Schmidtfire
-
Posts
1891 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Schmidtfire
-
-
Going downhill into thicker air AIM-54 bleeds more energy than it gains by trading altitude for speed. Obviously there should be a difference flying in thick vs thin air. But this is a very heavy missile going down hill at a steeper and steeper angle. Im not great at physics, but can someone please explain how this heavy missile loose speed while trading so much altitude?
10 000ft difference means thicker air, yes. But going 10 000 ft down at a steep angle results in over a 100kn slower missile? We are talking 28.5k down to 18k ft.
Four snapshots during the dive onto a non-maneuvering target.
-
We did a multiplayer test recently and pk is not good, even for a fast missile like 120C against a human player. Anything >15nm is a breeze to defeat in most cases. Unless high closure speeds and at high altitude.
So that 20nm PDSTT shot is very unlikely to connect. Problem is that unless you take a Phoenix shot before 30nm you will be at big disadvantage all the way to the merge. Flying a tenniscourt with slow flying missiles.
And judging by the current Phoenix guidance/seeker performance, a hit at longer ranges can be considered very lucky. So the window of opportunity for scoring a hit is small.
Might be a little bit sidetracked here.. Anyways, against fighter AI and bombers the Phoenix is usually ok. But against other players it seems like all DCS-isms stack up in a very unfavourable way, resulting in a paper tiger.
Edit. We did test your PSTT exploit and found it was not viable against a human player. Simply not reliable enough, seeker often failed to get a proper lock and the trajectory was difficult to get consistent results.
-
Of curiosity. At what ranges are you more than happy to employ AIM-54 in PDSTT? At longer ranges the bandit will go defensive as soon as you launch (or shortly thereafter). And watching your test videos, AIM-54 is not really viable again until approx 10nm range to target, at most. From 25-10nm I don’t know what to employ, neither the AIM-54 or AIM-7 has the speed to counter upgraded R27 series or modern missiles. But, yeah.. maybe that can be expected, as Phoenix is a relatively old missile.
-
Maybe Im wrong here. But in my mind, auto lofting should calculate the most optimal trajectory at launch.
Manual loft, while providing awesome kinematics in DCS, should probably not be the norm? Otherwise, Grumman would have implemented lofting cues for the pilot and rio.
As for overall performance, it seems like AIM-54 midcourse and final phase of flight is a bit of a hit and miss in DCS. Very difficult to get a good trajectory and RWR warning makes it relatively easy to defeat.
On another note, the old (pre-Heatblur) ED AIM-54 for AI F-14A was a laser. Very little to no warning. Not sure if it was due to terminal speed or late active mode, but that thing was seriously terrifying
-
Thanks for feedback. I will try higher altitude launches at 45-50k. From memory, I read somewhere that the optimal altitude for AWG-9 detection is 22000ft IRL. Doctrine wise, it would be interesting to know if 45-50k launches was really a thing, or is more of a DCS-ism due to factors Karon covered in his post. Obviously pk go down with range. But Im starting to think that AIM-54 is hampered quite a bit by all the various DCS-isms. It adds up. I don’t know what update of the AIM-54C is modelled (since it’s quite a difference between early years and late software updates). But I find it strange that it’s quite easy to spoof. If there is something that can be tweaked on it’s terminal guidance?
Anyways, Im all for the most realistic representation possible. So not asking for better performance if it did not have it IRL.
-
Window should be right. AIM-54C (mk47 and mk60). Up high (30-35k ft) and at speed. Head-on Launch at 60-50-40-30nm.
Might have launched over a hundred shots the last week and two has connected. That's with AIM-54C.
Against AI the missile fares WAY better within the same parameters. Might be an issue with the seeker or guidance updates against
human players? When I spec the missile typically two things happen. It's either coming in at relatively good speed and defeated at the end
by a simple turn, or it coasts against the bandit in a very slow and very shallow manner (might be due to lost trackfile).
-
Was the AIM-54C Phoenix really this... bad? IRL the missile could be used against a low level cruise missile. In DCS a Phoenix missile
that go active can pretty much be defeated with a simple turn at a medium altitude. Not an expert here, just asking if it's performance
is realistic. Seeker is very easy to notch when it's coming down and terminal speed seems... on the low side for most medium level engagements.
Im all for the most realistic representation possible! Don't get me wrong just wondering if all the press about the AIM-54 greatness is embellished?
It's somewhat of a paper tiger in DCS (except non maneuvering aircraft, such as bombers). Against a human player? To a point it's almost better to carry AIM-7
and go for a close range STT shot. Anyways, only my observations without going into graphs and what not.
-
I have been playing a bit of WWII online lately and the kneeboard functionality is absolutely essential unless you want 70-80% of the players being lost, running around in circles. Remember, we are limited to Slots and airfields too. Joining up with a friend that must spawn at another airfield? Good luck with that without kneeboard markers.
In theory it's great to slap on as many realistic restrictions as possible, but it's hard to get good gameplay going that way. Not having labels either means that a majority of players have difficulty seeing other aircraft, even when they know the exact area they are in. It's at a point I know several players jettisoning their canopy to aid finding aircraft by sound.
DCS WWII multiplayer was saved with Normandy 2, but it's a fine balance. It's still on life support with 1-2 big servers running. It needs to be somewhat accessible or the 80-100 player servers will disappear real fast. -
Nice catch! But no comments from the devs yet?
-
In this case I think it would be better to put a solution like this in options. Separate from regular labels. Let the server runners decide upon regular labels and let the players decide if they need this mod to overcome shortcomings of their gaming peripherals. Let people enjoy DCS first and foremost, it's not a competitive e-sport.
But that's just my opinion...
-
2
-
-
I don’t get why everyone is obsessing over visual detection at long range. Sure, nice to see improvement there aswell.
But in my opinion, improvement is much more needed in the sub 6nm realm. Aircrafts tend to just ”melt” away and in a dogfight you will hear the bandit before you get a tally in DCS. Even with dotted color labels you will loose visual at closer ranges.
In VR it’s a bit better since you get a sense of depth and motion. But on a 1440p monitor? Full Stevie Wonder.
-
4
-
-
28 minutes ago, PLAAF said:
Why cant they implement new things and standards on the Gazelle, a module that is already made first, then implement them to Kiowa?
They can. It’s just that they want to release new product before they go back and fix the current one. It’s the way most sim development goes, need to keep the ship afloat. And it’s likely more fun working on new stuff. DCS is not their full-time job, so there has to be a sense of joy to keep going. The Gazelle is most likely a bit of a chore compared to working on the new module.
I hope that their new 342L ”modular” approach will offer much variety. It seems like we still won’t get the missing periscope (for aiming), but hopefully a few new weapons to mix and match.would be vool with a few new chinese options.
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 3/31/2023 at 7:16 PM, IronMike said:
Yes. Jester v2 means a general overhaul of the Jester AI - in steps and as applicable - across modules long term.
Maybe out of scope for Jester v2, but would it be possible to have Special Options for following:
1. Engagement with Phoenix. Maybe a slider with different ranges for different types of targets?
2. Lock Nearest bandit in STT within a certain range. If it’s a former TWS track with no friendlies around Lock without IFF.
3. Auto-tune datalink and radios.
4. Configure AG weapons. (with different presets to choose from)
just a couple of examples, but It would be nice with options for more automation and less micro management. It’s a lot of work just flying Tomcat :)
-
3
-
-
Not easy anymore. All ED sound files are encrypted.
Back in the day, we could make a soundmod in 5min replacing sound files - today it is much more complicated. Still possible, but complicated.
-
A bit of a workaround… But you can place tacan stations in the mission editor to cover more airports.
-
The solution would be for ED developers to copy the F/A-18C Antenna Elevation / control functionality to the F-16C. Either as a new binding or box in special options.
Should work well for other Throttles with same sort of issue. Like using the centering rocker axis on Thrustmaster TWCS. -
On 3/9/2023 at 8:37 PM, scopewizard said:
The question remains, will the A-10 be able to receive data of other type of aicraft flights via SADL using a gateway?
Better up. How about Link-16?
From January 13th Newsletter:
As with the Hornet and Viper, we also plan to add DTC and Link 16 functions to the A-10C II, but this effort will not start until after 2023 given the amount of DTC work that must first happen with the Hornet and Viper
-
On 2/19/2023 at 12:34 PM, Vibora said:
It is intentional but needed to be tuned.
Hi Vibora. There is indeed an issue with asymmetric loads on F1 module.
Easy to test by having empty jet + BARAX pod. It starts to roll quite heavily, despite the light weight of the pod.I recently read an interview with a Harrier pilot (very different aircraft!) but even with those tiny wings he would not notice assymetric loads when flying at speed. Only time it was really noticeably was during landings as the speed came down.
-
Maybe a bit late request, but would it be possible to optionally remove the sighting unit and tv-monitor/pedestal on the upcoming modular 342L?
The 342 Minigun version has excellent forward view and I think most of us that fly L or Mistral versions don’t ever use the co-pilot sighting unit.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:
So, we have been flying the DCS Uh-1 for 7 years now, and yet no one had noticed such great performance difference before?
I have not flown a real-life uh-1h, so I have no idea if it is performing as it should or not, but on this forum there have been real life uh pilots and yet this is the first time that I see such a huge difference in performance being pointed out. Seems odd to me.
Credit where credit's due, a lot of effort went into this report.
Even after 7 years, It is important to challenge the developers work and not to take everything we see at face value. In the end it makes for better products and benefit us and ED. So Im intrigued about this report, but let the helicopter experts discuss. Hopefully someone from former BST can chime in.-
6
-
1
-
-
+1
I was binding Voice Attack for George AI the other day, It was a painful experience. And there are certain things like Speed/Altitude, Break Left/Right that should be available from all modes. You get ambushed in FLT and need ask George AI to perform a Break. Not the ideal situation to be dealing with modes.
Even then, it's too slow to be useful in heat of combat. Before George AI has even started his Break, the Apache gets hit with whatever is coming it's way.
Maybe George AI needs additional evasive maneuvers. But that is another discussion.-
2
-
-
It got some issues. Not looking at the strange FM, the clipping of the gunsight, non-existent periscope, etc...
Gazelle is still the only module I own where I can't switch off Labels during a mission.
Gazelle can still be fun and "worth it", but it's got quality issues.-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:
GCI isn't at all modeled in DCS, at least in a manner that a system like Lazur would utilize.
Have you tried the Mirage-2000C? It has a working GCI system.
-
3
-
1
-
-
I don’t really understand the issue here.
It’s well know that the NCTR and IFF process is not simulated in-depth in DCS.
NCTR and IFF (in DCS) check if the aircraft belong to Red or Blue coalition. That’s it. No, it does not get any info from the intakes/fanblades etc.
I think what Bignewy tried to state, is that with the new DTC implementation, there will be more variables. Not just a Red or Blue coalition check.
DCS: F-14 Development Update - AIM-54 Phoenix Improvements & Overhaul - Guided Discussion
in DCS: F-14A & B
Posted
All good points. Even if Im somewhat doubtful that the thicker air would slow down AIM-54 Phoenix THAT much IRL. It’s still got quite the velocity when starting to come down from 80k ft. But yes, eventually it will hit terminal velocity if falling long enough.
Or maybe they built a missile that was designed to hit targets at relatively low mach numbers? Threat was Soviet bombers and cruise missiles so probably targets that could be (in many cases) expected at medium altitudes or lower, but since primary targets had limited speed and turn ability, it was a non-issue for the Phoenix to have bad kinematics diving down into thicker air? Maybe?
I have a book where a pilot (or RIO?) mentions that the Phoenix climbs to 80k feet and unloads, coming down at Mach 4+. However, he might remember wrong or listened to nonsense talk about the missile that is incorrect.