lunaticfringe

Part of playing any game is learning how to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses, that is, becoming better at the title and how to be successful at it, rather than calling for buffs and cheats when one loses. That's the middle ground. One doesn't put two quarters down at the SF2 cabinet and ask the days champion to take it easy. Learn the techniques and win. And for the love of all that's holy- stop expecting third parties to modify their correct work to get around ED's failings. Hit them with another round of bugs with the voodoo god's eye AI, instead of putting it on someone else's plate- because all that does is double their load.

And here it is with evasion enabled (AI free to engage in defensive maneuver from the point the weapon goes active), just to take that out of the equation. Again, four 54As hit four targets. Tacview-20220215-093753-DCS-72 4v4 Test 31k - Evasion Enabled.zip.acmi

One more on the '72 test. 54A MK47 goes four for four at 25 miles+. It's doing what the report says it can do. Tacview-20220215-092208-DCS-72 4v4 Test 31k.zip.acmi

Like near_blind said- you have to learn the envelope. From above, DSPlayer's 95 nm strike in a SATAC match on the current build: https://m.twitch.tv/clip/BillowingFlirtyOtterItsBoshyTime-QfUL_L8yOCZGBOzh?tt_medium=mobile_web_share&tt_content=clips_viewing Note his altitude and Mach number at launch in the other clip on Breakshot's wall.

The HUD came in one color, the one you see. And as a direct projection onto the windscreen, it was as susceptible to glare both from light outside, as well as inside the aircraft (see: turning up the brightness). This is one of the peculiarities of the F-14A and B that pilots had to work around. With the VDI and indicator block repeating the same information (and the latter more accurately), it is what it is.

Go pull an aircraft through the AoA range into the pebbles and boulders. Tell us what you feel.

What do you think happens when you're pulling 30 units AoA- that is, twice the onset of buffet? Should it be like stirring a martini?

You're a regular salt miner, ain'tcha? Cause that was a paddlin'.

Recipient earned that for flying fat, dumb, and happy like a Tu-22 right into the Phoenix wheelhouse when it went active. Nobody gets to complain soaking rounds like that.

Yes, and the implementation is excellent.

And figure 3-2 says "F-14B Upgrade", which we don't have.

*cough*

The problem is that the max G value effects how heavily the guidance applies turn effects on the missile, thus making what should be softer turns more hunt, seek, and overcorrect. This degrades performance greatly, so as a concession they had to dial these values back a while ago. Hopefully they can go back to where they should be when the missile changes APIs (and the new API is expanded further).

Oh, look- another Phoenix thread.

No, you just stated that the brokenness is apparently ramping up, which it isn't, while trying to use your own time in DCS as some form of qualification to speak a good ways out of turn, given the history of the sim itself. For someone who claims to have been around DCS as long as you have, it's interesting to note you've not seen this feedback process for third parties work before. We've only seen a third party walk away from DCS entirely because they lacked the skills to maintain their module. We've seen another kick around an "almost complete" module for over a year while they try to play catch up. Another had their own long range weapon get assumed directly by ED because of their lack of documentation and inability to show anything remotely comparable to reality with regards to range and Mach. Every third party has dealt with this ship and break routine, it is the nature of the environment. HB got it back to within single percentage points of the CFM in test in less than one patch cycle. A CFM baseline they put out in the open and are modeling towards long term, and one that did so until recently. And now that they've corrected to the last iteration of the guidance they had in hand, ED now has to do their part with the loft and guidance gain. You don't have to like the message. Doesn't mean it isn't the truth. What you do with it is on you.

No, it really doesn't. You're mad that the longest stick in the sim took a hit- while still remaining the longest effective stick in the sim, as part of the process to getting it right; that is to say, back to full range once on the new API, with guidance to match the kinematic performance of the weapon. HB only has control of one of those three levers, and it upsets you in the interim that the process is a feedback loop between the two firms to put things right. On behalf of those of us who have been here since Flanker, and who were flying the F-14 before release: you can come down from the ledge, and stop acting like every single issue is the end of the world. They're walking a line in someone else's sandbox, and working with them to correct it. Your dramatic invocations and lack of perspective of what is actually going on serves nothing.

The stalling loft illustrated in this thread undermines your contention that it isn't guidance, because it's proof the guidance logic doesn't see the kinematic change in the weapon.

It was tested correctly; the data from the testing team conformed quite closely to the CFM data. But HB remains without control of the guidance, or any changes made to it after their submission of what was tested for the patch. Unfortunately, this is the state for much of DCS. Third parties submit for patching based on the builds they currently have available, and something gets broken by an alteration they have no control over that takes place after the submission deadline. See: cockpit lighting. Until the AIM-54s are in the new API and its finalized, its going to remain a process of playing catch up.

Testers are currently working through a build that gets the AI to launch at more substantial ranges. This is concurrent with the CFM adjustment. It's coming.

Nobody worth listening to has made such a suggestion, so don't worry about it.

The most recent ED guidance logic update. It's not difficult to go back and see that the CFD data hasn't changed accordingly. Had this been from launch, this would have been a topic of discussion from within a few weeks of release- not this past week. He didn't infer or expect you to, so you can come down from the cross you've discovered. It was so serious a bug, for so long, that the aforementioned MP community thought it was worth waiting to mention this discovery to Heatblur until just a few days ago. It just took a few weeks since the guidance update to drum up the necessary drama on their Discords, a few dropped hints from tournament organizers that they should come start hassling HB (appropriately changed after the fact, don'tcha know), and here we are- victim mentality abounding. Meanwhile, Cobra, IronMike, and Naquaii acknowledged there might be an issue, explained why the CFDs were positioned as they were, and put it in the focus cue to be fixed- all within a day. Maybe next time the MP community should try, I dunno- acting like adults and sending out just the guy with the data, instead of attempting a multi-thread press with all the dramatic trappings of "OMG- THE TOMCAT IS BEING REMOVED FROM ANOTHER TOURNAMENT!!1!". Because it doesn't impress anyone, and it doesn't change anything- the data did, not the demands of the emotionally over-involved.

The NATOPS charts begin at 5000'.

It was not. The only individual at HB that worked on the Fishbed was Cobra. Different teams, different design goals and methods.

I know about the post from creason. As a tester I follow the work being done in each iteration submitted to us for review. I'm asking is for what acceleration you think is missing based on the data you have available. There's not a bunch of oomph missing under the charts, so I'm wanting to see what you think is glaringly deficient on the time to speed score since you keep making a point to mention it.

If competitions that receive sponsorships from firms within this community- including third party developers, find an unfair or "balancing issue" within their frameworks for modules, it is their responsibility to present their questions and concerns themselves, not beg players to function as their champions and take the heat. Otherwise it looks like a play for plausible deniability- especially when the request is changed after the fact.