JNelson

Yea that error happens when the dll is missing or the dll couldn't load because it relies on some dependencies that are missing, in this case the latter, the VC++ redistributables being missing.

Hi, we don't make changes for balancing reasons. Changes are only made to make the missile closer to reality. The current phoenix motor performance updated based on new sources, the motor performance and aero notably was not adjusted to match real world shots however despite this the speeds for the phoenix match within a few percent of a NASA simulation which has been posted in this thread a few times. See here: Furthermore there is one known test shot which also gives impact distances and time of flight this allows the error for such a shot to be calculated. This ends up being within 3% for distance and time and 4% for impact velocity. You can see the comparisons to the old patch values here: Hopefully you can see the performance of the AIM-54 is looking pretty close to reality. The remaining item for us are the few guidance issues that remain, we are going to be liaising with ED to get these fixed asap. Hope that clears stuff up. Thanks!

It's not sufficient to disable the battery only, because the stability derivatives on this missile model do not appear to be very strong. Having performed the same tests there is a clear effect of induced drag on the missile. Orange here having induced drag and blue having no induced drag or lift. You must remove the induced drag and lift to get the correct result. As the missile should be stable at zero angle of attack.

Yes but you mentioned the mach 4.3 number, that was max demonstrated speed, if you want more realistic values for normal launches look at the NASA simulation results posted in this thread:

That 4.3 number is from a hearing where it shows the max demonstrated. That is the maximum speed the missile has ever been seen to be going. One can fairly easily get our missile up to mach 4.3. Here are two shots I made (both missions start at mach 1.2 and 45kft accelerating up to the launch speed to know it's possible). Test was with the A variant. MK60 Motor -> Mach 4.3 MK-47 Motor -> Mach 4.4 I just threw these together so they aren't rigorous launch conditions, but you can see the missile has demonstrated it can reach mach 4.3. Max_demonstrated_mk60.acmiMax_demonstrated_mk47.acmi

Yes induced drag is modelled in the ED missile model. To clarify: the empty mass of the missile for the A is the same, the C was reduced by a tiny bit putting it 10 kg heavier than the A while empty. The motor mass is the same for both motors. So an A-47 and A-60 will have the same mass now.

Yes there is boresight and Computer automatic acquisition (similar to vertical scan): radar sweeps in the vertical between -21 degrees to +57 degrees, but can only lockon between 45 degrees and -9 degrees in pitch due to computer limitations. The width of the scan depends on the version but it's either 7.5 degrees or 5 degrees including beam width, numbers are off the top of my head so take it with a grain of salt. The range is dynamically reduced as the antenna dips below the horizon to reduce main lobe clutter returns. Later versions of CAA also let you offset the scan pattern by 15 degrees left, right or centre.

It's a well documented bug on the github. There are specific configurations of mods which cause memory corruption, the AH-6 demo mod has one such configuration as such all mods that inherit from it without fixing this issue will present the same bug. The CH-47 and CH-53 fall into this category.

ED gave us the transfer function for those three constants, I made sure to tune the response curve to reduce those high frequency components. So while they look kinda weird compared to the other values there is a sensible frequency response.

The reason we had those filter settings was the transients in terminal guidance were still present with one of the last patches so we put them back on. I have done a fair amount of testing and they don't really increase the miss distance at all. The other reason is that without them there is a large transient during the loft due to some internal guidance transition. I think the terminal guidance transient is fixed with the pure proportional navigation so we can look into putting them back to their original values.

Hi we had already increased the PN_gain to 5 internally for the next update it was too late to make it into this last update. Increasing the PN_gain is a double edged sword, lower PN_gains will increase miss distance as you have seen but higher values will reduce energy retention. Values are typically between 3-5. Higher gain values will also increase the distance the missile has to travel if the target is manoeuvring at a longer distance. As far as I can tell the pn coefficients relate to the parallel guidance mode which the AIM-54 no longer uses.

I think having spent hundreds of hours making something for free I think a little humour is not amiss.

I thought it was hanger candy?

Good analysis. I think you are giving too much credit to the guidance capability of the A at least. As for the lateral guidance, it's somewhere between a pure and lead pursuit, it's like this because just lead pursuit would cause the missile to burn energy when the target makes a course adjustment and just pure pursuit would cause the missile to lag behind as you noted. There is a middle ground struck here, for a target flying in a straight line the missile will not fly the optimal path for this reason. This last update had the missile follow much more of a lead pursuit than previously, we are hesitant to change it too much as it will degrade the performance of shots where the target is making course adjustments. As for the loft, we are limited on the number of degrees of freedom, so we cannot change the descent stage without affecting the ascent greatly. This is the best balance that could be found. With regards to assisting the loft, I would advise against it, the 54 already has a very aggressive loft profiles and assisting the loft will have you encounter some strange bugs in the old missile api (which the 54 is using).

Yes this is a bug with the CBU-2 pods being 5 times there actual weight, you should use the CBU-1 pods instead.

Well anyone is welcome to implement some kind of towbar system and submit a pull request. Don't take this the wrong way but even my brother who is terrible at DCS can taxi the A-4E on the deck, so not sure how it hinders carrier ops? We have had 10 people on the Forrestal all in A-4's just fine. It just takes a little practice and make sure your controls are setup. If you have trouble try use the special options. This has been discussed ad nauseum and the verdict is that NWS was never added to the A-4E, thus will never be added to our implementation. The latest version 2.0.1 has some minor tweaks to the nosewheel if you have not tried that might make it easier for you.

There were quite a few changes if you look at the changelog. You could use simple steering special option as One Eyed Ross suggested.

Apologies the changelog is a bit too specific. This just means we reworked the gyroscope to behave more like a gyroscope. For example, if the gyro has 10 degrees pitch up error while facing north then it will show 10 degrees down while facing south, this is because the gyro rotation is (approximately) fixed. This was necessary to fix the issues with the HUD/ADI becoming misaligned and not erecting correctly. The ADI will erect correctly now.

If you are refering to the A-4 manual, then yes this has been corrected. The fuel system has not changed.

"(bypassing the wing tanks)" Is the key point., the bypass switch, as I said, just causes the fuel to be fed from the externals directly to the fuselage tank in case of leak. The fuel system works the same in both 2.0.0 and 2.0.1 appart from that minor fix to the flight refuel switch getting stuck. Plusnine made a minor mistake in the manual for 2.0.0, it should be updated in 2.0.1.

You don't actually want to enable the bypass otherwise the fuel flows from the external tanks straight into the fuselage tank skipping the wing tank. You should leave this switch off so the fuel is pumped into the external tanks and gets forced into the wing tank the normal way.

You should be able to set it to flight refuel, however if you are on the 2.0.0 version there was a bug which prevented you from using the fuel after you set it to flight refuel. Try upgrading to the v2.0.1 version if you are having issues.

The C was fired from further so the loft is higher. I would hardly call 30kft space

Looks like your issue there is that the missile lost lock, presumably because the flanker is in the notch.

Comparing the AIM-54 to the AIM-120 the AIM-54 has 5.6 times more frontal area and only 2.9 times the mass. If we calculate the approximate area/mass ratio for each missile we get: Missile Area/mass Ratio (cm^2/kg) AIM-120C 1.2 AIM-54 2.4 since we know the area is roughly proportional to the drag force we can tell that the missiles will slow down roughly proportional to the above number and as we can see the AIM-54's number is twice that of the AIM-120s meaning it (the AIM-54) should slow down much faster than the AIM-120!!! In this case we are ignoring the drag coefficients of the missile they are close enough for this basic comparison but in general the AIM-120's drag coefficient is lower making it more favourable than the 54's. Take a look at the two graphs below, these are the speed of the missile at a given time after launch, as you can see if anything the missile doesn't slow down enough when the motor burns out! The black line shows the CFD (in-depth simulation) and the blue line shows the game. One thing you will notice is that the high altitude shot is much faster for much longer. This is because air resistance is your enemy. If you want to make the most of the AIM-54's monster motor you will need to take advantage of that in the thinnest atmosphere you can find (ie super high up). Lastly the guidance changes that are being made for the next patch specifically relate to the lost behaviour. It was found that the missile would make large turns when loosing and regaining lock, this would happen when an aircraft passed through the notch. This behaviour has been improved by adjusting various filter parameters so this should be less of an issue when the missile is on it's terminal guidance, but it will not suddenly make the missile perform like it did before the patch. This is because before the missile was vastly over-performing with a no-escape-zone of over twice the actual NEZ. Hopefully this help clears it up somewhat. Thanks again for your patience.