Question regarding differences between 54A and 54C

[GGTharos]

2 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

You should be careful because it seems you're doing the exact same thing. (theory crafting)
You have no idea what weapon builders in the 80's were thinking, and you can't just 'assume' the phoenix worked exactly the same as an amraam because there is no '"giant abort button" . 

 

He has more of an idea than you ever will.  You don't know who you're talking to.

[TLTeo]

9 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

You should be careful because it seems you're doing the exact same thing. (theory crafting)
You have no idea what weapon builders in the 80's were thinking, and you can't just 'assume' the phoenix worked exactly the same as an amraam because there is no '"giant abort button" . 



 

 

lmao Klarsnow is a Strike Eagle WSO. Your posts never disappoint, keep it up.

[captain_dalan]

Well, to those willing to learn, threads like this can be a wealth of knowledge. A will to learn is not a given though.....

[RustBelt]

On 2/20/2021 at 2:30 PM, Jayhawk1971 said:

FWIW, as a consumer with absolutely no background in software design, I'd say in the absence of hard data, Heatblur should go ahead with the sum total of all the soft data they can collect, and make their best guess. I have been simming since 1984 and the old Microprose games on the C64, so getting mere approximations is - by God - nothing unheard of. It never, ever killed immersion for me, even when they gave us "F-19 Stealth Fighter" (based on a fantasy plane, the F-19 "Frisbee" that was conceived to mislead the public about the real F-117 at the time, when widespread rumors about a secret stealth fighter began to surface).

 

EF-2000, Total Air War... those were the best guesses by the DID developers at the time. Probably wildly inaccurate, yet a lot of fun. Even the more hardcore ones (Longbow 2, or the "sim can't shan't be named here") were approximations with a lot of guestimates.

 

So, as far as I am concerned, guess away.

Especially since,.........This is what ED is doing with the AMRAAM. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by RustBelt

[GGTharos]

There is far more information on AMRAAM now than there was for any sort of missile in the times of EF-2000.

[RustBelt]

But you know there's still quite a lot of "Liberties" being taken with the modeling of the AMRAAM. 

[GGTharos]

There are plenty of liberties taken with modeling all of the missiles, some of them more so than AMRAAM.  Don't try to make it sound like it's fiction; most of it isn't, and what's not really known well is reduced to the same stuff as every other missile in the game.

Edited February 24, 2021 by GGTharos

[dundun92]

3 hours ago, RustBelt said:

"Liberties"

Any specifically? Other than the obvious like ECCM and stuff which simply isnt happening.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Wouldn't it be possible to find what ever equivalent to an AFTTP manual exist for the F-14 and see if in there is any mention of being able to 'cheapshot' with the AIM-54C as if I'm not mistaken that would be the brevity for an attack using the Command Inertial Active mode.

 

Or a former crew could talk about if they were able to do that with the 54C?

A pilot explained more or less how it works with the AMRAAM, I don't understand why they would keep quite about a retired missile being able to do the same.

I think the FOIA report is more likely than not going to confirm it can...

[Blaze1]

The F-14 equivalent to the AFTTP is probably the tactical manual/s and while the F-14 did get NATIP manuals very late, I think it was a little too late for the Air NTTP (ANTTP) which is the navy/marine equivalent to the AFTTP.  Regarding the TACMAN, it's possible that even the earliest versions (with AIM-54C technical data) are still classified.  An FOIA request could be useful though, but it's likely Heatblur may have already tried or need a reference.

[Skysurfer]

I mean, he 54A is already active off the rail, regardless of mode below 10nm. The missile is capable of receiving active commands from the WCS in various instances so it's not a stretch, regardless of not having an actual mention of it in an official document, to assume that the much more advanced C would have this capability. Isn't the PH ACTIVE switch exactly that for a PDSTT shot? Active off the rail with mid-course corrections?

[GGTharos]

47 minutes ago, Skysurfer said:

I mean, he 54A is already active off the rail, regardless of mode below 10nm. The missile is capable of receiving active commands from the WCS in various instances so it's not a stretch, regardless of not having an actual mention of it in an official document, to assume that the much more advanced C would have this capability. Isn't the PH ACTIVE switch exactly that for a PDSTT shot? Active off the rail with mid-course corrections?

 

Mid-course data but no mid-course guidance.  In other words, no loft.

[Skysurfer]

18 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

Mid-course data but no mid-course guidance.  In other words, no loft.

 

Sure.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

I have two questions : 

- There's quite some time between the missile appears to go active, and getting an RWR warning. What could cause the delay ? 
- Are we sure the 54 doesn't go active without a signal from aircraft radar at the moment ? 

I see F14's go cold , and then 5 seconds later the phoenix gives an RWR warning. (goes active)

Has this been changed ? Missile goes active on it's own now ?
 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Naquaii]

The missile can't go active on it's own unless launched active from the rail. If there is a delay from active until RWR indication it is a delay due to either lag or that there is some sort of short delay in DCS from active indication until the RWR catches is.

 

The missile in the air is entirely out of our hands. The only thing we tell it is when to go active but we are not controlling what the missile does besides that. We wouldn't be able to add a delay there even if we wanted to.

 

And no, we haven't changed the way the missile works. Do you really think we would've changed something like that without telling the community?

[Skysurfer]

3 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

I have two questions : 

- There's quite some time between the missile appears to go active, and getting an RWR warning. What could cause the delay ? 
- Are we sure the 54 doesn't go active without a signal from aircraft radar at the moment ? 

I see F14's go cold , and then 5 seconds later the phoenix gives an RWR warning. (goes active)

Has this been changed ? Missile goes active on it's own now ?
 

 

 

Do you have a tacview showing that? How do you know when exactly it goes active? Are you sure you werent in the RWR blindspot for a few seconds? It is also very possible that the missiles was active and only picked up your aircraft at a later stage with its beam. So many factors at play here.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Skysurfer

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

@Naquaii
Forgive me being suspecious but there's been so many weird things around this missile and the F14. 
I honestly don't know anymore  .

It would be extremely weird if the -advanced- (amraam) 120 can't , but the non-advanced 54 could. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Noctrach]

1 hour ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

@Naquaii
Forgive me being suspecious but there's been so many weird things around this missile and the F14. 
I honestly don't know anymore  .

It would be extremely weird if the -advanced- (amraam) 120 can't , but the non-advanced 54 could. 

 

Man if you spent as much time flying as you did scouring this forum for things to get unreasonably upset about, your PvP kill ratio would be through the roof.

Compared to the AIM-120, you can defend AIM-54 shots with your eyes closed if you know what you're doing in this game...

At long range you do some quick jinks and the F-14 is guaranteed a broken TWS track.

At short range, you stick to the ground, notch, drop some chaff and use the myriads of modern system advantages to eat the F-14 in the visual arena.

 

Let's give all this a rest until the missile API matures a bit and multiplayer guidance behaviour stops being a loopy fiesta across the board every other patch.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Noctrach

[dundun92]

9 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

there's been so many weird things around this missile and the F14

No, youre dead set against the F-14/AIM-54 for some reason and the instant any minor bug appears you twist it into this story of HB buffing the AIM-54/F-14 into some OP monster for the sole purpose of ruining PvP "balance".

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

Well that really depends on what you call "minor bug" . 
I'm not going to list them all again because i'm not 'dead set' vs anything. 
I'm not biting.  
 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Skysurfer]

2 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Well that really depends on what you call "minor bug" . 
I'm not going to list them all again because i'm not 'dead set' vs anything. 
I'm not biting.  
 

 

 

You still have not provided any tacviews or tracks showing this, hence making your claims have no factual basis (as always). Please refrain from posting in this forum section and cluttering up topics with this nonsense, unless you have some actual hard data to show.

[TLTeo]

@IronMike, out curiosity, at which point would you consider banning CSGO from this forum? At this point, it's clear his posting is not going to change and he's not interested in any semblance of constructive discussion.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

I just asked two simple questions. 
I got an answer and that was that as far as i'm concerned. 
But then i'm met with insults , so you tell me who's not interested in any semblance of constructive discussion ?  


 

[Skysurfer]

19 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

I just asked two simple questions. 
I got an answer and that was that as far as i'm concerned. 
But then i'm met with insults , so you tell me who's not interested in any semblance of constructive discussion ?  


 

 

And we have asked you to provide facts, proof, evidence, or literally anything in response, which you simply ignored and are now trying to deflect the topic at hand to avoid any constructive discussion. This is not how this works, buddy. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Skysurfer

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

It's going to take hours of searching through tacviews, but i'll do it just for you 
Missile was fired from 14 nm so quite close.  
I remember seeing 14 nails disappear, thinking "oh he did not fire" i can give chase.... 

Then 5 seconds later i get the RWR warning  

Because of this recent discussion where tomcat pilots were asking HB to make the phoenix go active on it's  own, i figured maybe they had implemented it and was simply asking about it. 
The ability to set target size WAS mentioned very low key in a long list of changes, but in fact has enormous impact on how you must defend vs a tomcat from now on (you only get 2 or 3 seconds of RWR warning now, makes the phoenix WAY more dangerous) , so again i was just wondering if anything might also had changed regarding missile going pitbull on it's own. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah