captain_dalan

And they don't defend against an F-14 blip on their RWR inside 50 miles? Just because no missile flashes on it? Are you sure you're flying against other humans?

Manual lofting seems to help with the trajectory, but only a bit. Even with the assisted loft, it heavily resists lofting. As an illustration, a sub angels 30 subsonic launch at 50+ nautical mile hot target from a mach 0.90 platform used to result in 70+ angels loft apex. Without any loft assist. Now it takes angels 43 with a 15 degree loft assist, all other conditions the same, to reach the same apex. On top of that, the optimal range for launch is now much more narrower with steeper probability curves, especially on the closer side of the bell curve. If you observe the missile closely during it's initial lofting phase, it looks like something is actually pulling it down and the missile struggles to keep the nose up. I have never heard of a missile of any kind going belly up when losing lock or LOS. My guess is that it's just another ancient code relic.

I've had this bug for ages, never solved, as i never figured out what's causing it. Most often it happens on mission restart or respawn (when in MP), but sometimes it happens when running the same mission multiple times without restarting it, just picking it up again from the menu. And on even rarer occasions, it happens during the very first start of a mission, right after DCS loads.

Definitely after the impulse patch, as my tests were done immediately after the impulse reduction and the new guidance logic implementation.

Though both sides (HB and ED) may claim that no changes were made, this afternoon i finally got the chance to experience the issue myself. Same conditions, same mission, same firing parameters, much different results. 1 on 6 test, non-maneuvering targets, yadda yadda.... September tests: 50 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.98 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 75000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.43; 47 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.99 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 72000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.39; 44 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 67000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.37; 42 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.01 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 65500ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.31; 40 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.01 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 62800ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.31; 37 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.03 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 60500ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.34; October tests: 50 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.99 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 60100ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.09; 56 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 59000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.11; 44 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 57000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.12; 47 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.99 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 58000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.04; 45 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 55500ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.02; 38 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 55000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.18; It seems like who ever "solved" the looping bug, solved it by killing the lofting logic. All the test shots now end with inferior energy available to the missile across its entire trajectory, by following a sub optimal lofting profile. I guess its time to go back to the old Fleet Defender.... Tacviews attached bellow: September tests.acmi October tests.zip.acmi

THIS! Everyone knows that the Phoenix, like the Moon landings, "was a brilliant piece of propaganda, so that the Soviets bankrupted themselves, pouring resources into rockets and other useless machines..."

And to follow the scientific process, reproduce the same shot with say an AMRAAM C-5 carrying Eagle or Viper. What results do you get?

You must be missing something. The number of missiles has no impact on the countdown. Some screenshots or even better a short video may help diagnose what that thing you are missing is. Missile prep? TWS AUTO is the only way to guide a Phoenix in TWS mode BTW. If the counter doesn't appear at all, you may not have track files.

As always, it depend on the situation and your game plan, but dropping to high subsonic isn't out of the question.

Whatever the current "meta" is..... but suffice to say, it get's them blown out of the sky by a 10 miles Sidewinder launch, and then they come here looking for changes in the "gameplay"....

Most players don't fly like humans should either. I'm not talking GS server, Warthunder ground scraping furballs here. Just simple scripted intercept geometry and barebones time lines.

Boy oh boy, are some people gonna be negatively surprised by a more realistic AI, regarding their kill ratios....

And some forget it's not 1981 anymore, and the bandits we face aren't Floggers and Fishbeds anymore....

Agreed, the AI's perfect SA, especially the "inverted notch" (where the AI is notching a missile with perfect accuracy even when it's facing that missile with its belly up is out of this world. However, there are a lot of things a truly intelligent AI can do prior to Pitbull to spoil your shots, especially your TWS shots, that the AI doesn't really do right now, nor it ever did. So up to a point, the end result somewhat evens out. Though, it may and will lead to people developing harmful "meta" habits that will get them killed in MP PvP or/when ED does further improvements to the AI behavior. Oddly, i actually find the Mk60 Charlies more reliable right now, at least against Veteran targets, fired from medium to high altitudes sub mach 1. Overall. my Pk is about 50% when engaging 2 targets at the same time, which even more oddly, is the same Pk i had before the changes. It's only the employment method that's changed.

It depends on the parameters. 30 miles, angels 6, is likely outside effective range, that is an impossible shot, hence the bug. I tried a 30 mile with the same loft, but at angels 28, and gave quite the boost to the missile during terminal fase: Tacview-20220905-003923-DCS-September F-14A_IA_PG_BVR Mk60.zip.acmi

As i changed my throttle power curves a couple of weeks back, i needed to relearn everything precision related (CASE I's, formation, AAR...) from the start. I left the KC-135 in the instant action for last. Took a while, but i kinda got it by the end. Still room from improvement. Refueling at 350 gives you very little throttle travel to work with, even less when you on purpose reduce it! Last night:

For what is worth, during mu initial tactical trials, i experimented with medium to hi altitude subsonic launces and how viable they are against defending veteran AI. I shot at about 30 to 35 mile distances, from altitudes 25-35000ft. This is an example of 28000ft launch at mach 0.95, at co-altitude targets closing in at mach 0.90 to 0.95. The AI went Split-S as soon as the missiles were inside 10 miles. The result was a double kill, with missiles hitting the targets at mach 1.3 and 1.6 respectively. A point worth noting, the missiles were Mk60 Charlies. This isn't that far off from the best confirmed scenario i've achieved with the previous versions of the missiles. This is only a single example though, and may be an outlier. More consistent tests are needed. The old version of the missiles had about 50% pk in this scenario and a lot of that was a result of the seemingly RNG nature of the defense the AI would chose to run with. This is the tacview of the test: Tacview-20220905-003923-DCS-September F-14A_IA_PG_BVR Mk60.zip.acmi There were "war game" like events during which simulated BVR shots were taken during the F-14's lifetime though. So some general guidelines on doctrine must exist.

Have you fired in the meantime? 2 BAR for 40 degrees and 4 BAR for 20 degrees. TWS auto will switch on its own between the two, in order to try and keep as many contacts inside the cone. And yes, TWS auto does automatically look up or down, but issue is when it has a hard time deciding where, up OR down, left OR right. If the system can't settle on one target quick enough, you can lose both, especially if you have already launched. The particular problem in this mission is that one of bandits starts hugging the ground soon after the start of the mission, while the other one climbs up to meet you. This means one will be at 3-5000ft, while the other up there at 30000ft. It's impossible to keep both in the cone if this happens. Especially not if you closing with them. It is possible to get both inside, with a drop in altitude, but this will require meta-gaming with the DCS AI a bit. My recommendation is focusing on one target only. I go about it in one of two ways: 1. You either STT the closest bandit, preferably the higher one. You fire on him, and when he goes defensive, you burn like a bat out of hell for him, and fire from active off the rail range, then immediately proceed to look for the other bandit. Good SA will be the key. Watch out for RWR contacts and missile trails. They can help you evade those shots and spot the bandits sooner and easier. 2. After you lose the tracks, wait a bit, the radar will soon pick up one, usually the lower one, but it doesn't really matter which. Sometimes only one track will be lost, again usually the high flying one. 2-a. If you lose the high one: As your track stabilizes on the lower bandit, launch a missile with target size set to large, so it goes active sooner, rather then later. Support the missile until it goes active (usually around 20ish seconds TTI) while offsetting the RWR contact. As soon as the missile is active, break radar contact (PLM button), and immediately start looking for the other bandit. If that is the high one, you can usually spot his smoky engines or vapor trail (if he's high enough) from inside 20ish miles. He may have fired on you by now, which means you can also spot the missile trail. Even easier to spot then. Turn into him, PAL mode on, you'll get a lock. Fire a Phoenix at him in P-STT. By now you are already probably close enoguh for a mad-dog launch to pick him up. He is already defensive and diving by this point (if he launched) so be mindful of this. Make sure you launch alongside the phoenix radar view angle, so the missile can find him. Then if launched upon go nose down and try to vertically notch the missile fired at you, but KEEP mental picture of where the bandit was when you started diving, as you are very likely to lose the lock. As soon as you fire on him, he well go full defensive and stop supporting his missile. As soon as the RWR goes silent, remember where he was, turn that way and start scanning for him, both visually and in PAL. When you find him, press the attack, and after a missile or two more, he's a goner. During all this, the other bandit is probably still turning cold from defending your fist shot. Don't expect this one to hit. After you have finished with the high one, go low and locate the other guy. If needed turn cold first to get some room for radar manipulation. 2-b. If you lose the low one, it's even better, Fire in TWS and stay in TWS as long as possible. As the high one dives for cover when your missile goes active, your radar will try to follow down as well and you can actually pick up the other bandit. If not, follow the procedure from the above, and run down the high bandit first. Then go for the low one. The use of TWS or PAL will depend on how the situation evolves. Remember to come out of burner and start pumping out flares as soon as you inside 10 miles from a bandit. You won't always be able to spot the R-73 launches in time, especially not with having to keep SA on two bandits at the same time. Hope this helps!

Very much so in my book as well, with an added element of adjusting trim as the fuel quantity changes during the refuel process. Otherwise the risk of slipping out due to drop of altitude increases. Lack of tactile feedback amplifies it, so one has to keep an aye for visual cues. Many find this to be so, but not me, i find it very easy (possibly due to the way a approach it) and is in fact my go-to tanker given the chance!

I better not hijack this thread any further. Especially if there is dedicated topic on it

I don't use any curves as well and i much more primitive and less precise stick. It's still doable, just takes practice. Don't go directly for the 135. Perfect your skill in the 130 first, until you can refuel without a single disconnect. Then go to the S-3B. Repeat as the above. Only then try the dreaded 135. Some find it easier, due its large size (easer to keep an eye on it, especially formation pointers) and long hose (more leeway when connecting and disconnecting), but i've always found it the most annoying, due to its wing dihedral (more difficult to judge bank angle) and high speed (i fly the A, so at higher altitudes, it's hard to even keep up with the thing).

One of the bandits gets outside your radar cone as you are closing in. Usually it's the higher one, but it can be either.

Like i said, if you say so

If you say so mate, but tell me you don't find this a bit odd: It's not even that high, or that fast. Mach 4.74 from mach 0.95 launching platform at angels 37? In under 3 miles? Mate, if this thing was fired from angels 50 or above, you could shoot down the ISS with it..... But, if their documentation backs it up...... who am i to argue, i don't even own the plane yet.....

On the couple of occasions i've seen that in tacview, it appeared to be notching. Going for CM looks the same as it does with the Sparrow, that is, the missile will start going after some artefact behind the bandit. To me it looks like the SD-10 is just bogus. Vipers and Eagles with AMRAAMs, even Foxhounds with R-33's don't come close to being that much of a threat. Or maybe the Chinese really have developed a mach 5 capable missile in an AMRAAM sized rocket.....in which case, God/s help us all....