DarksydeRob

Countermeasure modelling needs a lot of work in DCS so I wouldn't call it realistic. But to clarify do you mean by realistic ,you referring its too weak or too strong? Current 54 CCM values are more believable compared to old ones, by far. Current 54 CCM: 54A = 0.3 54C = 0.25 Old 54CCM: 54A = 0.06 54C =0.05 Aim-7M CCM: ED 7M = 1.0 HB 7M = 0.5 (Not sure why its half) Current 120 CCM: 120B = 0.2 120C = 0.1 Current SD-10 CCM = 0.12

Current 54 is still pretty broken. From the looks of it Magic INS is finally fixed as memory ,or as I like to call it memeory, is ineffetive (Finally). However currently the behavour is different between RIO and a Jester with TWS. RIO: 54's will be in SARH only if used in TWS. The missile will never go active and if guided till impact it will kill without ever giving a warning. Jester: 54's will need guidance till pitbull. The moment the missile goes active the countdown will jump to 16 seconds (regardless of the current number) and will start flashing . At that point you can stop guiding the missile as its tracking on its own and if not defeated will hit the target. However , shooting a missile in any STT mode above pitbull range - Then breaking the lock and witching to TWS will cause the same issue as having a RIO . SARH all the way and stealth. But you know its coming as you had the breif STT lock on you with a warning, you then have to defeat it without a warning at pitbull. If the missile is active off the rail then it will output warnings , at least mad-dogs finally work reliably again.

I guess it was that time again for this question to be brought up again on the forum. They said time and time again they cant model properly due to the embargo and systems from it still being classified. If they could do it , we would probably get it. Maybe in future we will be able to get it once Iran finally get rid of their F14 fleet.

Quite a meme. I swear I looked all over for this file when the Tomcat droped and this wasnt there , wonder if it got moved or wasnt a visable file for the Heatblur versions. As here it was just the old ED AI 54 beforehand. Gave up after that lol ... Thanks for the path. The CCM is intresting then as the value it states of 0.06 and 0.05 dont feel anything like that in game. Feels much worse even considering this is old API. The more recent change with the notch filter deffo hasnt helped it either. But at the same time the seeker has overperformed for the longest time due to the new API version not being able to be released. Speculation time: CCM on the WIP 54 code (No varaints) CCM is 1.0 . Comparing to Sparrows the 7F is 3.0 and the 7M and MH are 0.5. My guess is that the 54C could be on the same level as the M and the 54A maybe is better than a 7F or if not on its level I would assume.

No , 200 lol. Not kidding its pretty bad . Got changed like 2 months ago. No way its 0.04 for the 54, seems way to weak for that . If you have the location for CCM on the 54 be great if you shared it, not been able to find it.

STT has no memeory in the Tomcat.

Actually there should be a way to remove Magic INS on the 54, however I'm pretty sure heatblur added it to reduce dysync isssues.So its more of a tradeoff betwen Dysync and Magic INS at the moment. So orignally if you knew how , you could give it magic INS manually as it didnt have it . If you didnt the missile would go dumb till pitbull and then yank itself towards the target even outside of the seeker view. Problem was this was a major reason for the massive dysync at the time with the 54. The way to do this was to press track hold after you launched a missile . Its all related to Memeory and surpirse surprise. The hornet can do the same just not to the extent the Tomcat can. Since Febuary they removed the need for that and every target fired on in TWS will have its memeory kept for the lifepsan of the missile, givinig it magic INS . If they were to remove the memeory that should remove the magic INS but it will most likely bring back the old Dysync issues with it going in and out of loft for the shooter and for the person reciving the missile seeing the missile fly with magic INS.

You do realise its up to ED to release the patches and not Heatblur right ? If Heatblur have completed it and its been sent to ED to be released . It will be in the next major DCS patch.

As of currently. Pretty sure in DCS all variants have same CCM, if the C is better it really is that marginal its not distinguishable. At some point it did feel like the C would resist to chaff a tiny bit more. Very marginal difference, but now feels exactly the same. Any missile is pretty easily spotable from 40nm if you zoom , even 120s. So taking the C is pretty pointless if you have the Mk60. Mk60 is the best if you are talking about pure performance. As even if the 54C was slightly better in the CCM department well they all share the same notch filter of 200knts. When the new API hits, all of them are going to have superior kinematics to now , but worse electronics. Hopefully there will be a distinguishable difference between the A variants and the C.

Any aircraft that can overload its wings and breaka them can suffer the Overload bug from wind wake. The execption being the F 14 as its got its own version from heatblur that actually is good and works properly. ED should just use Heatblurs wind wake and be done with it.

If wake turbalance was realsitic , sure. The Problem is , its not . Its very broken. What I'm moaning about is not about the departure from wake but the fact flying into it can spike your Gs to 30+ and complete annihilate your airframe. Its even possible to do it to parked aircraft when flying overhead if done right ( Be it the rarest and hardest to do ) Im unsure how you think that's realistic , even if the immense G spiking was fixed its exaggerated still and needs to be tuned down to become somewhat more realistic. Its one of those features that is very much WIP but hasn't been touched since its addition, one day it shall be fixed and be realistic.

Can Turbalance be turned off ? Its known to be very problematic at causing extreme overGing on Aircraft making them Disintegrate on the spot. Just today I've lost 3 wings in my MiG 21 , had a Viggen fly into a F-5s wind wake and insta ripping his wings and later another Viggen suffered the same Fate from my aircrafts wake. Its a broken feature and therefore should be disabled. Sick of dying and having fights ruined due to ED still not fixing it. Even if it stopped killing aircraft its insanely exaggerated compared to what it should be.

The chaff immunity seems to be relatively the same though from my experience . The biggest difference is how the missile reacts when loosing the target . Instead of going dumb and yanking itself away the autopilot keeps it on track. I do feel like this is giving people the wrong impression in my opinion. Especially when some people think its immune to all chaff for 5 seconds which is definitely not true at all. You can still overload the missile with chaff if done right to completely loose it. Again problem is dysync. Its especially noticeable in Singleplayer as you can feel the CCM being the same when snap notching it near the end. The reason Im using this stage is that it cant rely on the autopilot anymore to keep on track towards the target and re-aqurie. It pretty much gets defeated as before. Its not so immune as some people lead it to be. The missile isn't on rails anymore and the angles the missile gets onto its target are a lot different than before leading to a more complicated notch than beforehand . Even in multiplayer in testing with the missile being supported till impact the same happens. Yes the values are different , but the new API will operate differently than before most likely needing the values to be changed. Assuming the values have been properly converted However issues occur in multiplayer when the missiles have slight differences and between shooter and receiver leading to the missiles being much much harder to defeat . In the end my final words are I hope ED are going to do what they feel right and not change something they beleive is right cause of a mob. If the CCM was truely calucated wrong then sure it should be changed to what it should be. I feel like this was mentioned months ago when it first released and it was checked and it was fine. Even with worse chaff resistance there is still one major issue. The network issues of DCS and clientside netcode.

Well as I hinted in some of my other statements. Who knows what the 120 really should behave like, maybe its still weak compared to real life who knows . My point being is that ED may have the better idea than us keyboard warriors and the current changes are for a reason. Furthermore, it wont be more difficult to win, it would be easier with a reversion . With the current 120s its a skillgap equalizer so a lesser expereinced pilot becomes more dangerous. And sure I fly competitively , however at the end of the day we are playing something that is trying to be as real as possible and I also expect it to be . Not for balance.

Well it does , you can trash 120s pretty much fresh off the rail . Its just hard to do , add dysync ontop and good luck majority of the time.

I'm really not sure what people want. I do believe a lot of people ( myself included ) are unhappy as only one missile family is being at a time, and it leaves the rest lagging behind hard at a big disadvantage. It Would of been better if all would of been updated at the same time or at least in quicker succession. What I don't want to see if things being nerfed cause a minority has moaned the new change is "too OP" and hurts them even if its the way its meant to be .I'm not necessarily saying that the current 120 is perfect however If something is performing as it Should then it shouldn't be nerfed due to complaints.

If EDs testing consists of AI v AI . Well that needs to change as that wont give any decent results. What are you on about with a 5 second immunity ? You mean the autopilot where the missile has lost track of you and is guiding on the last known flight path instead of just killing itself like before ? And they could in the right hands . Even now they could in the right hands but its much much harder.

Good lucking modelling anything like that in this engine.... At the same time we cant be sure if its still worse than IRL or better . ED made the current changes for a reason i'm sure. However, reverting it due to Balance is not the way to go. IF there was any mistakes in calcuations of course they should be fixed. What really makes no sense is comparing the new API missiles to the outdated missiles. Obviously they are nowhere near as one is much more advanced than the other , dont compare them until they all had the same treatment. About requiring more support to achieve essentially better resistance. Currently supporting the missile till impact yields better resistance without support it is substantially easier to utilise chaff and notch the missile.

Is it harder ? Yes Does it necessarily mean its wrong ? No Should it be reverted for balance ? Hell no If its closer to IRL behaviour than before it should not be reverted. EDIT: Also your also forgetting we used the Flanker during SATAL 2019 also.

Hoping that was sarcasm and not caving into requests just cause the minoirty mob came at you . You as the developer will know someting we probably dont and if you made the CCM be that strong you had your reason to. All that I see here is " My Flanker isnt competitive enough in DCS anymore ". Dont change it for balance , do what its meant to be like. People do not like change , even if it can be into the right direction. Doesnt mean change shouldnt happen. What a lot of the people dont see here with your singleplayer testing is that its not unreliable to defeat 120s. The issue at hand in reality is the current lackluster and crappy clientside netcode. Especially when on your client you defeat the missile , it completely dies but on the shooters side its still tracking. https://gyazo.com/4bf163f09fc499f07a9b1e35e6b8f9bb I bet if the 77 was done at the same time as the 120 this moaning would of been avoided. However the netcode would still be a massive issue that needs a complete rework.

Not really sure what you mean by max firing range. The biggest limitation of the missile now its going to be the fact that its using the old missile API .With the New API it would be buffed across the board. Being able to do everything better even if it has a slower top speed . Just like we have seen with the Updated Sparrow and AMRAAM. Especially the Sparrow , its seen a massive range increase with the addition of the loft and new API. ED has taken control of missiles so we should see a updated 530 in the future( be it , it wont be high on the priority I reckon) even if RAZBAM wasn't planning on it. But still don't expect it to level the playing field in scenarios with Fox 3s in a head on fight. I'm not an expert on the 530 D , is there any info on if it lofts IRL ?

It was snap notched , nothing new there. Can be done to old gudiacne and new gudiance. Obviously much harder with the new gudiance. The logic it uses currently its pure old Active guidance. Nothing different from a 120 or 77. The old missiles do not have any inaccuracy values IRC, I could have a look later. The new API does inaccuracy values, if you look at the 120B and C the C is more "accurate" however there is no noticeable difference in practice. There is no intentional target missing.

Completely agree , but their fanboys are gonna be fanboys. Not many people look at all the modules and highlight the rights and wrongs cause they don't want to. What they want is to favour their modules and want them to perform the best and throw any real performance out of the window. Deka are just gonna become Razbam 2.0 but with Chinese Aircraft .

Not our version which is the Original Prototype version essentially. The later versions were vastly improved but we wont get any of them. I do wonder how the new API will be, if it will retain more energy and be more manoeuvrable with the grid fins though.

The problem is a lot of people dont think what it takes to do something properly . They go ahead and ask for the latest and greatest tech thinking its gonna be possible to simulate properly with wikipedia articles. Just like all the people asking for the Meteor for the Typhoon...