Aim-54 track issues

[Naquaii]

2 minutes ago, DarksydeRob said:

Ah I see. So its not utilizing it fully yet. Looking forward to when it uses the new FM and full Seeker logic like the Sparrow , SD-10 and AMRAAM.

 

It is fully utilizing what we set out to when we were talking "missile api". Anything else is out of our hands and not something we have been part of.

[Love_Beam]

3 hours ago, IronMike said:

There will be no new FM for the phoenix. There is nothing wrong with its FM, in fact it is one of the most accurate missile FMs in DCS. That's all in the whitepaper.

As for seeker logic, that's up to ED, not us.

What about the horrible high G/AOA random wobble they make when they go active, they bleed so much energy when that happens...

[IronMike]

24 minutes ago, Love_Beam said:

What about the horrible high G/AOA random wobble they make when they go active, they bleed so much energy when that happens...

 

 

They shouldnt anymore, not that excessively. But that is completely guidance related, not performance or FM. It's how missiles in DCS work, in a way, when active or not active. With the other missiles it isnt as obvious, as the range is much smaller, the deviation and adjustments therefore, too. What seems to be lacking a bit is a mid-term guidance that would allow for a smoother transition between non active and active. For example, if you shoot a phoenix close in, you shouldnt notice the behavior in the same way. Unfortunately we have only limited access to anything guidance related.

Edited December 18, 2020 by IronMike

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

They shouldnt anymore, not that excessively. But that is completely guidance related, not performance or FM. It's how missiles in DCS work, in a way, when active or not active. With the other missiles it isnt as obvious, as the range is much smaller, the deviation and adjustments therefore, too. What seems to be lacking a bit is a mid-term guidance that would allow for a smoother transition between non active and active. For example, if you shoot a phoenix close in, you shouldnt notice the behavior in the same way. Unfortunately we have only limited access to anything guidance related.

 

Hi IM, I would suggest that you apply the whitepaper to the new missiles FM, as phoenix is still using the old - unless I'm wrong!   I can help with that if you want but probably it would be better for ED to fine tune it.

 

There's also no huge hurry to do this, but I think you would definitely see some subtle differences, especially in terminal.

Edited December 19, 2020 by GGTharos

[IronMike]

13 hours ago, DarksydeRob said:

Ah I see. So its not utilizing it fully yet. Looking forward to when it uses the new FM and full Seeker logic like the Sparrow , SD-10 and AMRAAM.

 

 

I must apologize, Rob, indeed it turns out we are using an old FM environment, and need to update it. However the FM as such will not change, indeed, the data "just needs to be transferred", to simplify it. So you were correct in a way, it doesn't fully utilize the "new FM" yet, or more precisely not new FM, but new way of how the FM gets implemented into the sim. We need to see how to go about this, we will likely have to do it together with ED.

[DarksydeRob]

6 hours ago, IronMike said:

 

 

I must apologize, Rob, indeed it turns out we are using an old FM environment, and need to update it. However the FM as such will not change, indeed, the data "just needs to be transferred", to simplify it. So you were correct in a way, it doesn't fully utilize the "new FM" yet, or more precisely not new FM, but new way of how the FM gets implemented into the sim. We need to see how to go about this, we will likely have to do it together with ED.

ahhh I see , looking foward to it . Hope ED can put the time to implementing it with you guys in the near future so that we can see the true form of the 54 like we have seen with the 120.

[RustBelt]

This is kind of becoming absurd. Is there no clear line of direct communication between ED and their 3rd parties?

[Love_Beam]

On 12/18/2020 at 5:12 PM, IronMike said:

 

 

They shouldnt anymore, not that excessively. But that is completely guidance related, not performance or FM. It's how missiles in DCS work, in a way, when active or not active. With the other missiles it isnt as obvious, as the range is much smaller, the deviation and adjustments therefore, too. What seems to be lacking a bit is a mid-term guidance that would allow for a smoother transition between non active and active. For example, if you shoot a phoenix close in, you shouldnt notice the behavior in the same way. Unfortunately we have only limited access to anything guidance related.

 

Here is what I'm taking about Iron Mike, watch at the :24 mark

 

 

[IronMike]

Yeah that's the mid term guidance. It seems it is due to our FM still using an older way of implementation, and we need to adjust that together with ED.

[a1133620002]

On 12/20/2020 at 9:08 AM, IronMike said:

Yeah that's the mid term guidance. It seems it is due to our FM still using an older way of implementation, and we need to adjust that together with ED.

Hi Mike, I am not sure if you guys are aware of but in these few months, the aim54c's tracking ability seems to have some unstable changes, do you guys have anything in your mind to fix the problems? thanks

[LanceCriminal86]

22 hours ago, a1133620002 said:

Hi Mike, I am not sure if you guys are aware of but in these few months, the aim54c's tracking ability seems to have some unstable changes, do you guys have anything in your mind to fix the problems? thanks

HB has no control over the missile once it leaves the jet. Yes, they've been trying to get ED to fix things but it's out of their direct control.

[a1133620002]

12 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

HB has no control over the missile once it leaves the jet. Yes, they've been trying to get ED to fix things but it's out of their direct control.

I see, thanks for letting me know. Is there a thread that we can get ED's attention directly? From what I know, the aim120's tracking is also off.

[LanceCriminal86]

They're already aware of all that as well.

[WarthogOsl]

16 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

HB has no control over the missile once it leaves the jet. Yes, they've been trying to get ED to fix things but it's out of their direct control.

Though the more recent losing TWS track issues so seem like they'd be on HB's side.  

[LanceCriminal86]

1 hour ago, WarthogOsl said:

Though the more recent losing TWS track issues so seem like they'd be on HB's side.  

Not necessarily, it's appearing to be more of a latency issue. When the latency comes in online that exacerbates the problems with extrapolated tracks etc. That too is something there's been back and forth about but there just doesn't seem to be an easy solution. The AWG-9 is set up to simulate the cycle/track times and unfortunately network latency has a negative impact on it. So low latency, generally no impact. High latency, or one player with high latency, that's when the issues crop in but can't just be solved by adding a wider buffer in there for tracks as that wouldn't match how the radar operated.

And yes, HB testers are submitting tracks and trying to get these issues run down but there's only so much that can be done on one side of the equation.