Triggerjo23

Sauadron Name: Task Force Trident Aircraft Selection: All Pilot Roster: TBD Time zone: International

Hi, I can confirm this happens. It quite possibly is just in multiplayer as I don't play single player so have no reference for that. Basically the HMD when in bore sight can hover over a target without locking. Fixing requires switching through multiple radar modes. Sometimes you have to cycle many times before you get a lock. Verticle scan seems to work better but bore sight even when using sensor select long finds it very dificult to lock often. The radar also loses lock when in a turn fight, it always seems to conveniently be when you pull lead and are about to pull the trigger too.

Introduce the laser TCS next time.

I am not asking you to disregard proven information at all as you have no information you are willing to accept on the missile. Vice versa, you are asking me to accept something you have no evidence for as all the evidence points in the opposite direction. I am not arguing over the way the 54a works, I am trying to clarify on the way the 54c works based of official nomenclature used in all descriptions of it's functions. They are not just similarly named as that would defeat the purpose of it being a nomenclature, they do not just casually name these systems. Nomenclature "The body or system of names used in a particular specialist field". It is a much bigger leap of faith to assume that a missile made decades apart from it's predecessor is just as obsolete especialy once given the the expressed updates which are stated to be present on another known and contemporary missile. It's clear that there is a phylisophical devide between us here so I am just going to leave it at that. Perhaps your lead will take us somewhere but I doubt it as you will most likely just get the same level of info depending on the source. If it is a freedom of information act request then it will probably get rejected due to ITAR and if it is someone just telling you then they are at risk of breaching ITAR restrictions if it comes from ITAR controlled documents. I left my part on a good note with Iron Mike and am now right back to debating with yourself so it's best just to agree to disagree I think, but good luck with your lead.

I totally get it and am hopeful for the best and am thankful for your hard work and passion. All I mean by moving away from the module for now is in regards to the DCS competitive scene just wanted to say that. Regarding the main topic of the thread before we went off tangent, we have seen the exact same scenarios. Firing a missile on a target cranking at 20-30 degrees can see the missile reach them at only a few hundred knots or sometimes even just fly off the rail in a straight line even though the TID shows no lost track. This has been happening consistently. Even PAL with ACM cover up once the missile is active will see very wide misses. Nearer the start of the year this kind of shot worked really well at around 10-15nm with ACM cover up and 10k feet higher than the bandit, now though all BVR launched missiles are missing and almost all PAL shot's are missing. The notch on all of the other DCS Fox 3's seems to be much larger now too and perhaps something which changed that is having an effect on the present Phoenix? May I make a suggestion? How about you guy's start up a discored server. I feel comunication that way will be better for off topic conversations and perhaps the nice, fun daily messages could help prevent anyone from feeling like there is hostility in the air as that is not my intention at all. Wanted you guys to make a discord for a long while now. Just some food for thought.

Again, I wasn't trying to be rude and I had no intention of being so nor do I think I was, merely trying to help out. On the matter of documentation, you will most likely not acquire it as it is ITAR controlled but I hope you can. Also, as I said earlier, given the real evidence regarding the AIM-54C you are making a larger leap in guesswork than anyone else as far as I can see. I really hope one day you can fix this and I assure you seeing every patch worsen or leave the Tomcat in the same place it is right now feels a lot like groundhog day too. I have had patience with it for a long time and maybe one day I will be able to return to it but for now I won't be able to which is unfortunate. Good luck and I wish you and Heatblur the best.

Explicit, "stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt" or a "literal explanation", "in accordance with it's original meaning". To say that Coomand-Inertail is not prove that it goes active on it's own is somewhat nonsensical to be painfully honest. Guidence laws include, Command Guidance: "The missile tracker is on the launching platform (The AWG-9/WCS). These missiles are totally controlled by the launching platform that sends all control orders to the missile". In other words, during the Command stage of the missiles flight it is guided by the F14 that fired it, slaved to the F14 to an extent and relying on it's updates. Inertial Guidance: This can only be used in an autominous system. A missile fired with this capability as you already know is updated on it's starting position based off the inertial navigation of the firing ship. The inertail stage does not come until the missile is autominous (pitbull) and is how the missile guides itself to a last known position of a target, you know this ofcourse. Further more, "Strapdown systems Lightweight digital computers permit the system to eliminate the gimbals, creating strapdown systems, so called because their sensors are simply strapped to the vehicle. This reduces the cost, eliminates gimbal lock, removes the need for some calibrations and increases the reliability by eliminating some of the moving parts. Angular rate sensors called rate gyros measure the angular velocity of the vehicle. A strapdown system needs a dynamic measurement range several hundred times that required by a gimballed system. That is, it must integrate the vehicle's attitude changes in pitch, roll and yaw, as well as gross movements. Gimballed systems could usually do well with update rates of 50–60 Hz. However, strapdown systems normally update about 2000 Hz. The higher rate is needed to let the navigation system integrate the angular rate into an attitude accurately. The data updating algorithms (direction cosines or quaternions) involved are too complex to be accurately performed except by digital electronics. However, digital computers are now so inexpensive and fast that rate gyro systems can now be practically used and mass-produced. The Apollo lunar module used a strapdown system in its backup Abort Guidance System (AGS). Strapdown systems are nowadays commonly used in commercial and military applications (aircraft, ships, ROVs, missiles, etc.). State-of-the-art strapdown systems are based upon Ring Laser Gyroscopes, Fibre Optic Gyrocopes or Hemispherical Resonator Gyroscopes. They are using digital electronics and advanced digital filtering techniques such as Kalman filter." To elaborate on this further, Strap-Down Inertial is explained to be on the 54C, this is becuase it has a solid state seeker head and is a none gimballed system. This becomes a part of the Command-Inertial function and means several things. 1. The missile is not only getting updates from the F14 but is also constantly extrapolating the targets position after each update. 2, The missile seeker is already active whilst still in the command phase which is clearly stated on ducumentation about the 54c. 3, if the missile no longer recieves updates from the firing F14 then it is already active and already extrapolating the track to try and place the target within it's seekers detection cone. To conclude, the AIM-54C is infact the same as a big AMRAAM. This capability would not be implimented on to the missile if it was not allowed to be autominous without the F14 giving it the signal to be so. Perhaps this is all just due to a launguage barrier? As I understand English might not be your first launguage and the concept nomenclature might not be quite understood. I mean no offense by that by the way, I was speaking to someone in person just a few days ago who was speaking very good english but certain concepts or meaning were escaping him. I just had to explain these things in a respectful manner to allow him to reach the same page as me, so to speak. Put quite simply, if the missile did not behave the way all of the publicaly avialble documentation states it does then they would never have used these terms to explain the updated model. So again, you have all the proof you need to model the missile to the best standard, you are just ignoring it and that is why I am disapointed with it as with many others. I truly would love to sit here and congratulate you on a well modeled module and I hope one day I will be able to do that. With this level of missconception though, how can I be sure that future modules won't recieve the same treatment and results the Tomcat has now? You are not achieving high standards right now, you are guessing more than the people who are asking for a better AIM-54C. Again, I say this with the greatest of respect. Edited for some spelling mistakes.

Others already have. The evidence posted by others is not a simple belief. Many documents supplied have implicit information as well as explicit. The combination of both the implicit and the explicit indicates only one thing, that if you claim to want to create the most realistic interpretation of the Phoenix and the Tomcat then this effort will fail. It will fail because you don't want to accept the information given. Now, I fully understand not wanting to model something you don't know how to model or don't have enough information on. That is reasonable even if I do not agree with it because of the different way we seem interpret information. I do however think that it can never be reasonably claimed that the module is a realistic representation of the F14 and it's weapons if there is a refusal to implement functions which have been stated in official documentation to be on the missiles. Functions which by the way are always described with well know military aviation nomenclature. You are looking for specific, explicit and detailed information on a certain function which has been adequately described elsewhere to be modelled with more than enough confidence. Choosing not to model it due to the lack of said explicit description will be making it infact deliberately unrealistic, approximating with best effort will infact be more realistic. If you are going to guess either way, it is best to guess in the direction the evidence points rather than settle at a baseline far below it. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for you guys and have flown the module in the DCS competitive scene since realise. Earlier this year I had to struggle to force myself to switch modules because it was not performing well at all after January. I keep going back to it after each update and it keeps getting worse and now as we see in this post it is suffering in single player and in multiplayer PVE in the same way. In it's present state I can assure you, the DCS World F14B is no defender of the fleet.

If it is their intention to omit functions and behaviours becuase they don't "have enough information then they can not model an acurate and realistic interpretation of the Phoenix. In fact, this can not be done at all if they are unwilling to gestimate somewhat on these matters to approximate as best they can. You can't call a module realistic if 70% of it is unmodelled becuase you don't have explicit writing stating what has been confidently delivered information is 100% accurate. These functions are well known to be on the missile (54C) and are being minused because of slight unsureness. That is not a recipe for realism, it is a recipe for disapointment. The radar deserves the same thoughts as there are simple functions everyother radar had as a near contemporary to the AWG-9 which has not been implimented, again due to being "unsure". Well both the F14's radar and missiles in DCS have been consistently performing worse since January to the point of complete uselessness in for what many would deem perfectly acceptable scenarios.

The big issue is that they are flying themselves into the notch as if they have a fixed lead point in front of the target. No optimal control on the track. Another problem seems to be that even when the TID shows a track has not been lost the missile can fly off the rail dead when they shouldn't as seen in the tacview posted. Maybe once the API has been completed better results will be seen but I doubt it these days as previous conversations with the devs shows that they are unwilling to impliment changes based on the highly probable way the missile should be tracking because they claim they don't have it in writing. The Phoenix used to work better because of magic INS but that has gone so all of it's inefficiencies are clearly seen. For the AIM-54C we will need optimal control and command innertail to see any real difference which most likely (according to previous conversations) will not be implimented. Saying that though it seems like there is very little proportional navigation being used whilst under AWG-9 guidence. There is also the problem of zero track memory in TWS which makes no sense. I mean it has enough memory to hold 24 targets but they won't sacrifce tracking all those extra targets to help the missile maintain a track and extrapolate through a notch, also no memory in STT I think too. This seems an odd thing thing to not build into a million dollar missile and a forty million dollar jet if you ask me which is why I don't get why it is being modeled this way on the DCS Tomcat. Maybe they will change their minds though and here's hoping!

Squadron: Task Force Trident Timezone: 18:00z 19:00z Aircraft: F14, 15, 16, 18. Maps: Caucasus, may be able to add more later.

Squadron: Task Force Trident Timezone: 1800z best time. Maps: Cauc, PG

Pilot: {TFT} Rage RIO: {TFT} Stahl F14A

Squadron Name: Task Force Trident Discord ID on MVP Discord: Triggerjo Contact person Discord ID: Triggerjo#4238 Aircraft Selection. F-18, Pilots: UK- Rage Infest

It should be under BVR, Radar modes, Target size I think.