AIM54C vs High Closure Targets

[Whiskey11]

Greetings Heatblur and ED.  Hopefully this is the right forum.

On 26 September 2021, [107th] Coletrain 777, his RIO [107th] Nightwolf 404, my RIO [107th] Ouch 351 and I were on the 107th's Through the Inferno Server on the Mariana's in F-14B's in the Open Beta.  Our loadout was 6x2x0, 2 bags and we departed from the Super Carrier.

We were directed by GCI to engage two hostile groups of inbound AI aircraft, a low group of MiG-29A's and a high/fast group of Su-33's.  Ouch and I were targeted on the FAST (Mach 2.0+) Su-33's and fired of two Phoenixes.  First Phoenix off the rail was at 42nm at 34k feet, and Mach 1.05.  Second Phoenix, on a trailing Su-33 was at 47nmi, 37.5k feet, and Mach .98.  BOTH Su-33's were Mach 2.0+.

First AIM54 against a Su-33 at 35k feet and Mach 2.0 was supported to pitbull and slightly longer.  At pitbull, AI doesn't respond at all.  It fires an R-27ER at Coletrain and Nightwolf, turns a little, and then dumps some chaff.  Our Phoenix continues to guide onto the Su-33 due to still having AWG-9 track while shooting at the second Su-33.  The missile then turns and puts ITSELF into the notch as the Su-33 barely adjusts to avoid it at all.

Second AIM54 is against a Su-33 at 36.6k feet, Mach 2.16 was supported until pitbull and then we bugged out.  This Su-33 makes a 25º heading change, launches an ER at us, by this time our missile is long active and maneuvering HARD to pull lead, and never makes it there.  It puts itself into the notch and then misses (obviously).  

We've noticed similar behavior against the MiG-31 at high speeds as well.  Unfortunately, I do not have a DCS Track file, but I DO have a Tacview file.  See attached. Cole is going to try and attach his track file from his perspective.

 

Bug:  

AIM-54 tracking issues with high closure rates

 

Can I reproduce it 100%:

Yes

  

How to reproduce/ description:

1.) Set up engagement between high speed targets at 100+ nmi.  Targets going over Mach 2.0 for best results
2.) Fly standard straight on intercept with crank to gimbal after launch.
3.) Launch on targets at ~40nmi-45nmi

4.) High level (I think they are set to HARD in this engagement) AI recommended

5.) Observe Results.
 

DCS Version: 

Open Beta 2.7.6.13133

 

System Specs:

Intel i9 9900k
MSI Seahawk-EK 2080
32GB of DDR4 3400Mhz RAM
DCS Installed on NVMe Sabrent Rocket SSD

 

Peripherals:

Thrustmaster Warthog

Thrustmaster TPR Rudders

 

Headtracker: 

VR

 

Track:
Accidentally deleted, Cole or Nightwolf will attempt to post theirs, it's a huge file though.

 

Video/ Screenshots:

Can take a video of the tacview if you want?  Otherwise, Tacview attached.

 

Mods:

I have a lot of liveries, but we were using the default VF-32 Swordsman #101 bird camo
107th Radio Nav Aids for Caucuses
English Viggen Cockpit Mod
IFLOLS Disable Mod (too lazy to check the box in the options, don't judge ;))
Pilot LANTIRN Mod (with some additional radar controls for when flying with Jester, had a human RIO for this though)
Reshade

 

High Speed Engagements.zip.acmi

Edited September 26, 2021 by Whiskey11

[DSplayer]

Just from the description I'll probably say that its the old missile API being inadequate and that the AI just made it bite chaff for just long enough for it to do a hard turn and dump all of its speed.

[Sonoda Umi]

I have seen the Tacview trails. I agree with you. The missile maneuver is so weird. Even it cannot track the target correctly, too much offset.

Edited September 26, 2021 by Sonoda Umi

[Whiskey11]

4 hours ago, DSplayer said:

Just from the description I'll probably say that its the old missile API being inadequate and that the AI just made it bite chaff for just long enough for it to do a hard turn and dump all of its speed.

 

Maybe, but I doubt it given that they both track their respective targets until they cannot due to notching the missile. They don't adjust and calculate the intercept correctly. 

 

Downloading the TACVIEW would show the issue well. It's like they receive no mid course guidance at all.

 

Probably old missile API, still important for HB to look into when the transition occurs. 

[DSplayer]

9 hours ago, Whiskey11 said:

 

Maybe, but I doubt it given that they both track their respective targets until they cannot due to notching the missile. They don't adjust and calculate the intercept correctly. 

 

Downloading the TACVIEW would show the issue well. It's like they receive no mid course guidance at all.

 

Probably old missile API, still important for HB to look into when the transition occurs. 

They do receive mid course guidance but it's just the transition between that and active causing all the issues. These problems should be solved with the new API which Heatblur are working on. Maybe expect it in the October OB patch.

[Triggerjo23]

The big issue is that they are flying themselves into the notch as if they have a fixed lead point in front of the target. No optimal control on the track. Another problem seems to be that even when the TID shows a track has not been lost the missile can fly off the rail dead when they shouldn't as seen in the tacview posted. Maybe once the API has been completed better results will be seen but I doubt it these days as previous conversations with the devs shows that they are unwilling to impliment changes based on the highly probable way the missile should be tracking because they claim they don't have it in writing. The Phoenix used to work better because of magic INS but that has gone so all of it's inefficiencies are clearly seen. For the AIM-54C we will need optimal control and command innertail to see any real difference which most likely (according to previous conversations) will not be implimented. Saying that though it seems like there is very little proportional navigation being used whilst under AWG-9 guidence. There is also the problem of zero track memory in TWS which makes no sense. I mean it has enough memory to hold 24 targets but they won't sacrifce tracking all those extra targets to help the missile maintain a track and extrapolate through a notch, also no memory in STT I think too. This seems an odd thing thing to not build into a million dollar missile and a forty million dollar jet if you ask me which is why I don't get why it is being modeled this way on the DCS Tomcat. Maybe they will change their minds though and here's hoping!

[DSplayer]

3 hours ago, Triggerjo23 said:

Maybe once the API has been completed better results will be seen but I doubt it these days as previous conversations with the devs shows that they are unwilling to impliment changes based on the highly probable way the missile should be tracking because they claim they don't have it in writing. The Phoenix used to work better because of magic INS but that has gone so all of it's inefficiencies are clearly seen. For the AIM-54C we will need optimal control and command innertail to see any real difference which most likely (according to previous conversations) will not be implimented.

Heatblur want to make the most realistic simulated F-14 and associated systems. They cannot implement the suggested features listed for the AIM-54C because they have no unclassified and detailed information on that feature which would allow them to implement it properly. Heatblur has high standards for what they want. The new API will bring a bunch of optimizations to how the missiles should track and overall bring new life to all the Phoenix variants.

 

3 hours ago, Triggerjo23 said:

 Saying that though it seems like there is very little proportional navigation being used whilst under AWG-9 guidence. There is also the problem of zero track memory in TWS which makes no sense. I mean it has enough memory to hold 24 targets but they won't sacrifce tracking all those extra targets to help the missile maintain a track and extrapolate through a notch, also no memory in STT I think too. This seems an odd thing thing to not build into a million dollar missile and a forty million dollar jet if you ask me which is why I don't get why it is being modeled this way on the DCS Tomcat. Maybe they will change their minds though and here's hoping!

The AWG-9 is mainly 1960s technology. This was the cutting edge stuff at that time but it's just that its no longer cutting edge when you compare them to other aircraft in the DCS arena. A target can disappear for 8 seconds before being X'd out and become extrapolated and then there is the memory modes for those (Track Hold). 

[Triggerjo23]

12 hours ago, DSplayer said:

Heatblur want to make the most realistic simulated F-14 and associated systems. They cannot implement the suggested features listed for the AIM-54C because they have no unclassified and detailed information on that feature which would allow them to implement it properly. Heatblur has high standards for what they want. The new API will bring a bunch of optimizations to how the missiles should track and overall bring new life to all the Phoenix variants.

If it is their intention to omit functions and behaviours becuase they don't "have enough information then they can not model an acurate and realistic interpretation of the Phoenix. In fact, this can not be done at all if they are unwilling to gestimate somewhat on these matters to approximate as best they can. You can't call a module realistic if 70% of it is unmodelled becuase you don't have explicit writing stating what has been confidently delivered information is 100% accurate. These functions are well known to be on the missile (54C) and are being minused because of slight unsureness. That is not a recipe for realism, it is a recipe for disapointment. The radar deserves the same thoughts as there are simple functions everyother radar had as a near contemporary to the AWG-9 which has not been implimented, again due to being "unsure". Well both the F14's radar and missiles in DCS have been consistently performing worse since January to the point of complete uselessness in for what many would deem perfectly acceptable scenarios.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Triggerjo23

[DSplayer]

4 hours ago, Triggerjo23 said:

If it is their intention to omit functions and behaviours becuase they don't "have enough information then they can not model an acurate and realistic interpretation of the Phoenix. In fact, this can not be done at all if they are unwilling to gestimate somewhat on these matters to approximate as best they can. You can't call a module realistic if 70% of it is unmodelled becuase you don't have explicit writing stating what has been confidently delivered information is 100% accurate. These functions are well known to be on the missile (54C) and are being minused because of slight unsureness. That is not a recipe for realism, it is a recipe for disapointment. The radar deserves the same thoughts as there are simple functions everyother radar had as a near contemporary to the AWG-9 which has not been implimented, again due to being "unsure". Well both the F14's radar and missiles in DCS have been consistently performing worse since January to the point of complete uselessness in for what many would deem perfectly acceptable scenarios.

 

You very well can start your own forum post about all the missing features of the AWG-9 with the info you have and try to get them added.

[Naquaii]

17 hours ago, Triggerjo23 said:

If it is their intention to omit functions and behaviours becuase they don't "have enough information then they can not model an acurate and realistic interpretation of the Phoenix. In fact, this can not be done at all if they are unwilling to gestimate somewhat on these matters to approximate as best they can. You can't call a module realistic if 70% of it is unmodelled becuase you don't have explicit writing stating what has been confidently delivered information is 100% accurate. These functions are well known to be on the missile (54C) and are being minused because of slight unsureness. That is not a recipe for realism, it is a recipe for disapointment. The radar deserves the same thoughts as there are simple functions everyother radar had as a near contemporary to the AWG-9 which has not been implimented, again due to being "unsure". Well both the F14's radar and missiles in DCS have been consistently performing worse since January to the point of complete uselessness in for what many would deem perfectly acceptable scenarios.

 

 

The issue here is not that we can't model it, the issue is that a lot of people are stating stuff about the AIM-54C that you can't prove. There is a well known assumption on the net about what the AIM-54C could do, that is true, It's not however "well known" that it actually could do these things. Feel free to provide evidence about this if so. The freely available information on the net is not enough for anyone to be able to state for sure what the AIM-54C could or could not do.

 

If we ever get proof of these function we will implement them if we can. We won't however implement them just because of the belief of the community, even if it is a majority.

[Triggerjo23]

20 hours ago, DSplayer said:

You very well can start your own forum post about all the missing features of the AWG-9 with the info you have and try to get them added.

Others already have.

 

7 hours ago, Naquaii said:

 

The issue here is not that we can't model it, the issue is that a lot of people are stating stuff about the AIM-54C that you can't prove. There is a well known assumption on the net about what the AIM-54C could do, that is true, It's not however "well known" that it actually could do these things. Feel free to provide evidence about this if so. The freely available information on the net is not enough for anyone to be able to state for sure what the AIM-54C could or could not do.

 

If we ever get proof of these function we will implement them if we can. We won't however implement them just because of the belief of the community, even if it is a majority.

The evidence posted by others is not a simple belief. Many documents supplied have implicit information as well as explicit. The combination of both the implicit and the explicit indicates only one thing, that if you claim to want to create the most realistic interpretation of the Phoenix and the Tomcat then this effort will fail. It will fail because you don't want to accept the information given. Now, I fully understand not wanting to model something you don't know how to model or don't have enough information on. That is reasonable even if I do not agree with it because of the different way we seem interpret information. I do however think that it can never be reasonably claimed that the module is a realistic representation of the F14 and it's weapons if there is a refusal to implement functions which have been stated in official documentation to be on the missiles. Functions which by the way are always described with well know military aviation nomenclature. You are looking for specific, explicit and detailed information on a certain function which has been adequately described elsewhere to be modelled with more than enough confidence. Choosing not to model it due to the lack of said explicit description will be making it infact deliberately unrealistic, approximating with best effort will infact be more realistic.

If you are going to guess either way, it is best to guess in the direction the evidence points rather than settle at a baseline far below it. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for you guys and have flown the module in the DCS competitive scene since realise. Earlier this year I had to struggle to force myself to switch modules because it was not performing well at all after January. I keep going back to it after each update and it keeps getting worse and now as we see in this post it is suffering in single player and in multiplayer PVE in the same way. In it's present state I can assure you, the DCS World F14B is no defender of the fleet.

[Naquaii]

17 hours ago, Triggerjo23 said:

Others already have.

 

The evidence posted by others is not a simple belief. Many documents supplied have implicit information as well as explicit. The combination of both the implicit and the explicit indicates only one thing, that if you claim to want to create the most realistic interpretation of the Phoenix and the Tomcat then this effort will fail. It will fail because you don't want to accept the information given. Now, I fully understand not wanting to model something you don't know how to model or don't have enough information on. That is reasonable even if I do not agree with it because of the different way we seem interpret information. I do however think that it can never be reasonably claimed that the module is a realistic representation of the F14 and it's weapons if there is a refusal to implement functions which have been stated in official documentation to be on the missiles. Functions which by the way are always described with well know military aviation nomenclature. You are looking for specific, explicit and detailed information on a certain function which has been adequately described elsewhere to be modelled with more than enough confidence. Choosing not to model it due to the lack of said explicit description will be making it infact deliberately unrealistic, approximating with best effort will infact be more realistic.

If you are going to guess either way, it is best to guess in the direction the evidence points rather than settle at a baseline far below it. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for you guys and have flown the module in the DCS competitive scene since realise. Earlier this year I had to struggle to force myself to switch modules because it was not performing well at all after January. I keep going back to it after each update and it keeps getting worse and now as we see in this post it is suffering in single player and in multiplayer PVE in the same way. In it's present state I can assure you, the DCS World F14B is no defender of the fleet.

 

We apparently have a very different view of what the term explicit means.

 

In any case, the main point I see most people wanting implemented is the ability for the missile to be able to go active on its own, like the AIM-120 in DCS.

And the main proof given of this is the term command/inertial and that thas is mentioned as being part of the AIM-54C design.

I don't disagree with that. I do however disagree with the notion that the term command/inertial is proven to 100% indicate how the seeker works.

That said, like I've mentioned before, this does not mean that I'm opposed to the idea, just that we want some sort of actual proof.

 

But, this is not the thread for this. If new proof surfaces I invite anyone to start a new thread about that. I can however promise you that allegations of willfully making aspects of the F-14 in DCS more unrealistic than necessary will get you nowhere.

[KenobiOrder]

1 hour ago, Naquaii said:

command/inertial is proven to 100% indicate how the seeker works.

But why do you need 100% proof? There isn't any particular reason to assume it needs a command to go active either, and there is tons of implicit evidence to the contrary. But for some reason the burden proof it being put on the ability of the missile to go active on its own.

 

[KenobiOrder]

@Naquaii Not a new document but:

 

 

IT switches on its own radar transmitter and guides.

[nighthawk2174]

6 hours ago, Naquaii said:

In any case, the main point I see most people wanting implemented is the ability for the missile to be able to go active on its own, like the AIM-120 in DCS.

And the main proof given of this is the term command/inertial and that thas is mentioned as being part of the AIM-54C design.

I don't disagree with that. I do however disagree with the notion that the term command/inertial is proven to 100% indicate how the seeker works.

That said, like I've mentioned before, this does not mean that I'm opposed to the idea, just that we want some sort of actual proof.

The term is explicitly described in some documentation that if floating out there, I unfortunately can't share this documentation but I assure you we know what it means.  As was just posted above the whole point of the command interial system is that the missile is able to know its own position, updating the PIP as need be by the host radar, and if need be guide to and go active near the PIP.  Additionally it has been proven to you that the exact same system was used on the AIM-120.  And we know for sure how that missile works.

Edited October 1, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[Triggerjo23]

7 hours ago, Naquaii said:

 

We apparently have a very different view of what the term explicit means.

 

In any case, the main point I see most people wanting implemented is the ability for the missile to be able to go active on its own, like the AIM-120 in DCS.

And the main proof given of this is the term command/inertial and that thas is mentioned as being part of the AIM-54C design.

I don't disagree with that. I do however disagree with the notion that the term command/inertial is proven to 100% indicate how the seeker works.

That said, like I've mentioned before, this does not mean that I'm opposed to the idea, just that we want some sort of actual proof.

 

But, this is not the thread for this. If new proof surfaces I invite anyone to start a new thread about that. I can however promise you that allegations of willfully making aspects of the F-14 in DCS more unrealistic than necessary will get you nowhere.

Explicit, "stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt" or a "literal explanation", "in accordance with it's original meaning". To say that Coomand-Inertail is not prove that it goes active on it's own is somewhat nonsensical to be painfully honest.

Guidence laws include,

Command Guidance: "The missile tracker is on the launching platform (The AWG-9/WCS). These missiles are totally controlled by the launching platform that sends all control orders to the missile". In other words, during the Command stage of the missiles flight it is guided by the F14 that fired it, slaved to the F14 to an extent and relying on it's updates.

 

Inertial Guidance: This can only be used in an autominous system. A missile fired with this capability as you already know is updated on it's starting position based off the inertial navigation of the firing ship. The inertail stage does not come until the missile is autominous (pitbull) and is how the missile guides itself to a last known position of a target, you know this ofcourse.

Further more,

"Strapdown systems

Lightweight digital computers permit the system to eliminate the gimbals, creating strapdown systems, so called because their sensors are simply strapped to the vehicle. This reduces the cost, eliminates gimbal lock, removes the need for some calibrations and increases the reliability by eliminating some of the moving parts. Angular rate sensors called rate gyros measure the angular velocity of the vehicle.

A strapdown system needs a dynamic measurement range several hundred times that required by a gimballed system. That is, it must integrate the vehicle's attitude changes in pitch, roll and yaw, as well as gross movements. Gimballed systems could usually do well with update rates of 50–60 Hz. However, strapdown systems normally update about 2000 Hz. The higher rate is needed to let the navigation system integrate the angular rate into an attitude accurately.

The data updating algorithms (direction cosines or quaternions) involved are too complex to be accurately performed except by digital electronics. However, digital computers are now so inexpensive and fast that rate gyro systems can now be practically used and mass-produced. The Apollo lunar module used a strapdown system in its backup Abort Guidance System (AGS).

Strapdown systems are nowadays commonly used in commercial and military applications (aircraft, ships, ROVs, missiles, etc.). State-of-the-art strapdown systems are based upon Ring Laser Gyroscopes, Fibre Optic Gyrocopes or Hemispherical Resonator Gyroscopes. They are using digital electronics and advanced digital filtering techniques such as Kalman filter."

To elaborate on this further, Strap-Down Inertial is explained to be on the 54C, this is becuase it has a solid state seeker head and is a none gimballed system. This becomes a part of the Command-Inertial function and means several things. 1. The missile is not only getting updates from the F14 but is also constantly extrapolating the targets position after each update. 2, The missile seeker is already active whilst still in the command phase which is clearly stated on ducumentation about the 54c. 3, if the missile no longer recieves updates from the firing F14 then it is already active and already extrapolating the track to try and place the target within it's seekers detection cone. To conclude, the AIM-54C is infact the same as a big AMRAAM.

This capability would not be implimented on to the missile if it was not allowed to be autominous without the F14 giving it the signal to be so. Perhaps this is all just due to a launguage barrier? As I understand English might not be your first launguage and the concept nomenclature might not be quite understood. I mean no offense by that by the way, I was speaking to someone in person just a few days ago who was speaking very good english but certain concepts or meaning were escaping him. I just had to explain these things in a respectful manner to allow him to reach the same page as me, so to speak. Put quite simply, if the missile did not behave the way all of the publicaly avialble documentation states it does then they would never have used these terms to explain the updated model. So again, you have all the proof you need to model the missile to the best standard, you are just ignoring it and that is why I am disapointed with it as with many others. I truly would love to sit here and congratulate you on a well modeled module and I hope one day I will be able to do that. With this level of missconception though, how can I be sure that future modules won't recieve the same treatment and results the Tomcat has now? You are not achieving high standards right now, you are guessing more than the people who are asking for a better AIM-54C. Again, I say this with the greatest of respect.

Edited for some spelling mistakes.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Triggerjo23

[Naquaii]

16 hours ago, KenobiOrder said:

@Naquaii Not a new document but:

 

 

IT switches on its own radar transmitter and guides.

 

And how exactly does that preclude the presence of an ATC before that? The AIM-54A also switches on "its" seeker but after an ATC.

 

12 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

The term is explicitly described in some documentation that if floating out there, I unfortunately can't share this documentation but I assure you we know what it means.  As was just posted above the whole point of the command interial system is that the missile is able to know its own position, updating the PIP as need be by the host radar, and if need be guide to and go active near the PIP.  Additionally it has been proven to you that the exact same system was used on the AIM-120.  And we know for sure how that missile works.

 

 

The documents I've seen does not explicitly state how the seeker in the AIM-54C works, if there are other documents out there that are unclassified you know where to reach me. And yes, again, I don't disagree on that the manufacturer uses the same description for the inertial and navigational system in both missiles. Again, that doesn't prove anything.

 

11 hours ago, Triggerjo23 said:

Explicit, "stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt" or a "literal explanation", "in accordance with it's original meaning". To say that Coomand-Inertail is not prove that it goes active on it's own is somewhat nonsensical to be painfully honest.

Guidence laws include,

Command Guidance: "The missile tracker is on the launching platform (The AWG-9/WCS). These missiles are totally controlled by the launching platform that sends all control orders to the missile". In other words, during the Command stage of the missiles flight it is guided by the F14 that fired it, slaved to the F14 to an extent and relying on it's updates.

 

Inertial Guidance: This can only be used in an autominous system. A missile fired with this capability as you already know is updated on it's starting position based off the inertial navigation of the firing ship. The inertail stage does not come until the missile is autominous (pitbull) and is how the missile guides itself to a last known position of a target, you know this ofcourse.

Further more,

"Strapdown systems

Lightweight digital computers permit the system to eliminate the gimbals, creating strapdown systems, so called because their sensors are simply strapped to the vehicle. This reduces the cost, eliminates gimbal lock, removes the need for some calibrations and increases the reliability by eliminating some of the moving parts. Angular rate sensors called rate gyros measure the angular velocity of the vehicle.

A strapdown system needs a dynamic measurement range several hundred times that required by a gimballed system. That is, it must integrate the vehicle's attitude changes in pitch, roll and yaw, as well as gross movements. Gimballed systems could usually do well with update rates of 50–60 Hz. However, strapdown systems normally update about 2000 Hz. The higher rate is needed to let the navigation system integrate the angular rate into an attitude accurately.

The data updating algorithms (direction cosines or quaternions) involved are too complex to be accurately performed except by digital electronics. However, digital computers are now so inexpensive and fast that rate gyro systems can now be practically used and mass-produced. The Apollo lunar module used a strapdown system in its backup Abort Guidance System (AGS).

Strapdown systems are nowadays commonly used in commercial and military applications (aircraft, ships, ROVs, missiles, etc.). State-of-the-art strapdown systems are based upon Ring Laser Gyroscopes, Fibre Optic Gyrocopes or Hemispherical Resonator Gyroscopes. They are using digital electronics and advanced digital filtering techniques such as Kalman filter."

To elaborate on this further, Strap-Down Inertial is explained to be on the 54C, this is becuase it has a solid state seeker head and is a none gimballed system. This becomes a part of the Command-Inertial function and means several things. 1. The missile is not only getting updates from the F14 but is also constantly extrapolating the targets position after each update. 2, The missile seeker is already active whilst still in the command phase which is clearly stated on ducumentation about the 54c. 3, if the missile no longer recieves updates from the firing F14 then it is already active and already extrapolating the track to try and place the target within it's seekers detection cone. To conclude, the AIM-54C is infact the same as a big AMRAAM.

This capability would not be implimented on to the missile if it was not allowed to be autominous without the F14 giving it the signal to be so. Perhaps this is all just due to a launguage barrier? As I understand English might not be your first launguage and the concept nomenclature might not be quite understood. I mean no offense by that by the way, I was speaking to someone in person just a few days ago who was speaking very good english but certain concepts or meaning were escaping him. I just had to explain these things in a respectful manner to allow him to reach the same page as me, so to speak. Put quite simply, if the missile did not behave the way all of the publicaly avialble documentation states it does then they would never have used these terms to explain the updated model. So again, you have all the proof you need to model the missile to the best standard, you are just ignoring it and that is why I am disapointed with it as with many others. I truly would love to sit here and congratulate you on a well modeled module and I hope one day I will be able to do that. With this level of missconception though, how can I be sure that future modules won't recieve the same treatment and results the Tomcat has now? You are not achieving high standards right now, you are guessing more than the people who are asking for a better AIM-54C. Again, I say this with the greatest of respect.

Edited for some spelling mistakes.

 

 

I'm sorry, but no, you are indeed condescending and rude by writing this.

My english is perfectly fine and I work daily with systems like this in my normal day to day job, including but not limited to datalink and INS strap-down systems.

Reposting already discussed and available information is like showing information in my face in the assumption that I wasn't qualified to understand them.

 

Does it occur to you that I have read and understood all this and simply do not agree with your conclusions?

Again, in the end we might end up doing this as soon as we get better information on it but I certainly do not agree with that these documents provide adequate proof of anything.

 

Having a strap-down inertial systems do indicate that the INS on the AIM-54C is much better than the inertial measurement unit on the AIM-54A, that's hard to disprove. But that does not automatically prove anything for the seeker programming. There are many military systems around the world that made the transition from mechanical gyros to strap-down systems when upgraded or replaced but the only thing that means for sure is that their navigational accuracy improved. Not that it automatically changed other parts of the systems they are attached to.

 

As for the command-inertial function, both the AIM-54C and the AIM-120 family has this, again, I don't disagree on that point. But it could very well mean different things for these two missiles. The AIM-54C could work differently due to its intended longer range, it could work differently due to the integration with the AN/AWG-9. There are so many unknown factors here that could mean different things in regards to how the seeker head logic was decided upon that it's simply just guesswork to claim you know anything about this for sure.

 

I've said it before, I'm not saying I know the AIM-54C couldn't do this, I'm saying we don't have proof either way and that includes proof weighting it either way. And in that situation we decided to leave it at the know facts, i.e. how the AIM-54A works which we have good information on. Regardless of everything else the AIM-54C is very likely to contain inheritance from the AIM-54A so it's not too far fetched.

 

We are currently working on some leads that might give us the missing information here but I'm not going to give any promises as to the outcome, but I am hopeful. Just know that if we decide to change how the AIM-54C works it will not be based of off this information.

 

So please guys, we have read and understood this information and trying to repeatedly shove it into our faces assuming we haven't understood it will not change anything. I know you guys feel you're certain of these facts but we're not. If we listened to everyone in the community that were certain of certain aspects of the F-14 and implemented those our end result wouldn't be anywhere near the F-14 we have in DCS atm. Please be patient, things might change sooner than you think but at the moment this feels more and more like groundhog day.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Naquaii

[Whiskey11]

10 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

 

And how exactly does that preclude the presence of an ATC before that? The AIM-54A also switches on "its" seeker but after an ATC.

 

 

The documents I've seen does not explicitly state how the seeker in the AIM-54C works, if there are other documents out there that are unclassified you know where to reach me. And yes, again, I don't disagree on that the manufacturer uses the same description for the inertial and navigational system in both missiles. Again, that doesn't prove anything.

 

 

I'm sorry, but no, you are indeed condescending and rude by writing this.

My english is perfectly fine and I work daily with systems like this in my normal day to day job, including but not limited to datalink and INS strap-down systems.

Reposting already discussed and available information is like showing information in my face in the assumption that I wasn't qualified to understand them.

 

Does it occur to you that I have read and understood all this and simply do not agree with your conclusions?

Again, in the end we might end up doing this as soon as we get better information on it but I certainly do not agree with that these documents provide adequate proof of anything.

 

Having a strap-down inertial systems do indicate that the INS on the AIM-54C is much better than the inertial measurement unit on the AIM-54A, that's hard to disprove. But that does not automatically prove anything for the seeker programming. There are many military systems around the world that made the transition from mechanical gyros to strap-down systems when upgraded or replaced but the only thing that means for sure is that their navigational accuracy improved. Not that it automatically changed other parts of the systems they are attached to.

 

As for the command-inertial function, both the AIM-54C and the AIM-120 family has this, again, I don't disagree on that point. But it could very well mean different things for these two missiles. The AIM-54C could work differently due to its intended longer range, it could work differently due to the integration with the AN/AWG-9. There are so many unknown factors here that could mean different things in regards to how the seeker head logic was decided upon that it's simply just guesswork to claim you know anything about this for sure.

 

I've said it before, I'm not saying I know the AIM-54C couldn't do this, I'm saying we don't have proof either way and that includes proof weighting it either way. And in that situation we decided to leave it at the know facts, i.e. how the AIM-54A works which we have good information on. Regardless of everything else the AIM-54C is very likely to contain inheritance from the AIM-54A so it's not too far fetched.

 

We are currently working on some leads that might give us the missing information here but I'm not going to give any promises as to the outcome, but I am hopeful. Just know that if we decide to change how the AIM-54C works it will not be based of off this information.

 

So please guys, we have read and understood this information and trying to repeatedly shove it into our faces assuming we haven't understood it will not change anything. I know you guys feel you're certain of these facts but we're not. If we listened to everyone in the community that were certain of certain aspects of the F-14 and implemented those our end result wouldn't be anywhere near the F-14 we have in DCS atm. Please be patient, things might change sooner than you think but at the moment this feels more and more like groundhog day.

 

 

Out of interest to the original topic discussion, have you looked at or forwarded on the Tacview for my above engagement?  Any thoughts? It seems to me like the lead pursuit calculations fall behind at these higher speed engagements causing missiles to self defeat based upon rather simple changes in target behavior.  In this case, a simple 25 degree heading change is all it took to trash my missile... not once, but four of them from two separate tomcats. Had this happen again in another similar situation a few days ago. 

[Naquaii]

1 minute ago, Whiskey11 said:

 

Out of interest to the original topic discussion, have you looked at or forwarded on the Tacview for my above engagement?  Any thoughts? It seems to me like the lead pursuit calculations fall behind at these higher speed engagements causing missiles to self defeat based upon rather simple changes in target behavior.  In this case, a simple 25 degree heading change is all it took to trash my missile... not once, but four of them from two separate tomcats. Had this happen again in another similar situation a few days ago. 

 

I've forwarded it to @IronMikeand the testers. We're trying to reproduce. If it's the missile itself its likely on EDs side but in that case we'll report it to them.

[Whiskey11]

2 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

 

I've forwarded it to @IronMikeand the testers. We're trying to reproduce. If it's the missile itself its likely on EDs side but in that case we'll report it to them.

 

Awesome, I'll see if I can't put together a "sanitized" mission and test just the closing targets against a lone F14 to reproduce it without the excess data. Hopefully should get a bunch of proper track files then. Unfortunately it'll be next week before I get to it.   

Edited October 1, 2021 by Whiskey11

[Triggerjo23]

1 hour ago, Naquaii said:

 

And how exactly does that preclude the presence of an ATC before that? The AIM-54A also switches on "its" seeker but after an ATC.

 

 

The documents I've seen does not explicitly state how the seeker in the AIM-54C works, if there are other documents out there that are unclassified you know where to reach me. And yes, again, I don't disagree on that the manufacturer uses the same description for the inertial and navigational system in both missiles. Again, that doesn't prove anything.

 

 

I'm sorry, but no, you are indeed condescending and rude by writing this.

My english is perfectly fine and I work daily with systems like this in my normal day to day job, including but not limited to datalink and INS strap-down systems.

Reposting already discussed and available information is like showing information in my face in the assumption that I wasn't qualified to understand them.

 

Does it occur to you that I have read and understood all this and simply do not agree with your conclusions?

Again, in the end we might end up doing this as soon as we get better information on it but I certainly do not agree with that these documents provide adequate proof of anything.

 

Having a strap-down inertial systems do indicate that the INS on the AIM-54C is much better than the inertial measurement unit on the AIM-54A, that's hard to disprove. But that does not automatically prove anything for the seeker programming. There are many military systems around the world that made the transition from mechanical gyros to strap-down systems when upgraded or replaced but the only thing that means for sure is that their navigational accuracy improved. Not that it automatically changed other parts of the systems they are attached to.

 

As for the command-inertial function, both the AIM-54C and the AIM-120 family has this, again, I don't disagree on that point. But it could very well mean different things for these two missiles. The AIM-54C could work differently due to its intended longer range, it could work differently due to the integration with the AN/AWG-9. There are so many unknown factors here that could mean different things in regards to how the seeker head logic was decided upon that it's simply just guesswork to claim you know anything about this for sure.

 

I've said it before, I'm not saying I know the AIM-54C couldn't do this, I'm saying we don't have proof either way and that includes proof weighting it either way. And in that situation we decided to leave it at the know facts, i.e. how the AIM-54A works which we have good information on. Regardless of everything else the AIM-54C is very likely to contain inheritance from the AIM-54A so it's not too far fetched.

 

We are currently working on some leads that might give us the missing information here but I'm not going to give any promises as to the outcome, but I am hopeful. Just know that if we decide to change how the AIM-54C works it will not be based of off this information.

 

So please guys, we have read and understood this information and trying to repeatedly shove it into our faces assuming we haven't understood it will not change anything. I know you guys feel you're certain of these facts but we're not. If we listened to everyone in the community that were certain of certain aspects of the F-14 and implemented those our end result wouldn't be anywhere near the F-14 we have in DCS atm. Please be patient, things might change sooner than you think but at the moment this feels more and more like groundhog day.

 

Again, I wasn't trying to be rude and I had no intention of being so nor do I think I was, merely trying to help out. On the matter of documentation, you will most likely not acquire it as it is ITAR controlled but I hope you can. Also, as I said earlier, given the real evidence regarding the AIM-54C you are making a larger leap in guesswork than anyone else as far as I can see. I really hope one day you can fix this and I assure you seeing every patch worsen or leave the Tomcat in the same place it is right now feels a lot like groundhog day too. I have had patience with it for a long time and maybe one day I will be able to return to it but for now I won't be able to which is unfortunate. Good luck and I wish you and Heatblur the best.

[IronMike]

Guys, let us stay on the bug report topic please. We really do appreciate your input, but you have to trust us, too, when we say we need more or better proof. The upside: we found a trail that will likely lead to the changes you desire, so please be patient there. In time, the phoenix missiles will get to where they should be, but it is a time consuming process that requires patience also from our side, concerning the new API mainly, and following up on leads that actually do provide proof beyond even if really great guesstimates. A lot of good things will be coming and I am certain they will make you happy, but we need time to do it proper is all. Thank you all for your very kind understanding and patience with us.

[Triggerjo23]

41 minutes ago, IronMike said:

Guys, let us stay on the bug report topic please. We really do appreciate your input, but you have to trust us, too, when we say we need more or better proof. The upside: we found a trail that will likely lead to the changes you desire, so please be patient there. In time, the phoenix missiles will get to where they should be, but it is a time consuming process that requires patience also from our side, concerning the new API mainly, and following up on leads that actually do provide proof beyond even if really great guesstimates. A lot of good things will be coming and I am certain they will make you happy, but we need time to do it proper is all. Thank you all for your very kind understanding and patience with us.

I totally get it and am hopeful for the best and am thankful for your hard work and passion. All I mean by moving away from the module for now is in regards to the DCS competitive scene just wanted to say that.

Regarding the main topic of the thread before we went off tangent, we have seen the exact same scenarios. Firing a missile on a target cranking at 20-30 degrees can see the missile reach them at only a few hundred knots or sometimes even just fly off the rail in a straight line even though the TID shows no lost track. This has been happening consistently. Even PAL with ACM cover up once the missile is active will see very wide misses. Nearer the start of the year this kind of shot worked really well at around 10-15nm with ACM cover up and 10k feet higher than the bandit, now though all BVR launched missiles are missing and almost all PAL shot's are missing. The notch on all of the other DCS Fox 3's seems to be much larger now too and perhaps something which changed that is having an effect on the present Phoenix?

May I make a suggestion? How about you guy's start up a discored server. I feel comunication that way will be better for off topic conversations and perhaps the nice, fun daily messages could help prevent anyone from feeling like there is hostility in the air as that is not my intention at all. Wanted you guys to make a discord for a long while now. Just some food for thought.

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, Triggerjo23 said:

May I make a suggestion? How about you guy's start up a discored server. I feel comunication that way will be better for off topic conversations and perhaps the nice, fun daily messages could help prevent anyone from feeling like there is hostility in the air as that is not my intention at all. Wanted you guys to make a discord for a long while now. Just some food for thought.

 

That is generally a great idea, but currently we do not want a discord server, because it really has no other function than forums (really feel free to discuss here and open threads according to your wishes). While it is not such a relaxed convo flow on one hand, otoh it is easier for us to sort your wishes, topics, etc... while a discord server would basically blow the roof off from our capacity to keep up with the many input we get, here, on fbook, on reddit, in other discord servers, etc. Maybe at a later point the team will be set up more broadly to cover another interaction tool, but in the meantime I would like to invite you all to be as familiar with us here as you wish. We never saw and never will see a conversation between us other than on eyelevel, or consider ourselves above you guys, or beyond approach. To the contrary: we want to be maximum approachable, but certain topics, please understand, we have to throttle down (here as much as on discord), for the sake of moving along. Else it is just way overwhelming for us to give you all the attention you deserve. And rest assured: ever since you guys sparked this discussion about the aim54C, we've been at it hard to find and unearth the necessary proof that we need, to give you the changes that you desire, because we think really alike in this case. It is just that we need more proof as security for our decisions than you guys, as we are obliged not only to you guys and ourselves, but to our higher standards as well. Undermining them would mean opening a can of worms, no one wants to have open so to speak. I hope that makes sense. Thank you again all for your great input!

[KenobiOrder]

6 hours ago, Naquaii said:

And how exactly does that preclude the presence of an ATC before that? The AIM-54A also switches on "its" seeker but after an ATC.

because it says "IT" switches its own on. The emphasis is on the text referring to the missile doing it, with no mention of anything else.

 

This is the last bit ill say in this thread because its off topic. But from my point of view you are presupposing 54C needs a command simply because the A did. While the 54C did share some functional similarities, I am not sure why we would assume any particular function was carried over unless there is explicit evidence because the bulk of the 54C was entirely new electronics. There appears to be no explicit evidence that it needed a command to to active. But there is very strong implicit evidence, that it probably was able to go active on its own.