UWBuRn

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.

You should try to STT on a specific target goingh through Jester wheel: contacts are distincted between d/l and radar ones. In previous versions also commanding a lock on target in front with the shortcut hooked them up, but it's long since that doesn't work anymore.

Done some test against a large target (Tu-22) non maneuvering, no ECM and no chaffs (turned off from mission editor) flying at 0.9M, 35k feet. One Mk60 shot at 70 nm in PDSTT just to check things out, kept the lock till missile hit, TTI when missile hit was 34 seconds Same as above but with C, TTI when missile hit was 18 seconds Shot an AIM-54C at 70 nm in PDSTT, kept lock till missile was 5 nm from target, missile hit Shot an AIM-54C at 70 nm in PDSTT, kept lock till missile was 10 nm from target, missile hit Shot an AIM-54C at 70 nm in PDSTT, kept lock till missile was 15 nm from target, missile hit Shot an AIM-54C at 70 nm in TWS, kept lock till missile was 5 nm from target (TTI was about 30 seconds), missile missed target going below target Shot an AIM-54C at 70 nm in TWS, kept lock till missile was 10 nm from target (forgot to look at TTI, but was obviously far from 16), missile missed going far above target Shot an AIM-54C at 70 nm in TWS, kept lock till missile was 15 nm from target(TTI was about 45 seconds), missile missed target going far above target Shot of an AIM-45C at 75 nm in TWS, keep lock till missile hit, TTI when missile hit was 20 seconds Shot of an AIM-45C at 35 nm in TWS, keep lock till missile hit, TTI when missile hit was 12 seconds Shot of an AIM-45C at 8 nm in PDSTT, broke lock just after launch, missile didn't loft, missile hit Shot of an AIM-45C at 8 nm in TWS, broke lock just after launch, missile didn't loft, missile hit Shot of an AIM-45C at 15 nm in PSTT, broke lock just after launch, missile didn't loft, missile hit Shot of an AIM-45C at 15 nm in PDSTT with BRSIT, broke lock just after launch, missile didn't loft, missile hit Shot of an AIM-45C at 8 nm in RWS with ACM cover up, missile didn't loft, missile hit Tracks are here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...8B?usp=sharing Didn't check if they desync, anyway replicating the test is rather easy. So, general impressions are that in strictly controlled conditions it's working as expected except STT that still goes active insted of being purely SARH and the TTI being so off that is mostly useless; on long shots, when the missiles start coming down after lofting missiles keep performing (as they did before) a quite harsh maneuver that seems to waste energy. Of course by having the target not maneuvering it's difficoult to understand when the missile went active, if it lose and reacquire the track... maybe ED can include in labels an indication of the missile being active, as missiles behavior gets more complicate might be interesting looking at it for training. Hope it helps.

Can be true or not - i'm not so sure - but seems not relevant, as for the test i was carrying out i just wanted to see if the missile when launched in PDSTT above 10 nm was purely SARH or not, and it was not, as shutting down the radar resulted in the missile scoring in ARH.

Tested multiple times* firing an AIM-54C in STT at 25-30 nm against an Su-27 AI, so going SARH/DL all the way. When missile is at 10 miles from target (where usually was able to go pitbull) i command Jester to break lock and go silent: the missile guides itself to a hit, so the new API seems not there or not working correctly. Also AIM-54A Mk60 showed the same behavior, with the variation of losing lock more frequently (probably due to weaker chaff resistance). Will try again tomorrow also with TWS and also with non maneuvering targets. *That's what happened most of the times, sometime the missile just lost lock, spoofed by chaffs, ECMs and maneuvering... usual stuff. I'm not posting track as they just desync.

This is being thoroughly discussed here: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/licensed-third-party-projects/heatblur-simulations/dcs-f-14a-b/285136-multiple-radar-awg-9-phoenix-issues-since-patch-2-5-6-52437 and here: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/licensed-third-party-projects/heatblur-simulations/dcs-f-14a-b/7116436-awg-9-development-state

Probably HB is busy right now with the A, maybe they fixed something for the next patch, anyway i hope that after the A release (thant honestly i can't wait for :D) radar issues go back on top of the priority list. Anyway yes, let's try to keep high the attention on this. :)

Cool! I will be hearing forward to it! :)

IIRC, yes, it's the switch to RWS that makes you lose tracks, it's not a bug on itself.

My bad, i lost Bearfoot message in the discussion, i was thinking about OP issues. Bearfoot issue seems the one of Jester switching to RWS... that is a well acknowledged bug, again, as other issues it's puzzling how someone experience this regularly and someone almost never (had it just once in not so few MP sessions lately).

Happy to see the issue has been raised again, as there was no clear statement from HB for how much this behaviour is intended or not. In fact there was already the other topic (that should be moved in the bugs section - unfortunately moderation in this section is somewhat lacking). @QuiGon You said you had no issues in many hours, at https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/licensed-third-party-projects/heatblur-simulations/dcs-f-14a-b/285136-multiple-radar-awg-9-phoenix-issues-since-patch-2-5-6-52437/page6 i posted various records (video and acmi) of what it's bugging me, can you take a look at them? It's rather strange, because some people happens to experience the issue, other one seems not. To my understanding there's something not working as expected with the MLC filter. Then if you go MP with servers going crazy, obviously, other strange things might happen, but in my opinion we are talking about two different things: odd behaviour of the simulated AWG-9 vs limitations of the DCS engine itself (that in turn might require some mitigation on the simulated AWG-9 - dunno if it's possible).

Yes, of course the options to enable disable it should be there as well. :)

As per titles, i would like to have the IFOLS repeater popup on all carriers, as not everybody has the SC module, but the ball lights are rather hard to see also on the old carriers. Would be nice to have this feature ported outside of the SC module. :) Thanks!

Did a repair (just to be sure), and played some other sorties in the RIO seat, this strange behaviour happened more than once: ACMI is here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LDKNSeXwGmUNHLwpJlLfXVczq9R-yQeO Also, with TWS-A the antenna is moved around, and after each sweep contacts on TID seems to move back and forth a little, as if they are affected by antenna positioning (something i don't recall before TWS-A), i guess this is probably intended but i'm wondering if this also affect returns to tracks correlation.

I made some other tests, spending some time also in the RIO seat. Removing chaffs from bandits made no difference Increasing the speed to stay further away from zero doppler filter made no difference (maybe even worse as with higher relative speeds there seems to be an higher probability of radar return to not be merged into existing contacts) In the backseat i noticed the following (always instructing Iceman to stay below bandits): Keeping an eye on the DDD radar scope, as soon as contact miss one or two sweeps (couldn't be sure) the track is marked as lost I tried messing with the MLC filter, i can see the difference in the DDD scope, as ground clutters appear and even fake tracks are created, yet, even disabling it manually, it doesn't look to improve notching resistence for above targets. About the MLC filter the manual says (page 233): So this doesn't seems consistent with what i'm experiencing. I also checked the ACMI and i should be well outside of zero doppler zone, so i'm a bit confused. @IronMike @HB Can you comment on how much this is intended and how much this still needs tuning? Thanks!