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

[libertyandjustice.all]

Howdy Folks,

Regarding the silly stuff going on with the AIM54 - Multiple legitimate sources, (Iran war data, Rocket motor data, RIO information, including NASA data as well) unequivocally indicate that this missile is a MACH 5 100+nm capable missile when fired above mach 1 velocity and a altitude starting point of 40,000 feet or higher. It is fully well capable of no escape zones of 50+ nm nose / nose engagement and can go over 100nm without hitting the ground and still be at a speed that is capable of neutralizing a fast mover. This game (especially this most recent patch) really toned the range down to almost not being able to kill a maneuvering target at 20-30 miles when fired from 40,000 feet which is completely inaccurate, laughable, and insulting to the combat legacy of that aircraft.

To make a long story short, and not insult my intelligence as the friend of a former F4J and F14A RIO, guys, please. The old AIM7F could itself at 40,000 feet launch and attain a NES kill profile at 30-40nm on targets. The AIM7M with Hercules MK 58 dual thrust solid rocket was even longer at that altitude. The U.S. Navy went even further to improve BVR performance up from 40 - 50nm with AIM7F/M KA-114 BO  with its next-generation fighter, our beloved F-14. Not only did they include both the AN/ASX-1 and Combat Tree capability in the F-14 Tomcat, they also incorporated an exceptionally powerful and capable AN/AWG-9 radar/fire 30  control system and the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. The 1,000-pound Phoenix was twice the weight of the AIM-7 series and was capable of engaging targets at ranges over 100 nm—about Two to three times the maximum range of the AIM-7F/M at 40,000 feet engagement and more than five times the maximum range of AIM-7D/Es used in Vietnam. This is the facts people and really simple to shut the whiners moaners and complainers up. The F-14 is a killer, get over it people. It was designed to kill things. At very long ranges. It did so dozens upon dozens of times in Iran - Iraq war of the decade 80's protracted beefage. It literally and royally single handedly dominated airspace and F'd sadaam's airforce up. 

So everyone please, enough of the short range easily notch etc. garbage. For the record on notching Heatblur hasn't even implemented several features that real life F-14 RIO's had to make it even harder to notch, missile gate, PH ACH parameters, clutter parameters, automatic notch computations. In real life, even the early AWG9 under most parameters IS NOT EASY TO NOTCH. two early AWG-9 F-14A's can data buddy together pincer spread and pick up an F5E size target at 160-180 miles IN THE NOTCH at Co alt or Below.  so, here are some inconvient truths and disclaimers for any potential F-14 haters - 

In real life, the AIM54 IS A 100+NM MISSILE. ITS AN EXCELLENT WEAPONS SYSTEM AND A KILLER. AN F-14D SUPER TOMCAT OF WHICH IS SO SUPERIOR THAT ITS STILL CLASSIFIED IS HIGHLY LIKELY BETTER THAN THE PLANE YOU'RE CHOOSING TO FLY IN THIS SIMULATOR EVEN IF ITS AN F-35. And lets not even get started on the super tomcat 21. SO GET OVER IT. IT IS OVERALL THE BEST (AND SEXIEST) AIRCRAFT EVER MADE BY MAN FOR ITS TIME. AND STILL WOULD BE IF CONTINUED TO THE SUPER TOMCAT 21 + F'KING PERIOD.

All that said, to appease the lightweights if necessary, Just make an arcade mode with modifiable range and missile parameters for those that can't handle the truth, and a simulation mode for the majority of us who actually play this for the third word - Digital Combat "SIMULATOR". In simulation mode, make the missiles and planes do what they're actually supposed to do in real life as close as practicable and possible - (IE the AIM-7M Sparrow actually going Mach 4 - 5 and 40-50nm like it does IRL, AIM54 100nm, AMRAMM 120 - 70+nm etc. Give us the simulation we want. I'm not playing this for balance and neither are countless other people I know. Each plane has its advantages and disadvantages whether its made fully realistic Full Fidelity or not so two different game modes for missile parameters is a logical and sensical intelligent solution to this ongoing debate. So, I mean really - Make it happn' Captn'.

Remember that folks - Digital Combat SIMULATOR..... the safe and logical presumption given the chosen title is real world missile parameters.

Best Regards,

A friend of a retired F4-J  F-14A/B Top Gun instructor pilot

Edited February 4, 2022 by libertyandjustice.all

[BlackPixxel]

2 hours ago, libertyandjustice.all said:

Howdy Folks,

blah blah

Instead of spending your time on fairy tales you should look at actual data, such as the CFD done by Heatbur or the NASA simulations. The DCS missile is now much closer to them than before.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20060004771/downloads/20060004771.pdf

Does't look like Mk47 is reaching anywhere near Mach 5 from a Mach 1.2 launch at 45k ft, does it?

For Mach 5.0, you have to launch it from Mach 2.0 at very high altitudes:

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Phoenix/phoenixmissile.html

Mk60 would of course reach Mach 5.0 under slightly less extreme launch parameters.

 

Aim-54 is still a decent weapon in DCS, I got killed by a 95 km shot launched from 7600 m at Mach 0.65 yesterday.

But don't expect it to be the super missile at lower altitudes that you saw in DCS before.

Edited February 4, 2022 by BlackPixxel

[FWind]

2 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

Instead of spending your time on fairy tales you should look at actual data, such as the CFD done by Heatbur or the NASA simulations. The DCS missile is now much closer to them than before.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20060004771/downloads/20060004771.pdf

Does't look like Mk47 is reaching anywhere near Mach 5 from a Mach 1.2 launch at 45k ft, does it?

For Mach 5.0, you have to launch it from Mach 2.0 at very high altitudes:

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Phoenix/phoenixmissile.html

Mk60 would of course reach Mach 5.0 under slightly less extreme launch parameters.

 

Aim-54 is still a decent weapon in DCS, I got killed by a 95 km shot launched from 7600 m at Mach 0.65 yesterday.

But don't expect it to be the super missile at lower altitudes that you saw in DCS before.

 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070014861/downloads/20070014861.pdf

[lax22]

5 hours ago, libertyandjustice.all said:

Howdy Folks,

Regarding the silly stuff going on with the AIM54 - Multiple legitimate sources, (Iran war data, Rocket motor data, RIO information, including NASA data as well) unequivocally indicate that this missile is a MACH 5 100+nm capable missile when fired above mach 1 velocity and a altitude starting point of 40,000 feet or higher. It is fully well capable of no escape zones of 50+ nm nose / nose engagement and can go over 100nm without hitting the ground and still be at a speed that is capable of neutralizing a fast mover. This game (especially this most recent patch) really toned the range down to almost not being able to kill a maneuvering target at 20-30 miles when fired from 40,000 feet which is completely inaccurate, laughable, and insulting to the combat legacy of that aircraft.

To make a long story short, and not insult my intelligence as the friend of a former F4J and F14A RIO, guys, please. The old AIM7F could itself at 40,000 feet launch and attain a NES kill profile at 30-40nm on targets. The AIM7M with Hercules MK 58 dual thrust solid rocket was even longer at that altitude. The U.S. Navy went even further to improve BVR performance up from 40 - 50nm with AIM7F/M KA-114 BO  with its next-generation fighter, our beloved F-14. Not only did they include both the AN/ASX-1 and Combat Tree capability in the F-14 Tomcat, they also incorporated an exceptionally powerful and capable AN/AWG-9 radar/fire 30  control system and the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. The 1,000-pound Phoenix was twice the weight of the AIM-7 series and was capable of engaging targets at ranges over 100 nm—about Two to three times the maximum range of the AIM-7F/M at 40,000 feet engagement and more than five times the maximum range of AIM-7D/Es used in Vietnam. This is the facts people and really simple to shut the whiners moaners and complainers up. The F-14 is a killer, get over it people. It was designed to kill things. At very long ranges. It did so dozens upon dozens of times in Iran - Iraq war of the decade 80's protracted beefage. It literally and royally single handedly dominated airspace and F'd sadaam's airforce up. 

So everyone please, enough of the short range easily notch etc. garbage. For the record on notching Heatblur hasn't even implemented several features that real life F-14 RIO's had to make it even harder to notch, missile gate, PH ACH parameters, clutter parameters, automatic notch computations. In real life, even the early AWG9 under most parameters IS NOT EASY TO NOTCH. two early AWG-9 F-14A's can data buddy together pincer spread and pick up an F5E size target at 160-180 miles IN THE NOTCH at Co alt or Below.  so, here are some inconvient truths and disclaimers for any potential F-14 haters - 

In real life, the AIM54 IS A 100+NM MISSILE. ITS AN EXCELLENT WEAPONS SYSTEM AND A KILLER. AN F-14D SUPER TOMCAT OF WHICH IS SO SUPERIOR THAT ITS STILL CLASSIFIED IS HIGHLY LIKELY BETTER THAN THE PLANE YOU'RE CHOOSING TO FLY IN THIS SIMULATOR EVEN IF ITS AN F-35. And lets not even get started on the super tomcat 21. SO GET OVER IT. IT IS OVERALL THE BEST (AND SEXIEST) AIRCRAFT EVER MADE BY MAN FOR ITS TIME. AND STILL WOULD BE IF CONTINUED TO THE SUPER TOMCAT 21 + F'KING PERIOD.

All that said, to appease the lightweights if necessary, Just make an arcade mode with modifiable range and missile parameters for those that can't handle the truth, and a simulation mode for the majority of us who actually play this for the third word - Digital Combat "SIMULATOR". In simulation mode, make the missiles and planes do what they're actually supposed to do in real life as close as practicable and possible - (IE the AIM-7M Sparrow actually going Mach 4 - 5 and 40-50nm like it does IRL, AIM54 100nm, AMRAMM 120 - 70+nm etc. Give us the simulation we want. I'm not playing this for balance and neither are countless other people I know. Each plane has its advantages and disadvantages whether its made fully realistic Full Fidelity or not so two different game modes for missile parameters is a logical and sensical intelligent solution to this ongoing debate. So, I mean really - Make it happn' Captn'.

Remember that folks - Digital Combat SIMULATOR..... the safe and logical presumption given the chosen title is real world missile parameters.

Best Regards,

A friend of a retired F4-J  F-14A/B Top Gun instructor pilot

 

Careful, you can’t say that here.

 

You are supposed to cheer every time the plane and it’s missile get nerfed…

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, FWind said:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070014861/downloads/20070014861.pdf

We are aware of this document, but these were very specific test conditions, the missile was modified to achieve the mach5+ shot, the warhead removed, it got launched under very specific conditions in a pitch up attitude, we all have no idea what their test warhead was like, etc. Our CFD shows that a normal launch will get close to mach 5. (Independently, ED performed CFD calculations of their own to re-verify our data and all results are in correlation with each other.) We will continue to investigate that, but a single test-shot is not necessarily representative for all shots you can take. With the new performance adjustments, when you launch a -mk60 at mach 2 - according to the NASA tests - you will even find it to be pretty much identical, and to top out just around mach 5.

Please all, look again at the tacviews I posted above - you can still easily achieve your 110nm shots even with an AIM-54A-mk47. These were real life test shots performed in 1973, which were meant to show its true capabilities, and not if it could reach mach 5 under certain test conditions, with a specifically prepared testversion and launched from an F-15. In the mk60 tacview the missile hits a target that it launched on at 110nm with mach 3...

Edited February 4, 2022 by IronMike

[IronMike]

50 minutes ago, lax22 said:

Careful, you can’t say that here.

 

You are supposed to cheer every time the plane and it’s missile get nerfed…

Really, you can say what you want in here... But, we did not nerf anything, we adjusted the performance to match the CFD again. It needs to match the performance data, it needs to be as realistic as possible. I said this so many times: we neither buff, nor nerf anything to satisfy this or that side. We ajdust based on well-foundet tests, when we're off the mark, when it is needed to preserve a realistic simulation. I can also assure you that this will remain an ongoing process until we can cross all Ts, dot all Is, and hit the pin on its head exactly.

Hopefully the hotfix drops today, and we will post a guided discussion thread for the AIM-54. You will get great results with it, but you will also have to adjust your expectations when shooting it down low, close in, in tail chase situations, in thick air in general or not being up high. 

Edited February 4, 2022 by IronMike

[FWind]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

We are aware of this document, but these were very specific test conditions, the missile was modified to achieve the mach5+ shot, the warhead removed, it got launched under very specific conditions in a pitch up attitude, we all have no idea what their test warhead was like, etc. Our CFD shows that a normal launch will get close to mach 5. (Independently, ED performed CFD calculations of their own to re-verify our data and all results are in correlation with each other.) We will continue to investigate that, but a single test-shot is not necessarily representative for all shots you can take. With the new performance adjustments, when you launch a -mk60 at mach 2 - according to the NASA tests - you will even find it to be pretty much identical, and to top out just around mach 5.

Please all, look again at the tacviews I posted above - you can still easily achieve your 110nm shots even with an AIM-54A-mk47. These were real life test shots performed in 1973, which were meant to show its true capabilities, and not if it could reach mach 5 under certain test conditions, with a specifically prepared testversion and launched from an F-15. In the mk60 tacview the missile hits a target that it launched on at 110nm with mach 3...

 

Thanks, Mike.

Edited February 4, 2022 by FWind

[westr]

• Adjusted AIM-54 terminal guidance, significantly improving AIM-54 overall performance.

[near_blind]

 

7 hours ago, libertyandjustice.all said:

A friend of a retired F4-J  F-14A/B Top Gun instructor pilot

I realized the time it would take to refute half these points could be better spent making coffee. I will say that if your friend cares that much and is that certain, HB are always looking for more SMEs. 

[Victory205]

"...two early AWG-9 F-14A's can data buddy together pincer spread and pick up an F5E size target at 160-180 miles IN THE NOTCH at Co alt or Below. "

Uh, no. Not in a million years. 

I stay out of these missile discussions, precisely because actual weapons performance strengths and limitations are none of your business, and there isn't enough data available to model any missile in DCS accurately.

Everyone is wrong, the people who think whatever missile is "nerfed" or over performs are basing it on information that is extrapolated from what are snippets of the true picture. Most accusations seem to be based on changes to previous behavior from players who don't have a clue either way. No one has access to the true RCS characteristics of the targets involved (see F5E reference above), nor has anyone provided a detailed description on how or if it is modeled in DCS.

I've been on multiple missile shoots with telemetry data capture, and the full data was not shared with us. We might get intercept distance to confirm warhead Pk, but not the trajectory or behavior, especially in ECCM scenarios. Knew a bunch of guys that worked at VX4 and shot dozens of radar missiles, including receiving constant updates and briefings on all facets of the weapons system. So we did get extensive feedback on employment based on the compiled data, and were briefed on and viewed tactical shots, including ACM. Let's just say, the amount of embellished bull<profanity> that I've read about missiles on DCS, on both sides of the performance argument, and even from YouTuber who for some reason, just can't help themselves from lying, could fill a fleet of double bottomed supertankers.

You are going to have to accept that weapons performance is an educated guess on DCS. 

Feel free to PM me your buddie's name. If it's someone who answered you in a chat, or you saw it in a forum, don't bother.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Victory205

[lunaticfringe]

11 hours ago, libertyandjustice.all said:

...

*cough*

[DoorMouse]

2 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

*cough*

 

$20 in the jar per Top Gun reference

Edited February 4, 2022 by DoorMouse

[FR4GGL3]

15 hours ago, Victory205 said:

"[...]and there isn't enough data available to model any missile in DCS accurately. [...]"

I would guess that this is not only true for missiles, but also for a lot of stuff (Radar, Motors, Plane "performance" and so on).  I mean, we probably all have things that we aren't allowed to talk about. It is no surprise that this is especially true for military stuff.

We need to accept that and use what we get.

[lee1hy]

It has already been 3 years since the release, but the data still needs to be corrected. So it seems that no precise conclusion has been reached about the missile. 

I understand Dev don't have access to confidential data, but it seems to be adjusting the balance/nerfed every patch time, just like a FPS/LOL game thats far from In Real Life. 

CFD, charts, data, SME whatever, it's just a PC game after all.

Edited February 5, 2022 by lee1hy

[DD_Fenrir]

28 minutes ago, lee1hy said:

It has already been 3 years since the release, but the data still needs to be corrected. So it seems that no precise conclusion has been reached about the missile. 

I understand Dev don't have access to confidential data, but it seems to be adjusting the balance/nerfed every patch time, just like a FPS/LOL game thats far from In Real Life. 

CFD, charts, data, SME whatever, it's just a PC game after all.

 

One wonders if you've actually be reading the thread and absorbing the information therein...

There are changes to missiles because ED are updating (note present tense, i.e. this is an ongoing iterative process) the core code that drives missile behaviours. Ergo any code written to govern the behaviour of missile 'X' prior to this will be suffering from profound over/under performing issues, particularly at the edges of the envelope. 

This is the fundamental cause of this quirky missile behaviour we have been seeing over many missile models - including EDS - own over the past year.

I think we can all agree that as long as developers can model the physical properties of each missile as closely as data allows and that the guidance logic for each is based upon similarly available data then that's the best we can hope for.

 

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, lee1hy said:

It has already been 3 years since the release, but the data still needs to be corrected. So it seems that no precise conclusion has been reached about the missile. 

I understand Dev don't have access to confidential data, but it seems to be adjusting the balance/nerfed every patch time, just like a FPS/LOL game thats far from In Real Life. 

CFD, charts, data, SME whatever, it's just a PC game after all.

 

Nothing, ever, not once, has been changed to nerf, balance or buff anything. I can 100% assure you of that. Hearing the term "nerf" alone, creates an uneasy sensation running down my back. We absolutely do not care about balance even in the slightest bit.

Also, the data does not need to be corrected. The data is there, in form of the CFD, once done by us, once confirmed by ED, and both match. What needs to be adjusted - due to an ongoing process of how missile behavior is modeled - is the implementation of said data. That is all.

[eatthis]

41 minutes ago, IronMike said:

Nothing, ever, not once, has been changed to nerf, balance or buff anything. I can 100% assure you of that. Hearing the term "nerf" alone, creates an uneasy sensation running down my back. We absolutely do not care about balance even in the slightest bit.

Also, the data does not need to be corrected. The data is there, in form of the CFD, once done by us, once confirmed by ED, and both match. What needs to be adjusted - due to an ongoing process of how missile behavior is modeled - is the implementation of said data. That is all.

when i say nerf or buff im reffering to wether somethings got more or less capable, nothing to do with balance 

[IronMike]

12 minutes ago, eatthis said:

when i say nerf or buff im reffering to wether somethings got more or less capable, nothing to do with balance 

I know, and a lot of ppl do, but it remains a term easily misunderstood, and in my opinion is unbecoming for a simulator and often creates more confusion than it clarifies. Nerfing does imply the intention to weaken something in favor of evening the balance, afterall. This is why I personally do not like the term at all.

[lee1hy]

CFD is just a theory. It's just a number. Take a look at his video to see how much the difference between CFD and the real gap in XPLANE dev team is.

 

starting at 7:55 

 

[thunderz]

On 2/3/2022 at 1:06 AM, IronMike said:

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.

 

Sorry for the late response, for some reason I didn't get a notification about your reply. I was flying the JF-17 Thunder, doing about mach 0.95 (the Jeff struggles on speed down low). The missile was fired as I was about half way through turning cold, and I had time to finish the turn and do some cranks to drain the missile's energy but I was still very surprised as to how it didn't catch me. 

[OldIronsides]

On 2/4/2022 at 3:09 AM, libertyandjustice.all said:

Howdy Folks,

Regarding the silly stuff going on with the AIM54 - Multiple legitimate sources, (Iran war data, Rocket motor data, RIO information, including NASA data as well) unequivocally indicate that this missile is a MACH 5 100+nm capable missile when fired above mach 1 velocity and a altitude starting point of 40,000 feet or higher. It is fully well capable of no escape zones of 50+ nm nose / nose engagement and can go over 100nm without hitting the ground and still be at a speed that is capable of neutralizing a fast mover. This game (especially this most recent patch) really toned the range down to almost not being able to kill a maneuvering target at 20-30 miles when fired from 40,000 feet which is completely inaccurate, laughable, and insulting to the combat legacy of that aircraft.

To make a long story short, and not insult my intelligence as the friend of a former F4J and F14A RIO, guys, please. The old AIM7F could itself at 40,000 feet launch and attain a NES kill profile at 30-40nm on targets. The AIM7M with Hercules MK 58 dual thrust solid rocket was even longer at that altitude. The U.S. Navy went even further to improve BVR performance up from 40 - 50nm with AIM7F/M KA-114 BO  with its next-generation fighter, our beloved F-14. Not only did they include both the AN/ASX-1 and Combat Tree capability in the F-14 Tomcat, they also incorporated an exceptionally powerful and capable AN/AWG-9 radar/fire 30  control system and the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. The 1,000-pound Phoenix was twice the weight of the AIM-7 series and was capable of engaging targets at ranges over 100 nm—about Two to three times the maximum range of the AIM-7F/M at 40,000 feet engagement and more than five times the maximum range of AIM-7D/Es used in Vietnam. This is the facts people and really simple to shut the whiners moaners and complainers up. The F-14 is a killer, get over it people. It was designed to kill things. At very long ranges. It did so dozens upon dozens of times in Iran - Iraq war of the decade 80's protracted beefage. It literally and royally single handedly dominated airspace and F'd sadaam's airforce up. 

So everyone please, enough of the short range easily notch etc. garbage. For the record on notching Heatblur hasn't even implemented several features that real life F-14 RIO's had to make it even harder to notch, missile gate, PH ACH parameters, clutter parameters, automatic notch computations. In real life, even the early AWG9 under most parameters IS NOT EASY TO NOTCH. two early AWG-9 F-14A's can data buddy together pincer spread and pick up an F5E size target at 160-180 miles IN THE NOTCH at Co alt or Below.  so, here are some inconvient truths and disclaimers for any potential F-14 haters - 

In real life, the AIM54 IS A 100+NM MISSILE. ITS AN EXCELLENT WEAPONS SYSTEM AND A KILLER. AN F-14D SUPER TOMCAT OF WHICH IS SO SUPERIOR THAT ITS STILL CLASSIFIED IS HIGHLY LIKELY BETTER THAN THE PLANE YOU'RE CHOOSING TO FLY IN THIS SIMULATOR EVEN IF ITS AN F-35. And lets not even get started on the super tomcat 21. SO GET OVER IT. IT IS OVERALL THE BEST (AND SEXIEST) AIRCRAFT EVER MADE BY MAN FOR ITS TIME. AND STILL WOULD BE IF CONTINUED TO THE SUPER TOMCAT 21 + F'KING PERIOD.

All that said, to appease the lightweights if necessary, Just make an arcade mode with modifiable range and missile parameters for those that can't handle the truth, and a simulation mode for the majority of us who actually play this for the third word - Digital Combat "SIMULATOR". In simulation mode, make the missiles and planes do what they're actually supposed to do in real life as close as practicable and possible - (IE the AIM-7M Sparrow actually going Mach 4 - 5 and 40-50nm like it does IRL, AIM54 100nm, AMRAMM 120 - 70+nm etc. Give us the simulation we want. I'm not playing this for balance and neither are countless other people I know. Each plane has its advantages and disadvantages whether its made fully realistic Full Fidelity or not so two different game modes for missile parameters is a logical and sensical intelligent solution to this ongoing debate. So, I mean really - Make it happn' Captn'.

Remember that folks - Digital Combat SIMULATOR..... the safe and logical presumption given the chosen title is real world missile parameters.

Best Regards,

A friend of a retired F4-J  F-14A/B Top Gun instructor pilot

 

.

Edited May 21, 2022 by OldIronsides

[RustBelt]

On 2/18/2022 at 11:03 AM, lee1hy said:

CFD is just a theory. It's just a number. Take a look at his video to see how much the difference between CFD and the real gap in XPLANE dev team is.

 

starting at 7:55 

 

Austin is such a trip!

There's a....Topic appropriate video from this channel from a few months back......for all the Gib F-14D people........just sayin.

Edited May 23, 2022 by RustBelt