Callsign JoNay

I haven't noticed any change in the probe light at all since I started flying the module 2 years ago. I shared a screen shot in the other identical bug report you created, and I did night time AAR yesterday and the light functions. The light sucks, and doesn't point at he basket or the tanker, but it technically functions the same as it always has. Share some pictures or video demonstrating the before and after difference you're seeing.

So your solution to using AIM-54s that are easily chaffed, easily notched, and perform evasive pull-up maneuvers is to use AIM-7s instead. Great advice, thanks.

It also hasn't been mentioned enough that the DCS Phoenix is also still quite susceptible to chaff, even the C-model. 7 to 10 chaff gives the opponent a pretty descent chance to spoof the missile. I still don't understand how a radar can be susceptible to both notching and chaffing. It seems we have the worst of both worlds.

The most recent sets of BVR testing I did within my virtual wing indicated that human opponents can notch the overhauled Phoenix quite easily too, and the missile is dead after the first instance of a notch, probably due to the evasive pull-up it performs. Sadly, the 54 is just not a threat that needs to be taken seriously in it's current state.

Works for me.

Who is "we"? Heatblur alone? Or Heatblur and ED? I'm trying to decipher exactly what you are saying.

DD_Fenir's first two points are Phoenix problems. The same two that I reported in the Weapons Bugs forum. In this post here here I asked the question why a PDSTT lock from the AWG-9 is unnotchable in the perpendicular aspect, but the PDSTT lock from the AIM-54 is so easily trashed by a perpendicular aspect. Naquaii responded "Beacause one of those things we have control over and the other not", which to me indicates the Phoenix is not working as intended and/or that HB and ED are not in agreement about how it should work.

Bump. Any clarification on how the above ECM burn through evaluations are being made?

How will I know when that work is done?

I reported a bug here on Nov 1: It has not been replied to by any ED representatives, or marked as "investigating".

We live in a day and age where taking screen shots and attaching them to a forum are quite easy things to do. Why don't you show us what you're seeing instead of telling? We can't really know if you have a problem unless we can see what you're seeing.

Maybe try turning on the r.ctrl + enter controls overlay so you can see exactly what modes the AWG is in.

I just paused while taking fuel and was able to resume no problem. Are you able to reproduce it?

C47 is the best, IMO. Best counter measure resistance, goes active on it's own if you drop a lock/track, and mostly smokeless. It's a good opponent against other Fox-3 carrying targets, but we don't dominate them like we used to. AIM-120C out classes all 54s. The biggest problem is how easily the missile is notched. I still don't understand why the AWG-9 PDSTT can't be notched (perpendicularly), but AIM-54s are so easily notched.

Bump again. I guess nobody on the HB team flies in the RIO seat at night, but this bug is still present and annoying for 9 months now.

Dude, WTH? It was mentioned so many times on this forum that the wake turbulence was stacking on ED's and the HB team kept saying nope, ED fixed it, and that is was in our imagination. By the way, I don't have any option in the special area to disable wake turbulence. null The only option for wake turbulence is under gameplay, and that will affect all other non F-14 aircraft. So if a user flies more than just the F-14, they'll have to remember to check/uncheck that box every time.

One of our recent joint ops from the perspective of a Harrier flight:

I was surprised and disappointed that there was no mention of a fix for multicrew in the November 17th patch. Anyone know if this is the official November patch? Or is this more of a mid-month hotfix? This is going to suck if we have to wait until late December for working multicrew.

IMHO the new BFM AI is actually more abysmal than the original AI. It's harder to kill, but flies so strangely. It's so determined into 1C or 2C strategies, and never cashes in angels for angles when it has an advantage. It will just turn in a perfect flat circle endlessly even if it has a 2000ft advantage to cash in on. So you can really cheese it out with low yo-yos. The jinking is super weird too. It doesn't play with speed or try to force overshoots, it just stays in full AB while it tries to jink endlessly. OP is right that you have to pin the AB and chase it down at 600+ knots while it makes silly turns back and fourth. The hilarious thing is the 27 will actually jink its own wings off if you just stay behind it long enough. It happened to me the other night, and I thought I must've damaged him on one of my earlier snap shots, but then it did it again the very next round without me even shooting at him yet.

Thank you. "Negative Enfield, the pattern is full" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

According to LunaticFringe, a member of the closed beta testing team, ECM burn through ranges are defined by three simple categories: Strategic Bombers - Burn through at 12nm Fighters - Burn through at 23nm Attack - Burn through 29nm null However in recent community testing on the current open beta, we've discovered inconsistent burn through ranges for fighters. For example you can burn through the ECM of the F-14, F-16, and F-18 at 29nm, while other fighters such as the Jeff, the F-15, and the Su-27 are protected from burn through all the way to 23nm. Just wondering why the F-16, F-18, and F-14 are in the attacker category and not the fighter category? Is this a bug, or by design? PS. There could be even more inconsistencies, I don't believe an extensive test of all airframes has been performed.

Are you sure about that? I'm seeing different top speeds for 2x phoenix in the tunnel vs 2x phoenix on the gloves. Tested in the B, at angels-15, with 10k fuel set to unlimited, caucasus, no wind, pegged at full AB. I'm seeing a 24 knot difference, granted my common sense tells me it would be a bigger difference in the real world. Never the less, there does seem to be a difference. I wondered if it was the 1A/1B pylon extensions, but they only create a 6 knot difference with vs without.

It might depend on the opponent's airframe, but I don't agree. If you test against a difficult opponent like a Viper, they don't split-s very often. I actually wish the AI would split-s against the Phoenix, because then I could bonsai and pressure the opponent while it's cold. In my experience the AI just cranks, notches in the last few miles before impact, the missile goes stupid after the first moment of notch, and never reacquires. Meanwhile the AI is back hot immediately and pressuring me instead forcing a bug out. See the video I shared in this thread. And it's not just an AI issue, humans can notch the 54 just as easily, and turn back in offensively without wasting any time dragging/pumping, which compresses the OODA loop in their favor. The notch susceptibility and the weird avoidance pull-up maneuver the missile makes is the biggest factor in the 54's low PK% and the Tomcat's inability to pressure after the initial posture shot.

Pressure needs to be put on the tournament organizers. Loadouts should work backwards from whatever each aircraft would typically carry in a sweep/CAP flight. The BFM setup should be an extension to whatever fuel/pylons/stores they'd have remaining if BVR devolved into a WVR merge. That's how we run our DACT arenas in my virtual wing. Hornets and Vipers have pylons, and often TGPs and jammers too. If you carry those things in BVR, you'll still have them if it turns into WVR, and not all aircraft can jettison those things, so pilots should get used to it. It's sad that the DCS tournament standards use idealized and unrealistic loadouts.

AIM54 Notch Fail.trk