Jump to content

54 bug being discussed in a competition ... unfortuntely with zero evidence provided


Kula66

Recommended Posts

'just woke up  i just realized nobody mentioned the tws second shot bug with the aim54.
Which also create desync.
You shoot a phoenix it loses track, you shoot the second one and waaaa bam your first missile is recovered'
 

I appreciate HB, that there is nothing you can do with this, but just to make you aware of the sort of comment which is driving competition decisions.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to be a bit snarky here, and this is not aimed at you, but according to this, should the Viper be dropped from competitions? To any mods out there, if you consider this response offensive, quarrelsome or against the rules of conduct and any way, please delete it. 
 

 

  • Like 1

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Sorry to be a bit snarky here, and this is not aimed at you, but according to this, should the Viper be dropped from competitions? To any mods out there, if you consider this response offensive, quarrelsome or against the rules of conduct and any way, please delete it. 

No offence taken. As I said on Discord, I think there is a very strong case for dropping the 16 in comps ... it isn't finished and many of its systems are operating in a very simplified OP mode. I also said that if people wanted 'fair' they should all fly the 18 only, the most complete module from ED.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it depends on what the actual unfair advantage is. 
In competition having a radar range of 80nm or 70nm is moot for the F16 and F18 and actually every other aircraft except the F14. 

Because Viper and hornets are shooting are engaging usually from closer than 20nm.
If you actually want your amraam to hit you're talking sub 10nm ranges. So ...
And usually there's even an awacs.
So in short, it doesn't matter for the competition. 

Even the Hornet has this '32 second memory' thing which i'm sure most of you are aware of. But that is also something that can easily be checked and mentioned in the rules. 

However in case of the F14 the problems are of a different nature.
Completely silent phoenixes due to desync or exploits, or 100% safety if you simply turn on your 'blinking ECM' are actual problems.  
And now this new bug you mention ? Is that a thing now ? I really hope not . 

Then there is the phoenix missile itself. The "overkill version of the amraam" as HB called it. 
Problem is that there is no real difference between the mk47 latest version and the analog 1960's mk60 version in game except that the Mk60 goes insanely far and insanely fast while still having the benefits of the later shorter range version. 

I can notch an active amraam-c quite easily if i am somewhat prepared. 
But the 1960's MK60 is a different story.
It is impervious to chaff , and it should be easier to notch but the missile never seems to be where my RWR says it should be. 

Many people think they are notching the MK60 because they defeat them from long range, but they are in fact only notching the F14's radar before the Mk60 is active. 

Last TACT match i watched all the kills except one were MK60 kills while there were only 2 F14's per team. (it was 6v6)
And this may be personal but to me it's just not fun to these un-notchable and un-outrunnable long range shots hit.

 


 


Edited by Csgo GE oh yeah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kula66 said:

I also said that if people wanted 'fair' they should all fly the 18 only, the most complete module from ED.

I fully agree with you! 

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go again...

 

@Csgo GE oh yeah to cut it short, some of your points are valid, yet i think that most of the Tomcat aficionados here can present you a list of what they think it's not fair about other modules - for what it matters, because not everybody it's so interested in PvP.

 

BUT... this is a report for an unconfirmed bug - maybe not even entirely on HB side, as the internals of the missiles API should be on ED side. You're just OT and ranting once again, take your time, open a topic in the appropriate forum section and bring your arguments about PvP balancing there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who died to Kula in a TACT match to a regrettably super long range Phoenix and is an avid F-14 RIO and Pilot, I do not believe the AIM-54 should be banned in the competitive scene. Most of the problems with the 54, I believe, are problems with DCS itself and not the AIM-54. The AIM-54 could get improved with the new API so it could perform a bit better (super high G turns that drain all the speed) but overall the Phoenix is only hard to defeat when you're not so sure what you are doing or in a rush. Notching the 54 is easy, just requires a bit of practice and quick reaction times.


Edited by DSplayer
  • Like 2

-Tinkerer, Certified F-14 and AIM-54 Nut | Discord: @dsplayer

Setup: i7-8700k, GTX 1080 Ti, 32GB 3066Mhz, Lots of Storage, Saitek/Logitech X56 HOTAS, TrackIR + TrackClipPro
Modules: F-14, F/A-18, JF-17, F-16C, Mirage 2000C, FC3, F-5E, Mi-24P, AJS-37, AV-8B, A-10C II, AH-64D, MiG-21bis, F-86F, MiG-19P, P-51D, Mirage F1, L-39, C-101, SA342M, Ka-50 III, Supercarrier, F-15E
Maps: Caucasus, Marianas, South Atlantic, Persian Gulf, Syria, Nevada

Mods I've Made: F-14 Factory Clean Cockpit Mod | Modern F-14 Weapons Mod | Iranian F-14 Weapons Pack | F-14B Nozzle Percentage Mod + Label Fix | AIM-23 Hawk Mod for F-14 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, any competition/server that bans aircraft types, weapons or creates artificial rules because of "fanboy exploit cries" or simply due to DCS MP limitations/bugs is not running a DCS competition, but a political farce - as everyone then bickers about which exploit and bug suits them and which does not. Unfortunately DCS MP community has gone down that route lately in what is otherwise referred to as a "scrub mentality". (some good articles on this)

 

Lets face it DCS will never be ESPORTs material and is not intending to be. It will always carry bugs and issues, and instead of banning shit that doesn't suit someone, rather be constructive and get the developer to solve the issue and address the problem.

 

Nobody ever talked about banning Tomcat when the Magic INS was a thing, cause everyone at that time wanted to fly her. Now we have predominately F16/18 drivers banning Flankers (their easiest of threats), remove jammers (which work perfectly as intended), Ban missiles... not even Tomcats are spared!

 

Its a shame on the competitive MP community to even be having this conversation.

 

PS: Regarding the Tomcat, I hope those bugs are addressed as I am sure they would be soon. 

  • Like 6

 

Breakshot_Sig_2.jpg

Tim "Breakshot" Mytrofanov | C.O. of 51 ПВО / 100 КИАП Regiments | twitch.tv/51breakshot

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DSplayer said:

Most of the problems with the 54, I believe, are problems with DCS itself and not the AIM-54.

 

This is correct.  Chaff rejection and FM parameters are the only things that HB controls, and those are within the parameters of what DCS provides, but basically those complaints can be directed at HB - anything they can configure in the FM/missile definition files.

 

Everything 'behind closed doors' ie missile data link operation, the actual guidance itself and other fun stuff for which there is no possibility of configuration by HB rests with ED.  This covers desync, RWRs and other things.

  • Thanks 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Breakshot said:

Lets face it DCS will never be ESPORTs material and is not intending to be. It will always carry bugs and issues,

It's less about this and more about the fact that competitive DCS is in a weird spot when it comes to these bugs. Most of the classic games that spawned esports in the first place have dozens of these weird bugs/issues/exploits/whatever you want to call it: from rocket jumping in Quake, to patrol micro in Starcraft 1, to whatever is going on in the Dota code (and which was intentionally ported over to Dota 2), to frame skipping (I think that's the term?) in fighting games, it's all over the place. None of those games were ever intended to be esports either, when they were coded the term esports barely existed.

 

The fundamental difference is that those competitive scenes have accepted the fact that weird behaviors exist, and they make mastering those behaviors part of mastering the game. I think it's harder for the DCS community to accept the mentality because, unlike all those games, DCS sort of attempts to emulate reality, so anything that behaves in un-physical ways is frowned upon. Obviously this logic makes zero sense because in reality fighter pilots don't try to kill each other for sport, but that's where we're at.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TLTeo agreed. Its not helped by having aircraft at different stages of development, from different eras, by different developers working to different standards on an ever changing platform, with limited open-source data ... but it's fun mostly 🙂


Edited by Kula66
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TLTeo said:

I think it's harder for the DCS community to accept the mentality because, unlike all those games, DCS sort of attempts to emulate reality, so anything that behaves in un-physical ways is frowned upon. Obviously this logic makes zero sense because in reality fighter pilots don't try to kill each other for sport, but that's where we're at.

My quote for today!

  • Like 1

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not as easy as saying "well it's the DCS problem" and then just go fly competitive with these issues. 

If anything maybe the missile's behaviour should have been tested better before bringing it into DCS in the first place. 
It's the same thing with the tomcat ECM.

The developers should not just build something that does not play well with the existing infrastructure, and then turn around and say "well we built this window but the house we built it for is the wrong size". 

AIm54 is really weird online, there have been very (for comp play) serious bugs in the past such as completely silent shots , and to this day apparently silent shots still exist (tv guiding). 
You can't rely on your RWR at all when a phoenix missile is involved so a big part of gameplay (notching) gets random instead of skill based. 

Now, if a tournament organizer decides he has no problem living with these things that is his right and more power to them. 
But, they should not sh*t on another tournament organizer who decides differently . 








 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to have to break this to you but development of DCS World and attendant modules does not revolve around tournaments.

 

Ergo, “game breaking” is a highly subjective term. Just because tournaments might regard bug x as an unmitigated catastrophe doesn’t necessarily mean it effects single or PvE play to the same extent, and it’s a guarantee that the latter represents a greater proportion of the player base (and therefore investment) than the tournament crowd. 
 

Added to demanding every bug be fixed before release of a product… errr… really? Do you have to have it explained to you how implausible that is? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS does not 'revolve' around tournaments that is absolutely correct. 
But this topic is about just that and so in this context i use 'game breaking'. Context matters 🙂 

Anyway, just because DCS is not about tournaments, does not mean that a tournament organizer can't decide to eliminate certain weapons that have game breaking (for tournament play!) bugs. 

The way i see it ... If you're gonna organize a tournament, then try to do it the way you as organizer think it's best. And not half-assed because "DCS is not about tournaments". 

I can see both perspectives, but to me fair play is more important than for instance the novelty of a relatively new aircraft. 
But that is different per person. 
I personally don't feel including the phoenix (espcially MK60) makes for more interesting gameplay, quite the contrary actually but again that is 100% personal so ... to each his own i guess. 

As for 'fixing "every" bug" before release , obviously i never said that. 
But i do think that if you are going to bring a whole new super fast missile to the game, it might be wise to first find out if the base game can handle it. 
I mean i guess they did do testing but maybe not enough multiplayer testing. 

Or they did and decided that since the game is singleplayer centric it wouldn't be a big deal. Which is ok but then don't complain when the missile is banned in certain multiplayer scenario's. 

 


Edited by Csgo GE oh yeah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can agree in the sense that the missile code in DCS (which still stems from LOMAC days) is the main issue here and the issues get magnified by newer long range missiles even more. Nothing HB can really do there. If anything the Phoenix is still on the older API and bleeds way too much speed when lofting and de-lofting. The "silent" launches issue could not be realiably reproduced by HB and many others and needs proper evidence (video + tachview file) to make a solid case. You also shouldn't rely on RWR to see and defend a missile - not how it works IRL (since this is what you are tryint to simulate). I can notch Phoenixes and AMRAAMS in a Mig-21 if I have an AWACS/GCI bearing or even a radar lock - simply having SA and knowing where the bandit is goes a long way. DCS simply won't be a competitive or balanced paltform ever, even due to the fact that each 3rd party has different standards and most modules release in Early Access - if they came out almost 100% done with all subsystems, ECM and all the jazz implemented properly it would probably be a different story. I have mostly stepped away from PvP in DCS due to to ever changing nature of missiles and them breaking every other patch, which is simply annoying to say the least when it goes on for several years. If anything the AIM-54A/C should have better kinematics (due to smoother guidence and loft trajectories of the new API) and in the case of the C not go for chaff easily or almost at all. I can also agree with the fact that ECM effects on the Tomcat still are not implemented. This aspect should be a minimum requirement for all new DCS modules in my opinion and as primarily a Tomcat driver I want to be affected by ECM and have all the real life shortcomings of the AWG-9 and the plane itself. It's a challenge. Having SA in the Tomcat is nothing like in the Hornet where you literally have an early sensor fusion suite and all sorts of off-board data. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Spurts said:

Is the F-16 also banned because it's radar is game breakingly better than is should be by several times over?  It seriously has detection ranges 2.5-3x real life and 2x the Hornet.  

Excellent point (or that it can pull 9G with tanks on) ... when I tried suggesting that, not a good response 😞

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

It's not as easy as saying "well it's the DCS problem" and then just go fly competitive with these issues. 

If anything maybe the missile's behaviour should have been tested better before bringing it into DCS in the first place. 
It's the same thing with the tomcat ECM.

The developers should not just build something that does not play well with the existing infrastructure, and then turn around and say "well we built this window but the house we built it for is the wrong size". 

AIm54 is really weird online, there have been very (for comp play) serious bugs in the past such as completely silent shots , and to this day apparently silent shots still exist (tv guiding). 
You can't rely on your RWR at all when a phoenix missile is involved so a big part of gameplay (notching) gets random instead of skill based. 

Now, if a tournament organizer decides he has no problem living with these things that is his right and more power to them. 
But, they should not sh*t on another tournament organizer who decides differently .

 

It isn't as easy as that. DCS isn't a stable environment set in stone and things change very much, which is a good thing ofc, progress and all that.

Saying that we should've tested the missile more is also not really fair as we built it and released it in a different state than it is now. It used to work perfectly fine and then down the line these bugs crept in without us changing anything on our side.

 

Once again you are inferring that we are doing just that, implementing something that we know is broken and that we don't care while referring to second hand information and to be frank, it's getting seriously tiresome.

 

The simple facts are that we are looking at the issues and if we had a quick fix it would've been in as soon as the issues appeared. But it isn't and we're trying to make sense of why these things are happening, which by the way we're having great issues to even reproduce on our side. (Not saying we don't take them seriously.) We're not even sure the issues are on our side or on ED's. Currently we're working away on moving the AIM-54 over to the new missile functions that the AIM-120 and AIM-7 use and hopefully that will iron out many of these issues.

 

As for the ECCM it's something very much on our list and a must for when we launch out of early access, but we also don't want to rush it as we don't want it to appear as the simple on/off switch it currently is in DCS but something a bit more realistic on the displays. And to be perfectly fair, few aircraft have launched into early access with ECCM functionality at the get go and let's not forget we currently are in early access.

 

That said, continueing to infer and accuse us of stuff like this won't change anything, like I said, we don't have a magic fix we're keeping from you that we can release to magically fix all this but we are trying to make sense of it and fix it or help ED fix it with information from us.


Edited by Naquaii
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...