DoorMouse

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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

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)

Yes I can confirm this has happened lately too. It took me a while to realize what is happening.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Phoenix/phoenixmissile.html https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20060004771/downloads/20060004771.pdf Really cool stuff, but they did major surgery on the thing, removed 250lbs, and got a F-15 to yeet the thing from 45,000ft. even then it just barely got Mach 5

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

One of the biggest issues is that TWS Tracks do not correlate properly, and I understand from a game/code perspective its not really possible. In real life the WCS would likely see this all as a single massive radar return and allow you to guide the missiles to target and pitbull in the general vicinity. In game they are 4 discrete targets and because the in-game WCS cannot properly correlate tracks it actually instead forces them to drop, which I'd suggest is the wrong compromise. But even if you get a hold track it will often just not work with its ~3nm work around that was created. Additionally, TWS at any sort of range is a complete gamble due to the issues presented in this thread, TWS weighting issues, Missile RCS causing tracks to diverge, or just general game/network performance. If you aren't going to use TWS then there are not a lot of reliable options. Currently PDSTT with PH active with fallback SAHR is not available, also due to game limitations. your only remaining options are PD STT or PulseSTT. The practical options you have are: PDSTT: which has problems dropping if the target turns to the beam. Even if you stay below them, even with MLC out, even with all sorts of RIO wizardry. Its probably the least reliable mode available, but at least you can re-lock with PAL and hopefully guide it in. Forget trying this at any significant range. PH active of some kind (ACM, PH, or PulseSTT) within ~10 miles - and hope it will start tracking the target (it usually does). Otherwise you just made a big angry sky torpedo, I feel like a submarine commander when I fire in this mode. TWS target size large/normal within <30 miles and hope to God one of the various issues with TWS doesn't spoil your shot. This is currently the most lethal way to use the phoenix due to getting some mid course guidance... which I know is not how it is intended to be used. I've heard all sorts of aircrew interviews that PDSTT was their primary means of engagement... But the limitation not being able to set PH Active on a Pulse Doppler STT make the Phoenix essentially a WVR missile unless you are shooting in TWS. Having a proper Fox 3 with PH Active in PD so you could get mid course guidance and SAHR fallback would be a welcome addition - But I know there is no timeline for that and the current game cannot handle the actual behavior of the missile. As it is now, in multiplayer at least, you can presume 3-4 of your missiles wont ever go Pitbull for various reasons each flight, and you'll need to get within 10 miles and STT or Maddog phoenixes at targets. Just getting the missile to actually go active feels like a magical event, and half the battle of flying the Tomcat.

Anecdotally you'd have to imagine that if the weapon designed to attack and defeat massed bombers attacking a carrier was itself defeated by massed bombers flying in formation towards said carrier- that would be a real design flaw. FWIW I also see this when other aircraft fire missiles and then the track diverges, and inevitably gets trashed. You can trash a TWS shot by just shooting a missile- Sometimes.

Were they actually chaffing and should that really cause this behavior if they are dead hot, High Doppler, and chaff behind them? I would not think this is accurate. I've also seen similar behavior when targets shoot a missile, and the track gets lost because there is now a new contact on top of the other contact.

This constantly happens in PVP but I chalked it up to bad network/player lag/dcs engine struggling... but this is vs AI, so it should be perfect. Granted if they are very close and then split, the radar might have issues identifying single targets, but it should have no problem seeing one massive B52 sized target which is 4 ship of flankers.

It doesnt look like your crank had anything to do with it. 1) did the missile Pitbull on your TID? 2) if Yes, then he dodged it, if no... you didnt hold it long enough.

You can pull quite a bit, but it has limits. It definitely does not handle high impulse, as well as it handles high G if you slowly put it on. Do you have the tacview? https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1410819610 (good example of pretty much the max you can pull and not trash it)

Callsigns..............: Doormouse/WhiteRabbit , Aspen/Dizzy Coalitions.............: Blue / F-14A

Submitting this as its own bug report here, rather than in the feedback thread. This happens not too frequently, but regularly enough. Got lucky getting a clean and obvious example of it in multiplayer without many other variables to cause issues. Aim54 A Mk60. Launched ~M1 @ ~35kft. ~70nmi No manual loft (maybe 1-2 degrees above horizon) Missile climbs to >100kft, never comes down until it is far too late. Track was held till approximately -5 seconds past predicted impact. I have the ACMI attached. I can provide the track file on demand but the ED forums have a 5mb limit. 420th_vs_ETF_Round_2.zip (1).acmi

Edit:(i'll re-submit this with a separate bug report, and attach track files)