Naquaii

If you'd actually listened to the vlog you'd know that comment was about TWS. What they said actually reinforced our modelling in that STT is better against a smaller fighter and TWS mostly against bombers. Correlation actually exists in our F-14 but the limits for it are quite tight, as we believe it should be with the information we have. What you need to keep in mind is that the real AWG-9 was likely even a bit more sensitive to movement of own aircraft than the DCS dito and there are also more radar phenomena that might have the tracks become lost even if moving straight. Situations and phenomena that aren't modelled in any DCS module as of yet and not really possible. So it is likely that the correlations being described as happening in that vlog are in situations that really can't be modelled in DCS. Correlation of tracks moving about is not something the AWG-9 TWS could really do. At least as far as we know.

It could also be that we want actual proof before we implement something like this, something that should be abundantly clear by now on these forums. We're certainly not going to allow one butthurt user on the forums stop us from implementing it if we find proof for it.

No, you saying it is won't make it so. Please stick to the topic. I'm not going to discuss this further.

Might be, I'm just saying it was likely technically possible in regards to AIM-54 cooling. But afaik it wasn't an approved loadout.

The way I see it it's you that are asking us to completely disregard proven information about a missile that has a direct connection to the AIM-54C just from a public news article saying that the AIM-54C share similarly named technology with another missile that we in itself know little about. Technology that in itself may or may not impact seeker logic design considerations. Completely changing our modelling of the AIM-54C out of that information is to me a much bigger leap of faith than making it an improved AIM-54A. That said we're not asking for the real documentation here, we're well aware of the classification and ITAR issues but we do have other leads that may well convince us to see it your way, just give it some time. But please see above about this thread and discussion. I'm sorry you feel that you can't fly the F-14 because of this and I do hope our findings will eventually be to your liking so you can return.

I appreciate that you feel like there is. But we don't agree. Reverse your statement and you guys presume the AIM-54C do stuff just because a non-whitepaper public news article say the two missiles share technology that may or may not influence seeker design and implementation. The evidence just isn't there either way and in that situation we chose to stick with what we knew but if we find even partial evidence for autonomous activation I can assure you that we will try to implement it but I can also assure you that it is very likely that it will still share a lot of design considerations with the AIM-54A. That said, this discussion is going no-where but like I and @Ironmike said we have leads we're following atm and we're hopful that it'll turn out to everyones expectations. Please stick to the topic in here, feel free to ofc discuss this but don't expect much more from our side on this topic until we're ready or new information appears.

The important point here is the presence of the cooling cowls, those can be mounted as long as the phoenix pallets are there, even if bombs are mounted. Having two AIM-54 up front and bombs aft is ok. While technically possible I guess bombs front and phoenix back should work but was never done. It's the front two sparrows that preclude the AIM-54 as they make it impossible to mount the front phoenix pallets.

That loadout isn't realistic. Unfortunately we haven't really found a good way to prohibit it in the ME but IRL that wouldn't work as the coolant for the AIM-54 is in the front cowlings of the forward rails.

I've forwarded it to @IronMikeand the testers. We're trying to reproduce. If it's the missile itself its likely on EDs side but in that case we'll report it to them.

And how exactly does that preclude the presence of an ATC before that? The AIM-54A also switches on "its" seeker but after an ATC. The documents I've seen does not explicitly state how the seeker in the AIM-54C works, if there are other documents out there that are unclassified you know where to reach me. And yes, again, I don't disagree on that the manufacturer uses the same description for the inertial and navigational system in both missiles. Again, that doesn't prove anything. I'm sorry, but no, you are indeed condescending and rude by writing this. My english is perfectly fine and I work daily with systems like this in my normal day to day job, including but not limited to datalink and INS strap-down systems. Reposting already discussed and available information is like showing information in my face in the assumption that I wasn't qualified to understand them. Does it occur to you that I have read and understood all this and simply do not agree with your conclusions? Again, in the end we might end up doing this as soon as we get better information on it but I certainly do not agree with that these documents provide adequate proof of anything. Having a strap-down inertial systems do indicate that the INS on the AIM-54C is much better than the inertial measurement unit on the AIM-54A, that's hard to disprove. But that does not automatically prove anything for the seeker programming. There are many military systems around the world that made the transition from mechanical gyros to strap-down systems when upgraded or replaced but the only thing that means for sure is that their navigational accuracy improved. Not that it automatically changed other parts of the systems they are attached to. As for the command-inertial function, both the AIM-54C and the AIM-120 family has this, again, I don't disagree on that point. But it could very well mean different things for these two missiles. The AIM-54C could work differently due to its intended longer range, it could work differently due to the integration with the AN/AWG-9. There are so many unknown factors here that could mean different things in regards to how the seeker head logic was decided upon that it's simply just guesswork to claim you know anything about this for sure. I've said it before, I'm not saying I know the AIM-54C couldn't do this, I'm saying we don't have proof either way and that includes proof weighting it either way. And in that situation we decided to leave it at the know facts, i.e. how the AIM-54A works which we have good information on. Regardless of everything else the AIM-54C is very likely to contain inheritance from the AIM-54A so it's not too far fetched. We are currently working on some leads that might give us the missing information here but I'm not going to give any promises as to the outcome, but I am hopeful. Just know that if we decide to change how the AIM-54C works it will not be based of off this information. So please guys, we have read and understood this information and trying to repeatedly shove it into our faces assuming we haven't understood it will not change anything. I know you guys feel you're certain of these facts but we're not. If we listened to everyone in the community that were certain of certain aspects of the F-14 and implemented those our end result wouldn't be anywhere near the F-14 we have in DCS atm. Please be patient, things might change sooner than you think but at the moment this feels more and more like groundhog day.

We apparently have a very different view of what the term explicit means. In any case, the main point I see most people wanting implemented is the ability for the missile to be able to go active on its own, like the AIM-120 in DCS. And the main proof given of this is the term command/inertial and that thas is mentioned as being part of the AIM-54C design. I don't disagree with that. I do however disagree with the notion that the term command/inertial is proven to 100% indicate how the seeker works. That said, like I've mentioned before, this does not mean that I'm opposed to the idea, just that we want some sort of actual proof. But, this is not the thread for this. If new proof surfaces I invite anyone to start a new thread about that. I can however promise you that allegations of willfully making aspects of the F-14 in DCS more unrealistic than necessary will get you nowhere.

The vertical limits should be 59 degrees up and 81 degrees down. Depending on azimuth and roll they might become less though.

If we do this it'll likely be at the same time as an eventual TARPS pod. Even if possible to use without the TARPS most, if not all, photos I've seen of it is with the TARPS. Probably because you'd likely not want to sacrifice a fuselage rail just for this on other missions or that it wasn't felt like the additional chaff was needed. From what I recall it was activated via the normal stores release button as it was loaded on a weapons rail but I could be wrong.

The issue here is not that we can't model it, the issue is that a lot of people are stating stuff about the AIM-54C that you can't prove. There is a well known assumption on the net about what the AIM-54C could do, that is true, It's not however "well known" that it actually could do these things. Feel free to provide evidence about this if so. The freely available information on the net is not enough for anyone to be able to state for sure what the AIM-54C could or could not do. If we ever get proof of these function we will implement them if we can. We won't however implement them just because of the belief of the community, even if it is a majority.

We're aware of multiple claims like this but the truth is that the only hard data is that there have been photos of the missiles physically mounted to the rails which doesn't really prove anything. In any case our IRIAF F-14A was always intended to be minor modifications to a USN early -A to somewhat more accurately (if not entirely) represent an IRIAF F-14A so currently the planned loadout will be the missiles they had available to their F-14A at or shortly after (a few years) delivery.

The missile not going active at tail aspect targets is new to me but the one about loosing track within gimbal limits did exist but I thought that fixed. I'd have to refer you to @IronMike so he can try and have our testers reproduce.

If you have any actual data proving that combination was anything but a crowd-pleaser in propaganda photos, feel free to share it.

Yes, PDS, RWS and TWS use them to slot the returns into doppler filter slots for display on the DDD. In the doppler search modes raw radar video isn't useful for display on the DDD unlike in pulse search. So each return is sorted into a specific doppler filter slot which then generates a syntethic block return at the rate corresponding to that filter. The presence of those filters is not what makes the radar modes a doppler mode but rather how the returns generate information on the DDD (and for track files). In PD-STT the filters aren't used as you only have one target which is tracked by the velocity tracker following that one track within it's rate gates.

No, PD-STT. The doppler filters are used in the search modes to generate the synthetic display blocks for the different rates on the DDD. In PD-STT those aren't used, then the velocity tracker is used instead. Nope.

Because in PD-STT the doppler filters aren't used so it doesn't have this limitation. Not sure if it currently is like that live but it will be for sure when the fix for the filters are out.

As draconus says, nothing else will change. If you read target rate vs MLC it will be observed target closure rate but it always was. All the displays will be the same, this was a misunderstanding that only affected the filters. The Vc switch is not a DDD scale switch, it purely controls the Vc bug on the DDD when in the STT modes. The only thing controlling scale on the DDD is the target aspect switch and then it just moves the location of the MLC around so the total scale on the DDD from top to bottom will always be 2400 knots.

Ok, so confession time. We had the AWG-9 doppler filters mixed up in how they work. Basically the filter limits are correct but they should be applied after compensating for ownspeed. This will make the whole +1800 knot range available for observed target closure rate only, without having to also add ownship rate in there. That should make the IRL test shots possible in DCS as well. Depending on testing this might make the next patch. Sry guys! At least we caught it!

The latter. These are topics that they generally don't want to discuss and we have to respect that.

As it currently stand we have documentation saying explicitly that you couldn't do that, at least not in the early software tapes. This might have changed but we've yet seen evidence certain enough that we're willing to change this. And no, unfortunately that interview isn't enough. It's not that we don't trust him but having a singular SME we don't work with say something like this isn't enough for us to change something we have data on. If we had we would have had a lot more errors at ea launch that we'd then have to change. People can forget stuff and confuse stuff with other aircraft and systems, we've seen this happen many times so if going by word of mouth from an SME only as evidence we either need it to be a trusted SME we work with or from multiple sources.

It will result in the same type of active in DCS apart from that the LTE (launch to eject, i.e. time from trigger to ejection of missile) will be shorter with the ACM guard up. IRL there would be other differences that we can't model currently. Nothing changed on our side as the fix didn't make it in. Any seen difference must be coincidental.