The AIM-54C should be able to active on its own.

[eatthis]

1 hour ago, Naquaii said:

 

That's part of the seeker logic and not anything we can set and like GGTharos said, there's no such thing as a "notch angle". Notching is about relative speed being blind to a radar, not angles.

would i be correct in thinking notching is hiding in the doplar filter? 
would i also be correct in thinking its easier the slower you are because the lower speed delta opens the angles up?

[Noctrach]

22 minutes ago, eatthis said:

would i be correct in thinking notching is hiding in the doplar filter? 
would i also be correct in thinking its easier the slower you are because the lower speed delta opens the angles up?

You would be correct on both counts ^^

[near_blind]

1 hour ago, nighthawk2174 said:

is it referencing the -54C, and would you be willing to share said documents if not in the thread than via DM?

Sadly no, I don't have access to them anymore.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

2 hours ago, Naquaii said:

 

That's part of the seeker logic and not anything we can set and like GGTharos said, there's no such thing as a "notch angle". Notching is about relative speed being blind to a radar, not angles.

What i meant is, the bigger the 'margin of error' between the closure rate of the (missile vs ground) and the (missile vs aircraft) , this in effect also widens the 90 degree angle a bit.
So if you could set a margin (tolerance) in the  closure rate you can effectively also widen the 90 degree angle. 

p.s: I just did some more amraam notching. Because after watching the tacviews i find out that notching them for a short period is not that hard. 
But they do re-aquire a lot, and because of the drained energy (low speed) they have to lead so much they just fizzle out. 

In a server that is enough to let your own missile go active and bail or terrain mask or whatever. 

 

But, admittedly notching an amraam over the ocean, and keeping it there the whole way ... not so easy as i initially thought anymore.  

I just wish the F14 A.I would shoot  at me in TWS mode instead of STT all the way so i can test more with phoenix

 

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Harlikwin]

6 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

What, you think I'm wrong?   But anyway, you know, it's one of those 'be careful what you wish for' things

 

There is no such thing as a notch angle. 

 

Nah, just your usage of the words buff and nerf... 

 

As for the 120, honestly I want there to be a robust EW environment in the game, but I'm sure it will be hugely divisive. 

[Lurker]

Once again a nice discussion with some decent arguments on both sides dragged into the mud by the person who's claim to an argument is basically repeating the same mantra over and over again, as if that will make it more true. If that doesn't work then it's repeated attacks and hyperbole. Please don't engage people who don't care about facts, or statistics, or logical arguments and present none in their argument. This is the definition of what internet trolls do and crave. If you ignore them they usually go away. 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Lurker

[captain_dalan]

Do not indulge any such entities.... 

[draconus]

17 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

I would really hate it if they actually 'buffed' the aim120 to a point where it becomes basically un-notchable.
It's a big part of the gameplay.

Thank you for confirming that you were never for proper simulation but rather PvP scores.

[Airhunter]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

Thank you for confirming that you were never for proper simulation but rather PvP scores.

 

Not surprising with that username.  

[nighthawk2174]

20 hours ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

What i meant is, the bigger the 'margin of error' between the closure rate of the (missile vs ground) and the (missile vs aircraft) , this in effect also widens the 90 degree angle a bit.
So if you could set a margin (tolerance) in the  closure rate you can effectively also widen the 90 degree angle. 

p.s: I just did some more amraam notching. Because after watching the tacviews i find out that notching them for a short period is not that hard. 
But they do re-aquire a lot, and because of the drained energy (low speed) they have to lead so much they just fizzle out. 

In a server that is enough to let your own missile go active and bail or terrain mask or whatever. 

 

But, admittedly notching an amraam over the ocean, and keeping it there the whole way ... not so easy as i initially thought anymore.  

I just wish the F14 A.I would shoot  at me in TWS mode instead of STT all the way so i can test more with phoenix

Notching isn't the end all be all tactic, if it was so effective irl then it would be the go to defensive tactic instead of a split-S and outrunning the missile.

Monopulse seekers have tricks up their sleeves to allow the detection of targets even in the notch.  The above is a more modern teqniques (ARAAM level of tech) but its just an evolution of other teqniques.

[Airhunter]

Ok, did some quick and dirty tests with the Mk60 A (not a large sample size due to time constraints and pure boredom) but just about the only thing that changes with the Phoenix is its ability to reacquire (same with the 120), You can still very much easily defeat a single or even dual launch with just a notch and some chaff and can re-commit once the missile has passed you. You can even see the launch based on the smoke plume looking outside. The only real way where a Tomcat wins with the Phoenix against a competent player is if he runs you down with 4-6 Phoenix launches in ACM keeping you defensive at all times and then finishes you off with a Sparrow or Sidewinder. Any TWS shot from long range will always be a single missile as well so the whole "no warning" argument doesn't really hold here if you just keep on cruising. Also keep in mind your RWR blindspot above most jets, so if one were to turn back into the Tomcat from a defensive notch position, any subsequent launch or active missiles might be in the blindspot. We'll see how all this looks once the missiles is on the new API. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tacview-20210910-221752-DCS-Phoenix test Mk60)2.txt.acmi

Edited September 15, 2021 by Airhunter

[Badger1-1]

I might be the stupid guy here but regarding to the: "can the C go active on its own or not" discussion...

 

Cant we just ask some old RIOs who actually learned how the damn thing behaves? I mean if 2 sources give you the same answer...we dont need the official documents for that.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Dont kill me

[Airhunter]

Just now, Badger1-1 said:

I might be the stupid guy here but regarding to the: "can the C go active on its own or not" discussion...

 

Cant we just ask some old RIOs who actually learned how the damn thing behaves? I mean if 2 sources give you the same answer...we dont need the official documents for that.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Dont kill me

 

Said old RIO's won't be able or willing to talk about it since it's probably still very much classified. Nobody wants to go to jail. 

Edited September 15, 2021 by Airhunter

[Badger1-1]

I highly doubt that anyone will go to jail if they share this info without any hard proof

[LanceCriminal86]

6 hours ago, Badger1-1 said:

I highly doubt that anyone will go to jail if they share this info without any hard proof

 

Oh you can absolutely go to jail for divulging classified information. If the government still knows it's classified that's all it takes. It doesn't require "hard proof".

 

Even though some portions of the Tomcat manuals apparently were cleared to declassify and release, ITAR still stood in the way of a FOIA in another thread which means that verbally or electronically divulging that information falls under the same rules. And there were portions not cleared for declassification as well that would have been redacted from the requested manuals. Until that day where ITAR or the State Dept get told to pound sand, I doubt a lot of the former RIOs or techs are going to want to divulge anything even remotely risky. I know some have even expressed that they'd love to go into it but again, not worth risking.

 

ITAR sucks.

[Badger1-1]

Well but here`s my point: Heatblur said they think it should go on, but they dont have any proof for that.

 

So if somebody who knows, tells them how it is, they could just say well we took another guess and now its like this.

 

Nobody said anyting, nobody goes to jail, it was just a guess  

 

If you ask a RIO hey could this think go active and he said Oh yeah it could or no it couldnt, I dont see the problem...but then again we live in a PC world

Edited September 15, 2021 by Badger1-1

[GGTharos]

43 minutes ago, Badger1-1 said:

Well but here`s my point: Heatblur said they think it should go on, but they dont have any proof for that.

 

So if somebody who knows, tells them how it is, they could just say well we took another guess and now its like this.

 

Nobody said anyting, nobody goes to jail, it was just a guess  

 

If you ask a RIO hey could this think go active and he said Oh yeah it could or no it couldnt, I dont see the problem...but then again we live in a PC world

 

 

... and now everyone will read between the lines, so you just closed that door.   But in any case, no person with privileged information would risk that anyway ... it only takes a moment to let that slip, these guys are trained not to talk.  So fantasize about it all you want.

Edited September 15, 2021 by GGTharos

[Jayhawk1971]

All it would take is a former RIO to say "I can neither confirm nor deny that statement" with a wink and a grin, and he would be legally in the clear. But: from what I have gathered, anecdotal evidence is not enough hard evidence for HB to run with, anyway, so this is a moot point.  Also, in my experience, people with access to confidential information tend to be very careful and conservative about what they are telling you, even if you've read all about it in Aviation Leak 10 years ago.  And that's a good thing.

 

Edit: Also, just because something may technically be legal, doesn't mean it's morally justified. Isn't there something in the US Constitution about not giving "aid and comfort to the enemy"? 

 

HB have stated numerous times that they themselves aren't happy with the AIM-54C in its current state, either. So let's give them some time and room to "maneuver"; I am sure they'll come up with a satisfactory solution. Maybe ED will take full ownership over every missile system in DCS anyway, so who knows. 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Jayhawk1971

[Airhunter]

1 hour ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

All it would take is a former RIO to say "I can neither confirm nor deny that statement" with a wink and a grin, and he would be legally in the clear. But: from what I have gathered, anecdotal evidence is not enough hard evidence for HB to run with, anyway, so this is a moot point.  Also, in my experience, people with access to confidential information tend to be very careful and conservative about what they are telling you, even if you've read all about it in Aviation Leak 10 years ago.  And that's a good thing.

 

HB have stated numerous times that they themselves aren't happy with the AIM-54C in its current state, either. So let's give them some time and room to "maneuver"; I am sure they'll come up with a satisfactory solution. Maybe ED will take full ownership over every missile system in DCS anyway, so who knows. 

 

 

Yup, the new API application will either make or break the Phoenix.

[IronMike]

We never have, never would and never will ask any serving or retired personnel any question that could even remotely bring them in a position, where they had to even think about whether they can divulge the information or not, and when we accidentally did, we apologized. This is simply a huge no-go, full stop. We take utmost care to tread on the 100% legal side only, no exceptions, not even in the form a wink. Thank you for your kind understanding.

Please all, also accept the point that @Naquaii has made over and over again: the fact that "command-inertial guidance" is a thing, does not automatically mean that it goes active on its own. Let us stop beating a dead horse please. We will try to improve the C as much as we can, but unless we see definitive proof, or a definitive hint (again the before mentioned guidance isn't even a hint enough for that), we will not make it go active on its own.

As for you @Csgo GE oh yeah: what you fail to understand, is that PvP preferences do not matter. There will not be such a thing as offline and online missiles, ever. You also fail to understand that missiles in DCS are in fact too easy to notch. You are clinging on to the fact that notching should be an almost 100% of the time valid PvP tactic you can fall back on to any time you want, but that is not the case. Our concern is modeling missiles realistically, not providing you with - as you mentioned yourself - "gameplay" - although generally gameplay is something worth considering, but not in the way you think it should be. Please stop hijacking these topics with your assumptions. They stem from a krass misconception how missiles and online gameplay in DCS should work for your sake. We do not care about that, and I do not mean that personal in any kind of way.

Let me give you a theoretical example: if at some point we would model a missile that was known to fail 100% of the time, we likely wouldn't model it all, because it defeats the purpose of providing you any kind of gameplay - which is where considering gameplay is fair and does not stand against simulation. However, if said theoretical missile would be known to fail 95% of the time, we would model it as that, letting it fail 95% of the time, because in this case making it better for the sake of gameplay would in fact stand against proper simulation. Just to provide you with an example for fruit for thought.

So again, please stop hijacking these threads with your unbased, biased assumptions, because both the Aim54 and the Aim120 are too easy to notch in game, something you might have a hard time accepting, but that is not our problem. And I can advise you already: in time they will become less notchable, not more notchable. So instead of clinging to notching being your go-to gameplay, you should consider alternatives on how to defeat missiles, or better put: to be successful at BVR/WVR. You are simply cranky that your "perfect notch" that you have supposedly worked on to peel out does not serve you as you think it should. That it doesn't shows 2 things: 1) It is more correct than you think and 2) it shows that you are not a flexible enough virtual fighter pilot to come up with tactics that do not need notching - else you would not bring it up over and over and over again.

In all my years teaching generations of 104th pilots (and during my 8 years of instructing we lost only a single competition) I taught them how to notch, but if I would have seen them trying to notch every single missile in game, I would have ridden their asses crosswise, until they learned proper BVR, and not some online pvp redfor myth that will bring you into a really bad situation more often than not. It is akin to folks flying around at 50m alt with EOS only trying to score that sneaky ET or R73 shot, and whatnot narrow-minded, gamey, unrealistic and arcadey tactics we've seen that were always part of a toolkit from a rather inferior pilot online, who never understood how BVR is done a) more realistically and b) more successfuly (or simply did not care fwiw), while ending up as an easy target himself 99% of the time. (Not including the folks who like to do it for the sake of fun from time to time, which is totally legit...)

Instead of hanging out here complaining constantly about the AIM54 and the Tomcat, I recommend you go train a more diverse set of tactics online and some proper BVR, which will be a much better investment of your time. We will not change anything following your assumption-based complaints, ever. If ever you bring up a valid bug, with valid hard proof however, then, and only then will we listen to you. We are not interrested in either your reasoning, nor "line of logic", nor argumentation, whatsoever. It is time to accept that and to stop trolling our forums. Thank you ever so kindly.


Back on topic: I will not close this thread, but I suggest we all move on to greener pastures, until someone can provide some actual proof. We will consider this entire topic as closed until then. Thank you.

Edited September 16, 2021 by IronMike

[Badger1-1]

I understand the standpoint of HB and I will accept it. I dont know if the C can or not go active, I just thought it would be an easy fix to ask someone.

 

But I stand corrected

 

Keep the blueside up

 

 

Badger

[IronMike]

13 hours ago, Badger1-1 said:

Keep the blueside up

 

Am I detecting a fellow fan of Kelsey here? Hehe, I enjoy his channel from time to time I have to admit.

Keep the blue side up!

[Badger1-1]

24 minutes ago, IronMike said:

 

Am I detecting a fellow fan of Kelsey here? Hehe, I enjoy his channel from time to time I have to admit.

Keep the blue side up!

Hehe no not really, just a common phrase in aviation

[IronMike]

3 minutes ago, Badger1-1 said:

Hehe no not really, just a common phrase in aviation

 

Yeah 74Gear just kinda made it their catch phrase, hence I thought you were watching him. Not really indepth insights for fellas like you guys, but some fun aviation stories and a nice 747 FO sharing shenanigans, etc. I like it for a casual evening entertainment.

[Badger1-1]

well well well, look how the turntables