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

[LanceCriminal86]

People whose "feelings" matter: People with experience in the F-14, using the Phoenix, or who supported the systems. Aka, people who can say "something doesn't feel right" and provide feedback within the limitations of classifications, OPSEC, etc.

 

[JabsDabbin]

25 minutes ago, draconus said:

Show me.

The AWG-9 is arguably best radar in DCS range wise atm.

I can consistently both tws and (pd) stt lock targets above 80nm but this happens only in multiplayer(I haven't tried the campaigns yet), I do not have visual proof atm but next time I'll do it i'll save the track/a record. I always use data link if available. One time I chased such a target down and killed it wvr and it was a helicopter. I can imagine a helicopter being highly reflective though (the main rotor blades) when its below a radar.

[near_blind]

17 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

And if it’s not usable for AI and single player - blame it on the user.

The AI is not the brightest bulb in the pack, but it is functional

 

aight_bet.zip.acmiaight_bet_2.zip.acmi

3 minutes ago, JabsDabbin said:

One time I chased such a target down and killed it wvr and it was a helicopter. I can imagine a helicopter being highly reflective though (the main rotor blades) when its below a radar.

This is sadly a DCSism. In real life the rotor blades create a pretty massive doppler return that a radar (depends on the radar) interpret as a steady contact. IRL the first air to air kill of the F-15E was against a Hind they hit with a 2,000lb laser guided bomb, but they _found_ it using the air to air radar. In DCS the rotors return is ignored, and it only considers the speed of the fuselage which is usually within the doppler notch of most PD radars. 

[Spurts]

Guys, something changed in the FLIGHT PROFILE of the Phoenix AFTER HB did the MOTOR update.  I did shots after the MOTOR update that lofted crazy high with no assist.  The FLIGHT PROFILE is an ED thing, not a HB thing.  HB only does the lift, drag, and thrust modeling.  ED does everything else.  Once the missile leaves the plane it is in EDs hands not HBs.

[RustBelt]

3 hours ago, JabsDabbin said:

I've been able to lock small stuff/helicopters further away

Helicopter rotors are like candy to Doppler radar. Propellers too depending on aspect. 

[RustBelt]

4 hours ago, Clunk1001 said:

I have to disagree with this.

Your customers have purchased an add-on to DCS and it is not unreasonable to expect that product to work within the DCS environment.

As soon as you accept money from sale of a DCS add-on then delivering a DCS add-on is your job.  not just morally, but legally.

Whilst I appreciate difficulties with ED and the DCS environment, this does not detract from the obligation you have to provide something which works in DCS (and that includes AI missions, campaigns, and PvP)

I feel you. But what must unfortunately always be said in a case like this, this isn’t a finished product. Neither the F-14 or DCS. The Tomcat is in early access. Something that certainly feels like should be made much more explicit in the sales pages but isn’t. 
 

Now, it has been Early Access for a very long time, and that’s a whole other toilet full of worms. But part of that is reason 2.

DCS is never going to be a finished product. And it’s free for the self same reason. Meaning publishing a finished mod like the Tomcat is a constantly moving target. And one made more complex by the methods of how DCS gets improvements. Which also means the final released Tomcat will only be “final” for one Release cycle because any future changes are un-planable and so can only happen after DCS pushes their updates to their 3rd party with documentation and API, which is historically a very slow process for DCS. We’re now going on 9+ months waiting on the full new missile API to get to heatblur so they can implement it at all. Until then, none of the missiles are really “done” at all. 
 

DCS is that 80’s Camaro shell your great uncle keeps in his garage that he’s totally going to get to one day, but currently acts as a badly designed shelf for everything else in the garage. The only way to understand DCS is to look at it from that perspective.

[Clunk1001]

8 hours ago, KlarSnow said:

If you think it is unrealistic, find a source on the AIM-54 that proves the current implementation is incorrect and send it to heatblur. Saying you feel this or you feel that will not change anything without something to prove your assertion. Every change or implementation they have done has matched all available data about the missile quite well.

Since the initial thrust reduction patch in september there was another patch that has broken the lofting algorithm, this is known about and is being worked on. At this moment, today in Open Beta the missile is underperforming compared to as intended in many situations because the lofting algorithm is broken.

Everything else is as intended.The AIM-54 is one of the most complex missiles out there with a lot of limitations and issues. The AWG-9 is one of the most powerful but also weakest computationally radars out there. All of the issues you are running into are realistic to the extent of hard quantifiable data that is available about either system. If you have a source to disprove this then do so.

Show me the source to prove that the Aim54 is so bad at hitting bandits. 
show me the source to prove the missile is so easy to avoid.
I’ll wait…..

It was never deployed by the US, so, I can’t show you a source that says the Aim54 should be better at hitting bandits.   

Without any factual evidence, one has to make an educated guess,  when the Aim54 reaches a bandit does it (a)  fizzle out and die and lose guidance at the slightest jink, or (b) like other missiles would do, make a fair effort to hit the target or detonate in proximity.

based on other missiles and technology designed to do the same thing, I’d go with (b).  I seem to be in the minority here though.  But I ‘feel’ that’s what Raytheon had in mind when they built it, and I ‘feel’ that’s why the US strapped it to the f14.

I guess you could say that what we have is 100% realistic  - the US had 0 bandits killed with Aim54,  and that’s replicated in DCS pretty accurately now.

[Clunk1001]

6 hours ago, RustBelt said:

I feel you. But what must unfortunately always be said in a case like this, this isn’t a finished product. Neither the F-14 or DCS. The Tomcat is in early access. Something that certainly feels like should be made much more explicit in the sales pages but isn’t. 
 

Now, it has been Early Access for a very long time, and that’s a whole other toilet full of worms. But part of that is reason 2.

DCS is never going to be a finished product. And it’s free for the self same reason. Meaning publishing a finished mod like the Tomcat is a constantly moving target. And one made more complex by the methods of how DCS gets improvements. Which also means the final released Tomcat will only be “final” for one Release cycle because any future changes are un-planable and so can only happen after DCS pushes their updates to their 3rd party with documentation and API, which is historically a very slow process for DCS. We’re now going on 9+ months waiting on the full new missile API to get to heatblur so they can implement it at all. Until then, none of the missiles are really “done” at all. 
 

DCS is that 80’s Camaro shell your great uncle keeps in his garage that he’s totally going to get to one day, but currently acts as a badly designed shelf for everything else in the garage. The only way to understand DCS is to look at it from that perspective.

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.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Clunk1001

[WarthogOsl]

47 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

 But I ‘feel’ that’s what Raytheon had in mind when they built it, and I ‘feel’ that’s why the US strapped it to the f14.

Raytheon didn't build it, fwiw.

[Clunk1001]

17 minutes ago, WarthogOsl said:

Raytheon didn't build it, fwiw.

You are right!  Hughes?  

[draconus]

13 hours ago, JabsDabbin said:

I can consistently both tws and (pd) stt lock targets above 80nm

Dude, the JF-17 is small modern light fighter with RCS (in DCS) of 3m². Locking it from 70nm is a huge distance! Show me a fighter with even comparable ability in DCS.

@Clunk1001What is your goal exactly? You already know the missile is not at its final version and is bugged atm. Both HB and ED work together to make it work as intended. No shortcuts will be made to cater for "better" PvP performance though - only towards RL performance as always stated by HB. Saying it doesn't hit a thing is exaggeration and just undermines your credibility. When it works - it works but now we have to wait for the update. You're free to install some previous DCS version you feel better with.

Edited October 20, 2022 by draconus

[KlarSnow]

There have been several sources presented and discussed and compared to the in game performance in this very thread if you go back and read through it. The overall conclusion so far is that the AIM-54A is pretty accurately represented. Kinematically it is insanely close to known data points. Guidance wise, I don't know what you are expecting but the AIM-54A has a pretty good amount of data out on it if you know where to look. Some of those sources have been presented in this thread.

The AIM-54A very accurately replicates the limitations of the real missile based on known data. It will go dumb if snipped early in TWS. You MUST support it to an active state. If you shoot it in PD-STT it is a giant sparrow and will never go active. Capabilities it may or may not have beyond this are limited by the default API seeker implementation. There is no way for Heatblur to change what happens.

The AIM-54C you are correct there is not very many good sources for how it works, so heatblur has taken the assumption that has been implied in that it works more like an AIM-120 than the AIM-54A does. it will go active on its own if you snip it, it will go active if snipped during PD-STT. There is no definitive source you can point to that says it does these things. But Heatblur have decided that either their internal sources are good enough or the mountain of ancillary evidence thats out there is good enough.

Again before you go making these claims educate yourself on what IS out there. There is a lot of data which you seem to have not referenced. Cause it all points to the implementation heatblur has done.

[draconus]

54 minutes ago, KlarSnow said:

The overall conclusion so far is that the AIM-54A is pretty accurately represented.

It was recently until it is not since the update.

[Redounet]

Those who are not playing multiplayer just edit Weapons.lua and put the thrust numbers you want on the motors

[Clunk1001]

35 minutes ago, KlarSnow said:

There is a lot of data which you seem to have not referenced

I'm just going to reference the attached tacview - there are four F14s  vs  1 Mig21, 50 miles, 330000ft

The Mig21 dodges all 12 Aim54Mk60s with ease, and is eventually taken out with a sidewinder.

I don't need to hunt around for illusive sources of data from NATOPS to NASA to know that this is just bo||ocks.

 

42 minutes ago, KlarSnow said:

Kinematically it is insanely close to known data points

Well, that's just wonderful.  It's pretty useless in the game, but as long as Kinematically it is close to known data points that's fine. 

It's as if nobody really wants to play DCS, and it's all just about the closeness to datapoints.  That's not why I bought the F14.  Maybe you're different?  If you enjoy a dogfight with your buddies to then only discuss the closeness to known data points afterwards then I'm genuinely happy for you if that's your thing, I personally like to shoot Migs down, but everyone likes different things I suppose  

I do want accuracy, I do want a challenge, but not at the expense of enjoying an arial engagement or two in DCS.

Pheinix is just Phucked.acmi

[Exorcet]

12 hours ago, Baco said:

yes the "acuracy" people are simulating the rivets.. but the system does not work as it should. You can throw as many tech data as you want.  The simulation of the weapons systems: F 14-A + AIM 54c is not represented accurately. And that is the main fact. you can yadayada all you want... 

In teh world of Simulations numbers are not all that matters, since the experience is different than reality. The flight model of teh F 14 feels alive, i dont know it its morer accurate thna the viper o Hornet one, but it feels better... in the same manner, the Phoenix feels wrong. period.

How do you build experience in simulations? Through numbers. Numbers really are all that there is. Code doesn't work with feelings. Even in this case (AIM-54), we can see that numbers are the problem. The missile is currently stuck on old missile code that isn't very flexible, is inaccurate in a number of situations, and seemingly isn't very consistent from patch to patch.

HB is doing their job by making a more accurate missile, though they have their hands tied by some unfortunately circumstances. Eventually things will get better. We don't know when this will happen, but eventually the Phoenix will move to the new API and we will actually have it properly modeled. Until then, we just have to make do and wait.

[Clunk1001]

12 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

People whose "feelings" matter: People with experience in the F-14, using the Phoenix, or who supported the systems. Aka, people who can say "something doesn't feel right" and provide feedback within the limitations of classifications, OPSEC, etc.

 

So recreating a ww1 aircraft where everyone who flew it, serviced it, or supported it is dead, would be impossible then?  That’s a shame, I recon there would be a market for them.

I presume you drive a car?  Would you be able to comment on the accuracy of a Bentley simulator?  Yes, because you know what a car can and cannot do in terms of the laws of physics and your experience in cars.

likewise a pilot of say 25 years, with a fairly solid understanding of aerodynamics could quiet legitimately say ‘something doesn’t feel right’.

in fact, I’ve seen tech. logs with just that in … “left throttle doesn’t feel right”.

It’s not just that this doesn’t feel right - it’s demonstrably not right.

[Exorcet]

6 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

So recreating a ww1 aircraft where everyone who flew it, serviced it, or supported it is dead, would be impossible then?  That’s a shame, I recon there would be a market for them.

I don't get that from the line you quoted.

6 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

I presume you drive a car?  Would you be able to comment on the accuracy of a Bentley simulator?  Yes, because you know what a car can and cannot do in terms of the laws of physics and your experience in cars.

Without information related to Bentley vehicles in particular, the simulation would probably not be very good. Car is a really broad category, knowing that category in general doesn't mean you know much about Bentley's.

6 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

likewise a pilot of say 25 years, with a fairly solid understanding of aerodynamics could quiet legitimately say ‘something doesn’t feel right’.

I'd expect a pilot with no FBW experience might say that about a FBW aircraft when everything is perfectly fine. You can't expect general knowledge to cover specific knowledge in all cases.

6 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

in fact, I’ve seen tech. logs with just that in … “left throttle doesn’t feel right”.

It’s not just that this doesn’t feel right - it’s demonstrably not right.

I'm sure that happens, but keep in mind some of them turn out to be false alarms don't they? I've also seen the opposite. I had a serious brake issue on my car once and when I took it to an experience mechanic he did not find a problem the first time he looked over the car. His feeling was totally wrong.

[JabsDabbin]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Dude, the JF-17 is small modern light fighter with RCS (in DCS) of 3. Locking it from 70nm is a huge distance! Show me a fighter with even comparable ability in DCS.

Yes well, that's why I decided to mention my findings here. I'm simply new to simulation at this level of realism. As well new to DCS. I decided war thunder wasn't kicking it anymore for me not too long ago and well, here I am. I'm only roughly aware of/familiar with all these systems and definitely don't know the ins and outs of all available hardware in the game. You can take an f14 in the growling sidewinder server though and you should be able to get such long range scenario's quite easily. ( I usually fly with tid at 200nm range and data link initially, switching to 100nm at lower altitudes, last night I joined 5 minutes before restart and managed to get a tws lock at 80.xx nm moments after take off) IIRC, the most distant lock so far has been around 95nm. W/o really knowing what i'm locking that is pretty meaningless though.

Also, 70nm sure is a huge distance, I don't think it's not enough, I was just wondering if it was a mission or radar limitation

[DD_Fenrir]

51 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

So recreating a ww1 aircraft where everyone who flew it, serviced it, or supported it is dead, would be impossible then?  That’s a shame, I recon there would be a market for them.

I presume you drive a car?  Would you be able to comment on the accuracy of a Bentley simulator?  Yes, because you know what a car can and cannot do in terms of the laws of physics and your experience in cars.

likewise a pilot of say 25 years, with a fairly solid understanding of aerodynamics could quiet legitimately say ‘something doesn’t feel right’.

in fact, I’ve seen tech. logs with just that in … “left throttle doesn’t feel right”.

It’s not just that this doesn’t feel right - it’s demonstrably not right.

For someone so sure you have remarkably little evidence.

Ah, but that's right you don't need evidence. 

You're all singing all dancing sh1t of the world and every word that passes your lips is gospel.

 

 

Please.

 

Do yourself, and us a favour -

 

1. Your opinion is abundantly clear; you re-iterating it in every reply does nothing to enhance your argument, it just grinds and will ultimately alienate you. If you seek to be taken seriously and not be disregarded as some bleating fantasist, desist in repeating it and find something a bit more constructive to post.

2. PKs, reports, will serve you 100 times more effectively than feels - a lot of AIM-54 were test launched between its introduction and its retirement to test various upgrades in hardware and software so start trying to source them; HB have stated they are happy with their data so find better data to give HB a revised baseline to work to; whining is not a datapoint.

 

 

 

[draconus]

59 minutes ago, JabsDabbin said:

...managed to get a tws lock at 80.xx nm moments after take off) IIRC, the most distant lock so far has been around 95nm. W/o really knowing what i'm locking that is pretty meaningless though.

There's really no locking in TWS. You can hook the track (highlight) to show more info or do sth about it like:

http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html#id17

Also make sure you understand a distinction between radar and datalink contacts.

http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html#tid-symbology

This is short and quick answer to not continue this OT here but if you want to ask more about the radar or really anything F-14 related, please make a new thread, we'll be happy to reply to you there

Edited October 20, 2022 by draconus

[Clunk1001]

11 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

For someone so sure you have remarkably little evidence.

Ah, but that's right you don't need evidence.

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.

 

12 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

find better data to give HB

I don't believe there is Data!   The US never used them, and although Iran claim to have downed a dozen Mig21s with the Phoenix, it's not likely anyone will see that data.  

 

15 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

re-iterating it in every reply does nothing to enhance your argument

If you read my posts properly, I might not have to repeat myself, there is no data for how easy it is for a Mig21 to evade an AIM54.   But I'm pretty confident that if you put all the numbers together, and it comes up with a tacview like I posted (1 Mig evading 12 AIM54s) it's clear something's not right.  

 

Sometimes you need more than just numbers.  Sometimes the numbers don't exist.  At that point you need to look for other sources.

[Exorcet]

12 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

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.

I can't watch your tacviews, but if missiles are shot under poor parameters, numbers won't matter. If 12 missiles are launched at once and the first has a low chance of impact, most likely so do the other 11.

12 minutes ago, Clunk1001 said:

I don't believe there is Data!   The US never used them, and although Iran claim to have downed a dozen Mig21s with the Phoenix, it's not likely anyone will see that data.

Whether there is or isn't, I'm not sure such data would be particularly helpful. DCS isn't a statistical simulator and it's certainly not trying to hardcode situations. Whether the missile hits the MiG depends on the modeling of the missile and the plane. That is the relevant data that we need.

 

[Clunk1001]

35 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I'm not sure such data would be particularly helpful

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).

 

35 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

but if missiles are shot under poor parameters, numbers won't matter

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

Edited October 20, 2022 by Clunk1001

[Clunk1001]

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.