captain_dalan

I just flew the same mission a couple of times, nothing extensive, but the initial impression is that it's not the missile, it's the radar. AWG-9 just drops all the track files as soon as the bandits change their course after firing their own missiles. On the single bandit i did manage to maintain a track, i actually scored a hit from 45.7 miles, angels 36, mach 1.18, on a bandit ay angles 24. mach 0.8 at the time of launch. The missile hit the target at mach 1.60. You will have to find a way to maintain the track files, which at the moment i can't help you with, as i haven't done it myself. I haven't flown this particular instant action in a long time, but maintaining tracks wasn't that much of an issue in previous patches on other missions. 4 possible alternatives that come to mind: 1. Get in the RIO seat, and try to hook only two targets at a time - no idea if this will help, as i've never done it myself, so i have no idea if Jester will just hook the rest of the targets as soon as you hop in the front seat again. 2. Fire in STT. Now this instant action has you equipped with Mk60 A's, so you will have to maintain lock all the way to impact. And it's 4 bandits against 2 Fighters, all the bandits equipped with a FOX03 missile, that actually goes above mach 4.3 (you got to love the realism here) while your own missiles struggle to reach mach 3.6. So....yeah, good luck with this mission. 3. Try to stay bellow the bandits at all times. They start at 35000ft and will climb if you do. They won't stay up when they fire or if you down, so take that into account. 4. The latest update may indeed have broken something about the radar. But i can't confirm or deny that, as i haven't fired on 4 defending targets in a long long time. Back in July last year, this wasn't an issue (the last time i flew this IA), but then again, the AI didn't go defensive after firing back then.....so, who knows? Good luck and do write if you make progress! Edit: here is the tackview of my take. Note, i only changed the plane to A in stead of B, because of.....well, reasons. It's a personal fetish of mine EDIT 2: A video of last July: Tacview-20220905-163221-DCS-September update F-14A_IA_Marianas_BVR_JF17 Mk60 A.zip.acmi 2 out of 4, without defending. As opposed to 1 out of 8 now (1 kill in two missions), so maybe it is the defending bandits after all.

I'll try the missions myself tomorrow if i can. I remember the SD-10 being a real pain in the behind, much more so then the AMRAAMs back in the day. Unfortunately i don't own the JF-17, so i could never test its weapons and ordnance performance. The AMRAAMs are currently in a rather bad shape, but the SD-10's may not be. If so, they could be a much more dangerous missile then the AIM-54, regardless of variant. It's more then that. Before this patch, an AI set to veteran (not to ALL mission and campaign creators, please don't set your AI's to ace, it cripples them), was just as likely to do a Split-S at 10 miles, as it was likely to offset for a few seconds and then notch. That is, the chances between few more seconds of missile support and a complete trash were about 50-50. This doesn't mean anything for FOX-1's, as they got trashed anyways, being dependent on the mothership support all the way in. But it meant precious few seconds of support for the FOX-3 shots. With the latest patch the almost ALWAYS goes for the Split-S, ditching all support. It even ignores notching. Just a plain 180, about turn, and burning the hell out of Dodge. Almost every fight ends up in a chase scene. What ever they did, they turned the PvE and SP into a bore fest.

Unless you have intimate knowledge of the F-14 WCS that you willing-allowed to share with ED and/or HB, i don't think this statement holds. As of right now, the AMRAAM can be fired in the F-15, F-16 and F-18 well outside its battery life or ballistic range. Why would the F-14 be any different? Some tacviews would be helpful. I just spent the better half of the night doing BVR instant actions (exported into my own mission folder so i can tweak and experiment with them) and observing the AI's behavior. It looks like the latest patch incorporated some new AI behavior, right out of the GS server meta mindset. The AI's are now highly reluctant to engage beyond minimum engagement range AND they go cold as soon as the missile fired reaches the scripted range of 10 miles, probably 75+% of the time if not more. This means they will likely outrun any initial shot, unless that shot is performed under very specific circumstances. This also means that they are even less likely to support their own missiles then they used to be. BVR engagements are right now essentially turkey shoots. Fire at long range, the AI will forget about its own shots and turn cold, then run them down as you are both faster and carry more fuel. Heck, i just fought a MiG-31 10 times in a row. The poor thing didn't even get to fire twice in those 10 engagements. AI fights haven't been this boring in a long, long time... EDIT: this of course extends to your wingman as well. Expect a completely impotent fire support from him. Sometimes he gets knocked out without firing a single shot as well.

These are generally observations as well. I'm not complaining on the end results mind you, as i don't have enough data to complain or praise about. But the flight profiles do seem a bit odd. Or at the very least different then what we are used to. This makes me wonder.... what about those times when the missile performance was tweaked to match the test shots, but its actual flight profile was nowhere near what it should have been? Or what about that time when the missile was flying exactly by the numbers, but only in completely flat trajectories? Or what about that other time, when the lofting logic resulted in the missile defeating itself even against non-maneuvering targets? Or of we don't restrict ourselves on the missile alone, what about all those times when we flew without TWS AUTO and had to manually babysit Jester to handle elevations and azimuths? Or those times when tracks would semi-randomly drop for no good reason? 4 years of OP for sure! Some here it would appear have very selective memories.... This is an honest question ,without an ounce of sarcasm: in the last 3 days, i must have fired over 150 missiles, 20-50 miles away, transonic and subsonic, angels 15 to angels 35, maneuvering targets or dumb drones. I have always fired within indicated FCR parameters (centering the T) and never experienced a single strato-launch. Nor have i experienced it in the previous patches. Can you perhaps share more tacvies that reproduce this behavior in all their variations so it can be researched and tested better?

Worst purely in terminal performance. Don't look at the mach at the point of missile going active, but the impact point. For some reason, Mk60's outperform the Mk47's, and the A's outperform the C's. Maybe the guidance logic actually has an inverse effect? I'm shooting in the dark here, just trying to make sense of the observations. However, these aren't straight shots. They are lofted and i'm under impression that the higher the velocity during initial climb, the better the end results. It would seem that this gives the missile more time in the thinner air? I actually just did a test. The panic crowd is over reacting. The same test i did for the F-14, i did for the F-15 and the AIM-120 C. The 50 and 45 mile shots never make to the target. I suspect battery lifetime? The 40 and 35 mile shots do make it, and have approximately the same energy at impact as the Phoenixes. The AMRAAM is definitely FASTER though, at least as far as peak velocity is at stake. And it bleeds less during terminal glide, but this is to be expected. Only one tacview this time around, as i really need to go to bed. Tacview-20220904-030900-DCS-September update 1 on 6 EAGLE test C-5.zip.acmi

Nah, but our CAP stations usually are set between 25-35000ft, so it's only natural to be most curious about that part of the envelope. Besides, north of 40000ft? That's Eagle territory! We ain't getting their in the F-14A, certainly not with the state of the FM being as is

Let's try and use another term instead of "competitive"....... let's say..... outperformed maybe? But, regardless of all that, i think the user community may have to accept one or possibly two of the following hypothesis: 1. It is the AMRAAM that could be overperforming. Needs testing in replicating similar shots. Way too late in the evening (early in the morning for that); 2. It may be that the AIM-54 really was that bad, and that the reason for its retirement was that it was outclassed by the newer missiles. Now, on the more measurable side if things, i just completed another series of 48 launches, this time testing the C variant, both Mk47 and Mk60 motors, just as with the A. The results are to say the least interesting. The test is of course the 6 on 6 launch, and to make this post shorter, i'll just go to the final conclusion. Terminal performance wise, the Mk47 C is still by FAR the worst Phoenix variant we have in the game. The Mk60 C is comparable to the Mk47 A. This leaves the Mk60 A as still the best missile available as far as the conditions of the test are at stake. Recommendations: unless you really need that "active on its own" feature, you are probably still best off, packing the Mk60 A. This doubly so in the presence of the dice roll system of CM effectiveness. Mk60 A's will get to their targets (hit or miss) with more smash then the other variants, AND definitely more then the abysmal Mk47 C. As always, tacviews are attached bellow: Tacview-20220904-001932-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-002421-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-002905-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-003353-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-003855-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-004344-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-004839-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-005357-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 C.zip.acmi

Before too many people decide to take this as given, some disclaimers should be made. The following data is based on the 6 on 6 shootout, missiles fired from 28000ft and mach 0.8 at targets flying 20-23000ft, doing mach 0.73-0.78, at ranges from 35 to 50 nautical miles. All failures are due to guidance and not missile ability to reach the targets with enough energy. Targets don't maneuver or dispense CM. All missiles fired were A models, 24 shots made with Mk 47 motors, and 24 shots made with Mk60 motors. Observations: 1. All missiles reach their active points at about mach 2 and bit extra; 2. Mk 47's never reach mach 3; 3. Mk 60s do reach mach 3 for a short time during climb; 4. Mk 47's intercept their targets between mach 1.27 and 1.48; 5. Mk 60's intercept their targets between mach 1.34 and 1.57; 6. Mk47's performance tends to suffer more from DECREASE in launch distance; 7. As a result of 6, the Mk 47's have wider terminal velocity range when fired in the above mentioned parameters, based on the sequence in which they were fired; 8. Mk 60's reach their targets faster and with more consistent terminal velocity. Hypothesis: as the Mk 60 climbs faster to its desired altitude, its intercept geometry results in slightly, but significantly better terminal performance from medium altitude subsonic launches against hot targets. Conclusion: the Mk 60's might actually be preferred to Mk 47's when fired under similar conditions, that is in tactical situations against 30-50 miles hot targets and subsonic environments. For more strategic range launches 60-100 miles, the Mk 47 may be preferable. More tests are needed, especially against defending targets. Initial impressions: missile performance in both motor variants seems quite reasonable and within expected performance parameters. Limited tests in tactical scenarios allude to extreme susceptibility to CMs by all variants, but the statistical sample is too small to reach definitive conclusions. Tacview files attached bellow for further study. Tacview-20220903-025940-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20220903-030438-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20220903-030923-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20220903-031426-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20220903-031910-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20220903-032356-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20220903-032847-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 A.zip.acmi Tacview-20220903-033339-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 A.zip.acmi

I am losing PD-STT locks from time to time, both in SP and in MP, though not that often and i've never actually explored or investigated the reasons behind those. Nor have i checked the tacviews. So it may be worth an investigation. EDIT: also worth noting, i usually try my best to engage in anti-notching maneuvers, so it may contribute to my experiences.....or not....

Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it's the flight model's fault. You are trying to compare setup which you can't reproduce. As others have mentioned, there is a lot of nuance in RL flying that sim setups can't properly replicate. The following is a small demo i just made. It's not supposed to be representative, or a tutorial on AAR. Rather, it's just a small proof of concept, pairing the F-14A and S-3B (two aircraft that many users avoid like the plague, due to their "temperament" in AAR and flying in general), on how with a relatively cheap and antiquated setup, plugging and staying connected is very much possible, with enough practice and discipline. Now, this video doesn't really demonstrate the entire process (which requires more then just connecting, but flying in formation for prolonged periods of time), rather just short sips of taking fuel, even in a banking S-3B, with its small size, and ultra stiff hose. If you like, i can record the entire process, but it won't help you much, as flying in formation, isn't something you can learn (in my experience) by watching, but rather by doing. Oh, and BTW, this is clumsy me after a couple of months NOT practicing at all, that is, my first attempt: I also recorded my axis setup and my inputs. No curves on the roll-pitch axis, and actually a throttle curve which reduces travel distance available in mil power. Essentially a handicap setup in a way. My setup (that many people wouldn't even sneeze at),a lowly CH Fighterstick and TWCS throttle. As you can see, i don't even have rudder paddles, and i use the rockers of the throttle for that input: EDIT: As @Jayhawk1971 mentioned, unless it's an actual hardware issue with the input devices (malfunction or double mapping) it's only a matter of practice. Maybe it would help if you recorded your attempts, so we can better diagnose your problem? EDIT 2: Oh heck, i had an itch for refueling, here's the whole ordeal, blunders included:

It may help if you post the mission as well, so we can experiment.

Useful info! Many thanks!

Probably got lost in the myriads of questions, so i'll just repeat it....

Seems like a rather big overhaul, i can't wait to see it in action. Many thanks, and even more so for the patch (thanks to ED as well)! A question: Does the lack of INS on the A versus the C, means that the C will fly a more optimal intercept curve, with continuous as opposed with staggered/periodic course corrections? Does the difference (if any) even has a noticeable effect on the terminal properties of the missile? Or is the terminal performance dependent on the motor use alone?

It's very hard to take a thread or a discussion seriously, when the initiator of the said thread proclaims himself the winner in the very first post, and then proceeds to change the goals of the discussion with every post that voids his initial claims. Now, i'm not a lawyer, not a moderator, but as a layman, this all seems rather fishy to me.

I leave that to the guys with high res screens! Seriously though, on 1080p even with 130 degrees spotting is pretty good inside 5 nautical miles, which is from what i've read, pretty realistic for most fighter sized targets. MiG-15's, F-5's and MiG-21's are another thing, but then again, they should be hard to spot. Nah, that way i'll lose the ability to lean forward, which is actually the most important thing i went for when looking for way to create a custom default cockpit view. The vanilla has you seating lower in the seat, because you are looking level to the horizon and not level to the boresight, which results in you looking right at the bow if your seat is where it needs to be. This helps with instrument readability, bot completely messes up spatial orientation and bandit callouts. On top of that, once you are airborne, your plane of motion is no longer aligned to the runway, but rather to the angle of attack, so with the vanilla default, you end up looking a bit up, instead of front.

True, you want the canopy bow away from the edge. Did some fine tuning this evening and yesterday afternoon. I think i'm pleased with the results. I cycle between 85-95-105 deg FoV, generally for BVR-general use-WVR accordingly, but as it's easy to zoom in or out, i just seamlessly shift based on reflex and instinct now, like if i need a shot i can go from 105 to 85 in no time. Tested in campaign, in instant action missions and in ACM training missions. Spotting SAM launches is a breeze! Plus the angling does wonders for coordinating turns, i no longer even need the ball indicator. Some screenshots for the last hop, Syria Devil's edge BVR: And the settings as they are now: More testing is needed of course, both in MP and in SP, but so far so good. The results look very promising!

Good advice and i agree on the loss of peripheral vision. I think i'll stick with the 100-110 as default for now, with 85-90 as "zoomed in" and 115-120 as "zoomed out". The latter especially for ACM/BFM and just out the pit scanning.

Ah, thanks guys! Yeah, that would be a bit too narrow for my taste and need. My screen is only 21inch and as i seat about an arm and a palm away from it (usually) that would make the FoV way too narrow to be practical. Somewhere in the order of 35-45 degrees. I mean sure, i can quickly readjust with a radial zoom, but for a default, it's a bit too much, or better said, too little Still, something to keep in mind if i ever update the screen. Owe you guys some beers!

What equations did you use in the calculations?

That's what the radial is for though. The above 3 snapshots were all taken with different zoom/fov settings. It helps that the radial can be operated with the pinky so it doesn't impair functionality in other ways. I was more interested in the exact seating position, as FoV can vary from headset to headset. Back in the day when i used one, it had only about 90 or so degrees. The best there are now are what, in the order of 120?

The nose and the string are indeed visible when from completely neutral. It's once you start pulling and rolling g's that the view goes down a bit. Also, when reading the instruments i "kneel" down a bit, usually during taxi. Snapshots from the default neutral view: null This is indeed a major problem, and one i haven't been able to solve thus far. Shifting the PoV forward, makes looking back really awkward, like your seat and headrest are half a meter away or more. Narrowing the PoV on the other hand, can bring the object in their seeming places, but then it feels like you are flying with horse-blinders or a toilet paper over your face. So i usually try to narrow or widen the FoV based on current needs during flight (like in that video) with the radial, but it's not a perfect solution. Suggestions are welcome! EDIT: This is about as close i can get it to the ACM panel without sacrificing too much functionality or distorting the perspective to the level of a refused meal, sent back to the provider the same way it came. Should the sitting position be further up? (FOV is 105 in this case, 130 gave a strong fish-eye effect)

It is and it isn't, like @Hiobsaid, there isn't a single best view for a static PoV. I.E. my current setup (which i will attach bellow) gives a better view over the nose, centers the view at the boresight (allowing for easier turn coordination) and gives better low calls (by Jester) recognition and interpretation. It also gives better low (as in over the canopy) spotting as long as you haven't disabled your lateral in cockpit camera movement (no idea why some people do that). However, the price i pay is that, when centered the gun ammo counter is hidden by the hook handle and the hydraulic switch is not accessible when you remove the cover. Fortunately, my time in VR has gotten me used to moving around in my chair and even more fortunately, i don't suffer from mobility impairments of any kind, so these are easily solved by just a slight nudge to a side, or a lean back. Here's a video of yesterday's test: And a screenshot of the default settings, in case anyone wants to experiment with them further and maybe refine them: If you do, please to write in this thread, i am very interested in your findings and even more so in your modifications and default view preferences!

Yeah, tried it. Unfortunately it didn't work. The stutters did reappear after a while. I am yet to establish any correlation between the mission type i'm in and the time elapsed before they come.

I tried this, and it is what i'm using now, but it has it's limitations. Like no way to lean forward I.E. This is in fact what i've been looking for. Thanks mate, i owe you one! Bookmarking this and trying it ASAP. The FoV won't be an issue, i have that assigned to a rotary, so i can easily change it in real time, depending on what i'm currently doing in the cockpit. Thanks again for the pointers! EDIT: what's the legend behind hAngle, vAngle, x_trans, y_trans, z_trans and rollAngle. EDIT 2: NVM. Trial and error is a fast teacher! Got around to it in no time!