Callsign JoNay

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

Well that's stupid, and it's probably where attention should be focused.

You're measuring the Tomcat against a Hornet in a Blue Angels configuration. That's not apples to apples. This is Digital Combat Simulator, put some pylons on the F-18 and see what happens.

I don't save tracks all the way back to June, and tracks in the Tomcat are broken anyway. I've demonstrated the issue in the video., that should be enough for their beta testers to go on. If they expect me to take the time to roll back my install to a June version to capture tracks they'll need to put me on the payroll. They should have their own people for that.

Well there's your problem.

Any chance of a hotfix coming this week? My VFW's Tomcat pipeline is on hold because of this.

A picture would help. Sounds to me like it's just the sun reflecting on the HUD/windscreen. You might be able to get rid of it if you disable Cockpit Global Illumination?

No. My video is showing after pitbull.

I don't save tracks, but I can attach the miz I've been using if that helps. It's pretty basic. Just a 1v1 starting from 100nm or so. I open in the ME, edit the bandit and it's advanced waypoint actions how I see fit, then usually fly the mission without saving. DACT BVR F-14B VS....miz

I posted this to the Weapon Bugs thread if anyone wants to upvote or add a comment. Maybe we can get the ball rolling if more Phoenix users share some data about this sudden susceptibility to notching that was not mentioned in any patch notes. I'd hate to see this slip between the cracks and not get some attention.

Imagine going to a barber shop and asking for a haircut. You pay in advance, sit in the chair, and your usual barber takes the haircut to 90% completion. Then he tells you that he has to leave because he got another job at a pub and his shift is about to start. He tells you to wait in the chair until he's finished his shift at the pub and then he'll come back to complete the haircut. Or actually, he's pretty swamped this week, so maybe he'll complete it next week. Or next month. He's not sure. Then when you politely ask the manager of the barber shop if maybe another barber could finish the cut, he sarcastically asks if you're the new owner of the shop now. We're paying customers, and the comment you replied to was being very polite and reasonable.

Hey guys, Some time between June 2022 and present day, (probably during the Phoenix Overhaul on Sept 2), the AIM-54 became much more susceptible to notching targets. It used to maintain a course and give itself a chance to re-acquire a pitbull after getting notched. In the current open beta the missile starts a pull up maneuver after the first instance of getting notched almost as if to avoid the target. See below a video demonstrating a before and after: I reported this to HeatBlur but they say it's out of their hands. Can ED please take a look at this? This susceptibility to notching targets is the biggest factor involved in the AIM-54's currently poor PK%, more so than the nerfed adjusted kinematics implemented in the recent overhaul.

Hopefully now that it's open source the community can fix the AI RIO problems that Hollywood never bothered to fix. -The entire NAVGRID category being borked. -Attack modes Pilot, Target, Manual, etc. -LANTIRN zoom toggle. -etc.

I disagree, I think it's pretty new. Here's a video I made comparing a June 2022 tacview to a Tacview I recorded today in 2.8. I think this, more than any kind of nerf to the kinetics/loft of the missile, is the biggest factor hampering it's current PK%.

So, we should post a bug report on ED's primary forums? It would probably mean more coming from HB, since you're the dev and have ED's ear, etc. The missile used to maintain course after getting notched and would have a good chance of re-acquiring the target. This new upward pull up behavior after the first moment of losing lock via notch is more detrimental to the AIM-54 PK% than the borked loft trajectory ED installed to fix the looping bug pre-2.8.

Missile loft is improved. Level shot, no loft assisting, missile climbed up to 75k. Unfortunately it's still extremely susceptible to notching and does this unusual pull up maneuver, almost as if to avoid impact instead of maintaining a trajectory that would give it a chance to re-acquire a pitbull.

+2. I think most of us would prefer to find work arounds to enjoy the module the way we're accustomed to now, and have to change profiles after an overhaul, than to shelf the Tomcat until the overhaul is complete.

I didn't say it was on you, it just is what it is.

Update breaks VAICOM / AIRIO. Awesome. I think this might be the straw that breaks the Tomcat's back for me.

Can you double check your numbers? The F-16 and F-18 can both get burn through of other fighters at 29 nm, not 23. Did you get Fighters and attackers mixed up?

RIP