DarksydeRob

Squadron Name: The Art of Warfare Aircraft Selection: All Pilot Roster: To be decided

If you want to you can go go dig it up in the Russian forum from two years ago. Flanker pilots were moaning the AMRAAM had too strong of a CCM resistance when it got reworked, It kept on going for awhile till ED gave it and reverted their changes and "nerfed" the AMRAAM. When the actual problem was the R-27 was eating chaff too easily back then. Not like it mattered for long as the new scheme missiles had all chaff effects removed from it not long after.

Yeahhh sadly not always , ED have changed values before for balance when people have moaned when it didnt fit their agenda.

TAW_DarksydeRob F14B

Yep this was it , it was a conflict with that other VR mod lingering in the background. cheers

Anyone had this issue ? I've repaired and redid the files a few times already. OpenXR demo launches , unsure why DCS is failing

TAW_DarksydeRob - F-15C TAW_Lint - F-15C

TAW_DarksydeRob - F-15C TAW _Dyren - F15C

I've tested positive for Covid , therefore I wont make it back home for the event as I'm stuck away from my PC for the next 11 days. Someone else should take my spot. TAW_DarksydeRob

There is a problem with PH ACT and Pulse STT launches currently anyway. Currently in DCS its got a magical way of acquiring the target it was shot at (Magic INS) when its within pitbull range if shot above the pitbull range. For example , you shoot at 25NM and it flies straight till 10NM then it will magically know where its target is and will start going after them immediately. I'm assuming the intention for it in reality is to turn on , scan and acquire a target within its FOV not have Magic INS outside its FOV. Although if it has passed the target it will not do 180 but it still will still start going after something outside its FOV. The 120s and SD10s had the same logic for awhile when if you lost lock before Pitbull it didn't matter as when it got within right distance it would start magically tracking the target. just as the 54 does currently . This was corrected though so wondering when this is going to be corrected with the 54's active from launch modes.

Its nothing new , this including other FC3 issues have been reported for years . Unless a game breaking bug appeared over an update , dont expect anything to happen to FC3 anytime soon at all.

All calculations are done from the Pilots client , what the RIO sees is what the server thinks the missile is doing , so RIO gets the same missile as the target aircraft. Its an issue if the Pilot laggs as then all four : Server , Pilot, Riot and target aircraft will have different missiles on their clients. Off the top of my head if the RIO laggs the pilots client doesn't register the changes ( I could be wrong or have been lucky ) it just halts getting updates from the RIO until he has stabilized and starts giving input again. The other is issue is the overall desync of the pheonix. Its related to the delay of the server receiving the data from the pilot. Just that 1 second or so of delay due to the fact of there being no post launch syncing of the missile from the server and the 14 pilot client creates this issue. Its not just the Aim 54 that suffers from this , features had to be removed in December/January from the 120 missile scheme to resolve some big desync issues with the 120's and SD-10's. The threshold of desync is much higher on the 54 due to its speed , it covers more ground in that delay when its takes action. This is especially true when you essentially maddog a Aim 54 or use the PH ACT and while having a track on a target in TWS above 10NM. Overall its not just about the 54 and ultimately its up to ED to negate this issue not HB, as even with HB updating the 54 to the new scheme wont remove these issues. ED need to transition from a client sided netcode to server sided, clientside netcode is very outdated and causes issues like this. This was reported and confirmed in the testers section so ED do know about it. I have to say its weird if you guys have had nothing from ED relating this topic at all as its been 8 months since this has been reported. I'll have to dig up the things Sauvuer and me reported to ED and then send them to you. Although the tracks are going to be old , nevertheless its not had to reproduce yourselves. Would of gladly done them myself for you but I'm currently away abroad.

I reported it at the same time as the annoucement. Its not true at all, if you want to talk about the most restricted aircraft it has been the 14 . The thing I don't think a lot of people realise with SATAL is the fact that its a competition that designs itself about pilot skill as one of its main pillars. Therefore you can't just leave everything unbalanced and allow massive discrepancies , this is the nature of a competition. I do agree there will always be fanboys of their own aircraft trying to campaign and make sure that their aircraft always has the upper hand however its not being tailored around them. Its a competition. With SATAL 2020 the Jeff was a problem as the SD 10 had major drag issues and turned like it had thrust vectoring, instead of being outright banned it was restricted, then unrestricted when it was fixed. I'm not really sure how you can call this a bias when it had no place in a competitive environment due to its issues. Same with the Aim 54 it was restricted in 2019 (when it should of been banned and it wasn't due to other factors) due to its problems , and I'm saying that as a F-14 lover . This year its outright banned (rightly so) till its desync exploits are patched. Which should be soon as heatblur said the updated Aim-54 should be coming soonish. Currently the Jeff is in a very favourable position , 4 SD 10s v 6 120Bs in SATAL ( when the IC issue gets fixed , as it should be easy to) . So if this is doing harm to the Jeff, I'm not sure what you think is fair. I think apart bar one or two things related to RWR's pretty much all of ED modules dont allow you to edit the aircraft performance or other systems due to the Integrity Check or them not being easily accessiable in lua files like on the Jeff. It has been reported and I hope ED look at everything and not just the Jeff to squash anything else being easily editable via lua files in other modules. Sadly, if someone wanted to go through the effort to cheat in a game they will . Furthermore in DCS there is no real anti cheat , just the IC which checks assigned files if they have been tampered with and im pretty sure if you wanted to go through the effort you can bypass it probably pretty easily if you know what you were doing . 99% of the community dont fly the simulator genre to cheat so there hasnt been any major measures taken by ED to stop people from cheating in MP. Especially when those people are a very small minority.

Like you thought in your other post , it is simply a limitation of the old missile gudiance. Heatblur devoetd time into implementing the SARH/Active logic before doing any transition work to the new logic. However straight after they started looking into it, around January time. Recently I asked if there was any progress on this transition and this was their reply: Soon enough we will have a proper pheonix.

Has any work at all started for transitioning the 54 from old missile logic to the new one yet?

Testing Figuring out paramters from the lua's and see how they match in game. The logic and all of that is hidden , but the values of missiles are free to see.

If the topic is for Multiplayer. No matter the target size setting the pitbull warning is given to the target 4-6nm away from them (depending on speed and alt) . Not when the missile actually goes active. So when using Large missile goes active at 12nm but doesnt give a warning till half of that. So use Large. This is true for all active missiles also, not just the 54.

Why do you care about the scoreboard so much ? Just like when people decide to take a fight with the ground AKA the undefeated Champion. Just count it as a kill and be on with your day.

ahhh I see , looking foward to it . Hope ED can put the time to implementing it with you guys in the near future so that we can see the true form of the 54 like we have seen with the 120.

Ah I see. So its not utilizing it fully yet. Looking forward to when it uses the new FM and full Seeker logic like the Sparrow , SD-10 and AMRAAM.

@Naquaii Is there an ETA to when the Aim-54 will use the new missile API ? Or is it not currently planned?

Yeah I just refreshed the page and not sure what just really happend ahaha. Well then. And well I dont find AI useful for testing as they dont behave as a real player would do, they do dumb defences and have Godlike SA but at the same time die super easily. AI is games is pretty much its going to be OP or crap. You fly only singeplayer or you fly in MP also? In reality the Sparrow is far inferior in DCS. Like I've stated before there is no secanrio where you would take Sparrows over Phenonixs in DCS unless you are restricted in weaponary. At the end of the day the 54 very easy missile to notch and get rid of quickly. Against Fighters its a good support tool , not a killing tool. The sparrow isnt good at either.

We were talking about general Fox 3 Behaviour there disinclining Aim-54s. The hybridness of the 54 is completely different to the way the other Fox 3s react in DCS

I know how the 54 is meant to work. I was stating what it actually does for the OP. Probably should of included what its meant to do also to remove any confusion. 15nm isn't too close to use a 54, far from it . The Phoenix is superior to the Sparrow in every way expect the really close range scenarios as the 54 simply cannot turn currently due to it using the old FM from the old missile API and the sparrow using all new API. At the range the 54 becomes unusable its better to go sidewinders as they are much more effective than a lacklustre Sparrow, as even if you had sparrows its still better to use the sidewinder. For effectiveness Phoenixes and Sidewinders, however if your looking for authenticity then that's something else.

Currently countermeasures in DCS are laughable at best in my opinion due to it being a simplistic diceroll. However its implementation is old and out of date its been planned to be reworked alongside ECM. But it will probably always be simplified part as somethings are simply just too complicated to implement (Mainly ECM) especially with old horse of an engine DCS runs on. Noisejammers for the full fid modules and reworked countermeasures I reckon is reasonable place to be at. I agree the difference between the 7M/MH and the 54s are a bit odd and only heatblur can answer why they believe the 54As are stronger than the 7Ms. However , not as odd as the difference between the ED and HB 7M , the HB 7M is a ED 7MH. I reckon its a mistake as every other Aim-7 is copied correctly except the 7M. The most reputable sources I read placed the SD-10 between the 120B and C(don't recall if they stated which variant) in both kinematics and in guidance/electronics. But that isn't what we have though , the SD-10 is kinetmatically better than our 120.C But as with such things its hard to know the truth as the SD-10 has less publicly known data. Although with the way the SD-10 got released at first I don't trust Deka at all. Pretty sure ED have the knowledge . In my eyes it's more of ED overextending and not working on the right things when issues arise. Honestly, who can blame them when they are pretty much more or less forced to release things too early (F16 and F18 for example). At the end of the day ED gets there but it does take them a long time, but it doesn't help people cry out for new modules before others are finished. And yeah Active missiles will automatically acquire their target if the distance between their assigned target and themselves equal/ less than their Pitbull range. Even if its outside its FOV to a certain extent.