Katsu

Hi, i never had an opportunity to say thank you, your work has brought me many hours of fun (it still does). Not to mention the friends I was able to introduce to DCS due to your work being free and showing how fantastic DCS can be (I live in a country where a DCS module costs almost 40% of a minimum wage, not everyone can afford to buy). Regardless of whether you continue or not in the future, I believe that everyone has their own motivations and sometimes at times in life priorities change, you have already done a lot for the community for having worked so hard on this module.

I focused on comparing the initial acceleration, its maximum speed, trajectory, and the altitude at which it reaches its maximum speed. And yes, at least I managed to get the initial trajectory very close to the moment of maximum speed, which is around 80,000ft, that's why I say that the altitude table is indispensable for validating, with it we can check the climb profile and achieve conditions very close to the aerodynamic parameters observed in the simulation. (Assuming that the aerodynamic calculations of the missile's drag are correct, which does not seem to have changed from the CFD data) the other factors of the flight are not relevant to discuss thrust now, because these are the ones where the trajectory system will optimize high-speed flight as much as possible (but this is after the missile has already reached its maximum speed).

Были найдены несоответствия, которые было бы интересно проверить в будущем. @tavarish palkovnik провел детальное исследование ракеты, которое оспаривает разработчик, и кажется, что разработчик не очень хочет сотрудничать, чтобы прийти к консенсусу о том, где им удалось подтвердить производительность (поскольку математически ракета не точна).

Interpretation of data is subject to error , need I remind you of the induced drag of the flap that you guys spent 5 years saying was right? And it wasn't. Just as trust is something you gain, it's also something you lose. It's not as if this is the first time you've guys insisted that something is right without it being. (even the same treatment that is being given to Tavarish and me was given to the Lockheed Martin engineer who showed the flap error) of course, due to the pressure and great support of being something that made the plane have an unrealistic dogfight performance drew more attention because it prejudiced not only HB's customers but other in general. I don't want to take any credit away from the product, it's a great product, but it's not perfect, there are problems that have accumulated over time, just like all products and that's normal. But what is not normal is the way that anyone who tries to argue this is treated as a layperson without any knowledge where only you have the knowledge and yes, we should just accept that. The data that you said cannot be disclosed and that the missile is correct is even mathematically impossible unless you have also discovered that all the blueprints of the Mk47 engine are wrong and you have a larger fuel compartment in the missile. Now, however, the only parties to be penalized are the customers who buy this plane, who have the wrong reproduction of this armament.

In fairness to the developers, I don't think the missile is “unusable”. But it is kinetically unrealistic if we take into account the mathematical validations, as we have seen the missile even has an amount of fuel incompatible with the current burn time if everything is calculated as Tavarish did. But yes, it is possible to use the missile quite successfully using it within the zone below 25nm against fighters at altitudes from block 2 to block 3. It would be interesting if you could post a video of your shots showing your TID to see if we can help. (If you're using the A version of the missile the chance of it being fooled by the Chaff is enormous, sometimes it even seems a little worse than the AIM-7 I may be wrong because I haven't stopped to look at the AIM-7's resistance data it's just an impression, also check if ACM cover is up because if you fire with the ACM cover up and the target is not in the search cone of the missile's seeker, it will not track. ) Apparently we had two “batteries” of simulations trying to validate the PMHT (Phoenix Missile Hypersonic Testbed) project One of them seems to have been the first where simpler simulations were carried out: And another that seems more complete (which is the one I asked to be reproduced) where more elaborate aerodynamic factors have been studied also this simulation has a altitude chart which is very important for validating the data, because then we know the trajectory that the missile traveled and not just its speed: Not every simulation is definitive, but it is an important parameter for comparison. What happens when I try to reproduce this simulation is that at the missile's peak speed at around 80,000 feet in both cases (in the NASA simulation and in the game reproduction) in the game the missile barely passes Mach 4, while in the NASA simulation the missile both at 80,000 feet during its route is around 4.6/4.7 mach. This reinforces the approach presented by Tavarish that the missile lacks thrust and burn time is wrong also:

Understood Naquaii, in fact in this you are right the answer has not changed. You have a representation of a missile that you say is correct, a whole theory has been presented here contesting this, and zero technical answers because yours is more accurate simply “because yes” The theory applied here is the same source of correction for other DCS weapons such as HARM, Hellfire and some others But being honest with yourself, which do you think I'm going to believe? a study where formulas and data can be validated or just you saying that yours is right and that's that? In fact, all this would have been much more transparent if it had been disclosed how you came to the conclusion that yours is right. And I even accepted all this since there was no way to contest it: But now there is and as I said, I will continue to think that yours is wrong, until proven otherwise, which for me is no problem, I have no problem assuming that I was wrong and learning from it, as I said I am here looking for the truth (or something closer to it) the world is moved by people who question and who simply do not accept that this is the way it is because it is.

Here it is, it's part of a larger document but the part that focuses on Phoenix is this one:

Try reproduce this one then please: This is the only simulation in which the altitude chart is also provided, making it the most accurate way of validating both speed and altitude and the interference of atmospheric density.

Yes, that's what we've been talking about all along here The document contradicts itself, so there's no reliable source of information, since the same information is in the same document. If we even take NASA's simulations into account, the game's performance doesn't match up. So there's no way of validating that the missile today is correct. Unless you choose one of these sources and supposedly assume that one source that is part of the same document is correct and another is not. (In our case it seems that the developer chose to assume as correct the source where the missile showed the lowest performance) And then we understand the importance of Tavarish's work in this study , because it eliminates much of the guesswork and turns it into something scientifically valid.

Yes, the same sourced used to took that “validation” shot mentioned as a performance validation metric earlier in this topic. So the "validation shot" used by developer shouldn't be taken into consideration, since they come from the same source, right? In this case, as I mentioned above, as there is no consistency in the data (where many can be altered by psyops) the best way is to use calculations based on engine studies to check the approximate thrust.

In fact it was becoming just more like intimidation based on an appeal to authority and ironies and not a healthy discussion, so I decided that it wouldn't be worth my time anymore to keep trying to argue anything But if you want to stir up the hornet's nest, they're there on developers Discord, but don't question where the data comes from Well, I think there's not much more to be done here, you've done everything and delivered valuable research that can help them, if I ever find more sources I'll post it here just like I posted earlier about the publicly released average of the missile's total thrust. It's up to them to continue not being transparent about the data, or to present something else that can prove the current state of the missile is correct and everything presented here is incorrect, I think it's the least that can be done. When that's proven, I'll shut up, admit that I was wrong and I apologize because this is what you expect when you learn something. impulse modulation may not even be corrected but total impulse can be corrected independently of these other factors. But I believe that nothing will be corrected just as it hasn't been during these almost 6 years of many inconsistencies, always blamed on other factors such as (AI, API, even lack of player skill ), but now here we're not talking about other factors, we're talking about the total impulse that the missile is missing. Regardless, I wish everyone the best. Just to be clear for who dont know what is happening and why a 2 years olds topic is still alive: This is the actual impulse of the missile in game: Here are 2 sources talking about total missile impulse: And here we have a complete study of the engine's propulsion based on the original engine blueprint showing that both thrust and burn time are probably modeled incorrectly in game: All credits to: @tavarish palkovnik null Full study can be found earlier in this thread searching for Tavarish posts.

I understand your point Tavarish, I don't doubt it either. What I mean is that it's very difficult for the missile to reach that in normal combat conditions, an F-14B loaded in the DCS with 4 AIM-54 on average can accelerate to 1.4/1.6 mach with a lot of effort using a very smooth climb profile to 40k. Maybe you don't know I'll give you a summary of what happened to the Phoenix in this game (And why i'm still here): First the missile arrived with CFD data that generated a white paper that was made available, but due to flaws in the game engine the missile had a kind of “ convulsion ” when it activated its radar and drained almost all of its energy. What did the developer do with the missile? add a lot of thrust to compensate for this, where the missile became in game terms “overpowered” and above all made the missile very unrealistic with a no escape zone in the deck of almost 10nm, quickly the Phoenix and the F-14 became a nightmare in “multiplayer online matches” as it clearly had a “wonder-weapon” all this generated animosity against the AIM-54. After some time and many complaints, corrections were made returning the missile to the state of the initial CFD studies (these studies were later deleted by the developer) then new corrections were made according to the NASA simulations we saw earlier in this thread, making the missile perhaps more realistic. However, after the adjustments that brought the missile closer to the NASA documents, more and more adjustments were made, reducing the missile's thrust to the point where NASA's own study was no longer valid. These later adjustments were made on a “trust me, bro” basis, with no public data available for validation. I don't want to use the “I work with this” card because I don't exactly work in the aerospace industry, but in my work we also use precision data, and when the information varies a lot and we don't have a reliable source (which seems to be happening with the AIM-54) the only thing that can save us are studies and mathematics That's where you come into the discussion, because so far you're the only one who has brought data, formulas and something that can be validated here. That's when I decided to continue “fighting” for the truth so that the missile is as close to the real thing as possible. But from the amount of attacks and argumentative fights I suffer here, it seems that this is more of a developer's fan club then an actual discussion topic about a Improvements & Overhaul. (at least here it's more civilized than discord where I was almost lynched)I don't remember the exact term, but your whole study there was called something like “Russian reverse engineering delusion” I don't care about the arguments, I just want the science behind it, If the missile is proven to be right the way it is, that's fine with me, As an enthusiast I'm here looking for the best experience I can get and to know where it came from. Again thanks for you, for your effort here. And as long as I'm allowed to, or when the data is released so that the current performance can be validated, I'll say that the game's current missile is a “guesswork-based delusion” I even apologize for this, but after so many attacks for simply questioning something I can't just stay on the defensive.

I think I've caught all your irony... But I don't remember anyone saying here that the Phoenix should be better than the 120C5 I believe that the objective here is to get a more faithful representation of the missile, at least from the available documentation and not a " muuuh better than 120 missile " If the phoenix was better than the 120, the navy would be using Phoenix and not 120s... However, where the missile should in theory perform better is in high-flying situations with low air density, the missile doesn't have the thrust to properly accelerate (according to various documents previously published here) what it should accelerate. (and no, I'm not talking about the mach 5 nonsense.) i made my own version of the missile with the total thrust very close to the documentation. And apart from everything you've said about the ECM,RWR about the state of the game, and etc, you have to remember one thing: The less reaction time the less the enemy will be able to defend, bot or player, mutiplayer or pve. The thrust that is “missing” from the missile gives it almost 1 mach in its peak speed in high shots, but its maximum speed in deck launches remains practically unchanged (which according to the documentation is correct due to the drag area) Any missing thrust makes the missile slower, the slower a missile, the more time the target has to defend, the more time to defend the more time for the game's other problems to have time to be potentiated. If there is data, if there are sources, why not review it? if is there 20% or whatever, it's fair that missile have this. Tavarish's research data was used in some corrections of other missiles in the game, what is different about phoenix that invalidates its data?

I really hope that at some point they stop to review the data. I've bought the F-14 since pre-order, and I remember that it's been several years since this "new" API was promised, i believe the API may improve the missile's behavior to be smoother, but i dont see how it fix the unrealistically lacking of thrust: From unclassified data: Convertion to N: Actual game thrust: Convertion of game total impulse to LB: @tavarish palkovnik calculations again very close to the unclassified data: even in the worst-case scenario, we should have a higher thrust than the current one.

Well, I do believe that there is something wrong with the missile's current state of energy and I don't think that the loft trajectory alone is the main problem (but it is one of them). And no, it's not based on thoughts but on various facts that have been presented here, simulations, reverse engineering of the original blueprint from the engine, calculations, documents etc... The biggest fact that exists is that there is no consistency in the Phoenix information, various sources contradict each other, which is why I believe that the best way to reach a consensus on what the missile's performance would be calculations, CFD, and the kind of study that Tavarish has provided us with all this time that he does us the favor of trying to help. an interesting fact is that Tavarish's data comes close to what the missile's performance could be is that with some programming knowledge and the data he provided, I was able to get close to the performance that Nasa simulation "presumably" presented. null If we get the first 60 seconds of flight we will a have a very close performance, just with minors tuning at thrust and burn time. Just for comparision what we have now: But the problem seems to be on drag, missile seems to have a lot of drag to accelerate, and in the window between mach 4 and 3 seems to be the main issue. Im studing the drag coefficients applied in the game and i'm looking for a solution, even if there is no official fix (if is there) I will make my own.