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

[Strider21]

Just now, dundun92 said:

For sure, im just pointing out why its happening, this is fundamentally an issue with both missiles being affected by chaff way too much, and the AI chaff being super effective for some reason

For sure it a system of systems but I disagree with the idea that the changes in the recent simply reduced the range performance. They seem to be 100% worse under the identical conditions as before. 

1 minute ago, IronMike said:

You are mixing two bugs though, then. 1) missile performance being hindered by guidance issues. 2) The AI chaffing prior to the missile going active, and thus rendering the missile useless. Which inhibits testing your point 1). We know these things are borked both, but if you mix them, you will not get a glance at what the current missile performance is, is my point. I hope that makes more sense like that.

I hear you and understand your point. But again the recent patch didn't just change FM there seems to be other things going such that at least in my experience/test the 54C is no longer effective in game. If the flight model is 100%  accurate but the missile will never hit due to other reasons it is not usable to the player. 

[IronMike]

3 minutes ago, Strider21 said:

For sure it a system of systems but I disagree with the idea that the changes in the recent simply reduced the range performance. They seem to be 100% worse under the identical conditions as before. 

Yes, but for two different reasons which are stacking on each other. You want to test that separately to get the results you want.

[captain_dalan]

7 minutes ago, near_blind said:

If you're just trying to test straight line kinematics got cfd validation, does it matter if the missle is active or not? Otherwise loft isn't really "configurable" for TWS/PD-STT shots.

Ah, roger that. So we are testing just pure kinetics and not all the shots presented in the paper. 

[Strider21]

7 minutes ago, IronMike said:

Yes, but for two different reasons which are stacking on each other. You want to test that separately to get the results you want.

If you are trying isolate the root cause then I agree with you. I am just trying to highlight that IMHO in its current state the AIM-54C is not effective. The test were limited in scope and size but I feel they represent a "realistic" DCS game scenario a player might encounter. An end-to-end system test is usually done to validate the system as a whole against a representative threat to gain a understanding of overall system effectiveness. 

I have no idea if the changes to the FM are 100% responsible for the changes in system performance but at least from what I guess there seems to be more going on than just a change to the kinematic performance changes.  

Edited January 28, 2022 by Strider21

[IronMike]

7 minutes ago, Strider21 said:

If you are trying isolate the root cause then I agree with you. I am just trying to highlight that IMHO in its current state the AIM-54C is not effective. The test were limited in scope and size but I feel they represent a "realistic" DCS game scenario a player might encounter. An end-to-end to system test is usually done validate the system as whole against a representative threat to gain a understanding of overall system effectiveness. 

I have no idea if the changes to FM are responsible are 100% responsible for the changes in system performance but at least from what I guess there seems to be more going on that just a change to the kinematic performance changes.  

Yes, but we know that. There is not more going on than the guidance affecting the performance (due to instantenous course corrections that are out of place and a crazy commanded loft in the C's case) + the AI chaffing. Which results not in complete ineffectiveness, but a drastically reduced effective range, as mentioned above. Try your shots again around 20nm to 15nm. The results should differ, though you will still run into the issue of the AI chaffing, when it shouldn't - which has nothing to do directly with the AIM54s, but how the AI reacts to the AIM54s.

PS: I would never set the AI to ace, btw, because that just increases its potential of allknowingly defending what it shouldn't, notching what it could not yet see and chaffing what it should not know about. Use veteran at most. Else we will be talking AI issues here, which is nothing we can do about, really, but should be directed to ED.

Edited January 28, 2022 by IronMike

[Strider21]

31 minutes ago, IronMike said:

Yes, but we know that. There is not more going on than the guidance affecting the performance (due to instantenous course corrections that are out of place and a crazy commanded loft in the C's case) + the AI chaffing. Which results not in complete ineffectiveness, but a drastically reduced effective range, as mentioned above. Try your shots again around 20nm to 15nm. The results should differ, though you will still run into the issue of the AI chaffing, when it shouldn't - which has nothing to do directly with the AIM54s, but how the AI reacts to the AIM54s.

PS: I would never set the AI to ace, btw, because that just increases its potential of allknowingly defending what it shouldn't, notching what it could not yet see and chaffing what it should not know about. Use veteran at most. Else we will be talking AI issues here, which is nothing we can do about, really, but should be directed to ED.

 

Fair enough. Again appreciate your feedback. I ran another 10 shots. Same conditions as before but firing at 15 NM. (AI ACE SU-30, CHAFF, but no weapons). 

15 NM 5/10 or 50%

That does seem clear that bringing the range down to 15 NM improves the C hit percentage. This performance is what I was seeing from 35 NM for the AIM-54C under the same conditions pre-patch. Admittedly I didn't test shots between 15 NM and 24 NM so perhaps this will hold up on longer ranges short of 25 NM. 

If you are using the AIM-54C you going to have to bring your ranges down somewhere between 40 - 60% to achieve similar results prior to the patch. (IMHO)

Tacview-20220128-105314-DCS-AIM54C Test .zip.acmi

Edited January 28, 2022 by Strider21

[IronMike]

12 minutes ago, Strider21 said:

Fair enough. Again appreciate your feedback. I ran another 10 shots. Same conditions as before but firing at 15 NM. (AI ACE SU-30, CHAFF, but no weapons). 

15 NM 5/10 or 50%

That does seem clear that bringing the range down to 15 NM improves the C hit percentage. This performance is what I was seeing from 35 NM for the AIM-54C under the same conditions pre-patch. Admittedly I didn't test shots between 15 NM and 24 NM so perhaps this will hold up on longer ranges short of 25 NM. 

If you are using the AIM-54C you going to have to bring your ranges down somewhere between 40 - 60% to achieve similar results prior to the patch. (IMHO)

Tacview-20220128-105314-DCS-AIM54C Test .zip.acmi 767.44 kB · 0 downloads

 

Thank you for the great feedback and testing!

[Callsign JoNay]

1 hour ago, Strider21 said:

@IronMikeThe target size switch for all shots was NORMAL.

 

Suggest you try LARGE. The DCS AI usually cranks/notches in between where a 54 would pitbull from Large to Normal, resulting in missiles getting trashed before they can PB. Large will (usually) ensure that you'll get your pitbull before they begin defensive maneuvers. See my video on page 2. Granted I used the MK60.

1 hour ago, dundun92 said:

For sure, im just pointing out why its happening, this is fundamentally an issue with both missiles being affected by chaff way too much, and the AI chaff being super effective for some reason

My experience is the opposite with chaff. I used to lose 54s to chaff 95% of the time when I was testing in mid 2021, but I haven't seen any of my 54s lose to chaff in the last few patches. 

[plasma1945]

Really simple suggestion - can we reset them back to previous settings. Until further investigation is performed and fixed etc. change burn to 25 seconds and keep everything the way it was.  

[NeedzWD40]

14 minutes ago, plasma1945 said:

Really simple suggestion - can we reset them back to previous settings.

It pains me to say this, but... Better to just use AIM-54AMk60. It seems to perform as expected, if you can get past the relatively weaker seeker.

[plasma1945]

Just now, NeedzWD40 said:

It pains me to say this, but... Better to just use AIM-54AMk60. It seems to perform as expected, if you can get past the relatively weaker seeker.

Mk60 test

Aye.. But even they struggle.. 
target 2900 hot  450kn
17.7nm

me 2995 hot 575 kn 

launch -- missile pretty much flies head on.. after boost looses all speed... (drag chute) and hits target at speed of 390-410kn
my MIZ file is posted if you want to try it I have a target

B52 at 3000
B52 at 10000
F15 (rookie) at 35000

AIM54mk60 and 54C 

 
voila.

[NeedzWD40]

47 minutes ago, plasma1945 said:

Aye.. But even they struggle.. 
target 2900 hot  450kn
17.7nm

me 2995 hot 575 kn 

Am I reading that right and these are launches at 3,000ft?

[dundun92]

55 minutes ago, plasma1945 said:

after boost looses all speed... (drag chute)

Yeah, just like in the whitepaper AIM-54, which, spoiler alert, is back to M1 only 7s after burnout . AIM-54 just isnt a good missile down low.

[plasma1945]

19 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Am I reading that right and these are launches at 3,000ft?

yup tested down low too and high (low alt test because in PVP/ Sata-L/C matches often last launches from Tomcats are in a dogfight < 15 miles)

- https://www.redstardcs.com/miz/phxtest2022.miz  my test file i used is here
there are 3 hostiles at altitudes of
6 / 10 / 35

and

two more coming in from turkey at 35 and you start out high and fast.. the high and fast.. merge launched at 35,000 and m1.4 missile still was out turned by a gentle right roll of a hostile pilot.. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by plasma1945

[NeedzWD40]

51 minutes ago, plasma1945 said:

yup tested down low too and high (low alt test because in PVP/ Sata-L/C matches often last launches from Tomcats are in a dogfight < 15 miles)

Well, that explains it: PvP often gives conditions that would be uncommonly seen in reality and thus the AIM-54 is "nerfed" now because... It is performing kinematically per the whitepaper.

I ran through your test mission and launched from 45,000ft at 70nmi on the F-16 and scored a hit, but notably the seeker had some difficulty with acquisition. I went a bit closer on the F/A-18A and opted for a 60nmi launch at 35,000ft. I was also able to score a 70nmi STT (the horror!) kill on the 10,000ft B-52 with a 40,000ft launch. From my perspective, that is pretty good performance for the conditions, well above what one can expect from any available weapon in the playable arsenal. While it is true that anyone could turn cold or notch the missile (or even zigzag at low altitude to lose TWS tracks), the fact is that the AIM-54 is offering some pretty long first-shot potential, even with the more realistic performance. Playing around at low altitudes or getting within touching distance of AMRAAMs is simply playing to the other guy's advantage and is really to be expected, as we've seen in the real world with the AMRAAM's introduction.

Whether we like it or not, the F-14 and by extension, the AIM-54, is a product of its age. Expecting it to go toe-to-toe with technology decades in advance is asking a bit much.

[DoorMouse]

8 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

It is performing kinematically per the whitepaper.

They already specified this is only true in a straight line. The issue is when it has to maneuver is now inaccurate and loses far too much energy, and does not maneuver to target properly. It should perform (hopefully) closer to what it looked like at release before whatever changes happened that caused it's over performance, it will still out range an aamram. 

We just have to wait for a fix. Hopefully soon. 

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by DoorMouse

[captain_dalan]

1 hour ago, dundun92 said:

Yeah, just like in the whitepaper AIM-54, which, spoiler alert, is back to M1 only 7s after burnout . AIM-54 just isnt a good missile down low.

It's true, it isn't. Or at least it shouldn't be. But in my last 8 shoot outs, ACM cover up, mach 1.1, 1640ft, they all became subsonic inside 35 seconds from launch instead of 36.2-37 seconds, and never reached mach 2.0. The best i got was mach 1.86. I can only imagine the differences will widen as the altitude and mach numbers increase. But at least down low, the missiles seam to be underperforming a bit right now, and that is in level flight. Add a maneuvering target or a lofting profile and they will underperform even more. Hooray for the "good guys"......i guess. The competitive guys are once more safe in their dinky planes.

[Callsign JoNay]

2 hours ago, plasma1945 said:

Mk60 test

Aye.. But even they struggle.. 
target 2900 hot  450kn
17.7nm

me 2995 hot 575 kn 

launch -- missile pretty much flies head on.. after boost looses all speed... (drag chute) and hits target at speed of 390-410kn
my MIZ file is posted if you want to try it I have a target

B52 at 3000
B52 at 10000
F15 (rookie) at 35000

AIM54mk60 and 54C 

 
voila.

Maybe your problem is (as your thumbnail is suggesting), you're shooting at under 25 NM only. The missile is not lofting from that range, it's basically taking a LOS trajectory. And your statement that it will never exceed Mach 4 is inaccurate. See my vid on page 2.

[dundun92]

1 hour ago, captain_dalan said:

It's true, it isn't. Or at least it shouldn't be. But in my last 8 shoot outs, ACM cover up, mach 1.1, 1640ft, they all became subsonic inside 35 seconds from launch instead of 36.2-37 seconds, and never reached mach 2.0. The best i got was mach 1.86. I can only imagine the differences will widen as the altitude and mach numbers increase. But at least down low, the missiles seam to be underperforming a bit right now, and that is in level flight. Add a maneuvering target or a lofting profile and they will underperform even more. Hooray for the "good guys"......i guess. The competitive guys are once more safe in their dinky planes.

mentioned it in the other thread, but the whitapaper uses the Mk60 not Mk47, so youd need to compare to that

[Spurts]

On 1/27/2022 at 5:08 PM, IronMike said:

Thank you. Which AIM-54 was that?

The C, sorry I thought I had that in already.

 

And those A mk60 tacviews are gorgeous to watch.  That beautiful arc of a loft...

Edited January 29, 2022 by Spurts

[captain_dalan]

1 hour ago, dundun92 said:

mentioned it in the other thread, but the whitapaper uses the Mk60 not Mk47, so youd need to compare to that

Will do. 

[captain_dalan]

5 hours ago, NeedzWD40 said:

It pains me to say this, but... Better to just use AIM-54AMk60. It seems to perform as expected, if you can get past the relatively weaker seeker.

Best use for now (after about 2 hours of experimenting in different tactical scenarios) is to use them as 10nm missiles in head-on scenarios. As such they outperform the Sparrows and seem less prone to CM. BVR shots should be avoided except against extremely compliant bandit (essentially one that is willing to fly right at you, without even as much as 15-20 degree offset). Launches inside 35 nautical miles (angels 25-30 mach 1.1-1.2) are a wash. I've seen the missile drop from mach 3.0 to 0.75 in less then 2 miles (against hot bandits) if the bandit so much as yanks its nose a bit to the side. Launches above 33 nm should avoided as the plague. This is all against AI's and they WILL ALWAYS change direction inside 15 miles or so. 
BVR Launches from medium altitudes (angels 15-20) should be also avoided. Every shot taken from 20-30 miles away ends up with a subsonic missile falling out of the sky some 5 miles short from the bandit unless the bandit is set to just fly straight and level. Again, shot inside 10 miles work best, with almost a sure hit on the target.  

My advice, take one, or maybe two (if you are feeling lucky) of them on your wing pilons. Keep them as ambush weapons as they seem to work well with the TCS inside 10 miles. Fill the rest with Sparrows and Sidewinders. Yes, the AIM-7 eat more chaff, but they are much lighter, and if you end up in the visual arena (and YOU WILL) they will penalize you less. 

All in all, avoid them in tactical scenarios and use them for their dogfighting capabilities. We are back in the WVR era of DCS, time to adapt accordingly. 

EDIT: this is all about mk60's. The mark 47's are not worth mentioning in any scenario. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by captain_dalan

[Reax178]

I made a few dozen tests with the 54A Mk 60 at high altitude (40k ft) and in TWS against Veteran Su-30 AI. The initial guidance seems even better than before thanks to the loft (can achieve 80+ nm shot against a hot fighter-sized target at 40k ft with the missile going at mach 3 when impact). However, the main issue i encountered is the final guidance, when the missile goes active.

I know that nothing was changed in the guidance part of the missile but it seems even worse than before : the missile loses the lock when closer to 1 nm with the enemy. It seems to happen only when the aircraft goes into notching, but the weird thing is that the phoenix keeps the lock when the enemy "flies straight after the notch" (look at the first image). However, if the enemy aircraft keeps turning even after notching, then the phoenix will certainly lose the lock.

TGT Size doesn't seem to matter since it happens at extremely close range from the target. Chaff doesn't seem to be linked to that behavior, i made the same tests with chaff-empty aircraft and obtained the same results.

Don't hesitate to tell me what you think about it

[westr]

Is there any more plans to model performance or is this the definitive model of the missile now?

[Quid]

30 minutes ago, westr said:

Is there any more plans to model performance or is this the definitive model of the missile now?

It's been covered in a couple threads including this one, this is part of a multi-stage remodel.  The current state is not definitive.

"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. "