Karon

Not the answer you are looking for, but there are options to practice as RIO (I spent more than a couple hundred hours there already, the vast majority in SP). Personally, I almost never used Iceman because I'm in Active Pause most of the times. Iceman is bit "cluncky" on the geometry practice but still does its job. If you need any specific scenario, use the mission editor. In a few seconds you can set up almost any target from any aspect, speed and altitude (or orbiting, racetracking, etc). If you plan to practice BFM instead there's no reason to do it as both pilot and RIO. Unless you want to read speed to yourself :D

Up the part II: https://flyandwire.com/2019/07/30/aim-54-probability-of-kill-ii-low-altitude/ There will be grammar and syntax errors. I'm too tired to re-check it. Part III no immediate ETA. I'm quite busy IRL. Happy to see your considerations though. Conclusions are pretty predictable but the values should help the RIOs to better decide when fire the Phoenix. This also means that if you know such information you can change your approach and manoeuvre to place the aircraft in conditions such that the PK is as high as possible. This articles are like a puzze: each test hasn't much meaning but when we'll put everything together we should have a decent model of the current implementation of the AIM-54.

Good points. I tested with mission default settings. Could it match the reference 29.92? Tomorrow I try with different parameters. UPDATE: I changed the QNH and did some other tests. The TID reading is always the same as the F10 map (worst case ±1°).

Yes they were. Typical defeated AIM-54. Blackbird showed me his research and values a while ago. The problems is the source: GAW. As much I as enjoy flying there, if you watch any tacview, you see plenty of AIM-54 fired from a side of the map to the other. Naturally, the version that has more energy has superior superior results. He has access to all my data btw, even the incompleted, IIRC. For instance, attached to one of my last streams whilst playing on GAW there's the tacview file (IIRC it was the time I run into ralfidude). If you download and watch the track, before we RTBed there was a bloody crazy F/A-18 that fired 2 AMRAAMs at target that we killed a few seconds before. If you look around, many players do that. This has an impact on the PK of the AIM-120 of course, but does it mean that the AIM-120 is bad or that some people can't use it? Again, nothing bad on GAW, it's one of my favourite casual servers, but unfortunately unless you can restrict and filter depending on the launching conditions and other criteria, such values may not reflect the results coming from a controlled environment (or maybe they do, don't know, I haven't finished yet).

In the pic's case it's an airstart but I used this reading often during CV operations hence with standard CVA alignment (pre-aligned almost always IIRC). I thought the reading was coming from the RadAlt initially (I used it only at low altitude) because I had the baro altimeter set to QNH and the two weren't matching. Then I noticed it was working even at higher altitude so I investigated a bit more.

Alright well, I'm going to post the article tomorrow anyway so here are the results for a total or 120 AIM-54A Mk60 and 120 AIM-54C Mk47. This is just an example to explain criterium and the modus operandi of the test (the comparison of multiple tests make more sense than just one scenario) : Long long story very very short, as long as both missiles have energy, the AIM-54C Mk47 seems to perform a bit better.

No. Initially I thought that was the source since I use that function especially in CV ops. That screenshot is from a clean mission with nothing else except myself.

Multiple ways, depending on what you are doing, from the DDD to the TID. In TWS mode, the easiest way is by simply hooking the target. You can also eyeball it by means of the dashed lines delimiting the radar cone. You can also toggle visual cues by means of the buttons right under the TID (launch zone, for instance). Check the manual for further details, it has everything you need to know. The rest is mission editor and practice :)

With OWN AC selected, pressing SPD in the keypad shows TAS and MH on the TID. If you press WIND SPD HDG the details of the wind are shown. If you reselect OWN AC then TAS and TH are displayed. Unless I'm missing something, MH should be displayed (or maybe it should be TH all the time). I tested both by spawning cold on the ground and airborne. I guess this bug wins a special prize for being the least important on your list :D

As per title, where does the altitude reading on the TID for Own Aircraft Altitude (from the CAP, button 4) come from? I changed both altimeters' pressure and turned off the RadAlt but they have no effect. It perfectly matches the value displayed by the bar at the bottom of the screen in the external views and it works at any altitude (I tested up to 51600ft). Also, in Active Pause the GS doesn't stop. It probably is another odd interaction between avionics and active pause (same as the INS looks like). I left the F-14 go and it stops at 3600kts. See the pic below:

I have completed some 1600 tests so far. I have part of the results ready but I'm too busy and tired to fix the grammar and syntax of my articles before publishing them (I accept volunteers lol). The first big chuck of tests are about low level use (720 AIM-54A Mk60 and AIM-54C Mk47 launched in total in different scenarios), medium and high altitude employment are not completed yet. I have the percentages and numbers ready but it's clear that the two biggest factors are energy and aspect (and the SA of the target, of course). Plan your geometry accordingly and the AIM-54A Mk60 will result in more kills than the AIM-54C Mk47.

Almost correct; we were using the same version when the bug occurred. Bullet points so it's more clear: - he updated to latest DCS OB version; - I didn't update (I was the RIO); - he reverted to the previous version; - the bug occurred; - be both run DCS_repair; - the bug persisted; - we both updated again and the bug fixed itself. So, technically we were both flying with the same version but by updating and later reverting, he broke something. I understand this is a quite unique situation but we hope this report can lead to something useful (although I think it's a DCS thing, rather than yours).

I'm halfway through some AIM-54 PK tests. When finished, I'll have 2880 Phoenix fired (actually more, around 3500 'cause I made tabula rasa of the test a couple times before finding some good criterias). I have already noticed some very interesting things already, some expected, some not. In a couple days I'm going to start posting some observations and conclusions. As other said already, numbers are not useful at all, although I have the numbers you are looking for. Can you answer the following questions? A Phoenix can't kill a fighter at 100nm but can kill an AWACS at that range. Can you tell how come? The same Phoenix can kill a fighter at 60nm but can also be easily defeated at 20nm. Again, how come? You should aim to understand why you can have such a different outcome so you can change the conditions to your favor. Numbers are useless out of context.

@eatthis I'm doing some AIM-54 PK tests. I did ~350 tests so far in difference conditions (aspect, range, altitude). I need around 300 more then I post some data. The AIM-54 is defeated somwhow easily by head-on, fast, same altitude AI aircraft. They pull 90° while chaffing and often the missile chases the squirrels instead of the target. Something similar happens to target hdg perpendicularly. For instance: If a vertical offset (target higher) is introduced, the avg hit% increases by 10%-20%. The "Notching" or perpendicular target instead sometimes just have to pop chaffs and that's it. At longer dinstances instead the AIM-54C may simply not have enough energy due to it's trajectory (which is not lead, so at some point - probably when ED's guidance kicks in and missile goes active - it drastically turns and bleeds a lot of speed). The AIM-54 is not active off the rail, if we mean "pitbull".I did dozen tests and the AIM-54 doesn't guide itself immediately. It does work similarly to an AIM-120 but the WCS still have a huge impact on it's behaviour. AFAIK, the AIM-54 shouldn't turn active spontaneously but the WCS should command it. E.g., if you turn the WCS from XMIT to STBY on a long-distance launch, the AIM-54 drops its lofting trajectory and goes flat. At some point (10nm to the target or where the target was suppoused to be) it goes active even if the WCS is still inactive. That shouldn't happen. At any time you can turn the WCS to XMIT again and the lofting trajectory resumes. This is what happens if you keep toggling the WCS. Rollercoaster! More tests and pics here.

I run quite a lot of tests to figure out what was wrong with the TACAN yesterday. In my case, active pause interatio aside, looks it was something like a drift + range issue. Also, I forgot to do it but it's important in my video test, remember to set the elevation of the TACAN station WP before doing the fix. They confirmed yesterday that the range is slant and elevation is taken into account. If you don't set it, the Delta will be higher and we totally want to avoid that.

I also noticed that the delta increases during a manoeuvre then slowly decreases. I suppose that's because a sort of limited size array is filled over time and results are intepolated, hence the system is both more resilient vs noise and interference but slower to recover. If that's correct not using the TCN FIX during a turn but only later should result in a more accurate reading (I haven't tried). Is that the case (if correct it'd be a big factor to taken into account)? Indeed! I use CPT PLT so the pilot (that includes me of corse :) ) as cue that reminds him the hot trigger :) Jokes aside, I think it's a bit more flexible solution in case something goes wrong and a hasty delivery is required.

I am using the distance from the IP together with the ballistic tables. I use CPTR PL for the sake of having hot trigger. I am aware it's not a supported engagement tactic although it works quite well and gives great results with a buddy-lasing asset. Computer IP will be the method of choice if the pod is not available since it works on an offset rather than latlongs. Anyway, my issue here was with the INS, which affects AA as well and DL targets quite heavily. But it looks like that it is fine (active pause aside) and was the eccessive range from the TCN station to cause such delta readings.

I recorded a test, unfortunately before your last reply: I'm not used to use mouse and keyboard so it took me a bit to punch the coordinates so bear with me. 1'22: wp created as HB (Kutaisi AF); 4'00: Delta is good even at 50nm. As I ask Iceman to give me +30° the delta goes up mostly on the latitude. 7'00: Created a new WP for Tblisi and checked the delta. The Magvar in this case is 0°1 deg. I did some tests (cross-hooked WP, changed stations and so on. No impact on anything, as expected). I find interesting that the delta increased after Iceman manoeuvred. Is that a coincidence? Also, the manual reports the loss of precision due to magvar over 100nm as an example; hence I expected the TACAN to be reliable much farther than 45nm (I flew the Ka-50 since 2008 to the F-14 release, so the TACAN is a complitely new toy for me). If that's the case, I guess we can conclude that the delta is mainly due to being to far from the TCN station to expect a reliable computation? It's definitely something that the F-14 is not supposed to do. It works quite well if the INS is well aligned though. Btw, I appreciate your patience and explanations mate :)

I spawned airborne and flown straight. I moved to the RIO seat, set up the WP and monitored the TACAN FIX. No active pause. This is screenshot of the tacview track: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4i3dh92wmgkw8xt/190711-Tacview.jpeg And this is a in-game screenshot of the TACAN FIX delta. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vgy1njn92txldzo/Screen_190711_152004.png Could it be some anomaly in the MagVar of the map in that area? Because I don't really see any reason why the delta should behave in such way. I can record and upload the test if you want. No worries about the manual delivery, we can't post natops manual anyway. It's just that I need almost perfect INS precision to use such approach, so the whole point of my tests is understanding how to re-align it in the most efficient and precise way possible. But again, this is unrelated to the issue :)

Ah, that's interesting! Looks like that the mess caused by the active pause is still present even later. I did the last test for the exact reason of cutting the Active Pause out of the equation and the error instead carried on increasing. Speaking of the TACAN, I assume the range is not ground but slant so don't compare such ranges directly usually. I have two questions though: I'm doing the same test again but with an active F-14. After 12' the Delta was LN 0°05'1 LW 0°00'6. That's 5nm, quite a lot when dealing with manual bombs release (the drift actually slows down after 10'-15'). Yesterday I had a similar degration (although smaller), that's why today I did more tests. What do you think is the cause of this drift? I tend to exclude the magvar because is shouldn't be more than ±1°. What is the difference between changing the coordinates of the F-14 and following a complete INS Update update procedure? For instance pushing the latlogs through directly via a WP (assuming I can forecast the F-14 position and timing correctly) rather than following the VIS FIX procedure? In other words, does the INS Update change the latlongs only or it does something more?

Last test has been done with no pause (the one at 15') and the INS was still visibly degrading. I have a 2h streaming (did it yesterday) confirming how fast the INS drifts especially latitute-wise. I think it's a quite recent thing, I didn't notice so much drift when I did the first tests months ago (but I may be remembering wrong). Oh, I didn't even notice that, I was totally focused on the latitude. Yep, looks like something else is going on. I noticed it for two reasons: 1. massive lag during one sessions and we ended up bombing miles away from the target; 2. I'm working on manual GBU delivery procedures with no pod using altitude, dive angle, speed and range. The INS *must be accurate* otherwise it doesn't work.

I'm doing some tests about the INS, in particular Updates. I realized that the INS degrades lat-wise very fast. I did some tests and these are my findinds. I spawned airborne near Kutaisi at 10.000ft and I used its station to test the TACAN Δ. I was in Active Pause except for the last reading. These are some shots, look at the timestamp. I posted the details of my tests here: https://flyandwire.com/2019/07/11/ins-drift-bug/ Check the screenshots slideshow, it gives quite a neat impression of what's going on.

I did some tests here: https://flyandwire.com/2019/07/02/aim-54-performance-study/ and I'm now doing even more in-depth tests (but they a lot of time so no ETA atm). For what I've seen so far, the AIM-54C Mk47 is indeed more resistant the chaffs and defensive manoeuvres by the target whereas it suffers much more at low-altitude or longer ranges due to the less powerful rocket motor. This is very evident from my latest tests but I won't go into their details until I have finished. Although I find interesting that the AWG-9 is completely un-notchable whereas the AIM-54 fails somewhat consistently when the target performs certain manoeuvres in a certain order. I expected the Phoenix to be more resilient. Nevertheless, the current implementation of the AIM-54 is incorrect due to a number of reasons so all these tests and discussion may become obsolete at some point.

Still waiting here in London. I have ordered a bit later than the module itself. No rush as long as it arrives at some point :) EDIT: nevermind, just delivered. See, it's easy! Write here and 2h later the shirts will arrive! :D

There are lots of missing keybinds at the moment: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=235229 CW/CCW binds will be added later on I guess. Meanwhile, if you use custom-built controllers, the workaround is quite easy (use a variable as counter and +/- on CW/CCW and send different Joystick HID outputs depending on the counter status).