Jump to content

AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion


IronMike

Recommended Posts

Here's a tacview of the last engagement I described where I climbed up to 30000+ and launched.  As you can see, the MiGs weren't even maneuvering.  The one Pheonix just lofted up and went over his head and came down into the water as he passed.

v6,

boNes

Tacview-20220204-134017-DCS.zip.acmi

  • Like 1

"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

Great work Heatblur and ED! Noticeable improvement - 64NM Splash! Great stuff. Missile speed retention is fantastic. 

Thank you!!! This is great great great.. 

updated video is up! 

 

 

***** update / note ****

Note - > I had a strange behavior where two missiles went up into space (first 2 minutes of video) - otherwise its BACK BABY! ❤️

 

target 50miles LOW (3000) launch from 4000-5000 radar lock never broke

missiles went up to 40k..lost speed and died twice.. weird.. hmm  please see if you can replicate - screenshot of launch parameter attached - second launch was from 25 miles.. and it also went up to space. 

hmm.JPG


Edited by plasma1945
added screenshot of low alt launch parameters which made missile go to space
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, bonesvf103 said:

Here's a tacview of the last engagement I described where I climbed up to 30000+ and launched.  As you can see, the MiGs weren't even maneuvering.  The one Pheonix just lofted up and went over his head and came down into the water as he passed.

v6,

boNes

Tacview-20220204-134017-DCS.zip.acmi 463.04 kB · 3 downloads

I had no problems shooting both. I had to move in closer, simply because the AWG-9 would not split them into two tracks for me at that range, but every time both missiles connected fine. They are also 29As, so no need to fire a potentially wasteful longshot, at 20nm they are still easily outgunned, and the AI drops lock the moment it realizes it has been launched on (so I couldnt care less about the funny toothpicks they launched at me). Both chaffed and defended heavily, the Cs had no problem to hit them whatsoever. 🙂

Remember, you need to adjust expectations and tactics in principle now. In your tacview it also seems that for some reason you lost lock on the second guy and thus your 2nd missile simply went "ballistic", but not sure. I personally did not experience anything like it, but seeing how weirdly the 2nd bandit climbed, it is possible. Tacview below is from the same mission.

Tacview-20220204-210819-DCS.zip.acmi

35 minutes ago, plasma1945 said:

Great work Heatblur and ED! Noticeable improvement - 64NM Splash! Great stuff. Missile speed retention is fantastic. 

Thank you!!!

updated video is up! 

 

i posted the two maps i used.

I had a strange behavior where two missiles went up into space (first 2 minutes of video) - otherwise its BACK BABY! ❤️

 

target 50miles LOW (3000)

launch from 3000

missiles went up to 40k.. please see if you can replicate

A 40k loft at 50nm from 3k feet launch altitude seems reasonable, just by guessing. Remember: the further away you are, the more the missile will loft. So performing long shots down low may not be advisable, as the loft may gobble up its energy. We will investigate the lofting further with ED, but the loft logic is not really in our hands. What seems reasonable though is that the further away the launch, the higher loft it tries to achieve.


Edited by IronMike
  • 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

12 minutes ago, IronMike said:

I had no problems shooting both. I had to move in closer, simply because the AWG-9 would not split them into two tracks for me at that range, but every time both missiles connected fine. They are also 29As, so no need to fire a potentially wasteful longshot, at 20nm they are still easily outgunned, and the AI drops lock the moment it realizes it has been launched on (so I couldnt care less about the funny toothpicks they launched at me). Both chaffed and defended heavily, the Cs had no problem to hit them whatsoever. 🙂

Remember, you need to adjust expectations and tactics in principle now. In your tacview it also seems that for some reason you lost lock on the second guy and thus your 2nd missile simply went "ballistic", but not sure. I personally did not experience anything like it, but seeing how weirdly the 2nd bandit climbed, it is possible.

Tacview-20220204-210819-DCS.zip.acmi 205.76 kB · 0 downloads

A 40k loft at 50nm from 3k feet launch altitude seems reasonable, just by guessing. Remember: the further away you are, the more the missile will loft. So performing long shots down low may not be advisable, as the loft may gobble up its energy. We will investigate the lofting further with ED, but the loft logic is not really in our hands. What seems reasonable though is that the further away the launch, the higher loft it tries to achieve.

Thx! Will do some more tests and do some PVP action in GS as a dedicated rio later tonight! Will watch for oddities! Thanks again for the awesome fix! ❤️❤️❤️ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, plasma1945 said:

Thx! Will do some more tests and do some PVP action in GS as a dedicated rio later tonight! Will watch for oddities! Thanks again for the awesome fix! ❤️❤️❤️ 

Glad it works, and remember, those low alt shots are no bueno, especially at long range, you want to avoid that at all costs. Think of it: the missile will want to loft to make the range, and it will have to climb through all that thick air to reach its desired altitude - so now you wasted all that juicy motor burn time to just get it up high, and so if the bandit does not oblige by flying straight into it, by the time it arrives, all its energy advantage will have evaporated into thin air - pun intended. 🙂

Down low you want to be close and want to make all of that yuge motor burn all the way to the target. After that it will slow down, which is intended and in compliance with the CFD. The old tactics of firing far from down low are simply not valid anymore. 😉

  • 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

12 minutes ago, plasma1945 said:

Thx! Will do some more tests and do some PVP action in GS as a dedicated rio later tonight! Will watch for oddities! Thanks again for the awesome fix! ❤️❤️❤️ 

@plasma1945 we are doing a fight night on the Colosseum Public PvP server tonight.  It's like GS, but way better...no lag and better players.  And AI balancer in case Red/Blue get one-sided.  You should come join us there!

 

https://discord.gg/4KYn53WE


Edited by GatorNutz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, GatorNutz said:

@plasma1945 we are doing a fight night on the Colosseum Public PvP server tonight.  It's like GS, but way better...no lag and better players.  And AI balancer in case Red/Blue get one-sided.  You should come join us there!

 

https://discord.gg/4KYn53WE

 

Heya Alpha 😄its RS | plazma1945 😉 I will pop by with the RS squad in to say hi ❤️ dont spank us too hard

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, IronMike said:

I had no problems shooting both. I had to move in closer, simply because the AWG-9 would not split them into two tracks for me at that range, but every time both missiles connected fine. They are also 29As, so no need to fire a potentially wasteful longshot, at 20nm they are still easily outgunned, and the AI drops lock the moment it realizes it has been launched on (so I couldnt care less about the funny toothpicks they launched at me). Both chaffed and defended heavily, the Cs had no problem to hit them whatsoever. 🙂

Remember, you need to adjust expectations and tactics in principle now. In your tacview it also seems that for some reason you lost lock on the second guy and thus your 2nd missile simply went "ballistic", but not sure. I personally did not experience anything like it, but seeing how weirdly the 2nd bandit climbed, it is possible. Tacview below is from the same mission.

 

 

1.  The target was not extrapolated.

2. Targets went co altitude or just below me

3. TA was RT3

4. Phoenix went pitbull at 25 nm

5. at 15 nm the one Phoenix was in negative countdown, the other hit at about 15 nm from me

After the missile missed, it was headed down to the water, then went level, then climbed up, then disappeared from external view

Now if I lost lock on the second guy, would that had happened with him coming right at me instead of notching?  Would countermeasures do that?  I don't know but in the video I had a solid lock on him, no extrapolation, to the point that the countdown went negative.  Your bandits were chaffing and flaring heavily and your missiles still hit.

Could it be that my patch didn't have the update?  I know HB mentioned before that they've submitted updates that for some reason wasn't in the patch but then was in the next one.  Maybe I should check file integrity?  I mean when you hit them, you seemed to be under the same conditions as me.  Yet after 5+ tried, my missiles never hit until that one TacView I posted...

Oh and you mentioned that when the AI realizes it has been launched on, they drop lock.  I never knew that, is that all AI?  How do you know that they realized it?  The spike stops?

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

16 minutes ago, bonesvf103 said:

 

1.  The target was not extrapolated.

2. Targets went co altitude or just below me

3. TA was RT3

4. Phoenix went pitbull at 25 nm

5. at 15 nm the one Phoenix was in negative countdown, the other hit at about 15 nm from me

After the missile missed, it was headed down to the water, then went level, then climbed up, then disappeared from external view

Now if I lost lock on the second guy, would that had happened with him coming right at me instead of notching?  Would countermeasures do that?  I don't know but in the video I had a solid lock on him, no extrapolation, to the point that the countdown went negative.  Your bandits were chaffing and flaring heavily and your missiles still hit.

Could it be that my patch didn't have the update?  I know HB mentioned before that they've submitted updates that for some reason wasn't in the patch but then was in the next one.  Maybe I should check file integrity?  I mean when you hit them, you seemed to be under the same conditions as me.  Yet after 5+ tried, my missiles never hit until that one TacView I posted...

Oh and you mentioned that when the AI realizes it has been launched on, they drop lock.  I never knew that, is that all AI?  How do you know that they realized it?  The spike stops?

v6,

boNes

 

 

 

 

 

I have the same open beta as you have. 🙂 So the update is 100% in. In your tacview that missile went up/down way after it passed the bandit, this may be just some weird way DCS deletes a lost missile, as it clearly did not track your target in the tacview, it just went ballistic. Not sure if you are seeing or looking at things correctly either, the phoenix cannot go pitbull at 25nm. 13/10/6nm is the pitbull range depending on target size settings. So what you may have seen is simply either the missile guiding from awg9 commands, or if the timer started flashing, it hitting 16s at that range, as the timer flashing is an estimate independent of the pitbull. The countdown timer can be fairly inaccurate and should only give you a rough idea.

I know the AI realized it by seeing them go defensive, chaff, and drop lock (your missile launch warning will stop and the R27Rs will simply not guide anymore). Yes, that is a thing with all AI for semi-actives, you can count on that at all times - the moment the missile goes active, they drop the lock.

Maybe your update didn't work out, so you could try a repair, if this is consistent behavior. Else please show me a cockpit video of what you are doing, not just the tacview.


Edited by IronMike

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

11 minutes ago, IronMike said:

The countdown timer can be fairly inaccurate and should only give you a rough idea.

Just to confirm, when the timer starts flashing, that means the AWG9 has sent the pitbull instruction. Correct? Even if the time is inaccurate, the flashing is always the Pitbull command? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick and dirty test w/ Dragons Tooth but I used to only hit 1/4 or best case scenario 2/4.  I've always chalked this up to "old missile tech getting notched" and just accepted it as fact.

This time my wingman splashed all 4 first...great work, whether it's been buffed or nerfed, I don't care.  I'm just glad it's accurate.  And if this is how the -54 was supposed to be in real life, then all the better!

Thanks HB! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AIM-54C seems to be acting weird in its loft profile still. The AIM-54A-Mk47 overtook it in this test I just did and the 54C hits the target at a measly Mach 1.08 compared to the other missiles that hit when they're higher than Mach 2. I'm going to see if this is a fluke tho.

Spoiler

image.png

Tacview-20220204-152941-DCS-PHTest1-27-22.zip.acmi


Edited by DSplayer

-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

19 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

The AIM-54C seems to be acting weird in its loft profile still. The AIM-54A-Mk47 overtook it in this test I just did and the 54C hits the target at a measly Mach 1.08 compared to the other missiles that hit when they're higher than Mach 2. I'm going to see if this is a fluke tho.

  Reveal hidden contents

image.png

Tacview-20220204-152941-DCS-PHTest1-27-22.zip.acmi 184.03 kB · 1 download

 

The C was fired from further so the loft is higher.

2 hours ago, plasma1945 said:

Great work Heatblur and ED! Noticeable improvement - 64NM Splash! Great stuff. Missile speed retention is fantastic. 

Thank you!!!

updated video is up! 

 

i posted the two maps i used.

I had a strange behavior where two missiles went up into space (first 2 minutes of video) - otherwise its BACK BABY! ❤️

 

target 50miles LOW (3000)

launch from 3000

missiles went up to 40k.. please see if you can replicate

I would hardly call 30kft space 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JNelson said:

The C was fired from further so the loft is higher.

Would 7 seconds (4 nautical miles) really tack on 8k more feet and 1/2 the impact speed?

-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

Observations:
A shallower lofting profile does result in more terminal energy. Compared to the previous patch, from about 30-35 miles at 20000ft, the missile retains about 20-30% more energy then before, which means it won't be subsonic before pitbull but somewhere around mach 1.2-1.3. Which doesn't mean it's going to hit an AI target by any stretch of imagination. To the average user out there, a rough rule of the thumb is to take you expected viable range and reduce it by around a 1/3. In the above mentioned example (Persian Gulf, Beyond Visual Range, mach 1.1-1.2 shooter, mach 0.8 target, hot) don't engage beyond 22 miles. Even with the new loft, your missile will never make the intercept unless the Gods of RNG favor you.....which happened 0 times 16 attempts for me. If a bandit turns cold you will always miss, no matter the parameters, but this was always to be expected. 

Questions:
My statistical sample is very small (only 16 tracks so far) and almost all (but 3-4) are recorder while the missile was fired in PD-STT and only a few in TWS, target size set to large. There were some subtle differences i may have noticed, but will not mention as a few shots are hardly a valid sample size to draw any conclusions from. Hence my questions (from purely selfish reasons of sparing myself from doing about a 50+ more tests) @IronMike:
1.  Is there supposed to be a difference in the lofting logic based on the missile being guided in PD-STT or TWS?  
2. Is there a difference in the guidance logic (reaction to CCM) and reacquire logic based on the missile being guided in PD-STT or TWS? 

@bonesvf103 I have never seen a Phoenix going active at 25 miles from the target, is it possible that you have read the TTI number and took it for range? Was the number flashing? 

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

2. Is there a difference in the guidance logic (reaction to CCM) and reacquire logic based on the missile being guided in PD-STT or TWS? 

Well it's not going to go active when shot PD-STT, so theoretically the reacquire percentage is going to be ~0%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, IronMike said:


Maybe your update didn't work out, so you could try a repair, if this is consistent behavior. Else please show me a cockpit video of what you are doing, not just the tacview.

 

I should be more clear and tell you that by 25 nm, I meant the missile went pitbull when the target was 25 nm from ME not when it was 25 nm from the missile. 

Anyway here is the video clip.  I didn't record it until after missile launch but I think there is enough visible there to see the situation...including my getting shot down since I was watching the lost missile track the whole time, haha.

 

 

I have some video of the previous tests from angels 20 or so, but since the angels 30 one was supposed to be the best case scenario for the Phoenix, I figured this is the better video.

 

v6,

boNes

"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

2 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

1.  Is there supposed to be a difference in the lofting logic based on the missile being guided in PD-STT or TWS?  
2. Is there a difference in the guidance logic (reaction to CCM) and reacquire logic based on the missile being guided in PD-STT or TWS?

1. No.
2. Don't think so, the difference is that in PDSTT it is guided like a SARH missile all the way to the target, so the difference with CCM may be as the difference between SARH and ARH is handled in DCS generally, if there is one. If you lose lock, the missile will not reacquire.
 

Quote

Observations:
A shallower lofting profile does result in more terminal energy.


Not true. Watch the tacview I posted in the first thread with the mk60 launched from 110nm. It will hit the target with mach 3. It really depends from what altitude you launch and to what altitude it will climb. The further away and the higher the launch, you may actually get a much higher terminal velocity on the target. If you fire lower and make the phoenix climb to its peak of loft through thicker air, you will have simply wasted the precious motor burn time, so a closer shot with shallower loft will in these situations ofc have a higher terminal energy - as you did not waste the motor on making it climb. That is why: far shots need to be fired as high as possible.
 

Quote

Compared to the previous patch, from about 30-35 miles at 20000ft, the missile retains about 20-30% more energy then before, which means it won't be subsonic before pitbull but somewhere around mach 1.2-1.3. Which doesn't mean it's going to hit an AI target by any stretch of imagination.


The last part of this quote is also not true. Don't forget, all your tests if done in the PG BVR mission, are done with the C only, which has a shorter motor burn time, thus, again you want to be higher. With the mk60 you can hit AI from 30-35 miles at 20000ft, provided you yourself are fast enough and you may want to aid the loft by pitching up a bit when firing. But the question is rather, why do you guys insist on these low level shots? 20k ft is not high at all, especially not for the Tomcat. You should be well above 30k feet for shots beyond 30nm. No one forces you to be down low. And especially with the C you should not be low. 🙂
 

Quote

To the average user out there, a rough rule of the thumb is to take you expected viable range and reduce it by around a 1/3. In the above mentioned example (Persian Gulf, Beyond Visual Range, mach 1.1-1.2 shooter, mach 0.8 target, hot) don't engage beyond 22 miles.


I would heavily advise against making such generalistions from one particular mission/setup. The rule of thumb is simply: the further away you want to launch, the higher you must be, you don't have to cut anything by anything. And as mentioned above, you will get extremely fast terminal energies when you fire 40k+ well above mach 1 on even targets as far as 110nm out. The lower you fire, the closer in you want to fire, but I wouldn't go by 1/2 or 1/3, etc... The motor burns for iirc around 25 seconds (depending on which AIM54, I'd have to look it up). Go by the time you estimate it would take to reach the target, and on sea level you want to burn the motor all the way (depending on the situation even long before it burns out), and going higher you can allow yourself to fire a tad further out, the higher the further. The missiles do slow fast after the motor has burned out ofc, if fired through thicker air.
 

Quote

If a bandit turns cold you will always miss, no matter the parameters, but this was always to be expected. 


I really hate to be that guy, but this also does not hold true. It depends, again, on where you fire from, how fast you are, how fast the bandit is, etc. - as you will see in the tacviews below.

I know you meant the above quoted snippets all for a 20kft launch in that mission, but even so, it depends really on so much more, for instance, the mk60 will be much different from the C, it depends on how fast you are, if you pitch during the shot, what the bandit does, etc... So these "it will be such and such" general conclusions can quickly turn into a mindset-trap is what I am getting at, especially when you switch the test mission, but even within this mission to a certain extent.

I made some tacviews for you, in the same mission, PG BVR.

1. "25NM Medium" : You can see that from 25nm one shot connected, one did not, at 20k feet. The tgt size switch was left in normal in this one, and one of the bandits was lucky to turn cold early enough and had the conditions in his favor. But the other bandit caught it pretty nicely. However: this is not an ideal setup or scenario, and as you see, it can quickly turn into a gamble. This tacview is only meant to show the shot.

2. "35NM High": Already much better (I only fired on one this time), and you can see the loft here in fact helps, because it has been fired from a higher altitude. It comes in faster and much deadlier, and the shot is almost ideal. It is where you should be at. But given the opponent, why not give it a tad more oomph even? Which brings us to the next one. Tgt size switch was left to normal. This tacview is only meant to show the shot.

3. "30NM Ideal": This is a much more ideal high altitude launch, which does not go for range as much for being high, fast and able to connect, and also tacically more prudent for this mission - it offsets the bandits first through a crank, which makes it easier for the AWG9 to separate the track, you gain time to climb and speed up, you turn back in, you launch from around 30NM - and both bandits are toast, no matter what they want to do. We're talking AI - against a player I would have flown similar, but fired even closer - or actually much higher and further, depending on how high I would estimate his SA. TGT size switch was set to small. This tacview also shows a valid tactic for this particular scenario.

4. "15NM Ideal": This is a much more ideal low altitude launch, where I move in closer to fire into the bandits from below at around 15nm, tgt size switch again set to small. It starts again with a crank to help the AWG9, with a descent meant to gain speed, and when I reverse back in, I pitch up into the loft of the missiles to help them. Also here, both bandits are toast and stand zero chances. This is a maneuver I would use more likely against players, but only if for some reason I could not get higher further out. Ideal, in both cases, btw means only "more ideal" - neither the crank, nor the setup is really ideal, it is simply meant to demonstrate, how different setups, altitudes, speeds and ranges, both far and close, both high and low or medium, can be used more ideally to achieve great results. And that you cannot simply say "need to cut by half" or "cannot fire down low anymore", etc (not that you said that like that). Also this tacview was meant to show another valid tactic for this kind of setup, beyond just demonstrating the shot.

I would in general suggest: take your time everyone to get acquainted with the new performance again, that is - a couple of weeks, a few dozen flight hours, several nights burning the midnight oil on servers, etc. etc. ... before we start making new rule of thumbs or jump to conclusions too fast. All of us, me included, need to develop a new feeling for the adjusted performance, but the possibilities, as hopefully demonstrated in the tacviews below, are as diverse as they used to be, if the circumstances are taken into account properly and if the right setup is chosen for each particular shot you want to take. 🙂

Happy shooting!
 

PG_BVR_15NM_Ideal_Cmk47.zip.acmi PG_BVR_30NM_Ideal_Cmk47.zip.acmi PG_BVR_25NM_Medium_Cmk47.zip.acmi PG_BVR_35NM_High_Cmk47.zip.acmi


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 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

34 minutes ago, bonesvf103 said:

I should be more clear and tell you that by 25 nm, I meant the missile went pitbull when the target was 25 nm from ME not when it was 25 nm from the missile. 

Anyway here is the video clip.  I didn't record it until after missile launch but I think there is enough visible there to see the situation...including my getting shot down since I was watching the lost missile track the whole time, haha.

 

 

I have some video of the previous tests from angels 20 or so, but since the angels 30 one was supposed to be the best case scenario for the Phoenix, I figured this is the better video.

 

v6,

boNes

This is the AWG-9 botching it, rather than the missile. In this mission the trick is to make them offset each other by cranking first. Without that separation they are so close to each other, that the AWG-9 has difficulties to distinguish the tracks, and what likely happened to you there is that it merged the tracks back together, extrapolated them or even generated false tracks. If you watch your tacview again, you can see that your first missile went to "space", while your second missile guided on what should have been your priority1 track. It is an AWG-9 issue, not really a missile issue. That up and down thingy it does at the end, is likely just some "I am lost and have no more purpose in my life" behavior of missiles in general, and I would not pay too much attention to that. At a certain point it simply will detonate.. 

It is a seemingly easy mission, which has this twist that you deal with the bandits close to each other and the AWG-9 will throw a tantrum 9/10, wich can make it challenging, and is meant to make it challenging like that. The trick is to climb into a crank, make them separate, launch high at around 30NM, and watch them be toast. 🙂 See the tacviews in my post above. 

  • 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

42 minutes ago, IronMike said:


1.  Don't think so, the difference is that in PDSTT it is guided like a SARH missile all the way to the target, so the difference with CCM may be as the difference between SARH and ARH is handled in DCS generally, if there is one....

2. Not true. Watch the tacview I posted in the first thread with the mk60 launched from 110nm. It will hit the target with mach 3. It really depends from what altitude you launch and to what altitude it will climb. 
 


3. The last part of this quote is also not true. Don't forget, all your tests if done in the PG BVR mission, are done with the C only, which has a shorter motor burn time, thus, again you want to be higher. 

4. I really hate to be that guy, but this also does not hold true. It depends, again, on where you fire from, how fast you are, how fast the bandit is, etc. - as you will see in the tacviews below.


5. I would heavily advise against making such generalistions from one particular mission/setup. 


6. I made some tacviews for you, in the same mission, PG BVR.

7. The tgt size switch was left in normal in this one, and one of the bandits was lucky to turn cold early enough and had the conditions in his favor...

8. why not give it a tad more oomph even? Which brings us to the next one. Tgt size switch was left to normal. This tacview is only meant to show the shot.


 

PG_BVR_15NM_Ideal_Cmk47.zip.acmi 276.84 kB · 4 downloads PG_BVR_30NM_Ideal_Cmk47.zip.acmi 204.83 kB · 3 downloads PG_BVR_25NM_Medium_Cmk47.zip.acmi 195.58 kB · 2 downloads PG_BVR_35NM_High_Cmk47.zip.acmi 212.28 kB · 4 downloads

 

1. That is exactly what i needed to know, thanks! 

2. 3. and 4. I think we may be on different frequencies here. I am referring to this precise scenario and the shots as they were made, in order to illustrate the differences between how things were and they are now. If you recall i posted one (out of many) tracks in the previous thread in which a shot was made from 35-ish NM at a co-altitude target, with the above mentioned parameters. Before the latest patch the missile had a steeper loft, and while it did achieve higher altitude, it did end up slower during the terminal phase exactly because it bled too much during the loft. And again, as that scenario was performed with a 45C, so was this one. Will a mk60 fair better? Sure. Will a higher distance launch loft higher? You bet. But then i'd be comparing apples and oranges 😄

5. I get the impression that many people around here, used to fire their 54's at even more inflated distances then i ever did (as mentioned above, around 35NM for medium altitudes around mach 1.1 to 1.2). As such cutting your expected distance by 30% may even be conservative. As one example mentioned in the previous thread, people were lobbing these things from 50NM while barely going above 5kft. As an illustration, the only time i did that was on the Marianas J-11 BVR, and that was at angels 35 and around mach 1. I'd go faster, but as you know the F-14A right now has issues going much past the number that heavy and that high. At least not in level acceleration. Anyways, that's a mk60 to boot. Tried that same shot tonight, and no big surprise, it still works. Which leads me to believe that people used to do these (and it worked) from at least 70NM away, if not as soon as the AWG-9 would build a track. Ergo, cutting 20NM from those 70-80 for a similar PK sounds well within reason. Is it precise for everyone? Most likely not. But as a general rule for people used to the old Phoenix? I'd let the users decide.

6. Thanks for the tracks! 

7. Question more related to the AI. From most test-shot performed, i can't really get a clear picture as to when and why the AI goes defensive. Is it RNG? IS it distance from bandit? Distance from missile? The instance missile goes active? The instance the bandit's RWR picks up the active radar?

8. Because the F-14A won't go any faster! 😄 Joke! But really. The setup in that mission is 50 at the start. In the A, you either go full burner level or full burner up. The first will get you mach 1.2 (maybe) the second will get you.....not that fast 🙂

Without going into much details, what i found works fairly consistently for PD-STT shots (don't ask why i insist on those) in the above mentioned parameters (i'll post a track if you want to), is starting with a 35-40 degree offset, STT one of the bandits, launch around 21-24 NM away as i crank the opposite way, start dropping altitude as i crank, and then depending on bandit crank perform the appropriate anti notch maneuver. The missile usually hits unless the bandit goes full cold. If the missile doesn't connect and the bandit is still hot, i am usually inside 10 miles by then, which lets me finish him off with an active 54. If i do splash him i go for the trailer, same treatment, a sub 10Nm active shot, but this one usually provided by a PAL P-STT lock. If i use the wingmen, then i usually go for the trailer right away, as ordering the wingmen to attack a specific target is too finicky 🙂   

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been firing AIM-54's all day. The missiles are broken. 41,000, against 44,000 target, range 50 miles, hot. Target did not notch, missile flew past. My wingman in this missed 3 shot in a row at under 20 miles, all over 25,000, no hits. The missiles are completly ignoring targets that are right in front of them. (It won't let me post the track file, too big. But it's 2 tomcats missing targets over and over.)

UPDATE:

My wingman and I went and tried this again. We again flew F-14B's with 4 AIM_54 Mk60, 2 sparrow, 2 sidewinder. This time we hit on almost every single shot. The difference? The first server, where we missed 20 mile shots, was in Europe, we are both in North America. The second server, where everything hit was north America. so, it seems PING make a HUGE difference. (The ping wasn't even terrible, just not as good as playing on a closer server.) Our result were 100% (similar launch conditions) on the N.A. server with very low ping (like 20-30 for both of us.) the E.U. server had higher ping, around 80-100. On the E.U. server missiles we acting like they weren't getting mid-course updates from the AWG-9. is the missile API affected by Ping? (note, this was all tested in multiplayer, no single player.) 


Edited by Dscross
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IronMike said:

 

The last part of this quote is also not true. Don't forget, all your tests if done in the PG BVR mission, are done with the C only, which has a shorter motor burn time, thus, again you want to be higher. With the mk60 you can hit AI from 30-35 miles at 20000ft, provided you yourself are fast enough and you may want to aid the loft by pitching up a bit when firing. But the question is rather, why do you guys insist on these low level shots? 20k ft is not high at all, especially not for the Tomcat. You should be well above 30k feet for shots beyond 30nm. No one forces you to be down low. And especially with the C you should not be low. 🙂

 

 

Hi IronMike,

Agree that the Phoenix's range performance is best at higher altitude, e.g. above 35k.

Yet the AWG-9 seems more reliable in maintaining track when around 20k feet. Above 35k, it seems to me that the target can notch the AWG-9 more frequently.

I also understand that the Tomcats would doctrinally operate around 20k+ feet, or just 1000ft below the target for the radar picture. I understand that that was due to the rather nascent lookdown capability of the AWG-9, and was a limitation until the APG-71 (and MPRF).

So it's a shooter dillema, to hit far I got to climb high. To see reliably, I have to be low enough.

Hence a 20k feet test scenario is really to measure an unoptimum launch scenario against a fighter target with forward quarter weapons. To see how much or how little an advantage can be exploited.

😃

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...