Jump to content

AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion


IronMike

Recommended Posts

Dear all,

In this hotfix the AIM-54 guidance behavior was adjusted because it was found that the missile would make large turns when losing and regaining lock. This concludes the correction of the AIM-54’s over-performance - for now - and below we would like to share a short recap of what we did with the recent patch and hotfix.

Please note that this process remains a multi-step procedure, and we will continue to improve it as much as we can to make it even more realistic in the future. The final step of this process will be transferring it to the new missile API once it is ready.

Our main goal with the recent two patches was to correct the over-performance which was a result of changes made in the past to match the real life performance, but were no longer valid with the updated guidance logic. This ultimately resulted in a no-escape-zone that was twice as big as the NEZ should have been - especially at low altitudes. We have now adjusted its performance so that it matches the CFD data from the whitepaper as closely as possible again. This not only gets rid of the over-performance, but also of the previous tweaks that are not necessary anymore, while maintaining the ability to achieve known real life shots and test results. For reference the whitepaper can be found here:

http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

Please also take a look at the two graphs below, which both represent the speed of the missile at a given time after launch. The black line shows the CFD (in-depth simulation) and the blue line shows the in-game performance in the latest version of DCS Open Beta.


12000m.png500m.png

 

One thing you will notice is that the high altitude shot is much faster for much longer. This is because air resistance is your enemy. If you want to make the most of the AIM-54's large motor, you will need to take advantage of that in the thinnest atmosphere you can find (i.e. very high up). This also means that previously experienced long-distance and especially tail-chase shots close to sea level will not be possible anymore as you may have gotten used to them in the more recent past. This puts the missile in a much more realistic envelope, but by no means renders it ineffective. However it means that distances and tactics need to be adjusted accordingly depending on both speed and altitude of the shooter and target alike.   

As many like to compare the AIM-54 to the AIM-120 - the AIM-54 has 5.6 times more frontal area and only 2.9 times the mass. If we calculate the approximate area/mass ratio for each missile we get:

 

                Missile            

                Area/mass Ratio (cm^2/kg)            

                AIM-120C            

                1.2            

                AIM-54            

                2.4            

 

Since we know that the area is roughly proportional to the drag force we can tell that the missiles will slow down roughly proportional to the above number and - as we can see the AIM-54's number is twice that of the AIM-120s - we can conclude that the AIM-54 should slow down much faster than the AIM-120. In this case we are ignoring the drag coefficients of the missile as they are close enough for this basic comparison - but in general the AIM-120's drag coefficient is lower, making it more favorable than the AIM-54's.

Lastly we made changes to the guidance in this hotfix which address issues that specifically related to the lost behavior of the missile since the recent patch in January. It was found that the missile would make large turns when losing and regaining lock, which would happen when an aircraft passed through the notch. This behavior has been improved by adjusting various filter parameters so this should be less of an issue when the missile is on its terminal guidance. The missile will no longer suddenly perform like it did before the hotfix anymore. This will not only improve the performance again, but also result in a much better and more stable guidance overall.     

We also increased the battery life time for the missiles slightly in the hotfix. This has been made in particular to aid the AIM-54A-mk47 to replicate a real life test from 1973, where it was fired from M1.5 at 40k feet on a co-altitude target at the same speed from 110nm and intercepted the target successfully. During our tests we found that the shot would reach the target just beyond the 160 seconds of battery life time (the AIM-54C-mk47 and the AIM-54A-mk60 would not share this issue). We now increased the battery life time to facilitate the shot in the A-mk47, which will not affect any other shot, as the missile would bleed out of energy before reaching the end of its battery life time in any closer-in shot anyway. Below please find tacviews attached that roughly replicate the tests from 1973 for both the 110nm shot and the 22nm shot on a sea-skimming target. We also added a tacview that shows the 110nm shot with an AIM-54A-mk60 for comparison.

We hope that you will find that while the AIM-54 is now matching in performance the CFD data much closer, it by no means has lost its “crown” as the longest stick in DCS, and remains a very effective long range missile, which also remains deadly close-in and down low, when fired from according speeds and distances. We hope you will all enjoy these improvements, and would like to kindly invite you for your greatly appreciated feedback below. We will, as mentioned, continue to improve the AIM-54s to match the performance, kinematics and guidance even closer and to ultimately provide you the most realistic possible simulation of the AIM-54 phoenix in any sim to date.

Thank you all for your tremendous feedback and your very kind help along this journey! 

Tacview-20220202-141327-DCS-AMK60 Backfire Test 110NM.zip.acmi Tacview-20220202-153710-DCS-AMK47 Backfire Test 110NM.zip.acmi Tacview-20220202-160037-DCS-AMK47 Backfire Test 22NM.zip.acmi


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 24
  • Thanks 8

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys!

Ty for the update! is a long jorney until get the things in the way that it should be.

I did some tests and missile behavior looks much more smoother now.

Anyway did you guys changed ECCM and Notch resistance? the missile looks very susceptible to notch and countermeasures now.

https://streamable.com/ocv87t

Tacview-20220204-123213-DCS.zip.acmi


Edited by Katsu
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Katsu said:

Anyway did you guys changed ECCM and Notch resistance? the missile looks very susceptible to notch and countermeasures now.

 

No such changes were made. In my recollection it has always been a bit too susceptible to both notch and especially countermeasures from the AI (the AI's chaff seems to be even more effective for some reason.)

Ah, I see, you tested player vs player - but still no, no such changes were made. If anything it should behave more normal against notches now, ommiting the crazy over-correcting turns. In your tacview it seems simply spoofed by both the notch and chaff respectively within its current, unchanged settings.


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 5

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, IronMike said:

No such changes were made. In my recollection it has always been a bit too susceptible to both notch and especially countermeasures from the AI (the AI's chaff seems to be even more effective for some reason.)

Ah, I see, you tested player vs player - but still no, no such changes were made. If anything it should behave more normal against notches now, ommiting the crazy over-correcting turns. In your tacview it seems simply spoofed by both the notch and chaff respectively within its current, unchanged settings.

 

Its a AI Mission, I use this mission to repeatedly test the performance of missiles and train how to defend against them.

Anyway should be the RNG making funny of me.

As i said: the trajectory now is much smoother making the missile retain more energy, which is already a very good thing!

I will keep testing,playing and adapting to the "new" missile behavior, ty again for all the effort that you guys put in.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Katsu said:

Its a AI Mission, I use this mission to repeatedly test the performance of missiles and train how to defend against them.

Anyway should be the RNG making funny of me.

As i said: the trajectory now is much smoother making the missile retain more energy, which is already a very good thing!

I will keep testing,playing and adapting to the "new" missile behavior, ty again for all the effort that you guys put in.

Oh, ok, the callsign and behavior looked human alike, when I looked over it - should have looked closer! 😄 Notchudo, now I get it lol...

It is our pleasure, and as we said, we will continue to take your feedback on board and improving the AIM-54s where we can!

  • Like 3

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed that the Nr_max value for the AIM-54C has dropped down to 18Gs from the 21Gs in prior patches. Is this intended? I thought the 54C’s development had allowed for higher G loading.

  • Like 1

-Tinkerer, Certified F-14 and AIM-54 Nut | Discord: @dsplayer

Setup: i7-8700k, GTX 1080 Ti, 32GB 3066Mhz, Lots of Storage, Saitek/Logitech X56 HOTAS, TrackIR + TrackClipPro
Modules: F-14, F/A-18, JF-17, F-16C, Mirage 2000C, FC3, F-5E, Mi-24P, AJS-37, AV-8B, A-10C II, AH-64D, MiG-21bis, F-86F, MiG-19P, P-51D, Mirage F1, L-39, C-101, SA342M, Ka-50 III, Supercarrier, F-15E
Maps: Caucasus, Marianas, South Atlantic, Persian Gulf, Syria, Nevada

Mods I've Made: F-14 Factory Clean Cockpit Mod | Modern F-14 Weapons Mod | Iranian F-14 Weapons Pack | F-14B Nozzle Percentage Mod + Label Fix | AIM-23 Hawk Mod for F-14 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

I noticed that the Nr_max value for the AIM-54C has dropped down to 18Gs from the 21Gs in prior patches. Is this intended? I thought the 54C’s development had allowed for higher G loading.

My understanding per some other documents was that 21g was accurate for the -54A and 25g was accurate for the -54C.  I'd have to scrounge around to find my source, though - off the top of my head I think it was the FY80 or FY81 DOT&E report.  And of course, who knows how accurate the unclassified-and-uncontrolled documents are for this sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, cheezit said:

My understanding per some other documents was that 21g was accurate for the -54A and 25g was accurate for the -54C.  I'd have to scrounge around to find my source, though - off the top of my head I think it was the FY80 or FY81 DOT&E report.  And of course, who knows how accurate the unclassified-and-uncontrolled documents are for this sort of thing.

 

The problem is that the max G value effects how heavily the guidance applies turn effects on the missile, thus making what should be softer turns more hunt, seek, and overcorrect.  This degrades performance greatly, so as a concession they had to dial these values back a while ago.

Hopefully they can go back to where they should be when the missile changes APIs (and the new API is expanded further).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick question for heatblur - how close does the current model track the CFD work that NASA did for their AIM-54C based Phoenix Missile Hypersonic Testbed proposal back in 2007?

 

Spoiler

Tl2iV3s.png

I know some of that is probably hard to make out due to line width and resolution limits - I zoomed in on a local copy, and from what I can make out the launch parameters for both the High Speed and High Altitude tests are Mach 2.0 @ 55k feet.

 

What's most interesting to me is that the shape of the curve for the NASA "high speed" simulation, which follows a conventional loft trajectory, is very different from that shown above from both the CFD that Heatblur commissioned and the current in-game performance.  I'm not saying this is indicative of a flaw in the Heatblur CFD or the in-game AIM-54, btw - the major driver of this is probably the different nature of the tests/simulations.  In the Heatblur-commissioned CFD run and the in-game test, the missile is holding a constant altitude of 12km/~39k feet and thus has an angle of attack that starts out small and grows with time-of-flight/distance as the slower missile needs more AoA to generate enough lift to maintain altitude, which in turn creates more drag and quickens the shedding of velocity/energy.  In contrast, in the NASA CFD "high speed" scenario the missile follows an optimal-or-close-to-it ballistic trajectory, maintaining approximately zero AoA the whole time, keeping drag lower and thus shedding energy faster.  It would be interesting to see how the -54Amk47, 54Amk60 and 54C in DCS do in this scenario.


Edited by cheezit
the eagle forums don't use standard bbcode and it's driving me up the wall
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the explanation Ironmike and HBs continued work!

On the basis that HB haven't changed the ECCM and notch resistance for any of the 54 variants may I now draw your attention to the other 800lb gorilla in the room...namely that 54 is not only much more difficult to notch at low altitudes once active than the 120, but it also is much more likely to re-acquire. 

I dont have hard data on absolute notch resistance and ECCM capabilities. But if we accept that the 54A seeker is analogue, and was superceded by the digital seeker in the 54C, which itself formed the basis of the 120A seeker, which again was superceded by the 120B and then 120C variants, then it cant be right that a 54A is harder to notch (and keep notched) than a 120C5 decades newer and more advanced. 

 

The 54 is 50 years old now and has long since been replaced by the 120 for Air superiority and fleet defence duties, yet it is still the most dangerous within respective NEZ. 

 

Thanks again. 

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi IronMike, I am not sure what sort of voodoo magic ED did to the guidance. The missile does seem to lose a lot less energy going into a terminal guidance phase.

It appears that missile reaction to the target manoeuvres is "dulled/delayed/lagged" a little. On some instances, missile will fail to connect at the last 100 yards (is there any proximity fuse settings)? Missile still had some smash to it. 

 

5Feb55NM-1.JPG

Tacview-20220205-014657-DCSweird.zip.acmi


Edited by Zaphael
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zaphael said:

Hi IronMike, I am not sure what sort of voodoo magic ED did to the guidance. The missile does seem to lose a lot less energy going into a terminal guidance phase.

It appears that missile reaction to the target manoeuvres is "dulled/delayed/lagged" a little. On some instances, missile will fail to connect at the last 100 yards (is there any proximity fuse settings)? Missile still had some smash to it. 

 

5Feb55NM-1.JPG

Tacview-20220205-014657-DCSweird.zip.acmi 164.17 kB · 0 downloads

 

This is what I saw. I'm not sure whether it was correct or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Zaphael said:

Hi IronMike, I am not sure what sort of voodoo magic ED did to the guidance. The missile does seem to lose a lot less energy going into a terminal guidance phase.

It appears that missile reaction to the target manoeuvres is "dulled/delayed/lagged" a little. On some instances, missile will fail to connect at the last 100 yards (is there any proximity fuse settings)? Missile still had some smash to it. 

 

5Feb55NM-1.JPG

Tacview-20220205-014657-DCSweird.zip.acmi 164.17 kB · 0 downloads

 

Looks like your issue there is that the missile lost lock, presumably because the flanker is in the notch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, *Rage* said:

Thanks for the explanation Ironmike and HBs continued work!

On the basis that HB haven't changed the ECCM and notch resistance for any of the 54 variants may I now draw your attention to the other 800lb gorilla in the room...namely that 54 is not only much more difficult to notch at low altitudes once active than the 120, but it also is much more likely to re-acquire. 

I dont have hard data on absolute notch resistance and ECCM capabilities. But if we accept that the 54A seeker is analogue, and was superceded by the digital seeker in the 54C, which itself formed the basis of the 120A seeker, which again was superceded by the 120B and then 120C variants, then it cant be right that a 54A is harder to notch (and keep notched) than a 120C5 decades newer and more advanced. 

 

The 54 is 50 years old now and has long since been replaced by the 120 for Air superiority and fleet defence duties, yet it is still the most dangerous within respective NEZ. 

 

Thanks again. 

Hey bud, I will carefully say, this isn't as much of a gorilla in the room, but rather a mirage based on impressions and also assumptions to a fair extend. We set the ccm values in accordance to what ED thinks they are best set to for the aim54, based on the fact that the seekers evolved over time - something that has been discussed on these forums ad nausem, in multiple threads, time and time again - just on a sidenote. Until we transition it to the new guidance API, and see how it behaves then (we also have no influence on notch resistance, and if anything I would suggest it is too easy to be notched atm), we have no intention on changing that. It could very well be that the aim120 is too easy to be notched in comparison, but I honestly would not know and thus would not want to draw any such conclusions from comparisons either. As I said: "impressions and guesswork..." All we can do is take all the data we know at hand, and make our best educated guess, present these results to ED and use the values they suggest for it to be most appropriate.

The "50 years" comparison between aim120c and aim54A also does not hold true just as much as it appears on the first look, as we know that the seekerheads have been updated over time. The moment it was developed does not bare as much factor as the moment in time when it still got used, and in DCS there is no such thing as different seekerheads bound to different moments in time, or historic settings - which is why we so no reason to go down that path if no other missile does either. Hope that makes sense - if you want to dig in to that more, please search for the aim54 ccm thread. This topic has really been pondered ... a lot. 🙂

I would also like to kindly ask everyone to keep this thread on topic about predominantly performance, so we do not go down the CCM rabbit hole again and keep turning in circles with much discussed topics that are not part of the recent changes this thread focuses on. Please keep in mind: we will update the Tomcat's jamming and ECCM stuff, and once the transition to the new guidance API is done (which for the time being we cannot give you any estimates of as to when it is to happen), we will also revisit chaff resistance and notch resistance of the AIM-54s. Please also keep in mind that this does not mean that it may significantly change, if at all, and in what direction. Especially since the type of seekers used in the AIM54As are actually rather effective against the type of chaff that is present in DCS. Thank you for your kind understanding.


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 6

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got done with some high altitude testing against maneuvering targets - the lethality definitely seems to be back; I succeeded hitting a pair of F-5s at 55NM who were bee-lining it for an E2 (Vc about 1100kts at launch, about 36K ft).  When the missiles went active, they each did a hard turn and then a dive, and both missiles had the Schlitz to keep up and make the intercept (~1.7M &1.6M at intercept after maneuvering).  Another test at 37NM launch distance achieved the kill under similar circumstances at ~2.0M.  The guidance update definitely seems to have helped.  Will continue to test at lower altitudes to feel out the envelope.  Thanks for your dedication and work, HB!

  • Like 2

Rig: i9 10900KF @5.3GHz | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 3600MHz | ASUS ROG STRIX RTX 3090 24GB OC | ASUS Maximus XII Formula | 2x 2TB Intel SSD6 NVMe M.2 | VKB F-14CG on Gunfighter III Base | TM Warthog HOTAS | TM Rudder Pedals | HP Reverb G2

Hangar: FC3 | F-86F | F-4E [Pre-Ordered] | F-5E | F-14A/B | F-15E | F-16C | F/A-18C | Mirage 2000C | JF-17 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19P | MiG-21bis | AJS-37 | AV-8B | L39 | C-101 | A-10C/CII | Yak-52 | P-51D | P-47D | Fw 190 A-8/D-9 | Bf 109 | Spitfire | I-16 | UH-1 Huey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Quid said:

Just got done with some high altitude testing against maneuvering targets - the lethality definitely seems to be back; I succeeded hitting a pair of F-5s at 55NM who were bee-lining it for an E2 (Vc about 1100kts at launch, about 36K ft).  When the missiles went active, they each did a hard turn and then a dive, and both missiles had the Schlitz to keep up and make the intercept (~1.7M &1.6M at intercept after maneuvering).  Another test at 37NM launch distance achieved the kill under similar circumstances at ~2.0M.  The guidance update definitely seems to have helped.  Will continue to test at lower altitudes to feel out the envelope.  Thanks for your dedication and work, HB!

Glad to hear, and our pleasure ofc.

  • Like 1

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just tried the "Dragon Tooth" (I think it's called) instant action mission again (2xF-14A with 4xMk60 vs. 4 J-11). None of my Phoenix hit.....because I ordered the AI wingman to engage bandits, which he did, with gusto, splashing all the J-11's with his 4 Phoenix before mine even got there. 🙂  

Good to see the friendly AI apparently being useful again. 👍

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

I just tried the "Dragon Tooth" (I think it's called) instant action mission again (2xF-14A with 4xMk60 vs. 4 J-11). None of my Phoenix hit.....because I ordered the AI wingman to engage bandits, which he did, with gusto, splashing all the J-11's with his 4 Phoenix before mine even got there. 🙂  

Good to see the friendly AI apparently being useful again. 👍

Man, you almost gave me a heart attack there à la (in Jester voice): "Here we go again!" 😄

  • Like 4

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After some shots I am more than delighted. Thanks for the team and a big thumbs up for the fast "fix", even if more corrections or adjustments are coming.

 

As other noted above, the missile is not as nervous and thus, does not lose huge amounts of energy. This has led to a more belivable performance with the last patch that adressed the drag issues.

 

Having a blast this weekend for sure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

I just tried the "Dragon Tooth" (I think it's called) instant action mission again (2xF-14A with 4xMk60 vs. 4 J-11). None of my Phoenix hit.....because I ordered the AI wingman to engage bandits, which he did, with gusto, splashing all the J-11's with his 4 Phoenix before mine even got there. 🙂  

Good to see the friendly AI apparently being useful again. 👍

TWO, EJECTING.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing any changes.  Whereas the missiles seemed bonked before today's patch, they still seem the same now.

 

I did the Persian Gulf Instant Action stock mission called "BVR".  I fired 2 Phoenix-C missiles at MiG-29s in TWS-A.  Target altitude was about angels 25, mine was about angels 23.

Both missiles went pitbull at about 25 miles range and both missed.

 

This occurred when I cranked after firing, placing the targets at ATA 50.  It also occured when I didn't crank at all and left them on the nose ATA 0 and TA was 0.

It also occurred when I told Jester to set the target size to large.  Up to now, I can't get a single hit out of the Phoenix.

EDIT:  OK did another test, same conditions.  They were at angels 25, this time I went up to angels 33 or so.  No crank, TA ~0, ATA 0.

One Phoenix hit, the other flew ahead in a dive, then it would climb, then it would dive, then it would climb, then it would self destruct or just disappear from external view. This was after the remaining Fulcrum had closed range to less than 20 nm from me and later merged.  His TA was always between 0-3 RT pretty much the whole time so he wasn't even notching.

v6,

boNes


Edited by bonesvf103

"Also, I would prefer a back seater over the extra gas any day. I would have 80 pounds of flesh to eat and a pair of glasses to start a fire." --F/A-18 Hornet pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bonesvf103 said:

I did the Persian Gulf Instant Action stock mission called "BVR".  I fired 2 Phoenix-C missiles at MiG-29s in TWS-A.  Target altitude was about angels 25, mine was about angels 23.

Both missiles went pitbull at about 25 miles range and both missed.

How did they miss? Did they run out of speed? Did they go stupid? Did they make a massive out of plane maneuver after the target turned through the notch?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bonesvf103 said:

I'm not seeing any changes.  Whereas the missiles seemed bonked before today's patch, they still seem the same now.

 

I did the Persian Gulf Instant Action stock mission called "BVR".  I fired 2 Phoenix-C missiles at MiG-29s in TWS-A.  Target altitude was about angels 25, mine was about angels 23.

Both missiles went pitbull at about 25 miles range and both missed.

 

This occurred when I cranked after firing, placing the targets at ATA 50.  It also occured when I didn't crank at all and left them on the nose ATA 0 and TA was 0.

It also occurred when I told Jester to set the target size to large.  Up to now, I can't get a single hit out of the Phoenix.

EDIT:  OK did another test, same conditions.  They were at angels 25, this time I went up to angels 33 or so.  No crank, TA ~0, ATA 0.

One Phoenix hit, the other flew ahead in a dive, then it would climb, then it would dive, then it would climb, then it would self destruct or just disappear from external view. This was after the remaining Fulcrum had closed range to less than 20 nm from me and later merged.  His TA was always between 0-3 RT pretty much the whole time so he wasn't even notching.

v6,

boNes

 

Can you send some Tacviews?

-Tinkerer, Certified F-14 and AIM-54 Nut | Discord: @dsplayer

Setup: i7-8700k, GTX 1080 Ti, 32GB 3066Mhz, Lots of Storage, Saitek/Logitech X56 HOTAS, TrackIR + TrackClipPro
Modules: F-14, F/A-18, JF-17, F-16C, Mirage 2000C, FC3, F-5E, Mi-24P, AJS-37, AV-8B, A-10C II, AH-64D, MiG-21bis, F-86F, MiG-19P, P-51D, Mirage F1, L-39, C-101, SA342M, Ka-50 III, Supercarrier, F-15E
Maps: Caucasus, Marianas, South Atlantic, Persian Gulf, Syria, Nevada

Mods I've Made: F-14 Factory Clean Cockpit Mod | Modern F-14 Weapons Mod | Iranian F-14 Weapons Pack | F-14B Nozzle Percentage Mod + Label Fix | AIM-23 Hawk Mod for F-14 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...