Jump to content

AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion


IronMike

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, KL0083 said:

Yes,and not track with even dogfight switch on!

Rather then what so-called"game-balance",to weaken the Phoenix in to this extent since the last update,I wonder what if the Phoenix was really poor to this shape in real life,or rather all the utter is just "update" to meet some now widely-known Cat-Hate Saga and fulfill the happy of some BC/PC who create and promotes them since early this century..............................😈

@KL0083The phoenix is now more accurate to how it performed in real life. It was 20-50% too fast (depending on altitude) previously. 

@Amahvan In both cases you are trying to tell Jester to "lock closest radar target" but your TID indicates only a Data Link and no Radar Track. IE Jester sees nothing on radar. Try one of two things 1) Lock Specific Target, which allows jester to hook Datalink targets and attempt to lock 2) Scan Elevation at Distance and tell him to look in the appropriate area. In both your videos the bandit is low and very close, which makes your radar cone very small.  A case could be made that Jester should be 'smarter' about looking for things on Data link. Currently Jester basically is blind to data link contacts unless you specifically tell him to lock one. He only reacts to Radar contacts, which again, you had none. 

Let me be very clear to my opinion though, The AWG-9 has some issues currently and is far from perfect. It drops TWS locks with only 3-4 non-maneuvering/defending targets flying straight at you, and has issues with formations of more than a handful of bombers. But these two examples, i'm sorry to say, are not bugs but user errors.

 

When the AWG-9 works, it is magical. 

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1448024745


Edited by DoorMouse
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2022 at 7:41 PM, Amahvan said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS.

 

This is accurate as well, and I only fly PvP in The War Server (low ping). But it seems that since a recent update, the Tomcat is no longer a capable air to air fighter. Recommitting after the initial crank has become suicide. Shots over 50nm are near impossible to hit, shots inside of 30nm are also near impossible to hit. The AIM-54 in general appears to have become totally ineffective.

 

I appreciate greatly the detail of the Tomcat. It's by far, my greatest addiction and led to an interest in real life performance jet aviation, as well as a 1:1 cockpit sim built in my house (my wife was really happy about that one).

Radar is broken since the RIO MP update.

1500+ hrs in the Tomcat, competitive player. Now I can't hit a single target. I've attached some short clips to show different testing after spending a week trying to figure out if it was indeed pilot error, and testing different timelines of attack (including straight out of Navy tacops for the Tomcat).

It seems the radar flickers on and off, losing the lock (but Jester doesn't know it). Nothing goes pitbull (if it does, it's rare, and tracks poorly).

I've tried STT. but experience the same issue whether at 65nm, 35nm, or <10nm. I've complained in private about the AIM-54s being neutered for "balance", but now the aircraft is not even capable of defending itself against novice players.

Here's a clip of Jester failing to lock a target at 12 o'clock, flying level with no ECM. Painted SA with RWS, then tried locking with TWS unsuccessfully, then STT unsuccessfully, then TWS unsuccessfully again before being launched on and having to dive:
https://clips.twitch.tv/JazzyCrypticGuanacoMikeHogu-_a8whiG8ENIymA6R

Here's another clip, target is flickering in the SA page, not running ECM, and over the water. Unable to lock via TWS and unable to lock STT:
https://clips.twitch.tv/KathishCuriousButterTheThing-eYwW5E5w_vqD1HCs


The issue is NOT Jester, and we tested this with a human RIO to confirm. Same thing-- enemy plane flying high, level, and not running ECM or jammer. TWS lock failed multiple times, 2x missile launch never went pitbull, but targets were never out of radar cone / gimbal limit.

The aircraft is currently unflyable in this condition, and worst of all, I cannot explain or figure out what is causing the issue. Any help would be appreciated.

I haven’t had issues recently with the 54 and the AWG-9 since my statement was made over 2 months ago. Sure there might still be issues with the AWG-9’s sensitivity to network connections but I haven’t seen them recently.

 

For possible reason why you experienced the problems in those clips:

For your first clip, it’s possible that since the RWS Jester scan volume is larger than the TWS Auto scan volume, you couldn’t pick up the target anymore since the antenna elevation was too high to pick up the target. Idk for sure since I don’t know your altitude or the altitude of the target with the resolution of the footage. (Refer to DoorMouse’s response to why Jester won’t STT something if it doesn’t appear on the TID from TWS or RWS)

For your second clip, Link 4 DL has a maximum of around ~8 aircraft that it can display at one time iirc. It’s very possible that the DL for that target is flickering because the priority for DL is being given to other aircraft then immediately switching back to that target.


Edited by DSplayer
  • 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

On 4/20/2022 at 4:41 AM, Amahvan said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS.

 

This is accurate as well, and I only fly PvP in The War Server (low ping). But it seems that since a recent update, the Tomcat is no longer a capable air to air fighter. Recommitting after the initial crank has become suicide. Shots over 50nm are near impossible to hit, shots inside of 30nm are also near impossible to hit. The AIM-54 in general appears to have become totally ineffective.

 

I appreciate greatly the detail of the Tomcat. It's by far, my greatest addiction and led to an interest in real life performance jet aviation, as well as a 1:1 cockpit sim built in my house (my wife was really happy about that one).

Radar is broken since the RIO MP update.

1500+ hrs in the Tomcat, competitive player. Now I can't hit a single target. I've attached some short clips to show different testing after spending a week trying to figure out if it was indeed pilot error, and testing different timelines of attack (including straight out of Navy tacops for the Tomcat).

It seems the radar flickers on and off, losing the lock (but Jester doesn't know it). Nothing goes pitbull (if it does, it's rare, and tracks poorly).

I've tried STT. but experience the same issue whether at 65nm, 35nm, or <10nm. I've complained in private about the AIM-54s being neutered for "balance", but now the aircraft is not even capable of defending itself against novice players.

Here's a clip of Jester failing to lock a target at 12 o'clock, flying level with no ECM. Painted SA with RWS, then tried locking with TWS unsuccessfully, then STT unsuccessfully, then TWS unsuccessfully again before being launched on and having to dive:
https://clips.twitch.tv/JazzyCrypticGuanacoMikeHogu-_a8whiG8ENIymA6R

Here's another clip, target is flickering in the SA page, not running ECM, and over the water. Unable to lock via TWS and unable to lock STT:
https://clips.twitch.tv/KathishCuriousButterTheThing-eYwW5E5w_vqD1HCs


The issue is NOT Jester, and we tested this with a human RIO to confirm. Same thing-- enemy plane flying high, level, and not running ECM or jammer. TWS lock failed multiple times, 2x missile launch never went pitbull, but targets were never out of radar cone / gimbal limit.

The aircraft is currently unflyable in this condition, and worst of all, I cannot explain or figure out what is causing the issue. Any help would be appreciated.

The quality of those videos is quite rubbish, I can't read much on the TID, nor the BDHI or the servo. It'd much easier if you were able to provide clearer videos, mate. Even better, a Tacview track along them.

I think I understood something only from the second video. The contact is datalinked, 30nm, but it does not come up on the radar. I think it's a "1" next to it? I can't read the servo, but you are way above the clouds, I guess you are at almost 40A? It looks 38A (can't read the QNH either)? The TID seems to be looking down a few degrees, and I assume TWS ±20. I think I read a -0.8 at some point? It's hard to tell what is an artifact, due to the low resolution and bitrate, and what isn't. If all my assumptions are correct, 4B cover only ±10k, and the target was simply too low to be seen by your radar. Your RIO\you should have lowered the antenna to -9.3° to spot it directly. I really, really hope I'm wrong.

Nevertheless, the contact seemed to disappear, but it also did not appeared on F10 map when you looked at it. How was it set in the mission editor? through the last decade I saw weird things when it was set to SA (albeit rarely). I noticed another contact, far, fading then disappearing NW of your position, at -37", but that's definitely not the contact on your TID.
Another curious thing I noticed during your turn, is that the contact was zero cut all they way through. That's not possible (unless it turned, and I don't see it due to the low quality).
If a contact comes and goes from the DL, there can be a ton of causes (e.g: A or C? Who is the source? Altitude, distance and aspect rel the awacs? Saturation?) but again, I can't see much in your link.

Being feet wet does not mean anything, you are not LPRF.

The first video sounded more interesting, but I can't read anything. If it happens again, please zoom in onto the TID, servo and BDHI at least and attach a tacview track.
I guess we are all happy to review more videos, but they have to be readable :)

full_tiny.pngfull_tiny.png
full_tiny.png

"Cogito, ergo RIO"
Virtual Backseaters Volume I: F-14 Radar Intercept Officer - Fifth Public Draft
Virtual Backseaters Volume II: F-4E Weapon Systems Officer - Internal Draft WIP

Phantom Phamiliarisation Video Series | F-4E/F-14 Kneeboard Pack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having missile track/connectivity issues again on MP. Last 12 missiles all fired at single targets both of us around 35k, 40Nm hot and between 10-20s the tws track is lost and then appears instantly back. Missile trashed.  No evasive flying or anything the missile was still far from them. Its pretty useless flying the Tomcat in MP when it's like this. Ping was around 40. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2022 at 4:02 PM, bonesvf103 said:

How about this?  6 shots of AIM-54C Phoenix at 40,000 ft at F-4s ranging from 20000 to 35000 ft launched at about mach .95, head on with valid locks in TWS-A, range about 44 nm.

 

Only 2 hit.

What went wrong?

v6,

boNes

Tacview-20220315-143310-DCS-Six-shooter KB.zip.acmi 940.08 kB · 6 downloads

 

 

Strange.. a real aim-54 went over 100 nautical miles hitting mach 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GGTharos said:

Nothing strange there.  To get a Phoenix to mach 5 you have to launch it at mach 2.

Wasn't that NASA's Phoenix on a diet?

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, draconus said:

Wasn't that NASA's Phoenix on a diet?

yeah. If you remove the 250lb warhead and you strap it to an F15 going Mach 2+ at 50,000 (from the Tropopause, shooting into the Stratosphere) you can get it to briefly touch mach 5 for a fleeting second. It then is able to relatively maintain its speed while in the stratosphere, and quickly loses speed once it dips back down into the tropopause/troposphere

For comparison - Its brief ~60 second mach 4 flight is in an air density around 1000x less than sea level.  And it exponentially increases the lower you go, which is why once it gets just a bit lower it really starts to shed speed (causing it to drop even lower even faster) 

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

image.png

NASA Aim54.pdf


Edited by DoorMouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2022 at 2:24 AM, DoorMouse said:

@KL0083The phoenix is now more accurate to how it performed in real life. It was 20-50% too fast (depending on altitude) previously. 

 

 

When the AWG-9 works, it is magical. 

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1448024745

 

I am not sure where these numbers are coming from, but I would take it with a pinch of salt. And the reason for that is that it is running against the accounts of actual RIOs and Pilots with regard the BVR Timeline from Fox 3 to A-Pole. Of course for good reason, they did not suggest what the pK at those ranges.

I've been Tomcating in DCS for three years now, DCS for about eight.  The Phoenix now feels slower than it has ever been before. And some of the guys are rightly point out that they are no longer lethal in BVR, and to some degree WVR. But there are three parts to the lethality problem.

1. The Phoenix now accelerates a lot slower than before, reducing its ability to reach higher speeds and altitudes. The motor can burn for 25 to 30 secs, but they don't get very far. This does not support the accounts of the tactics and employment ranges by the former RIO.

2. The second part is with the AI's uncanny sense of situational awareness. Their ability to detect a TWS launch and manuever against the missile is sage-like. Combined with a slower missile, AI is usually able to crank and confuse the missile before recommitting. 

3. The third part is the AWG-9 and the way it drops/decorrelates contacts easily. Some have shared that this is a "network" issue. I have to say that I do not encounter as much de-correlation in Single-player or controlled Mission Editor environments. I am inclined to believe this hypothesis. 

 

Hence, although HB is trying to give an "accurate" Phoenix / AWG-9 experience, I feel that this endeavor has somewhat not worked out. It is not a matter of whether it is their fault or not. But I think that the DCS engine has its quirks that doesn't play well with very complicated systems modeling. A little tinge of irony there since most DCS AI fly SFM and don't seem have such complicated accurate modeling of its weapon systems. 

To top it off, HB's Tomcat is largely operated by Jester in the backseat - the key make-or-break mission component to the Tomcat.  Jester not being able to intelligently work the radar makes it feel like I am trying to fight the Tomcat with one hand behind my back. That is of course in contrast to the murder machine, F-16 where the human-machine interface is on a totally different level.

 

I hope HB doesn't take this the wrong way. I absolutely love the DCS Tomcat. I've spent more dollars buying F-14 related DLCs than any other module that I own. It is absolutely gorgeous and the systems (though slightly antiquated) are so intricately simulated. It is blast of a module.

BUT. I have to say, I wish the AWG-9/AIM-54 weapon system could work in the envelope which some of many RIO/PILOTS have described in their accounts. Only then, we can try to emulate some of the tactics and employment they have shared and feel like we have an accurate Tomcat experience. 

I honestly do not care much of the competitive PVP crowds' complaints. They can disqualify the Tomcat and Phoenix from their competitions and spare everyone from some of their toxicity. The F-14A and B are pretty much out-of-era for a fair "competition" with their latest blocks of Hornets and Vipers. Only the Super Tomcat is in the right timeline to be duking it out with them. 

As a Tomcat fan, I am looking for an experience that correlates with the treasure trove of information and accounts that former RIO/Pilots have shared. Game Balance and how nuts and bolts specific "draggy/not draggy" the missile is, is not a priority to be honest. 

 

My 2 cts as a happy Tomcat customer. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zaphael said:

I am not sure where these numbers are coming from, but I would take it with a pinch of salt. And the reason for that is that it is running against the accounts of actual RIOs and Pilots with regard the BVR Timeline from Fox 3 to A-Pole. Of course for good reason, they did not suggest what the pK at those ranges.

I've been Tomcating in DCS for three years now, DCS for about eight.  The Phoenix now feels slower than it has ever been before. And some of the guys are rightly point out that they are no longer lethal in BVR, and to some degree WVR. But there are three parts to the lethality problem.

1. The Phoenix now accelerates a lot slower than before, reducing its ability to reach higher speeds and altitudes. The motor can burn for 25 to 30 secs, but they don't get very far. This does not support the accounts of the tactics and employment ranges by the former RIO.

2. The second part is with the AI's uncanny sense of situational awareness. Their ability to detect a TWS launch and manuever against the missile is sage-like. Combined with a slower missile, AI is usually able to crank and confuse the missile before recommitting. 

3. The third part is the AWG-9 and the way it drops/decorrelates contacts easily. Some have shared that this is a "network" issue. I have to say that I do not encounter as much de-correlation in Single-player or controlled Mission Editor environments. I am inclined to believe this hypothesis. 

 

Hence, although HB is trying to give an "accurate" Phoenix / AWG-9 experience, I feel that this endeavor has somewhat not worked out. It is not a matter of whether it is their fault or not. But I think that the DCS engine has its quirks that doesn't play well with very complicated systems modeling. A little tinge of irony there since most DCS AI fly SFM and don't seem have such complicated accurate modeling of its weapon systems. 

To top it off, HB's Tomcat is largely operated by Jester in the backseat - the key make-or-break mission component to the Tomcat.  Jester not being able to intelligently work the radar makes it feel like I am trying to fight the Tomcat with one hand behind my back. That is of course in contrast to the murder machine, F-16 where the human-machine interface is on a totally different level.

 

I hope HB doesn't take this the wrong way. I absolutely love the DCS Tomcat. I've spent more dollars buying F-14 related DLCs than any other module that I own. It is absolutely gorgeous and the systems (though slightly antiquated) are so intricately simulated. It is blast of a module.

BUT. I have to say, I wish the AWG-9/AIM-54 weapon system could work in the envelope which some of many RIO/PILOTS have described in their accounts. Only then, we can try to emulate some of the tactics and employment they have shared and feel like we have an accurate Tomcat experience. 

I honestly do not care much of the competitive PVP crowds' complaints. They can disqualify the Tomcat and Phoenix from their competitions and spare everyone from some of their toxicity. The F-14A and B are pretty much out-of-era for a fair "competition" with their latest blocks of Hornets and Vipers. Only the Super Tomcat is in the right timeline to be duking it out with them. 

As a Tomcat fan, I am looking for an experience that correlates with the treasure trove of information and accounts that former RIO/Pilots have shared. Game Balance and how nuts and bolts specific "draggy/not draggy" the missile is, is not a priority to be honest. 

 

My 2 cts as a happy Tomcat customer. 

So, the data is publicly available and they did post it. I'd encourage you to go read it if you have doubts about the kinematics of the missile. I consistently get kills at 20+ miles easily, and I can easily out range an aim120. I don't know what to say but review your tactics and employment to match the parameters the actual pilots flew- high and fast. 

(Download and read the PDF.

 

Your other points... AI cheating and dumping chaff before a real human could know they were shot at. AND some KNOWN issues with the awg9 TWS tracks are valid.

 

But the kinematics look to be spot on, they had to change it recently because it was over-performing due to a change Eagle Dynamics made that went undetected.  The Phoenix still has the longest range in a straight line, and it is capable of hitting targets at 80 miles at mach 3+ if fired in the correct way. There is no shortage of data, Heatblur talking to SMEs, and in-game track flies at your disposal to review. 

 

The only other issue not mentioned is ED'S missile API is incomplete and limiting many advanced features, and the Phoenix is on the old (very poor) guidance code which has forced Heatblur to use a work around- the missile will only pull 9g instead of it's rated 20g

 

 


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

I actually found that getting around the AI cheating is easy-ish if you build your tactics around the AI's idiotic behaviour. You have two options:

1) If firing from over 30k ft and over Mach 1, you can take the typical TWS long range shot. In this case I find that the AI's cheating does not seem to matter as long as the missile isn't staring directly at the target, which only happens in the last ~10-20 seconds of missile flight (basically when the seeker goes active). The result is that the AI can only really chaff the missile in those 10-20 seconds, rather than for the full missile time of flight.

2) If the above is not an option (say, you're at 10-20k ft, Mach 0.7, and your target is only 30nm away when you spot it), get a couple thousand feet below your target and fire in P-STT. In this case the AI only chaffs around ~10nm distance (I assume that's when the hamsters that power the DCS AI code decide the missile is "active" or detected by its RWR, even though technically it's active off the rail), so once again it only has like 10-15 seconds to spam chaff rather than the full missile time of flight.

I've fired multiple AIM-54s at 20nm nearly on the deck in P-STT (for example in the Zone 5 missions), and against the idiocy of the AI they are consistently deadly. Obviously this doesn't apply to multiplayer though.


Edited by TLTeo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Zaphael said:

Hence, although HB is trying to give an "accurate" Phoenix / AWG-9 experience, I feel that this endeavor has somewhat not worked out. It is not a matter of whether it is their fault or not. But I think that the DCS engine has its quirks that doesn't play well with very complicated systems modeling. A little tinge of irony there since most DCS AI fly SFM and don't seem have such complicated accurate modeling of its weapon systems.

The AI uses SFM for the aircraft but as soon as the weapon leaves the aircraft it is simulated the same way as for the player. You already know that it's not final version of either AWG-9 or the AIM-54 in DCS so what's the point of this rant - because it's not a bug report by any means.

Also neither ED or HB can simulate missiles going by "accounts of actual RIOs and Pilots with regard the BVR Timeline from Fox 3 to A-Pole" which you didn't provide even link for. Afaik they'd be busted for sharing detailed info on that but what do I know.

The AI reacting to TWS shots is supposed to simulate human behavior that anticipate such shots having hot F-14 against them. It is also not perfect or very smart but I'd take "cheating" AI any day over "dumb AF AI" that flies straight into Phoenixes head-on.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you all are missing my point. My point is that these three factors are what is causing the Phoenixes to become a sub-par MRAAM and not the 40NM Fox 3 it was. 

Take away issues with the DCS engine+AI, or the AWG-9 quirks, e.g. in a Single player environment, the Phoenix does work well enough. 

And yes Doormouse I saw your twitch videos of those "Air Quake" games. I respect your ability to use the weapon system in such close quarters and low altitude. But as you say, most Tomcat BVR fights are a little higher and faster.  And I am fully aware of that.

Which brings back to the point that, it is not working out very well in multiplayer environments sometimes for the 3 factors mentioned. Plus when Jester is upset with me. 

Just pointing out my user experience that's all. And again, I reiterate. The DCS Tomcat module is amazing. I still fly it regularly, but I try to pick my fights where the environment is not too saturated to enhance my pK.

As for the sources to my claims, I hate to say this, it would be too laborious to list out. I have to assume that most of us are Tomcat fanboys who have been following the F-14 Tomcast, Ward Carroll and Bio's videos regularly. There are many interesting things said, and unsaid, that pointed out to many impressive capabilities of the Tomcats and Phoenix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor einer Stunde schrieb Zaphael:

I have to assume that most of us are Tomcat fanboys who have been following the F-14 Tomcast, Ward Carroll and Bio's videos regularly. There are many interesting things said, and unsaid, that pointed out to many impressive capabilities of the Tomcats and Phoenix.

Yes, I am aware of those as well.  From what those sources say and hint at, there indeed may be a discrepancy between the Phoenix performance currently in game and the one stated in anecdotes of those you've mentioned, so I can relate to your point.

The problem HB and ED are facing, however, is that they require hard numbers and stats to implement their missile simulation. It's hard - if not impossible - to implement anecdotal evidence, that also is 20+ years old (and might be a little biased 😉) . And on top of that, even if they could somehow get additional, not yet tabbed resources, those may either be classified and/or fall under ITAR restrictions. 

Sure, they could guess, and err in favor of gameplay, but that would go against their standards. And would lead to a very slippery slope. 

Either way, I have no way of knowing how the real deal worked, so I have to (and do!) trust in HB to give us the best representation of the AIM-54 as circumstances allow. 


Edited by Jayhawk1971
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although more related to TWS and the AWG-9 the most interesting utterance to me was when Crunch was discussing beaming the radar and how because it was so simplistic the radar would go “missed a frame there, oh there you are” which although anecdotal is the complete opposite of TWS correlation as in DCS right now.

Its one of the harder problems to solve in a sim aiming for realism - finding hard documentation that proves the stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2022 at 10:37 AM, Zaphael said:

I think you all are missing my point. My point is that these three factors are what is causing the Phoenixes to become a sub-par MRAAM and not the 40NM Fox 3 it was. 

Take away issues with the DCS engine+AI, or the AWG-9 quirks, e.g. in a Single player environment, the Phoenix does work well enough. 

And yes Doormouse I saw your twitch videos of those "Air Quake" games. I respect your ability to use the weapon system in such close quarters and low altitude. But as you say, most Tomcat BVR fights are a little higher and faster.  And I am fully aware of that.

Which brings back to the point that, it is not working out very well in multiplayer environments sometimes for the 3 factors mentioned. Plus when Jester is upset with me. 

Just pointing out my user experience that's all. And again, I reiterate. The DCS Tomcat module is amazing. I still fly it regularly, but I try to pick my fights where the environment is not too saturated to enhance my pK.

As for the sources to my claims, I hate to say this, it would be too laborious to list out. I have to assume that most of us are Tomcat fanboys who have been following the F-14 Tomcast, Ward Carroll and Bio's videos regularly. There are many interesting things said, and unsaid, that pointed out to many impressive capabilities of the Tomcats and Phoenix.

I believe it is actually Crunch and Bio who are SME'S for Heatblur.... And I have plenty of footage of BVR, it's just not as exciting. I'd be happy to walk you through it if you like. 

I've got 3,000+ hours in the tomcat and who knows how many since LO:MAC. We all have lots of time on the stick.  Putting that aside, the kinetics of the Phoenix were wrong previously and are 'more' correct now (if I recall it's missing it's drag reduction with the motor on from the thrust boundary ~10% or so). It was previously getting Mach 6+ at altitude and Mach3+ on the deck, both of which were physically impossible. Additionally, the time it took to shed it's speed was up to 50% longer than real life data, and it's drag was incorrect. 

Heatblur had done this intentionally at release because the Eagle Dynamics guidance code was so poor that it caused the missile to be un-usable without those handicaps. At some point ED improved the guidance, which caused those handicaps to make it over-perform. 

 

The AWG9 has some issues, and there are many missing features, which is known and being looked at. The AI is a joke and you can bet it's not being looked at in any meaningful way.

 

But for what it's worth, the Phoenix is kinetically more or less true to it's form. You can easily obtain BVR kills vs f16s with 120s and flankers with R77s and 27RTs are a joke (which is it's real adversary in 1980-90).  People have posted dozens of track views. If data, anecdotes, and Heatblurs SMEs aren't enough for you... I don't know what is 


Edited by DoorMouse
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My AIM-54C launched at 30,000ft towarding a co-attitude MiG-29, but climbed into 140,000ft and then missed the target ofc. It was not matched the real performance apparently I think.

Which was the main reason contributed to this? The Missile CFD problem or guidence issue?

Screen_220504_005425.png


Edited by Sonoda Umi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sonoda Umi said:

My AIM-54C launched at 30,000ft towarding a co-attitude MiG-29, but climbed into 140,000ft and then missed the target ofc. It was not matched the real performance apparently I think.

Which was the main reason contributed to this? The Missile CFD problem or guidence issue?

Screen_220504_005425.png

 

That's a known guidance issue with loft. 

Anything related to guidance logic is Eagle Dynamics. Heatblur can adjust thrust, drag, weight, etc... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F14 is practically useless right now and it's extremely irritating. It struggles to keep lock on anything under 20 miles, and when you do manage to keep lock you can't hit anything. During my final attempt the other day I managed to maintain lock from 45m-merge and fired at least 4 aim54s. 1 @ ~36m(30,000+ft), 1 @ ~20m(30,000+ft), 1 @ ~10m(30,000+ft), 1 @ ~4m(~10,000ft). Bogey didn't even have to crank. The missiles just flew off into the distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HarryCooter said:

The F14 is practically useless right now and it's extremely irritating. It struggles to keep lock on anything under 20 miles, and when you do manage to keep lock you can't hit anything. During my final attempt the other day I managed to maintain lock from 45m-merge and fired at least 4 aim54s. 1 @ ~36m(30,000+ft), 1 @ ~20m(30,000+ft), 1 @ ~10m(30,000+ft), 1 @ ~4m(~10,000ft). Bogey didn't even have to crank. The missiles just flew off into the distance.

Are you firing STT or TWS for those long range shots. 

 

If you are firing STT, they won't hit at that range. Pulse STT is firing the missile directly at the target at the correct Azimuth and Elevation for a direct shot, at 36 miles it wont reach, and the seeker can't see the target.

 

If you are firing in TWS it works just fine if you are able to keep the TWS track until pitbull (sometimes the loft is an issue but usually at much longer ranges)

 

(or fire in Pulse Doppler STT, but thats a whole other method and discussion) 


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

1 hour ago, DoorMouse said:

Are you firing STT or TWS for those long range shots. 

 

If you are firing STT, they won't hit at that range. Pulse STT is firing the missile directly at the target at the correct Azimuth and Elevation for a direct shot, at 36 miles it wont reach, and the seeker can't see the target.

 

If you are firing in TWS it works just fine if you are able to keep the TWS track until pitbull (sometimes the loft is an issue but usually at much longer ranges)

 

(or fire in Pulse Doppler STT, but thats a whole other method and discussion) 

 

In this particular instance, I believe I was in TWS until the 20 mile shot. TWS or STT, it's not working for me. I spent a couple days trying to figure out what the hell is wrong with this thing. I'm not wasting my time with it further until there is some fix. I almost wish I had never bought the damn thing, but it was fun for when it did work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, HarryCooter said:

In this particular instance, I believe I was in TWS until the 20 mile shot. TWS or STT, it's not working for me. I spent a couple days trying to figure out what the hell is wrong with this thing. I'm not wasting my time with it further until there is some fix. I almost wish I had never bought the damn thing, but it was fun for when it did work.

So with many hours in the tomcat I can tell you it does work. But I'd be happy to help figure out what's going on.  To be clear, they changed nothing with the radar, only the thrust and drag coefficients of the missile. So you can't fix, what isn't a problem. 

 

If it's STT, you need to really be within 10 miles, it's highly dependent on the target and your altitude. 

 

If it's TWS, are you holding it until the TID icon blinks, and it is pitbull?

 

Was this single player or multiplayer? 

 

(Edit- it might be possible Jester is defaulting to the FOX1 PULSE DOPPLER mode and that's why it's not hitting, unless you retain lock)

 


Edited by DoorMouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In multilayer I am probably at a 1 in 20 kill to shots fired ratio. I think the 1 was under 20nm to someone not paying me attention. Nearly all the missiles lose TWS track within 20 seconds with the contact reappearing instantly. Those that do make it are incredibly easy to beat.  These are in the region of 35k, 30-40Nm at M1.1-1.3, against single co-altitude opponents that usually dont evade certainly not within the first 20 seconds. I do not loft after seeing some missiles fly into space and overshoot their target. 

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...