Jump to content

[RESOLVED] AIM-54 inconsistency with CFD whitepaper


dundun92

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Karon said:

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 😎

Karon to the rescue!  Thank you sir! 

 

 

4 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:

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.

Really if I care if I had the longest stick I wouldn't be playing DCS, seriously there are so many variables in P/K, the phoenix is not a god missile, keep working on your personal attacks though.    Lack of perspective how?  Clearly the issue is the missile doesn't guide how it should once launched.  I think the guidance is worse than it was before.  Jayhawk is also struggling, he isn't the only one either, isn't that interesting....  If I could give him any guidance on how to make the missile work I would, but I can't figure it out how it works with any consistency either.  I'll keep trying IronMikes suggestions though.  Maybe I wasn't lucky enough to fly the F-14 before release, I'm glad you were able to though.  My question is why now and what purpose did it serve?  Especially since ED is touting this as "improvements to the Tomcat’s AIM-54 Phoenix"  What improvement?  Even IronMike doesn't call it an improvement.  It matches the CFD but the guidance logic is still trash.  Frankly the change doesn't look like it serves any purpose other than to get player feed back.  HB knew and knows there was a guidance issue.  The guidance issue has been there since the Aim-120 changes, nearly a year ago.  But instead of working with ED and fixing both at the same time, we have this.  Now we need to wait another month, if we are lucky (I'm not holding my breath, this is DCS after all.)  Oh you have been here since Flanker nice!  Please, the world is not on fire or ending, this is overly dramatic and I never said anything like this, I normally don't even post on the bug post.

 

HB likes to do this finger pointing/disclaimer thing and I'm just a bit tired of it.  I've just been here too long to listen to the corporate message over and over again.  I knew how this discussion with HB would go before they did, if they don't like me pointing out all this stuff then learn from your mistakes, fix what's broken and move on.


Edited by Ryeman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 23 Minuten schrieb Karon:

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 😎

Thanks, that's what we need: practical (interim) solutions instead of complaining about issues that have already been pre-emptively acknowledged by Heatblur as being known and worked on. And while I completely understand the frustration, probably with DCS as a whole (I'm certainly not immune to that myself, at times), I firmly believe that the devs themselves are the first ones that want everything to work as is should, as soon as possible.

Sticking to the Marianas mission example, I might try to use wingy to force the J-11's defensive first and close in a little more before launching myself. 

Sadly, there are, to my knowledge, no SP early 80's scenarios to play. The closest I could get is Zone 5, and I've played that so often that I can almost recite Bio's training rules brief from the top of my head. 🙂 

I don't play MP, not only because I don't like people 😉 (kidding) , but mainly because my system can't handle VR and multiplayer simultaneously.


Edited by Jayhawk1971
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Karon said:

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

I'd also add Get. Higher.

(emphasis added for general consumption rather than towards you personally)

When in doubt, embrace the BVR Sparrow and the SARH banzai.


Edited by near_blind
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, IronMike said:

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. 
 

@IronMike I just quickly wanted to drop in after reading this thread and tip my hat at you, good sir.

The patience and contenance of an angel seems to be required at times, the struggle to keep discussion on a civilized level is a constant one. Quite frankly, it seems to me the most passionate communities can be the most difficult to handle, often being very emotionally invested in their hobbies.

I fully appriciate the transparent and well laid-out development decisions I've been reading about in this and other threads in this subforum. As others in this and other threads, I hold the F-14 as well as several other modules in DCS very dearly in my heart, for the crowning archivements that they embody in the rich history of flight simming for decades to come.

Stay strong and always keep in mind: Great enjoyment and contentness by nature don't lead to the loudest feedback.

You and your team made and will make dreams come true, and that is what most of us are all here for!


Edited by BigNose
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ryeman said:

Oh you have been here since Flanker nice!  Please, the world is not on fire or ending, this is overly dramatic and I never said anything like this, I normally don't even post on the bug post.

No, you just stated that the brokenness is apparently ramping up, which it isn't, while trying to use your own time in DCS as some form of qualification to speak a good ways out of turn, given the history of the sim itself.

51 minutes ago, Ryeman said:

HB likes to do this finger pointing/disclaimer thing and I'm just a bit tired of it.  I've just been here too long to listen to the corporate message over and over again.  I knew how this discussion with HB would go before they did, if they don't like me pointing out all this stuff then learn from your mistakes, fix what's broken and move on.

For someone who claims to have been around DCS as long as you have, it's interesting to note you've not seen this feedback process for third parties work before.  We've only seen a third party walk away from DCS entirely because they lacked the skills to maintain their module.  We've seen another kick around an "almost complete" module for over a year while they try to play catch up.  Another had their own long range weapon get assumed directly by ED because of their lack of documentation and inability to show anything remotely comparable to reality with regards to range and Mach.

Every third party has dealt with this ship and break routine, it is the nature of the environment.  

HB got it back to within single percentage points of the CFM in test in less than one patch cycle.  A CFM baseline they put out in the open and are modeling towards long term, and one that did so until recently.  And now that they've corrected to the last iteration of the guidance they had in hand, ED now has to do their part with the loft and guidance gain.

You don't have to like the message. Doesn't mean it isn't the truth.  What you do with it is on you.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Karon said:

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 😎

Viable alternatives, but not universally applicable.
1. Geometry can do so much. But unless on the GS server, you can't expect a cooperative bandit to willingly fly into your mission. Good for intercepting cruise missiles though
2. This much i agree, 5nm more or less won't matter all that much.
3. Valid if the Sparrows were any good in DCS 😕 They eat chaff even in sub 7 mile hot launches (as low as 5, essentially i see the bandit when i fire at 'im) like candy. 

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

2 hours ago, BigNose said:

Quite frankly, it seems to me the most passionate communities can be the most difficult to handle, often being very emotionally invested in their hobbies.

Thank you for your most encouraging words. But the above is exactly why I do not mind. I know it comes from a place of passion, and it is totally ok. We understand the frustration some have, and while they might not believe us, it matters dearly to us, and we want them to be happy above all. It's just that sometimes we hope that they can appreciate it, if we say we have our reasons, and we make this or that decision, whether they like it or not. All we can do in the meantime is to progress steadily towards the results both parties want to see become reality in the end. The flak that we take along the way, is expected and we do not mind it, really. As long as everyone understand that we're interested in making everything better for them most and above all, it's all good. 🙂

Thanks again for your very kind words.

  • Like 7

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

What will the new guidance do and other future improvements that will benefit the 54 from its current state? It will only get rid of the sharp turns that drains its speed right? New guidance features?
 

I’m under the impression that with the new drag profile, the 54 should be performing pretty accurately at least kinetically both in low and high altitude. Is this a correct assumption?

 

I’m just trying to understand if all these updates are making the 54 perform as accurately as possible, especially since this is one of the biggest AIM-54 changes to the missile’s performance since I started playing the 54 and I’ve never seen the 54 perform so “poorly” at low altitude PAL ranges.


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

56 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

What will the new guidance do and other future improvements that will benefit the 54 from its current state? It will only get rid of the sharp turns that drains its speed right? New guidance features?
 

I’m under the impression that with the new drag profile, the 54 should be performing pretty accurately at least kinetically both in low and high altitude. Is this a correct assumption?

 

I’m just trying to understand if all these updates are making the 54 perform as accurately as possible, especially since this is one of the biggest AIM-54 changes to the missile’s performance since I started playing the 54 and I’ve never seen the 54 perform so “poorly” at low altitude PAL ranges.

 

The only inaccurate thing I can think right now with the AIM-54 in terms of major grievances is the guidance logic (which I think has been improved for the time being by getting seemingly reverted to older code) and the seeker differences. It should perform horribly at low altitudes. It's the size of a small car and weighs half a ton. The motor really isn't that powerful compared to the thrust to weight of the AIM-120 or R-27. It just burns for a long time and should really only be used at upper-medium to high altitudes. You should really be using sparrows in the lower altitude blocks and just get in closer. 


Edited by Prez

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Karon said:

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 😎

I think this is a reasonable take but for the AIM-54C you need to cut your timeline by 40 - 60% shots there were doable at 35 NM now need to be done a 15 - 20 NM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what is worth, here are a couple of tracks as well. Out of the 8 missiles fired, only one stayed roughly level during it's trajectory.
Test conditions, standard atmosphere, mach 1.1 launching platform. 500m altitude. AIM-54A mk47 missiles used 
General impressions, the missiles follow the power curve fairly closely, but they never hit mach 2.0. In fact, the most i got out of them (in that one more or less perfect shot) was mach 1.86. On top of that, after the missile stops burning, i decelerates faster then the charts suggest. All the missiles went bellow mach 1 at the 35s marker, or about second and a half before they should. 
The averaged out mach at time interval i got were: 
0s  - 1.1225
5s  - 1.3575
10s - 1.545
15s - 1.6775
20s - 1.7643
25s - 1.8129
30s - 1.43
35s - 0.9875

Note, all but but one missile dropped after launch, so the denser atmosphere may have slowed the missiles down.
However, one missile didn't drop and stayed mostly level. These are the results from that missile's flight:

0s  - 1.13
5s  - 1.39
10s - 1.57
15s - 1.70
20s - 1.79
25s - 1.85
30s - 1.47
35s - 1.03

EDIT:
I had to try a more valid approach, so i did another 8 launches, this time around they stayed level for the most part and one even managed to hit another one. But never the less, the average didn't change much to my surprise. It looks like there isn't that much more difference in atmosphere density. 
The averaged out results from the second go:
0s  - 1.12875
5s  - 1.35875
10s - 1.5475
15s - 1.68875
20s - 1.77875
25s - 1.844286
30s - 1.441429
35s - 0.991429

So definitely a bit of underperforming. 

And these are the tackviews:
Tacview-20220129-000023-DCS-missile tests f14A low alt.zip.acmiTacview-20220129-011346-DCS-missile tests f14A low alt.zip.acmiTacview-20220129-000422-DCS.zip.acmiTacview-20220129-011742-DCS.zip.acmi


Edited by captain_dalan
  • Like 1

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

1 hour ago, captain_dalan said:

For what is worth, here are a couple of tracks as well. Out of the 8 missiles fired, only one stayed roughly level during it's trajectory.
Test conditions, standard atmosphere, mach 1.1 launching platform. 500m altitude. AIM-54A mk47 missiles used 
General impressions, the missiles follow the power curve fairly closely, but they never hit mach 2.0. In fact, the most i got out of them (in that one more or less perfect shot) was mach 1.86. On top of that, after the missile stops burning, i decelerates faster then the charts suggest. All the missiles went bellow mach 1 at the 35s marker, or about second and a half before they should. 
The averaged out mach at time interval i got were: 
0s  - 1.1225
5s  - 1.3575
10s - 1.545
15s - 1.6775
20s - 1.7643
25s - 1.8129
30s - 1.43
35s - 0.9875

Note, all but but one missile dropped after launch, so the denser atmosphere may have slowed the missiles down.
However, one missile didn't drop and stayed mostly level. These are the results from that missile's flight:

0s  - 1.13
5s  - 1.39
10s - 1.57
15s - 1.70
20s - 1.79
25s - 1.85
30s - 1.47
35s - 1.03

EDIT:
I had to try a more valid approach, so i did another 8 launches, this time around they stayed level for the most part and one even managed to hit another one. But never the less, the average didn't change much to my surprise. It looks like there isn't that much more difference in atmosphere density. 
The averaged out results from the second go:
0s  - 1.12875
5s  - 1.35875
10s - 1.5475
15s - 1.68875
20s - 1.77875
25s - 1.844286
30s - 1.441429
35s - 0.991429

So definitely a bit of underperforming. 

And these are the tackviews:
Tacview-20220129-000023-DCS-missile tests f14A low alt.zip.acmiTacview-20220129-011346-DCS-missile tests f14A low alt.zip.acmiTacview-20220129-000422-DCS.zip.acmiTacview-20220129-011742-DCS.zip.acmi

 

You are using the wrong variant; the whitepaper uses the Mk60 not 47

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

33 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

You are using the wrong variant; the whitepaper uses the Mk60 not 47

I couldn't find anything within the whitepaper that states what variant of the missile was used to test out the Mach numbers.

-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

Just now, DSplayer said:

I couldn't find anything within the whitepaper that states what variant of the missile was used to test out the Mach numbers.

There are 2 indicators: A, the burn time (Mk60 is 30s, Mk47 is 27s, the CFD graphs show a 30s), and you can compare the CFD speed vs time to the variants comparison speed vs time. The Mk60 in the variants almost hits M3; meanwhile the Mk47 only hits ~M2.6-2.7

image.png

image.png

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

56 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

I couldn't find anything within the whitepaper that states what variant of the missile was used to test out the Mach numbers.

Well the white paper is no longer white and it seems someone has removed it.... 😛

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

57 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

There are 2 indicators: A, the burn time (Mk60 is 30s, Mk47 is 27s, the CFD graphs show a 30s), and you can compare the CFD speed vs time to the variants comparison speed vs time. The Mk60 in the variants almost hits M3; meanwhile the Mk47 only hits ~M2.6-2.7

image.png

image.png

Oh I was looking at the wrong graphs. Thats my fault.

-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

2 hours ago, dundun92 said:

You are using the wrong variant; the whitepaper uses the Mk60 not 47

Ran the  mk60, but only one batch as it's already 5AM here. And of those 4 launched, only 3 can be considered somewhat valid shots, even if the initial launch speed was a tad high (but not enough to matter IMO). Here are the results, averaged out:
0s  - 1.17
5s  - 1.38667
10s - 1.61667
15s - 1.78333
20s - 1.89667
25s - 1.99333
30s - 2.03
35s - 1.3333
37s - 1.13

So for the most part there, slightly faster after burnout. A further cut in performance is in order then. 

Tacview-20220129-041856-DCS.zip.acmi

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

Something that is being missed here is ED's atmosphere model is completely broken. No one is posting the air pressure or temperature settings for their testings. That matters. And in DCS it *really* matters because the effect on density of temperature in particular is insane. Additionally, the air pressure calculations are so wrong as to be laughable. ED admitted this was done to compress the battlespace and force aircraft to be in closer proximity than they would in the real world. Even though they have walked back similar changes (notably missiles) they have not fixed the atmosphere. Firing missiles at 40,000' is akin to 60-70k' IRL. Firing missiles at sea level is like firing a missile through sludge. Temperature is even worse, with very cold temperatures causing conditions similar to flying through water and very hot temperatures making flight almost impossible.

I honestly don't know what comparing a real life missile or real life testing is going to do for anyone when the atmosphere we fire our digital missiles through bears no resemblance to real life.

  • Like 3

Flying the DCS: F-14B from Heatblur Simulations with Carrier Strike Group 2 and the VF-154 Black Knights!

 

I also own: Ka-50 2, A-10C, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F-86F, CA, Mig-15bis, Mig-21bis, F/A-18C, L-39, F-5E, AV-8B, AJS-37, F-16C, Mig-19P, JF-17, C-101, and CEII

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DCSoping said:

@Ryeman

You can't be on the 100 feet altitude anymore while firing and forgetting 15nm shots at cold , running away targets.  Wel boohoo ?

You still have a considerably greater NEZ on the ground

And you still have about a massive 3x NEZ advantage at slight altitude

Was firing phoenixes at cold targets really all you did or something ? Was your whole strategy based on a serious performance bug ?

 

 

Up to 20k firing at cold target 120C5 has higher NEZ than both A47 & C47, haven't tried higher than this yet. 

 

Things radically get worse for the Phoenix as soon as any kind of correction is involved, even a slight turn. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DCSoping said:

But is that even so weird considering the bulky size and therefor huge drag of this enormous missile ?
I thought the aim54 was designed as a high altitude anti bomber missile, and not for hunting down agile fighters in the bushes ?

That gets thrown around alot yes. 

Does that mean it would be worthless as soon as the target does any kind of manouver? 

20k is hardly bush altitude though. I don't know if the current 120 performance is realistic in comparisson but I doubt the Amraam (apart from D version) would have longer legs than the Phoenix except possibly sl / down low owing the engine the burn time.

Even with all that drag? Perhaps someone more enlightened can shed some light. Either way, the problem isn't necessarily the new drag profile but rather it in conjunction with the outdated guidance. 

 

*edit* Yeah both 47s, the Mk60 still enjoys some 15-20% edge over the 120 in a straight line. 

 

What's weird is the C47 is worse of the bunch, even though it should be slightly better than the A47. 


Edited by Comstedt86
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mattag08 said:

No one is posting the air pressure or temperature settings for their testings.

Oh all the tests are performed on standard conditions, 15C 29.92Hg

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

12 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Well the white paper is no longer white and it seems someone has removed it.... 😛

It is still there? We didn't remove anything.

http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

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

Can we take a second to appreciate how much effort is being put into this.

I mean yeah, my initial reaction to hearing 'phoenix got nerfed' was 'oh no!' but at the same time, you just got to take a step back and realize what heatblur is trying to do here. Give it some time. This isn't the first, or last time DCS yeets something. My only real issue is I'm trying to play in an environment where there's multiple types of planes, and the rules of the game change in ways that make working together hard. Remember when the hornet got its radar range reduced but the f16 could still spot things out to 90nm? You just have to learn to roll with the punches, trusting that people are working behind the scenes to make this game better.

Right now I'm super curious to see what the end result will be. Will the phoenix end up being more or less an amraam? How will I fight more modern jets with it if that's the case. Is the SD10 ever going to get changed or will it slowly become the best missile in the game simply because its not being remodeled? Maybe it's realistic as it is? Will everyone soon be flying eurofighters because 'best bvr missile' or will the f15-16 amraam become the king of bvr with the new changes? Who knows! One thing for sure is there's a long road ahead before DCS becomes stable and ED/Heatblur/any other dev is satisfied with the simulation level detail of things. And that's exciting!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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