Karon

Perhaps one day the wrong setting will mean trashing the missile, as I have the strong impression that the switch is not there to make the missile stealthier at all, rather to tell the seeker what to look for, and what should be disregarded. I usually stay in normal.

Last time I checked, the TID blinks correctly depending on the option selected, but the AI defends at the same distance every time. Also, this is a DCSism, the purpose of the switch should not be how stealth you want to be. I wouldn't mind seeing the missile thrashed if the wrong parameters are set, it would make IDing the target even more relevant. Ref jamming, see if this helps (video about engaging jamming targets I made in November. The theory is in this video). You can easily kill jamming targets at 60+ nm, and this works for the AIM-120 as well, albeit at a shorter range. The AI launches HOJ lofting missiles as well, so the whole jamming experience leaves a bit of a sour taste. I tested vs blinking jammer (albeit at a larger interval) in TWS and out of a dozen tests I scored no hits. Apparently, a test made in 1973 worked instead (but the source does not say how many failed ). JAT-STT switching to PD-STT at burnthrough works like a charm, at least versus AI. This, however, opens up the can of other issues, but this is off-topic and irrelevant here.

This is a very short analysis, there are many more things to say about the data collected. However, no one will ever watch a 2h-long slideshow of charts. Thus, the proper dissertation will be posted only on the website. The video instead focuses on a general look, some of the neat stuff I have seen, and some of the issues. The final part gives you a few points worth remembering and using, imo. Needless to say, manual loft is pointless or even counterproductive if the geometry is off, or in other conditions discussed in the video. Use it well and it will help you. Abuse it, and you will end up trashing your own missiles.

I have collected about 1600 datapoints, with 40/50 charts like this: This is the speed at impact of an AIM-54A Mk47 in one of my testing scenarios: Mach vs range. I'm in the process of putting together a short video showing the results. There are a few nuances with the Phoenix, is much more interesting and complex than the AIM-7, for example. Yesterday I pushed the introduction, which aims to clarify some of the points necessary for the Phoenix to work. Moreover, manual loft is just that "bit more" over an appropriate geometry and employment parameters: I still see so many players launching down in the weeds at target 50 nm away and cold or flanking. No missile will ever catch those targets. In a couple of days, or early next week, I should have the Part II out, showing sweet spots for the different variants, tests vs low / offset targets and a couple of interesting observations. As I said, it's a bit more complex than the loft of the AIM-7. And I reiterate: this is not some sort of holy grail or hidden secret, this has been a thing since LOMAC, but it was not always necessary (ah, the old Mk60.. ). Manual loft won't make your missile perform better if you do not know what you are doing, actually, it is the simplest way to trash your missiles.

So, post AIM-7 study, I noticed how the loft drastically improve the missile. It even performed better than a Phoenix launched with the "old" parameters. I have waited a few months for the implementation to stabilise, and I'm working on a more in-depth study about the AIM-54. It's nowhere near as in depth as the one I made in 2019 though (with 3500-something AIM-54s launched)! That being said, it seems we are really back to the manual loft game, something that was necessary with the old 54 and the Mk60, but that, as mentioned, always really helped the AIM-7. For instance, at 60nm, 0TA/ATA, A35, the endgame speed of the AIM-54C default is M1.77. With a 30° loft, it goes up to M2.25. Nothing crazy, but every little helps. On the other hand, there are several drawbacks and curious facts that I'll discuss when I complete the data-collection phase. Apologies for the plug in, but I posted with rough video 5' ago, answering a question about how to deal with the new omniscient Ace AI with the new AIM-54. I recorded the footage a couple of days ago, without even rehearsing it. See if it helps. Btw, avoid Ace AI, it's just dumb. Veteran cheats, but looks much more realistic imo. @BubiHUN we're still waiting for your tracks.

Déjà vu. I reckon I've already shared with you videos and possible something else showing you that the Phoenix is different, but it performs its role of long-range missile perfectly (ergo, PK ~40%,50%). If multiple kills at 60nm, and up to 75 nm vs Veteran and Ace AI are not enough to convince you, nothing will. And before you jump on the "BuT mY pVp" train, have a look at how many Cold War servers allow the AIM-54. AFAIK, no server allows the Tomcat to field the AIM-54C when all others have is the AIM-7 at best, unless there are other restrictions. I have the feeling you expect to compare it to the year 2000, AIM-120C-5 we have in DCS (AIM-120B, 1994). As if comparing the designated successor of the AIM-54 (since the AIM-152 was scrapped in 1992) vs the original that pre-dates the Tomcat itself (it was meant to be used by the F-111B) or its mid-80s upgrade, make any sense, right? Last time I've played online, I have seen F-14s flying at 15,000ft and launching at flanking FFalcons at 50nm that were down in the weeds. This guy launched 4 missiles to two targets, then banzai'd and died in 2 nanoseconds. I have the feeling you are employing using the same logic. If not, send us some TacView tracks.

This is definitely not what I have experienced. Can you provide some TacView tracks?

Funny you say that. I killed a MiG-31 at 75 nm earlier with no particular effort (the whole engagement will be part of my next video, hopefully out in a couple of days). And not even half an hour ago, I posted this: Since I'm not particularly good, I never push too hard on the parameters, yet I have no issues with the Phoenix, have you considered the possibility that maybe you are using it incorrectly?

This should still be valid. HB has no control over the missile post A-pole. In STT, they simply tell the game that the radar has a lock. LPRF, HPRF.. DCS doesn't care. It's all in ED's hands, and we've known this for years now. Chaffs in DCS have absolutely zero realism, but this has been known for more than a decade. They work exactly as flares (roll of a die), whereas this should not be the case, at all. Again, it's in ED's hands. The Phoenix works really well if you put into the correct scenario and context (in case you didn't know, the AWG-9 is operative since 1962). There is a stark divide between Cold War modules and modern ones in DCS. For example, and touching the notching discussion, you should know that each third-party dev and ED propose different levels of realism. Thus, don't test notching vs F-16, F/A-18 et cetera, it's wasted time. So, we are at a point where you can do everything correctly, but it is not enough to achieve an acceptable PK (~45%/50%). The reason is, the combat part of DCS is leaking everywhere. You don't believe me? Well, when you see a MiG-21 perfectly notching a Phoenix, you ask yourself a few questions. (and the answer is that the SPO-3 is OP, of course!)

As @DD_Fenrir said, it is not a Phoenix problem, rather DCS that shows all of its flaws the moment your aircraft interacts with… anything really: ATC, JTAC, AWACS, ground units behaviour, radars, RWRs, jamming, datalink, countermeasures, missiles, and the list is still very long: these are all very poor mechanics realism-wise, and Air-to-air combat is simply the worst offender. One day, when these mechanics are overhauled (and I'm sure ED is already moving in this direction), we will see that building SA will come much more difficult and, consequently, missiles will become more lethal. In the meantime, the only way to get a *slightly* more realistic experience is flying Cold War scenarios (but there are no realistic servers around). Then, tweaking the AI to randomly change how it behaves, from an omniseeing entity to something that can get killed without even defending (more realistic than you would expect), or defending without nailing the overexaggerated notch every time. Lastly, Jester is just an interface to the AWG-9. It is not any better than the pilot controlling it (potential bugs aside, of course).

Another "mini-series" coming in Draft VI, along other content not posted on the website, is a (sad) look at jamming. Part I: Introduction; Part II: F-14 Avionics; Part III: Engaging jamming targets. Unfortunately, jamming highlighted yet again all the issues that DCS has when it comes to combat and interaction between your aircraft and any object. The "peculiar" implementation of jamming de facto annuls the boundary between exploit and sheer bad game mechanics. So, along as a premise to Part III, there is this: DCS - A poor combat sim. Lastly, as mentioned in the past, I plan to make a few more short videos to complement the book. I made a couple of them for Jamming: So, what is left to do to complete the book? Well, potentially a lot, but I have decided to cut a few parts, and I am looking forward to moving to something else (both games and modules), away from the nonsense of modern modules, which are the usual opponents of the F-14 in most servers.

Added another article aimed to new players: the "Plus 2 Minus 2" rule (or "±2 rule"; it has a bunch of names, tbh). It is useful to calculate the reciprocal of a bandit, runways and so on.

Completamente errato. Ma di tante, tante miglia anche. Non é una questione di soldi, ma di scelte. Continuate a pensare di sapere cosa l'utente vuole, quindi ripeto: VR non é il sacro graal, é solo una delle possibili scelte (ed é anche abbastanza mediocre ora come ora). Sembra di sentire il milanesotto patacca che vive in centro ma deve comprarsi per forza una macchina da finta middle class come il Cayenne. Che ne te fai in cittá? Niente, ma altrimenti non sono cool enough su internet, ovviamente. Parlo sempre per me perché non posso parlare per gli altri. Prima del 2019 potevo prendere un 4K, ma vivendo in un buco a Londra, 1080p era una scelta adeguata tra spazi e prestazioni. Che me ne faccio di un 4K che non ci sta sulla scrivania? Idem il PC, se faccio 80 fps, perché buttare soldi e cambiarlo? Passato in un attico sul Thames prima di compare casa e ho preso un UW 3440x1440. Mi serve 4K? No, la verticalitá non mi interessa. Mi serve VR? No, lo considero un downgrade. Scelte gente, sono scelte. Toh, riprova: ~ HOTAS Virpil: CHECK (uno dei primissimi clienti, S/N sotto intorno al 100); ~ MFD con schermo: 1x CHECK; ~ Pedals: CHECK; ~ Force feeback: inutile, ho giá un HOTAS; ~ bass shacker: inutile per me, ho i volumi del gioco quasi a zero; ~ Track-IR: CHECK, sia v4 che v5. Aggiungo: 2x MFD TM senza schermo, TWCS Throttle, CH MultiFunctional Panel, CH Fighterstick, Saitek TPM, Saitek Quadrant piú altri che non ricordo e tutti i miei pannelli home made, con doppio TFT, vero TACAN ex RAF Jaguar e altro. E nonostante questo, visto che allora giocavo con un PC di 10 anni capace di fare 80 fps a 1080p non sono un cliente WINWING. Boia oh, una logica che non fa una piega. Ripeto ancora: scelte, post soldi, é solo questione di scelte.

@komemiute No, non credo stia bene. Sembra di parlare con un no vax DCS gira su un PC di 10+ anni fintanto che sei a 1080p e tagli qualcosina. Fonte: ci giocavo con un PC del 2011, mentre registrato e/o streammavo, con 70-80 fps nel 2019. Passato a 3440x1440 causa WFH, faticava in Syria (~40 fps), quindi ho cambiato. Ti sfido a far girare DCS in VR con lo stesso PC e le stesse prestazioni o qualitá. Non puoi, quindi ti serve un PC molto piú recente e aggiornato per VR. Poi bello come prendi il top della gamma WINWING, con monitor e tutto, che comunque non costa tantissimo, sono ~900€. Visto che vuoi comparare il top, mi sembra giusto compare il top VR, no? Non me ne intendo, ma pare che sia il Pimax 8K X che il Varjo Aero siano decenti. Peró costano entrambi sui 1800€. Ora, non sono molto ferrato in matematica, ma mi sembra che 900€ diviso 1800€ sia quasi il doppio, no? (verificherei ma non ho 1800 dita, purtroppo). Vogliamo fare una comparazione piú normale? Lo stesso setup WINWING viene ~600€ senza monitors, un HP Reverb G2 é anch'esso sui 600€. Peró con VR ti serve un PC molto migliore a meno di farti venire il mal di testa giocando a 10 fps. Siamo d'accordo su questo punto o bisogna tirar fuori anche motivazioni senza senso? Se proprio, ora vediamo la versione senzatetto che dorme sotto a un ponte: la mia. https://karonshome.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/nov2022_cut-1.jpg Se sommi tutte le boxes e panels che ho costruito dal 2017, incluso anche il TACAN RAF Jaguar dismesso (che é il pezzo piú costoso ed é costato £50 il TACAN, piú £10 di materiali), arrivi se va bene a £250. Siamo ancora convinti che costi di piú del VR? Ora, sono piú che felice di avere una conversazione, anche complessa e con posizioni diverse, ma scegliere i punti che si vogliono e senza criterio é infantile at best. Quando poi la matematica viene buttata dalla finestra, conviene proprio lasciar perdere. NOTA: prezzi dei VR presi interi da retailer vari e un po' a caso da Google.

Un PC per far girare degnamente DCS in VR piú un headseat adeguato costa nettamente di piú di qualche panel / box.

Suggestion: rather than guessing, hop into the backseat, and now you can tell precisely what is happening and if / when you are about to lose the target, so you can take action.

Tra realtá e simulazione (militare) c'é poco o nulla in comune. Non credo che nessuno confonda o pensi anche solo per un secondo che, visto che sappiamo spingere una manetta avanti allora siamo anche solo lontanamente paragonabili a un pilota militare reale. Un sim non é nemmeno un sostituto, é giusto un mezzo d'intrattenimento che allude al volo reale. Detto questo, l'unico punto interessante e dove un gioco come DCS non é poi cosí lontano dalla realtá é la switchologia, e tutti quei devices acquistati (o home made) sono utili in questo senso. Ergo, non c'é "troppo", soprattutto per i cockpit fatti in casa. É un po' come giocare a un TT con miniature (e.g. WH40k): un aspetto é il gioco, l'altro é il DIY/assemblaggio e pittura. C'é chi se li fa fare, chi li monta alla buona, chi cura ogni minimo dettaglio. De gustibus. ...E per fortuna che c'é questo aspetto, perché come simulatore di combattimento DCS é davvero mediocre.

La soluzione migliore per l'OP. Ha tutto ed é anche abbastanza economica.

Sono di fretta, ma tanti ti hanno risposto. Sia il 3900x e il 6900xt sono ottimi, ma sono componenti vecchi, sopratutto la CPU. Nel mio caso, 3900x > 5800x3D perché lo uso per lavorare e sfrutto i threads, altrimenti, sicuramente 5800x3D. Detto questo, stanno uscendo nuove CPU e GPU sia AMD che nVidia / Intel. Meglio aspettare o comunque prendere componenti nuovi, soprattutto in ottica VR. Importante: se non hai problemi di budget, prendi 64GB di RAM, cosí se a posto nel long term. Nel 2011 montai 16GB, molti dicevano che erano inutili, ma 3-4 anni dopo, tutti quelli con 8GB iniziavano a faticare. Ora, il salto qui é esponenziale, ma giá ora sono arrivato a finire la RAM con davinci resolve, gimp, firefox e DCS e altri sotto facendo test e montando video. DCS da solo passa facilmente i 20 GB, poi ci metti software vari per comms, l'OS, magari streaming e via dicendo, e cominci giá a usare lo swap. Per una build economica o altri titoli, 32GB sono sufficienti, ma visto che mi pare avessi detto che non hai limiti, vai di 64 GB di RAM. Riguardi ai dischi, 10+ anni fa presi due SSD, uno per l'OS, l'altro per ArmA/Black Shark. Da allora ho sempre avuto un HDD come muletto per i documenti, ma tutto il resto va in SSD. Ora ho due NVME (870), un paio di vecchi SSD e un HDD. Visto che tu parti da zero, vai di NVME e tanti saluti. Uno solo grande da partizionare é la soluzione piú facile. Puoi sempre prendere un HDD per dati "statici", ma il software andrebbe tutto su supporti non meccanici.

10k per l'hardware in foto? A meno che ti serva anche il monitor (e lí puó variare tanto), tra 1/3 e i 2/5 e sei a posto. Black Friday é dietro l'angolo. DCS gira senza problemi su un PC vecchio di 10 anni a 1080p. 4K é sí piú pesante, ma nemmeno tanto. Con un 3900x e una 6900xt ho cappato gli FPS a 65 (monitor arriva a 100 Hz) e né CPU o GPU si muovono. Quindi 1500/2000 di PC e tutto il resto va in hardware. Anche qui, Black Friday aiuta. Non ci sono soluzioni chiavi in mano, comunque. Ci vuole un minimo di effort per settare tutto. Il che dirige verso la vera domanda: sei nuovo di DCS? Se sí, sicuro di voler andare all-in?

This. For whatever reason, many put in the same basket the F-14A/B with the F-16C\F/A-18C. It makes very little sense

It'd be nice if LotATC could do that. However, friendlies are hardly a problem. The real game-breaker is the lack of any classification depth. Try adding civilians (via mod), or even a simple outlaw transport that goes cold. More often than not, the AI will insist on passing you that target, whilst a high VC hostile will be totally ignored. Luckily, we have 4C. This is a solid suggestion, but should be posted on the ED's side of the forum, I suppose.