What's the state of missile tracking? I keep reading a lot of conflicting posts in various social media platforms

[key_stroked]

From my interweb browsings, I've read that ED's missile API was finished, Heatblur patched the F-14B and its missiles with that API, and that phoenix missiles and sparrows still don't track like they should and Jester loses lock like he did before the API was finished.

 

Is all this true?

 

I've also read that the current state of missiles and their tracking is out of Heatblur's hands because it's now up to ED to fix their API, and knowing ED that could be glacially slow. Is the Tomcat worth flying right now or should I keep it on the shelf?

[Harlikwin]

I believe the best current technical term to describe the state of various missiles in DCS is.....

 

SNAFU

 

I do hope the next patch will help with this.

 

[sLYFa]

If you know how to use the tomcat and especially know the AWG-9s/PHs weaknesses/strengths, you can be very effective in it. Therefore I really can't confirm the AFU part of the post above. The Phoenix is not a magical supermissile that will wipe the skies but it is a very capable weapon. A lot of the frustration comes from people expecting things that are not possible, especially from the radar and its AI operator (i.e. Jester).

There are however three outstanding issues right now:

- Sparrows will not guide in PDSTT, only in PSTT.

- Jester has a habit of switching the radar from TWS to RWS right after firing a Phoenix, thereby wasting it. This issue can be overcome in my experience by keeping the radar mode in "auto" (i.e. let Jester decide which mode to use).

- Once a Phoenix is fired, Jester is inhibited from switching radar modes/ranges/direction until the missile is destroyed (by either hitting the target or the ground). This can put you in an unpleasant situation where your PH has missed but is still flying and you cannot switch to for example RWS to try and require a lost target.  I believe this behaviour was introduced intentionally to preclude a conflict between TWS-A commanded antenna azimuth and elevation and user commanded azimith and elevation settings to Jester. You can still use the pilot lockon modes though and command Jester to go STT on a specific DL target.

 

[Nealius]

Since STT/PDSTT breaks so much stuff, after commanding Jester to STT, how do we tell him to go back to AUTO so he doesn't start switching from TWS to RWS again?

[Gunslinger22]

I would love for someone to try and explain to me how the current chaff resistance for the Phoenix is realistic. 

[sLYFa]

6 hours ago, Nealius said:

Since STT/PDSTT breaks so much stuff, after commanding Jester to STT, how do we tell him to go back to AUTO so he doesn't start switching from TWS to RWS again?

Break lock by any method (PLM button, radar gimbal limit, Jester break lock command) then

BVR->Radar Mode -> Auto

[Nealius]

My PLM button doesn't want to break locks for some reason :/ 

[Wildwind]

17 hours ago, sLYFa said:

If you know how to use the tomcat and especially know the AWG-9s/PHs weaknesses/strengths, you can be very effective in it. Therefore I really can't confirm the AFU part of the post above. The Phoenix is not a magical supermissile that will wipe the skies but it is a very capable weapon. A lot of the frustration comes from people expecting things that are not possible, especially from the radar and its AI operator (i.e. Jester).

There are however three outstanding issues right now:

- Sparrows will not guide in PDSTT, only in PSTT.

- Jester has a habit of switching the radar from TWS to RWS right after firing a Phoenix, thereby wasting it. This issue can be overcome in my experience by keeping the radar mode in "auto" (i.e. let Jester decide which mode to use).

- Once a Phoenix is fired, Jester is inhibited from switching radar modes/ranges/direction until the missile is destroyed (by either hitting the target or the ground). This can put you in an unpleasant situation where your PH has missed but is still flying and you cannot switch to for example RWS to try and require a lost target.  I believe this behaviour was introduced intentionally to preclude a conflict between TWS-A commanded antenna azimuth and elevation and user commanded azimith and elevation settings to Jester. You can still use the pilot lockon modes though and command Jester to go STT on a specific DL target.

 

 

The Sparrow problem alone is probably worthy of an AFU grade, IMO, without even getting into the Phoenix and its behavior since the last patch.

[Harlikwin]

18 hours ago, sLYFa said:

If you know how to use the tomcat and especially know the AWG-9s/PHs weaknesses/strengths, you can be very effective in it. Therefore I really can't confirm the AFU part of the post above. The Phoenix is not a magical supermissile that will wipe the skies but it is a very capable weapon. A lot of the frustration comes from people expecting things that are not possible, especially from the radar and its AI operator (i.e. Jester).

There are however three outstanding issues right now:

- Sparrows will not guide in PDSTT, only in PSTT.

- Jester has a habit of switching the radar from TWS to RWS right after firing a Phoenix, thereby wasting it. This issue can be overcome in my experience by keeping the radar mode in "auto" (i.e. let Jester decide which mode to use).

- Once a Phoenix is fired, Jester is inhibited from switching radar modes/ranges/direction until the missile is destroyed (by either hitting the target or the ground). This can put you in an unpleasant situation where your PH has missed but is still flying and you cannot switch to for example RWS to try and require a lost target.  I believe this behaviour was introduced intentionally to preclude a conflict between TWS-A commanded antenna azimuth and elevation and user commanded azimith and elevation settings to Jester. You can still use the pilot lockon modes though and command Jester to go STT on a specific DL target.

 

 

Yeah, I'd say the Jester issues with the phoenix are problematic. I haven't had many issues with it at close range, just further out, which is all jester.

 

But overall I'd say there are many more missile problems than just the F14 and the phoenix.

 

 

[DarksydeRob]

Current 54 is still pretty broken. From the looks of it Magic INS is finally fixed as memory ,or as I like to call it memeory, is ineffetive (Finally). However currently the behavour is different between RIO and a Jester with TWS.
 

RIO: 54's will be in SARH only if used in TWS. The missile will never go active and if guided till impact it will kill without ever giving a warning.
 

Jester: 54's will need guidance till pitbull. The moment the missile goes active the countdown will jump to 16 seconds (regardless of the current number) and will start flashing . At that point you can stop guiding the missile as its tracking on its own and if not defeated will hit the target. However , shooting a missile in any STT mode above pitbull range - Then breaking the lock and witching to TWS will cause the same issue as having a RIO . SARH all the way and stealth. But you know its coming as you had the breif STT lock on you with a warning, you then have to defeat it without a warning at pitbull.
 

If the missile is active off the rail then it will output  warnings , at least mad-dogs finally work reliably again.

[DarksydeRob]

On 12/3/2020 at 4:04 AM, Gunslinger22 said:

I would love for someone to try and explain to me how the current chaff resistance for the Phoenix is realistic. 

Countermeasure modelling needs a lot of work in DCS so I wouldn't call it realistic. But to clarify do you mean by realistic ,you referring its too weak or too strong?

Current 54 CCM values are more believable compared to old ones, by far.

Current 54 CCM:
54A =  0.3
54C = 0.25

Old 54CCM:
54A = 0.06
54C =0.05

Aim-7M CCM:
ED 7M = 1.0
HB 7M = 0.5 (Not sure why its half)

Current 120 CCM:
120B  = 0.2
120C = 0.1

Current SD-10 CCM = 0.12

[Wildwind]

4 hours ago, DarksydeRob said:

Current 54 is still pretty broken. From the looks of it Magic INS is finally fixed as memory ,or as I like to call it memeory, is ineffetive (Finally). However currently the behavour is different between RIO and a Jester with TWS.
 

RIO: 54's will be in SARH only if used in TWS. The missile will never go active and if guided till impact it will kill without ever giving a warning.
 

Jester: 54's will need guidance till pitbull. The moment the missile goes active the countdown will jump to 16 seconds (regardless of the current number) and will start flashing . At that point you can stop guiding the missile as its tracking on its own and if not defeated will hit the target. However , shooting a missile in any STT mode above pitbull range - Then breaking the lock and witching to TWS will cause the same issue as having a RIO . SARH all the way and stealth. But you know its coming as you had the breif STT lock on you with a warning, you then have to defeat it without a warning at pitbull.
 

If the missile is active off the rail then it will output  warnings , at least mad-dogs finally work reliably again.

The behavior as you describe it with Jester is the correct behavior for AIM-54, other than the TTI jumping to 16 seconds (which is, as already noted by HB, a workaround for the incorrectly-computed TTI prior to that point), until they can implement a real solution for it.

 

In TWS, the missile should be SARH until it goes active.  In STT, the missile will never go active, it is SARH all the way to the target.  This is how the Phoenix behaved in real life.

 

As a note to those who are saying Phoenix is not effective right now... in single player last night, I found that Phoenix launched from TWS was plenty effective.  I fired...

 

4 vs. Tu-22M at 45-40 nm, nose aspect, splash four

2 vs. MiG-23 at 25-20 nm, nose aspect, splash two

2 vs. MiG-21 at 25-20 nm, nose aspect, splash two

2 vs. MiG-25 at 25-20 nm, nose aspect, splash one

 

So, 9 hits out of 10 missiles.  This is consistent with my previous experiences with Phoenix - when shooting at AI fighters, 20-25 nm is the sweet spot.  Farther or closer is likely to miss, but it's very lethal in that range bracket.  I believe these were all 54A Mk47 as that's what the Cage the Bear campaign tends to load by default, but I didn't check this on every mission to be sure.

 

My AI wingman scored one hit out of three Fox Three calls during those missions, but he was firing at ranges I consider too close for Phoenix (~15 nm).  This is where one ought to be using Sparrow...

 

...except that Sparrow is broken in that it does not track in PD-STT, as others have noted. Using it in PAL last night, I scored two kills in two shots, so it's still useful at WVR, but this definitely limits its overall usefulness.

 

Sidewinder is Sidewinder, and I scored two kills with it (1 MiG-21, 1 MiG-25) on four shots.

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, DarksydeRob said:

Countermeasure modelling needs a lot of work in DCS so I wouldn't call it realistic. But to clarify do you mean by realistic ,you referring its too weak or too strong?

Current 54 CCM values are more believable compared to old ones, by far.

Current 54 CCM:
54A =  0.3
54C = 0.25

Old 54CCM:
54A = 0.06
54C =0.05

Aim-7M CCM:
ED 7M = 1.0
HB 7M = 0.5 (Not sure why its half)

Current 120 CCM:
120B  = 0.2
120C = 0.1

Current SD-10 CCM = 0.12

 

I mean I'll take stab here. Overall "chaff" in dcs more or less also accounts for EW and other problems, its basically a simplified number to get you some sort vaguely believable result.

 

Possibly the reason why the 7m CM is half the ED value "might" be due to the fact the AWG-9 is a very strong illuminator, IDK. I haven't had too many issues with either version TBH. They are vastly better than any of the R-27's or other fox1's for example. 

 

Otherwise, yeah I have 0 problem believing a 60's era missile is gonna go for whatever CM more than more modern missiles. And TBH the 54A still seems way too good in that regard compared to the 7MH, which has an easier problem to solve, and superior tech to solve it with for example. 

 

As for deka, they basically punted till the API gets more "defined" and basically just made the SD10 an Aim120 that fit neatly between the B and C. (not really happy about that but it is what it is).

 

Overall what needs to happen in "DCS WORLD" is that that ED and 3rd parties if applicable sit down, and figure an API that covers the important operating aspects of fox1,2,3s, that can either be obtained from Docs or guessed at in some sort of reasonable manner. In terms of seekers, score those missiles, in terms of guidance laws, define those missiles, and in terms of "aero" just get some sort of consisten CFD method down to evaluate their performance. And then ALL AT ONCE, fix Fox1, Fox3, Fox2 etc. 

 

Currently as I understand it a Fox3 will automagically lock the target once it goes active (at the correct range). IRL this is far less of a sure thing. As one example of various things wrong with missiles in DCS.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Harlikwin

[DarksydeRob]

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I mean I'll take stab here. Overall "chaff" in dcs more or less also accounts for EW and other problems, its basically a simplified number to get you some sort vaguely believable result.

 

Possibly the reason why the 7m CM is half the ED value "might" be due to the fact the AWG-9 is a very strong illuminator, IDK. I haven't had too many issues with either version TBH. They are vastly better than any of the R-27's or other fox1's for example. 

 

Otherwise, yeah I have 0 problem believing a 60's era missile is gonna go for whatever CM more than more modern missiles. And TBH the 54A still seems way too good in that regard compared to the 7MH, which has an easier problem to solve, and superior tech to solve it with for example. 

 

As for deka, they basically punted till the API gets more "defined" and basically just made the SD10 an Aim120 that fit neatly between the B and C. (not really happy about that but it is what it is).

 

Overall what needs to happen in "DCS WORLD" is that that ED and 3rd parties if applicable sit down, and figure an API that covers the important operating aspects of fox1,2,3s, that can either be obtained from Docs or guessed at in some sort of reasonable manner. In terms of seekers, score those missiles, in terms of guidance laws, define those missiles, and in terms of "aero" just get some sort of consisten CFD method down to evaluate their performance. And then ALL AT ONCE, fix Fox1, Fox3, Fox2 etc. 

 

Currently as I understand it a Fox3 will automagically lock the target once it goes active (at the correct range). IRL this is far less of a sure thing. As one example of various things wrong with missiles in DCS.

 

 

 

 

Currently countermeasures in DCS are laughable at best in my opinion due to it being a simplistic diceroll. However its implementation is old and out of date its been planned to be reworked alongside ECM. But it will probably always be simplified part as somethings are simply just too complicated to implement (Mainly ECM) especially with old horse of an engine DCS runs on. Noisejammers for the full fid modules and reworked countermeasures I reckon is reasonable place to be at.
 

I agree the difference between the 7M/MH and the 54s are a bit odd and only heatblur can answer why they believe the 54As are stronger than the 7Ms. However , not as odd as the difference between the ED and HB 7M , the HB 7M is a ED 7MH. I reckon its a mistake as every other Aim-7 is copied correctly except the 7M.
 

The most reputable sources I read placed the SD-10 between the 120B and C(don't recall if they stated which variant) in both kinematics and in guidance/electronics. But that isn't what we have though , the SD-10 is kinetmatically better than our 120.C But as with such things its hard to know the truth as the SD-10 has less publicly known data. Although with the way the SD-10 got released at first I don't trust Deka at all.
 

Pretty sure ED have the knowledge . In my eyes it's more of ED overextending and not working on the right things when issues arise. Honestly, who can blame them when they are pretty much more or less forced to release things too early (F16 and F18 for example). At the end of the day ED gets there but it does take them a long time, but it doesn't help people cry out for new modules before others are finished.
 

And yeah Active missiles will automatically acquire their target if the distance between their assigned target and themselves equal/ less than their Pitbull range. Even if its outside its FOV to a certain extent.

[DarksydeRob]

4 hours ago, Wildwind said:

The behavior as you describe it with Jester is the correct behavior for AIM-54, other than the TTI jumping to 16 seconds (which is, as already noted by HB, a workaround for the incorrectly-computed TTI prior to that point), until they can implement a real solution for it.

 

In TWS, the missile should be SARH until it goes active.  In STT, the missile will never go active, it is SARH all the way to the target.  This is how the Phoenix behaved in real life.

 

As a note to those who are saying Phoenix is not effective right now... in single player last night, I found that Phoenix launched from TWS was plenty effective.  I fired...

 

4 vs. Tu-22M at 45-40 nm, nose aspect, splash four

2 vs. MiG-23 at 25-20 nm, nose aspect, splash two

2 vs. MiG-21 at 25-20 nm, nose aspect, splash two

2 vs. MiG-25 at 25-20 nm, nose aspect, splash one

 

So, 9 hits out of 10 missiles.  This is consistent with my previous experiences with Phoenix - when shooting at AI fighters, 20-25 nm is the sweet spot.  Farther or closer is likely to miss, but it's very lethal in that range bracket.  I believe these were all 54A Mk47 as that's what the Cage the Bear campaign tends to load by default, but I didn't check this on every mission to be sure.

 

My AI wingman scored one hit out of three Fox Three calls during those missions, but he was firing at ranges I consider too close for Phoenix (~15 nm).  This is where one ought to be using Sparrow...

 

...except that Sparrow is broken in that it does not track in PD-STT, as others have noted. Using it in PAL last night, I scored two kills in two shots, so it's still useful at WVR, but this definitely limits its overall usefulness.

 

Sidewinder is Sidewinder, and I scored two kills with it (1 MiG-21, 1 MiG-25) on four shots.

I know how the 54 is meant to work. I was stating what it actually does for the OP. Probably should of included what its meant to do also to remove any confusion.

15nm isn't too close to use a 54, far from it . The Phoenix is superior to the Sparrow in every way expect the really close range scenarios as the 54 simply cannot turn currently due to it using the old FM from the old missile API and the sparrow using all new API. At the range the 54 becomes unusable its better to go sidewinders as they are much more effective than a lacklustre Sparrow, as even if you had sparrows its still better to use the sidewinder. For effectiveness Phoenixes and Sidewinders, however if your looking for authenticity then that's something else.

Edited December 5, 2020 by DarksydeRob

[Wildwind]

16 minutes ago, DarksydeRob said:

 

And yeah Active missiles will automatically acquire their target if the distance between their assigned target and themselves equal/ less than their Pitbull range. Even if its outside its FOV to a certain extent.

This is not actually correct for AIM-54.  It does not automatically go active.  It is commanded by the F-14 WCS to go active.  Of course, that happens automatically, so I will grant that this is nitpicking.

 

  

6 minutes ago, DarksydeRob said:

I know how the 54 is meant to work. I was stating what it actually does for the OP. Probably should of included what its meant to do also to remove any confusion.

15nm isn't too close to use a 54, far from it . The Phoenix is superior to the Sparrow in every way expect the really close range scenarios as the 54 simply cannot turn currently due to it using the old FM from the old missile API and the sparrow using all new API. At the range the 54 becomes unusable its better to go sidewinders as they are much more effective than a lacklustre Sparrow, as even if you had sparrows its still better to use the sidewinder. For effectiveness Phoenixes and Sidewinders, however if your looking for authenticity then that's something else.

 

I can only speak from my personal experiences, obviously, but I've had less than a 25% hit rate with Phoenix inside of 20 nm, whereas it's more like 65-70% between 20 and 25 nm.  And the AI doesn't seem to do much better at that range than I do.  My TacView recordings suggest that this may be because Phoenix lofts too much at short range.

 

Edit: Ugh. WTF?  Stupid forum software wouldn't let me delete an completely irrelevant screenshot (taken in the mission I just flew, so it was on the Clipboard)  I accidentally pasted in.

Edited December 5, 2020 by Wildwind

[DarksydeRob]

5 minutes ago, Wildwind said:

This is not actually correct for AIM-54.  It does not automatically go active.  It is commanded by the F-14 WCS to go active.  Of course, that happens automatically, so I will grant that this is nitpicking.

We were talking about general Fox 3 Behaviour there disinclining Aim-54s. The hybridness of the 54 is completely different to the way the other Fox 3s react in DCS

 

Edited December 5, 2020 by DarksydeRob

[Wildwind]

5 minutes ago, DarksydeRob said:

We were talking about general Fox 3 Behaviour there disinclining Aim-54s. The hybridness of the 54 is completely different to the way the other Fox 3s react in DCS

 

I see.  Well, in that case, obviously you are correct.

[DarksydeRob]

28 minutes ago, Wildwind said:

This is not actually correct for AIM-54.  It does not automatically go active.  It is commanded by the F-14 WCS to go active.  Of course, that happens automatically, so I will grant that this is nitpicking.

 

  

 

I can only speak from my personal experiences, obviously, but I've had less than a 25% hit rate with Phoenix inside of 20 nm, whereas it's more like 65-70% between 20 and 25 nm.  And the AI doesn't seem to do much better at that range than I do.  My TacView recordings suggest that this may be because Phoenix lofts too much at short range.

 

Edit: Ugh. WTF?  Stupid forum software wouldn't let me delete an completely irrelevant screenshot (taken in the mission I just flew, so it was on the Clipboard)  I accidentally pasted in.

Yeah I just refreshed the page and not sure what just really happend ahaha. Well then.

And well I dont find AI useful for testing as they dont behave as a real player would do, they do dumb defences and have Godlike SA but at the same time die super easily. AI is games is pretty much its  going to be OP or crap. You fly only singeplayer or you fly in MP also?  In reality the Sparrow is far inferior in DCS. Like I've stated before there is no secanrio where you would take Sparrows over Phenonixs in DCS unless you are restricted in weaponary.

At the end of the day the 54 very easy missile to notch and get rid of quickly. Against Fighters its a good support tool , not a killing tool. The sparrow isnt good at either.

Edited December 5, 2020 by DarksydeRob

[Wildwind]

9 minutes ago, DarksydeRob said:

Yeah I just refreshed the page and not sure what just really happend ahaha. Well then.

And well I dont find AI useful for testing as they dont behave as a real player would do, they do dumb defences and have Godlike SA but at the same time die super easily. AI is games is pretty much its  going to be OP or crap. I guess you only fly in singeplayer.  In reality the Sparrow is far inferior in DCS. Like I've stated before there is no secanrio where you would take Sparrows over Phenonixs in DCS unless you are restricted in weaponary.

At the end of the day the 54 very easy missile to notch and get rid of quickly. Against Fighters its a good support tool , not a killing tool. The sparrow isnt good at either.

Yeah, I pretty much only play single-player, so the oddity of the AI (which has Skyrim archery-target psychic SA, and often UFO flight model, but isn't all that smart) probably plays a large role in my experience.

[captain_dalan]

10 hours ago, DarksydeRob said:

Countermeasure modelling needs a lot of work in DCS so I wouldn't call it realistic. But to clarify do you mean by realistic ,you referring its too weak or too strong?

Current 54 CCM values are more believable compared to old ones, by far.

Current 54 CCM:
54A =  0.3
54C = 0.25

Old 54CCM:
54A = 0.06
54C =0.05

Aim-7M CCM:
ED 7M = 1.0
HB 7M = 0.5 (Not sure why its half)

Current 120 CCM:
120B  = 0.2
120C = 0.1

Current SD-10 CCM = 0.12

Seeing how right now even the 120's seam to be the subject of much complaints, the above mentioned numbers don't really mean much. Add to that the confusion that CM seam to work different for AI's and different for player controlled AC, and we are in world of confusion

As for the the AIM-54 being better then the AIM-7, well it was. You may even be able to find the posts that contain the links to the subject. It was more capable both kinetically and CM rejection wise from the start if memory serves.