Max1mus

100% agree

It is very sad to hear that Heatblur bases this decision entirely on your personal flying experience on your server (You have not fought F-14s in a competitive environment yet) and the opinion of your squad mates (Which too have not fought F-14s in a competitive environment yet). I really hope that Eagle Dynamics does... something which greatly exceeds the amount of steps they have taken so far to deal with these issues.

If ED decides to do it, it will happen. You make the module, they make the sim. You said yourselves that you rely on ED to fix these issues anyway. If by "both sides" you mean module owners and non-tomcat pilots who have to deal with fighting it, i hugely doubt that you have the full picture. I wonder what sources you have to to be so certain about this not being considered detrimental by the "majority".

I agree. We need a simulation, which is as authentic for all modules as possible. These issues do not negatively influence the average F-14 owners experience, the majority of which likely involves flying singleplayer or COOP missions against AI aircraft. Perhabs, if heatblurs priority is to create an authentic experience for the F-14 users themselves, ED should do more on their side. Because with the current issues, the F-14 creates a significantly less realistic environment for the other modules in the sim (which people pay real money for, too). So if ED can not fix the active missile coding and the other issues that heatblur blames them for in the near future, the solution could be for them to introduce optional workarounds for mission hosts. Maybe there should just be server settings to make a compromise between F-14 realism vs the realism of the other modules. For example, the damage model could be downgraded to FC3 standard until the missile damage is reworked so that the F-14 damage model properly works with it. And the AIM-54 could be turned into a semi active missile via script / server setting if the mission host wishes to do so, until the midcourse INS and F-14 ECM immunity issues are resolved. I would not see how heatblur would have a massive issue with this, since this only influences a minority of their customers AND also allows them to enjoy a bigger part of the tomcats weaponry in scenarios that would otherwise partially or fully restrict the phoenix, despite it fitting the time frame. Many other modules offer such settings.

Yes, you can defend it. But if it was modeled properly, you would be able to yield a significant amount of extra aggression against it, way more comparable to the other missiles. For example: F-14 turns hot, gives you nails. Then turns cold. Launch spotting aside, you will likely have to sit in the notch now to defend the magic INS missile and make sure its passed you. If it did not have the INS issues, you could just push without any defense. Relying on RWR and just notching it is a very bad idea because especially if you are in a turn you are likely going to get the warning too late if youre still high. Especially since you only get it at 7nm or so (despite missile going active at 15, another issue btw). Also, smokeless missiles like 54C should have contrails which are lower than where aircraft get them. Another issue that makes the missile "OP" compared to what it should be. But this also applies to AIM-120 in a similar fashion. Your F-14 in the latest match against TAW launched nearly all if not all outside its kinematic NEZ. And yet in all the ones you have used lt in, it had made a massive difference because just its presence alone is forcing the enemy team low and has a massive effect on their shape.

Except the team that does not field the tomcat when it fights a team that does. The team that does does not have to deal with the game breaking desync issues.

Sure. And that would involve the AIM-54 in combination with the F-14s radar not being modeled the way it is now. Hence the entire thread.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/610227109352308769/611726839769071617/SATAL_MiG21.miz Do it.

You can not be convinced that it comes down to player skill when one side has massively superior weapons. I refuse to believe that. If in SATAL 2 roughly evenly skilled teams fight, and one has Flankers while the other has F/A-18 or 15, mixed in with a tomcat perhabs, its roughly an even fight. If you got rid of the restrictions the one with the 120Cs and 54Cs and Mk60s would win 99,99% of times. How is that fair, or fun? Especially with the prizes involved... What about a scenario with only MiG-21s against unrestricted other airframes? Would a team with better coordination still win on the MiG-21 side? Also, what about nukes. Whenever these "war is not fair" and "restrictions take away content" points are brought up, they are always excluded. If in your scenario the russians and chinese are teleported back in time by over a decade (not only air to air wise, the DCS F-18C+JSOW vs current SAMs is a similar issue), and the F-14 has superpowers, why is red being a nuclear monopoly with their MiG-21 too far-fetched?

1: The same thing is true the other way around. When the blue flag server about a year ago was a bit biased towards the flankers air to air wise (SATAL restrictions but no AWACS for NATO, unlimited EWR datalink for the iranian team) i almost never saw ANY of the prominent AMRAAM bus pilots fly on there or stay on there. And many of the pilots who flew left really quickly when having to face uneven odds. By my observation a still very notable amount of "red" pilots flew on servers like 104th regularly despite the uneven odds. But obviously if no server offers say a setup with ERs against no AIM-120s, you dont get to test out how much you enjoy being completely outclassed. 2: I agree, because flanker and especially mirage pilots had to over a decade newer weapons on the servers for years, their average skill and understanding of the fight has greatly surpassed the average F/A-18/18/14 pilot one. But is that a good thing? Dont these other pilots deserve a chance to fight with weapons that dont do the entire work for them? Because if they dont, they will on average never fully improve. I think that if all servers went to proper SATAL like weapon restrictions you would see the pilots that are stripped of their skill replacement weapons improve, and start doing at least equally well as before.

Yes, these new weapons need to be compared to those. Just like the current "red toys" need to be compared to what the west had during the same time frame. (No AIM-120C or AIM-9X) Sure, its never perfectly balanced, but the weapons are always comparable in performance, superior weapons will be copied or asymmetrically countered so it really just is a soft back and forth at best. Also, the current F-15C while carrying 90s avoinics, carries the 120C from the 2000s. A mid/late 2000s flanker also has a lot of features that greatly exceed the current fc3 capabilities. The JF-17 is going to mix it up a little for sure, but its not enough, and for now reality is as grim as i described it.

Well, since i have the OK, and the questions asked in the thread have been answered (apart from the self destruct one, i am just going to assume its not an option) - We dont have any proper "red toys" that fit Slammer C, AIM-9X (2000s), so just for the realism factor alone restrictions need to be in place. AIM-120B is from 1994, AIM-9M from 82 or so. R-73 RMD-1 (DCS) is from 84, ER from the end of 80s/early 90s and R-77 from 1994. Our Flanker is also basically the old 81 Su-27P design with some air to ground, R77 in case of J-11 but missing peer to peer and Inter flight datalink on all versions. Not even mentioning the simple, but completely missing MiG-29 datalink. Any realistic scenario will not have Su-27S running against the western DCS weapons, when you include China and Russia into it at least. If we had a 2000s flanker/fulcrum with more modern avionics and weapons it would not be an issue, both realism and most likely balance wise. A not so insignificant part would be R-27ER tracking even flanking targets properly if they are fast and having the ability to engage multiple targets at once with them due to better radars. Maybe even peer to peer datalink guidance. Now the phoenix with our tomcat fits the general DCS/SATAL 90s time frame, but because its non-detection of jamming, us generally not having as many jamming options as IRL, the issues with the DCS phoenix, and the largely missing (apparently mostly VID-requiring) ROE that a complex IRL scenario in the 80s/90s would provide, its stronger than it should be. You also said counter advantages with tactics. Yes. Possible. But mistake margins are super low. You could aswell bring MiG-19 against 120s/54s and succeed with GCI and right tactics, assuming that you have more skilled pilots. People do it on the BF servers in some cases. But its not fair, and not really realistic either. One example of such an unfair engagement: 2x Su-27 manage to isolate an F-15C from his teammates. They engage from 2 sides. The F-15C will now spot the smokey launches, and maddog a 120C onto them. The first flanker is far enough away to outrun it, but the second one was within the NEZ, and simply dies. The F-15c itself is very likely to also survive this 2v1 situation. Are there ways to prevent his on the flankers side? Yes, the flanker that got switched to could try to notch, for example. But its a 120C. Not easy and straightup impossible if he was too fast. A lot of things to consider, and that is assuming that you can even get such a situation to happen with the inferior weapons. Lets turn the situation around, say 2 eagles are 2v1ing a flanker with 120C. Do you think they have as much trouble killing it without losses? They dont. There are some scenarios where the flanker may trade, but the margins for mistakes for the eagles are higher, so they can get away with way more mistakes. Its not a coincidence that the unbalanced/"OP" weapons also happen to be the more recent ones. What if we had a Su-57/35S with all its modern long range weapons and systems, jammers? To name a few: *R-77-1 with similar range and better seeker (said to have an additional anti-radiation mode) than 120C5 *modern archer variants that are comparable to 9x *R-37M which is practically a modernized AIM-54 that can be fit on normal fighters (put into service very recently) *questionable weapons like the Anti Radiation version of the R-27 They all exist and are being sold on the export market too. What if that was put against the current other modules. It would also be around a decade newer, with no modern, time frame wise equivalent aircraft like the western 5th generation ones to "balance" it out. Would that be fair? Would you still think that no restrictions need to be in place?

We have tested it over and over again. You can reliably, i would say over 75% of the time still continue flying after an AIM-120 hit. In some cases it would still have working engines, merge and kill the launching aircraft after 2 AIM-120 hits. In 0% of cases did the pilot die immedeatly on impact. There can surely be a middle ground between fc3 "dead on the spot" and heatblur "Working engines after multiple hits by a large BVR missile". Also, wouldnt in some cases the aircraft completely desintegrate after a hit when the fuel department is set on fire? The "fireball" can be seen in combat footage and has been reported on some incidents with MiG-21/25. Also happens to the F-14 in 0% of the cases with the named missiles.

Maybe the on/off lock break only works with jester? Also, how can you say your damage model is realistic when it is not for the majority of the missiles? Whats the measurement, if not the amount of damage caused by the existing missiles in the sim?

Yes, by removing the tomcats SA tools and restricting the hell out of the phoenix count and version (like a few of the more enjoyable servers have done), despite them actually fitting the 80s/90s time frame of most other aircraft and weapons. Is there a way to self destruct the missile dynamically when its unsupported before active?

@Ironmike tested the Jamming, what you said about it is not correct. Tested with J11A and tomcat with pilot/RIO. Jamming on/OFF does not even break lock.

Thanks for the answers, however if you believe that being able to fight after a single AIM-120 hit is a rare event, i would suggest some more testing to be done outside of public servers (where people usually dual launch within NEZ to avoid exactly what happened that day). R-27 will reliably kill it in one shot, but R-77 and AIM-120 in the majority of cases allow it to continue fighting for a good while. A single AIM-120 will also never or almost never kill the pilot despite direct head on hits.

Hello, there are multiple things about the tomcat that seem unfinished and severely influence MP balancing apart from the AIM-54. 1: Jamming. You were kind enough to add a Jammer to the F-14 itself, which automatically breaks lock every few seconds, not allowing any HOJ shots. However, the F-14 is completely immune to Jamming. Is there a way to at least add the FC3 jamming to it for now? And if not, why? It would provide a method to break lock at long ranges without having to maneuver or loose altitude, a game changer. 2: Jester and Datalink missile detection. Currently the F-14 with Jester will see every single missile launched at him as long as its not below the aircraft, as far as i have seen. Even when Jester is operating systems and the detection comes with a reliability that a human RIO could never have. Same with datalink, it seems (or seemed, maybe its fixed now, have not tested) to detect all incoming missiles, a feature that no other DL in the sim has. Are there plans to adjust this? 3: Damage Model. I have asked about this in another thread but not received any answers from HB itself. Is it still WIP? Its currently the tankiest aircraft in the game and as you can clearly see in SATAL and multiplayer servers quite able to fight for a long time after being hit by a large BVR missile. No other aircraft of this size in the sim shares this. 4: Infrared coefficient. Now i dont know too much about how that code works, but apparently the infrared coefficient per engine in the .lua is lower than the F/A-18Cs, which seems a bit weird since i do not see what would make the tomcat particularly stealthy in that area. Is it an artificial way to "nerf" IRST in the sim? It also affects the PK if infrared missiles, AIM-9X will stop tracking very easily against it, too. You dont need to answer all of these questions but it would be nice to know the progress or reason for no progress on some of these topics.

Most pilots just die to super long range shots because mistake margins against the current AIM-54s are extremely low. Yes, in a one versus one you can just sit in the notch, turn in and use the superior accelleration of the other BVR missiles, INS bug or not. But as soon as you add multiple aircraft on both sides it becomes a massive issue, if you stay in the notch forever like this in that fight you loose all your options. And if you dont, you likely die. You cant notch 2 aircraft at different angles. Cant there at least be a self destruct mechanic that destroys the missile when shooter lock is broken before pitbull? That would make it more fightable in a multi ship environment. PS: I remember that engagement. You were not using 54C which are significantly harder to notch up close and are smokeless. Thats a huge factor too.

This thread is not about kinematics. The issue seems to be fox1 guidance and that for whatever reason at specific ranges the ER refuses to turn onto a target and ends up missing it at very close range (despite clearly having the energy to do it). When it comes to speed and range i find it hard to believe that EDs (apparently based on real RuAf docs) information is inferior to public research based on assumptions.

While most people focus on kinematics or chaff rejection when it comes to their missile biases, this topic is different. Its known that R-27ER, especially if not supported correctly, will be spoofed easily with chaff. This is NOT what this post is about The missile seems to have a huge problem with intercepting very fast bandits (mach 1.5+) if they are even slightly suggesting to be flanking. Here is one example: https://i.imgur.com/N5kfSTX.png The missile will, despite being supported while diving and keeping the wings level, pass the aircraft at mach 1.9 (0.5 or so faster than the F-15), but not explode. No chaff was dropped and it did not go for chaff. Another example: http://www.mediafire.com/file/cbykpijdcmpugbe/High_1+%282%29.acmi This tacview shows an ER that does NOT go for chaff or loose lock pass the still hot aircraft despite having over 1 mach more speed. This will happen 100% of the time under these parameters. Giving the missile a PK of 0% against a nonmaneuvering target despite it having the energy to do so under these parameters. This is easily reproducable in single and multiplayer. Is this intended behaviour? Its been an issue for at least months.

Even the MiG-29S TWS2 still gives STT warnings and STT launch warnings before the missile goes active. By my understanding, at least the early N001 variants (Su-27S/SK) can only use the R-77 due to some kind of "cheat" in their programming and are not able to properly guide it in TWS like the DCS F-15C. At least that is close what Deka Ironworks said in one of their posts.

@Zergburger it is clearly visible in image 2 that it is an AIM-120B. A similar thing has also happened in this years SATAL, where an F-14 after being hit once or twice ended up merging and taking out an enemy F-15 with an AIM-9... This is a common thing.

Sure, damage over time. But full combat efficiency for three minutes after taking a hit to the face? Im not an expert, but it seems ridiculous.

https://i.imgur.com/hbavshZ.png - https://https://i.imgur.com/LeFHT34.png - https://https://i.imgur.com/BEY7gDY.png - https://https://i.imgur.com/Edm6fDn.png - https://https://i.imgur.com/i9EWxGK.png The F-14 takes a frontal hit by an AMRAAM. The F-14 a few seconds after fires multiple AIM-9 and AIM-7 and shoots the shooter down. It then continues to fly normally for 3 minutes before disappearing (possibly blowing up). This happens all the time. In this case, the F-14 was not even smoking because of the hit. The reason why many F-14 drivers dont see this happening is because people have adapted to the problem and are now firing AT LEAST 2 missiles at once to ensure that this does not happen. I was not lucky enough to have a second 120 left here.