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

[Machalot]

13 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

And it’s why sports are inane.

Haha yes, sports are inane because (uniquely in the human experience) they require optimizing across multiple variables in response to competition.

I know what you mean though, when options are limited in can be frustrating.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Machalot

[WarthogOsl]

Yeah, it was just recently, maybe on the last Tomcast episode, where they talked about transitioning the AIM-54C to be more of an anti-fighter weapon rather then exclusively a fleet defense weapon.

At any rate, in addition to the all knowing AI, I still contend that something very recently made the guidance more wonky.  I've seen too many cases where a bandit does a defensive maneuver, but then commits to a relatively constant course.  The missile responds to that defensive turn more or less appropriately, but then seems to completely miscalculate the interception point and flies right by on one side or the other.

[Noctrach]

2 hours ago, RustBelt said:

Yea, if all the big dogs are winning with the 18, the only way to compete is with the 18. This is sports. And it’s why sports are inane. You can’t win until you min/max EVERY variable. Having to support the Phoenix ruins the one functional strategy in competition PvP, the buzz-saw. Only AIM-120’s work for that. 
 

The whole competition now is who can do a Buzz-saw better and faster than the other team.  Answer: hornet drivers.

Ironically right now there is zero obligation to support the Phoenix.

It is currently in its most autonomous state it has ever been hands-down, because the AWG-9 track breaking really kinda means bugger-all if target flies somewhat predictably (like... say... a sliceback or split-S) Hell, you can launch, turn off your radar and the missile will still probably find its way close enough to give the target a bit of a scare.

For PvP, e.g. launch-and-leave grinder transitioning into close quarters kill-shots... I think the Tomcat won more than it lost, it's still >7 miles of powered flight on the deck.

 

The AIM-54C is really the least of the F-14s worries in a modern 4th gen arena.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Noctrach

[RustBelt]

1 hour ago, WarthogOsl said:

Yeah, it was just recently, maybe on the last Tomcast episode, where they talked about transitioning the AIM-54C to be more of an anti-fighter weapon rather then exclusively a fleet defense weapon.

At any rate, in addition to the all knowing AI, I still contend that something very recently made the guidance more wonky.  I've seen too many cases where a bandit does a defensive maneuver, but then commits to a relatively constant course.  The missile responds to that defensive turn more or less appropriately, but then seems to completely miscalculate the interception point and flies right by on one side or the other.

How right by? Because proximity fuses sucking is still a thing. 

[WarthogOsl]

4 hours ago, RustBelt said:

How right by? Because proximity fuses sucking is still a thing. 

I think it's a bit too far for a prox hit either, but I'd have to recheck the tacviews.

UPDATE: It was 215 feet, which I assume is probably outside the lethal zone.

Edited October 4, 2022 by WarthogOsl

[falcon_120]

Right, so the evasive 6G pulled by diving QF-86 or some QF-4 tests were supposed to simulate a cruising Bear?

Do not feed this never ending argument again.

The history is clear, the Phoenix was designed to deal with the threat of soviet bombers, but they did it so well with its design that is was indeed very capable against fighters. Later on with the Aim54 c it was clear it would need to engage fighters so it was improved for that.

Recently I heard an interview of former F14 pilot Puck, explaining this, and the differences between the Phoenix and the amraam, also how they trained to use it against fighters in red flag I leave the link below.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[lunaticfringe]

26 minutes ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

The 54A was also designed to intercept low flying, small cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles. 

"Phoenix can't hit fighters!"

*KS-1 Komet has entered the chat*

All a missile cares about is that it can see the target, doesn't have it exceed LOS rate, and has enough energy to make the intercept. Everything else is immaterial. 

[Callsign JoNay]

On 9/29/2022 at 12:20 PM, Callsign JoNay said:

I've noticed this too. Two patches ago the missile would pitch up 60+ deg and climb to 80k, sometimes even over 100k depending on the range to it's target. We were all advised by the devs to stop assisting the loft of our phoenix shots and deploy them in level attitude to prevent them from over-lofting their targets. Now I'm finding the loft trajectory to be much lower. If I'm at 40K, level flight, the C47 only climbs to 55-60k. I've actually gone back to assisting the loft again.

Is this intended behavior?

Hey guys,

I just want to bump this again. Here's a video, (not mine), dated Sept 3 showing a comparison of the Cm47 and Cm60 after the AIM-54 Overhaul Pt2. The author does a test shot for each missile from angels 30, sub mach, on a target at 40,000 about mach 1.05. 

 

In the video the C47 lofts up to 79,000 feet and impacts the target at M1.95.

The C60 lofts up to 83,000 feet and impacts the target at M1.98.

 

I recreated the test conditions on the latest open beta today.

The C47 only lofts up to 61,000 feet and impacts the target at M1.38. (Tacview attached)CM47.acmi

The C60 lofts up to 66,000 feet and impacts the target at M1.52. (Tacview attached)CM60.acmi

I don't see any changes in the Sept 8 or Sept 21 patch notes regarding the AIM-54 overhaul that weren't already in the Sept 2 patch notes. Something has clearly changed on my end regarding the AIM-54 launch/loft at some point after the overhaul. Is this intended?

 

Edit: Disregard Sept 8, that was a stable update patch. Something must've happened on the 21st patch, first reported here by @WarthogOsl on Sept 23rd. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/308085-dcs-f-14-development-update-aim-54-phoenix-improvements-overhaul/?do=findComment&comment=5054796

Edited October 4, 2022 by Callsign JoNay

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Hey guys,

I just want to bump this again. Here's a video, (not mine), dated Sept 3 showing a comparison of the Cm47 and Cm60 after the AIM-54 Overhaul Pt2. The author does a test shot for each missile from angels 30, sub mach, on a target at 40,000 about mach 1.05. 

 

In the video the C47 lofts up to 79,000 feet and impacts the target at M1.95.

The C60 lofts up to 83,000 feet and impacts the target at M1.98.

 

I recreated the test conditions on the latest open beta today.

The C47 only lofts up to 61,000 feet and impacts the target at M1.38. (Tacview attached)CM47.acmi

The C60 lofts up to 66,000 feet and impacts the target at M1.52. (Tacview attached)CM60.acmi

I don't see any changes in the Sept 8 or Sept 21 patch notes regarding the AIM-54 overhaul that weren't already in the Sept 2 patch notes. Something has clearly changed on my end regarding the AIM-54 launch/loft at some point after the overhaul. Is this intended?

 

Edit: Disregard Sept 8, that was a stable update patch. Something must've happened on the 21st patch, first reported here by @WarthogOsl on Sept 23rd. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/308085-dcs-f-14-development-update-aim-54-phoenix-improvements-overhaul/?do=findComment&comment=5054796

 

We did not make any changes, not sure if ED changed something to loft. We will check, thank you.

[Lurker]

On 10/3/2022 at 2:15 PM, Zaphael said:

 

So yeah, IRL, the Phoenix performance was abysmal. But that was because all its targets were afraid of its fiercesome reputation and ran away. 

Also IRL. Most of the Iraqi fighters were equipped with abysmal or non-functioning, or not even installed RWRs. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Lurker

[spazz212]

On 10/4/2022 at 4:01 AM, LanceCriminal86 said:

 And even with the cruise missile tests, cruise missiles aren't evasive as far as I know, they're just fast.

Take a look at P700 supposedly it has an antimissile missile countermeasures not sure if its just pre-programmed evasion or some kind of jammer, pretty nifty if true.

[Zaphael]

On 10/4/2022 at 3:14 AM, RustBelt said:

Yea, if all the big dogs are winning with the 18, the only way to compete is with the 18. This is sports. And it’s why sports are inane. You can’t win until you min/max EVERY variable. Having to support the Phoenix ruins the one functional strategy in competition PvP, the buzz-saw. Only AIM-120’s work for that. 
 

The whole competition now is who can do a Buzz-saw better and faster than the other team.  Answer: hornet drivers.

I really find this PvP community to be BS anyway. Sure the -18/16 can run a Grinder against each other and see who can get lucky slinging AMRAAMs.

But in reality, that's now how engagements will pan out because fuel. They have to make it back to the tanker and land or end up in the chute. 

Back to DCS PvP, it's a fight to the death and who cares about fuel? And hence there is no advantage in playing a big fighter like a Tomcat or Eagle. 

And that's why I feel strongly against "play balancing" for the sake of the PvP aspect of DCS. 

[RustBelt]

1 hour ago, Zaphael said:

I really find this PvP community to be BS anyway. Sure the -18/16 can run a Grinder against each other and see who can get lucky slinging AMRAAMs.

But in reality, that's now how engagements will pan out because fuel. They have to make it back to the tanker and land or end up in the chute. 

Back to DCS PvP, it's a fight to the death and who cares about fuel? And hence there is no advantage in playing a big fighter like a Tomcat or Eagle. 

And that's why I feel strongly against "play balancing" for the sake of the PvP aspect of DCS. 

It’s easy to stream two ridiculously close formationed squadrons sling BVR at each other and pass it off as a genuine eSports effort. 
 

That’s the issue with sports. They abstract everything to the point of pointlessness. Usually for the goal of ease of presentation.

Edited October 5, 2022 by RustBelt

[IronMike]

Let's all focus a bit more on the topic at hand please and not discuss the ins and outs of PvP.

I can just say this from my/our perspective: we all come from the PvP community (or, most of us) to some extent, and it is very dear and close to our hearts. But never has nor ever will PvP balancing considerations play a part in our decision making regarding realism. What that means, and what kind of consequences the PvP community takes from that, is left up to them, not us. The server hosts, event organizers, etc. decide all what they think is best for themselves, and no matter what decisions they make, we will always support them.

Our job is to simulate as accurately and true to real life as humanly possible. Their "job" is to make the best of it, play the game and have fun, whatever that means for each and everyone.

Edited October 5, 2022 by IronMike

[spazz212]

On 9/1/2022 at 11:47 PM, Cobra847 said:

 

Motors
Upon further in-depth investigation and consultations with SMEs, both the MK-60 and MK-47 motors were found to have somewhat incorrect performance. Of particular note is that with newly found data we’ve concluded that the MK-60 motor performance was too high, and this motor now more closely aligns with the other motors. 

 

 

 

 

This sounds like interesting reading are you guys able to reference this so I may read up on it?

[IronMike]

4 hours ago, spazz212 said:

This sounds like interesting reading are you guys able to reference this so I may read up on it?

Unfortunately we cannot share this source, our apologies. And please forgive me, but I also cannot get into the reasons of why.

Edited October 6, 2022 by IronMike

[captain_dalan]

Though both sides (HB and ED) may claim that no changes were made, this afternoon i finally got the chance to experience the issue myself. Same conditions, same mission, same firing parameters, much different results. 1 on 6 test, non-maneuvering targets, yadda yadda....

September tests:
50 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.98 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 75000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.43;
47 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.99 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 72000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.39;
44 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 67000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.37;
42 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.01 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 65500ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.31;
40 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.01 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 62800ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.31;
37 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.03 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 60500ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.34;

October tests:
50 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.99 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 60100ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.09;
56 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 59000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.11;
44 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 57000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.12;
47 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.99 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 58000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.04;
45 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 55500ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.02;
38 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 55000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.18;

It seems like who ever "solved" the looping bug, solved it by killing the lofting logic. All the test shots now end with inferior energy available to the missile across its entire trajectory, by following a sub optimal lofting profile. I guess its time to go back to the old Fleet Defender....
Tacviews attached bellow:

 

September tests.acmi October tests.zip.acmi

[IronMike]

56 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

Though both sides (HB and ED) may claim that no changes were made, this afternoon i finally got the chance to experience the issue myself. Same conditions, same mission, same firing parameters, much different results. 1 on 6 test, non-maneuvering targets, yadda yadda....

September tests:
50 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.98 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 75000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.43;
47 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.99 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 72000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.39;
44 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 67000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.37;
42 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.01 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 65500ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.31;
40 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.01 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 62800ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.31;
37 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.03 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 60500ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.34;

October tests:
50 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.99 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 60100ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.09;
56 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 59000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.11;
44 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 57000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.12;
47 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.99 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 58000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.04;
45 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 55500ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.02;
38 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 55000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.18;

It seems like who ever "solved" the looping bug, solved it by killing the lofting logic. All the test shots now end with inferior energy available to the missile across its entire trajectory, by following a sub optimal lofting profile. I guess its time to go back to the old Fleet Defender....
Tacviews attached bellow:

 

September tests.acmi 393.11 kB · 3 downloads October tests.zip.acmi 413.45 kB · 1 download

ED is already working on a fix with us together.

[WarthogOsl]

8 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Though both sides (HB and ED) may claim that no changes were made, this afternoon i finally got the chance to experience the issue myself. Same conditions, same mission, same firing parameters, much different results. 1 on 6 test, non-maneuvering targets, yadda yadda....

September tests:
50 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.98 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 75000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.43;
47 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.99 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 72000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.39;
44 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 67000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.37;
42 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.01 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 65500ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.31;
40 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.01 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 62800ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.31;
37 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.03 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 60500ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.34;

October tests:
50 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.99 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 60100ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.09;
56 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 59000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.11;
44 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 57000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.12;
47 miles launch: missile reaches mach 2.99 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 58000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.04;
45 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 55500ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.02;
38 miles launch: missile reaches mach 3.00 in the lofting phase, max loft altitude almost 55000ft, terminal mach just before impact mach 1.18;

It seems like who ever "solved" the looping bug, solved it by killing the lofting logic. All the test shots now end with inferior energy available to the missile across its entire trajectory, by following a sub optimal lofting profile. I guess its time to go back to the old Fleet Defender....
Tacviews attached bellow:

 

September tests.acmi 393.11 kB · 3 downloads October tests.zip.acmi 413.45 kB · 2 downloads

I feel like the lofting changed before the looping patch, but after the impulse reduction patch.  But, good to know they are working on it regardless.

[spazz212]

On 10/7/2022 at 1:54 AM, IronMike said:

Unfortunately we cannot share this source, our apologies. And please forgive me, but I also cannot get into the reasons of why.

 

Ah ok thanks no problem, I didn't realise you were no longer using Publicly available data for the Impulse and burn times my apologies.

[eatthis]

i did a test yesterday with very odd results.
1v1 angles 35 m2+ closure with a hornet, 
got him tws at 50 miles and fired instantly  (54c 47) tried to fire a 2nd straight away and it wouldnt go at all, i had solid tws lock all the way, why wouldnt the 2nd 1 go?
i deliberately broke lock about about 25 miles THEN the 2nd phoenix fired, HOW? acm switch was off throughout, also the 2nd msl tracked np despite me not having a lock at all, it behaved like it was mad dog, any suggestions?

[Noctrach]

1 hour ago, eatthis said:

i did a test yesterday with very odd results.
1v1 angles 35 m2+ closure with a hornet, 
got him tws at 50 miles and fired instantly  (54c 47) tried to fire a 2nd straight away and it wouldnt go at all, i had solid tws lock all the way, why wouldnt the 2nd 1 go?
i deliberately broke lock about about 25 miles THEN the 2nd phoenix fired, HOW? acm switch was off throughout, also the 2nd msl tracked np despite me not having a lock at all, it behaved like it was mad dog, any suggestions?

I'm pretty sure this has been the case since release no? TWS has always been able to support only a single missile per track. If you want to ripple fire on a single target, use STT instead. Pretty tragic waste of a phoenix though, especially at 50 miles.

[IronMike]

4 hours ago, eatthis said:

i did a test yesterday with very odd results.
1v1 angles 35 m2+ closure with a hornet, 
got him tws at 50 miles and fired instantly  (54c 47) tried to fire a 2nd straight away and it wouldnt go at all, i had solid tws lock all the way, why wouldnt the 2nd 1 go?
i deliberately broke lock about about 25 miles THEN the 2nd phoenix fired, HOW? acm switch was off throughout, also the 2nd msl tracked np despite me not having a lock at all, it behaved like it was mad dog, any suggestions?

In TWS the AWG9 only allows you to fire 1 missile per track. As Noctrach mentions above, for double taps you need to fire in PDSTT, or trash the existing track, let the AWG9 build a new track and then fire again. But it is not advised.

[RustBelt]

People still don’t get just how primitive the AWG-9 is. TWS firing was a cool specialty trick back in the pre-pacman days. Good for defensive intercept, but not really your go-to mode for reaching out and splashing someone. 

[Comstedt86]

I believe you can hook the target, press Next Launch button and fire a 2nd Phoenix.

 

Not sure what happens with the first one in the air however.