Jump to content

[RESOLVED] AIM-54 inconsistency with CFD whitepaper


dundun92

Recommended Posts

Hello,

The in game AIM-54 kinetics do not match the values found in the whitepaper CFD posted by Heatblur. For example, at 500m the in game AIM-54 Mk60 hits Mach 3.1 and takes 25s to decelerate from Mach 2.0 to 1.0. The whitepaper AIM-54 Mk60 meanwhile hits M 2.0, and takes 7.5 sec to decelerate from M 2.0 to M1.0. This same discrepancy of much higher top speeds and taking much longer to decelerate persists at higher altitudes. It would be nice to get comment from HB on this discrepancy. (FYI, the whitepaper AIM-54 can be recognized as the Mk60 by comparing the 6km simulation charts to the 6km AIM-54 variants comparison chart)

DCS 500m, 6km, 12km

image.png

image.png

image.png

Whitepaper, 500m, 6km, 12km, 6km comparison

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

 

Mk60 6km.trk Mk60 12km.trk Mk60 500m.trk


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 12
  • Thanks 2

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you mention 500 meters, do you mean distance from aircraft after launch, or altitude ? 
And am i reading correct that the missile should only reach mach 2 at that altitude instead of mach 3.1 ?
And am i reading correct that the missile should decelerate from mach 2 to mach 1 in only 7,5 seconds, instead of taking 25 seconds to decelerate from mach 2 to mach 1 as it is in game now ? 

And when was this this actually been reported because i can not find any threads on this 
 


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

We will reverify whether these FM coefficients are intended when the team returns to work next week, however many changes to the in-game FM were entirely intentional, and are rooted in (at the time of release) and currently (to various extents) persisting guidance issues (primarily an extreme loss of energy due to extremely aggressive guidance early in flight).

With inappropriate guidance, adherence to CFD figures yielded a complete inability to execute standard and documented AIM-54 shots. In order for the missile to behave realistically, maximum allowed G and other airframe parameters were changed to accommodate known capability through empirical testing. Some of this is touched upon in the whitepaper on Page 9.

Any such changes are slated for revision when we are able to appropriately control the missile in flight, and this effort is currently underway together with ED. Updates to follow soonest. Currently, we don't expect the performance of the AIM-54 to change noticeably in any tactical scenario. Normalized FM parameters and corrected guidance will lead to the same overall capability in known shots.


Edited by Cobra847
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Nicholas Dackard

 

Founder & Lead Artist

Heatblur Simulations

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cobra847 said:

We will reverify whether these FM coefficients are intended when the team returns to work next week, however many changes to the in-game FM were entirely intentional, and are rooted in (at the time of release) and currently (to various extents) persisting guidance issues (primarily an extreme loss of energy due to extremely aggressive guidance early in flight).

With inappropriate guidance, adherence to CFD figures yielded a complete inability to execute standard and documented AIM-54 shots. In order for the missile to behave realistically, maximum allowed G and other airframe parameters were changed to accommodate known capability through empirical testing. Some of this is touched upon in the whitepaper on Page 9.

Any such changes are slated for revision when we are able to appropriately control the missile in flight, and this effort is currently underway together with ED. Updates to follow soonest. Currently, we don't expect the performance of the AIM-54 to change noticeably in any tactical scenario. Normalized FM parameters and corrected guidance will lead to the same overall capability in known shots.

 

I fully understand that, the issue is not with the general principle of adjusting somewhat to compensate for bad guidance etc. It is the magnitude of the issue. The in-game AIM-54 out ranges the CFD one in tail chase range by over 2 times on the deck, and 1.6 times at 12km.

If you do an approximate integration of the speed vs time chart, the CFD AIM-54 covers ~17km in the first 30s of flight. The in game AIM-54 meanwhile does 23.15 km. A plane at M 0.9 covers 9km of distance in 30s. This gives a tail chase range after 30 seconds of missile flight of ~8km for CFD AIM-54 vs 14km for in game. 

This gets worse after burnout because the vastly faster speed loss of the CFD AIM-54. If you calculate the tail chase range assuming with a missile termination speed of M1, the CFD one hits M1 after 37s of flight, covering 21km. A target at M0.9 will cover 11km in this range, giving 10km tail chase range. Meanwhile, in game takes a whole 60s to slow down to M1, covering 40km in those 60s. Subtract the 18km a target will cover in those 60s, you have a tail chase range of 22km at 500m altitude!.

Granted this discrepancy goes down with altitude, but even at 12km, the discrepency in tail chase range (M1.5 missile termination criteria) is 32km vs 53km. This is not an insignificant difference at all, and IMO deserves a 2nd look, which you mentioned the HB team would look into.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RustBelt said:

That's unfortunately an Eagle Dynamics problem since they have all control of missiles. 

Its not, as HB controls the drag coefs in the lua. Its a simple lua edit that we could do ourselves until ED locked the files (though HB's are still unlocked)

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2022 at 7:15 PM, Cobra847 said:

We will reverify whether these FM coefficients are intended when the team returns to work next week, however many changes to the in-game FM were entirely intentional, and are rooted in (at the time of release) and currently (to various extents) persisting guidance issues (primarily an extreme loss of energy due to extremely aggressive guidance early in flight).

With inappropriate guidance, adherence to CFD figures yielded a complete inability to execute standard and documented AIM-54 shots. In order for the missile to behave realistically, maximum allowed G and other airframe parameters were changed to accommodate known capability through empirical testing. Some of this is touched upon in the whitepaper on Page 9.

Any such changes are slated for revision when we are able to appropriately control the missile in flight, and this effort is currently underway together with ED. Updates to follow soonest. Currently, we don't expect the performance of the AIM-54 to change noticeably in any tactical scenario. Normalized FM parameters and corrected guidance will lead to the same overall capability in known shots.

 

That is unfortunate to read, I expected it to be an accidental error that made it into the game.

That "workaround" is not acceptable. It gives the missile totally absurd ranges. Especially down low and in tailchase scenarios the ranges we see are out of this world.

I hope that this issue will be adressed in the near time. The physical values should not be bent until it works in a certain scenario, resulting in a ridiculously overperforming missile everywhere else.

I really expected the Aim-54 t be somewhat authentic, being a HB missile with custom CFD and all. But now I am a bit dissapointed.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2022 at 10:15 AM, Cobra847 said:

We will reverify whether these FM coefficients are intended when the team returns to work next week, however many changes to the in-game FM were entirely intentional, and are rooted in (at the time of release) and currently (to various extents) persisting guidance issues (primarily an extreme loss of energy due to extremely aggressive guidance early in flight).

With inappropriate guidance, adherence to CFD figures yielded a complete inability to execute standard and documented AIM-54 shots. In order for the missile to behave realistically, maximum allowed G and other airframe parameters were changed to accommodate known capability through empirical testing. Some of this is touched upon in the whitepaper on Page 9.

Any such changes are slated for revision when we are able to appropriately control the missile in flight, and this effort is currently underway together with ED. Updates to follow soonest. Currently, we don't expect the performance of the AIM-54 to change noticeably in any tactical scenario. Normalized FM parameters and corrected guidance will lead to the same overall capability in known shots.

 

Is this the reason why the AIM-54A-Mk47 has better motor performance in comparison to the AIM-54C-Mk47 in game currently even though the whitepaper states that it should be weaker?
 

 

I personally hope that these workarounds are temporary and will be lifted once the new 3rd party API comes out and permits the AIM-54 to actually not bleed all its speed.

-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

10 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

That is unfortunate to read, I expected it to be an accidental error that made it into the game.

That "workaround" is not acceptable. It gives the missile totally absurd ranges. Especially down low and in tailchase scenarios the ranges we see are out of this world.

I hope that this issue will be adressed in the near time. The physical values should not be bent until it works in a certain scenario, resulting in a ridiculously overperforming missile everywhere else.

I really expected the Aim-54 t be somewhat authentic, being a HB missile with custom CFD and all. But now I am a bit dissapointed.

You make it sounds like we did this on purpose.

This was a deliberate design to make the missile behave like it should in DCS, and when we implemented it it did match the CFD calculations in the whitepaper.

The issue is that the way the missiles work in DCS has then changed and the same missiles are now behaving differently due to later changes we were not aware of.

The problem is that reworking this is not just a simple lua fix because all these values need to be tweaked and tuned to arrive at a correct behaviour, it's not as simple as just changing one value. And currently it has been our decision that it's better to focus on trying to transfer the missiles to the new missile system than putting the time and effort into once again fixing them in the old system.


Edited by Naquaii
  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Naquaii said:

You make it sounds like we did this on purpose.

This was a deliberate design to make the missile behave like it should in DCS, and when we implemented it it did match the CFD calculations in the whitepaper.

The issue is that the way the missiles work in DCS has then changed and the same missiles are now behaving differently due to later changes we were not aware of.

The problem is that reworking this is not just a simple lua fix because all these values need to be tweaked and tuned to arrive at a correct behaviour, it's not as simple as just changing one value. And currently it has been our decision that it's better to focus on trying to transfer the missiles to the new missile system than putting the time and effort into once again fixing them in the old system.

 

You have the correct drag and motor data listed in the PDF. Use them and you are done.

If the missile is then not able to hit the target in that very rare maximum range edge case, that should not even matter for DCS (ECM, targets are rarely flying like a target drone), then it should be the F-14 pilots who should be waiting for the fix. But at least in all other, much more frequent combat scenarios, the missile will perform as it should.

What he have right now is a missile that overperforms dramatically in all those other situations.

 

Just take a look at this. Aim-54A Mk47 launch at Mach 1.2, 45000ft without loft. In DCS we get Mach 5 instead of Mach 3.4. That is a massive difference, not to mention how much longer the DCS missile will keep up its velocity. The result is way to much range, especially against cold targets.

image.png

unknown.png

 

It gets absolutely crazy when you compare it to the DCS R-33, a very similar missile with the same size and shape, just a bit more weight. You would expect the Aim-54 to perform better, but not by this much (level straight line shot at 1 km and Mach 1.1):

unknown.png

 

When will the new API come? It could be many more years. Since the release of the module we have been told to wait for the new missile API. 

You are again saying that we should just wait for the fix, when HB could just insert the correct values already. We have waited long enough, and suffered long enough. It is time for the F-14 pilots to show some patience. After all, they too should seek a realistic and not drastically overperforming missile, or am I wrong?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be progress on this topic with the next DCS Patch, it's obvious based on this latest testing that guidance and/or missile changes even in the old API are adversely affecting performance in-game- now in the opposite direction.

That said, there seems to be no interest in reading what we're actually writing in this thread. Previously, the AIM-54 underperformed severely vis-a-vis reality with CFD based values, due to DCS guidance issues. These issues are no mystery or unknown to the DCS community and were well documented and discussed at the time. I'm not sure how more straightforward we can be in this explanation. A missile's FM/Capability is a result of all components coming together- with poor guidance, the other two elements needed to be adjusted to achieve appropriate performance. This was and is no secret and is even documented in the whitepaper to some extent.

Sometime (hence why this thread is a good thing!) - DCS guidance changed. This seems to be yielding a much improved AIM-54 (due to the aforementioned adjustments). It's not a conspiracy, just divergent development threads converging in errors when one is not in sync with the other. 

Stop riling yourselves up in squadron/competition/SATAL discords and please communicate findings with evidence. The first post of this thread is a fine example. We have no interest in spending thousands of $ on CFD just to end up with an unrealistic missile and we certainly don't care about "lost sales due to a worse Phoenix". By that logic, we'd remove every accurate limitation of the F-14 itself to make it better.
 


Edited by Cobra847
  • Like 17

Nicholas Dackard

 

Founder & Lead Artist

Heatblur Simulations

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Armchair admirals only care about one thing. Being right. They consistently ignore the mountains of data and information provided to them and prefer to focus on the one thing that supports their point of view. Right now that appears to be the singled out data of the whitepaper, without regard to what has been consistently repeated by Cobra and the other Heatblur staff.

I just want to say thanks to Heatblur for the patience they continue to show for this, IMO it's enough to make you want to :wallbash:

  • Like 8

Specs: Win10, i5-13600KF, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

You have the correct drag and motor data listed in the PDF. Use them and you are done.

This is exactly what I was talking about. We are working on this like Cobra said but trust me when I say we can't just "Use them and you are done.". It's not as simple as that.

Everytime we change stuff in the missile settings we have to do extensive testing to verify what actually changes. Changing those few values will affect other stuff as well, that is why we are instead focussing on the new modelling. And that is under way.

For the rest, see Cobras post above.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gypsy 1-1 said:

Too bad this isn't a priority for ED with you know DCS being a flight sim and AAM's the primary armament of most jets. 

Considering the amount of change we've seen in the past two years compared to the stagnancy of the preceding sixteen, I'm almost hesitant to ask what your definition of a priority is.

6 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

It gets absolutely crazy when you compare it to the DCS R-33, a very similar missile with the same size and shape, just a bit more weight. You would expect the Aim-54 to perform better, but not by this much (level straight line shot at 1 km and Mach 1.1):

An Apple is of similar size, shape, and weight as an orange (perhaps a little heavier). I would expect my Apple to taste like an Orange. It does not. To whom do I address this bug report? It's going to upset my carefully planned fruit tasting contest. 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cobra847 said:

 By that logic, we'd remove every accurate limitation of the F-14 itself to make it better.
 

 

I known some dude in this forum who would love this. 😉

  • Like 3

Computer: Potato

Modules: FC3 | M2000C | A/V8B | Viggen | F-5E | F-14B | F-16C | F/A-18 | A-10C | Supercarrier :mad::mad: | UH-1 | MI-8 | Gazelle | KA-50

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Naquaii said:

This is exactly what I was talking about. We are working on this like Cobra said but trust me when I say we can't just "Use them and you are done.". It's not as simple as that.

Everytime we change stuff in the missile settings we have to do extensive testing to verify what actually changes. Changing those few values will affect other stuff as well, that is why we are instead focussing on the new modelling. And that is under way.

For the rest, see Cobras post above.

The thing I don't think is being understood is, DCS doesn't just have you plug in real world specs and then it perfectly simulates them. As I understand it from some lazy Lua digging, there's basically a "missile" model, and individual missiles are built off of that by non-dimensional coefficient adjustments. And the coefficients to get the performance you want is basically educated guess work and iterative testing. Which when they change things in the "Missile" model, then throws off those coefficients. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't bother with any further explanations; those of us who have the capacity to understand already do. No amount of rational elucidation will satiate the witch-hunt brigade. Let them froth and twitch.


Edited by DD_Fenrir
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RustBelt said:

The thing I don't think is being understood is, DCS doesn't just have you plug in real world specs and then it perfectly simulates them. As I understand it from some lazy Lua digging, there's basically a "missile" model, and individual missiles are built off of that by non-dimensional coefficient adjustments. And the coefficients to get the performance you want is basically educated guess work and iterative testing. Which when they change things in the "Missile" model, then throws off those coefficients. 

Actually what is clearly being ignored by the OP and some others here is the fact that the discrepancies they found in the CFD modeling are there "on purpose" so that the missile performs as close as possible to it's real world counterpart in all but edge case scenarios. This is the way that Heatblur had to do it because of the limitations of missile modeling in DCS World (such as guidance logic, thrust modeling, course correction modeling etc.) at the time, which is also clearly stated (but completely ignored) in the very same white paper the OP originally quoted. 

More importantly they have stated that this is a work in progress and that as the new missile API is being implemented and improved upon, they will be adjusting those very same values of the Phoenix. 


Edited by Lurker
  • Like 4

Specs: Win10, i5-13600KF, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, near_blind said:

Considering the amount of change we've seen in the past two years compared to the stagnancy of the preceding sixteen, I'm almost hesitant to ask what your definition of a priority is.

 

This!
I think many here would prefer the status quo (of absolutely borked missile guidance and dynamics) of the previous decade for the sake of perceived balance, fairness or what not. ED is working on it. It's working on it after endless years of passiveness. Give them time i say. We'll get there. 

  • Like 3

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

3 hours ago, Lurker said:

but completely ignored

Actually, no, I didnt "completely ignore" them. I very well understood what was said in the whitepaper. Nowhere in the whitepaper was it mentioned that this level of discrepancy (2x kinetic range when unlofted, as persumably a lot of the energy loss being compensated for is caused by the horrible loft-down maneuver) was needed to compensate and hit test shot parameters. Nor is 2x the NEZ an "edge case", as that is a big factor in determining the MAR, and ultimately fundamentally changes the defense techniques you use. The whitepaper dev AIM-54 did in fact strictly match the CFD, and did make almost all the test shots (albeit with a 7G limit to reduce the magnitude of the loft energy bleed). But again, my issue wasnt strictly matching the CFD, it was the magnitude of the discrepancy. But, again, HB says that this was caused by DCS guidance changes, and that the original AIM-54 did in fact come much closer to the CFD, which is all the bug report was about.


Edited by dundun92
  • Like 6

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from the OP in his last post, no one even acknowledged the replies from Heatblur. 

 

7 minutes ago, DCSoping said:


It was not ignored at all. Also whatever HB or ED did should never give such massive super capabilities to it's missile ever. Work in progress or not. 


 

 

Except for the OP, yes their replies and explanations were completely ignored. Also with your last statement, you are clearly demonstrating a huge lack of respect for the work HB have put into this missile and into the F14. Work in progress or not? How about, think before you type? 


Edited by Lurker
  • Like 2

Specs: Win10, i5-13600KF, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, DCSoping said:

I don't think you read the whole thread ?
It was not ignored at all. Also whatever HB or ED did should never give such massive super capabilities to it's missile ever. Work in progress or not. 


 

The point of the Phoenix is long range stand-off missile shots - that's it's raison d'etre.

You're supposed to be chucking them at 30-50 nm, not hanging on to them for a sub 20nm close range fight, where you are approaching - or within - your enemies NEZ.

If HB had not massaged to make it perform at long range as it should they'd have got a lot more grief from a far wider section of the community.

It's a compromise, that relies on people using the missile in an authentic manner.

And it's not like they've ignored the issue or have given you the finger and said "tough sh*t, deal with it" - they have said REPEATEDLY that once the new API is available that they'll look at sorting this discrepency but until then it can't be fixed in the current missile engine.

How many times does this need repeating?

How many times you do have to be told the same thing before your comprehension finally kicks in?


Edited by DD_Fenrir
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DCSoping said:

 Also whatever HB or ED did should never give such massive super capabilities to it's missile ever. Work in progress or not. 


 

You are ignoring it by this very sentence again... While also refusing to understand how development works on the base of the shifting grounds that DCS is - which has also been explained in this thread ad nauseam.

And Lurker is correct, it is like we are talking to a wall. If you refuse to listen or do not want to listen, that is your problem, not ours. We said we will fix it till the next patch. That is all anyone needs to know in this matter.

As for what "should never" be - if we could foresee every bug that would happen, there would be no bugs. You will survive with the missile over-performing for a couple weeks, as much as it bothers both you and us. But the way some in the Multiplayer community obsess about missiles sometimes is beyond childish, if you want me to tell you the harsh truth. So, be happy that we on the other hand do listen and understand your gripes and will fix it asap, because honestly, for the vast majority of DCS users, who play Singleplayer, it doesn't matter nearly as much as some of you make it out to be, and we could very well choose to set our priorities elsewhere and I could list you 20 things at least that would be more important right now than fixing the missiles from their perspective.

There are some in the multiplayer community who need to learn that not everything evolves around them, and the reason why we give Multiplayer so much attention, is simply because we come from it ourselves and it is dear and close to our hearts. Let me tell you: this was not always the case in DCS, and in large parts due to the work of many on our team and our friends surrounding it, MP got the attention it deserves today. Last time I checked, most of you were not part of this. Whether you can appreciate that or not, is up to you. But maybe you can keep that in mind, when there is something off with the missiles again, and some of you come barging in as if the whole world was on fire and as if we did not care. It is not and we do care. But it is a bug just like any bug, and will get the attention just like any bug that affects gameplay in this kind of way. In the meantime we can have a normal discussion about it and we can appreciate your patience or not. The choice how any of you want to come across in this matter is yours.  


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 3

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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