Zaphael
-
Posts
107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Zaphael
-
-
I don't see anything I can do to calibrate it in the Simapppro software. It lets me calibrate a lot of axes (For sliders etc) except the primary X-Y axes. The issue is that it starts off centered but then degrades.
-
Anyone run into this issue? The stick gradually builds up inputs to the right over time. It can usually be re-centered by unplugging and plugging the stick. The stick will recenter.
But is there a way to re-centre without unplugging and replugging? I would like to try to avoid wearing out the connections.
-
I have the MFSSB on the MonsterTech chair mount. It does not adversely affect the mount as the amount of force applied is not too great.
It is a great addition for the DCS F-16, and once it is properly configured, the Viper becomes very intuitive to fly - in dogfights or precision flying. Highly recommend it.
-
Managed to sort out the tuning of the MFSSB. And I have to say this thing feels damn good now. Super precise and intuitive for formation flight/tanking, and great for rough housing.
For those who are keen, use the winwing simapp pros software to set the following:
1. F-16 realistic mode
2. Set deadzone 5% on x and y axes.
Use linear in DCS. Don't set curves.
It may feel twitchy for those who are used to hamfisting the stick. But this comes pretty close to how it's meant to be flown...
-
RS FSSB is a very similar product. My winwing MFSSB is set to F-16 mode where the max force output is the max force input required to move the 1/4 inch movement of the stick. Is this the same with R3L?
Not sure if you encounter this as well but particularly with the lateral left stick input.
When I push the stick to the left, it feels like it has a larger dead zone than right. So it's harder to get the same slow smooth lateral left stick input as compared to the right lateral stick inputs.
Imagine AAR with that.
Also, my understanding is that the inputs for AAR is supposed to be dampened. It does not feel so in DCS. Or perhaps it doesn't feel so in force sensing sticks.
-
Hoping to find other MFSSB owners here. I'm trying to configure / tune the MFSSB such that I get a more linear response (instead of PIO all over the place).
It is currently set on F-16 mode, where the max deflection is the 1/4 inch input of deflection (like in the real jet).
But somehow the deflection is somewhat non linear and almost as though there is a tough dead zone in the middle.
Are there curves that we need to set in DCS ? And what sort of curves are we looking at?
-
On 10/4/2022 at 3:14 AM, RustBelt said:
Yea, if all the big dogs are winning with the 18, the only way to compete is with the 18. This is sports. And it’s why sports are inane. You can’t win until you min/max EVERY variable. Having to support the Phoenix ruins the one functional strategy in competition PvP, the buzz-saw. Only AIM-120’s work for that.
The whole competition now is who can do a Buzz-saw better and faster than the other team. Answer: hornet drivers.
I really find this PvP community to be BS anyway. Sure the -18/16 can run a Grinder against each other and see who can get lucky slinging AMRAAMs.
But in reality, that's now how engagements will pan out because fuel. They have to make it back to the tanker and land or end up in the chute.
Back to DCS PvP, it's a fight to the death and who cares about fuel? And hence there is no advantage in playing a big fighter like a Tomcat or Eagle.
And that's why I feel strongly against "play balancing" for the sake of the PvP aspect of DCS.
-
3
-
-
Holy smokes! The way those Phoenix Cs shot off! They sure look a lot more energetic than what we are accustomed to in DCS.
35 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:Ah yes, the brick that can't hit fighters.
About 7:20 shows a 54C shot against what apparently was a maneuvering F-4S drone.
-
6 hours ago, skywalker22 said:
Don't you get a wrong impression of this now almost antique missile. DCS versions and now becoming capable of what the real ones used to be - pretty bad actually. IRL USN did not have a single confirmed kill (Iran has 78, out of I don't-know-how-many, but not sure how much of this is true).
You/we should know the main purpose of real AIM-54, it was designed for one thing only, and this was to intercept (slow maneuvering) Soviet bombers, not agile fighters and cruse missiles. Phoenix was never intended to be an anti-fighter weapon.
Besides, Phoenix missile was designed in 1960s with full analog tecnology, which means it just cannot be compared to technology which came 20 or more years later. We can say, it's successor which is practically AIM-120 (which has directly replaced AIM-7) is much more sophistictacted missile and therefore better in all aspects, except it's range, but the D variant has now almost the same range as AIM-54 used to have (98 vs 100nm). Besides, AIM-120D has also a proven track record (10 confirmed kills).
My point is, do not expect from AIM-54 too much, it's is/was not designed to fight with fighterjetst, specially not gen4 and even less with gen5.
I suggest to read more about it here. So you will get an idea what AIM-54 Phoenix was all about.
IRL, no one knows how the later Phoenixes would have performed against actual 4th Gen adversaries.
Most likely, the Phoenix's performance would be similar to what we saw in the two Gulf Wars - Abysmal.
Abysmal because the Iraqis refused to tango. They push the Tomcats but turn away when missiles are about to be fired.
In DCS, we have the benefit of Tacviews and track files to develop a good sense that of we do this and that, we bleed the Phoenix's performance to defeat them.
The Iraqis or any of their real adversaries did not have that luxury of thinking that they know the performance of the missile.
So yeah, IRL, the Phoenix performance was abysmal. But that was because all its targets were afraid of its fiercesome reputation and ran away.
-
1
-
-
Not referring to the CFD. But rather how missile and even bomb physics feel a bit funny from time to time.
Sometimes when bombs loses energy, they don't dump attitude and nose down like they should. And I am not referring to bombs with wings... Just JDAMs and LGBs. They float, lose speed and float a bit more than expected.
Likewise, some missiles do that too. With fuel burned out, the CG should shift drastically forward. But some can retain nose level attitude and trade all that energy for that even when there's nothing left to chase.
But I digress. It's not an issue specific to Phoenix.
I like the Phoenix at the moment, except when they decide to ride the merry go round.
-
17 hours ago, Digitalvole said:
Can I ask where the Mig 29S, or other redfor planes with fox 3s would fit in your explanation (which I enjoyed and makes perfect sense) please?
What I end up feeling is too much of an advantage against non fox 3 aircraft, and too much of a disadvantage against those that do have fox 3s. (All redfor btw)
Is there a happy middle ground, or is that just the way it is?
Quick addition edit: Though the Aim 54 is long range, in actuality against any fighter it isn’t really is it? I can’t hit a fighter that’s going to defend at anything over 40 miles. But that may just be me. In fact I couldn’t hit an orbiting awacs at over 40 miles, the orbit of the awacs seemed to confuse the missile.
I think much of the low kill probability at the moment (other than the missile going stupid), is due to the AI's response.
At the moment, the AI knows exactly where the hostile missile (phoenix) is within the active range or even 10 miles.
They break away in an exact manner to defeat the missile.
But that is likely not what the adversaries would encounter in real life. Based on the nature of the RWR in some of the MiGs, where the missile is would have been an educated guess. Diving at speed from altitude, the RWR may not be providing accurate information. But this is not the case in DCS.
Another "strangeness" is that missiles seem rather "floaty and draggy" in DCS. They tend to slow down to the point which they seem to float.
I would think with the fuel depleted, the missile should tipping over forward until they point straight down (in the absence of guidance fins movement). In that situation, they shouldnt slow below their terminal velocity. Yet I've seen DCS missiles slow float quite a bit. They don't tip over and retain terminal velocity enough.
-
20 hours ago, Jayhawk1971 said:
Towards the end of the AIM-54's service life, the Navy had their Tomcat crews live-fire a crapload of those, as I assume this was the easiest method to clean out the inventory. I bet the Navy collected tons of data in the process. The question is: who's privy to that data. I somehow doubt that'll include the DCS crowd, at least for now.
Edit: one would assume they tested the Phoenix in all kinds of scenarios, including low, mid and high altitude shots. "Puck" Howe said in a recent interview that it turned out their tactics charts were too "pessimistic".
Would there be changes to the missile active distance given new information on when they go active? If this aircrew interview is correct, the missile active distance is about halfRange+Miles. Likely the shot goes active way further than what we have now, which could reduce current TWS support time.
Or would this be something that is still beyond what can be done in DCS?
-
34 minutes ago, The_Tau said:
Ah that would explain. I always wondered how PD STT get range on target.
Yeap. It's a pulse doppler radar and not just a Doppler radar.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-Doppler_radar
Notching target? MLC out.
Against less powerful radars, beaming the radar could reduce the returns and deny ranging information as well as velocity info. But AWG-9 was pretty powerful, and hence it could probably pick up a beaming target (or another aircraft 100 miles away).
Hence, you need to drop large qty of chaff rapidly to confuse and break the track of the radar while beaming (simultaneously presenting a lower RCS to the radar).
-
A PD-STT should be pretty damn hard to notch without combining some sort of ECM (chaffing). It is operating in both pulse ranging and Doppler shift across a very narrow beam and from a very powerful AWG-9 antenna.
-
1 hour ago, Callsign JoNay said:
Yeah, true. Personally I'm feeling a much larger dead zone than 20-30 through.
I agree. Where the TWS hold on the WCS is concerned, 20-30 miles is an unreliable range to take the Phoenix shots. The missile also doesn't have time to climb and accelerate at thinner air.
With the Phoenix C being capable of pitbulling on its own, it has become viable to shoot though. That said, it may still connect at lower energy if the Tomcat is not already up high.
-
9 hours ago, IronMike said:
There's nothing to fix. It climbs as fast as high as it can, which does make sense. It helps it maintain a higher terminal speed by making the most out of the motor burn time in the climb, thus gaining the highest altitude at the highest possible energy. You can also see that irl videos, iirc someone shared that recently on these forums even. If it would not do that, it would lose significantly more energy during the gliding phase through denser air.
Thanks IronMike and the entire Heatblur team for trying to make the Phoenix as real as it can get. The guidance and intercept trajectories seem a lot more sensible now and do not shed of as much speed. From my limited observations, they also do not shed as energy reacting to targets rolling.
Just a few observations (happy as it is, so I hope this is not seen as nitpicking):
Comparing against the live-fire missile shots, the initial launch to loft of the DCS Phoenixes do seem a little too steep prematurely. From the footages, it looks like the Phoenix uses its initial boost to push away from the Tomcat first (gaining speed), before initiating a steep climb. From the pilots viewing perspective, the missile trail in the climb will be high above the canopy bow, but not that high.
Second observation which is probably hard to verify, is when the missile *begins* to apex the boost climb. It does not seem sensible that the missile designers did not reserve some seconds of the rocket burn for the missile to gain speed at thin air. I would think that the missile definitely should not use its entire burn time for a climb, but have some remaining for near level flight in order to achieve higher velocities. This is purely a speculative point on my part. I think few would know the actual missile profile at that stage.
Cheers!
-
2
-
-
Load balancing missiles? Maybe Tomcat don't care. RIO does when dropping bombs maybe?
-
1 hour ago, DSplayer said:
The only thing I noticed in my own testing (and not using these tracks) is that sometimes the missile will lead too much, especially against a maneuvering target, and could cause the missile to drain some more energy than it really needs to.
If I understand the TWS refresh and update rate correctly, it should, and should not, do that depending whether TWS sees a heading change in the bandit. If it during the refresh, I think it should update the supported missile's trajectory accordingly
At terminal, I think the missile has to respond to target maneuvering fairly quickly.
I think it is a fair tactic to make multiple heading changes while trying to press a section of F-14s. Possibly why the Gulf of Sidra Migs were doing so at mid-low Altitude, giving the Phoenix some due respect.
-
3 hours ago, IronMike said:
Dear all,
I would like to apologize to all of you - as you may have seen we changed the AIM-54 guidance from parallel to PN this patch. Both ED and us have been under the impression all these years that it had been set to PN already, and luckily ED spotted the issue. This is ofc an oversight, and was owed to the fact that the setting is hidden behind a value that does not indicate this on first sight and the differences in guidance are very difficult to spot, if at all, in game, when monitored under the wrong assumption.
However, you should notice a difference now, where the missile will have slightly less energy on the fly-out while maintaining more energy during the terminal phase, as it should. We're very grateful to ED for spotting this, and ofc feel somewhat embarrassed to have been under the wrong impression all along. The AIM-54 ofc should have always been set to PN guidance.
The positive note is that the terminal guidance should be improved through this, and we are happy that this step brings us closer to the completion of the AIM-54 overhaul. We would like to thank you ever so kindly for your tremendous patience with us and I hope you enjoy the changes this patch brings.
Thank you and our sincere apologies again.Well its fixed now. Many of us have observed the conversion into lag or tail chase over the year. Who would have known?
-
1
-
-
I think what we want from Jester is really simple. We need him to prioritise radar picture on closest TID DL hostile contacts within 40 miles of us as we march down the timeline.
Most of the time there is only one variable to fine tune, and that is the antenna scan elevation.
On balance, it is not a huge problem. Tactically, you should try to co-alt your priority targets to reduce your RIO workload anyway. Provided that is tactically available option.
-
2
-
-
On 6/17/2022 at 4:08 PM, stuart666 said:
Its worth saying this. I have read that as the Tomcat community became more and more concerned about the range of Soviet Radar guided AAM's, they did move towards carrying a single phoenix for in the face shots. The logic being they would outrange whatever came at them with an R27. This would be the Mig29/Su27 threat.
They would I think have carried sparrows as well, but it illustrates some of the thinking. I would presume this is the same reason they were also looking at integrating the Aim120 with the Tomcat, before giving up. Its hard to see the requirement when they had the Phoenix already, struggling to justify its keep in the post fleet defence world in the 1990's.
To amplify this, according to an episode of Tomcast, there was a finite pool of money in upgrading the Tomcat.
It was either go for the LANTIRN and PGM capability, or AIM-120 integration.
A bold decision was made to develop LANTIRN and PGM capability. They reasoned that A. this was a capability the US Navy needed. And B. The Tomcat already had Fox 3 capability in the form of the Phoenix.
-
1
-
-
IRL; Sparrows were cheaper, less maintenance, lighter burn less fuel.
Phoenixes were expensive. Forget the BS on the internet about them being less maneuverable etc. They were absolutely lethal. When the missile is closing in near Mach 5, it doesn't need to behave like sidewinder to make a kill.
They were expensive to carry, expensive to carry back to the boat and needed maintenance to keep them reliable.
Hence they were reserved as silver bullets for fleet air defence. And silver bullets they were meant to be indeed.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, IronMike said:
As for pure vs lead - I need to ask if related, however in the old API the missile cannot guide towards a point in space, and needs an object to guide on. This poses an issue with for example guiding on extrapolated tracks. However I am not quite sure if it is the reason for not leading a target.
How does the new API work then? Does it create an object for the missile to guide on?
-
40 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:
The AIM-54A-60 is a beast again. At 40k you can bag ace level AI F-16Cs from 70 nm without even assisting the loft, missiles impacting at ~Mach 2. The new AI has actually made the them worse in some ways. Since they no longer start evading until the pitbull warning, it's too late for them. The same shot was only available at about 50 nm in the previous patch in my testing. Whatever induced drag changes were made has made a large difference IMO, not a subtle one.
I'm also seeing some weird behavior VS F-16s though. Especially with close range active off the rail shots. The AI can break the lock with a simple aileron roll. I think as soon as they are inverted the lock is broken. Virtually no aspect change needed. More testing needed.
Well I hope the PvP community will realise that they cannot afford to fly a straight line intercept against a Tomcat and expect to walk away from it. Its not the missiles being Op. Even at the get go.
Likewise, never fly a straight line intercept against an adversary with forward quarter long-medium range missiles.
Jester repeats "lost lock" or "locked a buddy"
in Bugs and Problems
Posted
When switching back to Pilot seat (from RIO) after doing a number of repetitions of locking and unlocking, Jester would seem to repeat "lost lock" again and again. Likely based on the number of times player locks and unlocks a target.
Likewise for locking friendly aircraft.