[DCS BUG] AIM-54

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

I was just on a server.

There was an F14 flying around, i watched the whole tacview.

 

Fires at 25 nm, then INSTANTLY breaks lock and turns cold, 9 out of 10 times it's a hit . Not sure what happens but apparently the missile doesn't need to be guided by the airplane at all ?

It goes active insantly, but without giving a warning ? Then it carries itself @ mach 27 (< not really but it's stupid fast) all the way to the target from the other side of the map, while the airplane is already lobbing away at the next one.

 

It sure has a potent on board radar, which apparently is also stealth ?

On a busy server this is literally shooting fish in a barrel.

 

He was 12-1 or something, within an hour (he had to refuel and load more free kills @ base)

[CommanderRabb]

This has to be a joke. Certainly this has to be a joke.

 

 

But, but... DCS World needs to be balanced, just like that online FPS that I can't name here. It's not fair that the F-14 is a good plane.:cry:

(disclaimer: sarc).

[almullao]

Do you have proof that I even claimed a Phoenix can't hit a small maneuvering target? Because I was extremely clear and deliberate in my words, if anyone bothered to read them in full without cherry-picking.

 

According ti HB it's 18g limited due to weight, surfaces and structure. According to its speed and using simple physics it can't hit a target doing 5g+ turn towards it. However, in game, it can hit a target doing 10g+ turning towards it (I tested that countless times). I even get more chance out maneuvering an AIM120C than that thing.

[almullao]

To suggest that in a module that is dedicated to realism beyond anything that existed so far, we would make a missile unrealistic on purpose, just to sell more copies, is quite frankly ridiculous. That said, please stay civil guys, anger is most often an expression of passion, a passion we all share and we understand it.

 

The rest has been mentioned time and time again: missile guidance is out of our hands.

 

@Mitja: you never notch by looking at your radar, but at your RWR or in this case berlioza. The berlioza makes it particularly easy to dodge active missiles, as it also shows you their range. Put it on your 9 or 3 oclock, wait till the last bar, release chaff and perform a high G maneuver. This does the trick 9/10.

 

The phoenix is actually very very easy to dodge/notch/beam with a lilttle training.

 

But now that I said that, I guess we will be selling less copies. :D (sorry, I had to make the joke)

 

It doesn't work, I don't have issue with the missile range and speed etc it's good, tracking is ok for now, it'll be fixed in the future, but the maneuverability part is ridiculous, that missile can pull unlimited gs and will do any intercept, only a perfectly timed 12g pull towards it may (may) make it overshoot.

[almullao]

:music_whistling:

dreams are so bluе dreams... :doh:

If HB made the Phoenix as described in your complaint, then everyone would only fly with these missiles and destroy the targets with 100% probability.

Your wet fantasies are such funny fantasies ... :megalol:

All have heard this before about AIM-120, R-77, EP-27ET, etc. Now the turn of AIM-54.

 

What he said is true, but is applicable to all missiles (I guess), missiles, all of them, keep tracking when notched, but they don't explode, so if you notch a missile it'll keep tracking you and may acquire you anytime being at the perfect position.

 

All those things will be fixed... We just need to be patient.

[Quid]

According ti HB it's 18g limited due to weight, surfaces and structure. According to its speed and using simple physics it can't hit a target doing 5g+ turn towards it. However, in game, it can hit a target doing 10g+ turning towards it (I tested that countless times). I even get more chance out maneuvering an AIM120C than that thing.

 

The C-model had a 25g limit; that number has been published in the open source world since at least 1987. The 18g number is typically listed from what the A-model had to pull to hit a QF-86 in a 6g defensive pull, where the missile rammed itself through the drone. In that test, the F-14 was at .75M and 10,000 feet, with the missile having fired its motor 9.5NM from the target drone. The QF-86 was at 15,300 feet initially at .8M, and executed a dive after the missile began climbing at it, forcing the missile to maneuver to maintain lock. The drone rolled out of the dive and yanked 6g pointed at the missile at 9,100 feet, when the missile impacted, pulling 18g to achieve lead.

 

It may or may not be too maneuverable as currently modeled, but I'd wonder more how well the aircraft is moving relative to the missile, and how much desynch is playing a factor. I notice a lot of my AIM-54 shots get trashed by a maneuvering target if I fire outside of ~25NM; aspect change and tight maneuvering makes the missile waste its energy and it just doesn't have the Schlitz at the end game.

[IronMike]

Let me give a bit of an update:

 

We fixed the guidance issues according to the new API internally, but for some reason the new API does not seem to work yet with these changes, old behavior is beeing seen instead, hence we had to undo all these changes again and delay the patch for it.

 

Known issues include and are spread among us and ED:

 

- INS guidance bug: all missiles track through mountains in DCS. Only it is not obvious on shorter missiles, it is on the aim54. This is a DCS guidance issue and ED side. The new API will hopefully address that, too.

 

- New guidance that is accurate to its original with the new API, but as explained above, not working yet. Both ED and us are working on it.

 

- ATM old guidance with a set range causes odd maneuvers, however in 9/10 cases these lead to wasted missiles, not overpowered missiles. Reports are relative and the complaints of missiles missing because of too much energy blead in the last moment high G pull, exceed the reports of missiles "being able to hit anything" by far, by really a lot one might say.

 

- The always active bug still exists and is most likely tied to the old API and guidance and will hopefully be addressed by ED in the new API. ATM it means it is always active off the rails.

 

- Desync in general is a MP issue in DCS that affects all missiles and again, longer ranged missiles make it more obvious than shorter ranged missiles. This is also something we cannot influence ourselves.

 

On a sidenote: how a missile fits in to Multiplayer or not, is none of our concerns. Our concern is to model it as realistically as possible. If you find a descrepancy between the white paper and what the missile does, pls show us with a tacview at least, so we can look into it.

 

And lastly, it is extremely easy to notch, guys. But then again, I fly with 15 years pvp experience and maybe it is less easy for pilots with less experience, that is entirely possible. However, the notion "it is impossible to notch" is simply wrong. Look at Airhunter's tacview, or talk to any pilot who successfully notched it a dozen times over. I can notch it as close as 10nm in, or defeat it otherwise, vectoring in the ground etc etc..

 

It does not behave much differently guidance wise like an aim120, only speed and range are stretched differently. But if you can apply that to how you successfully dodge or notch or defeat an aim120, then you should have the same success with aim54s, just further out, farther away and so on. To expect to have the same chances doing exactly the same that you are doing against slammers, sets you up for failure of course.

 

And if you allow me for a personal note: it makes for some excellent Multiplayer, because it brings back real BVR again, and a challenge to fight it. Yes, I also enjoy flying against F14s, and besting them, and there are many who best them on a regular basis. I think many just want it easy (which is ok, not judging here at all), rather than take the challenge of going against an aircraft that is superior in one specific aspect. It is not necessarily superior in any of the other aspects, so you need to find a workaround for that particular challenge: it can engage you from far effectively. This actually makes MP more interesting to me, than if I fly against aircraft that are even with me, or easier, etc.. But each to his own, and mission creators can always influence the environment you fly in, so seek the environment you prefer. That said, imo you learn more from flying against difficult enemies than even enemies.

[captain_dalan]

This has to be a joke. Certainly this has to be a joke.

A good one at that! I actually got read of that kidney stone (finally) thanks to it! :lol::megalol:

 

Ahhh........the kids these days, what would we do without them? :D:thumbup:

[captain_dalan]

Let me give a bit of an update:

 

We fixed the guidance issues according to the new API internally, but for some reason the new API does not seem to work yet with these changes, old behavior is beeing seen instead, hence we had to undo all these changes again and delay the patch for it.

 

Known issues include and are spread among us and ED:

 

- INS guidance bug: all missiles track through mountains in DCS. Only it is not obvious on shorter missiles, it is on the aim54. This is a DCS guidance issue and ED side. The new API will hopefully address that, too.

 

- New guidance that is accurate to its original with the new API, but as explained above, not working yet. Both ED and us are working on it.

 

- ATM old guidance with a set range causes odd maneuvers, however in 9/10 cases these lead to wasted missiles, not overpowered missiles. Reports are relative and the complaints of missiles missing because of too much energy blead in the last moment high G pull, exceed the reports of missiles "being able to hit anything" by far, by really a lot one might say.

 

- The always active bug still exists and is most likely tied to the old API and guidance and will hopefully be addressed by ED in the new API. ATM it means it is always active off the rails.

 

- Desync in general is a MP issue in DCS that affects all missiles and again, longer ranged missiles make it more obvious than shorter ranged missiles. This is also something we cannot influence ourselves.

 

On a sidenote: how a missile fits in to Multiplayer or not, is none of our concerns. Our concern is to model it as realistically as possible. If you find a descrepancy between the white paper and what the missile does, pls show us with a tacview at least, so we can look into it.

 

And lastly, it is extremely easy to notch, guys. But then again, I fly with 15 years pvp experience and maybe it is less easy for pilots with less experience, that is entirely possible. However, the notion "it is impossible to notch" is simply wrong. Look at Airhunter's tacview, or talk to any pilot who successfully notched it a dozen times over. I can notch it as close as 10nm in, or defeat it otherwise, vectoring in the ground etc etc..

 

It does not behave much differently guidance wise like an aim120, only speed and range are stretched differently. But if you can apply that to how you successfully dodge or notch or defeat an aim120, then you should have the same success with aim54s, just further out, farther away and so on. To expect to have the same chances doing exactly the same that you are doing against slammers, sets you up for failure of course.

 

And if you allow me for a personal note: it makes for some excellent Multiplayer, because it brings back real BVR again, and a challenge to fight it. Yes, I also enjoy flying against F14s, and besting them, and there are many who best them on a regular basis. I think many just want it easy (which is ok, not judging here at all), rather than take the challenge of going against an aircraft that is superior in one specific aspect. It is not necessarily superior in any of the other aspects, so you need to find a workaround for that particular challenge: it can engage you from far effectively. This actually makes MP more interesting to me, than if I fly against aircraft that are even with me, or easier, etc.. But each to his own, and mission creators can always influence the environment you fly in, so seek the environment you prefer. That said, imo you learn more from flying against difficult enemies than even enemies.

 

Great news Irone one!

 

So when the Phoenix and the AWG-9 finally work as intended:

 

1. TWS AIM-54 shots will need to receive a command from the weapons system when to go active, right? And this will be dependent on time-to-hit or dependent on distance from target?

 

2.PD-STT AIM-54 shots will need to be illuminated from the AWG-9 all the way to missile impact, and the weapon system won't actually transmit a go-active command at any point?

 

Thanks in advance and welcome back! Hope you guys had a pleasant and relaxing holiday season :thumbup:

[draconus]

So when the Phoenix and the AWG-9 finally work as intended:

 

• TWS with range >10NM: LTE 3s, loft, SARH/DL, missile goes active at 16 seconds time-to-impact
  
• PDSTT with range >10NM: LTE 3s, loft, SARH/DL, missile does not go active (SARH/DL all the way to target)
  
• TWS or PDSTT with range <10NM, or PH ACT selected: LTE 3s, no loft, active directly after launch
  
• PSTT or BRSIT or (ACM cover up with no track or PSTT or PDSTT): LTE 1s (unless STT and angle >15deg then 3s), no loft, active immediately
  

[captain_dalan]

• TWS with range >10NM: LTE 3s, loft, SARH/DL, missile goes active at 16 seconds time-to-impact
  
• PDSTT with range >10NM: LTE 3s, loft, SARH/DL, missile does not go active (SARH/DL all the way to target)
  
• TWS or PDSTT with range <10NM, or PH ACT selected: LTE 3s, no loft, active directly after launch
  
• PSTT or BRSIT or (ACM cover up with no track or PSTT or PDSTT): LTE 1s (unless STT and angle >15deg then 3s), no loft, active immediately
  

 

So exactly like in the manual then :thumbup:

I may have to start unlearning some of the things i learned in the Tomcat (in BVR) it seams

[Sam]

Can someone clarify that last line?

 

"PSTT or BRSIT or (ACM cover up with no track or PSTT or PDSTT): LTE 1s (unless STT and angle >15deg then 3s), no loft, active immediately"

 

Does it mean that in PSTT no matter the range, the missile is active immediately ? In PDSTT with the ACM cover up as well ?

[draconus]

Does it mean that in PSTT no matter the range, the missile is active immediately ? In PDSTT with the ACM cover up as well ?

 

That would be yes and yes.

[comie1]

I think many just want it easy (which is ok, not judging here at all), rather than take the challenge of going against an aircraft that is superior in one specific aspect.

https://streamable.com/pfrkw

Or many just want some degree of reliability. I agree that notching is easy enough... but in order to notch you need to know a few things:

1. That you have been launched on.

2. Where the missile is coming from

Without an RWR warning or when you can't accurately tell where the missile is you might as well piss in the wind. I litelarily can't bring myself to fly the F14 just now. I am glad you guys are working these issues tho.

And lastly, it is extremely easy to notch, guys. But then again, I fly with 15 years pvp experience and maybe it is less easy for pilots with less experience,

Now this comment!... Really ironMike.. Really?

Edited February 4, 2020 by comie1

[almullao]

The C-model had a 25g limit; that number has been published in the open source world since at least 1987. The 18g number is typically listed from what the A-model had to pull to hit a QF-86 in a 6g defensive pull, where the missile rammed itself through the drone. In that test, the F-14 was at .75M and 10,000 feet, with the missile having fired its motor 9.5NM from the target drone. The QF-86 was at 15,300 feet initially at .8M, and executed a dive after the missile began climbing at it, forcing the missile to maneuver to maintain lock. The drone rolled out of the dive and yanked 6g pointed at the missile at 9,100 feet, when the missile impacted, pulling 18g to achieve lead.

 

It may or may not be too maneuverable as currently modeled, but I'd wonder more how well the aircraft is moving relative to the missile, and how much desynch is playing a factor. I notice a lot of my AIM-54 shots get trashed by a maneuvering target if I fire outside of ~25NM; aspect change and tight maneuvering makes the missile waste its energy and it just doesn't have the Schlitz at the end game.

 

Even 25gs isn't good enough, at that missile speed 25gs will barely grant you a kill on 5g target. 9g targets will require over 50++gs with that missile speed, and 40+gs with AIM120 speed.

 

Everything is good with that missile mechanics, but intercepting a 10g target is just too much for me justify.

[Coxy_99]

Dont bother notching until it goes pitbull i believe but RWR no warning especially in MP. Soon as you see its launch defend straight away even if you think its not on you, Ive seen aim-54 fly 3 to 5km above and then im dead because dysnc etc. Good thing about F-14 TID is you can see an aim-54 on TID from enemy F-14 bonus.

[Quid]

Even 25gs isn't good enough, at that missile speed 25gs will barely grant you a kill on 5g target. 9g targets will require over 50++gs with that missile speed, and 40+gs with AIM120 speed.

 

Everything is good with that missile mechanics, but intercepting a 10g target is just too much for me justify.

 

In the setup I described, 18g was enough for the missile to physically strike the drone in a 6g defensive pull. You're saying an additional 7g on top of that (25) is just barely enough to hit a target in a 5g defensive pull? That makes no sense.

[captain_dalan]

In the setup I described, 18g was enough for the missile to physically strike the drone in a 6g defensive pull. You're saying an additional 7g on top of that (25) is just barely enough to hit a target in a 5g defensive pull? That makes no sense.

 

Of course it makes no sense. That's what happens when people pull numbers out of context ;)

[almullao]

Well... At 4.5 mach, with 25g pull the turn radius is 9.7km approximately. Goodluck hitting a 6g fighter doing defensive turn (that's around 500m radius)... It maybe possible only if it's turning away. That's simple mechanics.

 

Also, you need to know that at mach 2 the missile need to pull nearly 3 times the g of the fighter to make the intercept, at mach 4+ that multiplies a lot as the turn radius increases exponentially with speed.

 

Acceleration = V^2 / R - - - - simple physics.

 

Intercepting a 7g target requires much more g capability, a 9g target is another story. That's why no one design such a missile to hit fighters.

 

You'll have much more chance hitting the fighter using an agile missile traveling at less than 2 mach (maybe 1.6+).

 

That's why a ramjet missile like the Meteor is real a big deal.

 

 

Watch how an F16 pilot abuses his turn radius to evade SAMs.

Edited February 17, 2020 by almullao

[Quid]

Well... At 4.5 mach, with 25g pull the turn radius is 9.7km approximately. Goodluck hitting a 6g fighter doing defensive turn (that's around 500m radius)... It maybe possible only if it's turning away. That's simple mechanics.

 

Also, you need to know that at mach 2 the missile need to pull nearly 3 times the g of the fighter to make the intercept, at mach 4+ that multiplies a lot as the turn radius increases exponentially with speed.

 

Acceleration = V^2 / R - - - - simple physics.

 

Intercepting a 7g target requires much more g capability, a 9g target is another story. That's why no one design such a missile to hit fighters.

 

You'll have much more chance hitting the fighter using an agile missile traveling at less than 2 mach (maybe 1.6+).

 

That's why a ramjet missile like the Meteor is real a big deal.

 

 

Watch how an F16 pilot abuses his turn radius to evade SAMs.

 

Okay, so you're assuming the missile at MaxQ, not at any other point in its envelope. If you're saying that the AIM-54 has reached MaxQ and is trying to turn against a fighter doing 9g+, then I'd say, sure, you have a point. But, that isn't the situation most of the time. My example wasn't theoretical, it was an actual test flown in 1973, actually fired at an actual drone and under those circumstances, the missile didn't need 25g, or even 20g to hit a 6g maneuvering target. Context is important here and it sure as hell isn't "simple". In the scenario I posted, the more maneuverable AIM-54C could probably hit a defender in up to an 8g defensive pull. and let's not forget the massive blast radius of the AIM-54 here; it can miss by a pretty large gap and still achieve lethal effects thanks to its huge warhead. What I will acknowledge from your argument is that if the missile were travelling at 4.5-5M, it would have difficulty hitting a 9g defensive fighter, although even then I'd have to ask, what is the energy state of the fighter? What is the Vc? Is the fighter trying to pull 9g defensive at a high Mach number? There's a lot to it.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Quid

[almullao]

1. My assumption is based on the test parameters that I've done in game. The Phoenix intercepted empty Mig 29 pulling over 10gs in a perfect timing consistently, did it countless times, it only missed once and I guess it was notched.

 

2. Missiles max g is only applicable at their near max speed, because at lower speed the angle of attack will significantly lower the max allowable gs.

 

The max 25g will be significantly reduced once the missile velocity goes below 4 or 3.5 Mach.

Edited February 17, 2020 by almullao

[draconus]

G, g, g... you can't judge intercept with accelerations alone. You have to know its geometry and both fighter and missile speeds, altitude. That YOU could not avoid the missile hit doesn't prove anything. If you have some data that missile pulled too much on you then provide thorough bug report - tacview, track... in the end you could've fall victim to the MP desynch.

[IronMike]

it is not that simple math, because you also need to take into account the distance the fighter travels during his defensive maneuver, and its distance from the missile at the point where it does so and so on. At range a missile might adjust a few couple degrees to lead even an aggressive pull.

 

ATM the guidance is wrong, which means it goes active at 7nm and then does a high G turn into the target. That's ofc not a good solution. Once we will able to use the new API fully, it will go active approximately half way to the target, which lets it lead more and thus has to pull less.

 

But either way, it is capable enough to intercept any fighter sized target, fast and high G maneuvering. (And no, it was not just designed against bombers... I dont know how often we have to say this, but I guess often lol.) Likewise, one is able to notch and dodge it easily, if spotted early on and reacted to accordingly.

 

 

 

All bugs and incorrect aspects of the missile are known, gents. They will be fixed accordingly when possible. A fundamental discussion of whether or not it should hit a fighter does not add anything and will not change anything. Please keep that in mind.

[almullao]

The fighter turned 10g towards the missile from the notch direction (that's the worst situation for intercept), and that's offline, online is different story as the missile keep tracking even if notched.

 

I don't say it's not capable of intercepting fighters, but intercepting 10g turns with 1km turn radius using 9.7km radius pull... Is actually very simple math, something is wrong, I don't know what, I'm just pointing that out, may be the missile API just make the missile takes the path as it wishes regardless of gs and turn radius, who knows. That also applies to the AIM120, it sometimes make illogical turns.

 

But yeah they'll be fixing the API which is great, they're also doing great job updating things.

[Airhunter]

The fighter turned 10g towards the missile from the notch direction (that's the worst situation for intercept), and that's offline, online is different story as the missile keep tracking even if notched.

 

I don't say it's not capable of intercepting fighters, but intercepting 10g turns with 1km turn radius using 9.7km radius pull... Is actually very simple math, something is wrong, I don't know what, I'm just pointing that out, may be the missile API just make the missile takes the path as it wishes regardless of gs and turn radius, who knows. That also applies to the AIM120, it sometimes make illogical turns.

 

But yeah they'll be fixing the API which is great, they're also doing great job updating things.

 

Nothing is wrong in that regard. The current 54 (both A and C) is pretty easy to notch and chaff in MP and SP, I've done numerous tests myself. The whole 10G thing, if you are pulling 10G the missile sometimes needs to pull LESS to hit you, it all comes down to the angular velocity of the target it sees. Let alone the fact the 54 is rated for higher G's than that. Instead of complainign just accept the way it works currently and work with what you have. Someone who knows what he's doing is not going to get hit by a Phoenix if he's aware of the Tomcats presence.