Naquaii

In DCS SARH missiles give launch warning from the launching platforms tracking radar and ARH missiles from the missile's own radar when it goes active. That's how it is and it's a reasonable middle ground to be frank. Our AIM-54 implementation differentiates in that we can launch the missile in either mode depending on radar mode but is the same in respective mode as all other missiles in DCS. Guessing about how a certain in use weapon system would behave against an RWR is just a bit pointless unfortunately as it's bound to be either conjecture from openly available facts on the internet or someone divulging information that would have them looking over their own shoulder.... What an RWR can or can't see is just too classified to be data openly available and will likely remain so for quite a while after they're out of service.

Thanks for that explanation, didn't realise you were exiting into search. In the case of the AIM-7 that would force the illuminator into flood and likely trash the missile, as for the AIM-54 the missile itself should still give missile lock as in this case it is the missiles own radar. When testing this implementation we likely missed this and I guess it's likely due to us sometimes forgetting that it's possible to not follow SOP! I will reproduce and track this issue so we can have it fixed. Yes, but that still doesn't negate the fact that the radar is considered a look-down, shoot-down radar due to the pulse doppler modes.

Non datalink waypoints entered in the ME are automatically transferred if you do a carrier align using link, that is implemented and works for me. The datalink waypoints IRL were the ones that were updated via the link in the air and could be set from the operator on the ship or in the AWACS but as we can't simulate that we load them from the special waypoints in the ME. Stored heading is unrelated to this.

There is likely a netcode and latency issue here when people are playing on servers with high ping and latency but a large part also seems to be that some people misunderstand or overestimate the TWS in the AWG-9. Compared to later radars with or without TWS the blind areas are much larger in the AWG-9 and the tracker not nearly as good as in a hornet or viper and adding to this the documents specifically says that maneuvering (like cranking) when in TWS is not a good idea as it's likely to throw the tracks. We have yet to be able to reproduce a bug in this regard and it's not from a lack of trying. In regards to the TCS launches it is true that it can guide the missiles to an extent. The AIM-54 will launch active along the TCS line of sight so the missile itself should be indicated on the RWR. As for the AIM-7 the illuminator on the AWG-9 will activate when you launch so in this case the target will get an F-14 missile launch indication. We tested this when we implemented it and it did work back then for sure. There might be new bug here but we'd need help to reproduce it. We have reproduced it and it's being looked at. No date for a fix yet though. In conclusion the AWG-9 is very much not a "look up radar", pulse doppler was the very function that allowed for look down-shoot down. It's just not that great at it against heavily maneuvering targets, especially in TWS. In regards to AI targets I'd personally like to see the AIs magical ability to detect launches disappear, having them always do it is just breaking stuff. But at least it's possible to set a lower skill on the AI which mitigates this somewhat.

That part of the manual refers to how the missile would behave IRL, might add a passage to clarify that. As for TWS tracking issues there has been a lot of reports of this but we've yet to seen clear evidence of an actual bug. The ones I've seen is the TWS behaving as intended, having issues tracking small maneuvering targets is not something the TWS in the AWG-9 was that good at. But as always, if we are presented with evidence of an actual bug which we can reproduce we will ofc try to fix it. The only active bug that I know of atm is that a combination of high azimuth and roll can have the WCS think an STT track is lost when it's not.

IRL the missile would fall back to SARH as long as it's available if it losses active tracking. In DCS the ability to fallback to SARH is not possible to model for us as it is currently afaik. IRL you were supposed to illuminate the target until a supposed hit regardless, to turn around and stop supporting the missile wasn't even a scenario in the documents. At least not for the -A.

Yes it is. The real aircraft could not autolock a datalink target and it could not fire phoenixes at it. You need to use the AWG-9 to lock up and fire phoenixes at the targets. The link is used for situational awareness and commands.

According to our SMEs many RIOs had the techs put a shrinktube over the VSL switch so it was easy to find it by feel without looking down.

That's because this use wasn't intended but possible to add. IRL as far as I've heard it would be the RIO that would activate the VSL.

Realistically I'd say the PAL and the pilot VSL might be missing in their aircraft but hard to know for sure. It's not something we're currently planning on removing.

The PLM, VSL and MRL modes were in the aircraft from the very beginning afaik. The PAL was a later addition. Originally everything but the PLM was RIO activated only and the target designate switch being used for VSL and PAL was a later addition.

This is not a bug, it's per design as the part of the adress that usually sets flight id isn't editable from the cockpit by the crew. It needs to be set externally on the aircraft by the groundcrew. We have been discussing adding this to the kneeboard to allow aircraft from different flights to communicate but haven't decided on anything yet. This still won't allow the player to change the datalink "flight id" in the air though, just the part that usually denotes the number in the flight.

If you're still seeing the tracking lights being on on the DDD and the STT continueing to track it's likely the same thing. Does the track return for you as well if you turn back into the track? If you do this is likely what I'm seeing as well and that is being investigated on our side as well now. That depends entirely on the mode used. For TWS 6nm in range and slightly above 2 degrees azimuth is about right.

It does sound similar with the difference beeing that in our case the STT itself isn't dropped, just the TID track. Problem is that I'm having the exact opposite, I never get the issue you're describing. The way I'm testing it I'm just dropping into a new mission with an F-14 and a target straight ahead and then I've tried both having Jester lock it up or jumping into the back seat and steering using Iceman. Any other switch or steps you guys do in your squadron that's not normal procedure or something not set in a fresh aircraft? As for the TWS cases the Phoenix should still track normally as long as the track it's guiding onto is the same, i.e. still retains the missile flight time counter. Launching in TWS against tight formations is one of the weaknesses of the AWG-9 though and that's not unrealistic afaik. Edit: I also tried using PD-STT auto from TWS as I normally don't use that but that got the same result.

@Noctrach I unfortunately wasn't able to reproduce. I've tested multiple scenarios and am not having that issue. The only scenario I haven't really tested yet is MP. I did find another issue though with the TID track itself. It seems like there is a new bug that makes the TID behave as if the STT track was lost, the STT track itself still remains but unfortunately this also seems to affect AIM-54 guidance in STT when that TID track loss occur. We're now tracking this issue and are looking at it. Do you have any other information regarding your issue? Does it always happen the same way or are there certain pre-conditions or switch configurations?

Not sure how that is relevant for AIM-54 versus AIM-7? What missiles are that diagram even for? What power figures is it using for the missile vs the radar and what radars are those based on? What aperture sized or antenna gains is it using and where are those from? There are a lot of factors that are not obvious from that diagram alone. I'm by no means saying I'm right about ARH vs SARH in this regards but I'm having a hard time seeing where this is leading or how it has any bearing on our missile implementation as is?

Hi! Please try it again and press 2 to switch to the RIO position before pressing space bar the first time if you haven't. There's a limitation in DCS when locking a player into a seat that the seat needs to be selected before that so in this case it's important to switch to the RIO seat before proceding.

Oh? Please enlighten me!

It's probably no surprise that we have manuals and information not available publicly on the internet. I expect it's the same for the other module developers.

The reason I'm mentioning it is that you made it sound like we're basing our entire missile modelling on that report which is far from the truth. We've been discussing the seeker and guidance logic here, not missile aerodynamics.

Yes, and you'll will note that the whitepaper focuses on aerodynamics and flight performance, not guidance or seeker logic.

What I was getting at was the fact that you said we based our missiles on that report. I would like to know how you know that? It isn't true. It's ofc an influence but not a majority influence.

Please do tell, you must know something about what "reports" we based our missiles on that I do not.

We'll be looking at this as soon as we have the time, no need for another post even if that's generally where they should be. If you ever get any solid info on this, feel free to share.

Even if the increased range from the transmitter in the SARH case and the fact that the AIM-54 has an antenna more than twice the size of the AIM-7 didn't tend towards favouring the ARH missile you still need to remember that the AIM-54 can fallback to guidance from the AWG-9 even in the ARH mode and the AWG-9 is ofc known for being one of, if not, the most powerful fighter radars out there (in regards to pure power), even to this day. Discussing seeker logic and ECCM performance is really a moot point as you'll never find unclassified data on that. Would be AIM-7M be more advanced than the AIM-54A? Very likely. But in what situations and what cases would that give the AIM-7M an advantage? And could we even model that in DCS? In any case, discussing opinions and feelings isn't really leading anywhere and to make us change our stance and modelling of the AIM-54 we'd need proof and we already have information supporting how we've modelled it currently. I still haven't seen anything approaching proof of the AIM-54A being anything but a decent/good missile against fighters.