Opnions on 54's

[captain_dalan]

Hey lads. Spent a good portion of the weekend playing the nav grid and naturally, as a result of it being here, worked on my intercept geometries. That being said, i've fired more Phoenixes in the last 2 days, then i have ever since the F-14 came out. Much more. Like 3-4 times more. Fired them at every angle, every angel, every mach i could reach. Fired mostly A Mk60's and C Mk47's.

 

Took the later ones in order to see how the AI reacts the exhaust gasses not being visible and to test if there is any meaningful differences in the chaff rejection.

 

My data simple still isn't large enough, but from what i gathered, against random AI's in 4th gen AC (mostly Flankers), the hit ratio with both models seams to be around 50%. The C seams to eat chaff just as easy as the A does. Also, the engagement ranges don't seam to matter all that much. I have launched at the above mentioned fighters from 40 to just above 60 NM away (hot targets with a good STT) and it just didn't matter. I couldn't test this with the active mode launch as generally from that close i could not afford the luxury of tracking the missile in flight (F6) and observe its behavior.

 

So what are your experiences with the missiles? What do you usually take with you and why? How many? Both SP and MP?

 

Cheers and looking forward to your replies! :thumbup:

[IronMike]

Hey lads. Spent a good portion of the weekend playing the nav grid and naturally, as a result of it being here, worked on my intercept geometries. That being said, i've fired more Phoenixes in the last 2 days, then i have ever since the F-14 came out. Much more. Like 3-4 times more. Fired them at every angle, every angel, every mach i could reach. Fired mostly A Mk60's and C Mk47's.

 

Took the later ones in order to see how the AI reacts the exhaust gasses not being visible and to test if there is any meaningful differences in the chaff rejection.

 

My data simple still isn't large enough, but from what i gathered, against random AI's in 4th gen AC (mostly Flankers), the hit ratio with both models seams to be around 50%. The C seams to eat chaff just as easy as the A does. Also, the engagement ranges don't seam to matter all that much. I have launched at the above mentioned fighters from 40 to just above 60 NM away (hot targets with a good STT) and it just didn't matter. I couldn't test this with the active mode launch as generally from that close i could not afford the luxury of tracking the missile in flight (F6) and observe its behavior.

 

So what are your experiences with the missiles? What do you usually take with you and why? How many? Both SP and MP?

 

Cheers and looking forward to your replies! :thumbup:

 

 

There's one problem here: you haven't been testing the phoenix, you have been more or less testing the AI. The AI in DCS for some reason is omnisient when it comes to missile launches, they will often detect the missile even without smoke way before it goes pitbull and start turning and running away etc...

 

 

 

At this point I would say it is very safe to say: all current issues with the missiles are known (active of the rails, aim120 guidance as a standin for now, etc...). The issues you are pointing at above however are AI issues, not missile issues.

[captain_dalan]

There's one problem here: you haven't been testing the phoenix, you have been more or less testing the AI. The AI in DCS for some reason is omnisient when it comes to missile launches, they will often detect the missile even without smoke way before it goes pitbull and start turning and running away etc...

 

 

 

At this point I would say it is very safe to say: all current issues with the missiles are known (active of the rails, aim120 guidance as a standin for now, etc...). The issues you are pointing at above however are AI issues, not missile issues.

 

Ah, i think you may have got me all wrong mate, i wasn't filing a bug report and putting up a feature request, you guys have been rather transparent as to the current state of the missile and the future plans for it :thumbup:

 

Rather, i was asking all fellow virtual aviators here for an advice and 2nd opinion on how to best employ each variant and their preferred load out choices, both SP and MP. :D In the context of the current state of affairs that is! :joystick:

[Spiceman]

AI is a pretty easy kill with the Phoenix, IMO. If it’s a group, I take a shot at 40NM in TWS against all of them. Offset but keep them in the TWS coverage (TWS Auto will be a huge help). Once the TTI hits 16 (which would be about time they go pit bull once implemented), I give a good crank, wait til they’re within PAL range, then turn back in. The bandits are usually busy maneuvering or hopefully half dead at that point. I pick them up in PAL and finish them off with another Phoenix or Sparrow shot.

[Airhunter]

I did some extensive tests agaist a very competent player in the 14 (me in the Hornet) and I was able to defeat/notch/chaff out like 95% of his Phoenixes at various ranges. Even the C seems to go for chaff EVERY single time. I've sent @IronMike a PM with some tacviews to take a look at it. The CCM seems a bit ridiculous being this bad.

[Pikey]

There's one problem here: you haven't been testing the phoenix, you have been more or less testing the AI. The AI in DCS for some reason is omnisient when it comes to missile launches, they will often detect the missile even without smoke way before it goes pitbull and start turning and running away etc...

 

 

 

At this point I would say it is very safe to say: all current issues with the missiles are known (active of the rails, aim120 guidance as a standin for now, etc...). The issues you are pointing at above however are AI issues, not missile issues.

 

 

This. I've seen a lot of people saying they are testing the missile. You can test a drone, or you can take pot luck from the other end manouvering. Sure.... run it a million times, maybe the data will begin to drop into something resembling a Pk, but AI are just quite good in their silly defensive behaviour and they are much more efficient at these manouvers too, in some cases I've seen 14G peak defensive manouvers from AI doing less than 400kts! It's not only AI and this behaviour, its the SFM they have which allows sustained energy beyond physics.

 

In this thread you will read how

-The AI is too easy

-The AI is too hard

-The missile can be defeated 95% of the time

-The missile is OP.

etc.

 

Since the truth lies somewhere in between, and in my own testing this year I would says it's better than an AIM-120 in Pk.

 

I take the smokey model for down low and the last C model for up high. Minor differences, nothing much to worry about, more in the delivery.

[IronMike]

I did some extensive tests agaist a very competent player in the 14 (me in the Hornet) and I was able to defeat/notch/chaff out like 95% of his Phoenixes at various ranges. Even the C seems to go for chaff EVERY single time. I've sent @IronMike a PM with some tacviews to take a look at it. The CCM seems a bit ridiculous being this bad.

 

 

Thanks, I will take a look. We already reduced effectiveness of chaff 2 patches ago, we might have to reduce it a bit more.

[Max1mus]

Even the 1970s A version tracks significantly better than the AIM-7M, in some situations where AIM-7M supported by a massive radar dish up close fail to track at all, and thats even without accounting for desync making the missile appear in an entirely different spot, complicating defense for the target.

 

It would be interesting to know what kind of sources heatblur uses to decide that both AIM-54A and C (without STT support by the launcher, only relying on their own small radar dish) should track more reliably than other, more modern missiles in the sim.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Max1mus

[IronMike]

Even the 1970s A version tracks significantly better than the AIM-7M, in some situations where AIM-7M supported by a massive radar dish up close fail to track at all, and thats without even desync making the missile appear in an entirely different spot, complicating defense for the target.

 

It would be interesting to know what kind of sources heatblur uses to decide that both AIM-54A and C (without STT support by the launcher, only relying on their own small radar dish) should track more reliably than other, more modern missiles in the sim.

 

 

Nothing what you say makes sense. Seriously, nothing.

 

The guidance for all active radar missiles in DCS is the same for now and we cannot influence it atm. You still do not understand even that small but important fact: "(...)should track more reliably than other, more modern missiles in the sim." proves exactly that. :doh:

 

 

I'm not even sure anymore how often we told you that, but you keep coming back, suspecting how we made up the aim54 to make the F14 dominant above everything... Meanwhile you do not even understand which parts we modelled of the missile. A small hint: it's not the part that guides. You have completely disqualified any last bit of credibility with what you said above. It only proves that you have zero clue of what you are talking about, whatsoever. But I doubt you care, and in the meantime, you'll forgive me: neither do I.

 

The guidance has nothing to do with the size of a "radar dish" and whether or not it is supported by it, btw. It doesn't work like your home satellite television, you know. But hey, let's just say stuff, because it supports our argument.

 

And you keep suggesting here that we make stuff up, questioning our sources, without even having read the whitepaper on the aim54 (which btw would answer all your questions). What sources do you have? Flaming cliffs 3?

 

You make these kind of suggestions in almost every comment here, and you just do not stop, which comes pretty close to willful defamation, friend. And if you think that any of us will lift a finger, after the tone you've been displaying here since ever, to show you any sources, forget about it, lol. But you don't really want to see any sources, do you? You just want to deposit the message: "don't trust Heatblur, there is something fishy about their aim54s!" Guess what, lazer brain, it is all known to everyone, except to you...

 

And since nothing else seems to help, here is your final warning: any further comments from you on the topic of the aim54 until it is patched, will be considered as trolling. You warning's been set to 10% for 1.3, you can thank Bignewy for that, I've set it to 40% initially. I hope that is clear enough though, so please stop wasting our time. Thank you.

Edited December 5, 2019 by IronMike
1.3

[Max1mus]

I believe you misunderstood my question. I referred to chaff resistance when i said tracking. I would simply like to know what reference you are using to decrease chaff effectiveness against the missile. Performance relative to the other DCS missiles, or some kind of real world reference. What do you exactly mean by:

 

Thanks, I will take a look. [...] we might have to reduce it a bit more.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Max1mus

[IronMike]

I believe you misunderstood my question. I referred to chaff resistance when i said tracking. I would simply like to know what reference you are using to decrease chaff effectiveness against the missile. Performance relative to the other DCS missiles, or some kind of real world reference. What do you exactly mean by:

 

 

Please don't take me for a fool, that makes even less sense. And it doesn't remove your subtile suggestion. You also misunderstood the issue, it is too susceptible to chaff atm, contrary to "tracks more reliable than more modern missiles in the sim", so the thought doesn't connect really well, but ok, heh. Let's go with it...

 

 

 

It basically means that we will adjust the value to something more realistic, or in respect to the simplified chaff in DCS: plausible. This will be based on documents we have, SME input, a comparison to general missile behavior in DCS (for the comparison's sake, if their chaff behavior changed and how), and so forth. In the end these things are quite simplified in DCS, means you move a value up and down most likely (or change a value of an algorithm, dunno and couldnt disclose anyway), until you hit results that seem closest to what you gathered from all the data available. So yes, it is an approximation, but we take the word of real Tomcat pilots for it, in case you wondered, and not that of folks who are emotional about their multiplayer experience (no matter what side). It is also not meant to make it harder to defeat, it is meant so that not almost every phoenix goes for chaff. (I know it doesnt do that in multiplayer, but crowded servers are no clean testing environment, so in this case it is secondary. Stuff like this needs to be adjusted in a clean environment without or little netcode, etc interference.) No one ever said they should track more reliably against chaff than any other missile. Besides it doesnt matter really how other missiles do, what matters is, how close we can get the aim54 to reality. That's what makes this a simulation. :)

 

And just for the record: even if we were talking about chaff, in real life "radar dishes" are actually very much susceptile against chaff, which appears like multiple strobes, breaks lock and so on... This is just not modeled in DCS at all.

Edited December 4, 2019 by IronMike