance of the receiver antenna (the missile) does affect chaff effectivness? I mean both IRL and DCS, because i guess that at some distances and aspects the chaff cloud can confuse the missile seeker more easily than others, i'm courious to know if in DCS some of this is modelled or if it's just like throwing a dice.

If you really ask me, AWG-9 it's disappointing many times, i asked a lot of times how much this is accurate or not (i even PMed IronMike) but i didn't got any answer. Reading "thorugh the lines" of other answers in other topics here and there, they say the limitations are accurate, yet there are a few conditions that are somewhat hard to belive. Honestly (look at my registration date), i witnessed ages when missiles behaviour has been much worse than now: yet i know it's frustrating, you do things right and then things completely out of your control (ghost contacts, PDSTT lost lock, weak missile guidance, questionable chaff resistance) screw you up. Personally i would prefer the WCS/missile combination to be more on the overperforming side to concentrate on the tactical aspects - not just for the Tomcat, i mean for every a/c.

Well, the latest missile changes (complete or not that they are) made missile more reliant on support from the launching platform - as it should be. With the current Jester/AWG-9 combination it's rather easy having issues with TWS or losing PDSTT lock, hence trashing missiles. Yesterday i've been surprised to find out that TWS-A "seems" (as i'm testing with AI, so lot of quirks involved) to perform better against target far away. My typical testing ground is firing at two Veteran MiG-29S at around 30-35 nm angels 20, this ends up almost always with ghost contacts in TWS-A, with missiles trashed. Yesterday i tried engaging them at 50 nm, and, to my surprise, TWS tracks were more stable, with less ghost contacts and with quite a few missile scoring (A Mk60). Overall, up to a certain range, i would say 40-45 miles, the Tomcat-Phoenix combination it's quite effective, punishing unreacting bandits or keeping pressure over them allowing you to keep the initiative. Below 15 miles you have PAL, you tend to go straight in STT and active off the rail or not, Phoenix are rather deadly as it will have a lot of energy. In the middle between 40 miles and 15 miles you are on the weak side, with TWS more prone to screw up, less time to react, high risk of losing of losing PDSTT lock: unfortunately, given the effective range of the AIM-54 it's were you are willing to fire most of the times against fighters.

There were sevaral sub-versions of the C, i should look again after some interesting read i found somewhere (maybe Quora, so, not 100% reliable but was well argumented): IIRC only the latest one (that was field reprogrammable) had sensible improvement for fighter engagements. Some source states that as the explosive charge was big, on some version this was exploited (fragmentation?) obtaining some kind of "shotgun" effect for targets within 200 feets (but it seems exaggerated to me).

Yeah, that's exactly what i taught of. As said, to me it's a decent compromise at least to know that the go active command (which i guess it's just not there, as i think it's under the hood still distance based) has been sent. Yeah, i think at the current stage digging up dead channels is something we have to live with, i don't have high hopes of this getting addressed - feels like a very special edge case that should be cared in ED API - honestly i can live with it. PDSTT it's another story. IMO HB made the workaround on the TTI, ED new missile API it's just not there yet, or not entirely.

Well, my impression on the latest patch and the addition of the A variant are mostly positive. It's nice to have the A as i think, with it's engines (and related limitations) impersonates very well the Tomcat reputation after what you can read about of it of who flew with and against it. Moreso, as someone already posted in other topics, it was the most produced Tomcat variant, the one operated for the longest time and can fit well in some scenarios (Cold War). Having both A and B seem great, as ones looking for a more competitive platform (expecially fo PvP) will steer to the B, ones looking for more challanges and more historically related stuff can enjoy the A. Speaking of challenges, i'm enjoying burner cat shots, the differences in engine response during traps and in flight refuelling, and had some fun trapping on a single engine after smoking up the other one on some high alt hard maneuvering. I'm a little surprised about the anemic performance at transonic speeds, as it really seems to struggle getting past M1.05-1.10, but if that's not correct i have no doubt HB has the capability, the documentation and support to address it. About the skins, i'm glad the iconic Sundowners it's in! :D Yes, i was expecting more of them, but it's understandable that they had to be delayed and honestly i don't care much about that - if you're in gurry there are plenty B skins that can be placed on the A. What disappoints me? The turn rate on the B (not the i feel the urge to do some PvP with other aircrafts but it's not clear why it was broken) and the Sparrows not working, as this is a major let down (expecially when we already have some issues with the Phoenix). Being a SW developer for work by myself, i very well understand how this kind of things come along, yet from a consumer point of view it's frustrating, because now it's broken and as te 'Cat it's not and ED module you don't know if it will be hot fixed the next week or if we have to wait a month (and i cannot forget the stuck cat issue the went on for several months, no matter if it was on ED side or not). What do i expect from the future? That now that we enjoy the A and as soon as the thins went off with the last patch are fixed, the focus can slip for a while on polishing up Jester, AWG-9 and related quirks, making the Tomcat shine in the A2A role that was it's raison d'être. As thoose are nailed, the next big one would be the making Jester operating the LANTIRN. Thoose would allow anybody fly without a human RIO (because of SP, bacause they don't want, because they can't) to enjoy the 'Cat completely. So that's my two cents. In the meantime, thanks for the A, you really deserve it! :)

Back IT, i ran again some test with the latest OB (18th November), against a large target (Tu-22) non maneuvering, no ECM and no chaffs (turned off from mission editor) flying at 0.9M, 35k feet. Shot an AIM-45C at 75 nm in TWS, keep lock till missile hit, TTI at 32 jumped to 16 (flashing), missile hit after 3-4 seconds of TTI reaching 0 Shot an AIM-45C at 75 nm in TWS, kept lock till missile was 15 nm from target (broke with PLM), missile lost track, when TWS reacquired the track the missile started going after the target again even if the track on the TDI was not indicating the target beign shot at Shot an AIM-54C at 75 nm in TWS, kept lock till missile was 15 nm from target (broke with PLM and the shutted off radar), missile missed target going far above target Shot an AIM-45C at 75 nm in PDSTT, kept lock till missile was 15 nm from target (broke with PLM), missile lost track, when TWS reacquired the track the missile started going after the target again even if the track on the TDI was not indicating the target beign shot at Shot an AIM-54C at 75 nm in PDSTT, kept lock till missile was 15 nm from target (broke with PLM and the shutted off radar), missile hit the target Shot an AIM-54C at 75 nm in PDSTT, kept lock till missile was 15 nm from target (broke by commanding Jester and the shutted off radar), missile hit the target Shot an AIM-54C at 75 nm in PDSTT, kept lock till missile was 15 nm from target (broke by turning away), missile missed target going far above target Shot an AIM-54C at 75 nm in PDSTT, kept lock till missile was 15 nm from target (broke with PLM, holding PLM), missile missed target going far above target So TWS/PDSTT still seems off to me: PDSTT once lost shoud be lost and should not switch to A A TWS guided missile should not receive target updates from what in fact it's another track The TTI jumping, while odd, it's a welcome change (or workaround, i bet it does when the missile actually goes pitbull) as it makes things more predictable.

Love the VF-111 skin on a proper A!

Older RWR will arrive later on with an earlier Tomcat model. ;)

See https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/licensed-third-party-projects/heatblur-simulations/dcs-f-14a-b/7143442-control-bindings-reset?p=7143575#post7143575 ;)

Just go to %UserProfile%\Saved Games\DCS\Config\Input in Windows explorer, select F-14B folder, paste it and rename the copied one to F-14. Same applies for the RIO one. When you're ok with the controls and checked everything you can delete the old F-14B folders.

Ok, so now is the day, we can start asking "are we there yet?" and pressing F5. :D

Whoa, happened here as well. When i saw it it was like... WTF?! :D Btw, i was logged out, i logged in and got the message. Logged out and in again and it went away.

@sLYFa You were right, reverted to 2.5.6.55960@release, ran the tests again, same behavior as of 11/4 patch and hotfix. Let's see what comes out on 18th patch.

Thanks for the link, it's definitely an interesting read! Actually, in some odd shots, i've seen the Pheonix slightly come back also in DCS. Also it's clear that the Phoenix was not meant to be a fighter-to-fighter weapon and does not excel in the role (dedicated improvements were introduced with the ECCM version that we don't have in DCS - actually DCS might not be able to model the differencies). As for TWS, yeah, i read HB messages about TWS limitations here and there, i understand (and appreciate) their modelling, there are some cases where it's behaviour makes very challenging keep the SA, so i'm asking (in other topics) if it's really meant to be that way of there's something missing not really behaving as expected (including screen captures and ACMIs). If HB confirm that it is, i have no problems with that. :) A nice point with all those test is that i better understood AIM-54 modes (e.g BRSIT).

I read it in a different way: even HB is not sure about it. If i have the time i'll revert to stable and repeat the tests.

I never made so in depth test before 11/4 patch, but what i found here https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/licensed-third-party-projects/heatblur-simulations/dcs-f-14a-b/7126386-aim-54-changes-new-api-fixes-are-live-in-today-s-patch?p=7130824#post7130824 and here https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/licensed-third-party-projects/heatblur-simulations/dcs-f-14a-b/7126386-aim-54-changes-new-api-fixes-are-live-in-today-s-patch?p=7133433#post7133433 seems coherent with the new behavior listed in the opening post of this topic. I should revert to stable to test again and compare the behavior. Do you have some info about it?

BRSIT with AIM-54 will make the missile active on launch and not using loft trajectory. It's also possible to launch it without lock (or TWS track), "pointing" it visually.

Go figure... ED even omitted listing the new missile API in the November 4th patch notes! I don't understand why some changes are listed in the notes and some don't, not the first time that happens for something definitely not negligible.

I think the option was removed as it was not implemented: http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/dcs.html#hb-dcs-f-14-specific-configuration-options

10 nm or less is straight to active. ;)

I don't get it, with STT Lock > Choose specific target i can do it... If the radar doesn't pick the D/L track Jester will attempt to lock on it anyway, sometimes he can, sometimes he cannot. As said, once it used to lock on D/L target also with "STT lock ahead" shortcut but it was gone more or less at the same time when it stopped showing your own Phoenixes tracks on D/L - wouldn't be bad have it back, maybe with and option. Another improvement would be to show IFF status in "Choose specific target" Jester wheel... discriminating friendly and foes when using the wheel is the part i found more difficult when you have to react quickly.

Ok, i think i found out what's happening with STT. If you shoot in PDSTT the missile is effectively SARH. If you lose lock, the missile doesn't go active. Example: your fire STT, turn away the missile is lost. BUT if you shoot in PDSTT, you lose lock and TWS kicks in picking up the track THEN the missile will start behaving as if it was launched in TWS. Beside firing at a distant target and doing a 360° turn to lose STT and pick up in TWS there's an easier way to replicate this: start TWS, go STT, look at the missile in F6, hit PLM and see the missile steering away from interception course, wait for TWS to pickup and see the missile going pitbull (presumibly if within onboard radar range). Overall, given the current lackuster performance of TWS-A (that's not clear how much is an intended behavior or not), scoring hits is quite challenging.