DCS: F-14 Development Update - AIM-54 Phoenix Improvements & Overhaul - Guided Discussion

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, Clunk1001 said:

Well, the amount of data available from Vietnam about the Sparrow missile is vast.  Mission statistics, Eyewitness accounts - from both sides of the conflict, official hit rates etc.  enough to give an indication of how the missile actually performed vs all the “test” data. And enough to provide evidence to contradict a simulation based on numbers alone.   So in my opinion that kind of information is important, especially given the disparity that can exist between the official test numbers and the reality (lots of information on that available too).

You can only successfully contradict the simulation if you're doing an apples to apples test. If missiles in Vietnam were used one way, and the missiles in the sim were used in a different way, you wouldn't have much of a comparison. Essentially it still comes back to numbers. Missile Pk can't be coded into a simulator because it's a dynamic value that depends heavily on circumstance. It's completely sensible to try to compare simulator Pk to real world Pk, but if there is a discrepancy found the only way to fix it is tweaking the numbers in the sim and you certainly don't want to move away from known, correct information. Pk, eyewitness accounts, etc should be used to inform the numbers.

 

In the current case of the AIM-54 we have a code problem. We can't simulate it properly. Perhaps worse than that though is the fact that this code seems to change occasionally. Even if HB tried to fudge numbers to account for the code issue, there is no guarantee that things would work properly in the next patch. If we could be assured of some consistency then things wouldn't be so bad. The AIM-54 for a couple of patches ago seemed to do reasonably well.

1 hour ago, Clunk1001 said:

 

Poor parameters at the moment means the bandit jinks, or perhaps farts too loudly throwing off the missile guidance.
 

 

In my own experience it comes down to missile glide time, loft trajectory, and ECCM. The Phoenix doesn't like to turn since it bleeds speed rather quickly so you don't want to have it glide for too long. Loft trajectory needs to be such that the missile is not constantly turning, this goes back to the bleed speed issue. ECCM is basically the chaff reject value of the seeker, not much for the pilot to do here. Hitting a maneuvering fighter is absolutely possible with the current missile, it's just that the criteria for a successful hit force a pretty narrow optimal launch window.

[DD_Fenrir]

26 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

I stand corrected, there is eyewitness accounts from Iran pilot taking out Migs:  

 

 

It suggests that the Phoenix worked very well in a variety of altitudes, ranges and situations.  Unlike what we have.

Still useless information.

1. Parameters of launch? Speed, altitude and aspect of launch aircraft?

2. Parameters of target? Speed, altitude and aspect at launch?

3. Did targets defend? Were they even able to appreciate they were under fire? Did they even have RWRs in the export model of that aircraft?

This is the nuance that is required to assess the performance accuracy of the DCS Phoenix because all these factors massively influence the PK of ANY missile, not just the Phoenix.

This nuance extends to the modelling of the DCS itself; if there is an issue, where does it lie? Is it in the FM of the missile or the guidance logic? Is it in the programmed rocket performance or an issue with the AI? If the Ai is the issue is it the launching AI or the target AI? Or could it be just poor operator performance, launching at envelope limits? Or a bit of all these?

A tacview is insufficient data; it may provide a theatrical performance of an undesirable outcome - the symptom - but it fails to allow any deeper diagnostics of why that undesirable outcome occurred - the ailment. A .trk file is the only way deeper information about the varied parameters that led to all 12 of the launched missiles missing can be mined.

Run your test again. If all 12 missiles miss again save a .trk file.

Then run it again. Save a second .trk file.

Give to Heatblur.

Then you may have a leg to stand on.

[Clunk1001]

1 hour ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Still useless information

To you maybe.

statistics from Vietnam (eyewitness accounts like this one) gave the sparrow a 13% hit rate Vs the official “tests” which gave it 90% hit rate.  Pilots would ripple all 4 at once in the hope one would hit.  And despite being designed for BVR they were generally only used after positive identification because they were too unreliable.  You won’t find that information anywhere in the official “tests”.  
 

as for the Aim54,  in this 30 page discussion on how well the aim54 kills migs (or doesn’t kill migs), you are free to consider the only account (that I could find at least) of actual kills using this missile as “useless”.  

 

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Clunk1001

[Scotia]

Phoenix flying over the shoulder bug still occuring.

This one was fired in PD-STT.

Pheonix Fly-over.zip.acmi

Edited October 20, 2022 by Scotia

[Clunk1001]

2 minutes ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Except Vietnam Sparrows were literally stored improperly and left outside in the open for weeks. It's a poor argument to make.

I’m highlighting the importance of eye witness accounts regarding the real-world effectiveness of munitions and the disparity between official numbers and reality.  That is not a poor argument.
In this 30 page discussion (by mainly non-aviation/non-aerodynamics experts) the complete disregard of viable information is disappointing to say the least.

 

[Clunk1001]

8 minutes ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

using "eye witness accounts" as some form of evidence

It’s called “primary source”.

if you had any form of education you may understand that.

 

Edit…..I think I’m just gonna leave you guys to you computer games …

Edited October 20, 2022 by Clunk1001

[Exorcet]

41 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

In this 30 page discussion (by mainly non-aviation/non-aerodynamics experts) the complete disregard of viable information is disappointing to say the least.

One has to be careful with this. It's a total assumption if you don't actually know.

In any case I don't want to make it seem like all your points are being ignored. The general consensus is that the Phoenix is wrong, but I don't think the answer is to fixing it is trying to fake it to make it fit "eye witness accounts". Just for one thing, you were using the performance of the missile vs the MiG-21 as an indicator that something is wrong, but then this obviously implies than there is no fault with the MiG-21. There is, the AI flight models are off to varying degrees and the AI itself can be a bit all knowing depending on difficult settings. AI that is more realistic would surely help with some of the AIM-54 issues and I think those changes would be more welcome in DCS than a fantasy missile.

Sometimes estimates might have to be made, but I think that should be a last resort.

[Frosty2124]

1 hour ago, Clunk1001 said:

In this 30 page discussion (by mainly non-aviation/non-aerodynamics experts) the complete disregard of viable information is disappointing to say the least.

 

The metrics and dynamics involved in the development of a flight model for something so complicated in real life is incredibly hard, now develop that product in a game engine where the goalposts are constantly moving as the engine is updated and bugs and features are removed/introduced.

Then add the increased difficulty of having to placate people who would rather complain on the forums in a non constructive manner as opposed to "this is the issue, i believe this is how it should perform" supplemented by approved, ratified and reliable data from reputable sources.

I'm sure as the reasonable, decent, eloquent person you have demonstrated yourself to be on your previous posts, where you have in no way thrown the toys out of the pram and refused to at least attempt to understand that people educated or otherwise may be slightly more correct than you, (because you wouldn't do that, would you?) 

you've demonstrated the issue, now let the people more knowledgeable about the product, the challenges faced in game development, and the patience to deal with people who moan, continue to carry out the fantastic job that they are doing to deliver as realistic a product as possible.

Sincerely,

An aviation expert

Edited October 20, 2022 by Frosty2124

[Hobel]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Clunk1001:

I posted a tacview of 4xF14s loosing 12 AIM54s at a single Mig21 and the Mig21 evaded them all with ease.  That's my evidence.  But I'm happy to be corrected - I'll read all the evidence you have for how successful Mig21s (or indeed any manned aggressor) were at evading the AIM54.

You posted a tacview of 4 F14s at 33kft firing at a range of ~40nm.
some even fire the Aim54 at 0.5M...

Not the best parameters nevertheless, the Mig21 has to take a strong defensive stance on the first missile.
The Missle has done its work here, Just because it's not a kill doesn't mean the result is bad.

and in DCS it seems AI  have perfect SA.
 that is also the reason why "a dozen Mig21s"  or other were shot down in real life, they didn't know what was coming and in DCS AI reacted perfectly...

Edited October 20, 2022 by Hobel

[SgtPappy]

9 hours ago, Clunk1001 said:

It’s called “primary source”.

if you had any form of education you may understand that.

 

Edit…..I think I’m just gonna leave you guys to you computer games …

 

Yikes that's some next level mental gymnastics needed for this amount of cope

[RustBelt]

On 10/20/2022 at 2:22 AM, Clunk1001 said:

All good points.

it’s a moving target, but what is the ‘target’?

Is it to “create an effective weapon in DCS - as real as we can effectively make it”. Or “create a 100% accurately modelled weapon which is ineffective due to DCS limitations”.

There has to be a balance - personally I want to see an effective weapon that behaves as one might expect (occasionally hitting a bandit). Rather than a missile with all the right numbers but doesn’t hit a thing in the DCS simulation.

 

The target is to be a highly realistic simulacra. That’s what a Study level Flight sim is. That’s a Long way from now.

[Katsu]

Hello friends, i really don't want start again all that thing about missile aerodynamics and all, because im not a expert and i believe in HB works.

But about loft profile and missile spoffing, is so easy to spoff, i'm not gonna talk about the loft because wen i has writing i see that people is aware of the problem.
just to be clear i really dont believe that the AIM-54 is a "super missile" or something like that, that hits everything and kill even tie-fighters, but the state of missile (especially the A model) make the Phoenix one of the less reliable missiles in game. 

Just make this video and uploaded the tacview to show how easy is defeat the missile atm (not in energy but just a little crank and some chaffs)
https://youtu.be/MCwEikX1DVQ

I just want to know if this is right or its a "under adjustment" parameter? 
 

Tacview-20221021-121052-DCS.zip.acmi

Edited October 22, 2022 by Katsu

[Clunk1001]

10 hours ago, Katsu said:

Hello friends, i really don't want start again all that thing about missile aerodynamics and all, because im not a expert and i believe in HB works.

But about loft profile and missile spoffing, is so easy to spoff, i'm not gonna talk about the loft because wen i has writing i see that people is aware of the problem.
just to be clear i really dont believe that the AIM-54 is a "super missile" or something like that, that hits everything and kill even tie-fighters, but the state of missile (especially the A model) make the Phoenix one of the less reliable missiles in game. 

Just make this video and uploaded the tacview to show how easy is defeat the missile atm (not in energy but just a little crank and some chaffs)
https://youtu.be/MCwEikX1DVQ

I just want to know if this is right or its a "under adjustment" parameter? 
 

Tacview-20221021-121052-DCS.zip.acmi 1.16 MB · 2 downloads

 

I agree with you Katsu. But sshhh in case they hear us ….

 

 

…oh too late

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Clunk1001

[near_blind]

9 hours ago, Katsu said:

Hello friends, i really don't want start again all that thing about missile aerodynamics and all, because im not a expert and i believe in HB works.

But about loft profile and missile spoffing, is so easy to spoff, i'm not gonna talk about the loft because wen i has writing i see that people is aware of the problem.
just to be clear i really dont believe that the AIM-54 is a "super missile" or something like that, that hits everything and kill even tie-fighters, but the state of missile (especially the A model) make the Phoenix one of the less reliable missiles in game. 

Just make this video and uploaded the tacview to show how easy is defeat the missile atm (not in energy but just a little crank and some chaffs)
https://youtu.be/MCwEikX1DVQ

I just want to know if this is right or its a "under adjustment" parameter? 

I'd say the mission maker was unkind to give you 1960/70s vintage missiles versus 90s vintage fighters. The AIM-54C will probably provide better results against countermeasures.

[Clunk1001]

32 minutes ago, near_blind said:

I'd say the mission maker was unkind to give you 1960/70s vintage missiles versus 90s vintage fighters. The AIM-54C will probably provide better results against countermeasures.

Having done similar tests with the C against 60s aggressor,  I found  it makes little difference.  All versions seem unreliable.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Clunk1001

[Hobel]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb Clunk1001:

Having done similar tests with the C against 60s aggressor,  I found  it makes little difference.  All versions seem unreliable.

When you talk about your Tacview, there is a clear difference.
With him the missiles lose the track and with yours they were defeated kinematically

[Clunk1001]

1 hour ago, Hobel said:

When you talk about your Tacview, there is a clear difference.
With him the missiles lose the track and with yours they were defeated kinematically

No, I’m talking about the hundred or so tests I’ve carried out, including other tacviews I’ve posted here where the migs don’t even flinch and 4 Phoenix missiles sail right past them.

Katsu has asked if there is something wrong with the missile.  The replies on here will be : it must be you, or it must be the mission maker, you’re not high enough, wrong model, not fast enough…..  Rather than - “yes there’s something wrong, it was working really well about a month ago, HB are no doubt on the case.”

There’s no doubt all these things play a factor, i just think people should answer the guys (or gals) question.

yes, Katsu, there’s something wrong. HB/ED will no doubt resolve it in time.

 

or you can get a replacement in Bolton:

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Clunk1001

[The_Tau]

To be honest I found previous logic of aim54 (the one people complaining about lofting) much better then current one. I honestly never did experienced Phoenix space program, maybe because I was trying to follow the numbers and being high, and i never fired at guys 50 nm while being at less then 10k.

But right now is hard, especially as it was explained before missile just starts lofting for some reason when target is in notch, losing sight of target completely, this thing is the worst and must be fixed.

 

Also what's with the missiles that disappear when you as their launcher die? I got hit, I eject and my missile which is tracking bandit and is only 5 nm away from him, puff and gone from game. What gives? It was on Blueflag PvP server

[Exorcet]

17 hours ago, Katsu said:

Hello friends, i really don't want start again all that thing about missile aerodynamics and all, because im not a expert and i believe in HB works.

But about loft profile and missile spoffing, is so easy to spoff, i'm not gonna talk about the loft because wen i has writing i see that people is aware of the problem.
just to be clear i really dont believe that the AIM-54 is a "super missile" or something like that, that hits everything and kill even tie-fighters, but the state of missile (especially the A model) make the Phoenix one of the less reliable missiles in game. 

Just make this video and uploaded the tacview to show how easy is defeat the missile atm (not in energy but just a little crank and some chaffs)
https://youtu.be/MCwEikX1DVQ

I just want to know if this is right or its a "under adjustment" parameter? 
 

Tacview-20221021-121052-DCS.zip.acmi 1.16 MB · 5 downloads

 

Chaff overperforms in DCS. I also think the AI's CM effectiveness is better than players, they only ever sprinkle a couple of CM's every few seconds yet this is enough to break missile lock a lot of the time.

If you are making your own missions or editing other missions you can remove chaff from aircraft or tell them not to use it.

[Clunk1001]

2 hours ago, Exorcet said:

Chaff overperforms in DCS. I also think the AI's CM effectiveness is better than players, they only ever sprinkle a couple of CM's every few seconds yet this is enough to break missile lock a lot of the time.

If you are making your own missions or editing other missions you can remove chaff from aircraft or tell them not to use it.

That’s really useful info. That explains a lot.  Is ED dealing with that? 

[Wolfman289]

I can see both sides of the argument here. We all want this module to be realistic. I also want to enjoy it and to be able to get a hit with the AIM54, but that is extremely difficult now, even under good conditions. When past updates have come along, it has taken time to re-learn the missile and what it can do. With this update, I have been unable to figure out how to get any hits with it. It just always misses, no matter what I do.

The AIM54 may be kinetically modelled realistically now, but now there's a glaring issue. Are other module's modelled as realistically as the F14 and the AIM54?  What about the AI? It's obvious that the AI is not modelled realistically at all. Sometimes, they never run out of energy and can do maneuvers that are not possible, have perfect SA, chaff and flare work from a roll of the dice system, etc. Everything in DCS should be at the same level of realism, or this is a playability issue.

HB has done an amazing job with the F14 and I love the module. I just wish everything was on the same page with regards to realism.

[WarthogOsl]

Yeah, I get both sides as well.  I want the numbers to be accurate, but it also needs to work as expected within the context of the DCS simulation that we have, especially given that we don't know when (or if) ED will fix certain aspects of it.

That said, here's a TacView from last night where I took out 2 AI Flankers starting at 73nm away, so it is possible to work with these missiles.  Both Flankers tried to evade the first 2 shots, but the first AIM-54C took the lead out. Ended up taking out the second guy with a third Phoenix PD-STT shot where I went cold at 10 miles away.  TacView says I first launched at 50,000ft, though it was more like 45,000, I think.

 

 

Tacview-2-flankers.zip.acmi

[Exorcet]

20 hours ago, Clunk1001 said:

That’s really useful info. That explains a lot.  Is ED dealing with that? 

Not that I know of, but better CM modeling has been asked for and I think they are aware of the demand.

15 hours ago, Wolfman289 said:

The AIM54 may be kinetically modelled realistically now, but now there's a glaring issue. Are other module's modelled as realistically as the F14 and the AIM54?  What about the AI? It's obvious that the AI is not modelled realistically at all. Sometimes, they never run out of energy and can do maneuvers that are not possible, have perfect SA, chaff and flare work from a roll of the dice system, etc. Everything in DCS should be at the same level of realism, or this is a playability issue.

I strongly suggest posting critiques on the AI in order to help ED tune it. They are currently spending resources on this area, but I'm not sure if they're aiming to make the AI more fallible. I think it absolutely needs to be. As you say they currently have too much SA. Even ancient planes like the MiG-21 can tell exactly where a missile is coming from and take perfect evasion action.

I made a thread to provide feedback on the new AI, but it was eventually moved to wishlist:

Still, if more people respond, maybe ED will focus more on AI fallibility.

[IronMike]

Today:
 

• Reverted AIM-54 loft to state before looping hotfix to revert exceptionally poor performance.

[WarthogOsl]

1 minute ago, IronMike said:

Today:
 

• Reverted AIM-54 loft to state before looping hotfix to revert exceptionally poor performance.

Great about the lofting, but does that mean we're back to the situation where the missiles immediately do a 180 if the track drops?