AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion

[captain_dalan]

8 hours ago, Strider21 said:

Not following you. I did fly the test with human in the F-86. The TACVIEW is attached. The exact g pulled in the vertical dive wasn't 100% exact but it was flown more less as described. Of six shots five were hits. 

Test was flown with a human F-14 and human F-86 target. The target profile was more or less as per the description in the book. 

Yeah, what i meant is further repetition of the event, trying to stick more to the numbers for consistency, 5g into the vertical, 6g on the pullout. BTW, i always pictured this as the pullout being performed on the original heading, did i get that wrong? 

47 minutes ago, IronMike said:

Awesome, glad to hear that!

The C, is kinda a hassle imo. Its main problem is that much shorter motor burn time, which makes it really hard to define a "sweetspot" for it, if you like. I personally do not like to use it a lot and if I do, I fire either from 30-40nm on super unaware targets, long range on bomber like targets, or really close in on highly aware opponents. That's where I find it most effective. The C having a shorter motor burn time always boggled my mind a bit tbh. We will btw re-investigate motor burn times as well, although I don't think that we are far off the mark, so that likely will not change much, if anything.

Did all C models used the same rocket motor? I mean, including those we don't have in DCS?

[ginnirohikousenn]

Is this the so-called long-range missile? This improvement can be said to have completely lost the significance of aim-54 in PVP. Now the acceleration of aim-54 is incredibly slow. Aim-54 was launched within ten nautical miles, followed by aim-7. It was aim-7 that hit the enemy aircraft first. I have to say that the current aim-54 is a brand-new missile. What is the relationship between the previous aim-54 and "reality"?   Now, in addition to the effect of attacking targets within 90 ~ 100 nautical miles in the "universe", the aim-54 missile can be said to be of no use. Compared with the previous aim-54, the performance change today is incredible and unimaginable. I just hope you won't make this change because you want to weaken the performance of aim-54.

[IronMike]

28 minutes ago, ginnirohikousenn said:

Is this the so-called long-range missile? This improvement can be said to have completely lost the significance of aim-54 in PVP.

Yeah, well, except for all those guys who still score long range kills online at appropriate setups, including the 95nm kill in SATAL.
 

Quote

Now the acceleration of aim-54 is incredibly slow. Aim-54 was launched within ten nautical miles, followed by aim-7. It was aim-7 that hit the enemy aircraft first.

Depends on the altitude. As explained numerous times in the thread, or mentioned in the initial post if you compare aim54 and aim120, same will be true for the aim7, as its drag to weight ratio will be significantly smaller than the aim54's. However, compare the 2 tacview attached below. At 20k feet, launched at 11nm, the AIM54 takes 24 seconds to reach the target, the aim7 takes 26 seconds... If you launch it down low, then yes, it is a chunkier missile that will have to deal with much more drag. Why do you think irl the Tomcat carried AIM-7s, or why it was used in the gulf of sidra incident, et al.? It is also possible that when you launched in PDSTT you trashed your aim54 by a subsequent aim7 shot. In PSTT it would go active right away in that range, but not in PDSTT.
 

Quote

I have to say that the current aim-54 is a brand-new missile. What is the relationship between the previous aim-54 and "reality"?   Now, in addition to the effect of attacking targets within 90 ~ 100 nautical miles in the "universe", the aim-54 missile can be said to be of no use. Compared with the previous aim-54, the performance change today is incredible and unimaginable.

It is very much of use, if you know what you can do or cannot do. It is again expectations setting you up for disappointment. This ofc is not your fault alone, but also ours, because it took us long enough to adjust the performance. The relation between the previous AIM-54 and "reality", is that it was grossly over-performing to a point where its NEZ was double as much as it should have been. These expectations need to be adjusted now. If you expect it to do miracle shots from down low, then yes, you will have little success with it. Range, altitude, speed, all matter.

Quote

I just hope you won't make this change because you want to weaken the performance of aim-54.

I hope you can answer this question yourself by reading the thread a bit...

aim7_10nm.acmi aim54mk60_10nm.acmi

Edited February 16, 2022 by IronMike

[GGTharos]

26 minutes ago, ginnirohikousenn said:

Now the acceleration of aim-54 is incredibly slow.

The AIM-54 will accelerate with ~4g for 27-30 seconds and depending on altitude.  AIM-7 will accelerate with 10g for 2.5sec, and 0-2g for 10 seconds thereafter depending on altitude.

26 minutes ago, ginnirohikousenn said:

Aim-54 was launched within ten nautical miles, followed by aim-7. It was aim-7 that hit the enemy aircraft first. I have to say that the current aim-54 is a brand-new missile. What is the relationship between the previous aim-54 and "reality"?   Now, in addition to the effect of attacking targets within 90 ~ 100 nautical miles in the "universe", the aim-54 missile can be said to be of no use. Compared with the previous aim-54, the performance change today is incredible and unimaginable. I just hope you won't make this change because you want to weaken the performance of aim-54.

10nm head on at low altitude - maybe even medium - the AIM-7 might not be so easy to catch thanks to its higher acceleration at start.  This is math question though, the math needs to be done.

[DoorMouse]

13 hours ago, Hardcard said:

The mk47 C, though...shouldn't it perform better than the rest of phoenixes? 
Don't you think it's underperforming?

It's kinetically fine. Maneuvering is maybe still a little wonky, but all missiles in DCS have some serious issues with guidance... The last hotfix significantly improved the Phoenix.

The issue is all the actual missile modes and features the C had which make it easier to employ. The big one being if you have to defend and stop tracking, the missile still goes active at the right point in space. If you were seconds away from pitbull, that is a huge difference.

[Strider21]

3 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Yeah, what i meant is further repetition of the event, trying to stick more to the numbers for consistency, 5g into the vertical, 6g on the pullout. BTW, i always pictured this as the pullout being performed on the original heading, did i get that wrong? 

Did all C models used the same rocket motor? I mean, including those we don't have in DCS?

Sorry you are correct. It wasn't flown that precise and I think it should be a vertical dive and pull out on the same heading. The profile as flown with the heading change was probably more challenging than the 1972 test shot but the AIM54 still seemed to hit consistently. 

[IronMike]

11 hours ago, Strider21 said:

Not following you. I did fly the test with human in the F-86. The TACVIEW is attached. The exact g pulled in the vertical dive wasn't 100% exact but it was flown more less as described. Of six shots five were hits. 

Test was flown with a human F-14 and human F-86 target. The target profile was more or less as per the description in the book. 

Ah, thank you!

16 hours ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Finally getting back to the lofting, I made some tacviews of the effect:

Tacview-20220215-161836-DCS-F-14 Overloft.zip.acmi 295.62 kB · 6 downloads

Tacview-20220215-162716-DCS-F-14 Overloft.zip.acmi 266.06 kB · 3 downloads

Tacview-20220215-163527-DCS.zip.acmi 254.63 kB · 5 downloads

The first is with AIM-54C in TWS; this one soars past the target and gets an active signal per the timer, but realizes it needs to do a 180 which it doesn't have the energy for. The second is with the AMk60, where it has the same behavior. The final test is again with the AMk60, but in STT. Curiously enough, this one acts like it tries to aim downward but doesn't have the atmospheric drag to properly descend, as it is pitching down yet still climbing. The killing STT shot was put into a similar 30deg loft from lower altitude and at shorter range, which had few if any problems making the hit -- though notably, the target made no effort to evade at this point.

I'm inclined to conclude that the missile is going into such a thin part of the atmo that it simply does not have the friction to maneuver or the WCS is unable to calculate the actual range of the missile under these conditions. A larger, slower target from further out may be possible to hit in this fashion, but smaller, faster targets at closer ranges simply close the distance too quickly for a 30deg launch.

Thank you. Would it be possible to produce some tracks displaying the issues? This would be good to share with ED, but would need tracks for them to make something of it. Would be much appreciated.

[Rinz1er]

11 hours ago, DSplayer said:

I just did some testing both with a lock and without a lock using the same mission. Seems like the 54 will track when there is a lock already and the ACM cover is up. The first couple of tries with the ACM cover up and no lock resulted in a couple of the missiles not tracking but idk if it was a fluke or not. Then I continued to retest but I had 1 time where all the missiles had missed (idk if the target was too far away from the ADL or if it was an actual issue caused by the possible bug). I did seem to discover a bug where if you get an PAL P-STT, drop it (or not), then flip the ACM cover up, it wouldn't actually go into boresight mode automatically. That might've been the reason why some of my missiles had missed but I'm not too sure.
F14ACMTestFeb15.trkF14ACMTest2Feb15.trkF14ACMTest3Feb15.trkF14ACMTest4Feb15.trkF14ACMTest5Feb15.trkF14ACMTest6Feb15.trk

 

This is my experience as well, with ACM cover up & no lock, I can't get it to hit anything, it just burns straight. It has even flown within a couple hundred feet of a bandit and didn't even try to guide.

I did not try ACM cover up AND a lock though.

[captain_dalan]

5 hours ago, Strider21 said:

Sorry you are correct. It wasn't flown that precise and I think it should be a vertical dive and pull out on the same heading. The profile as flown with the heading change was probably more challenging than the 1972 test shot but the AIM54 still seemed to hit consistently. 

Roger! I'd do the tests myself, but unfortunately i can't host a server and these things are not performed well on most open ones : /

[Clunk1001]

Sorry, I think this is a bit crap.  4 Phoenix, 4 misses, 1 R27 from an SU33 and I'm dead.  rinse, repeat.

Now, your phoenix might well be 100% accurate, and you can present me all the charts on the phoenix that you like,  along with the graphs, manuals, statistics, and even a signed picture from the guy who designed its' mom.  My point is still valid - the AI in DCS is not accurate, it knows the Phoenix is coming before it's even off the rails, and has magical avoidance ability when the phoenix eventually arrives (not that it needs to do much to avoid the phoenix now).  So we end up with something pretty useless against AI (yes I accept that my flying might be a bit useless too).

Surely there has to be a balance between "look at my stats they're exactly the same as NASA's", and having something actually usable in game  (it is a game after all).

Give me an F18 and I'll happily wipe out 4 AI veteran SU33s.  Give me an F14 and I'll watch 4 Phoenix missiles miss their targets.

[Coxy_99]

Great 95nm kill in satac, Glad to see the changes are made and to how they would act in a more realistic way.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Coxy_99

[lunaticfringe]

34 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

Sorry, I think this is a bit crap.  4 Phoenix, 4 misses, 1 R27 from an SU33 and I'm dead.  rinse, repeat.

*snip*

So we end up with something pretty useless against AI (yes I accept that my flying might be a bit useless too).

Surely there has to be a balance between "look at my stats they're exactly the same as NASA's", and having something actually usable in game  (it is a game after all).

 

Part of playing any game is learning how to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses, that is, becoming better at the title and how to be successful at it, rather than calling for buffs and cheats when one loses. 

That's the middle ground.  One doesn't put two quarters down at the SF2 cabinet and ask the days champion to take it easy.  Learn the techniques and win.  

And for the love of all that's holy- stop expecting third parties to modify their correct work to get around ED's failings.  Hit them with another round of bugs with the voodoo god's eye AI, instead of putting it on someone else's plate- because all that does is double their load. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by lunaticfringe

[Frostie]

47 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

Sorry, I think this is a bit crap.  4 Phoenix, 4 misses, 1 R27 from an SU33 and I'm dead.  rinse, repeat.

Now, your phoenix might well be 100% accurate, and you can present me all the charts on the phoenix that you like,  along with the graphs, manuals, statistics, and even a signed picture from the guy who designed its' mom.  My point is still valid - the AI in DCS is not accurate, it knows the Phoenix is coming before it's even off the rails, and has magical avoidance ability when the phoenix eventually arrives (not that it needs to do much to avoid the phoenix now).  So we end up with something pretty useless against AI (yes I accept that my flying might be a bit useless too).

Surely there has to be a balance between "look at my stats they're exactly the same as NASA's", and having something actually usable in game  (it is a game after all).

Give me an F18 and I'll happily wipe out 4 AI veteran SU33s.  Give me an F14 and I'll watch 4 Phoenix missiles miss their targets.

F-14 vs Su33x4.acmi

As has been said your expectancy needs to be reeled in and approach engagements with this in mind.

4 AI Su33s vs an F-14 is 4 dead Sea Flankers. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Frostie

[Clunk1001]

40 minutes ago, Frostie said:

F-14 vs Su33x4.acmi 473.3 kB · 1 download

As has been said your expectancy needs to be reeled in and approach engagements with this in mind.

4 AI Su33s vs an F-14 is 4 dead Sea Flankers. 

 

I tend to launch from between 20 - 35 miles in a similar profile to this, but find it the missiles hit perhaps 1 time in 4.  If two out of four missiles do hit then yes it's easy to clean up the remaining 2 Flankers in the merge.  But I'm finding it's more likely that 3 out of 4 phoenix miss, leaving me with 3 flankers in the merge (or all 4 missiles miss, leaving 4 flankers in the merge).   And this is the bit I'm not getting - repeatedly getting 100% miss rate from 4 missiles from within 25 miles head on.   I fly a lot of Liberation missions (long missions) and I might be circling on CAP for 45 minutes or so before some flankers pop up, but then to have all 4 phoenix miss?!  It doesn't seem realistic, and it doesn't seem fun.

[Frostie]

8 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

I tend to launch from between 20 - 35 miles in a similar profile to this, but find it the missiles hit perhaps 1 time in 4.  If two out of four missiles do hit then yes it's easy to clean up the remaining 2 Flankers in the merge.  But I'm finding it's more likely that 3 out of 4 phoenix miss, leaving me with 3 flankers in the merge (or all 4 missiles miss, leaving 4 flankers in the merge).   And this is the bit I'm not getting - repeatedly getting 100% miss rate from 4 missiles from within 25 miles head on.   I fly a lot of Liberation missions (long missions) and I might be circling on CAP for 45 minutes or so before some flankers pop up, but then to have all 4 phoenix miss?!  It doesn't seem realistic, and it doesn't seem fun.

I have no issues with the Phoenix shooting down the AI consistently,  I made plenty of mistakes in that quick engagement that if rectified would have brought a much more convincing result. 

 

You don't want to go shooting all your 54s in one attack, let one from range see how it develops with a follow up shot on a second. If you don't start dropping a four-ship early on then you obviously need to reset and get out of there. Certainly don't let it become a merge with 4 Flankers, you should make it so as you can get out and rtb to fight another day.

 

If you think this is bad you need to try an Su33 vs 4 Tomcats.

[Clunk1001]

1 hour ago, lunaticfringe said:

 

Part of playing any game is learning how to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses, that is, becoming better at the title and how to be successful at it, rather than calling for buffs and cheats when one loses. 

That's the middle ground.  One doesn't put two quarters down at the SF2 cabinet and ask the days champion to take it easy.  Learn the techniques and win.  

And for the love of all that's holy- stop expecting third parties to modify their correct work to get around ED's failings.  Hit them with another round of bugs with the voodoo god's eye AI, instead of putting it on someone else's plate- because all that does is double their load. 

 

I'm not calling for a buff or a cheat.  I'm simply pointing out that if an ultra-realistic model of the Phoenix results in an unrealistic outcome with DCS AI (e.g. regular 100% miss rate on missiles) then perhaps the balance is wrong.

And I'm sorry, but I do expect third parties to adapt their work around ED's failings to a certain extent - third Party's choose to create their work on top of EDs software, and as such it isn't unreasonable to expect their mods to work as harmoniously as possible with EDs software (flaws and all) and within the framework that they chose to develop in.  

The bottom line is that it seems to me that a realistic Phoenix results in an unrealistic outcome against DCS AI.......so the simulation as a whole seems, well, unrealistic.

[Clunk1001]

18 minutes ago, Frostie said:

you should make it so as you can get out and rtb to fight another day

I think this is what started my rants on here      I'd spend 20 minutes getting to my CAP station,  45 minutes on CAP,  meet some incoming flankers, miss with all 4 phoenix missiles at ranges between 20-30 miles, run away, RTB....It wasn't much fun. 

[lunaticfringe]

6 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

I'm not calling for a buff or a cheat. 

 

You are.  You're asking for performance to supplant reality in a simulation to overcome a fundamentally skewed AI- one which would be grossly detrimental in PvP engagements. 

 

6 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

I'm simply pointing out that if an ultra-realistic model of the Phoenix results in an unrealistic outcome with DCS AI (e.g. regular 100% miss rate on missiles) then perhaps the balance is wrong.

 

As Frostie illustrated through effective technique- even with his own noted mistakes in the engagement, this claim is false. 

 

6 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

And I'm sorry, but I do expect third parties to adapt their work around ED's failings to a certain extent - third Party's choose to create their work on top of EDs software, and as such it isn't unreasonable to expect their mods to work as harmoniously as possible with EDs software (flaws and all) and within the framework that they chose to develop in.  

 

ED admits their own issues regarding the AI, and is currently in the process to update it accordingly.  Your proposal is that HB would perform this process of performance correction on the aspects they have control over twice, somehow modifying FM performance to increase potential in the endgame to overcome EDs issues regarding guidance logic in both APIs (neither of which HB has any control over), thus bringing about the same- or greater amount of overperformance in all regimes than they just solved for, thus making pretty much everyone but you upset in the meantime.  Because, as you admit, your technique is poor.

And then, when ED decides to release their AI update and turn off the God-eye, they get to perform this iterative process *again* to fix it.  But again, you still won't like it because you're getting zapped by the first R-27 off the rail.

 

6 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

The bottom line is that it seems to me that a realistic Phoenix results in an unrealistic outcome against DCS AI.......so the simulation as a whole seems, well, unrealistic.

 

And the root cause isn't their issue.  It's like demanding the grocery store carry auto parts because you got a ticket for a broken mirror in the parking lot because some biddie backed over the handicapped space lines.  

Direct those at fault to fix their faults; things tend to work better that way.  

[TLTeo]

I can't speak for multiplayer, but against the AI I really do not understand what kind of shots people are taking that make the Phoenix seem useless or even unreliable. Using the BVR mission on PG as an example, just replicating (poorly, all my hours in the Viggen didn't prepare me for this!) the tactics Ironmike posted in this thread makes it super easy to hold your own against any non Fox-3 4th gen jet - in fact, I actually find it way easier than Fox-1 only combat against 3rd gen jets.

I would actually love to see some tracks of this super consistent ineffective behavior (ruling out stuff like the AI's magical chaff) because if anything, it would serve as a good comparison of what works vs what doesn't.

Edited February 17, 2022 by TLTeo

[Clunk1001]

3 hours ago, TLTeo said:

I can't speak for multiplayer, but against the AI I really do not understand what kind of shots people are taking that make the Phoenix seem useless or even unreliable. Using the BVR mission on PG as an example, just replicating (poorly, all my hours in the Viggen didn't prepare me for this!) the tactics Ironmike posted in this thread makes it super easy to hold your own against any non Fox-3 4th gen jet - in fact, I actually find it way easier than Fox-1 only combat against 3rd gen jets.

I would actually love to see some tracks of this super consistent ineffective behavior (ruling out stuff like the AI's magical chaff) because if anything, it would serve as a good comparison of what works vs what doesn't.

 

my tracks are almost identical to those posted on here, I’ve flown just about every profile mentioned, with every tactic mentioned, the difference is that my phoenix missiles consistently sail past their target. 1 in 4 hit rate regardless of range, crank, altitude, mach.

Having re-read the thread, I am clearly having the opposite experience to most people.  I’ll do a repair to DCS and see if that helps.

 

[draconus]

8 hours ago, Clunk1001 said:

I'd spend 20 minutes getting to my CAP station,  45 minutes on CAP,  meet some incoming flankers, miss with all 4 phoenix missiles at ranges between 20-30 miles, run away, RTB....It wasn't much fun. 

I know where you're coming from. It's frustrating a lot trying long missions and campaigns you're not ready for. Take your time, use shorter missions (ie. instant action) or friendly server to practice more - you'll get more pleasurable experience. It might be the mission itself fault - if it is set somehow to make it harder.

And speaking of realism it's not realistic to fly alone vs 4. Where's your wingman? Optimally you should take whole flight of 4 (or 2x2) if strong enemy offence is expected.

Edited February 17, 2022 by draconus

[Clunk1001]

1 minute ago, draconus said:

I know where you're coming from. It's frustrating a lot trying long missions and campaigns you're not ready for. Take your time, use shorter missions (ie. instant action) or friendly server to practice more - you'll get more pleasurable experience.

And speaking of realism it's not realistic to fly alone vs 4. Where's your wingman? Optimally you should take whole flight of 4 (or 2x2) if strong enemy offence is expected.

I wouldn’t say I’m “not ready” for long missions - I’ve 30 years of flight simming behind me, and long missions are what I do (and am relatively good at).  I do fly with wingmen, usually 4 - dcs doesn’t have the wingman mgt that BMS has but it’s usable. And the AI isn’t as good as BMS, and the long campaign isn’t as good as falcon 4 (back in the day).  

For the purposes of these tests only I went 1 v 4.

Like I said - I think there’s something wrong with my install because I’m not seeing what everyone else is seeing.

 

thanks for all the support guys, and thanks ironMike/heatblur.

 

[Clunk1001]

50 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

I wouldn’t say I’m “not ready” for long missions - I’ve 30 years of flight simming behind me, and long missions are what I do (and am relatively good at).  I do fly with wingmen, usually 4 - dcs doesn’t have the wingman mgt that BMS has but it’s usable. And the AI isn’t as good as BMS, and the long campaign isn’t as good as falcon 4 (back in the day).  

For the purposes of these tests only I went 1 v 4.

Like I said - I think there’s something wrong with my install because I’m not seeing what everyone else is seeing.

 

thanks for all the support guys, and thanks ironMike/heatblur.

 

On the subject of wingmen.  After DCS repair,  I’m at 30000 head on 2xF14 vs 3x su27,  Mach 1.1.  Both launch our phoenix at 26 miles (all good separate radar tracks of bandits).  All 6 phoenix (my 3 and wingman’s 3) miss.  6 phoenix, 100% miss rate.

somethings not right - and it can’t be all to do with my flying

[draconus]

11 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

On the subject of wingmen.  After DCS repair,  I’m at 30000 head on 2xF14 vs 3x su27,  Mach 1.1.  Both launch our phoenix at 26 miles (all good separate radar tracks of bandits).  All 6 phoenix (my 3 and wingman’s 3) miss.  6 phoenix, 100% miss rate.

somethings not right - and it can’t be all to do with my flying

track or tacview, please

[Clunk1001]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

track or tacview, please

Tacview-20220217-142609-DCS.zip.acmi

2 F14s, Angels 30, Mach1.1, head on to 3 flankers, launch at around 25-30 miles.  

Played this same scenario a dozen or so time.  Consistently 5 out of 6 phoenix miss  (in around 11 out of 12 play throughs).  

When merging, STT, again Phoenix miss.  End up finishing with sidewinders and guns.

Jester summed it up nicely in that engagement  "The <profanity> missile missed".   

Any advice as to what I'm doing wrong with the Phoenix would be appreciated. 

What I found interesting is that the AI level made absolutely no difference. 5 out of 6 Phoenix miss pretty much every time regardless of AI skill setting (SU33, SU27, MIG29 all pretty much the same too).

From this track (2:05), the phoenix just run out of speed, the two SU33s don't actually "evade" the missiles - they seem to outrum them:

The Phoenix on the left is at M1.30, the Su-33 is at M0.82....2 seconds later and Phoenix is at M0.59 and the SU33 at M1.24

 

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Clunk1001