captain_dalan

Also beware the bandits might be inside the radar shadow of other bandits. Best practice in multiship intercepts is to probably split the section and approach the contacts from different vectors and or altitudes. Datalink between the fighters may also help? Not sure about the latter, never had the chance to test it myself.

Final observations related to the changes in the missile guidance and lofting, but this time around regarding the changes in the AI. Tested the target size settings to see how the AI responds to the changes in the time-distance the missile goes active from the target. Turns out, it doesn't. The AI will always defend inside 10 nautical miles, no matter how the missile is set to go active. In the first 3 tracks, the setting is set to small target, in the second 2 tracks to large target and finally in the last 2 track set to normal. The TTI numbers flashed accordingly, however, the bandit time-distance from the missile when starting to do defensive maneuvers never changed. Just something i think PvE and SP users should find useful. As of this patch, there are absolutely no benefits from setting the target size to small. As always, tracks attached bellow... Post testing addendum: It would appear the AI (at least when supporting a missile) will defend exactly the same even when fired in PD-STT. That is, it will crank after firing it's own missile, but at 10 miles will go full defensive and treat the AIM-54 shot as a FOX-3 threat. Tacview-20220612-163118-DCS-F-14A_IA_PG_BVR.zip.acmi Tacview-20220612-163434-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220612-163742-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220612-164558-DCS-F-14A_IA_PG_BVR.zip.acmi Tacview-20220612-164907-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220612-170200-DCS-F-14A_IA_PG_BVR.zip.acmi Tacview-20220612-170524-DCS-F-14A_IA_PG_BVR.zip.acmi

Had some time free on my hands and managed to do those tests @Noctrach suggested in the Vertical phoenix thread. Short innuendo, taking the 6 on 6 mission as a starting point, i've made a 1 on 1 conversion, 1 phoenix 1 bandit. Bandit is hot, angels 23, mach 0.5. Shooter is angels 28, mach 0.8. The tests include: 1. TWS shot at 50 miles, target size normal; 2. TWS shot at 40 miles, target size normal; 3. TWS shot at 30 miles, target size normal; 4. PD-STT shot at 50 miles; 5. PD-STT shot at 40 miles; 6. PD-STT shot at 30 miles; 7. TWS shot at 50 miles, target size large; 8. TWS shot at 50 miles, target size small Test goals, establishing if changes in guidance method or time/range to go active change the loft geometry and the terminal properties of the missile. Secondary goals, establish differences in available energy at the moment of going active and at target impact, depending on the distance the missile is fired. Conclusions: 1. No visible changes in loft geometry or available energy of the missile based on changes in guidance and target size. All missiles arrive at impact point largely in the same energy state. Wish i had the chance to test this in the previous version of the missile. The missile always follows a similar lofting curve when fired under similar circumstances. The moment to go active has no bearing on this trajectory either. That is, the missile always starts going down for the target based on range, mach and altitude it's been fired at, and NOT on the choice of target size; 2. The energy state of the missile at the moment of going active changes based on the range it has been fired from, all other factors remaining the same. While the difference between between 50 and 40 miles shot isn't that big, the shot taken from 30 miles, had the missile with a lot more extra energy available. While at first glance all intercepts end up with similar energy states at the moment of impact, this mean the missile has more knots to bleed when fired from closer. This would explain the improvement in performance i've noticed in some BVR missions again the AI. All tracks are attached bellow. Tacview-20220610-151824-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220610-151423-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220610-152235-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220610-153015-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220610-153417-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220610-153918-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220610-154341-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220610-154742-DCS.zip.acmi

My pleasure mate and yeah, i completely agree with you. Learn to crawl before you learn to walk. Hope you get her to obey! Cheers!

I actually have scored Sparrow kills in this way from fairly close ranges (enough so i can keep visual on the bandit and manually keep him close to the ADL), usually inside 7 miles.

For what is worth, my dozen or so tests on the 6 on 6 mission, reveal somewhat more stable tracks, and even a kill on a crossed track. Those are however non-maneuvering targets and i only tried the Persian Gulf BVR mission once with decent results. One MiG splashed one evaded the missile by going cold after a Split-S.

Redone the 6 on 6 mission i posted in the "Phoenix to Space" thread (or something like that) and yes indeed, there are some changes there, both in mothership guidance and missile performance. Overall, more missile now find their target while still (if barely) supersonic. How much is a result of changes in drag and how much in lofting logic is hard to tell. Moreover, the missiles fired from closer still end up slower then the missiles fired from further. This may however be specific to the way the bandits are set in the mission and requires further investigation against a single target under constant conditions. What has DEFINITELY changed is with how much energy the missiles arrive at the "pitbull" point and it has changed for the better, especially for targets fired from closer ranges. Before this update, the missiles went active at about mach 1.7 for 50 mile shots (in this scenario) to mach 1.5 for missiles fired around 35 miles. Now though, the missiles go active at about mach 1.8 for the former and about mach 2.0 for the latter. Note, target size is set to normal, so 10 mile active command is assumed. This means that the missile starts it terminal guidance with more energy to spare, and what is more important, when fired closer, that energy quantity goes up. This seems to be a result of changes in slope angle, which is not considerably shallower for closer shot. The terminal guidance itself still bleeds a lot of energy, and most shots end up intercepting their targets with only marginally better kinetic performance then they did, but the increase is there. 10 tacview files are attached bellow for people that want to make the comparison to the previous tracks. Only did one test against maneuvering targets (MiG-29 Persian Gulf BVR mission) and the results were satisfactory. One missile went active at almost mach 3 and found its target, while the other bandit survived only by Split-S-ing out of Dodge. So, so far, i think this update is an improvement. More tests will follow to account for specifics. Cheers! Tacview-20220608-221719-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220608-222215-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220608-222710-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220608-223202-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220608-223654-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220608-215400-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220608-215809-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220608-220225-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220608-220740-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220608-221230-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi

No curves on my stick for sure. I've running linear since the very start. And no, i hadn't dropped the flaps. I only do that if i go for a sustained sub 200 knot fight. These were pure max performance turns i ran for a friend of mine. It seems that at very low speeds i have about an inch of stick movement between 32 -33 degrees (true) AoA (max lift) and 35 degrees (true) post stall behavior. I can't for the life of me remember if i have any rudder curves, but i will check. Either way, further refinements in stick-rudder inputs on my part are in order. I got smacked in the puss this Saturday my a MiG-29 in a one circle vertical re-merge just because i didn't have the guts to pull more. Yeah it was a very high aspect shot from point blank range (thus well inside the bubble) but we had no rules set aside for no shots at the merge (2 months of hiatus for both of us, so we just wanted to fight), so i let it slide. Anyways, that made me rethink my life so i started practicing max performance turns to a point where i can comfortably hold 32 degrees AoA even though i have aft stick to spare

Ah, good to know that mate. My soul is at rest now! No worries. I know how hectic can things get around here, especially with all the Phoenix stuff. The finer points of flight characteristics often get buried in all the other posts

Oh yeah, there is no racing or climbing with one, that's for sure. And that think was leaking all kinds of stuff when it extended from my previous shots. I hate to think what would have come about if it was undamaged.

OP, here is a video my last night's BFM session, PvP, one on one, F-14A VS a bunch of different planes. Hope you can take away at least something useful out of it:

That's a very good point, and definitely a worthy subject for my next series of tests, just like the above, but in STT. Glad i am not alone in my observations here! Salute!

Looking forward to this as well. Last night i had a chance to do some PVP ACM, but last night was exception. Most nights i don't have the time to do so, as SP is much more accessible.

1. Am am referring to page 8 of the white-paper here: "We calculated the drag forces from the combined surface integral of the face-normal forces and face-shear forces on the whole missile surface. From these we calculated the drag coefficients at each altitude and fitted a curve that uses the same trajectory as the game engine does. We used this function to further calculate the the flight profile of the missile in level flight and in a loft scenario. This simulation is considerably simpler than the one used for the AIM-120, but in this case we do not have drag data for flight at AoA." 2. I actually have on multiple occasions. And the tests are..... let's say satisfactory, in that they pass the bare minimum. I'll post 10 tracks here and the mission that helped create them, to illustrate my point. What i mean by satisfactory is, the relevant tests give the adequate results, but just barely and not in a way most people think. This mission is set to recreate the 6 on 6 shootout, shooter at 28400ft mach 0.8, targets between 20000ft and 23000ft mach 0.5. Targets hot, set to non-maneuvering and now CM. The formation of targets is carefully chosen to make things as easy for the AWG9 to discriminate the targets. That is the front echelon is lower then the rear echelon, so the rear isn't in the radar shadow of the front. Targets aren't small drones but large MiG-31's and most shots are taken closer to 50 miles. The original test requires launches from 50 to 32 miles. Thus the test is heavily rigged to succeed. And it does. The missiles score 3-6 out of 6 kills routinely, and the average being 4.5-5 out of 6. And except in one case, all the misses are a result not of the missile running out of energy, but guidance failure-loss of track by the mothership. Just like in real life. So the missile is well modelled, right? On the surface it seems so, if we consider the PK to be only valid metric here. Take a closer look at each missile that actually makes it to the target. Both those that hit, and the one just barely misses. At least half the missiles that make it, are barely transonic at the moment of impact. The hang around mach 0.95 and 0.98. Some are as slow as 0.90 and 0.91. That's just enough to hit the target. I have no idea who came up with the test, or what was on their mind when they did, but i would expect a wider margin of error on their part. That is, designing the test so that they give themselves a better chance to succeed. But that's not what is puzzling me the most though. Not even close. An even closer inspection of the test results, reveals that most of the subsonic kills are achieved by the missiles that were fired from closer ranges. And against the higher flying targets - the rear echelon. So a missile fired at 50 miles against at 20000ft target has better terminal performance then 30 mile shot against a 23000ft target. A target in less dense atmosphere and closer at moment of launch. That seems very counterintuitive to me. The only obvious difference that i can spot is that the closer shots are actually steeper on both the way up and the way down, does bleeding more energy. This makes me think one of two things may be off here: a- The induced drag is overmodelled; b- The lofting profile needs further work; Or possibly c - my expectations are wrong, and intuitiveness be damned, this is indeed the desired behavior of the missile. Sorry for the long rant, but unlike most shooters people, i was never really obsessed with the extreme shots, i've never fired a Phoenix at more then 60 miles away (at the extreme during strategic intercepts) nor do i plan to, unless the mission i fly demands me doing so. And this above mentioned behavior has really been my only chip in the shoulder since the major upgrade. In the attachments you can find my mission and the tacview files. Cheers and have great Sunday! Tacview-20220605-161933-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220605-162401-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220605-162827-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220605-163248-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220605-163657-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220605-164111-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220605-164537-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220605-164949-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220605-165355-DCS-6 on 6 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220605-165759-DCS.zip.acmi 6 on 6 test mk47.miz

@IronMike As it seem this went unnoticed, i'll link it here as well: In short, should the full aft stick result in critical AoA overshoot? That is, should we be able to "oversteer" the F-14?

Pretty much so, yeah. Keep her coordinated and she'll do wonders for you! Not that useless. It will teach him energy management, as the AI has infinite amounts of the same thing, and will help him create memory images of the different planforms depending on what the bandit is doing.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the CFD really only supports straight level shots? That is, no AoA, lofting, g's pulled and other drag inducing activities?

Do you own and fly any of the warbirds, that is WW2 era props?

It affects people flying against it.

Contrary to most people that have a gripe with the current implementation, my issue is not with the upper range performance, but with the more medium range shots against non maneuvering hot or slightly offset bandits. Namely the bell distribution curve for PKs is way too normal (that is symmetric on both sides of the median) when compared with most written or spoken accounts of doctrinal use, that imply it should be skewered towards the nearer ranges. Hopefully improvement in guidance algorithms remedies that. However, it could be that all those mentioned accounts are wrong or exaggerating or outright lies. In such a case maybe the best PK zone is a narrow band around the ideal range that leans both slopes in an equal differential and we are all just spitting at the wind here

Looking at the results of that test, i think that while the overall acceleration is all over the place, not all parts of the envelope are created equal. That is, the time you'll spend being above mach 1.4 or the situations that warrant it, is much less pronounced then the time you'll be between 0.9 and 1.2. At least for most BVR. BTW, has anyone done this for the A model?

Been using this for over 5 years now as i have no room under my desk for rudder paddles and the cost of a new desk + quality rudders is a bit too much for me to invest in. I understand why it may not be enough for the helo guys, but for warbirds and Tomcats it's more then enough.

I'm guessing transonic drag is bonkers? And it's been so for ages now. The A model won't even go supersonic with some loads above certain altitude. As for the reaction to dropping ordnance.....have you guys ever fired a shoulder mounted Sparrow while in a 4x2x2 or 6x2? The thing immediately drops to the heavier side.

Bolded by me. Are you serious? There is literally 0.2-0.3g difference (resulting in 0.4-0.5deg/s turn rate difference) between the two planes at best sustained mach, for the same loadout and with a greater fuel margin for the A (more burner time). Acceleration? Yeah sure. But Turning? There is hardly a difference. Unless you are one of the 1 in 1000 flyers that plans to do lateral cartwheels with the plane, your engines won't die either.

So no feedback on this? @IronMike?