Feedback Thread - F-14 Tomcat patch Jan 27th 2022

[IronMike]

Dear all,

as usual we appreciate your kind feedback on the recent patch. The two main items of focus are ofc the updated aim-54s as well as some progress we made in fixing the MP carrier spawn issues. Please not on the latter that we are not entirely done yet, we are still looking for a solution that the wings would never unfold on spawn, which they still do from time to time as is. Thank you!

DCS: F-14 Tomcat by Heatblur Simulations

• Adjusted AIM-54 FM data to more closely correlate with CFD research.
• Fixed lofting definitions for AIM-54, AI should now loft AIM-54’s.
• USS Forrestal: Added collision box to LSO platform, allowing placement of crew and objects.
• Fixed JESTER menu typo in Ripple Quantity in the A2G submenu.
• JESTER now sets waypoint altitude for waypoints added from map markers.
• Fixed F-14B RPM Gauge flickering.
• Improved instances of MP spawn on carriers causing wing damage to neighboring spawns. Some cases persist.
• Fixed Mic Button UHF1/2 presses not being recognized as PTT for VOIP if the radio menu is open.
• Fixed VF-41 livery folder structure.
• Updated VF-32 Swordsmen AB200 livery by Yae Sakura (thank you!).
• Added VF-14 Tophatters liveries AB100, AJ200 and AJ201 by Ben_Der (thank you!).

[GatorNutz]

Major difference in PAL at low altitude...I realize this is based on NASA data, but its massive solid rocket motor should push through M2 even at 2k ft, right?

[12F Maddog]

My test with aim54-A mk 60
on the left before the patch, lost 1 mach in the top and when pass active ????

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by 12F Maddog

[SPQR PRAETORIAN]

Hahahaha 54 now completly useless against anything other than AI and GS server noobs. 

[cgstever91]

its just completely useless against any target 

[near_blind]

1 hour ago, GatorNutz said:

I realize this is based on NASA data, but its massive solid rocket motor should push through M2 even at 2k ft, right?

It's also got massive drag counteracting that massive motor. it's a thick missile and low altitude isn't really its happy place. 

[Roosterfeet]

Just did some testing and the 54C is still pretty effective against Mig-23s when fired head-on at Mach 1, inside 35 miles at 30,000 feet. At 40+ miles and below 20,000 feet, not so good. I have no idea whether the FM adjustments make it more or less realistic but in the current build it's still an effective missile if you make sure it has enough energy to get where it's going. I think the bigger problem is still the inability of the AI to reliably fire the the Phoenix within effective parameters and support it until it goes active.

There could also be an issue with AI reacting too soon to TWS launches and reducing effective range, not sure about that one though.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Roosterfeet

[Krippz]

1 hour ago, SPQR PRAETORIAN said:

Hahahaha 54 now completly useless against anything other than AI and GS server noobs. 

The missile is still quite effective at high altitude. At the end of the day it's a simulator; sensors, missiles and other items should be as realistic as possible. You should be commending the dev for taking the steps that they took when presented with information. 

[cgstever91]

the aim 120c has a higher pk at 35nm than the aim54 this is in no way realistic 

[Krippz]

2 minutes ago, cgstever91 said:

the aim 120c has a higher pk at 35nm than the aim54 this is in no way realistic 

How would you know?

[cgstever91]

we are comparing the two right now and the pk of the 54 is 0

[near_blind]

1 minute ago, cgstever91 said:

we are comparing the two right now and the pk of the 54 is 0

What are your shot parameters?

[cgstever91]

.90 30,000 ft hot target 

small target size 35nm

 

[SgtPappy]

4 minutes ago, cgstever91 said:

.90 30,000 ft hot target 

Might be better to supply a tacview or short video of one. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by SgtPappy

[cgstever91]

will do

 

[Cobra847]

We do not believe the current performance to be realistic due to guidance issues.

Unfortunately, this turned out to be a multi-step process and we'll be working hard to rectify this with urgency.

[dundun92]

3 hours ago, GatorNutz said:

massive solid rocket motor should push through M2 even at 2k ft, right?

not according to their CFD research, no. M2 is indeed the max speed it should be hitting ASL, look at the whitepaper.

[cgstever91]

Tacview-20220127-130531-DCS.zip.acmi Tacview-20220127-130854-DCS.zip.acmi

how relevant is the cfd data to how dcs is run 

[dundun92]

7 minutes ago, cgstever91 said:

Tacview-20220127-130531-DCS.zip.acmi 114.28 kB · 1 download Tacview-20220127-130854-DCS.zip.acmi 118.98 kB · 1 download

how relevant is the cfd data to how dcs is run 

Both the 120 and AIM-54 hit in the track you gave.

[UWBuRn]

1 hour ago, Cobra847 said:

We do not believe the current performance to be realistic due to guidance issues.

Unfortunately, this turned out to be a multi-step process and we'll be working hard to rectify this with urgency.

With all the respect for your competence and the work you're putting into it, it's hard to belive it's a guidance issue. Guidance was an issue also before, FM just seems to be off now.

Btw, any news on moving to the new API?

[cgstever91]

it seems to fly with a drag chute behind it 

[VFA41_Lion]

28 minutes ago, UWBuRn said:

With all the respect for your competence and the work you're putting into it, it's hard to belive it's a guidance issue. Guidance was an issue also before, FM just seems to be off now.

Btw, any news on moving to the new API?

isn't this the "new API" ? I keep hearing about it....

[cgstever91]

that is what i had heard 

[IronMike]

There is a couple things to consider: 1) the CFD data is not everything. Plume effects are not included, so it is likely to be taken as conservative a touch. 2) You need to adjust CFD data, etc to achieve known real life results within a set environment as DCS, and conditions will alter your results, when deviated from those real life shots. 3) The FM is now pretty close and introduced with the new weapons lua FM, which yes is part of the new API. 4) The guidance part is still on the old API, and thus interferes with the performance results.

This is a rather simple run down of things, not everything is or will be this straight forward and it requires a lot of tweaking and trial and error to get it just right. But currently it is not the FM that is off as much as the guidance causing the missile to make turns that are working against it, which sets off the FM. The shots in the whitepaper have been done without loft, in a straight line. Try that, and you will see it matches very closely already (while in fact even over-performing still a tad in these situations). The guidance issues then introduce problems that cause it to under-perform in certain situations, which we are currently dealing with and have to solve together with ED. As Cobra mentioned, it is a multi-step process, and we kindly ask you all to have a bit patience. While it might not seem like it at first hand, this is already a huge step forward and in the right direction, and we will not stop until we reach the point that satisfies us in performance matching real life shots most and above all. Thank you.

Edited January 27, 2022 by IronMike

[Spurts]

Track analysis.  Both launched from ~0.8M 36,000ft at 1.05M closing target at 34,000ft from 40nm range

                         AIM-120C5                   AIM-54

Max Speed      3.59M@8s                    3.45M@30s

Loft                   22deg                           13.6deg

Max Alt             60,414ft                         48,570ft

Loft type           0.0-0.4G until               0.5G pull down

                           18.75nm range             18.8nm

Active                8.13nm                           10.2nm

                           51,779ft                         45,052ft

                            2.32M                           2.42M

                           -25.6 pitch                     -10.6 pitch

Terminal            1.8M  7.1G  -67.8pitch      1.35M  3.8G   -40.4 pitch

                          1:16 ToF                            1:17 ToF

AI drops chaff immediately on launch with Phoenix, not with AMRAAM.

AMRAAM pulls nose to 26.2deg in 2s from launch, Phoenix pulls nose to 13.5deg in 16s from launch.  Sounds like guidance is making the difference here.