AIM-54 Hotfix PSA and Feedback Thread - Guided Discussion

[bonesvf103]

2 hours ago, IronMike said:

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. 

OK, I'll give it a shot.  Thanks for the insight that yes tactics and feel must be reconsidered.

v6,

boNes

[bonesvf103]

IronMike,

 

Update:  Well, I'll be...!

v6,

boNes

[Reax178]

5 hours ago, Zaphael said:

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.

Indeed, that's why i always turn the MLC off when i have the chance.

I think that it should be turning off automatically if you leave it on the "auto" position (that's the case with jester) when the antenna is raised by 3 degrees. However that's very difficult to get there in TWS since the scan area is very large ... It's easier when you have a STT lock.

In my opinion, the best way to use the phoenix at the moment, if you want long shots, is to fly high, atleast 30k ft, then loft the missile (A Mk60) by 15 degrees, then dive below your target, then turn off the MLC manually (if using TWS). You should also keep in mind the TGT Aspect Switch, i already lost the lock even with the target being higher than me with MLC Off because i didn't set the Aspect Switch accordingly.

You can also try to put the target in Mandatory Attack and turn the MLC Off even if the target is lower than you, it seems to work pretty well as i kept my lock against a notching target at 70+ miles on Caucasus.

Also, when you are fighting over the sea, you can turn the MLC off even if the target is flying very low since there is no ground clutter.

[eatthis]

can you turn mlc off via jester menu or not?

[IronMike]

Firing high and far, diving below the target is a very good tactic (if it does not bring you into hell's kitchen else ofc). However, I never turn off my MLC and never have really problems, because I tend to put my radar in an ideal position from the get go, which can and often does include diving below the target. I also would not subscribe to the AWG9 having that much more difficulties to track targets lower - which again depends on the target and altitude difference. If you are at 40k and your target is say at 1k, well yeah - but that is not a situation where I would consider a long range shot. This is what I meant: it just always depends. With such an altitude difference I would likely use PDSTT or even PSTT instead. You do not have to fire far, either, you can get closer if the situation demands, the important thing to consider is to stay adaptive and flexible and adjust the tactics according to the situation, to stay "in the flow."
 

[IronMike]

7 hours ago, Dscross said:

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.) 

 

This seems like a netcode issue and may simply be enhanced and more noticeable due to the long range of the AIM-54s. It would be best if you could reproduce that in a short as possible track and make a post in the according bug section for ED to look into it. It can have many reasons, say if the server has no real ping limit and someone with a high ping is present (true ping can sometimes spike to like 18k, when it shows still 300 on the server), packet loss, a not so ideal setup from the host, etc etc... Netcode is nothing we have any insight to or influence on and thus it is hard to tell. Generally a US-Europe ping range (both ways), should be small enough to not cause such issues, so it may very well have been connected to a client connecting with a massive true ping (which can only be seen from the windows resource monitor network tab on the server host machine). A client like that can create all sorts of issues, from rubber banding to heavy warping and lag for everyone to "minor desync", which for a missile can be desync enough. It really is hard to tell, but a ping between 100 and 150 should definitely not cause that on its own. 

[IronMike]

46 minutes ago, eatthis said:

can you turn mlc off via jester menu or not?

IIRC, no. Turning off the MLC is really a DCS-ism, and generally not advisable. I have not done it once, and so far almost always emerged "victorious" online and in singleplayer alike. It is there for a good reason. I would advise against it - especially at long range.

Edited February 5, 2022 by IronMike

[Elphaba]

I can’t provide any data but last night we tested this against 6 ai su-27’s. Fired at ranges from t0 m to 20nm. EVERY missile didn’t track and just went straight then fell into the sea. 
this wasn’t user error, we fly the far a lot and have never seen this behaviour before. 

[IronMike]

51 minutes ago, Elphaba said:

I can’t provide any data but last night we tested this against 6 ai su-27’s. Fired at ranges from t0 m to 20nm. EVERY missile didn’t track and just went straight then fell into the sea. 
this wasn’t user error, we fly the far a lot and have never seen this behaviour before. 

I am not saying it was, but how can we know, if we do not know more? And especially if most folks do not see this. Was this Singleplayer? Multiplayer? Server host issues, maybe? Ping? Bad internet (connection)? Maybe a user error after all? (Forgive me, but many claimed it was not user error when in the end it was afterall.) Was it the AWG9 having difficulties to maintain the tracks? At what altitudes did you fire? At what off-bore angles? ACM cover up or BRST or PSTT active within 20nm? etc etc... Additionally, did one of your fire on all 6? Or how many on which targets? How would you expect the AWG9 to generate 6 tracks in TWS close to t0 or even within 20nm efficiently enough? What missile did you use? etc etc.

Best if you showed us a video of what is happening. I personally cannot confirm this, all my missiles track and most of them hit, too.

And to be on the safe side - was this in Open Beta or in Stable?

Edited February 5, 2022 by IronMike

[Reax178]

29 minutes ago, IronMike said:

IIRC, no. Turning off the MLC is really a DCS-ism, and generally not advisable. I have not done it once, and so far almost always emerged "victorious" online and in singleplayer alike. It is there for a good reason. I would advise against it - especially at long range.

 

Yes it would depend on the target SA too i guess, but if the target is aware that a tomcat is here, it'll surely go into the notch at long ranges (50 nm+) and in those case, you can only keep the track by turning the MLC off, otherwise your missile is trashed. It's maybe not very realistic but it's the way its rendered in DCS and seems to work well in these situations. But like i've said, doing it when the radar is raised below the horizon can be very risky, but doing nothing will not help keeping the lock either.

[IronMike]

22 minutes ago, Reax178 said:

Yes it would depend on the target SA too i guess, but if the target is aware that a tomcat is here, it'll surely go into the notch at long ranges (50 nm+) and in those case, you can only keep the track by turning the MLC off, otherwise your missile is trashed. It's maybe not very realistic but it's the way its rendered in DCS and seems to work well in these situations. But like i've said, doing it when the radar is raised below the horizon can be very risky, but doing nothing will not help keeping the lock either.

Unless you have a lot of other targets present. I would in that situation crank or beam the target, to force him out of the notch and lure him in closer, and make him play my game rather than submitting to his, if that makes sense. But I will say this: if it is a tactict that works for you, then by all means go for it. There is rarely a right/wrong in these things - if it works, do it... What I do personally ofc does not have to influence how you would approach a situation in the slightest.

Edited February 5, 2022 by IronMike

[IronMike]

35 minutes ago, Elphaba said:

I can’t provide any data but last night we tested this against 6 ai su-27’s. Fired at ranges from t0 m to 20nm. EVERY missile didn’t track and just went straight then fell into the sea. 
this wasn’t user error, we fly the far a lot and have never seen this behaviour before. 

Check my tacview below, I fired on 6 Su27s below 20nm, all 6 missile track, 5 of them hit, and only the last missile loses track (after tracking initially), because the bandit successfully defeats it in the notch and through chaffing, and because it was simply fired too close to counter that. For this situation, which is rare and not prudent to be in, I would say this is an excellent result.

6xSu27below20nm.zip.acmi

Edited February 5, 2022 by IronMike

[Callsign JoNay]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

IIRC, no. Turning off the MLC is really a DCS-ism, and generally not advisable. I have not done it once, and so far almost always emerged "victorious" online and in singleplayer alike. It is there for a good reason. I would advise against it - especially at long range.

 

Hmm, DCSism or not I use it quite a lot. Being 3 (or more) degrees below a target works out to quite an altitude deficit over a distance, and something I prefer to not worry about. (What if I'm distracted by something else and and drift to 2.9 degrees and lose my target in the absolutely massive PD notch filter?) Nah, I prefer to use MLC out and try to stay co-alt so I don't have to worry about it.

 

I hope you reconsider adding it to the Jester menu. The aspect switch made it into the Jester menu and there's almost never a reason to take it out of nose setting. I would much rather have it replaced with MLC Auto/Out options.

[IronMike]

8 hours ago, bonesvf103 said:

IronMike,

 

Update:  Well, I'll be...!

v6,

boNes

14 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Hmm, DCSism or not I use it quite a lot. Being 3 (or more) degrees below a target works out to quite an altitude deficit over a distance, and something I prefer to not worry about. (What if I'm distracted by something else and and drift to 2.9 degrees and lose my target in the absolutely massive PD notch filter?) Nah, I prefer to use MLC out and try to stay co-alt so I don't have to worry about it.

 

I hope you reconsider adding it to the Jester menu. The aspect switch made it into the Jester menu and there's almost never a reason to take it out of nose setting. I would much rather have it replaced with MLC Auto/Out options.

We will consider it - it is just lower on the priority list. It is a PITA to add Jester menu items for one, and also it is yet another reach-back function (which we generally do not like). We will overhaul Jester soon, and first would like to ponder if it should not become rather part of his then new and enhanced behavior, before we add it. We generally want to go towards less micromanagement, not more.

We may have a better and even more pleasant surprise for you though in the meantime, hehe. I will not spoil anything for now, though.

Edited February 5, 2022 by IronMike

[Lt_Jaeger]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

We may have a better and even more pleasant surprise for you though in the meantime, hehe. I will not spoil anything for now, though.

 

So you are telling us to open up a escort service?! 

 

Hell yeah, now we old grumpy Tomcat "pilots" will be able to find someone who is willing to cope up with our bullshi shi as long as the $$$ are Ok.

 

Heatblur RIO escort service. Come and get your own young and willing Jester Service.

Call 1 - 800 - IwillRIO

Only 120€/$/whatever the hour

 

Our slogan : "You want to have your MLC polished - we do it" 

 

Edited February 5, 2022 by Lt_Jaeger

[eatthis]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

 

We may have a better and even more pleasant surprise for you though in the meantime, hehe. I will not spoil anything for now, though.

 

sharks with frikin laser beams on their heads?

[DoorMouse]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

We will consider it - it is just lower on the priority list. It is a PITA to add Jester menu items for one, and also it is yet another reach-back function (which we generally do not like). We will overhaul Jester soon, and first would like to ponder if it should not become rather part of his then new and enhanced behavior, before we add it. We generally want to go towards less micromanagement, not more.

We may have a better and even more pleasant surprise for you though in the meantime, hehe. I will not spoil anything for now, though.

 

Oh no... I love the jester wheel in VR and the granular controls. I have them basically on muscle memory now and can do them very fast. It's actually one of my favorite features.

If you ever significantly change it please add an option for legacy mode maybe. I dunno. 

 

I only wish he could PH Active and re sort tws targets. 

Edited February 5, 2022 by DoorMouse

[Zaphael]

On 2/5/2022 at 2:26 AM, JNelson said:

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

Hi JNelson,

I accepted that explanation as plausible initially. However, after relooking at the tacview, I was not so sure. The target went into the beam/notch once the missile went active. If it was going to succumb to the notch, it would have done that there and then.  Yet it was at near impact did the missile suddenly lose track, at a point in time which the supposed signal to noise ratio of the returns would be arguably the strongest. A notch at that distance would be irrelevant I would think. 

I did notice that this occurred when the Flanker rolled upright when abeam, presenting his side-profile to the missile rather than the plane view. The only plausible explanation I could think of was some absurdly low RCS value at the side.  Is there different RCS values from front/side/top of an aircraft in DCS?  Since DCS game engine clearly does not simulate radar waves going out and back, is the logic then simulated by some sort RCS-return value to a radar?

I feel a very deep rabbit hole ahead.

[DoorMouse]

18 minutes ago, Zaphael said:

Hi JNelson,

I accepted that explanation as plausible initially. However, after relooking at the tacview, I was not so sure. The target went into the beam/notch once the missile went active. If it was going to succumb to the notch, it would have done that there and then.  Yet it was at near impact did the missile suddenly lose track, at a point in time which the supposed signal to noise ratio of the returns would be arguably the strongest. A notch at that distance would be irrelevant I would think. 

I did notice that this occurred when the Flanker rolled upright when abeam, presenting his side-profile to the missile rather than the plane view. The only plausible explanation I could think of was some absurdly low RCS value at the side.  Is there different RCS values from front/side/top of an aircraft in DCS?  Since DCS game engine clearly does not simulate radar waves going out and back, is the logic then simulated by some sort RCS-return value to a radar?

I feel a very deep rabbit hole ahead.

Dcs models RCS values as a single coefficient. Orientation does not matter

[Zaphael]

2 hours ago, IronMike said:

We will consider it - it is just lower on the priority list. It is a PITA to add Jester menu items for one, and also it is yet another reach-back function (which we generally do not like). We will overhaul Jester soon, and first would like to ponder if it should not become rather part of his then new and enhanced behavior, before we add it. We generally want to go towards less micromanagement, not more.

We may have a better and even more pleasant surprise for you though in the meantime, hehe. I will not spoil anything for now, though.

 

I loathe to see another reach back function such as MLC as well. Jester's supposed to be the RIO. Being the driver is hard work as it is. 

What I would like to see is a more intelligent Jester that works the WCS more to prioritise more urgent targets better - and not drop the Phoenix prioritisations when I ask to transit from a 100 mile scan to a 50 mile scan.  

To be honest, I have never seen the need for the WCS to prioritise more than two targets for the Phoenixes when working against tactical air threats. Jester ought to know that and set up his TWS Azimuth for +-10 or +-20.  It is always a horrifying when I have two beautiful targets prioritised and phoenixes ready to go, and suddenly a friendly/bogey pops up from the corner of the azimuth limits and jumps the queue for my missiles. 

Its not about the chauffeurs up front telling Jester to TWS-scan 10/20 degrees -6bar azimuth (or adding scan narrow option to the wheel).  Its about Jester knowing that we operating against tactical manuevering targets, and setting it radar up to do so (and prioritising the IFF for these two targets). Conversely, Jester should also know when to set up the radar to shoot a spread of 6 phoenixes at bombers at altitude.

I hope the Jester update will incorporate some way to either tell Jester that we are gonna work tactical targets, or bombers, and work the WCS/Radar/TID appropriately. As a voice attack users, I was thinking along the lines of "We're engaging two fighters" would be a nice way to cue him onto the 2 tactical fighter targets.

Another wishlist is some sort of feedback from the RIO.  E.g. we're gonna transit from BVR to WVR, go higher, go faster. 

I wish I had a real human RIO to fly with but I don't, so all I can wish for is an improved Jester. =D

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, Zaphael said:

I loathe to see another reach back function such as MLC as well. Jester's supposed to be the RIO. Being the driver is hard work as it is. 

What I would like to see is a more intelligent Jester that works the WCS more to prioritise more urgent targets better - and not drop the Phoenix prioritisations when I ask to transit from a 100 mile scan to a 50 mile scan.  

To be honest, I have never seen the need for the WCS to prioritise more than two targets for the Phoenixes when working against tactical air threats. Jester ought to know that and set up his TWS Azimuth for +-10 or +-20.  It is always a horrifying when I have two beautiful targets prioritised and phoenixes ready to go, and suddenly a friendly/bogey pops up from the corner of the azimuth limits and jumps the queue for my missiles. 

Its not about the chauffeurs up front telling Jester to TWS-scan 10/20 degrees -6bar azimuth (or adding scan narrow option to the wheel).  Its about Jester knowing that we operating against tactical manuevering targets, and setting it radar up to do so (and prioritising the IFF for these two targets). Conversely, Jester should also know when to set up the radar to shoot a spread of 6 phoenixes at bombers at altitude.

I hope the Jester update will incorporate some way to either tell Jester that we are gonna work tactical targets, or bombers, and work the WCS/Radar/TID appropriately. As a voice attack users, I was thinking along the lines of "We're engaging two fighters" would be a nice way to cue him onto the 2 tactical fighter targets.

Another wishlist is some sort of feedback from the RIO.  E.g. we're gonna transit from BVR to WVR, go higher, go faster. 

I wish I had a real human RIO to fly with but I don't, so all I can wish for is an improved Jester. =D

Jester does not switch priorities, nor could he, neither a human RIO. The AWG-9 does that on its own. What a RIO can do however, is set a track for mandatory attack or do not attack. One can easily see how difficult that would become for Jester to judge, if multiple targets are present. We will overthink his radar work anyway - within his limitations, so we'll see.

Anyway, let us keep this thread focused on the aim54 performance please. There is a Jester QOL thread up where these discussions fit better.

[ldnz]

I am struggling now with just how good the AI is at notching. See attached tacview - what could I do better here? Doesn't look like there was any attempt to reacquire as they came out of the notch as well. But I can repeat this every time. Very hard to get a hit on these guys. Using Mk60s and a bigger loft + higher speed doesn't really change anything, doesn't seem to be a function of terminal speed. 

Tacview-20220206-090754-DCS-f14 bvr range.zip.acmi

[Slayer 1-1]

Congrats on those getting 40kft 60-100nm hits against AI, talking PvP, Phoenix gets easily defeated with a split-s.
In high-high you're screwed even with tgt small, since the opponent will not stay there and the drag is so notorious, that the Phoenix will arrive ballistic bleeding +100kts/s

And yes, above M.1, pitching up before launch, playing with rdr elevation mlc...

low-low is even worse, because yes, everybody in pvp is at 5-15kft unless there's a viper at 40kft M1.4 40nm lofting getting better pk than us, or a guy at M0.65 carrying 10 amraams not knowing what he's doing...

Stt low-low at what distance? Because even pal shots are struggling, the only salvation is a 10nm shot with missiles active off the rail, yes, 10nm. If not, the Phoenix is as dangerous as a fox-1 from a flanker or a matra from a mirage...

As somebody said,

The range of the Phoenix was the main thing going for it. The difficulty of flying with jester in pvp or the radar for a human rio was only worth it for the Phoenix to go that far. otherwise if the Phoenix stays mostly like this, you're left with what.. 20.000lbs of fuel? lantirn?

Might turn into a fun module that's not quite worth it. Imagine if f15E comes out decent. Another multicrewed twin tailed monster with heaps of fuel, is faster, has way better a2g capability. Now imagine the amraams it carries are still more performative than a Phoenix. What's the argument for the tomcat in that case. culture? top gun? carrier?

If we normally shoot at 35 miles with a hot and coalt target, and we lose X% effective performance. Now we are shooting at like 20-18 nm which is  amraam territory.

I hope things get better implemented, not like 25% of this but not taking in count that... then a little fix here... I literally skipped last patch and I guess i'll have to wait even more to play with the module again if so...

Anyways, thanks Heatblur for making our dreams possible with this module.

 

 

 

[shrimpy_dikdik]

Fired a mk60 at a hot F16 from 28k and 28nm traveling M1. F16 at 25k did a partial split-s at pitbull and the mk60 slowed to around M0.7 trying to dive with it.

 

On GS server and unless it's someone very new who hasn't realised a missile is coming their way you're most likely not going to get the kill. 

[near_blind]

1 hour ago, Slayer 1-1 said:

The range of the Phoenix was the main thing going for it. The difficulty of flying with jester in pvp or the radar for a human rio was only worth it for the Phoenix to go that far. otherwise if the Phoenix stays mostly like this, you're left with what.. 20.000lbs of fuel? lantirn?

You have an F-14...

1 hour ago, Slayer 1-1 said:

Might turn into a fun module that's not quite worth it. Imagine if f15E comes out decent. Another multicrewed twin tailed monster with heaps of fuel, is faster, has way better a2g capability. Now imagine the amraams it carries are still more performative than a Phoenix. What's the argument for the tomcat in that case. culture? top gun? carrier?

That it's an F-14. Imagine flying an aircraft because you like the aircraft and want to see it represented accurately as opposed to satisfy the current air quake meta of the quarter. I shudder to think...

1 hour ago, Slayer 1-1 said:

Stt low-low at what distance? Because even pal shots are struggling, the only salvation is a 10nm shot with missiles active off the rail, yes, 10nm. If not, the Phoenix is as dangerous as a fox-1 from a flanker or a matra from a mirage...

If only the F-14 carried some other missile, one that was medium ranged and performs better at medium to low altitude with comparable range to a fox 1 from a flanker or mirage. Oh well, a shame they didn't think of that.