Patch Dec 17th Feedback Thread

[Viper 13]

3rd Test
Target size set to large via the Jester menu
Aim-54C fired at 43nm TTI is 87seconds
PLM button pressed TWS track is cleared and radar then set to silent
Aim-54C goes active and hits the target
 

 

[Wizard_03]

If i'm going to give honest feedback on about this update, I'm quite disappointed.

 

1) Engines catch on fire

2) Aim-7s don't behave

3) Aim-54s don't behave

4) Turn rate doesn't match the performance charts

 

So basically all forms of combat are inhibited by some form of unintended behavior or bug. I would say that I understand that it's WIP and early Access but many of these issues we have been dealing with for a month now, and some of which are brand new, and now its another month before we can even hope for a fix. So well I know its not HB's intent and It's not personal against them. I'm very upset and disappointed with overall F-14A release So far. Once again it's critical bug after critical bug with months between potential fixes.

 

[IronMike]

6 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

If i'm going to give honest feedback on about this update, I'm quite disappointed.

 

1) Engines catch on fire

2) Aim-7s don't behave

3) Aim-54s don't behave

4) Turn rate doesn't match the performance charts

 

So basically all forms of combat are inhibited by some form of unintended behavior or bug. I would say that I understand that it's WIP and early Access but many of these issues we have been dealing with for a month now, and some of which are brand new, and now its another month before we can even hope for a fix. So well I know its not HB's intent and It's not personal against them. I'm very upset and disappointed with overall F-14A release So far. Once again it's critical bug after critical bug with months between potential fixes.

 

 

 

Thank you for your feedback Wizard and our apologies for the inconveniences. We hope we will have a hotfix before the end of the year and be able to rectify most of it, if not all. 

[Blinde]

2 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

If i'm going to give honest feedback on about this update, I'm quite disappointed.

 

1) Engines catch on fire

2) Aim-7s don't behave

3) Aim-54s don't behave

4) Turn rate doesn't match the performance charts

 

So basically all forms of combat are inhibited by some form of unintended behavior or bug. I would say that I understand that it's WIP and early Access but many of these issues we have been dealing with for a month now, and some of which are brand new, and now its another month before we can even hope for a fix. So well I know its not HB's intent and It's not personal against them. I'm very upset and disappointed with overall F-14A release So far. Once again it's critical bug after critical bug with months between potential fixes.

 

+1

 

My turkey is grounded for now.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Blinde

[Wizard_03]

2 hours ago, IronMike said:

 

 

Thank you for your feedback Wizard and our apologies for the inconveniences. We hope we will have a hotfix before the end of the year and be able to rectify most of it, if not all. 

Thanks for listening, Just trying to be honest, I'm sure you guys will get it figured out. I think the F-14 is one of, if not the best available product in DCS, and the new sound update is fantastic along as well as the 3D art for the the TF-30s and new AB effects.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Wizard_03

[Blinde]

2 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

...TF-30s and new AB effects.

 

What new AB effects?

[*Aquila*]

I wonder why my documented feedback about the missiles’ systematic lag trajectory under the plane’s guidance has no feedback.

[RustBelt]

Because they already know about it. But it's spread over 2 or 3 other posts.

[*Aquila*]

Sure but here is the place where I told, as a bitter feedback to the latest patch, that missilery was broken and got an upset answer for not documenting my words. I just notice that when documenting, I get no more answer. Anger sometimes collects more feedback than facts, as Cop wisely noticed previously   

[IronMike]

14 minutes ago, *Aquila* said:

Sure but here is the place where I told, as a bitter feedback to the latest patch, that missilery was broken and got an upset answer for not documenting my words. I just notice that when documenting, I get no more answer. Anger sometimes collects more feedback than facts, as Cop wisely noticed previously   

That's a wrong assumption. Cop forced my hand by misbehaving, but that didn't change how much we would or would not take his feedback seriously.

You need to remember guys: you posting here is enough. Even if we do not reply to everything, we read everything and discuss almost everything. Cobra's answer to you Aquila was not angry at all, our apologies if you took it this way. It was merely a plea to provide us, if possible, with what you did. It was also not as much pointed at you personally, but in general towards the impression "the AWG9 just keeps getting worse" which isn't true. That's why we need feedback we can work with, precise descriptions of what has been done and what is happening. He specifically pointed out that he does not want to go down the "user error" route, but 70%ish of all "tws, awg9 and phoenix" related complaints are owed to not fully understanding how it works, or by comparing it to the F16s or F18s TWS, which are generations newer, and so on and so forth. The more detailed feedback we get, the easier it is for us to distinct which is which. That said: any feedback is appreciated.

The issue you describe is something that is not in our hands. It is likely owed to us using still the old way of how the missile FM is implemented, which needs to be transferred to the new way together with ED. However: we do not know if that will change, because we have no insight fully, in how ED manages guidance and why the missile is being guided in this, admittedly, a bit unfortunate way.

 

As for feedback regarding feedback - think of it like this: if we need more, if the feedback is half baken, if it is unclear, you will hear back from us more likely. If it is perfect feedback, we take it as is. It is a bit like in acting. When you start it is hard to cope with the director saying absolutely nothing to you when you do it right, but constantly talking to you, when you do it wrong. This gives the wrong impression of he cares only about this guy, but not about me. While it really means: the director is content with me, and he is not at all content with the guy he has to constantly talk to, to explain what he wants from him, cause he doesn't get it. It's hard to not feel overlooked. It's a bit similar here. Because time is scarce, we concentrate on the feedback, where we need to re-inquire to get a better picture. Hope that makes sense. 

[Alphabet_Ghost]

2020/12/20 PM2点21分,IronMike说:

 

Could you check please if you get that at far ranges as well, or if range related at which range it stops doing that (if it does stop)? Thank you!

here is acmi i tested , 54 won't DL update but it active just like PSTT , detected target when within 10 nm . left break with PLM button pressed .Tacview-20201221-194748-DCS-TEST.zip.acmi

 

one more problem(not sure is a bug),after ACM or BRIST launched 54 , 54 will go active with few sec delay(with in 10 and aim to target but not track target immediately )

 

two more , test with friendly , test aircraft f-16 , in TWS-A MODE missile will go active when TTI flashing yes , but my friendly got RWR warning about 6-3 nm(distance between missile and f-16) , lock f-16 all the way .

Test with AI , AI will start maneuvering about 17 nm(at this moment TTI is not flashing) , should be ED side problem for AI ?

Tacview-20201221-222503-DCS-TEST.zip.acmi

and check PM LoL

Edited December 21, 2020 by Alphabet_Ghost

[Alphabet_Ghost]

jester will eject flare after player manual eject one . not sure it's a bug or this is how it work .

[captain_dalan]

On 12/20/2020 at 2:13 PM, Viper 13 said:

Before Thursdays patch Aim-54s would not go active if the TWS track is lost before TTI 16

After the latest patch Aim-54s can still go active without being supported by a TWS track until TTI 16

 

1st Test

Target size set to small via the Jester menu

Aim-54C fired at 24nm TTI is 48 seconds

Radar then set to silent via the Jester menu

TWS track file is lost at TTI 38 seconds

Aim-54C goes active and hits the target

 

2nd Test

Target size set to small via the Jester menu

Aim-54C fired at 43nm TTI is 86 seconds

Radar then set to silent via the Jester menu

TWS track file is lost at TTI 70 seconds

Aim-54C goes active and hits the target

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMdGZPGIU4&feature=youtu.be

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyGbHBzmo2s&feature=youtu.be

 

Did you check at what distance from the target they got active? I mean, the missile's distance from the target, not the plane's

[Quid]

A couple quick notes from today:

 

The TF-30s are still blowing up at 1.1M; not every single flight, but it happened on a multiplayer server today while flying back to base, so that's frustrating (was at about 29K feet, 1x AIM-9 and 1x AIM-7 remaining).  Surprisingly, I had some decent success with the AIM-54/TWS in BVR, about a 50%Pk (6 missiles fired BVR in TWS over 3 missions, 3 killed their intended targets).  I did attempt an STT shot, but the bandit broke my radar lock and the shot went stupid as it was supposed to.  I loaded AIM-7Ms based on some of the posts in the forums and did manage a kill and a miss (50%) - the miss went for chaff; did not test the F or MH.

 

On 12/18/2020 at 4:18 PM, MBot said:

 

Also it has been my understanding that somewhere around Mach 1, the TF30 is about as powerful as the F110. So I wonder why supersonic performance of the A is so much worse than the B.

 

Not until ~1.6M+ at higher altitudes, that's why the supersonic performance is also worse, and it takes a longer time to build to that number.

[Rock3tman_]

2 hours ago, Quid said:

Surprisingly, I had some decent success with the AIM-54/TWS in BVR

Yeah, this has been my experience as well, better performance in TWS than STT. Not sure if it's actually a discrepancy between the missile guidance modes, luck, or pilot skill on my end though. Sparrows also seem to be roughly 50/50, but the 50% they don't work, they start to turn in then just completely fail to guide.

[IronMike]

Thanks for all the great feedback guys.

Transsonic drag in the A and the engines setting on fire, plus some other things will be fixed in the upcoming hotfix. And the campaign will be added to the module. The rest will have to wait till after the holidays/next patch, but is already being worked on.

Your help and support is awesome and we appreciate it a lot! Thank you.

[eatthis]

On 12/20/2020 at 3:33 PM, Viper 13 said:

3rd Test
Target size set to large via the Jester menu
Aim-54C fired at 43nm TTI is 87seconds
PLM button pressed TWS track is cleared and radar then set to silent
Aim-54C goes active and hits the target
 

 

You went silent as soon as you launched?

[Black Assassin]

6 hours ago, IronMike said:

Transsonic drag in the A and the engines setting on fire, plus some other things will be fixed in the upcoming hotfix. And the campaign will be added to the module.

Wonderful, that's great to hear!  It's the summer holidays now here, and it didn't feel right to spend hot days at the beach playing with the boys while the cat is grounded at home.  Looking forward to this hotfix immensely!  :)

[Northstar98]

A couple of very minor niptick things I noticed with both the F-14A and F-14B:

 

• When starting the engines, the start valve caution light doesn't illuminate as per the manual (step 6), it does however briefly blink on and then off when passing ~50% RPM - coinciding with crank switch returning to centre. I think this issue first came when the F-14A was released to OB.
• When checking the speed brakes, the stabilators are supposed to deflect slightly as part of integrated trim, while they did so on release, somewhere down the line they stopped doing it.
• When starting hot (either in the air or from parking) the F-14A's caution panel shows oil hot warnings for both engines, I think it disappears after a minute or so.

 

Attached tracks testing on the F-14A, but the exact same issues (apart from the 3rd) apply to the B as well.

F-14A_SpeedBrake_Trim.trk F-14A_Start_Valve.trk

[Wizard_03]

11 hours ago, IronMike said:

Thanks for all the great feedback guys.

Transsonic drag in the A and the engines setting on fire, plus some other things will be fixed in the upcoming hotfix. And the campaign will be added to the module. The rest will have to wait till after the holidays/next patch, but is already being worked on.

Your help and support is awesome and we appreciate it a lot! Thank you.

Thank you so much! 

[Calinho]

11 hours ago, IronMike said:

Thanks for all the great feedback guys.

Transsonic drag in the A and the engines setting on fire, plus some other things will be fixed in the upcoming hotfix. And the campaign will be added to the module. The rest will have to wait till after the holidays/next patch, but is already being worked on.

Your help and support is awesome and we appreciate it a lot! Thank you.

 

My engine still catch fire after today's patch.  

 

trk atacched, mission BFM F-14A Vs F-14 syria, after the combat, I decided to test the f-14a at 30k + feet 1.1+ mach and the engines just exploded

f-14a 23-12-20.trk

[Golo]

Tested in MP, at 20k ft, more or less level, aprox 10k fuel, 2x9s, 2x7s in tunel, XT(empty), from M0.85 to M1.45 took me something over 2min, Its slow but smooth and steady. No wall above M1 like before. Engines were OK. Looks like its fixed, for me at least. Thx HB .  

[IronMike]

53 minutes ago, Calinho said:

 

My engine still catch fire after today's patch.  

 

trk atacched, mission BFM F-14A Vs F-14 syria, after the combat, I decided to test the f-14a at 30k + feet 1.1+ mach and the engines just exploded

f-14a 23-12-20.trk 2.4 MB · 1 download

 

 

Thank you. Is it possible you damaged them during combat? Overstressed them? I tested it several times before the patch, at 20k, at 30k and at 35k, once flying 10 min at 1.1, never had a fire.

Could you do me a favor and try the mission again and see if you get it again, once just as you did before and a second time without combat? Thank you.


I will close this thread, since the new thread is up, please be so kind and post your findings there:
 

//THREAD CLOSED. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.