AIM54C vs High Closure Targets

[GGTharos]

59 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

I honestly saw this coming from the very first "aim54 should go active on it's own" thread over a year ago. It was just a matter of time    
At least Ironmike is can also laugh about it judging from his comment

 

How about proving them wrong then?  You obviously have loads of knowledge and documents on the subject so what's the problem?

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

16 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

Not all opinions and thoughts are valid or should be respected. Facts and reason stand above everything.

 

EDIT: if only once said individual would have provided factual evidence / proof of the claims he was making people would react much differently and take him seriously. In fact, I have provided plenty of counter-evidence, which he simply dismissed and just called me names in DM's. The bugs that were known and repdoduced were already fixed by HB as well - namely desynch and the TCS silent launch.

 

Ok you keep going at it i see. Bringing in another topic and lying about me, again. 

Here is the exact DM i sent you, please point me to the 'name calling' you liar : 
===============================================================

Your friend is 1 feet from the ground, and are these missiles ever tracking at all ? 
Looks like they are going dumb right off the rail, and/or getting run into the ground. 

 

A bit more distance and altitude try for yourself, try to properly notch that ancient MK60 it's more difficult than nothing an modern aim120. 

 

I honestly think if you were a bit more honest you'd admit that the MK60 is borked and it's seeker overperforming insanely for such an old shitty missile . But since you're an F14 pilot , you never will . 

These 'tests' only prove it
===============================================================

Edited October 4, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[IronMike]

Ok guys, that is enough. This is actually a thread about a bug report, which is serious, and should remain on topic.

It was a fun excursion, but if you wanna slug it out among each other, please keep it in those DMs. Let us not derail this completely, that is unfair to the OP who was kind enough to make us aware of an issue. Thank you.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

18 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

How about proving them wrong then?  You obviously have loads of knowledge and documents on the subject so what's the problem?

Kind of a weak argument. 

"Prove that god does not exist" ... yeahhh ok. 

Heatblur could build lasers into the phoenix missile and i would not be able to disprove it. 

HB have 'held the line' for quite a while about the phoenix not going active on their own.
But reading this (yet another) thread about F14 owners making all kinds of "you can guess we don't mind" arguments,  i could literally feel it happening. I could actually feel that they would turn around and just go 'fck it because they won't stop whining about it ' .  

And when i saw it happening, to me it kind of felt like the Epstein 'suicide' thing, just hilariously obvious. (again , to me at least, opinions may vary!) 

And please, i understand it. The amraam and other missiles have been changed many times because of whining. 
I personally just don't buy the "we suddenly found a trail  that will probably mean you get what you want". 

If there is evidence that the phoenix actually did go active i would be very interested to read it though. 

Maybe HB can provide it once they figured out more. 

Anyway, will the MK60 also go active on it's own by the way ? 

 

[IronMike]

5 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Anyway, will the MK60 also go active on it's own by the way ? 

 

 

No, because it couldn't. The AIM54C however we now know it could.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

I see,.... the trail has already lead to a confirmation? 
Anything you can share about it ? 

 

 

 

[Airhunter]

1) What?

 

2) The argument was about the 54C. And it's not like the 54A and C doesn't already go active in TWS or off the rail with pre-defined settings. It was a matter of whether the 54C does said thing in STT and TWS, given track memory, an INS and everything that is known about the 120A. Since the 54C is basically an entirely new missiles, apart from its shape. No one was even remotely making an argument about the 54A, which HB have plenty of information and documentation on to know how it works (albeit, they did misinterpret a few things in the past leading to some more recent changes or things simply not being possible in DCS). This also isn't a question of opinion or proving someone wrong but about credentials - you have none, you are not a DCS developer, nor do you know what you are talking about 69% of the time. If you have some real world test and eval. data on the 54A Pk, specifically the Mk60 motor (not a seeker, so I have no idea why that would matter) and launches feel free to share them with us. You are literally applying some competitive game logic here to fit your playstyle and because you can never admit that you re wrong or adapt your tactics. Me, including many others have offered you to hop on voice and show you some tricks, tactics etc. on how you could improve but you have never accepted those, which only shows your stubborness and unwilingness to learn. And this is coming from a guy who mainly flies Mig-29A's with 6x Archers or Mig-21's with 4x Aphids in DCS PvP with decent enough success rates against pretty much anything, including F-14's. It's a matter of mindset my dude. When I first got shwacked by a Phoenix online I didn't go on the forums and whine about it, I watched back the tacview and asked myself "what could I have done differently here" and very quickly adapted my tactics. Never have I died to an AIM9X, ARMAAM or AIM54 and did not think "well I clearly f-ed up here and it was all my fault".  You can't just expect to always have the technological and kinemtic advantage over the enemy where you just fly straight at him, press one button and kill him without ever being in any danger. I know this is really off-topic now but given the original subject has sort of came to a halt I think we can just clarify a few things. 

 

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

That's quite an essay.  (copy pasted from a word document i'm guessing, it's quite a b^tch when the server logs you off when you click post isn't it . 
And indeed, it's also REALLY off topic. 
You are quite the skilled pilot apparently.
I do ok'ish myself as well though (don't make me post my 'kd' please, so stop right here), so i respectfully decline the tips and tricks if you don't mind. 

 

Back on topic (i thought we were done a while ago but apparently not) 

 

I'm curious what this trail entails, how it suddenly appeared now after years,  and if HB will  share the information. 

Unless DCS developers have a special status where they have access to classified information of course. 

 

 

[KenobiOrder]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

The AIM54C however we now know it could.

will this be implemented soon?

[Harlikwin]

5 minutes ago, KenobiOrder said:

will this be implemented soon?

 

I'm gonna go with the mythical 2 weeks answer. More realistically I wouldn't expect much before next year tho.

 

[Whiskey11]

4 hours ago, IronMike said:

 

No, because it couldn't. The AIM54C however we now know it could.

I, for one, am SUPER EXCITED about a 54C which can go active on its own...  Love the work you guys are doing.

All of it will be a huge improvement, but I really hope the subject of this thread:  Problems with high closure rate tracking with a valid TWS track until well past TTI=0 and AIM-54's self notching, gets looked at heavily too.  I still need to set up the mission to test this.  I haven't forgotten... but time has sadly been limited!

 

[DSplayer]

8 hours ago, IronMike said:

 @gyrovague's Laser TCS, lmao, a thing we did during development for our own fun: any aircraft that got illuminated by the TCS would simply explode.

Hey that would be a nice mod.

[IronMike]

13 hours ago, Whiskey11 said:

I, for one, am SUPER EXCITED about a 54C which can go active on its own...  Love the work you guys are doing.

All of it will be a huge improvement, but I really hope the subject of this thread:  Problems with high closure rate tracking with a valid TWS track until well past TTI=0 and AIM-54's self notching, gets looked at heavily too.  I still need to set up the mission to test this.  I haven't forgotten... but time has sadly been limited!

 

 

Yes, and thus let us please all get back on topic. Any subsequent posts not related to the bug will be removed. Thanks again for reporting it.

To close the aim54c going active debate: not sure how quick we will implement it, but we hope soon. Thank you all for your contributions.

[DSplayer]

Back to the original topic, I really hope that when the new API comes out, it solves the issue that we saw where 54s just bleed speed and let themselves get notched.

[IronMike]

56 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

Back to the original topic, I really hope that when the new API comes out, it solves the issue that we saw where 54s just bleed speed and let themselves get notched.

 

We hope so, too.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

Is there a new public domain source that you can share for this?

 

Getting any documentation going into these types of specifics is a rare treasure trove at this point, particularly for the AWG-9 or AIM-54

[GGTharos]

3 hours ago, DSplayer said:

Back to the original topic, I really hope that when the new API comes out, it solves the issue that we saw where 54s just bleed speed and let themselves get notched.

 

AIM-54As are probably fairly vulnerable to notching.  In the documentation it says the FCS will refuse to construct a DLZ if target parameters are such that it would end up with the missile's radar being notched.  This has to do with how the missile is implemented IRL.

[Harlikwin]

23 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

AIM-54As are probably fairly vulnerable to notching.  In the documentation it says the FCS will refuse to construct a DLZ if target parameters are such that it would end up with the missile's radar being notched.  This has to do with how the missile is implemented IRL.

 

LOL, and I got roasted a few months back for saying just that... 

[GGTharos]

52 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

LOL, and I got roasted a few months back for saying just that... 

 

Still toasty?    I figure once locked on it's not going to be easy to deal with them but they have a pretty long ToF and they need to be getting SARH reflections during that time to guide correctly so ...

[Whiskey11]

Alrighty, built a really, really, really basic (awful, actually) mission involving two Su-33's and a single F-14B at the parameters for my previous engagement and while the AI didn't launch the Phoenix's at any real range, I definitely found the quirk I was talking about.

First missile seems to impact fine.  Second one though... the minute the Su-33 starts to maneuver (which it was set not to... I suck at Mission Editor) it pulls lead and then pulls WAY TOO MUCH lead.  The missile is defeated, the Su-33 stops maneuvering and the AIM-54 is trashed while still under power.  Note:  These Su-33's are on a heads up course, not a slight offset like in my OP.

Tacview attached as well.  Really interesting behavior against high closure targets.
 

test1.trk Tacview-20211005-174857-DCS-test.zip.acmi

test.miz

Edited October 5, 2021 by Whiskey11

[IronMike]

Thank you!