OnlyforDCS

I dig the crazy cockpit vibrations and sounds during hard maneuvers, it really is going to add another level to the immersion in DCS. Seriously stoked for this bird...

Winter 2018-2019 ends in March. You can spin this any way you like, the fact remains that you are completely wrong about this.

Exactly this. Personally I am very much against pre-orders being opened to the consumer base without a set release date for early access at least. When this happened with the Hornet earlier this year, I predicted it would set a precedent and indeed it has with the same thing now happening with the Tomcat. With all of that said ED and Heatblur are privately owned companies, and they can conduct their business practices in any way they like, and in this we have absolutely no say, regardless of our preferences.

I'd even go so far as to say that if you're shooting a Phoenix inside 10nm you're doing it wrong, unless we are talking about a tail chase of some sort or some sort of press on an opponent who is in a really bad position. Id say that 10-15nm will be the sweet spot against opponents who are aware of you, with longer shots to put them on the defensive. In any case even with much lower pk's at longer distances, with this kind of range just having the F14 pop up on their RWR will be enough for a good number of players to turn tail and run away.

Lately I've been having strange thoughts about never getting to fly Heatblur's Tomcat. It's kind of THE DREAM module for me to have in DCS and if it was the LAST module made for DCS I wouldn't have a problem with that. My strange paranoid twisted thoughts are about, getting a rare disease, getting struck by lightning, getting run over by a car, losing my arms or eyesight, becoming homeless for some reason all happening before the Tomcat is released.... Needless to say Im being extra careful in this last stretch before the EA, but I digress.... Happy birthday Turkey, hope I get to meet you soon ;)

I'd say the bolded part is only half of the "equation". Once people get experienced in the Tomcat, and some really great dedicated pilot-rio crews are formed, the other half of the equation will emerge. ;) So yeah, I expect a lot o hair-pulling and screaming all round, until we have dedicated, experienced Tomcat crews who know what they are doing and how to use the Phoenix to it's maximum potential. In any case thanks to Blacklion for coming in and giving us a few practical examples of using the Phoenix, while we wait to try it ourselves. I apologize to anyone for stepping on their egos in this thread, I did have a big part in derailing it myself but then again my own ego just can't stand idly by and watch can it?

Well now we are getting somewhere, it was a bit of a trick question because the answer is basically "it depends". However, a faster missile will usually always be at an advantage over a slower one even if we don't know all the other parameters because it will have a higher energy state and because it will require a much faster and more accurate response from the pilot. In every case! Now replace that Mach 2.5 Amraam with a Phoenix fired from 10nm away storming in at Mach4 and still burning! Sure it's massive and not nearly as agile as an Amraam but at what point exactly are you going to start that 7G turn for it to miss? Im still not saying it's impossible, of course you are going to maneuver as hard as you can, but at that kind of range that missile is much, much more deadly precisely because of its speed. It's going so damn fast that it only needs to turn a few degrees to keep on it's intercept course for any maneouver that you do. And the closer it is less of a lead it needs to pull to stay on intercept. So for your maneuver to be effective you are going to have to wait as long as possible and execute it as late as possible for it to miss but with each second your window of opportunity shrinks to miliseconds.

So your answer is that it would be easier to avoid the faster missile in the above scenario than the slower one. Ok got it. Thanks. :thumbup:

Unfortunately the Tomcat lacks any missiles which could use the TCS solely for an intercept solution. Im actually pretty amazed that the US military has never developed a missile like the soviet ET series.

Oh and this is where you claimed that we were wrong and the guy on defense net is right. Or rather you used sarcasm to claim so, and got into this whole argument.

Can you answer my question please? Is it easier to dodge an AMRAAM going at Mach 1 or an AMRAAM at Mach 2.5 at say 1nm from target intercept? Assuming the exact target intercept conditions (or geometries) in both cases, which do you think would be easier to dodge?

The whole reason we got into this argument was your claim that the AIM54 would be easier to dodge compared to the other missiles in DCS due to it's high speed and large turn radius. This statement is wrong, which is what the last 4 pages of this completely derailed thread are about :) Flaming squirrel, Dino and myself tried to illustrate why this statement was wrong, hopefuly to you and maybe to others reading this and I hope have been clear enough. Let me ask you one question shagrat, is it easier to dodge an AMRAAM going at Mach 1 or an AMRAAM at Mach 2.5 at say 1nm from target intercept? Assuming the exact target intercept conditions (or geometries) in both cases, which do you think would be easier to dodge?

Actually theoretically it should be easier to dodge an AIM54, than an AMRAAM or an AIM9, in certain equalized conditions, the most important of which being equal speed, however you have to also take into account that there are also many conditions where the aim54 is much more deadly than the other missiles listed too. That's why I took exception to what you posted regarding it's turn radius. It's just one parameter of many, and not even the most important one when the missile is close to or at its max speed. The speed of the AIM54 is not a weakness, it's the missile's biggest asset.

Now you are resorting to hyperbole. It doesn't add anything to the discussion and is frankly rude. The point myself and others are trying to make, and the one you conveniently seem to disregard for the past few pages, and instead choose to resort to ridicule, is that a faster missile is much more deadly than a slower one, all other parameters being equal. I don't see how much clearer we can make this. No one is stating that the Phoenix is a GOD MODE missile or anything of the sort, all we are saying is that the idea that it is somehow easier to dodge a faster missile than a slower one is wrong. (All other parameters being equal)

Ok, Ive read through the post on defenseissues.net now. (Sorry for missing it earlier, but it happens sometimes and there really was no need to get personal) All that the poster claims is that it is possible to outmaneuver missiles in certain conditions and then proceeds to list them. They are kind of hard to follow because like Dino Might mentiones a lot of parameters are missing from the descriptions. He states that the faster a missile is the bigger turn radius it has, which is also true, but without knowing the intercept geometry as Dino Might mentioned is meaningless. Nowhere does he state that a faster missile is less capable than a slower one. In fact he even states and I quote:

Yes this is correct, but you still have to understand that executing this maneuver against a missile going Mach 4 is much less effective than against the same missile going Mach 2, all other parameters being equal.

Well without reading what he wrote I can't judge whether it has merit or not, but just the part that you wrote about without knowing any other parameters doesn't really tell us anything about anything. Also please note Im not saying that going full G defensive at the right moment and "dodging" the missile is impossible, it's just that it is very hard to do. And the faster a missile is, the harder it is to "dodge". That's just pure physics and doesn't have anything to do with the Phoenix. Another thing to note the AIM54 doesn't have to hit you directly either, it has a pretty large warhead and a proxymity fuse too.

Pretty much this. Im not sure Im reading some of the comments here correctly but assuming that the AIM54 will get less dangerous the closer the launch distance to the target is absolutely incorrect.

I keep posting this link whenever a discussion on the AIM54's effectiveness keeps being brought up by people, though I doubt many will be bothered to listen to the interview. (Due to it's length and very in-depth look into how missiles work in DCS in general) *spoiler* it is a VERY effective missile even against fighters when fired in the correct conditions. If you wan't to know how Heatblur's AIM54 will perform in DCS, until we get the Tomcat and the missile in our hands, this is the best source of information as it features the person who created the actual parameters of Heatblur's missile, our very own IAGATSG. Shagrat mentioned a 90 degree radar arc. I don't think this is unrealistic, most fighter jets have a radar gimbals of 120 degrees, as for it's turn radius yes a fast, heavy missile like the AIM54 has a pretty big turn radius but this in and of itself means very little without stating other parameters such as distance to target, altitude, speed and aspect of target, speed of missile, whether the motor has burned out or is still going etc. etc. Fired within 15nm the AIM54 will be extremely hard to evade unless you manage to notch it perfectly.

Well I want a removable cockpit. /s You're missing my point. I don't have anything against more choice, my point was that it's not up to you or me to demand anything from the developer including options like these. It's up to the developer to include it, or not. The OP asked for this option, the developer stated that it's not coming, and the reasons why. That should have been the the end of it. Criticising the developer, and demanding this (or ANY other) feature even after he explained his reasons is just pure entitlement.

Thanks for the quick reply Naquaii! :thumbup:

I disagree, I mean we are supposed to be flying a "realistic" simulation. If you don't think "realism" is a valid reason we might as well not fly in DCS at all right? So where do you draw the line? I think that is up to the developer and Eagle Dynamics and not random forum posters. I mean why stop with removing the stick, there are a lot of "quality of life" improvements that they could add to the module right? Why not ask for a feature that removes the entire cockpit, since we are not really sitting in one?

People are already complaining about how to "balance" the F14 in a multiplayer setting I personally have great aversions to any such discussions but many forget that it might not be possible to take off with a full complement of Phoenix missiles AND a full fuel load as well. So my question is this, is it even possible to take off (with either the F14A or B) with 6xAIM54 missiles and 2xAIM9 and full complement of fuel from either a carrier or a land base? Can someone chime in on this, because taking off with 6xAIM54s and immediately being forced to take fuel from a tanker kind of already "balances" out the F14 compared to most of the other modules out there.

"Choice" also applies to a developer choosing NOT to include any said feature, and has stated his resons for doing so. I think it's a valid reason since it directly applies to realism (you can't remove the stick in the real plane) and how pilots deal with it. (Leaning over to look at the display)

Im surprised that no one mentioned that the F14A could theoretically be used in OPFOR/RED missions/scenarios. After all Iran still has some.