The_Doktor

Of course it's a bug. But nobody wants to admit it. Everyone thinks a radar from the 60s shouldn't work. In RWS mode, the raw radar signals go through the same weapons control computer as in TWS. In RWS mode, you get your four targets displayed. The signal is there. The computer processes it and presents you with the result on the DDD. As soon as you switch to TWS, the same computer forgets everything it already knew. It should really just start by creating a track for each previously calculated target. But it forgets everything and no longer recognizes the raw signals. Instead, the computer creates a single track. Just like that. Bang. Gone. Useless. Everything the F-14 was supposed to be, it isn't in DCS. Its most praised feature, namely tracking and engaging up to six targets, isn't possible. Add to that the utopian flight path of the 54, and everyone comes up with the most amazing ideas about why it never really worked. It's simply an insult to all the people who worked on the weapon system.

Hi all, anything less than the entire federal republic is useless. All major air bases are in West Germany. scroll down to the map. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_(Rakete) I'm talking about the aircraft carrier Rhineland Palatinate

Thank you very much Tavarish Palkovnik so in theory, at see level without drag the missile could go nearly as fast as Mach 4 if the both are comparable? THX agin

Hi i am always a bit disappointed when i read the stuff about old radar old missile or that all was just a lie to fool congress to make money. All the physics mathematics and aerodynamics that went in this stuff will never get old. Sometimes i get the feeling that moon landing denier and phoenix doubter have a bit in common. Its from the 60s? So old tech it cant be true. This is a insult to all the people of the time that put all there wisdom and skills in it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsR19m2udXE And today a bunch of computer game players talk BS about the missile and radar because they believe a badly made simulation more. Maybe for more balance in there PvP "over G flap out" Growling Sidewinder server shooting R27ETER from the bottom of a caucasus canyon that goes twice as fast as any other SARH missile in game. how knows? About the Puck Howe guy. I would like to go fishing with him to see what he pulls out of the water. AIM-9X maybe? I am sure it will be at least a wall of fish! Taking off the carrier with a broken radar so that you need a good RIO to make it work is not a good example of the capability of the AWG-9. Ward Carroll timeline 40nm? OK fine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38FGpJ_6Js4 but then the AI comes into play...well What do I know? Nothing.

Hello People, I want to report that the Bombs Type MK82, 83 and 84 dropped in AUTO Mode hits LONG. I tested various heights and speeds and decided to upload tracks whit the following parameter: Syria, 20°C Standard weather, 3000ft above see level 500kIAS. Target point is a way point set in Editor to ground level. Target is the most right oil tank of the tree. I included a track of a A-10CII to show that it should be possible to get a hit on the Target. Only airspeed is different. Thank you very much for your time. A-10_MK82_300kIAS_3000ft_onTarget.trk F-18_MK82_500kIAS_3000ft_Long.trk F-18_MK83_500kIAS_3000ft_Long.trk F-18_MK84_500kIAS_3000ft_Long.trk

The new AI RIO will be called Marvin. Because Jester is too happy to being alive.........

my example is intentionally entirely fictional. the su27 is just a drone nothing else. it wobbles a bit left and right. it's not about tactics. no fighter flies alone through the air. I wanted to show the fact that in this example the difference is only 7 miles. It doesn't matter here that a piece of virtual metal costing 5 million fantasy dollars has flown 40 miles. the fantasy plane flew the route for only $50,000 edit: sorry, I exaggerated massively AIM 54 cost in wiki 477K What is $477k in 1974 worth in today's money? Adjusted for inflation, $477,000 in 1974 is equal to $2,878,540 in 2022.

thanks again Yes, the example makes perfect sense. No military aircraft flies around alone, nor does it simply appear in the air over the location it is tasked with defending. As I said, I wasn't concerned with tactics but only with distances. Thank you for your valuable data and the time you put into your analyses my english is not the best i hope you can understand it a bit.

thank you Karon, you understood what i wanted to say. my scenario was purposely to be as simple as possible to show the difference in range. imagine how long the air force used only the AIM-7. despite the possibilities of the 54. maybe because of the cost? tactically, the air force can simply use more aircraft...... I'm glad I could inspire you

a little Test...... Nevada Creech, me F-14B 35000 ft 0.95M and a SU-27 30000 ft 0.8M no armament and rookie skill. distance approx. 111NM RADAR contact approx. 88NM TWSA launch AIM-54C MK60 at 60NM active approx. 8,6NM hit approx. 24NM distance in between Creech and hit is 66NM. All good. now with a AIM-7P RADAR contact approx. 90NM PD-STT at 70NM launch AIM-7P at 15NM twice hit approx. 5NM distance in between Creech and hit is 59NM........ that's a difference of only 7NM! Whole millions of dollars for 7NM... I don't know. either the missile is too slow to make a significant difference in game or it was like this in real life. if it was real, why don't build a cheaper missile with the properties of the AIM-54 and a bit more range than AIM-7 but fox3? ....like the AIM-120?

here are two tracks Tacview-20220223-181142-DCS-A2A_Test.zip.acmi Tacview-20220223-202855-DCS.txt.acmi

I have tested it as we speak. 6 hits on non manoeuvring co altitude target drones (MIG23). not bad.

Let´s check out: https://www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=724&Article=2168381 1972: The United States approves the sale of 274 Phoenix missiles to Iran for $150 million. [Note: Final delivery of this deal is in May 1979.] AIM-54 entered full production. April 28 First AIM-54A launch from an F-14 Tomcat. The aircraft was flying from Point Mugu. November Navy breaks new ground with several first recorded during a single flight: This was the first multiple launch from an F-14A aircraft, and the first multiple launch against multiple targets by a military crew. The missile performed satisfactorily. LCDR Donald G. Klein and Lt. Jack H. Hawyer were the F-14A crew for the historic launch. December 20 An F-14 accomplished a 'four-for-four' AIM-54 test over the Pt. Mugu missile range. Flying at M0.7 and at 31,500 ft, the Tomcat launched four AIM-54s against five targets three QT-33 and two BQM-34, each flying at M0.6 and at altitudes of between 20,000 ft and 25,000 ft. The missiles were fired at relatively short ranges, between 25 and 30 miles, and were launched in quick succession - not simultaneously. One missile scored a direct hit and the three others passed within the warheadslethal zones, thus scoring hits. 1973: June Hughes completed their testing program with a world record-setting performance; launched from an F-14A over Pt. Mugu, a Phoenix missile was launched against a BQM-34E Firebee drone at a distance of 110 nautical miles. This shattered the previous record of 76 nautical miles, which was achieved during the RDT&E phase. At the time the missile had achieved a 77% success rate, with 43 scored hits out of a total of 56 missiles launched from various aircraft. November AIM-54A Technical Evaluation completed. The first AIM-54A production units delivered for deployment on the new F-14A Tomcat. November 21 First Phoenix proves effectiveness in full-arsenal testing on an F-14 operating over the Pacific Missile Sea Test Range. The F-14 fired six Phoenix missiles over a 38-second period and guided them simultaneously at six separate targets 50 miles away, obtaining four direct hits. Flown by CDR John R. Smoke Wilson and LCDR Jack Hauver, the Tomcat was flying at speed of M0.78 and an altitude of 24,800 ft - while the target drones were flying at speeds of M0.6 to M1.1. This was the only time six Phoenix were launched by a single aircraft. Phoenix testing was completed in 1973 after a program of 60 launches. The AIM-54A entered service with the US Navy in 1973 and became operational in 1974. The Phoenix missile is only carried by the F-14 Tomcat.

correct. now check dcs again please. at one point the missile is nothing more then a falling Thing. The modelled physics in the simulation is wrong I am sorry, my English is not good enough.

Bombs get supersonic at a regular base. You can check that in dcs quit easily. A dead missile is nothing different then a bomb. In dcs the missile has so much drag that it gets slower and slower even in free fall.

Hi, when i drop a bomb in DCS or real life as well as any other object its getting faster and faster as longer it falls. But not the AIM-54 in game. Or any other AA missile in game. They slow down. Even in ballistic flight with the motor burned off falling vertical out of the sky. This behaviour is against the laws of physics as you all know. You forced your missile into a unrealistic flight model to match realistic data from your white paper. My only hope is that you will get this problem solved whit the new API, or what ever it is called. I love your work and the achievements you made. Don't let them get shot down by an AIM-54 that is a greater threat to you then any A/C in game. Please excuse my bad English if you don't mind.

This Forum is getting more and more ridicules. People asking for "in there opinion" most realistic FM to fight unrealistic multiplayer dogfights. Turning 2 minutes at 7 g constant until fuel is empty. outrateing the f-18 in a f-14. what are we talking about?? And always telling the developers what to do and what is the only truth. I think ED should rename DCS in Digital Circle Simulator.

Hi Pilots, did you ever try to conduct a loft attack with GPU´s or Mark 82? I tested it using the CCIP mode with partial succses. Although the Bomb entered a ballistic curve and flew towards the target the gain of range was marginal. All bombs except the GPU hit about 20 meters behind the target. I uesed tacview to analyze my attack. The idea of testing it came to me as i watched a video of british Tornados on a treaning mission in witch they attacked a sam site with dump bombs at low level and lofting them. Of course they succeed by doing so without a single loos :D What are your thoughts? :) PS: please excuse my bad english, i did my best :music_whistling:

Hi, this diagram has something strange to it. CL max L means lift. But in german it is CA. A is for the german word Auftrieb. i doubt it is of german source....