Naquaii

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.

Comparing a figher radar guiding a SARH missile to an ARH missile with it's own built in radar is not that straight forward as it might seem at first. The radar equation in regards to returned power has both the range from the transmitter to the target and the range from the target to receiver squared. This means that effect of the distance from the fighter to the missile isn't just a linear advantage in favor of the ARH missile but it's squared, in addition in an ARH missile both ranges will decrease as the missile approaches the target while with a SARH missile likely only the range from target to receiver will decrease. Or at least the range from the transmitter to the receiver will not decrease as much. This means that the fighter radar guiding the SARH missile will have to have a transmitter much more powerful than the missile to even have a received power even to the ARH missile's. Adding to that the AIM-54 has a twíce as large seeker antenna which give it an advantage over the AIM-7 even in the SARH case. It is true though that the AIM-7M seeker is much newer than the AIM-54A age-wise but to hold that as an advantage we'd need to know in what ways it is better than the AIM-54A and in which situations it holds an advantage. I'd wager a guess that the advantage is little in a non-jammed advantage while it will probably be greater when in a heavy ECM environment. But as to how much anyone's guess is equally as good as long as we're only able to discuss non classified information. Added to that an opponent is much more likely to have seen the STT mode of a fighter radar and been able to design ways to counter that than a missile that they've never seen used against them and thus never seen the radar of in action and how it behaves. The tl:dr, at least for me, is that in regards to power a SARH missile will always be a step behind and even in the SARH case the much larger antenna in the AIM-54 is a massive advantage, esp coupled with the powerful AWG-9. The ECM and ECCM/logic discussion is kinda moot as any representation will be guesswork at best.

As have been mentioned after your post, comparing the missile seeker to the AWG-9 is an unfair comparison for the AWG-9. The AIM-54 seeker has an entirely different job to do and the AWG-9 holds its hand for the majority of the engagement so to speak. When the seekerhead in the AIM-54 has to take over and do it's job it's always at fairly short range and already pointed at the correct target (unless ACM) and even then it can fall back to look for pointers from the AWG-9. That the seeker would be bad at that job is not something I've ever seen mentioned. Being bad against much more modern ECMs is a given but also not really relevant in this discussion as nearly no information is available publicly and not modelled in DCS anyway. As for the missile being bad against fighters that's a point of view I've seen a lot but I've never ever seen anyone back that theory up with anything but speculation, hearsay or other vague evidence. Our information about the AIM-54 does not agree, in fact it kinda points towards it being perfectly fine against fighters as well. Everyone is of course welcome and encouraged to have their own point of view but without anything resembling actual facts it's nothing we'll take into account or use as a reason for eventual changes to the module.