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

[thunderz]

On 1/28/2022 at 7:26 AM, NeedzWD40 said:

A second set of tests in more controlled conditions has these results:

The AIM-54C was fired in TWS at ~90nmi, approximately when the "HOT TRIGGER" light came on. The missile climbed to an altitude of almost 105,000ft at a pitch angle of ~45deg. At the top of its climb, the speed had dropped down to ~900KTAS. Missile made no attempt to acquire the target or follow presumed AWG-9 commands; it seemingly gave up on the descent as speed dropped down to under 700KTAS. The second test was done in STT and launch was performed at the same distance, approximately 90nmi. Behavior was identical to the TWS shot.

The AIM-54AMk47 was launched in conditions approximating the AIM-54C's, except that the pitch angle seemingly topped out at 22deg. Altitude reached was similar to the AIM-54C, however energy retention was slightly greater and the missile made a couple of attempts to acquire the target. STT behavior was similar, with the exception that maximum altitude reached was ~110,000ft. The missile did not have the kinematics to hit given the conditions, despite seemingly attempting to acquire the target.

The AIM-54AMk60 was launched in the same conditions as the previous two; however, maximum altitude attained was ~98,000ft with nearly twice the speed: ~1900KTAS. The missile acquired the target twice, then hit with a speed of approximately 1500KTAS. An STT launch resulted in very similar results as well as a hit.

When altering the launch range to ~70nmi, the AIM-54C topped out at ~84,000ft, with a speed of 1450KTAS. The maximum pitch angle attained was 25deg. The missile acquired the target twice and hit. A second altering of the range to ~77nmi resulted in the missile missing, with a maximum height of ~95,000ft but a maximum speed of ~1200KTAS. The missile acquired the target but did not have the kinematics to make a hit.

I've tried to keep test conditions as ideal as possible but naturally there will be some variances in launch altitude, speed, etc. with each track.

Overall, it would seem that the Mk60 variation may be performing too well as it seemingly holds twice the energy as the Mk47 powered variations. However, the AIM-54C clearly has some guidance trouble that isn't affecting either A model, since ~70nmi seems to be a magic barrier as to whether it tracks and guides properly or performs wasteful energy-losing maneuvers. If so desired, I can make some additional tracks of the AMk47 model.

I've attached the Tacview files of these tests that will hopefully give some insight into what is going on.

F-14 AIM54 Tests.zip 1.19 MB · 9 downloads

The problem with the Aim54 isnt against slow, high flying bombers, but against fighter sized targets at lower altitudes. I know that the phoenix wasn't designed to take out fighter sized targets, however it wasn't limited to just bomber intercepting. It still had the ability to track and hit targets that didnt manoeuvre hard, or notch the missile. I think the drag values at lower altitudes are too high at the moment, and also the rate at which the missile slows once the missile has stopped the burn phase is too high. The missile can be on a 60 degree pitch downwards, from a 100,000ft loft and still lose a ridiculous amount of speed, which leads to it being easily evadable, even with the later activation if the target size is small. I am talking from experience in MP, where people have literally just done a 180 and outran the missile. A similar thing happened while flying my JF17, I outran a phoenix launch that was launched 5nm away head, on. I managed to turn and run, and the missile couldn't catch me. A solid fuel rocket motor should propel the missile to at least just under mach 2 at low altitudes. I know drag is a huge factor but it seems like the missile is trying to fly through water and not air .  

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by thunderz

[FWind]

12 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

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

 

No mention of altitude, however.

https://jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279

https://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-825/Rules-154.htm

https://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-825/Amraam-Aim-120-And-Phoenix-Aim-54-Missile-Employment-156.htm

[NeedzWD40]

45 minutes ago, thunderz said:

A similar thing happened while flying my JF17, I outran a phoenix launch that was launched 5nm away head, on.

What was the closure rate? Altitude? Your load and attacker load? Did you immediately go evasive as soon as he launched?

5nmi head on is Sidewinder territory, if not Sparrow. I'd honestly be surprised if the AIM-54 would have time to release, acquire, and guide at such a distance against a maneuvering target.

At high speeds, I can't even get an AIM-120C to hit an immediately evasive target at 5nmi on the deck. The no-escape is maybe about 4nmi for that missile in those conditions, depending on speed and quickness of evasion. Coincidentally, I was able to get a tail-on hit with an AIM-54AMk60 at 5nmi on the deck in my brief testing. The Mk47 series however did not have the juice to make it.

[thunderz]

2 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

What was the closure rate? Altitude? Your load and attacker load? Did you immediately go evasive as soon as he launched?

5nmi head on is Sidewinder territory, if not Sparrow. I'd honestly be surprised if the AIM-54 would have time to release, acquire, and guide at such a distance against a maneuvering target.

At high speeds, I can't even get an AIM-120C to hit an immediately evasive target at 5nmi on the deck. The no-escape is maybe about 4nmi for that missile in those conditions, depending on speed and quickness of evasion. Coincidentally, I was able to get a tail-on hit with an AIM-54AMk60 at 5nmi on the deck in my brief testing. The Mk47 series however did not have the juice to make it.

I don't know the closure rate, it was low altitude, around 6,000ft, I did a 180 when it was launched, and ran. A missile with a huge solid fuel rocket motor should have easily caught me (when launched from my six), even with high drag. This is MP so I would bet money it would have been a Mk60A. 

[BlackPixxel]

5 hours ago, thunderz said:

I don't know the closure rate, it was low altitude, around 6,000ft, I did a 180 when it was launched, and ran. A missile with a huge solid fuel rocket motor should have easily caught me (when launched from my six), even with high drag. This is MP so I would bet money it would have been a Mk60A. 

The motor is not that huge in relation to the missile. Yes, the missile has a litte higher fuel per missile weight ratio than other missiles, but it also has to fight so much more drag down low.

[IronMike]

15 hours ago, deathhoneybadger said:

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
 

 

^^aim54A-mk47, 110nm - note the params are not exact, exact, maybe it was launched at like 109nm, the target is a tad slower, and keeps changing speed, etc, but a doable shot and pretty close imo - this is after our changes to guidance which you will all receive shortly. It hits the target much closer though, but this can have a plethora of reasons, and I would like ya'll to not draw any conclusions from that yet, the conditions may differ from the performed test by a lot, and we wouldn't know. The fact remains that the CFD data is extremely close now, and the 110nm shot on a drone-like target is absolutely doable with the AIM-54Amk47. Tacview is attached and called "DCS-AMK47 Backfire test".

 

 

^^ And this is the test at 22nm with the A-mk47, launch params and target params are much closer this time, also works. Also this test has been done with the changes to guidance which you will receive shortly. Tacview is attached and called "DCS-AMK47 Backfire test2".

Note: We had to slightly increase the batterly lifetime to make the first shot possible (which is a rare occasion for demo purposes only), we're currently investigating the battery life time, but will keep the change as an interim solution. In the first test you can see it reached 115k though in the loft, which is impressive to say the least, and hit at still reasonable speeds at around M1.69. The flight time however was just beyond 160s battery life time, which is why we had to increase it slightly for the time being (this is already the case in the tacview attached). This will not at all impact any other shots though, because the missile will bleed out long before battery life time has been expanded in any other case. The increased flight time may stem from a plethora of different things in DCS, which is why we do not want to draw any conclusions from that, besides that we have to investigate battery life time further. Also please know that this change may only make it in with the next patch, not the coming hotfix which already includes the guidance adjustments - (we're trying to push the battery lifetime change as we speak still, but we're possibly too late already). It is a demo-purpose only shot though, and should it not make it in today, it will not affect gameplay at all, as these shots are rare setups that you would never encounter as such, except when trying to experiment with the above mentioned tests. This battery lifetime issue also only affects the A-mk47, the A-60, etc have no issues at all to make the 110nm shot well within battery lifetime, increased or not. I also did the test with the A60, and that one, well, it hit the target like a bullet from a sniper, also lofting to up to 115k feet around...

Tacview-20220202-160037-DCS-AMK47 Backfire test2.zip.acmi Tacview-20220202-153710-DCS-AMK47 Backfire test.zip.acmi

Edited February 2, 2022 by IronMike

[IronMike]

11 hours ago, thunderz said:

I don't know the closure rate, it was low altitude, around 6,000ft, I did a 180 when it was launched, and ran. A missile with a huge solid fuel rocket motor should have easily caught me (when launched from my six), even with high drag. This is MP so I would bet money it would have been a Mk60A. 

It really should have not, if you were fast enough. Lacking more data, we will be guessing here though, so it is more reasonable to assume that it performed as intended. We tested 5nm trailing shots between launch platform and chased target being supersonic at altitudes below 5000 feet. The missile will not catch the target, because the flight time is too great, the closure rate too slow, etc. This is simply a case where expectations will need to be adjusted. Perform the same shot above 30k feet and the missile will have absolutely zero issues catching the target. Its size is massive. Down low the air works against it, and at ranges of 5+nm with really fast cold aspect targets, the flight time will simply be too long for the missile to not slow down. It was close in our tests though, but, well, not close enough.

The real conclusion that should be drawn from this is that the Tomcat may enjoy flying down low, but it really thrives fighting up high, when emplyoing BVR long range missiles, because similar will count for the aim7s, if not more so. The question then is: what were you doing down low, playing to your opponent's advantages? Either it was a lack of discipline, or a serious miscalculation. Which ofc happens to the best of us ... quite often. But it isn't the missile's fault that it does.

Edited February 2, 2022 by IronMike

[deathhoneybadger]

50 minutes ago, IronMike said:

 

^^aim54A-mk47, 110nm - note the params are not exact, exact, maybe it was launched at like 109nm, the target is a tad slower, and keeps changing speed, etc, but a doable shot and pretty close imo - this is after our changes to guidance which you will all receive shortly. It hits the target much closer though, but this can have a plethora of reasons, and I would like ya'll to not draw any conclusions from that yet, the conditions may differ from the performed test by a lot, and we wouldn't know. The fact remains that the CFD data is extremely close now, and the 110nm shot on a drone-like target is absolutely doable with the AIM-54Amk47. Tacview is attached and called "DCS-AMK47 Backfire test".

 

 

^^ And this is the test at 22nm with the A-mk47, launch params and target params are much closer this time, also works. Also this test has been done with the changes to guidance which you will receive shortly. Tacview is attached and called "DCS-AMK47 Backfire test2".

Note: We had to slightly increase the batterly lifetime to make the first shot possible (which is a rare occasion for demo purposes only), we're currently investigating the battery life time, but will keep the change as an interim solution. In the first test you can see it reached 115k though in the loft, which is impressive to say the least, and hit at still reasonable speeds at around M1.69. The flight time however was just beyond 160s battery life time, which is why we had to increase it slightly for the time being (this is already the case in the tacview attached). This will not at all impact any other shots though, because the missile will bleed out long before battery life time has been expanded in any other case. The increased flight time may stem from a plethora of different things in DCS, which is why we do not want to draw any conclusions from that, besides that we have to investigate battery life time further. Also please know that this change may only make it in with the next patch, not the coming hotfix which already includes the guidance adjustments - (we're trying to push the battery lifetime change as we speak still, but we're possibly too late already). It is a demo-purpose only shot though, and should it not make it in today, it will not affect gameplay at all, as these shots are rare setups that you would never encounter as such, except when trying to experiment with the above mentioned tests. This battery lifetime issue also only affects the A-mk47, the A-60, etc have no issues at all to make the 110nm shot well within battery lifetime, increased or not. I also did the test with the A60, and that one, well, it hit the target like a bullet from a sniper, also lofting to up to 115k feet around...

Tacview-20220202-160037-DCS-AMK47 Backfire test2.zip.acmi 57.77 kB · 3 downloads Tacview-20220202-153710-DCS-AMK47 Backfire test.zip.acmi 151.41 kB · 3 downloads

 

Thanks for doing this test, Long range performance seems to have much better lofting and guidance logic, Are you able to attach the A-mk60 Test as well for you long range shot. Also the wording on battery life confused me a little bit, The A-mk47 has a battery life issue that will not ship with hotfix, however the MK-47C and MK-60A do not have this issue? 

[IronMike]

2 minutes ago, deathhoneybadger said:

Thanks for doing this test, Long range performance seems to have much better lofting and guidance logic, Are you able to attach the A-mk60 Test as well for you long range shot. Also the wording on battery life confused me a little bit, The A-mk47 has a battery life issue that will not ship with hotfix, however the MK-47C and MK-60A do not have this issue? 

They do not have the issue, because they reach the target within the battery life - mind you the Amk47 has a much shorter motor burn time than the A60. We increased it slightly overall though, until we have investigated it further, to be on the safe side, as mentioned - for any other shots out of these experimental tests it would not have and will not matter at all. Whether it will ship with the hotfix or not is yet to be seen. If it does not make it in, it means that that one particular 110nm shot with the Amk47 will not be possible for another two weeks, and that shot alone. Everything else will have no noticeable change for anyone.

Attached is the tacview for the same shot with the mk60. Note: this tacview was recorded before we increased the battery lifetime, and as you can see, in this case it did not matter at all.

Tacview-20220202-141327-DCS-AMK60 Backfire test.zip.acmi

[DoorMouse]

1 minute ago, IronMike said:

They do not have the issue, because they reach the target within the battery life - mind you the Amk47 has a much shorter motor burn time than the A60. We increased it slightly overall though, until we have investigated it further, to be on the safe side, as mentioned - for any other shots out of these experimental tests it would not have and will not matter at all. Whether it will ship with the hotfix or not is yet to be seen. If it does not make it in, it means that that one particular 110nm shot with the Amk47 will not be possible for another two weeks, and that shot alone. Everything else will have no noticeable change for anyone.

Attached is the tacview for the same shot with the mk60. Note: this tacview was recorded before we increased the battery lifetime, and as you can see, in this case it did not matter at all.

Tacview-20220202-141327-DCS-AMK60 Backfire test.zip.acmi 123.17 kB · 0 downloads

Oh my lord it hit at mach 3+ at 50+ miles F-pole. 

Thats gonna be scary even in a flanker. 

Edited February 2, 2022 by DoorMouse

[IronMike]

4 minutes ago, DoorMouse said:

Oh my lord it hit at mach 3+

Like I said, like a bullet from a sniper... So now that we have adjusted the guidance issues and the CFD data matches closely, no one has to be afraid that it is not this extremely impressive missile anymore - it is albeit matching in performance much more closely as it should. We will all just have to be mindful when and how we use it, because horrendous shenanigans like 15nm shots on a cold target that have been launched from the weeds just will not fly anymore, pun intended...  

Edited February 2, 2022 by IronMike

[DoorMouse]

Just now, IronMike said:

Like I said, like a bullet from a sniper... So now that we have adjusted the guidance issues and the CFD data matches closely, no one has to be afraid that it is not this extremely impressive missile anymore - it is albeit matching in performance much more closely as it should. We will all just have to be mindful when and how we use it, because horrendous shenanigans like 15nm shots on a cold target that have been launched from the weeds just will not fly anymore, pun intended...  

 

I still have found it personally gratifying and hilarious to watch the missile burn for 25 seconds straight into low targets.  Its like the missile from "Behind enemy lines"

[IronMike]

1 minute ago, DoorMouse said:

I still have found it personally gratifying and hilarious to watch the missile burn for 25 seconds straight into low targets.  Its like the missile from "Behind enemy lines"

Well, we all got a tad too complacent with that, didn't we. I enjoy this clip btw, it is so utterly, utterly wrong and so enjoyable at the same time lolol... Guilty as charged!

[DoorMouse]

I mean even more so with the last patch, Its way slower down low but it still burns FOREVER. Its like a Mach 1.7 persistent threat for 25 seconds. It probably wont hit you but you still gotta not fly into it. 

[IronMike]

28 minutes ago, DoorMouse said:

I mean even more so with the last patch, Its way slower down low but it still burns FOREVER. Its like a Mach 1.7 persistent threat for 25 seconds. It probably wont hit you but you still gotta not fly into it. 

Exactly.

And all fun and jokes aside: I hope this now also proves to the hardest of doubtful minds that it never was, and never will be our intention to make anything "OP to increase sales", and that in fact we are always and have always been strongly committed to realism as much as is humanly possible. Only: good things take time, and mind you, we are not entirely done yet. Adjustments will happen, and hopefully many more improvements, the complete switch to the new API, etc. - but it will always follow one goal, and one goal alone: to achieve the maximum realism possible. I also hope that both "pro-Tomcat" and "anti-Tomcat" "factions" understand now that the drama is not necessary surrounding such issues. That said, the incredible feedback from all of you has and always will be extremely helpful, and we are very, very grateful for that.

Thank you all for your incredible help on this journey!

Edited February 2, 2022 by IronMike

[Zaphael]

Thank you for the Tacview, Iron Mike! I'm really looking forward to the incoming hotfix to the guidance.

I do not know whether the Phoenix making a 15 mile hit against a fast nose-cold low altitude target is in any way real-ish. To be honest, I view that it was an "over performance" that only mattered to one particular small quarter of the DCS community who insist on competing on Open Beta. I saw the unpleasant exchange over the other forum thread. For the most of us who PvE, the Phoenix being an effective long-stick was more of a boon than bane. After all, more than often we are dealing with AI with SFM, all-knowing MAW systems, and highly effective chaff.  We don't get very controlled setups compared to them and yet they have been the most vocally against the Phoenix. 

Nevertheless as a Tomcat fan, I am heartened that the Phoenix remains effectively the longest-stick in DCS. It was rightfully a fearsome weapon for its time and in the timeline of most combat aircraft simulated in DCS presently (until the Typhoon turns up with the Meteor perhaps). 

I look forward to lobbing more Phoenixes in the days ahead!

[Aries144]

It seems to me from the evidence presented and the tenor of communication that the Heatblur team truly is committed to accurate simulation.

Thank you for your passion, your patience, and your commitment to excellence, all in the face of much hard work. It is truly appreciated by every person who finds it.

[IronMike]

2 minutes ago, Aries144 said:

It seems to me from the evidence presented and the tenor of communication that the Heatblur team truly is committed to accurate simulation.

Thank you for your passion, your patience, and your commitment to excellence, all in the face of much hard work. It is truly appreciated by every person who finds it.

Thank you for your kind words - it is and always will be our sincere pleasure.

[captain_dalan]

On 2/1/2022 at 6:17 PM, Cobra847 said:

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

 

What happened to the hotfix? Is it out? Not in front of my desktop, so i can't check. 

[IronMike]

6 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

What happened to the hotfix? Is it out? Not in front of my desktop, so i can't check. 

I think it was moved to tomorrow - but not sure, and not my place to comment on, all I can say is that it is in the hot oven though, so should arrive within the nearest future, aka later today, tmrw or the next couple days.

[RaisedByWolves]

1 hour ago, captain_dalan said:

What happened to the hotfix? Is it out? Not in front of my desktop, so i can't check. 

Two weeks. TM

[trenchfeet]

Thanks for the update Ironmike, just a question with guidance when flying with jester, when you direct jester to an altitude 40k and say 60nm and fire in tws, does jester control the altitude and ranging of the radar if the bandit decends to 25-30k by30nm (not a drop to the deck defensive) or is the elevation stuck at 40k. 
thanks.

[Panny]

5 minutes ago, trenchfeet said:

Thanks for the update Ironmike, just a question with guidance when flying with jester, when you direct jester to an altitude 40k and say 60nm and fire in tws, does jester control the altitude and ranging of the radar if the bandit decends to 25-30k by30nm (not a drop to the deck defensive) or is the elevation stuck at 40k. 
thanks.

PSTT, PDSST, or TWS AUTO will all do that

[IronMike]

10 minutes ago, Panny said:

PSTT, PDSST, or TWS AUTO will all do that

correct. the moment you launch a phoenix in TWS, it will switch to auto and maintain azimuth and elevation on the TMA (target under missile attack).

[trenchfeet]

Ok thanks for confirming it does switch

Edited February 2, 2022 by trenchfeet