Whiskey11

Greetings Heatblur and ED. Hopefully this is the right forum. On 26 September 2021, [107th] Coletrain 777, his RIO [107th] Nightwolf 404, my RIO [107th] Ouch 351 and I were on the 107th's Through the Inferno Server on the Mariana's in F-14B's in the Open Beta. Our loadout was 6x2x0, 2 bags and we departed from the Super Carrier. We were directed by GCI to engage two hostile groups of inbound AI aircraft, a low group of MiG-29A's and a high/fast group of Su-33's. Ouch and I were targeted on the FAST (Mach 2.0+) Su-33's and fired of two Phoenixes. First Phoenix off the rail was at 42nm at 34k feet, and Mach 1.05. Second Phoenix, on a trailing Su-33 was at 47nmi, 37.5k feet, and Mach .98. BOTH Su-33's were Mach 2.0+. First AIM54 against a Su-33 at 35k feet and Mach 2.0 was supported to pitbull and slightly longer. At pitbull, AI doesn't respond at all. It fires an R-27ER at Coletrain and Nightwolf, turns a little, and then dumps some chaff. Our Phoenix continues to guide onto the Su-33 due to still having AWG-9 track while shooting at the second Su-33. The missile then turns and puts ITSELF into the notch as the Su-33 barely adjusts to avoid it at all. Second AIM54 is against a Su-33 at 36.6k feet, Mach 2.16 was supported until pitbull and then we bugged out. This Su-33 makes a 25º heading change, launches an ER at us, by this time our missile is long active and maneuvering HARD to pull lead, and never makes it there. It puts itself into the notch and then misses (obviously). We've noticed similar behavior against the MiG-31 at high speeds as well. Unfortunately, I do not have a DCS Track file, but I DO have a Tacview file. See attached. Cole is going to try and attach his track file from his perspective. Bug: AIM-54 tracking issues with high closure rates Can I reproduce it 100%: Yes How to reproduce/ description: 1.) Set up engagement between high speed targets at 100+ nmi. Targets going over Mach 2.0 for best results 2.) Fly standard straight on intercept with crank to gimbal after launch. 3.) Launch on targets at ~40nmi-45nmi 4.) High level (I think they are set to HARD in this engagement) AI recommended 5.) Observe Results. DCS Version: Open Beta 2.7.6.13133 System Specs: Intel i9 9900k MSI Seahawk-EK 2080 32GB of DDR4 3400Mhz RAM DCS Installed on NVMe Sabrent Rocket SSD Peripherals: Thrustmaster Warthog Thrustmaster TPR Rudders Headtracker: VR Track: Accidentally deleted, Cole or Nightwolf will attempt to post theirs, it's a huge file though. Video/ Screenshots: Can take a video of the tacview if you want? Otherwise, Tacview attached. Mods: I have a lot of liveries, but we were using the default VF-32 Swordsman #101 bird camo 107th Radio Nav Aids for Caucuses English Viggen Cockpit Mod IFLOLS Disable Mod (too lazy to check the box in the options, don't judge ;)) Pilot LANTIRN Mod (with some additional radar controls for when flying with Jester, had a human RIO for this though) Reshade High Speed Engagements.zip.acmi

[107th] Nightwolf 404 took these awesome photos while RIOing during TACFORM practice over NTTR. [107th] Coletrain 777 is in the CAG Bird (100) and I was in the #101 with Nightwolf in the RIO. SHACKLE!!!

Are you using the custom User Curves in the TM Warthog Curves thread so you have an Afterburner Detent? If so, it makes a huge difference on the Warthog, or, at least it did for me.

Throw mine in as well, nearly identical to the above scenario. Tonight on the 107th TTI Syria server, myself, with Human RIO (Teomo) were doing an attack profile on a MiG-31 set to Expert AI. Timeline of Events: -Get spike at 85nmi, no launch warning, -We dive from 42k to 30k, then pull up to loft our 54 -Launch our 54 at 65nmi, 42k feet, Mach 1.15 -Crank right to gimbal, start diving to the deck while keeping MiG31 at gimbal -Still no Launch Warning or Missile Inbound warning -At our AIM54's TTI of ~21 seconds we go poof, our 54 goes dumb Time of Engagement: ~2 minutes from R33 launch to impact at 80nmi, our AIM-54 only covered ~50nmi in that same time frame despite having much more favorable loft profile and a higher altitude launch (albeit, .6 mach slower because MiG-31 has big boy burners on the back and the F-14's stores drag at altitude is preventing much faster than Mach 1.2 even after a 12k foot shallow dive in AB). Tacview file, truncated, is attached. I'm [107th-R] Whiskey 936 in the F-14B. MiG-31 is listed as "MiG-31 (A2A_Spawn_Init_ACAP#001-02)". Few interesting takeaways... The R33 has a ridiculously flat and fast profile which defies missile physics. At 65nmi, the AIM-54 capped out 60k feet and about Mach 4.54 after being manually lofted (it actually nosed DOWN to its loft profile after launch) at Mach 1.15. After travelling ~50nmi, the Phoenix has effectively the same energy as the R33 (slightly more, by about .2 Mach) launched at 80nmi by a faster MiG-31 (Mach 1.82... jeesus that thing is fast to accelerate (1.5 to 1.8 in 1 minute). I don't think this missile is intended to shoot this flat and retain energy this well.... even with a Mach 1.8 launch and mach 5.38 top speed, it just retains energy so well, hardly lofts at all (49k feet on a 80nmi shot?), and even with dealing with thicker air, hardly slows down at all... meanwhile, the AIM-54 is bleeding energy from launch until impact at rates that I cannot wait for the new API to finally get integrated onto the 54... F14B_vs_MiG31_WTF.txt.acmi

Bumping this bug report, and probably submitting one for an extremely.... err... optimistic... flight modelling of the R33. Tonight on the 107th TTI Syria server, myself, with Human RIO (Teomo) were doing an attack profile on a MiG-31 set to Expert AI. Timeline of Events: -Get spike at 85nmi, no launch warning, -We dive from 42k to 30k, then pull up to loft our 54 -Launch our 54 at 65nmi, 42k feet, Mach 1.15 -Crank right to gimbal, start diving to the deck while keeping MiG31 at gimbal -Still no Launch Warning or Missile Inbound warning -At our AIM54's TTI of ~21 seconds we go poof, our 54 goes dumb Time of Engagement: ~2 minutes Tacview file, truncated, is attached. I'm [107th-R] Whiskey 936 in the F-14B. MiG-31 is listed as "MiG-31 (A2A_Spawn_Init_ACAP#001-02)". Few interesting takeaways... The R33 has a ridiculously flat and fast profile which defies missile physics. At 65nmi, the AIM-54 capped out 60k feet and about Mach 4.54 after being manually lofted (it actually nosed DOWN to its loft profile after launch) at Mach 1.15. After travelling ~50nmi, the Phoenix has effectively the same energy as the R33 (slightly more, by about .2 Mach) launched at 80nmi by a faster MiG-31 (Mach 1.82... jeesus that thing is fast to accelerate (1.5 to 1.8 in 1 minute). At any rate, a combination of an RWR which didn't respond AT ALL to being launched on, and a broken missile leaves me asking some questions. Don't know if the RWR thing is squarely in HB's house or ED's house, but it's frustrating none the less. F14B_vs_MiG31_WTF.txt.acmi

As someone who spends a lot of time on the 107th's TTI servers in a Tomcat, I can't say I've had issues in either the -A or -B Tomcat. Out of curiosity, what was the deck state like when you were hooking up? What was the time of day? Remember, the F-14 only launches at night/morning/dusk via the lights. I'm not sure if having the lights on in the day makes the aircraft unable to launch (if so, that's a bug), but if you are doing an auto start or something, check the lights to make sure they aren't on if it's day. One final thing to note, is sometimes you'll have problems hooking up to the cats if a Hornet is also on the cats. I always have to remind myself to hit the "Request Launch" command in the radios before taxiing, otherwise the deck crew sometimes doesn't recognize you. Sometimes the Hornets on the cats just wont let you hook up at all and you have to wait.

This is one of those limitations of the F-14. The best way to deal with it is to practice knowing your location and where friendlies are supposed to be. In Multiplayer, the RIO's I fly with for things like the Liberation Dynamic Campaigns are tasked with at least keeping tabs on them. I generally keep tabs too, and it just requires knowing roughly where things are at in the battle plan and battle space. Occasionally, using the NAVGRID, we'll be able to figure out where friendlies are at in the package by BRA calls from C2 (AWACS). It's not easy, that's for sure, but it's a necessary part of the skills you and your RIO must have.

As a random, half aside, you don't happen to play with one of your old RIO buddies as your RIO do you? Maybe someday, we'll be able to watch real procedures in action from the people who did it IRL. It'd be fun to watch without the "muzzle" (over the whole Iran and F-14 restrictions things) on.

It does, by a lot. The 107th has been doing liberation campaigns fairly regularly and our last one was over Syria. What we found is the AI Russian AF would buy MiG31s non stop. The Tomcat crews (usually two of us with RIOs) were tasked with handling the threat. We did Tacview after Tacview debreifs and the lessons learned were harsh. Basically, expect an R33 launch between 50 and 40nmi. Launch your 54s around the 45nmi range, crank to gimbal limit in safe direction. Missile target size set to large. When missiles go active, split S and burner out while the other F14 is flying in to launch if your missiles don't score kills. Think about it like a two ship grinder where the other cat is in trail by 15 nmi or so. What the Tacview shows is this profile provides you with a 5-10 second window to GTFO and avoid an R33 with about Mach 3 coming at you. Your 54 will hit around Mach 1... thankfully the MiG31 has terrible RWR, terrible maneuverability, and a huge RCS. Combined with high closure rates (because AI) and you get some nasty results if your timing is off slightly. We got REALLY REALLY REALLY good at dealing with the R33 threat. That said, the R33 has some absolute BS dynamics in game where it loses no energy at all while the Phoenix dumps huge amounts of energy after the loft. Another tip: At 65nmi, go burner, start a shallow climb. When you are about to launch, pitch up and launch the 54 with a 45 degree nose up attitude. Doing so gives you the best hope of that 54 having some energy at impact. It also drags the R33 high and forces it to run through a little more air to get you when you Split S and GTFO.

I don't know where you get the idea that the AIM-54C is "Pretty bad" vs chaff and ground clutter, but I'd be curious to know the source you have... Keep in mind, it's an all digital missile and the latest version of it, the AIM-54C+(U) was IOC in 1993. I'd be SHOCKED if it didn't undergo numerous guidance and chaff tweaks over its remaining 11 years of life. As HB has routinely stated, there is no evidence to suggest the AIM-54C didn't receive similar guidance, chaff resistance, and clutter rejection mechanics to the AIM-120 variants over its life time. We also don't know which variant of the 54C we have in game. Is it the standard 54C? Is it the 54C ECCM/Sealed or the 54C+ or the 54C+(U)? I'm guessing it's the bog standard 54C (IOC in 1985). Without knowing the specific variant, it's pretty hard to say for sure it is or isn't "pretty bad vs chaff and ground clutter"... but to say that without any real evidence to support it is disingenuous at best.

So far so good. Encountered an issue with AIM-54C tracking a MiG-31 in TWS earlier during a Liberation Multiplayer campaign. Maintained track until 14s to impact when I broke off to evade (and fail to evade) his R-33... missile never went active on a current valid track. Had this happen earlier in the same mission with a JF-17 at range. Never lost track, AIM-54C never went active. I DON'T have a Track File at the moment, I'll have to download the track file and upload it with a bug report.

Me, patiently waiting for some VF-111 love... Love the work you are doing! Keep it up!

That was the point of the meme... put some ridiculous aircraft next to a legit better aircraft (F-14, arguably) to make it seem even more ridiculously disproportionate... lol No one in their right mind would chose to take a C-2 or an F-7U Cutlass into combat today... but yet here we are, saying it's superior to the Super Hornet... THAT'S THE JOKE.............. It's not as funny when you have to explain it =|

Interesting, I disagree... I came from many of those video games and I find the Huey to be the most satisfying helicopter in my DCS Inventory (admittedly, just the Ka-50 and Huey, but free flew the Mi-8 and the Gazelle and liked neither). The challenge is entirely in figuring out how to use the woefully inadequate weapon systems to their maximum effect. Add in sling loading and other utility helicopter flying and it's quite a lot of fun. The MP server I play on has a CSAR script going which adds another layer to the game. It's also the most "lively" helicopter I've flown in the game too. I just love the damn thing, and who doesn't? That twin blade rotor makes such a distinctive noise that you can't help but love it!

Don't mind me, just some inter-virtual-Navy infighting over here!

I'd say it's quite cheap for what you get: 1.) You get an F-14B, an F-14A-135GR, F-14A-95GR, F-14A-IRIAF. That's FOUR F-14 modules, all with their own unique idiosyncrasies, different features, and different capabilities. 2.) You get TWO campaigns 3.) You get the Grumman A-6 AI airplane (eventually) 4.) You get the USS Forrestal aircraft carrier (eventually) 5.) You get an epic soundtrack Even if you think about all three variants of the F-14A we are getting as substantially similar and count them as one aircraft, you are still getting TWO aircraft for the price of a little more than one. That's a pretty good bargain, especially in the context of the other items included.

I mean... I'd just settle for the NAVAIR AAA-1A which has the RIO TID Tapes with the dual line of info in them before ever asking for PTID....

In this case, I attempted to do all of those things right until the merge. He never found them. They most certainly didn't change aspect or change closure rate because the Through the Inferno PVE servers all have EWRS reports which provide updates on enemy aircraft locations about every 10-15 seconds or so. There was about 4 of them in the time it took to close the distance and I would change Jester's scan area each time. I get what Jester is intended to do... there are certain things I wouldn't expect him to do, but a little basic AI functionality to make the gap between a human RIO, even if they are completely trash, and Jester's current status, would be nice. I shouldn't have to babysit the radar from the front seat during an intercept. The whole reason to have a RIO in the real jet was the radar system was too complicated for one person to operate successfully while flying the aircraft. Jester should be able to do that stuff without prompt as part of his decision tree. I'm not asking him to pick out a contact against ground clutter in pulse mode and maintain that lock, just prioritize finding two contacts which faded out but were clearly still out there and well within the scan volume.

I'd say the things that did change were solid changes, but I'm definitely getting tired of Jester's lack of A2A engagement prowess... I was flying on the 107th Through the Inferno server and we had a pair of MiG-23's at about 80nmi, off the nose, hot and hostile at about 26k feet. I was at 33k feet and Mach .9. No Datalink on these targets, but at about 70nmi, without me telling Jester to do anything, but the radar clearly in TWS-A, he loses lock and doesn't find them again. MiG-23 went from Nails, to Spike to Launch at around 15nmi where I was visual with them and at NO POINT did he ever pick them up again, even after I tried telling him to look at where they'd be at range (set him to 50nmi -30k feet and got nothing). THANKFULLY, they are JUST MiG-23's and I successfully sent them to the earth in a ball of fire... but it was frustrating to lose two hot hostile contacts at 80nmi for what seemed like no good reason at all... After that engagement, I hit the tanker up and he struggled to maintain the tanker on the screen too even after I commanded him to TWS-A. Hoping Jester's improvements include better ability and desire to locate datalink targets which aren't on the radar, and to IFF hostile datalink targets BEFORE unknowns and friendlies. Maybe even a "Hey, there was a radar contact there a second ago, where the heck is it now?" tree to his AI as well so if he does have a situation like my MiG-23 engagement, he can actually find them again.

Nice! Getting the correct switch size and spacing isn't an issue if you offset the caps to the correct spacing and just have them hit each button off center from the cap. I've been working so much lately, I haven't had time to mess with the setup at all... hopefully next week. Staying true to the Grumman design presents some serious issues, so I was glad to see you went the route I did!

If my measurements from the pictures are correct, the Piano button interlocks are only a little too small. I'm pretty sure I can get it to work through offset actuators on the bottom of the rotating portion of the button. I'll be playing around with them for sure since it drastically simplifies creation of those switches to something fairly manageable.

Those measurements are perfect, actually! Thanks for taking the time to grab them! Some random interesting side notes: 1.) I did not expect the button to be plastic with a metal pin going through it... but I guess that kind of makes sense! 2.) The caps are a single internal pin to provide rotation while mine are external, and I have two pins per cap 3.) My button caps are fairly similar in size, slightly larger (by about a 1/16th of an inch), and the dimensions need tweaking (knew that was going to be a thing) 4.) I was pretty close with the overall button throw (how far it presses) Time to work on the revisions! Going to have to make some choices on how closely I wish to replicate the original buttons, vs designing something which looks and functions the same but is more 3D printer friendly and requires less niche hardware store trips! Those pins would be nearly impossible to find. That said, it looks like those ebay interlock switches are damn close to the correct measurements and would only need a cap system put on them to make them rotate. When mine show up next week I'll have to see if I can adapt them somehow (should be easy enough) to get the looks down. Probably just be an extension of the system I've already built, but tweaked slightly.

Heatblur is aware and has it fixed on their internal branch, per them, in their section of the forums.

Alright, some additional progress on the 5 Pack switches. I have the basic design down and I am working on printing the parts out for further testing. There are some obvious things missing from this, but I'll do my best to explain as we go. There are five total parts in this assembly: 1.) Button Cap 2.) Button Mid Section 3.) Button Bottom Section 4.) Five Pack Body 5.) Transfer Bar Assembly (the Interlock) The buttons are each separated into three components. Two of those components (#1 and #2) are for ease of assembly of the whole unit. The cap will be glued on (you can't see it, but it's keyed in the .stl file) to the middle section. The middle section is the stem which goes into the five pack body (#4) and is keyed so it rotates the button cap. The bottom part isn't visible but it's basically a square with pegs on each side which interact with the Transfer Bar Assembly (#5) and eventually the actual switch to send inputs to the computer. The transfer bar is marked as two pieces in the picture but it actually has supports in between each button and has to be glued together post assembly. Right now there is nothing holding the Transfer Bar to the Five Pack Body. Not pictured are the six springs necessary to make this assembly work. Five for each button and ONE to push the transfer bar from bottom right to top left in the picture. In THEORY, this is how the interlock switches work on the real one, albeit probably far more elegantly. I am nearing the end of my free PLA which came with the machine, so I'm printing out button caps with the remainder of it. I'll tackle printing the Five Pack Body and Transfer Bar with the new roll of PLA. For now, I have a single switch assembly which demonstrates #1, #2, and one button's worth of #4. And it rotates like it should, and fairly smoothly for an all plastic assembly! I will update when I get the Five Pack Body, and transfer bar assembly working. Maybe a video if I can find some springs to use.

Without them in hand, there is a mechanical bar that links the switches together in addition to the structural piece which physically holds them together. The bar is what provides the "Interlock" feature (pressing one button causes the others to pop out to the off position). I don't know that you can modify those easily and maintain the interlock feature. Part of what I'm doing with my 3D Printer is designing that interlock system such that it is the correct size and you can use any tactile button under it. Once I get it done, I'll probably throw it up online.