Noctrach

This has been discussed multiple times on this forum tbh, the discretion on not hitting targets that should not be hit is entirely down to the crew firing with positive target identification and clear avenue of fire. The idea that e.g. SARH missiles are incapable of "randomly locking things" is just inaccurate. Radar locks aren't laser beams and tracks merge all the time. If that was a consideration, AMRAAM simply wouldn't exist.

I'm not saying it proves anything, but it's a pretty major distinguishing factor from the analog -A and really only serves the use-case of giving the missile a sense of spatial location. Whether this is purely for better guidance or autonomous activation I haven't a clue. Only that I think its reason to expect significant difference in the guidance performance for the -C comparative to the -A If the -A relied on AWG-9 "echoes", as is rumoured, then I'd expect a more efficient flight profile for the -C. Fair point I guess, though similar arguments can (and imo should) be made for the IRIS-T and AIM-9X Though the latter is ofc at ED's discretion. I guess my point is that weapons are so damn classified that asking for proof is kinda silly. I don't mind if they're implemented as a "within the realm of reason best approximation". That's the best you'll ever get anyway. The only thing we know is that the 54C was a much more advanced missile than the 54A. In-game it really isn't.

I do have to say, while I don't really mind it not going active by itself, I do find this a somewhat odd stance to take considering the AIM-54C objectively distinguishes itself by having a command-inertial guidance system. The very function of such a system is to give the missile a way to discern its position relative to the predicted target location. (Queue the missile knows where it is...) The fact the 54A does not have this means there is no reason to believe it even had any choice but to rely on the AWG-9 for its activation. Considering the rough state of inertial navigation prior to the digital era, I highly doubt a missile with analog components could've accomplish anything remotely like it without inducing mind-boggling amounts of drift. I do hope that the transition to the new API will bring some other distinguishing features to the 54C in terms of guidance, kinematics and reliability. I understand that there's already enough pointless debate and controversy around the Phoenix, so there's plenty reason to err on the side of conservatism. I respect your choice in that regard. However, I personally feel that its an untenable position to maintain when we're going to end up having MDBA Meteor missile, the functioning of which will rely entirely on best-guesses and fiction.

MLC is a switch in the RIO seat if that's what you mean, yes. I don't think Jester can actually disable it. The other teen series radars are similar to this, insofar the first generations of their radars go. The F-14/AWG-9 design stems from the late 60s and was rather a revolutionary step up in terms of radar capabilities. However, it was still entirely analog, which means it's hampered by issues (like those ground returns) that were refined in radar designs for the F-15/16/18, each of which included digital components. In return you get one of the highest detection ranges and an ability to track/engage multiple targets that I don't think even the AN/APG-63 was capable of until the late 80s.

Three "tips" Keep MLC on as much as possible when over land Fly reasonably co-altitude with expected targets Accept that it's a TWS "feature" for the AWG-9 and it will never truly go away

It's definitely not disdain, but from me personally these kinds of requests come off as people trying to find a way to "one-up" the opposition with one-off tricks, rather than flying a better airplane. I've had similar headbutting with pilots I've RIO'd for who insisted on doing tricks with flaps or manual wing sweep which invariably resulted in disaster, because they would forget to restore normal function under stress. All to get an "advantage" that they wouldn't have needed if they knew how to fly clean and proper BFM. I think the perceived touchiness is a combination of the same shared passion for the product and a fear that these kinds of discussions are just side-tracking for the sake of "shenanigans".

I'd rather have all aircraft being unaffected by ECM than some arbitrary lock/no-lock range tbqh The AWG-9 was renown for its capability to manually negate a lot of jamming effects, through the (unimplemented) left half of the DDD knobs. Seems bizarre to force some binary ECM simplification onto the jet because some other missiles/jets don't react in a sane way to DECM. Smells like "pvp balancing" to me.

Exactly, currently it shows navigation waypoint unless manually selecting a BX. It's not a big issue as radar fixing and the missile launches work fine, just that it doesn't correspond with the docs

Thanks @IronMike

Nevermind, I'm a fool and was using the wrong key combination to bring up the BX waypoints xD The relevant section of manual that has me confused: This is not the current in-game behaviour.

BX waypoints for RB-15 do no longer show on CI as of latest beta patch in ATTACK/ANF with radar mode in A1. As a result, it is not possible to radar fix the target points. They are present in CK as release cue is accurate and missiles will launch and follow the preset path. Its just radar symbology/functionality thats broken. It worked in 2.7.0.4625 Patch version: 2.7.0.5659 Frequency: Always. Applies to both BX6-9 waypoints pre-set in mission editor, BX6-9 waypoints set through map markers and BX6-9 waypoints set manually through CK. Was using the wrong combination to bring them up. However, they do not show in ATTACK/ANF like the manual describes without manually selecting them.

Half-action cycle everytime you try to input coordinates to prevent overwriting previous TID hooks. In your words, it's the AWG-9 rookie mistake ^^ first thing we teach new 132nd RIOs To prevent issues, the standard CAP panel routine: > Half-action on stick to clear TID hook > Select CAP mode/function > Hit CLEAR button to clear possible previous inputs > Data input

Wrath of Thunder mission 9 has the new weather preset barring the use of the mission-prescribed RB-75T due to extremely low visibility. Workaround for now would be to fly out with RB-04, but bit of a showstopper.

The short answer is his shot parameters were absolutely terrible and chaff right now is a bit of a joke. 20 miles is pushing it at 25,000 feet let alone 8,000. Missile was literally falling out of the sky before even reaching you. None of this is notching, take the advice of @dundun92 and @104th_Blaze and verify that your relative bearing (Combat/3D) towards the missile maintains a steady near-90 degrees. Also heatseekers like the AIM-9 cannot be notched and are easiest to decoy by turning INTO the missile while rolling engines idle and dropping flares.

Or for in-flight ballparking: Elevation difference between takeoff and target divided by 30, subtract from takeoff QFE. E.g. Takeoff elevation: 251 feet Takeoff QFE: 1004.3 Target elevation: 1187 feet So those numbers roughly even out to 1190 and 250 which gives us New QFE = 1004.3 - 940/30 = 1004.3 - 31 and a third = roughy 973 Close enough for accurate release. Ofc, if your target is below airfield QFE, you add them instead.

Yep, this issue actually low-key breaks some campaign missions because you cannot order your wingman to do anything anymore. This needs to be solved, its not a "scripting problem", this is an AI bug. They just get stuck in a loop calling out the same contacts perpetually and become useless and unresponsive for the rest of the mission.

Chaff is invisible to aircraft radar (dont exist as game objects) so wouldnt be able to influence TWS ^^ its purely a diceroll on the missile + particle effect

Dear HB, I was wondering if it were possible to get something of a list of known issues for the Viggen and Tomcat. Alternatively, something like an "investigating" or "in progress" label on the respective threads on the bug reporting forums. While I fully recognize you guys are part-time, some bugs seemingly go unnoticed or without response for a long time, in some cases more than a year. For those of us actively testing and reporting bugs, it'd be nice to have some insight in which of them are known/recognized while we wait for the fix. I really love your modules, but running into months-old, sometimes serious bugs and not knowing whether they are "difficult but pending a fix", WIP or unknown to the team gets a bit frustrating. Examples are stuff like Viggen illumination bombs and Tomcat TWS behaviour.

Yep all you really need to know is that Höjd needs to be less than 10 and more than 0

I'd wager a pretty safe guess that any lack of sales would stem from the Viggen being a relatively unknown, hyper-specialised striker with a very specific mission profile, moreso than people's fear of Swedish.

I'd be primarily interested in hearing roughly what parameters the AWG-9 would use for correllation. E.g. if it's closure and altitude, then the current logic of having a two-ship resolve into a broken track on top of two new trackfiles at 35-40 miles is suspect imo. At least one of those two should correlate with the original return even if TWS couldn't make it out to be two aircraft. I get the whole "weak vs fighters" bit but the different statements by HB on the radar's logic/capabilities don't seem to add up to what we see in-game entirely. As it stands the AWG-9 is "a 60s radar utterly incapable of resolving broken trackfiles", which is fine to me, but not what they seem to be saying.

What I'm curious about is whether he meant those 3 frames allow recorrelation, or all the way until frame 7. If it's marked lost at frame 3, but can recorrelate by frame 7 then I've never seen this happen. (Never seen a broken track "unbreak") It will just paste a new, identical track on top of the one that's lost most of the time. Besides, we can correllate whether sweeps are missed on the DDD. Usually you can tell when you're losing a track because the DDD sweep misses a return, which pretty much always means the track is lost shortly after.

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/256009-does-the-aim-54-need-a-constant-tws-track/?do=findComment&comment=4514507 I misremembered, @Naquaiistated it marks it as lost after 3 frames and dropped after 7. What I find more interesting is the following: "During that time it can still be correlated if it gets new radar returns fitting the parameters." I don't think I've EVER seen it recorrelate a track after marking it lost. Would be interesting to hear clarification on what behaviour we should see exactly from the RIO seat. I'm curious how tight those parameters The average latency of participants on our server tends to be sub 30 ms. Depending on what constitutes a "frame", if it really drops it after a single missed return I'd be inclined to say that is a bug?

Heatblur has said that it should miss 5 consecutive sweeps on target before going into trackhold/broken track. There's some basic correllation it would still be able to do based on expected doppler and such in the first brief moments of contact loss.

No results still seem pretty consistent