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

[GGTharos]

8 minutes ago, cheezit said:

What coefficients control this for the DCS engine? 

There were not any, it was baked in.

8 minutes ago, cheezit said:

I don't see anything with a name that looks related.  Obviously applying a standard curve won't work correctly, as depending on nozzle design, propellant chemistry etc. the difference between sea level and vacuum thrust and Isp can plausibly be anywhere from 1.1x to 2.5x.  If there's some curve being applied that has no coefficients I'll go back and edit my post to correct it, but I've never heard of this before your post.

I learned of it a long time ago in a conversation with Chizh, where he had mentioned that there was a thrust increase of about 7% between SL and whatever altitude.   Mind you this was the old missile FM, who knows how/when it was translated to the new one.

[tavarish palkovnik]

 

On few available graphs where relation between thrust forces at SL and altitude is given, it can be seen that differential is not constant. Of course I understand this 7% is unification but just to be mentioned. Increase is more rapid between 0 and 10km because function p f(H) is such as well, on higher altitudes atmosphere pressure values are more equalized. And this 7% is fine but it is important to place each individual motor on it's place in this graph. As we can see, there are motors with expansion under 1 bar and also over one 1 bar

 

This is one more nice motor in 380mm, well known Kh-29

 

   

 

Just from curiosity, what could be pressure at nozzle exit on this motor.

 

 

This equatation is very useful, with chamber pressure and ratio of areas (Exit vs throat) ''pe'' will show it's value.

To get ''pk'' and ''A'' there should be some work but without work nothing can be done...(F tot 23300 kg, t=4,5s, mg=110kg, probably VIK-2, Isp 225s (40:1), Ief=207 T=2820K, k=1,2, dk=80mm, de=210mm, pk=6,5MPa, A=7 ... etc ... etc ... -> pe=0,13 Mpa 

So it can be said, this motor, this rocket, is with thrust of 50800 N at SL and at 5km it could be 53430 N or +5%, at 10km 54380 N or +7% etc

 

 

[BubiHUN]

On 11/30/2022 at 10:05 PM, Naquaii said:

Because one of those we have control over and the other not.

so that is why it just goes right by the target basicly inches from the bandit.

[Stickler]

On 10/12/2022 at 6:09 AM, Comstedt86 said:

Yes. TGT size switch only affects the A models as of now (DCS limitation)

This being the last post I could find related to the TGTS switch, I'm reporting that as of 2.8.1.34667, the AIM-54C (at least the Mk60 variant) IS affected by the TGTS switch just like the AIM-54A.

This is based on test firing both AIM-54A-Mk60s and AIM-54C-Mk60s with different TGTS settings against a non-maneuvering F-14 manned by a human.

Comparing the time stamp at which the time-to-impact counter starts blinking with the range between the missile and the target at that moment, it becomes evident that the active range of both -A and -C models is dependent on the TGTS setting (SMALL - 6 nm, NORM - 10 nm, LARGE - 13 nm) as described in the game manual.

I would like a word if this is - taking reality as a reference - an improvement or a regression.

 

Additionally, when taking note of the time at which the target human-crewed F-14 receives RWR indications of the inbound active AIM-54, these were the results I obtained:

AIM-54A (SMALL): around 5 nm

AIM-54A (NORM): around 7,7 nm

AIM-54A (LARGE): around 7,4 nm

AIM-54C (SMALL): around 8 nm

AIM-54C (NORM): around 7,7 nm

AIM-54 C (LARGE): around 7,4 nm

 

These results are unexpected in three ways (if anyone can explain I'd appreciate it):

1) RWR indications are received a significant amount of time AFTER the missile goes active, especially in LARGE mode, for which I do not have an explanation except some kind of RWR processing delay or a delay between the AWG-9 sending a "go active" signal to the missile and it actually going active.

2) RWR indications are received at a slightly longer distance between missile and target when the missile was fired in NORM mode compared to LARGE mode, which IMHO should be the other way around.

3) The AIM-54C produces emissions detectable by another F-14's RWR before it goes active, but only in SMALL mode.

 

Note this is for human players only. Due to what I understand is a DCS limitation, AI aircraft will start threat reacting against an inbound AIM-54 at exactly 10 nm regardless of the TGTs setting.

[captain_dalan]

What about the RWR in other manned planes? 

[The_Tau]

On 12/25/2022 at 9:35 AM, Stickler said:

This being the last post I could find related to the TGTS switch, I'm reporting that as of 2.8.1.34667, the AIM-54C (at least the Mk60 variant) IS affected by the TGTS switch just like the AIM-54A.

This is based on test firing both AIM-54A-Mk60s and AIM-54C-Mk60s with different TGTS settings against a non-maneuvering F-14 manned by a human.

Comparing the time stamp at which the time-to-impact counter starts blinking with the range between the missile and the target at that moment, it becomes evident that the active range of both -A and -C models is dependent on the TGTS setting (SMALL - 6 nm, NORM - 10 nm, LARGE - 13 nm) as described in the game manual.

I would like a word if this is - taking reality as a reference - an improvement or a regression.

 

Additionally, when taking note of the time at which the target human-crewed F-14 receives RWR indications of the inbound active AIM-54, these were the results I obtained:

AIM-54A (SMALL): around 5 nm

AIM-54A (NORM): around 7,7 nm

AIM-54A (LARGE): around 7,4 nm

AIM-54C (SMALL): around 8 nm

AIM-54C (NORM): around 7,7 nm

AIM-54 C (LARGE): around 7,4 nm

 

These results are unexpected in three ways (if anyone can explain I'd appreciate it):

1) RWR indications are received a significant amount of time AFTER the missile goes active, especially in LARGE mode, for which I do not have an explanation except some kind of RWR processing delay or a delay between the AWG-9 sending a "go active" signal to the missile and it actually going active.

2) RWR indications are received at a slightly longer distance between missile and target when the missile was fired in NORM mode compared to LARGE mode, which IMHO should be the other way around.

3) The AIM-54C produces emissions detectable by another F-14's RWR before it goes active, but only in SMALL mode.

 

Note this is for human players only. Due to what I understand is a DCS limitation, AI aircraft will start threat reacting against an inbound AIM-54 at exactly 10 nm regardless of the TGTs setting.

Awesome info.

Do you have maybe tacview to share?

Edited December 26, 2022 by The_Tau

[Comstedt86]

Did some testing down low with TWS and the C versions. Indeed tgt size switch functionality seems to be in game again.

 

TWS shots with both C versions.

 

Measured when TID TTI starts flashing from Phoenix to targets.

 

Small - Approx. 5,5 nm from target.

Large - Approx 12,5 nm from target.

 

Didn't bother testing normal. 0,5 nm "error" is most likely a combination of delay me pausing and the TTI doing a full "blinking" cycle.

[DSplayer]

12 hours ago, Comstedt86 said:

Did some testing down low with TWS and the C versions. Indeed tgt size switch functionality seems to be in game again.

 

TWS shots with both C versions.

 

Measured when TID TTI starts flashing from Phoenix to targets.

 

Small - Approx. 5,5 nm from target.

Large - Approx 12,5 nm from target.

 

Didn't bother testing normal. 0,5 nm "error" is most likely a combination of delay me pausing and the TTI doing a full "blinking" cycle.

While the TID might indicate the correct active distance, the missile doesn't actually go active at those distances. It is more accurate to test from the target's perspective.

[cobrabase]

At the end of December 2022 they are still going ballistic and 1/4 of the time BEHIND my tomcat after launch.   I'm using the current open beta.

Edited January 1, 2023 by cobrabase

[DSplayer]

1 hour ago, cobrabase said:

At the end of December 2022 they are still going ballistic and 1/4 of the time BEHIND my tomcat after launch.   I'm using the current open beta.

 

What is the altitude of your aircraft, range, and aircraft of the enemy aircraft. Tacview would be helpful.

[WarthogOsl]

4 hours ago, DSplayer said:

What is the altitude of your aircraft, range, and aircraft of the enemy aircraft. Tacview would be helpful.

And what was the launch angle?  I'm currently launching with a 20% degree loft assist, and I have still yet to see a missile go straight up, or behind me.

If they aren't using TacView, it makes me wonder if people are just catching up with the missile's smoke trail after it burns out, looking straight overhead, and wrongly assuming the missile has gone straight up, when it's actually well on its way.

[Comstedt86]

9 hours ago, DSplayer said:

While the TID might indicate the correct active distance, the missile doesn't actually go active at those distances. It is more accurate to test from the target's perspective.

Judging by some PvP observations it seems to work but I haven't tried it in a more controlled environment. 

[CarbonFox]

Interestingly, none of my Phoenix shots are lofting. Firing at targets from 38k going Mach 1.4 at a range between 52 and 62nm. All shots simply flew straight for the target.

[WarthogOsl]

4 hours ago, CarbonFox said:

Interestingly, none of my Phoenix shots are lofting. Firing at targets from 38k going Mach 1.4 at a range between 52 and 62nm. All shots simply flew straight for the target.

Do you have the ACM cover up (I've done it by accident a few times),  or are the targets jamming?  In either of those cases they won't loft.  I've never seen one not loft unless one of those cases was true.

[CarbonFox]

9 hours ago, WarthogOsl said:

Do you have the ACM cover up (I've done it by accident a few times),  or are the targets jamming?  In either of those cases they won't loft.  I've never seen one not loft unless one of those cases was true.

Nope. And I don't believe the targets were jamming. Just setup some Tu-95s to shoot at. I'll test again later to see if the lack of lofting repeats.

[Rinz1er]

On 11/1/2022 at 11:30 AM, IronMike said:

Thanks for the report, like I replied, it is not a bug as such, but ED reacted to it and wrote to us, so we will look if there is a solution, but no promise.

Can you provide any update on this?

[Skarp]

8 hours ago, Rinz1er said:

Can you provide any update on this?

I don’t think Ed or heatblur have any intention of using the target size switch for anything other than what it’s supposed to do. If at all I suspect Ed would be working on a better simulation of the missile ect.

 

On 12/31/2022 at 7:21 PM, cobrabase said:

At the end of December 2022 they are still going ballistic and 1/4 of the time BEHIND my tomcat after launch.   I'm using the current open beta.

 

It’s kinda cool but you’re traveling fast as it’s climbing so yes it can fly above you until  it starts leveling off and screaming at m4.3 away from you.

[Dannyvandelft]

Why is this missile so bad now? I'm shooting at targets off the nose, and they miss just about every time. They loft, but the rocket motor seems to stop burning way too soon. They run out of energy extremely fast.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[DD_Fenrir]

2 minutes ago, Dannyvandelft said:

Why is this missile so bad now? I'm shooting at targets off the nose, and they miss just about every time. They loft, but the rocket motor seems to stop burning way too soon. They run out of energy extremely fast.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

What altitude you launching from?

Burn times are apparently correct according to Heatblur and they've got the data so I'm inclined to trust them.

Most of the issues seem to be with terminal guidance logic and missile behaviour when notched; this combined with AI that have omniscience with regards to the position of attacking missiles means that they are very (too?) effective at notching missiles.

This precludes any opportunity for an active missile to reacquire a target should it only notch temporarily and would appear to be the major cause of low PK for otherwise well launched AIM-54s lately.

 

[Karon]

26 minutes ago, Dannyvandelft said:

Why is this missile so bad now? I'm shooting at targets off the nose, and they miss just about every time. They loft, but the rocket motor seems to stop burning way too soon. They run out of energy extremely fast.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

This is definitely not what I have experienced. Can you provide some TacView tracks?

[BubiHUN]

8 minutes ago, Karon said:

This is definitely not what I have experienced. Can you provide some TacView tracks?

are you playing the same jet?

[Biggus]

14 hours ago, BubiHUN said:

are you playing the same jet?

@Karon's experience matches mine.  It's fine when used with the correct parameters and with the understanding that there are issues with both the AI's omniscience and the terminal guidance issues that are on ED's list of things to work on.

Please share your tracks with the devs in your thread if you would like your continued participation in this thread to be treated with any level of sincerity or seriousness.

[Karon]

20 hours ago, BubiHUN said:

are you playing the same jet?

Déjà vu. I reckon I've already shared with you videos and possible something else showing you that the Phoenix is different, but it performs its role of long-range missile perfectly (ergo, P_K ~40%,50%).
If multiple kills at 60nm, and up to 75 nm vs Veteran and Ace AI are not enough to convince you, nothing will.

And before you jump on the "BuT mY pVp" train, have a look at how many Cold War servers allow the AIM-54. AFAIK, no server allows the Tomcat to field the AIM-54C when all others have is the AIM-7 at best, unless there are other restrictions. I have the feeling you expect to compare it to the year 2000, AIM-120C-5 we have in DCS (AIM-120B, 1994). As if comparing the designated successor of the AIM-54 (since the AIM-152 was scrapped in 1992) vs the original that pre-dates the Tomcat itself (it was meant to be used by the F-111B) or its mid-80s upgrade, make any sense, right?

Last time I've played online, I have seen F-14s flying at 15,000ft and launching at flanking FFalcons at 50nm that were down in the weeds. This guy launched 4 missiles to two targets, then banzai'd and died in 2 nanoseconds. I have the feeling you are employing using the same logic. If not, send us some TacView tracks.

[Endline]

Can anyone try the Marianas Dragon Tooth BVR instant action with the F-14A and 54As? Had two runs yesterday, launching from 37,000+ at ~1.1 Mach from a distance between 40 and 50 miles. Both I and the AI wingman went 0/8. 0/16 in total.

[near_blind]

That mission really shouldn't have you using -54As. That's a hold over from when the AMk60 was a wunderwaffe and considered "the best". 

Edited January 10, 2023 by near_blind