Jump to content

[RESOLVED] AIM-54 inconsistency with CFD whitepaper


dundun92

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, JNelson said:

Thanks, the tacviews would be excellent, just to clarify the wobbles you are seeing in the telemetry is the missile actually oscillating, not just noise in the data? We were not seeing any such behaviour on our end.

Seems data noise, I was seeing it on DCS using F6 and it was fine and straight. Tacview sent on PM.

Thank you for your time and work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, JNelson said:

Thanks, the tacviews would be excellent, just to clarify the wobbles you are seeing in the telemetry is the missile actually oscillating, not just noise in the data? We were not seeing any such behaviour on our end. 

 

Thanks.

Those wobbles are a tacview artifact from how it handles rounding of speed data

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

2 minutes ago, Ryeman said:

Cobra was this change even tested before being put it in the patch?  It seems this seems rushed based on a vocal minority.  The guidance is horrible right now....

It was, and was necessary to be moved along anyway. The guidance is pretty much the same as it was before, only noticeable more now due to adjusted performance.

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

3 minutes ago, Ryeman said:

Cobra was this change even tested before being put it in the patch?  It seems this seems rushed based on a vocal minority.  The guidance is horrible right now....

As far as they have said a few times, this is the first step to moving to the new API, but they can't proceed until its in, then they can mess around and get the guidance onto the new API.

 

EDIT: What he said^^


Edited by Morri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JNelson said:

Drag profiles, the missile much more closely matches the CFD result, however this has revealed a problem with regards to the guidance we are looking into.

 

3 hours ago, IronMike said:

It was, and was necessary to be moved along anyway. The guidance is pretty much the same as it was before, only noticeable more now due to adjusted performance.

So if this was tested correctly than what is JNelson talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be the NEZ for a AIM-54A-Mk60 fired at ~Mach 1 at 15k ft at a non-maneuvering target that is also travelling Mach 1 away from you that is co-altitude? Prior to this patch you could fire Mk60 and you would be able to kill said target at around 15nms but with these new Cx values in this patch, they lose all their speed after the motor is expended and the missile falls short 5 or so miles out.

Below 20k, the speed drains away from the AIM-54 super quickly after the motor burns out.

The beneficial thing I've seen from this patch in terms of the 54's Pk is that the loft profile is better since it goes a lot higher up now.


Edited by DSplayer

-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

5 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

Prior to this patch you could fire Mk60 and you would be able to kill said target at around 15nm

yeah, that was never realistic. The straightline NEZ was way overmodeled before, the discrepancy was over 2x in some low altitude scenarios. Right now, the ASL NEZ is ~4nm, 6km is ~8-9nm.

  • Like 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

2 hours ago, Ryeman said:

 

So if this was tested correctly than what is JNelson talking about?

The guidance was an issue before it's just because of the missiles excessive energy it was not a problem, however now the missile is performing more accurately a 30+ degree turn off the target briefly will dump a large chunk of energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AIM-54C's motor values still doesn't match the values stated within the AIM-54 whitepaper. Is this correct? It has the weakest motor of all the AIM-54 variants while also being the newest.

Edit: Is the AIM-54C supposed to loft so high compared to the other variants?


Edited by DSplayer
  • Like 1

-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

23 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

The AIM-54C's motor values still doesn't match the values stated within the AIM-54 whitepaper. Is this correct? It has the weakest motor of all the AIM-54 variants while also being the newest.

Edit: Is the AIM-54C supposed to loft so high compared to the other variants?

 

The mk47 mod 1 that the 54C gets should only be about 5% stronger than the mod 0 on the A. And you're gonna need to figure out your testing standards because the guidance should literally be the exact same across all the missiles. The higher lofting may just be from the fact that it does not travel as fast and therefore has more time to climb vs the mk60.

Heavy Fighter Elitist
AIM-120 Best Missiletm
AWG-9 Gaslighter
Diagnosed with terminal Skill Issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prez said:

The higher lofting may just be from the fact that it does not travel as fast and therefore has more time to climb vs the mk60.

That might be true too. I'll copy and paste the motor values for the more powerful Mk47 on the 54A and see how it goes since the 54C is lofting even higher than that one.
 

Spoiler

unknown.png

Edit: It still lofts to 101k with these motor values.

Edit 2: My parameters are launching a 54 while straight and level at an altitude of around 40k going Mach 1 at a target doing the same thing. AIM-54Cs seem to loft at least 7-10k higher than their A counterparts (both variants).


Edited by DSplayer

-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

3 hours ago, Ryeman said:

So if this was tested correctly than what is JNelson talking about?

It was tested correctly; the data from the testing team conformed quite closely to the CFM data.  But HB remains without control of the guidance, or any changes made to it after their submission of what was tested for the patch.

Unfortunately, this is the state for much of DCS.  Third parties submit for patching based on the builds they currently have available, and something gets broken by an alteration they have no control over that takes place after the submission deadline.  See: cockpit lighting. 

Until the AIM-54s are in the new API and its finalized, its going to remain a process of playing catch up. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*edit* Added values for 5K feet. 

Done some test shots at 1000 feet. Gonna do some more altitudes when I have time.

Two aircraft cold/chase. 

F-14 Mach Approx. 1.1 @ 1000 Feet.
Target MIG 1.0 @ 1000 Feet.

NEZ for C47 - 3,2 NM
NEZ for A47 - 3,3 NM
NEZ for A60 - 4,3 NM

For comparisson.

F-18 Mach 1,04 @ 1000 Feet.
Target MIG 1,0 @ 1000 Feet.

NEZ for 120C5 - 3,6 NM

 

At 5000 Feet

F-14 Mach Approx. 1.1 @ 5000 Feet.
Target MIG 1.0 @ 5000 Feet.

NEZ for C47 - 3,8 NM
NEZ for A47 - 4,0 NM
NEZ for A60 - 5,1 NM

For comparisson.

F-18 Mach 1,1 @ 5000 Feet.
Target MIG 1,0 @ 5000 Feet.

NEZ for 120C5 - 4,3 NM


Edited by Comstedt86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:

It was tested correctly; the data from the testing team conformed quite closely to the CFM data.  But HB remains without control of the guidance, or any changes made to it after their submission of what was tested for the patch.

Unfortunately, this is the state for much of DCS.  Third parties submit for patching based on the builds they currently have available, and something gets broken by an alteration they have no control over that takes place after the submission deadline.  See: cockpit lighting. 

Until the AIM-54s are in the new API and its finalized, its going to remain a process of playing catch up. 

So let me get this straight...  CFM is according to the whitepaper correct, so HB pushed out the fix knowing full well that guidance is broken.  Which btw the guidance has been broken for almost a year!  So knowing full well that the CFM changes and the broken guidance was going to absolutely bork the most important weapon the Tomcat has.  They pushed the fix anyway?  "This is a multi step process" then why push the change out to users?  HB can multistep in their alpha/beta testing patch environments.  This is the same BS they pulled with the Autopilot BTW....  I know the HB team is now writing a response on how the guidance is not their fault and this issue lies with ED...  Enjoy our broken missile though!  I'm getting very much annoyed with this, as I fly this module exclusively and every month now its what did HB break, with each patch.  This is not the quality I'm accustom to from this team and I'm just disappointed.  So I'm guessing a fix in "two week" and maybe the guidance will be fixed in Q4 2023 after the F-4 has launched, Got it!


Edited by Ryeman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Ryeman said:

So let me get this straight...  CFM is according to the whitepaper correct, so HB pushed out the fix knowing full well that guidance is broken.  Which btw the guidance has been broken for almost a year!  So knowing full well that the CFM changes and the broken guidance was going to absolutely bork the most important weapon the Tomcat has.  They pushed the fix anyway?  "This is a multi step process" then why push the change out to users?  HB can multistep in their alpha/beta testing patch environments.  This is the same BS they pulled with the Autopilot BTW....  I know the HB team is now writing a response on how the guidance is not their fault and this issue lies with ED...  Enjoy our broken missile though!  I'm getting very much annoyed with this, as I fly this module exclusively and every month now its what did HB break, with each patch.  This is not the quality I'm accustom to from this team and I'm just disappointed.  So I'm guessing a fix in "two week" and maybe the guidance will be fixed in Q4 2023 after the F-4 has launched, Got it!

 

It is not absolutely borked. Let's please not get overly dramatic or exaggerate things beyond reason. It was a necessary step, and it was a step in the right direction. This could not be done just in test branches - it had to be pushed to OpenBeta for practicality reasons. This is why it is Open Beta, a public test branch. It needs feedback from the community, too. If this is not wanted by some, which I understand, this is exactly why there is a stable version and an open beta version, and we recommend to stay on the stable version. It is not our choice that open beta is treated as the main version by many, and the MP community in particular, even if we understand that ofc, please keep that in mind.

  • Like 2

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

3 hours ago, IronMike said:

It is not absolutely borked. Let's please not get overly dramatic or exaggerate things beyond reason. It was a necessary step, and it was a step in the right direction. This could not be done just in test branches - it had to be pushed to OpenBeta for practicality reasons. This is why it is Open Beta, a public test branch. It needs feedback from the community, too. If this is not wanted by some, which I understand, this is exactly why there is a stable version and an open beta version, and we recommend to stay on the stable version. It is not our choice that open beta is treated as the main version by many, and the MP community in particular, even if we understand that ofc, please keep that in mind.

Ok lets call it terrible, I have been going through tacviews from yesterday.  This was a horrible change to make.  Since you brought up Open Beta, chances are this will get pushed to Stable just like the Autopilot issues did.  As I have said before the guidance has been broken for a long long time and is in Stable.  As I recall the lighting issues made it to Stable as well.  In DCS it doesn't matter which branch your on because ED pushes bugs and calls it stable all the time.  


Edited by Ryeman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ryeman said:

Ok lets call it terrible, I have been going through tacviews from yesterday.  Its really bad.  Since you brought up Open Beta, chances are this will get pushed to Stable just like the Autopilot issues did.  In DCS it doesn't matter which branch your on because ED pushes bugs and calls it stable all the time.  

This is not up to us. And it is far from "terrible". I can still kill targets of all sorts from around 30nm consistently, which makes it anything but useless. The performance is matching much more closely - if you compare the whitepaper IRL shots. When guidance comes in to play, it exposes issues that can now be attributed to guidance clearly and thus changed and fixed. For this we need the bulk of community feedback, not just results from a much more sterile testing ground.

The autopilot overhaul is nearly done and will likely come with the next patch. It is natural that sometimes there is a regress, there was no way to not push the AP as broken in the meantime, because it would mean that we could not update the FM - which otoh would have caused an outcry by those waiting on the FM fixes. And it is much better to ask to fly by hand or with a less functional AP than to ask to fly with an inaccurate FM for a limited period of time...

Sometimes these steps are necessary and cannot be avoided to progress. These are not game breaking bugs, they are necessary steps to get to a better outcome in the long run, which is all that matters, really. Else it would continue to be a back and forth for an indefinite time, which I think you would agree would be even more aggravating to the community and precisely what we want to avoid. While we have to deal with AP issues now, we are changing it so that you will - all things going well - never have to deal with it in the future again. This kind of outcome, including the aim54s, is worth to endure a) the amount of work we have to put in it and b) to ask of you to be patient with us in the meantime and to help expose the issues in need of exposing. DCS is and will always remain a shifting ground and both developers and community need to deal with it accordingly. 

That these bugs get pushed to stable should not happen, but is not within our control unfortunately, our apologies for that.

Thank you for your kind understanding.


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 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

3 hours ago, IronMike said:

This is not up to us. And it is far from "terrible". I can still kill targets of all sorts from around 30nm consistently, which makes it anything but useless. The performance is matching much more closely - if you compare the whitepaper IRL shots. When guidance comes in to play, it exposes issues that can now be attributed to guidance clearly and thus changed and fixed. For this we need the bulk of community feedback, not just results from a much more sterile testing ground.

The autopilot overhaul is nearly done and will likely come with the next patch. It is natural that sometimes there is a regress, there was no way to not push the AP as broken in the meantime, because it would mean that we could not update the FM - which would have caused and outcry by those waiting on the FM fixes. And it is much better to ask to fly by hand or with a less functional AP than to ask to fly with an inaccurate FM...

Sometimes these steps are necessary and cannot be avoided to progress. These are not game breaking bugs, they are necessary steps to get to a better outcome in the long run, which is all that matters, really. Else it would continue to be a back and forth for an indefinite time, which I think you would agree would be even more aggravating to the community and precisely what we want to avoid. While we have to deal with AP issues now, we are changing it so that you will - all things going well - never have to deal with it in the future again. This kind of outcome, including the aim54s, is worth to endure a) the amount of work we have to put in it and b) to ask of you to be patient with us in the meantime and to help expose the issues in need of exposing. DCS is and will always remain a shifting ground and both developers and community need to deal with it accordingly. 

That these bugs get pushed to stable should not happen, but is not within our control unfortunately, our apologies for that.

Thank you for your kind understanding.

And the ED disclaimer has come out.  Never change IronMike never change, I'm sure you have this response saved somewhere on your computer.  You "might" be able to kill things at 30nm if the missile wasn't dumb off the rail so many times.  I think I'm at 33% hit rate around 30 nm, beyond that I have yet to hit a head on maneuvering fighter.  So essentially I the player need to spend the next 8 hours to figure out how to get these missiles to work again and teach others how to use them effectively....  I want the most accurate representation as the next guy, but really shocked at the willingness to push out this change in this state. Stable is not the right answer here, and should not be your go to disclaimer.  I have been flying the F-14 and DCS longer than most of your customers, and know your company's history and ED's history very well.  It may not be game breaking but its broken and the state of the aircraft brokenness is starting to add up.  

 

I guess I'll go figure out how to make this work now and come back when Stable is broke!


Edited by Ryeman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ryeman said:

And the ED disclaimer has come out.  Never change IronMike never change, I'm sure you have this response saved somewhere on your computer.  You "might" be able to kill things at 30nm if the missile wasn't dumb off the rail so many times.  So essentially I the player need to spend the next 8 hours to figure out how to get these missiles to work again and teach others how to use them effectively....  I want the most accurate representation as the next guy, but really shocked at the willingness to push out this change in this state. Stable is not the right answer here, and should not be your go to disclaimer.  I have been flying the F-14 and DCS longer than most of your customers, and know your company's history and ED history very well.  It may not be game breaking but its broken and the state of the aircraft brokenness is starting to add up.  

 

This is not a matter of ED or us, or whoever is to blame. It is a necessary step. Simple as that. It was much more broken before, only that folks got used to its previous broken state, and now complain about its current, intermediate broken state, which is, again, the right step in the right direction. Not sure what else I can tell you. You can either accept it, or not. The missile being dumb off the rails is not what I see, or any of our testers see and also not what the bulk of the feedback is about. So, not sure where that is coming from. Fire closer in, lead your target accordingly, and you should be good. It is what I do, and I have no issues with it for the time being. Do we like the state of the aim54 right now? Hell no. But we liked it even less before. It's progress, which again, can only be taken in steps. You can use aim7s in the meantime, aim9s, do air to ground or a plethora of a gazillion of other things, you can finish any of the existing missions even using the aim54s as is, and you can still kill human adversaries with it. It is an acceptable regress from our side, and we can agree to disagree, but I suggest that we move on from this now and concentrate on feedback that helps us improve it and keep to the bug report and matters at hand and avoid the off topic discussion of what we should have or should not have done in your opinion. We decided to do it this way, and if you disagree with that, I appreciate the feedback, but unfortunately cannot change it now and also would not have changed it, because again: it was and is a necessary step, whether you like it or not, if I may put it that frankly. I hope that in the end, once we are done, you will appreciate it and like it and in the time being there is nothing I can do except to ask you for your kind patience. What stable is or is not, is not up to us, except that in this case, yes you will not suffer the current aim54 issue and that no matter how you regard stable or ED treats stable, the fact remains that Open Beta is meant for these kind of changes, and everyone who uses it, subscribes to that voluntarily.


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 6

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

3 hours ago, IronMike said:

This is not a matter of ED or us, or whoever is to blame. It is a necessary step. Simple as that. It was much more broken before, only that folks got used to its previous broken state, and now complain about its current, intermediate broken state, which is, again, the right step in the right direction. Not sure what else I can tell you. You can either accept it, or not. The missile being dumb off the rails is not what I see, or any of our testers see and also not what the bulk of the feedback is about. So, not sure where that is coming from. Fire closer in, lead your target accordingly, and you should be good. It is what I do, and I have no issues with it for the time being. Do we like the state of the aim54 right now? Hell no. But we liked it even less before. It's progress, which again, can only be taken in steps. You can use aim7s in the meantime, aim9s, do air to ground or a plethora of a gazillion of other things, you can finish any of the existing missions even using the aim54s as is, and you can still kill human adversaries with it. It is an acceptable regress from our side, and we can agree to disagree, but I suggest that we move on from this now and concentrate on feedback that helps us improve it and keep to the bug report and matters at hand and avoid the off topic discussion of what we should have or should not have done in your opinion. We decided to do it this way, and if you disagree with that, I appreciate the feedback, but unfortunately cannot change it now and also would not have changed it, because again: it was and is a necessary step, whether you like it or not, if I may put it that frankly. I hope that in the end, once we are done, you will appreciate it and like it and in the time being there is nothing I can do except to ask you for your kind patience. What stable is or is not, is not up to us, except that in this case, yes you will not suffer the current aim54 issue and that no matter how you regard stable or ED treats stable, the fact remains that Open Beta is meant for these kind of changes, and everyone who uses it, subscribes to that voluntarily.

 

Awesome, now your questioning my ability to operate the weapon......  Why? Why? Why?

So lets talk about Phoenix release procedures.  I want to make sure I'm operating the weapon to your satisfaction.

Head on missile employment:

1. Master Arm on

2. Select Phoenix

3. Go to the TID and wait for a blinking target to have a 1 next to it in TWS or switch STT but that would be stupid, because Jester will drop the lock and once he does the missile trashes as it should.

4. *New procedure* wait until 30 nm and have lead, *Old Procedure* wait until 35 to 40 nm and have lead.  Altitude should be 15 to 30k with .9 mach minimum.  You wouldn't think 5 nm would make a difference, but it does.

5. Weapon release: 3 secs till weapon drops off the airframe. Expect 1 out 4 missiles to drop off the jet and go straight.

6.  Immediate crank 30 to 45 degrees, making sure not to drop radar contract as we need to feed the phoenix until TTI is blinking or missile will trash.  

7. Once TTI is blinking immediate defensive if hostile missile is out or press if target is defensive. 

8. Right now count on less than 33% hit rate using the above method.  *Old Procedure* count on 50 - 75% hit rate.  I'm not expecting 100% hit, I'm a realist. 

9. Sparrows are about 50% or less hit with in 10nm or less head on, with lead, but not your problem anymore, this is EDs, enjoy the confusion all of those who don't know this.  0 percent past 10nm.  Again not looking for 100% Vietnam was one in 50 or something crazy.

11. Have I missed something?  Probably.

12. "It is an acceptable regress from our side" This says it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ryeman said:

12. "It is an acceptable regress from our side" This says it all.

No, it really doesn't.  You're mad that the longest stick in the sim took a hit- while still remaining the longest effective stick in the sim, as part of the process to getting it right; that is to say, back to full range once on the new API, with guidance to match the kinematic performance of the weapon.  HB only has control of one of those three levers, and it upsets you in the interim that the process is a feedback loop between the two firms to put things right.

On behalf of those of us who have been here since Flanker, and who were flying the F-14 before release: you can come down from the ledge, and stop acting like every single issue is the end of the world.  They're walking a line in someone else's sandbox, and working with them to correct it.  Your dramatic invocations and lack of perspective of what is actually going on serves nothing.

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the patch, actually for a long time, my - subjective and deliberately highly unscientific - impression was that I had a better PK the farther away the target was when I launched. I don't know why: maybe due to the AI starting to defend the instant I launch a Phoenix in TWS, it simply runs out of chaff when the Phoenix finally reaches it?.

Anyway, yesterday I tried the Marianas instant action mission against the J-11s, and while on a positive note the AI actually launched all of his AIM-54s, our combined 7 Phoenix-volley managed to down 1 (one!) J-11, whereas on previous attempts I (I alone, no help from the AI wingman) managed to at least take out 50% of the J-11s with Phoenix missiles.

So maybe some of you more knowledgeable gents could be so kind as to compile an interim set of optimal launch parameters for the current implementation, which I fear will be with us for quite some time (given ED's full plate and patching policy to "sit" on individual fixes until they can release a more cumulative patch monthly).

I can not provide a Tacview track, because I've disabled Tacview as it steals valuable FPS, and I need every single additional frame in VR. So much so that I might even consider giving each additional frame a name and invite it for tea and biscuits.🙂 


Edited by Jayhawk1971
added additional clarifications
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is questioning your ability to operate the weapon @Ryeman. No one is asking you to use it to our satisfaction, you can use it in any way you want. All we are asking you kindly is to be patient. If you cannot do that, that is your perogative. The drama, however, is not necessary, and quite frankly, starts wasting our time on satisfying your perception of an issue that will not change at least till the next patch, rather than allowing us to constructively use the time on fixing what you want to be fixed. Thank you for your kind consideration of that, too. 
 

  • Like 17
  • Thanks 2

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

TL;DR. Correct me if I'm wrong:

  1. the '54 was overperforming in certain conditions, to compensate for the WIP guidance;
  2. further adjustments drifted the issue our of the acceptable behaviour;
  3. the rocket motor performance has been reduced, and the '54 is similar to the expected when flying more or less straight, but the old guidance makes it a brick when turning.

Did I miss anything?

 

If this is the problem, it's actually a non-issue, solvable ad interim by:

  • working your geometry to reduce the acceptable TA further;
  • cutting your timeline by 5nm.
  • even better, playing in early 80s scenarios, where everyone has AIM-7s at best. +100 cool factor 😎
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 4
full_tiny.pngfull_tiny.png
full_tiny.png

"Cogito, ergo RIO"
Virtual Backseaters Volume I: F-14 Radar Intercept Officer - Fifth Public Draft
Virtual Backseaters Volume II: F-4E Weapon Systems Officer - Internal Draft WIP

Phantom Phamiliarisation Video Series | F-4E/F-14 Kneeboard Pack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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