Jump to content

DoorMouse

Members
  • Posts

    254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DoorMouse

  1. @MilesD Hey Miles not sure where the best place to post this is - I've put in 3 requests on May 2021, December 2021, and just today via the website and got 3 emails stating: I think something has gone wrong because I have not had a reply back. Appreciate the help!
  2. Yes, when you tell Jester to STT he will PSTT and then your missile is hopelessly searching with its seeker on. The seeker can only detect at ~10 miles. TWS you should be getting them to guide. There is a loft error but its relatively uncommon. My suspicion is that you are not holding the track and need to read the symbiology. Could be wrong, but never hurts to review the manual : https://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html#tid-symbology In any case, I promise that it does and can work just fine in single and multiplayer. The loft and or guidance issues are not a 100% of the time bug
  3. Ok well you are definitely doing something wrong. It does work appropriately Are you holding the TWS track till pitbull? IE you let it create a track number and hold it till it times out and blinks?
  4. 120 isn't bad. But if you are having lots of packet loss or network issues then that could definitely be causing a whole host of issues. When you fire in TWS, is your ACM switch covered, your missile mode is NORM, and you have a confirmed GOOD TWS Track? Do you hold a good track all the way until the PITBULL indication? Actually, you are saying "LOCKED" which makes me think you are STT. If you lock a target and fire a Phoenix at more than say 10-15 miles you can expect it to miss UNLESS you are in Pulse Doppler. The Phoenix can only get guidance from the AWG9 from Pulse Doppler modes... TWS and PDSTT. If you are in PULSE STT then the Phoenix acts like a torpedo- it gets a direction, turns on it's seeker, and kills the first thing it sees friend or foe. I suspect you are using the incorrect mode for the job
  5. That's incorrect, all phoenixes can have loft issues, especially if you nose up and manually loft them.
  6. So with many hours in the tomcat I can tell you it does work. But I'd be happy to help figure out what's going on. To be clear, they changed nothing with the radar, only the thrust and drag coefficients of the missile. So you can't fix, what isn't a problem. If it's STT, you need to really be within 10 miles, it's highly dependent on the target and your altitude. If it's TWS, are you holding it until the TID icon blinks, and it is pitbull? Was this single player or multiplayer? (Edit- it might be possible Jester is defaulting to the FOX1 PULSE DOPPLER mode and that's why it's not hitting, unless you retain lock)
  7. Are you firing STT or TWS for those long range shots. If you are firing STT, they won't hit at that range. Pulse STT is firing the missile directly at the target at the correct Azimuth and Elevation for a direct shot, at 36 miles it wont reach, and the seeker can't see the target. If you are firing in TWS it works just fine if you are able to keep the TWS track until pitbull (sometimes the loft is an issue but usually at much longer ranges) (or fire in Pulse Doppler STT, but thats a whole other method and discussion)
  8. That's a known guidance issue with loft. Anything related to guidance logic is Eagle Dynamics. Heatblur can adjust thrust, drag, weight, etc...
  9. A giant radar return less than a mile directly off the nose of the missile doesn't raise any red flags for you? Its going to be hard to have a discussion If the starting point is that far apart, quite frankly. Only because stating something as 100% certain is foolish- I find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that an Aim120's seeker and couldn't tell the difference between terrain very far away, and a f14 very close (we don't even need to consider that DCS does not simulate geometry of the aircraft to compute RCS either). Under no reaonable circumstances besides a major failure of equipment or software should that missile have missed. Please, I think we would all like to hear the rationale for how that missile, with look down capabilities, Medium PRF signal processing, and a host of other modern features, could lose track of a Tomcat at 1000 feet from impact against clear blue sky or a ground which is miles away.
  10. It's unfortunate but true that all of the missiles in dcs are (for the lack of a more subjective statement) - Bad. There are really two issues: 1) Guidance which is 100% ED 2) the third party missile API for missile features, kinematics, radar interaction, etc. Guidance is a whole other can of worms... Missiles pull turns which lose their targets and have to be G-limited to not bleed All their speed... it's not ideal. All that being said, this is serviceable if the API is implemented. Without seeing everything in the API, I can guess as to what it might contain... It would be a massive quality of life improvement for DCS is to complete the missile API and expose it to third parties. Once there is a working and well documented API then third party developers can finally start building weapons for their aircraft within the same physics framework AND finally get access to features which only some missiles have (like INS guidance). Please, prioritize effort into providing a working API and offload this to 3rd parties. This would be the #1 thing you can do to drastically improve multiplayer. If you took another pass at missile guidance and removed it's Bang-Bang control surface logic that would be a huge improvement too.
  11. OK - So the behavior described in the changelog does not seem to be exhibited in game.... which is great. I presumed from the changelog that it would universally change the timeout of the VR cross. However it ONLY does so if you have the use mouse ticked. Apologies. doesn't look like there is a problem at all.
  12. Appreciate that some VR users may not use the VR cross and would like it removed. Many players, myself included, use the VR Cross to click and manipulate the cockpit. Being able to have it persistent so you know what you are about to click is essential to smooth operation of the cockpit. This change is a major quality of life degradation for those doing that.
  13. I believe it is actually Crunch and Bio who are SME'S for Heatblur.... And I have plenty of footage of BVR, it's just not as exciting. I'd be happy to walk you through it if you like. I've got 3,000+ hours in the tomcat and who knows how many since LO:MAC. We all have lots of time on the stick. Putting that aside, the kinetics of the Phoenix were wrong previously and are 'more' correct now (if I recall it's missing it's drag reduction with the motor on from the thrust boundary ~10% or so). It was previously getting Mach 6+ at altitude and Mach3+ on the deck, both of which were physically impossible. Additionally, the time it took to shed it's speed was up to 50% longer than real life data, and it's drag was incorrect. Heatblur had done this intentionally at release because the Eagle Dynamics guidance code was so poor that it caused the missile to be un-usable without those handicaps. At some point ED improved the guidance, which caused those handicaps to make it over-perform. The AWG9 has some issues, and there are many missing features, which is known and being looked at. The AI is a joke and you can bet it's not being looked at in any meaningful way. But for what it's worth, the Phoenix is kinetically more or less true to it's form. You can easily obtain BVR kills vs f16s with 120s and flankers with R77s and 27RTs are a joke (which is it's real adversary in 1980-90). People have posted dozens of track views. If data, anecdotes, and Heatblurs SMEs aren't enough for you... I don't know what is
  14. So, the data is publicly available and they did post it. I'd encourage you to go read it if you have doubts about the kinematics of the missile. I consistently get kills at 20+ miles easily, and I can easily out range an aim120. I don't know what to say but review your tactics and employment to match the parameters the actual pilots flew- high and fast. (Download and read the PDF. Your other points... AI cheating and dumping chaff before a real human could know they were shot at. AND some KNOWN issues with the awg9 TWS tracks are valid. But the kinematics look to be spot on, they had to change it recently because it was over-performing due to a change Eagle Dynamics made that went undetected. The Phoenix still has the longest range in a straight line, and it is capable of hitting targets at 80 miles at mach 3+ if fired in the correct way. There is no shortage of data, Heatblur talking to SMEs, and in-game track flies at your disposal to review. The only other issue not mentioned is ED'S missile API is incomplete and limiting many advanced features, and the Phoenix is on the old (very poor) guidance code which has forced Heatblur to use a work around- the missile will only pull 9g instead of it's rated 20g
  15. yeah. If you remove the 250lb warhead and you strap it to an F15 going Mach 2+ at 50,000 (from the Tropopause, shooting into the Stratosphere) you can get it to briefly touch mach 5 for a fleeting second. It then is able to relatively maintain its speed while in the stratosphere, and quickly loses speed once it dips back down into the tropopause/troposphere For comparison - Its brief ~60 second mach 4 flight is in an air density around 1000x less than sea level. And it exponentially increases the lower you go, which is why once it gets just a bit lower it really starts to shed speed (causing it to drop even lower even faster) https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20060004771/downloads/20060004771.pdf @OldIronsides NASA Aim54.pdf
  16. Yes, That is correct.... But only RIGHT after the change. They had another patch which seriously changed the guidance and it drastically improved it - but we won't see any further improvement until ED finishes the missile API What you are saying is no longer valid, go take a look
  17. Id wholeheartedly disagree that it currently is worse than the aim120B. It's got a longer NEZ at any altitude, it has much longer range and can easily win in an f-pole if it's in the appropriate launch conditions. It does however have 5x the drag of a 120 due to it's geometry. You can see the white paper and the historical data match up now. The issue is not kinematics, the topic of this thread is that it sometimes over-lofts when it has an active track, TWS errors, and this STT hold track item. If you can manage to get the missile to pitbull and find it's target in the correct launch conditions, it is a much bigger stick than anything in game... It is just vastly more difficult to use
  18. I had this the other day and was very confused. MAYBE this helps track down the similar issue in TWS where the track suddenly drops even though the appropriate non maneuvering contact appears below it half a second later. Could indicate something else further upstream, or could be completely different. Do you know how to reproduce this reliably, other than just doing it a lot? Edit: Actually I cant see what you are describing in your video. Could you clarify? The previous poster @AH_Solid_Snakedescribed exactly what I had experienced
  19. @KL0083The phoenix is now more accurate to how it performed in real life. It was 20-50% too fast (depending on altitude) previously. @Amahvan In both cases you are trying to tell Jester to "lock closest radar target" but your TID indicates only a Data Link and no Radar Track. IE Jester sees nothing on radar. Try one of two things 1) Lock Specific Target, which allows jester to hook Datalink targets and attempt to lock 2) Scan Elevation at Distance and tell him to look in the appropriate area. In both your videos the bandit is low and very close, which makes your radar cone very small. A case could be made that Jester should be 'smarter' about looking for things on Data link. Currently Jester basically is blind to data link contacts unless you specifically tell him to lock one. He only reacts to Radar contacts, which again, you had none. Let me be very clear to my opinion though, The AWG-9 has some issues currently and is far from perfect. It drops TWS locks with only 3-4 non-maneuvering/defending targets flying straight at you, and has issues with formations of more than a handful of bombers. But these two examples, i'm sorry to say, are not bugs but user errors. When the AWG-9 works, it is magical. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1448024745
  20. At 45,000 Mach 1.2 launch 45* launch angle.... probably trivial. Put a target out at 100 miles and shoot those conditions. see what happens. I've easily seen 90 mile missiles retain mach 3+ The issues facing it now are the guidance behaviors (overlofting) and AWG9 performance (in some conditions not being able to track even a small number of non maneuvering targets)
  21. ED needs to complete their API and make those features available. The C has things like SAHR Fallback if its loses internal lock that the game literally has no way of doing until ED makes it available. And to be clear, the aim54 in military service never achieved Mach 5 to my knowledge. The NASA tests had a heavily modified AIM54 where they removed the warhead, lightened it, and made other changes in order to get it to get that fast. They also shot it from a platform going Mach 2+ in the first place.
  22. Its really just noticeable in roll. Ill make some videos. Edit -On re-consideration I know what you are talking about with pitch.... its 100% not that. Im telling you- Spend 1 hour in the RIO seat while im flying. you're going to see some weird stuff Double Edit - Also Autopilot on at mach 1.2+ causes bone shattering oscillations in roll. If you disengage it, it will be stuck in FULL roll but you cannot ever get stable again until you slow down, turn on autopilot, and then level out.
  23. I dunno man. you arent my real dad. But yes. If you disengage it WHILE rolling or really JUST AFTER while the autopilot is trying to damp out your movement, then its worse.
  24. I have videos and seem to be able to reproduce it. Playing right now if you wanted to hop in Rio If you just turn on Autopilot to ENGAGE, roll aileron, and then disengage at any point before the nose is 100% stable - your trim and controls are locked at whatever the aircraft was doing when you disengaged.
  25. Please do not shoot the messenger but I've encountered a number of issues which persist or are new in even the first half hour of flying today in this patch: Flipping the autopilot engage switch with no particular mode - Im not sure if this is intended behavior but if you flip the switch it can induce and hold extreme trim (50% aileron/roll) when you disengage it. This seems incredibly dangerous and I doubt the real behavior. Resetting trim once you disengage autopilot seems the most basic of functions... but I could be wrong. Autopilot Engage - Also does not damp oscillations as much as it used to - the previous autopilot would steady the aircraft and actually hold the vector. Now it oscillates and if you disengage it at any point unless you are dead level it will cause said trim issue. Again, not sure if this is Intended but I doubt it. TWSA Weighting - Is, I hate to say it.... almost worse. It does now move the radar cone FASTER to the target but it seems even more confused about what the weighting is. For what its worth - I have yet to have a TMA be inadvertently slewed outside of the radar cone by TWSA. General TWS performance - Targets are still dropping when they are 30 miles away, non maneuvering, and hot (if only to illustrate that otherwise normal TWS conditions are still causing tracks to randomly drop) Especially if they are higher than you it anecdotally seems. Hold Track performance is still broken - Aircraft which are DIRECTLY UNDER the hold track icon will not have a missile go pitbull. Missiles launched in TWS do not initiate a TWS Track sometimes - This persists and is random. have yet to track down how to repeat it but have many video examples Ill work on continuing to compile videos and isolate causes of issues
×
×
  • Create New...