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

[Zaphael]

Firstly, I would like to appreciate HB for all their hard work and research that has gone into the making of the Tomcat module. It is by far, my favourite module in DCS.  It is amazing to me how much research, thought and work that has gone to coding a missile's kinematic performance in commercial/non-professional simulator. I am not aware whether simulators used by militaries go into this level of detail. Why HB would go down this tedious route eludes me, but I stand in admiration of what has been made and updated over the years.

I've done a few high and medium altitude scenarios against a Trainee AI, Su-27 and have a few observations to share. All my shots were taken at 55Nm, at 30,000ft, and 20,000ft at co-altitude target. Target aircraft will typically make a missile defence when the Phoenix goes pitbull but no chaff employed.  Target size was set to SMALL (my general practice when using phoenix against fighters). I have to caveat that my tests are not perfect and I may re run them to align other variables.

1.  The missile does appear to be a lot slower than before, and it does seem to reduce the end-game energy state.  This is when using a level supersonic delivery. 

-The missile impacts target at 1.59M when launched at 30,000ft.  The missile failed to impact when launched at 20,000ft. I was not surprised by this set of results, although the missile impact energy state. Targets all began to defend the missile when pitbull. 

2. The missile end-game energy state improves significantly with an assisted loft. 30 Degree pitch up was initiated at 56+Nm, with trigger depressed at 55nm.

-For the 30,000ft test, missile impact at 2.27M, and 1.23M when fired at 20,000ft. Likewise, targets began to defend themselves when pitbull. The end-game energy state appears to be better due to steeper dive trajectory. 

3. Missile going stupid (flies straight without guidance). It seems to happen to the follow up missiles IF the first Phoenix fails to impact the target (negative timer). When TID shows a new radar contact, I fired a second phoenix which goes stupid.  When it was clear the second phoenix was not going to hit, I fired a third with ACM cover up. TID was flashing a new contact when I fired.  3rd Phoenix also went stupid. Sparrow was not affected, and flood mode worked like a charm. 

4. Missile when nearing apex of the loft, continues to maintain pitch up attitude despite the speed decreasing. This seems odd to me as the missile slows down to gain a bit more altitude. I understood that the maintaining the velocity of the missile ought to be more important than attaining higher altitude, after all the job of the missile is to collide with its target as fast as possible. I think that the missile ought to taper the climb to preserve kinetic energy instead of trading it away for potential energy. 

 

The Phoenix is still kinematically deadly at BVR despite appearing to be slower.  We just need to change our way of shooting it to help it reach an optimum lofted altitude. As for it getting trashed easily, its seems like a combination of bad-chaff-mechanics, questionable guidance API, and peculiar drag inducing behaviour after pitbull (hence setting small target size to maximise efficient flight time of the missile stupid stuff can happen). 

 

An additional observation in which this FM differs from the videos I see.  In DCS, the missile motors fire up after separation while maintaining level attitude.  Then it slowly begins a lofting climb after it gains some speed. 

From the live-fire videos, the RL Phoenixes fire up their motors in a negative pitch attitude. It then gains speed before pulling up into a steeper climbing trajectory. Hence, the lofting trajectory in HB's FM seems a little flatter than the reference videos online.  

 

 

[ChockP51]

On 1/29/2022 at 12:12 AM, Gypsy 1-1 said:

Yeah I know, to get the complete picture you usually cant only rely on software or numerical solutions. But fair enough regarding ANSYS.

Agreed. It would be best to have a numerical result compare with some sample of experiment data with grid dependent study. Different grid topology may provide a different result as well. Refined hexahedral cell in wake region may provide a more accurate drag data. I had on instance where wake region is not sufficiently dense and drag value shot way up. However, it is hard to obtain such data (Ie drag polar wrt mach and Re) and white paper reference didn't provide such data. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

On 1/28/2022 at 7:47 PM, IronMike said:

PS: I would never set the AI to ace, btw, because [...]

Indeed, I have only used the first or 2nd level of AI skill for years now. Too many times have I seen AI do "impossible" stuff. It's annoying and severely reduces the fun I try to achieve in DCS.
Depending on the map I'm flying in, you can also use the argument of poorer countries not having the means to properly train their pilots and/or not giving them enough flight hours so that they end up losing skills they once had. In that case, using "lower difficulty" AI has a certain degree of "realism", or at least believability.

[captain_dalan]

Most tests here  were performed in TWS so here is  a sample of one fired  in PD-STT. The mission is  Persian Gulf Instant Action BVR:

-The missile is fired from 38 miles away angels 20 at a hot co-altitude bandit. The shooter is mach 1.1, the bandit is mach 0.9;
-The missile goes into the loft at reaches its top speed of mach 2.83 while climbing;
-The missile continues to climb and bleed energy until it reaches its apex at 32000ft with mach 1.74;
-The missile glides towards the target and bleeds energy until it reaches mach 1.53 some 15 miles away from the bandit;
-This is the best part, the missile starts a shallow dive at the bandit and loses energy along the way, until it's roughly 8 miles from the bandit. Up to this point the bandit hasn't performed any defensive maneuvers, i.e. it's flying straight and level. At this point the missile as at mach 1.04;
-The   bandit goes defensive inside 8 miles, and the missile drops all its remaining energy (the little left it had that is) trying to follow. Not that it mattered, as the missile essentially defeated itself long before by its own lofting profile. Even at 15 miles from the bandit, it would hardly be able to intercept a B-17 that performed a routine divert because of bad weather, let alone a MiG-29. 

This is just one of about a couple of dozen similar examples, all on the same map and same scenario with very similar results.
Takeaways: 
1. PD-STT won't help you. I also suspect the instant the missile goes active has nothing to do with this, as in PD-STT the missile never goes active to begin with;
2. Only use the Phoenix:
a. Sub 10 miles. It's long burn time means it will makes most intercepts;
b. In situations that avoid the lofting profile, such as you having substantial altitude advantage, depending on distance 15-20000ft i'd say. In other words, don't lof the missile, loft yourself out. Or just take Sparrows. 

Tacview-20220130-235123-DCS-F-14A_IA_PG_BVR.zip.acmi

Edited January 31, 2022 by captain_dalan

[Fulcrumkiller31]

3 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Most tests here  were performed in TWS so here is  a sample of one fired  in PD-STT. The mission is  Persian Gulf Instant Action BVR:

-The missile is fired from 38 miles away angels 20 at a hot co-altitude bandit. The shooter is mach 1.1, the bandit is mach 0.9;
-The missile goes into the loft at reaches its top speed of mach 2.83 while climbing;
-The missile continues to climb and bleed energy until it reaches its apex at 32000ft with mach 1.74;
-The missile glides towards the target and bleeds energy until it reaches mach 1.53 some 15 miles away from the bandit;
-This is the best part, the missile starts a shallow dive at the bandit and loses energy along the way, until it's roughly 8 miles from the bandit. Up to this point the bandit hasn't performed any defensive maneuvers, i.e. it's flying straight and level. At this point the missile as at mach 1.04;
-The   bandit goes defensive inside 8 miles, and the missile drops all its remaining energy (the little left it had that is) trying to follow. Not that it mattered, as the missile essentially defeated itself long before by its own lofting profile. Even at 15 miles from the bandit, it would hardly be able to intercept a B-17 that performed a routine divert because of bad weather, let alone a MiG-29. 

This is just one of about a couple of dozen similar examples, all on the same map and same scenario with very similar results.
Takeaways: 
1. PD-STT won't help you. I also suspect the instant the missile goes active has nothing to do with this, as in PD-STT the missile never goes active to begin with;
2. Only use the Phoenix:
a. Sub 10 miles. It's long burn time means it will makes most intercepts;
b. In situations that avoid the lofting profile, such as you having substantial altitude advantage, depending on distance 15-20000ft i'd say. In other words, don't lof the missile, loft yourself out. Or just take Sparrows. 

Tacview-20220130-235123-DCS-F-14A_IA_PG_BVR.zip.acmi 344.34 kB · 0 downloads

 

I am seeing the exact same thing. It appears completely broken/unusable at this point. 

 

My tests were done at 30k ft 45k ft M1.1 vs a 20k bandit and 30k bandit. Most shots taken between 30-60 miles. Missile lofts, bleeds energy insanely fast, then misses target. 

 

 

EDIT:   I placed the targets at 40 K ft. Launched at 70 miles, missile made to to 78k ft, retained most of its energy and actually impacted the target (MIG29). Fastest I can get the missile is M3.4. Maybe a bit too much drag at the lower flight levels? Just speculating, I will try and upload some track files soon.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Fulcrumkiller31

[Zaphael]

2 hours ago, Fulcrumkiller31 said:

I am seeing the exact same thing. It appears completely broken/unusable at this point. 

 

My tests were done at 30k ft 45k ft M1.1 vs a 20k bandit and 30k bandit. Most shots taken between 30-60 miles. Missile lofts, bleeds energy insanely fast, then misses target. 

 

 

EDIT:   I placed the targets at 40 K ft. Launched at 70 miles, missile made to to 78k ft, retained most of its energy and actually impacted the target (MIG29). Fastest I can get the missile is M3.4. Maybe a bit too much drag at the lower flight levels? Just speculating, I will try and upload some track files soon.

 

My tests were done at 30K feet, launched at 55 miles with a 30 degree pitch up to help the loft.

The Phoenix's acceleration is much better once it gets above 40k feet. The higher it goes, the faster it accelerates.  It retains its energy better around the 60k feet region.

How slow the phoenix is at 30k feet and 20k feet is almost surreal. Its loft profile looks a lot more shallow and not very useful (ignore my loft profiles as I pitched back to achieve it). 

My conclusion is that right now, as a Long range missile (A60) against bombers, its still viable if additional lofting angle is provided.

In combat, as a medium range- medium altitude missile, it is not likely to be useful unless the target does not turn. In the current DCS environment with the Chaff, All-knowing-AI, Atmosphere modeling, it is likely to be junk. Consider the Sparrow and merge with a Fox 2 kill instead. 

But if they are still hanging under the belly, its excess weight, just maddog them off prior to the merge and you might get lucky. Lightens the jet for a turning fight. 

I love the effort made to model the flight model of the phoenix. However, I think it just doesn't play well with the current state of the DCS engine. 

 

[IronMike]

What seems to be overlooked often, is perspective. If you fire it up high in the danger zone, it reaches out and touches. But then you need to start figuring in: how much will the target maneuver? How low will it be? How low may I end up for a shot, and so on and so forth, and: start moving in closer. It performs extremely well against fighters (if one eliminates the current guidance issues), just not at 60nm, if that fighter will maneuver hard. Some expectations are simply set to high, and in large parts this is our fault, because in the old API's FM, we had to correct its performance to meet basic straight line real life shots. Now this is put more in perspective with the new API, and needs to be thought about. The bomber vs fighter discussion is irrelevant: it has its FM, its ideal launch paramiters, its pros and cons, and needs to be used accordingly in respect to the target it is used against. That simple.

We've progressed on the guidance internally by now, and I can assure you: if you get rid of the expectation to kill a highly aware, highly maneuvering fighter at 60nm and use it against fighers much closer in, then you will still be as deadly as you used to be. And I just today launched 6 phoenixes on 6 TU-160s, who all defended actively, from 95nm, and all 6 hit their targets. Where did I fire? At angels 45, and not at angels 4.5... This is the one thing one will have to keep in mind in the future: it is not an all altitude, all-range, all-target weapon that you can lob nilly-willy against anything you want without consideration anymore, and that is a good thing. Assume the correct flight and launch profile however, and you will be still as deadly as you were.

Considering that it overperformed almost by twice as much as it should before - cutting the range almost in half against highly maneuvering targets - and I mean, after we fixed the guidance induced issues - is something everyone will have to come to terms with. It will still remain the longest stick in the game either way.

That said, after the most glaring guidance issues have been fixed, we still have to look into the missing plume effects (which will make little to no difference down low), and what seems to be a slightly too high loss of speed in the dive. We need more data on this however, as the drag is currently still too low after motor burn-out. However - the difference after adjusting these, will still require the above mentioned perspective and adjustment in expectations.

Edited January 31, 2022 by IronMike

[DoorMouse]

48 minutes ago, IronMike said:

That said, after the most glaring guidance issues have been fixed,

Well I'm at Zone 5 hearing that. 

You're just going to have to be faster, disciplined with altitude, and conscious of target behavior.

[Fulcrumkiller31]

54 minutes ago, IronMike said:

What seems to be overlooked often, is perspective. If you fire it up high in the danger zone, it reaches out and touches. But then you need to start figuring in: how much will the target maneuver? How low will it be? How low may I end up for a shot, and so on and so forth, and: start moving in closer. It performs extremely well against fighters (if one eliminates the current guidance issues), just not at 60nm, if that fighter will maneuver hard. Some expectations are simply set to high, and in large parts this is our fault, because in the old API's FM, we had to correct its performance to meet basic straight line real life shots. Now this is put more in perspective with the new API, and needs to be thought about. The bomber vs fighter discussion is irrelevant: it has its FM, its ideal launch paramiters, its pros and cons, and needs to be used accordingly in respect to the target it is used against. That simple.

We've progressed on the guidance internally by now, and I can assure you: if you get rid of the expectation to kill a highly aware, highly maneuvering fighter at 60nm and use it against fighers much closer in, then you will still be as deadly as you used to be. And I just today launched 6 phoenixes on 6 TU-160s, who all defended actively, from 95nm, and all 6 hit their targets. Where did I fire? At angels 45, and not at angels 4.5... This is the one thing one will have to keep in mind in the future: it is not an all altitude, all-range, all-target weapon that you can lob nilly-willy against anything you want without consideration anymore, and that is a good thing. Assume the correct flight and launch profile however, and you will be still as deadly as you were.

Considering that it overperformed almost by twice as much as it should before - cutting the range almost in half against highly maneuvering targets - and I mean, after we fixed the guidance induced issues - is something everyone will have to come to terms with. It will still remain the longest stick in the game either way.

That said, after the most glaring guidance issues have been fixed, we still have to look into the missing plume effects (which will make little to no difference down low), and what seems to be a slightly too high loss of speed in the dive. We need more data on this however, as the drag is currently still too low after motor burn-out. However - the difference after adjusting these, will still require the above mentioned perspective and adjustment in expectations.

 

Thank you for the update IronMike! I think the fact that the HB team stays engaged says a lot. Look forward to the guidance changes coming. Additionally and I'm not going to press this too much but there are some rumors and vague posts that the AIM54C does indeed have the ability to go active on its own(INS). Will this be implemented or is it just rumors. ?? Just want to confirm or squash once and for all. 

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, Fulcrumkiller31 said:

Thank you for the update IronMike! I think the fact that the HB team stays engaged says a lot. Look forward to the guidance changes coming. Additionally and I'm not going to press this too much but there are some rumors and vague posts that the AIM54C does indeed have the ability to go active on its own(INS). Will this be implemented or is it just rumors. ?? Just want to confirm or squash once and for all. 

This concerns only the -C - and we are still investigating it - but atm everything is pointing towards it being a yes, once we get access to the new guidance API. Currently this is not possible yet, and won't be for a while at least.

[FlankerKiller]

Hay Heatblure, thank you for pursuing realism even at the cost of gameplay for certain users. There has been a lot of talk around the forums, and on other platforms about just guessing, and even having "fake planes". Any compromise on realism harms DCS. I dare say it wouldn't take much of that kind of thing to destroy DCS. Online balance was never a core tenant of DCS. But a commitment to being as realistic as possible was. Obviously DCS isn't perfectly realistic, but is dose try to get as close as possible. Because of that as time goes on and the technology advances things sometimes change. It is what is. I'm certain that you will get the guidance issues smoothed out. But please keep the commitment to realism. Without that DCS isn't really DCS.  

[near_blind]

You're just saying that because we don't have dual rack Slammers.

 

Yet.

[Zaphael]

8 hours ago, IronMike said:

What seems to be overlooked often, is perspective. If you fire it up high in the danger zone, it reaches out and touches. But then you need to start figuring in: how much will the target maneuver? How low will it be? How low may I end up for a shot, and so on and so forth, and: start moving in closer. It performs extremely well against fighters (if one eliminates the current guidance issues), just not at 60nm, if that fighter will maneuver hard. Some expectations are simply set to high, and in large parts this is our fault, because in the old API's FM, we had to correct its performance to meet basic straight line real life shots. Now this is put more in perspective with the new API, and needs to be thought about. The bomber vs fighter discussion is irrelevant: it has its FM, its ideal launch paramiters, its pros and cons, and needs to be used accordingly in respect to the target it is used against. That simple.

We've progressed on the guidance internally by now, and I can assure you: if you get rid of the expectation to kill a highly aware, highly maneuvering fighter at 60nm and use it against fighers much closer in, then you will still be as deadly as you used to be. And I just today launched 6 phoenixes on 6 TU-160s, who all defended actively, from 95nm, and all 6 hit their targets. Where did I fire? At angels 45, and not at angels 4.5... This is the one thing one will have to keep in mind in the future: it is not an all altitude, all-range, all-target weapon that you can lob nilly-willy against anything you want without consideration anymore, and that is a good thing. Assume the correct flight and launch profile however, and you will be still as deadly as you were.

Considering that it overperformed almost by twice as much as it should before - cutting the range almost in half against highly maneuvering targets - and I mean, after we fixed the guidance induced issues - is something everyone will have to come to terms with. It will still remain the longest stick in the game either way.

That said, after the most glaring guidance issues have been fixed, we still have to look into the missing plume effects (which will make little to no difference down low), and what seems to be a slightly too high loss of speed in the dive. We need more data on this however, as the drag is currently still too low after motor burn-out. However - the difference after adjusting these, will still require the above mentioned perspective and adjustment in expectations.

 

Hi IronMike, 

May I ask what is this closer distance firing distance for manuevering fighter-sized target HB is looking at (e.g. 20k ft, Nose Hot, co-alt Mach 1.1 target - J11 Flanker Veteran)? 

My current test perimeters is getting high pK (80%) for the A60 when fired at 25 miles. The premise was to have the motor burn all the way to impact as much as possible to increase the pK, as well as increasing the parabolic trajectory of the missile (i.e. increase the dive trajectory at terminal). Since the target was heading towards me at the same speed until its threat reaction, the A60 definitely covered about less than 20 miles of distance, conservatively, with its 30 seconds of motor, resulting in an impact at Mach 1.8.

Would this be an expected result? That the Phoenix would only covered about 20 miles of distance in 30 seconds against a medium altitude maneuvering target?

Cheers!

Edited February 1, 2022 by Zaphael

[IronMike]

5 hours ago, Zaphael said:

Hi IronMike, 

May I ask what is this closer distance firing distance for manuevering fighter-sized target HB is looking at (e.g. 20k ft, Nose Hot, co-alt Mach 1.1 target - J11 Flanker Veteran)? 

My current test perimeters is getting high pK (80%) for the A60 when fired at 25 miles. The premise was to have the motor burn all the way to impact as much as possible to increase the pK, as well as increasing the parabolic trajectory of the missile (i.e. increase the dive trajectory at terminal). Since the target was heading towards me at the same speed until its threat reaction, the A60 definitely covered about less than 20 miles of distance, conservatively, with its 30 seconds of motor, resulting in an impact at Mach 1.8.

Would this be an expected result? That the Phoenix would only covered about 20 miles of distance in 30 seconds against a medium altitude maneuvering target?

Cheers!

 

That is something we all will have to find out together ofc, as so often in aviation the answer will be - it depends. It will depend on speed, altitude, awareness of the target (high in the AI's case), etc... In time all of us in the community will have these things dialed in pretty solid.

[DD_Fenrir]

Ward Carroll references 40nm for a 5th gen fighter threat in this video:

 

No mention of altitude, however.

[IronMike]

22 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Ward Carroll references 40nm for a 5th gen fighter threat in this video:

 

No mention of altitude, however.

40nm from high alt launches, when being fast, does not sound un-doable once the guidance issues are fixed.

[Cobra847]

Guidance changes will be introduced in a hotfix tomorrow. There should be significant improvement in the performance of the missile, though not definitive.  

Edited February 1, 2022 by Cobra847

[Jayhawk1971]

@IronMikeHigh altitude being 30k+? Or closer to 40k+?

 

Regarding Mooch's video. When he references "5th generation" fighters, does he actually talk about what the "Wikipedia-informed" public would call 4th/4.5th gen (Hornet/Super Hornet, F-15c to EX, C-model Viper, Su-27 through 35)? 

Because when I hear "5th gen", I think F-22, F-35, Su-57 etc. And I may very well be wrong, but I would be very surprised if an AWG-9 equipped F-14B could detect, let alone  lock on to a, say, front-aspect F-22 at such ranges as to be able to launch at 40nm.  

 

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Jayhawk1971

[DoorMouse]

45 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Ward Carroll references 40nm for a 5th gen fighter threat in this video:

 

No mention of altitude, however.

Using relative aircraft positions and approximate closures we can make some educated guesses/estimations:

• 8 Miles from Fox 3 to A Pole is approximately 24 seconds (1200 closure) to 29 Seconds flight time (1,000 closure with a modest F-pole maneuver while retaining doppler). This is just about when the motor would burn out 
• 4 Miles from A pole to F Pole is approximately 12s-15s flight time (same conditions above). This looks like a TGT Normal shot. 
• This is a total flight time of 36s-44s
  • at alt = ~2k thats only going to work on a very compliant bandit, as at 36 seconds it impacts at M1.1, but at 44 seconds its off the chart and is probably 0 airspeed
  • at alt = ~20k you have a speed band of M2-M1.2. That's pretty lethal, but they could probably turn cold if they performed a proper F Pole Maneuver 
  • at alt = ~40k you have a speed band of M3.5-M2.5.... Prey to whatever deity you have. I think the in-game Phoenix has always underperformed here honestly (probably due to guidance). There should be little to no escape and I hope that changes. 

Note: This does not specifically take into account the target altitude. Its just a rough guide based on the Whitepaper: http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf and the above assumptions.  Assume co-alt.

The question now becomes if the rest of the missiles in the game follow the same rules of physics, of which I am highly skeptical - but hey. Nobody is going to smack talk the Tomcat now. 

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by DoorMouse

[Zaphael]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

40nm from high alt launches, when being fast, does not sound un-doable once the guidance issues are fixed.

Agree. It is the medium range-medium altitude shots that are trickier now. 

From what I observed, 55Nm from 30,000ft can have a moderate high pK when launched above Mach 1.1 and pitchback of 30 degrees. In the current FM, the Phoenix climbs and accels much faster as altitude increases. Hence, helping the Phoenix get into thinner air on launch improves the pK for long range shots. 

Bandit was a Su-27 Veteran, compliant until pitbull. 

[deathhoneybadger]

When reading a book about F-14 flight test. "Tomcat the Grumman F-14 story" The author mentions the different fight test the missile went through in 1973 in order to certify the missile for use. These include 
Long range test 
Target M1.5 simulating a backfire ALT 50,000 
Launching platform M 1.5 Alt, 40,000. 
Launch 110NM
Missile loft to "peak altitude of over 100,000 feet" 
Kill was 72NM from launch point. 
Have not tried to replicate this exact scenario however when playing around I cannot seem to get the missile to loft to those Alts


The other test that does not currently seem possible is this one
Target M0.72 Alt 50 Feet (Sea Skimming) 
launching platform M0.92 ALT 24,000 
Launch 22NM. 
The issue for this in game appears to be the fact the missile at that range and ALT difference pulls onto the target with little loft and bleeds all energy before getting to the target. (most likely due to new drag numbers) 

Note, These all seem to be done with AIM-54A MK-47 IRL. Cannot replicate these with the AIM-54A MK-60
 

[DoorMouse]

42 minutes ago, deathhoneybadger said:

Target M0.72 Alt 50 Feet (Sea Skimming) 

 

I thought that one was a C, which they added some specific capabilities/designs for cruise missile intercepts. I presume it had some ground avoidance mode 

[deathhoneybadger]

12 minutes ago, DoorMouse said:

I thought that one was a C, which they added some specific capabilities/designs for cruise missile intercepts. I presume it had some ground avoidance mode 

Considering this test was conducted in 1973 and the C model was not introduced to the 80's I find this unlikely

[DoorMouse]

7 minutes ago, deathhoneybadger said:

Considering this test was conducted in 1973 and the C model was not introduced to the 80's I find this unlikely

ohhhhhh

well there it is.

[thunderz]

On 1/28/2022 at 2:13 AM, Krippz said:

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. 

So the tomcats greatest weapon is now effectively useless in MP... might as well be flying an F15 with aim120Bs. I would agree with this change to a certain degree, but not to the point where the missile is out of energy in the terminal stage, even when fired from up high and fast. Now the phoenix is essentially an Aim120B... it is outperformed by the charlie 5 amraam... The missile doesnt track like it would in real life in DCS, so why change the drag BEFORE improving guidance? Now its useless. Ward Carroll himself stated that the phoenix was extremely dangerous fired at close ranges and low altitudes.