solus

I'd try to make myself more clear: in TWS mode I lock 2 targets; then I launch 1 AIM-120 to the first, and the second missile to the second target; after that TWS automatically switches lock to the first target; but if I try to launch the 3rd missile - nothing happens. I noticed that if I switch to AIM-9 and back to AIM-120, then I can shoot again.

I noticed that I can't launch two aim-120 at the same target. I'm watching how my missile go the wrong direction, but pressing the trigger doesn't do anything. Am I doing smthg wrong?

I'm not fond of the discussions that run in circles. I've made clear arguments and to my knowledge they can't be refuted: basically we don't have any reliable data that can turn "DCS game" into "DCS simulation". And the fact that long forgotten missile from 70-s is one of the best missiles in the game only proves it. Hate to bring it to you, but the missile is not only the empty can that flies into the sky. What makes missile a missile it's what INSIDE: computer chips, radars, fuel, materials used etc. etc. Did they have reliable data on those? Even if Hetablur managed to make proper hydrodynamics simulations - let for the spimlicity agree that they did, though it requires much more work than software test - it still be like 10% of what needs to be done to evaluate AIM-54 performance. Guys, just accept it, DCS is not the super simulator, it's only a game.

I don't want to disappint you, but 1) PC games are not science, 2) you didn't make any "scientific" arguments, just post your invaluable opinion here that doesn't add anything besides personal attacks.

I've forseen that this obvious and dull in its vulgarity commentary would appear:megalol:I guess, you are not the one of those who understand that predictable and banal behaviour diminish the value of the arguments. I doubt that you studied this document better then I did, though you want to signal the opposite. Did you test the calculations? Did you verify the facts? Did you compare this research to others? Maybe you at least found some peer review of this doc? :smartass: It's great that they tried to make a physical model of the missile based on its shape, but to properly simulate the missile performance you must have tons of RELIABLE data on radar performance, electronics, battery, engine, material used and so on and so on. Plus you need a hell of a good super computer to simulate it. And even then you can be mistaken. I'm not criticizing the work made by Heatblur. The guys put a lot of effort and probably made the best what they could do, or even more. But it doesn't turn this AIM-54.pdf into magical text that opens the doors to the secrets of the Cold War. If you want to be the memeber of the invincible AIM-54 Phoenix cult - let it be, but don't invite me to your church.

Please, don't get me wrong. If anything, I don't accuse developers of inaccurate modeling. IMHO, you guys made a fantastic job, and F-14 is one the best, if not the best DCS module. I guess, 99% here appreciate what you've done. Whitepaper looks good and serious, though I wouldn't pretend that I understand it, or that it proves anything) I merely pointed out that in present conditions in DCS there is no way to properly simulate missile behavior, because there are not nearly enough data available. Most probably, even US, Chinese or Russian military can't predict what modern air combat would look like, because - fortunately - no large scale conflict between equal parties happened. Speaking about my personal impressions - not the objective and last truth - it seems doubtful that the best missile in DCS for now is long time ago scrapped rocket from 70s.

Agree. But this is funny how DCS which claims to be super realistic simulator is in fact less realistic then the Lord of Rings. At least, LOTR is coherent. While DCS is a fractured mess. I don't blame or criticise anyone, developers do their best and it's appreciated. It's not their fault that they don't have reliable data. At the same time all those "realism claims" should be properly addressed. In the end, we must accept that AIM-54 performance in DCS (as the rest of missiles) is no more than someone's fantasy.

In US they went extinct. AIM 120D is somehow comparable to Phoenix, but still it belongs to medium range missiles type. The long range missile in modern circumstances would be someting like 2x of 3x of AIM 120D range.

To put it in more simple terms: why there were no descendants to AIM-54? Long range missiles went extinct. Strange, considering their performance in DCS. Anyway, how did they "simulate" missiles behavior in game? Anybody knows nothing.

I'm honoured that you devoted one of your total 65 posts since 2011 to this;) I can understand that the missile is outdated (but what about aim 9 and 7?) and it needed to be replaced. I can't accept the price argument: cost was never the consideration for US army, quite the oppisite - the more expensive the better:) What puzzles me is why if they made such effective long range missile, most of the modern missiles are mid range? Its quite obvious that the range plays crucial role in air combat. Even if they planned to replace Phoenix due to cost/technology reasons they must have replaced t with long range rocket. My theory is that long range rockets were never that effective, so they have been scrapped.

The simple question: if AIM-54 was so effective, why did US get rid of it? In DCS Phoenix missile looks like AIM-120 on steroids. Due to the bug that makes DCS crush while flying in F-14, I tried dueling in Su-27 vs F-14 with AIM-54... I must admit, I didn't make it once. AIM-54 looks like unavoidable super weapon that can hit targets from 50 miles! Could it be so in real life? And why they made this missile so powerful, despite the poor performance in Iraq war. As manuals states: "The US Navy fired only three AIM-54 missiles in combat, all three over Iraq. The missiles never hit their intended targets though as two of the missiles’ rocket motors failed with the third also missing its target as it turned tail and ran."

So, waiting for the hotfix?

Game suddenly drops out to Windows without a warning when flying F-14. Happens to me all the time while flying in F-14, especially in pre-build missions in missions menu. I downloaded some user created missions and also experienced it. Usually doesn't happen in missions built by myself. Don't know what causes it, but the longer the mission goes, the more probability. Didn't occur before.

IMHO, the spotting distance in DCS is terrible and its a real damnation of this game. 1) You can't compare the real life visability and in-game visability directly. No matter how advanced the graphics in PC game, no matter how high is resolution, the computer simulation on flat screen is a pale shadow of reality. The colors, light, details, fov etc. ect. - they are on entirely different levels. Its obvious, that our eyes suited to percieve the reality very well, while they are not evolved to watch PC screen. Judging from my experience as a common civil flights passenger, I can definitely tell that in real life I can see much much better and at much much far distances. 2) Those who dig into plastics models should know the common rule for painting: if you use absolutely the same color for plastic model as for the real life model, it wont look realistic. To make it as in real life you should use the lighter tones, because of the scaling and the way our perception works. The same applies for DCS: even if you use the same scaling as in real life it would be unrealistic. You can't simply apply the scaling of real life to the scaling of PC screen. This is much more complicated task than it seems. 3) I guess there are some in-build restrictions and problems with the game engine that prevent EA from making visability better. Thus they claim it is OK. 4) Don't hope for the change, just use markers (e.g. I use simplified dot markers that help to uplift the targets).

Very nice video, useful and short. IMHO, it would be appreciated if you make 10 min videos on every weapon system and plane main fuctions.

Higly predictable argument that misses the point. Its no excuse for publishing a ton of paperwork that contains no useful tips for piloting the plane in game. To make normal manual that describes basic interactions and sequences is a) absolutely necessary b) relativaly easy comparing to the work done on making the module itself. By the way, the plane is in open beta, not alpha state - so don't sleep it trough.

Aa far as I know, no such thing exists. They produced 350 page long manual, but forgot to include any useful info on how to employ F14 in the game. Jester section in the very end of the Manual looks like: "we have Jester AI, guys, and his command wheel and actions depend on the current situation". Personally, I would like to know how to drop fuel tanks. This command appears time after time, but I can't invoke it on will.

:thumbup:They made 350 page long Manual, and almost none of it explains how to control F-14 in DCS. Something like Chuck's guide will definitely be helpful. As for me, I still don't understand how to use AIM-54 in TWS mode to attack multiple targets. The only thing that works for me is STT, namely single target tracking. I made several simple missions, in which my F-14 approaches 3-4 bombers on the same altitude. If I'm waiting - nothing happens, bombers just fly by. I see their marks on radar, but if I launch AIM-54, my missiles don't lock on targets. I really don't know what to do. Haven't find any Youtube videos either. Maybe I'm missing something? I have to activate smth, press button ? :huh:

Great answer, thank you! Does it need to download something ?

Please, "explain me like i'm 5" how I play F-14 i Steam? As I understand F-14 released only in Beta yet. I bought the module, but can't play it now. What should I do to try F-14 through Steam version?

Is it going to be released for Beta only or for stable Steam version as well?

Нашел рассекреченную американцами документацию по сравнительным испытаниям Миг -21-ф13. Тестирование полученного самолета производилось в 1968 г. Операция носила забавное название "Съешь пончик". Материала там довольно много. Вот выдержки из выводов, сделанных в докладе. Недостатки Миг 21: Плохой обзор из кабины, как передней, так и задней полусферы. Цель типа f-4 и f-105 в среднем обнаруживается на расстоянии 3-5 миль (т.е. 5-8 км). Ниже 15 тысяч футов (4,57 км) скорость самолета ограничена 1100 км/ч (595 узлов). Свыше этих скоростей боевое применение самолета невозможно. Боевые системы. Боезапас 30мм пушки всего лишь 60 снарядов. Стрельба сопровождается сильной тряской, что делает коррекцию прицеливания затруднительной. Прицел при нагрузке выше 3Джи бесполезен. При высоких перегрузках происходит чрезмерная потеря скорости. Тем не менее, это позитивно сказывается на скорости виража. Ускорение самолета крайне плохое. На земле на максимальную мощность двигатель выходит только через 14 секунд. На высоте свыше 5 км двигатель оставляет хорошо различимый белый выхлоп не сгоревшего топлива. Стабилизация самолета достаточно низкая. При атаке наземных целей в условиях турбуленции требуются значительные усилия для точного прицеливания. Сравнение с другими самолетами. F-4. Имеет преиумещство над Миг-21 на высоте ниже 5 км за счет имеющихся у Мига ограничений по скорости и ее потери при поворотах. На высоте до 10 км превосходит Миг-21 по параметрам ускорения. Имеет значительное преимущество над Мигом при вертикальном подъеме (zoom) на высоте до 6 км. Миг может выдерживать более высокую перегрузку. При этом теряет скорость быстрее, чем F4. F-5N. Самолет обладает хорошими возможностями для борьбы с Мигом. Имеет преимущество над Мигом на высоте ниже 5 км. В случае необходимости, на этих высотах скорость F-5N достаточна, чтобы оторавться от Мига. Ускорение ниже, чем у Мига. Учитывая, что F-5N ограничен скоростью 1,25 Маха, у Мига есть значительное преимущество по скорости. Вираж. Миг может переносить немного более высокую перегрузку, чем Ф5. В целом по возможностям поворота самолеты приблизительно равны. По системе управления огнем возможности Ф5 и Миг21 приблизительно равны. Естественно, в документе еще куча информации и сравнений с другими самолетами. Ссылка: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_50.PDF

А какая-то аргументация у сторонников\противников имеется, кроме субъективного нравится\не нравится. Положим, какие-то цитаты из якобы документов с выкладками по сравнению времени виража Ф5 и Миг-21 я видел. Воспоминания летчика, который их сравнивал - также не в пользу Миг-21 - тоже видел. Так что предположить, что по ряду параметров Миг оставал вполне разумно. Но вот что говорят о реализации разработчики? Пилоты? Может, есть ссылки интересные с аргументированным разбором?

МИГ 21 Бис, представленный в игре, начал выпускаться в 1972 году. Производился до середины 1980-ых. Причем машина для своего времени достаточно адекватная: радар, вооружение и т.д. - все более-менее в норме. Понятно, что по определенным параметрам - вираж, прицел - уступает западным аналогам, что тоже вполне объяснимо и логично. Если бы к этому еще добавить какую-никакую маневренность, то все встало бы на свои места. Но в DCS почему-то не летает (почти). О чем и речь.

МИГ 21 Бис, представленный в игре, начал выпускаться в 1972 году. Производился до середины 1980-ых. Причем машина для своего времени достаточно адекватная: радар, вооружение и т.д. - все более-менее в норме. Понятно, что по определенным параметрам - вираж, прицел - уступает западным аналогам, что тоже вполне объяснимо и логично. Если бы к этому еще добавить какую-никакую маневренность, то все встало бы на свои места. Но в DCS почему-то не летает (почти). О чем и речь. Вот я и спрашиваю: даже с учетом советского технологического отставания, мог ли самолет быть НАСТОЛЬКО плохим?