-
Posts
2718 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by captain_dalan
-
First off, this isn't a bug report, but more of a question relating to a problem. No tracks are still attached as they may not be needed if the behavior is as intended. My question: Does the AWG-9 have a datum preference? That is, does it like scanning above the plane datum line more then it does bellow it? As long as the target remains in the same conditions relative to he absolute horizon of course? Say, we have contact, 60 miles out, 35000ft. We are at angels 30. Jester id's it as hostile, goes to TWS-Auto, a track file is built. Now, if i bank away from the bandit say to the right, the cone will follow the bandit based on the centroid logic. After a while, if i remain in the bank, no g's pulled, just a fairly shallow bank, don't lose or gain altitude, TWS auto often gives up and starts scanning ahead. So if the target is below my datum line, it appears the AWG-9 doesn't like to keep the beam on the bandit. If however, i roll in the opposite bank and not change heading, again no g's pulled, that is i keep the bandit above the datum line, the track won't be lost and the cone will stay on the bandit. Even if the lock is gone when the bandit is bellow the datum line, if i make a quick correction and change the bank to bring it above the datum line, the radar will immediately track it again and restore the cone to match the contact. This sometimes happens in PD-STT mode, where it seems the lock is less stable you are banking "away" from the target then banking "into" it. BTW, these are shallow banks, inside 40 degrees of offset, so we aren't talking about the contact being outside gimbal limits. Is this a feature of the radar?
-
Help me with my case 1 pretty please, its crap lol
captain_dalan replied to eatthis's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
1. ED is yet to tune the FLOLS for the F-14. It's only precise for the F-18 and it's always been so. If you fly the ball. you need to fly a ball or two higher; 2. Because you are too wide, that is, too far from the boat. The needles take into account what your slope should be for a given distance but the script expects you to be at the correct altitude for a much closer distance. You should be between 1.1 and 1.3 NM when you are at 180 and your bank needs to be more aggressive -
AI Hornet BFM skills got better?
captain_dalan replied to maxTRX's topic in Aircraft AI Bugs (Non-Combined Arms)
And not just the Hornet. I have a series of homemade missions that i use to train certain parts of the envelope or systems use and ACM techniques. The last time i flew those the end of last summer and the start of autumn. That is until this weekend. Many of the planes that were happy to fly themselves in the ground back then are now making a decent show of themselves in the BFM arena. Oh, and they no longer seem to go for the hammerhead 2 times out of 3 like they used to. I get a feeling ED is not just constantly working on the AI, but actually sneaky-sneaking pushing the updates to the open beta without mentioning in the changelogs! -
reported F-14 Supercarrier compatibility
captain_dalan replied to Reflected's topic in Bugs and Problems
Is the meatball messed up in the non-supercarrier boats as well or do they work properly with the F-14? I might want to switch back to those or the Forrestal, but haven't used any of those since the SC came out. -
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
Agreed -
My bad, should have been more specific.
-
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
I was there since the start too, and the mid-range shots against hot targets aren't quite what they used to be too. Way too often the missile defeats itself by trying to compensate for the closure rate of the bandit. So much in fact, that shots made from 60 miles away have better terminal performance then shots made from 25 miles. Note, this is a rough generalization, not verbatim numbers. Should it be so or was it that way IRL? No clue. But it wasn't that way when the plane and the missile first came out. -
Just checked the tacview, no Tomcats on the red side, at least not during the duration i was there, F-4's, F-5's, MiG-25's, MiG-29's, Su-17's, Su-27's and Su-33's.
-
Nah, i'm not talking about the HUD, but the TID repeater.
-
Went to the Through the Inferno - Syria today, after almost a month of absence. Decided i had enough Phoenix practice in SP and try and see if i can use them online. It was a short session, no more then 2 hours long, but something peculiar happened. It seeps either the F-14 or the AI RIO Jester has its IFF capability compromised. First i was locked by a friendly F-14 with an AI RIO who only broke the lock after i called buddy spike. Somewhat later i followed a pair of contacts, a friendly Hornet (semi circle) and a hostile Su-33 (diamond). They merged and after the merge only a diamond was left. I locked it up in PD-STT and started burning towards him when someone started decaling F-14 buddy spike. Just then i passed the clouds and the TCS confirmed a Hornet. The lock was still a diamond and Jester never voiced a warning. A bit later on the second hop, i had a similar situation, with a couple of contacts in close proximity to each other, this time around 5-10 miles from each other. I locked the hostile in PD-STT again (locking specific contact), the lock remained a diamond, Jester remained silent. I didn't fire cause i didn't want to risk a friendly kill. The contacts merged and only the hostile survived. It proceeded to break my lock but i picked it up again some 15 miles from me. I fired a missile when the TCS zoomed in on him and turned out to be a friendly F-14. The poor guy most have screamed through his SRS (which i don't use) Buddy Spike over and over again. Fortunately i immediately broke the lock and the missile went dumb. I spent the rest of the mission staying away from sectors where blues were engaging reds. The missiles didn't give me much trouble. Has anyone experienced Something similar be it MP or SP? I've had a few cases of my radar locking up my own missiles and Jester declaring them friendly, but never a case when i manually locked a diamond and Jester not informing me i have lock on a friendly? Is Jester IFF-ing them incorrectly? Sorry, but no track, this was MP after all.
-
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
Generally speaking, for the launch parameters that you are exploring (angels 30, mach 1.1), here is some observations that you may find useful: 1. The Mk47 motor powered 54's will need to be launched about 5-6 nautical miles closer to the bandit then their Mk60 brethren to achieve similar terminal performance; 2. Alternatively, you could also launch them from about 5000ft higher (angels 35, mach 1.1) for similar results. 3. Never ignore Flanker spikes. The ER will get you if you are more then happy to oblige it's intercept geometry. 4. ET's will get you as well, especially if you burn all the way and in a straight line. So watch out for launch plumes and kick several flares every now and then while coming out of burner, just to be on the safe side. Always deploy flares when merging! Now, some DCS meta: 1. Bandit type - last night i modified the mission i used to make the tacview recordings i attached yesterday, and i changed the bandits from Su-27's to Su-33's. Same loadout, 4xR-73's 2xET, 2xR, 2xER, same AI skill level of ace. Lo and behold, the bandits defended much more aggressively then before. On few occasions, they would even fly themselves into the ground, just to notch the missile. On a couple of occasions they even notched the Mk60. So it seems, what you fight will matter. 2. Wingmen AI - Ordering the wingmen to engage sub-30 miles, often results in him engaging with Sparrows directly, ignoring the Phoenixes. Thus going for the closer range shots with Mk47's may be counterproductive as it will rob you of your support. In stead, go for the extra 5000ft. This way you can still engage from around 30 miles and have wingmen support. 3. F-14A specific - right now, the A model is still lacking power (or has too much drag) in the transonic region with the configuration tested (external tanks present), so accelerating to mach 1.1 or mach 1.2 will take some time. As many instant missions start inside 50 miles, you may not have enough time to both climb to 35000 and accelerate to mach 1.1. Meta-solution, drop the tanks (like i do here, as i am too lazy to modify the mission to start further back), something i would never do on a mission sever, or SP campaign-mission, or start further back. Here's some tracks to provide context for the above block of text. Hope it helps. Tacview-20220218-012754-DCS-2 on 3 test co-alt Sea Flanker.zip.acmi Tacview-20220218-020128-DCS-2 on 3 test co-alt Sea Flanker Mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220218-024345-DCS-2 on 3 test co-alt Sea Flanker Mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220218-025111-DCS-2 on 3 test co-alt Sea Flanker Mk47C.zip.acmi -
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
3 Angry Ace level AI's got their hands on 3 Flankers, 3 different scenarios, lower, co-alt and higher then a pair of Tomcats. The Flankers never really had a chance. And yes, these are Mk60's but the missiles intercept at over mach 2, so the Mk47's are going to somewhat worse, but not by that much. These were fired inside or about 30 miles to try and match the above mentioned shots at about mach 1.1, but they could be fired at greater distances and still make the shots. EDIT: BTW, my hit ratio is nearly 100%, that is 3 out of 3 hits. Out of 12 runs, 4 for each scenario, only once did a missile miss, and that was when the flanker got cold and try to run away. Naturally that didn't end well for him. You don't run away from F-14's, certainly not that at these altitudes. Tacview-20220217-235106-DCS-2 on 3 test co-alt.zip.acmi Tacview-20220217-235437-DCS-2 on 3 test high-to-low.zip.acmi Tacview-20220218-000223-DCS-2 on 3 test low-to-high.zip.acmi -
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
Roger! I'd do the tests myself, but unfortunately i can't host a server and these things are not performed well on most open ones : / -
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
Yeah, what i meant is further repetition of the event, trying to stick more to the numbers for consistency, 5g into the vertical, 6g on the pullout. BTW, i always pictured this as the pullout being performed on the original heading, did i get that wrong? Did all C models used the same rocket motor? I mean, including those we don't have in DCS? -
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
This is the one test i wanted to recommend to @Hummingbird as it can not be replicated offline, but if performed with a cooperative bandit (more then once, to eliminate flukes) it will account for any possible discrepancies in performance that may arise from sub-sufficient alpha induced lift/drag, or wonky atmospheric modeling. If anyone is able, capable and willing of performing the tests, i'd be more then happy to see the results -
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
@Hardcard Let's call a spade a spade, the Mk47 A's are capable of replicating those test shots. Now those 50 miles are just barely make it and if the bandit so much as flies into a turbulence those missiles will fall out of the sky like the big subsonic rocks they are by the time they reach their targets. But they do work. And they will make it if test conditions are met. I routinely get 5 out of 6 or 6 out of 6 and i don't even assist the loft. So it may be a conservative benchmark (minimum conditions met) but it is met never the less. The 30 mile shots are even more reliable (energy wise), and the missiles are comfortably in their kill zone when fired 25-30 miles away, again in the given test parameters. Now you may argue, that minimum conditions aren't enough, and there should be some leeway, but let's wait for the lift adjustments and further guidance improvements before we make our final verdicts. Tacview-20220216-013458-DCS-4 on 5 test mk47.zip.acmi Tacview-20220216-014311-DCS-6 on 6 test.zip.acmi Tacview-20220216-013916-DCS-6 on 6 test.zip.acmi -
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
If fired in similar conditions, around m1.1 the top speed reached in a fairly level flight is between m2.4 and m2.5, or roughly 2.46 which is in the ballpark estimates of napkin math when adjusted for atmospheric pressure and density. Tacview-20220211-154635-DCS-missile tests f14A low alt mk60.zip.acmi -
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
If this was against AI's on a server, then like @Spurts says, itm must be desync. I know i am one of the guys that complains about parts of the envelope, but to give credit where credit is due, the missile performs very well in some other parts of the envelope. This is me last night in SP, and these are 50NM shots. Mind you, i was also in an F-14A, which in the 4x2x2x2 is still largely robbed of transonic performance, ergo i had a hard time breaking mach 1.1. 3 out of 4 ain't bad under the circumstances and if the wingman hadn't take out #4, it might have even be better. Also, worthy of notice, this isn't a C but a mark60 A. I will make a copy of the instant action with a different load to test out the differences. Tacview-20220207-225142-DCS-F-14A_IA_Marianas_BVR_JA11.zip.acmi -
-
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
Someone mentioned something along those line a page or two back. That explains it then. Not a statistical fluke after all Ah, nice! Thanks for the tip. Scratch one occurrence -
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
There may also be an issue between PD-STT and TWS, though i'm not sure if it's guidance or behavior induced. The tackview seems to show that the bandit kicks chaff a bit more often when it's being fired upon in STT, but it's not by much. Maybe a 1 or at most 2 CM more for the same time interval. However, in tonight's session, at least 5 missiles went for CM when fired in PD-STT, while none when in TWS. -
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
Roger that. I'll try and hunt down some the next time i have a session -
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
This is one of an AIM-54A Mk60, where 3 out of 4 eat chaff. If i get the time, i'll try to produce an AMRAAM replay. No track though, didn't save it, as at the time i had no idea the missiles failed due to CM. Tacview-20220206-230334-DCS-BVR F-14A duels VS F-15C.zip.acmi -
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
No changes to launch or track cues as much as i can tell. My money is on loss of track. It's more likely to occur on a high to low geometry, especially over land and rough terrain. Try resetting the radar as Jester won't do it on his own, so the contact can still show on radar as a diamond, but no track will be assigned to it. Resetting the radar (say with a short PLM press) will reset Jester logic as well, causing him to reacquire, re-IFF and re-designate. -
AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion
captain_dalan replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
1. That is exactly what i needed to know, thanks! 2. 3. and 4. I think we may be on different frequencies here. I am referring to this precise scenario and the shots as they were made, in order to illustrate the differences between how things were and they are now. If you recall i posted one (out of many) tracks in the previous thread in which a shot was made from 35-ish NM at a co-altitude target, with the above mentioned parameters. Before the latest patch the missile had a steeper loft, and while it did achieve higher altitude, it did end up slower during the terminal phase exactly because it bled too much during the loft. And again, as that scenario was performed with a 45C, so was this one. Will a mk60 fair better? Sure. Will a higher distance launch loft higher? You bet. But then i'd be comparing apples and oranges 5. I get the impression that many people around here, used to fire their 54's at even more inflated distances then i ever did (as mentioned above, around 35NM for medium altitudes around mach 1.1 to 1.2). As such cutting your expected distance by 30% may even be conservative. As one example mentioned in the previous thread, people were lobbing these things from 50NM while barely going above 5kft. As an illustration, the only time i did that was on the Marianas J-11 BVR, and that was at angels 35 and around mach 1. I'd go faster, but as you know the F-14A right now has issues going much past the number that heavy and that high. At least not in level acceleration. Anyways, that's a mk60 to boot. Tried that same shot tonight, and no big surprise, it still works. Which leads me to believe that people used to do these (and it worked) from at least 70NM away, if not as soon as the AWG-9 would build a track. Ergo, cutting 20NM from those 70-80 for a similar PK sounds well within reason. Is it precise for everyone? Most likely not. But as a general rule for people used to the old Phoenix? I'd let the users decide. 6. Thanks for the tracks! 7. Question more related to the AI. From most test-shot performed, i can't really get a clear picture as to when and why the AI goes defensive. Is it RNG? IS it distance from bandit? Distance from missile? The instance missile goes active? The instance the bandit's RWR picks up the active radar? 8. Because the F-14A won't go any faster! Joke! But really. The setup in that mission is 50 at the start. In the A, you either go full burner level or full burner up. The first will get you mach 1.2 (maybe) the second will get you.....not that fast Without going into much details, what i found works fairly consistently for PD-STT shots (don't ask why i insist on those) in the above mentioned parameters (i'll post a track if you want to), is starting with a 35-40 degree offset, STT one of the bandits, launch around 21-24 NM away as i crank the opposite way, start dropping altitude as i crank, and then depending on bandit crank perform the appropriate anti notch maneuver. The missile usually hits unless the bandit goes full cold. If the missile doesn't connect and the bandit is still hot, i am usually inside 10 miles by then, which lets me finish him off with an active 54. If i do splash him i go for the trailer, same treatment, a sub 10Nm active shot, but this one usually provided by a PAL P-STT lock. If i use the wingmen, then i usually go for the trailer right away, as ordering the wingmen to attack a specific target is too finicky