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

[IronMike]

12 minutes ago, Meteorlover said:

 

That's very good news
I commend ED and HB for their efforts and hard work
I think I can wait longer.
To be honest, I thought the ED was not interested in this issue.
How about notching?
At 90°, 100 percent of radar failure seems very artificial, especially when it comes to missiles Are you working on this as well?

 

번역  저장

 

Notching is very difficult to substantiate. It is a case by case thing one needs to look at, so if you find odd cases, where you think it should not have been notched, or where we can show that it just gets notched "way too much" or "too easily" (and therein lies the problem, as in defining what "too much" and "too easy" is), it helps to build a case. Personally I have to admit that in my experience, and the cases where I have seen my missiles notched, it did not seem too odd or utterly unrealistic, while ofc missiles do get lost to it, but that is also a bit the point behind it. I would be hard pressed to make a judgement call there in most cases, but 100% sounds definitely wrong.

[IronMike]

27 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Is there any roadmap on missiles?

E.g. it would be helpful if you could perhaps argue with ED that publishing the list would eliminate majority of noise that comes everytime some parameters change.

That is a question for ED, we are ofc open with our "roadmap" (please dont take this too officially), which is basically what I described above:

- check if and what kind of adjustment nozzle exit area needs (potentially in our case we may even leave as is, but yet to be seen.)
- continue improving guidance issues as mentioned above
- continue improving lofting issues, etc.
- move missile to new missile schema.

The last three are happening more or less simulatenously, and the guidance and loft improvements will likely continue after transferring it. As ED is of course thinking of the bigger picture and more long term, and thus wants missiles moved to the new schema once they feel it is more complete - which I btw think is a good decision - this can take a bit still. I know it has been long in the making, but I can only imagine with how much complexity they have to deal and how hard a task it must be. In that sense we all just need a bit of patience, long term it will be worth it, if missiles in DCS improve overall, not just the aim54.

Edited September 7, 2022 by IronMike

[okopanja]

32 minutes ago, IronMike said:

move missile to new missile schema.

Thanks for responding...

Based on certain dcs-datamine-lua git repository it looks as if the new missile API models missiles different in respect to client and server (separate sections). Will this help solve the de-sync issues in future? (I notice from time to time effects of multiple universes, especially with longer range shot beyond 20 nm - to be clear not phoenix and not tomcat, but still i would effect that can especially affect the tomcat due to long flying times).

[cheezit]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

Notching is very difficult to substantiate. It is a case by case thing one needs to look at, so if you find odd cases, where you think it should not have been notched, or where we can show that it just gets notched "way too much" or "too easily" (and therein lies the problem, as in defining what "too much" and "too easy" is), it helps to build a case. Personally I have to admit that in my experience, and the cases where I have seen my missiles notched, it did not seem too odd or utterly unrealistic, while ofc missiles do get lost to it, but that is also a bit the point behind it. I would be hard pressed to make a judgement call there in most cases, but 100% sounds definitely wrong.

Is the missile modeled as having a PD-STT lock on the target aircraft where there is a defined filter of X knots around the doppler region where Vc is close to Vg, and in a look-down situation the target aircraft can get lost in the ground clutter when inside the doppler notch in the same way that an AWG-9 PD-STT lock can get broken in the same scenario?  Or does DCS model missile notching in a more abstract manner (as it does for chaff, jamming, etc) where there is eg. a diceroll or something when (Vc - Vg) < clutter_filter_width ?

 

Thanks for doing extra duty on community relations wrt. this patch btw

[IronMike]

It's my pleasure, but both of the above questions I honestly cannot answer, because we have no or only partial insight into that part of the guidance. Both your questions would be best directed to ED. Apologies that I cannot help there much, or in other words: both remains to be seen, @okopanja and @cheezit.

[captain_dalan]

20 hours ago, DSplayer said:

The SD-10 actually had an incorrect nozzle_exit_area value that gave it a little more extra thrust and speed at higher altitudes up until the recent patch after I reported it. It should be pretty reasonable in terms of speed atm. You just gotta keep in mind that the SD-10 has a ~20mm larger diameter and ~100mm longer than the 120C-5 with probably a different internal layout. AIM-120C-7 for DCS when ED smh /s.

 

If you say so mate, but tell me you don't find this a bit odd:





It's not even that high, or that fast. Mach 4.74 from mach 0.95 launching platform at angels 37? In under 3 miles? Mate, if this thing was fired from angels 50 or above, you could shoot down the ISS with it..... 
But, if their documentation backs it up...... who am i to argue, i don't even own the plane yet..... 

[DSplayer]

8 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

If you say so mate, but tell me you don't find this a bit odd:





It's not even that high, or that fast. Mach 4.74 from mach 0.95 launching platform at angels 37? In under 3 miles? Mate, if this thing was fired from angels 50 or above, you could shoot down the ISS with it..... 
But, if their documentation backs it up...... who am i to argue, i don't even own the plane yet..... 

That do be an R-27ER though and that thing has a super high specific power due to the pretty high thrust and total impulse.

[captain_dalan]

5 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

That do be an R-27ER though and that thing has a super high specific power due to the pretty high thrust and total impulse.

Like i said, if you say so

[DSplayer]

4 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

Like i said, if you say so

Smh well like at least ED has that “R-27 Missile Family Aerodynamics” document. And iirc, it’s actually lacking in range and there’s a forum topic on it. But yeah, when I first encountered it, the hypersonic capability of the R-27E up high was pretty surprising to say the least.

[captain_dalan]

5 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

Smh well like at least ED has that “R-27 Missile Family Aerodynamics” document. And iirc, it’s actually lacking in range and there’s a forum topic on it. But yeah, when I first encountered it, the hypersonic capability of the R-27E up high was pretty surprising to say the least.

I better not hijack this thread any further. Especially if there is dedicated topic on it  

[Meteorlover]

12 hours ago, IronMike said:

Notching is very difficult to substantiate. It is a case by case thing one needs to look at, so if you find odd cases, where you think it should not have been notched, or where we can show that it just gets notched "way too much" or "too easily" (and therein lies the problem, as in defining what "too much" and "too easy" is), it helps to build a case. Personally I have to admit that in my experience, and the cases where I have seen my missiles notched, it did not seem too odd or utterly unrealistic, while ofc missiles do get lost to it, but that is also a bit the point behind it. I would be hard pressed to make a judgement call there in most cases, but 100% sounds definitely wrong.

Oh, I got a different answer than I expected.
HB also said that the notching of DCS was heavily exaggerated, so he thought it was a 100 percent probability.
Because the pilots and the people on the radar said it was too exaggerated, and I really sympathized with HB at the time
I don't think there should be no notching because it's a concept that exists
Because I've seen countless times that the missile just before the enemy's impact (probably 3 seconds or less) accidentally or intentionally at a 90° angle, the missile skimmed right in front of the enemy's nose and the proximity fuse also didn't work.It's not like we've done more than 100 experiments and got a 100% result
I think reach 80 per cent.
One of the things I've experienced recently is My Phoenix was tracking enemy planes flying low at higher altitudes than enemy planes.
The moment the enemy plane and Phoenix were perpendicular, they crashed like a stone, lost the enemy plane for a while, and then they started tracking it again.The enemy plane, of course, was not at rest, so I had a question about this. (I have a tacview because it is a recent experience)

In addition to that, I want to be sure about the nearest Proximity Fuze. It's common to all missiles, but I've experienced no close-up detonation at 36 feet.
Because I thought Phoenix's warheads could do enough damage.Although most of the games know that missiles have a close-up of 7 (probably 7m)

In addition, the operation of the  Proximity Fuze is a laser or radar, and if it moves away from the minimum proximity to the enemy plane, it is known to immediately detonate it to cause as much damage as possible.
We know that the mechanism mentioned above is impossible because the script does not exist.However, I think the operating range of the Proximity Fuze is too narrow.
What do you think of this? Also, I understand that the C type warhead has improved
I hope I'm not bothering you too much.

[DCS FIGHTER PILOT]

Hey guys. Forgive me for not wanting to scroll through all 300 replies on this topic but what are your thoughts on the new top speed of the missile?

To me it seems very slow now. The other day I launched a Mk47 and Mk60 at 50,000 ft and Mach 1.8 and the missile only got up to Mach 4.2.

I did not do the math on the rocket motor and Nobel geometry so I have no right to claim this is wrong but it does seem as if it’s slower than what it should be. 

Edited September 8, 2022 by DCS FIGHTER PILOT

[KlarSnow]

On 9/6/2022 at 9:54 PM, KlarSnow said:

 

Also turned the battery off and did some shots. Bang on the money to the NASA graph with some very slight overperformance that is well within any reasonable margin of error.

I also edited the nozzle exit area to the value proposed (0.04525 m2) And performed the shots again so you can see how much over the NASA data it would perform and why that doesn't appear to at all match reality. Like seriously I was utterly surprised that every shot matched the NASA chart this well. I really don't think thrust vs drag for the missile can be any more accurate in the simulation.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

 

This is a direct overlay of the current AIM-54C Mk-47 with a NASA simulation of its kinematics. Black line is the NASA simulation. Blue line is the current missile. Orange line is a proposed change to a value that had been assumed is incorrect.

The missile matches the NASA simulation almost perfectly right now, and if anything is slightly overperforming in some areas.

[Meteorlover]

39 minutes ago, DCS FIGHTER PILOT said:

Hey guys. Forgive me for not wanting to scroll through all 300 replies on this topic but what are your thoughts on the new top speed of the missile?

To me it seems very slow now. The other day I launched a Mk47 and Mk60 at 50,000 ft and Mach 1.8 and the missile only got up to Mach 4.2.

I did not do the math on the rocket motor and Nobel geometry so I have no right to claim this is wrong but it does seem as if it’s slower than what it should be. 

 

That's because Phoenix received nerf.that lost 30 percent of its thrust in this patch.
Do not use over 10 miles based on PVP

발음듣기

29 minutes ago, KlarSnow said:

This is a direct overlay of the current AIM-54C Mk-47 with a NASA simulation of its kinematics. Black line is the NASA simulation. Blue line is the current missile. Orange line is a proposed change to a value that had been assumed is incorrect.

The missile matches the NASA simulation almost perfectly right now, and if anything is slightly overperforming in some areas.

 

29 minutes ago, KlarSnow said:

This is a direct overlay of the current AIM-54C Mk-47 with a NASA simulation of its kinematics. Black line is the NASA simulation. Blue line is the current missile. Orange line is a proposed change to a value that had been assumed is incorrect.

The missile matches the NASA simulation almost perfectly right now, and if anything is slightly overperforming in some areas.

This may be because HB has been patching NASA's data on an absolute basis earlier this year.There are both good and bad sections.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Meteorlover

[Badger1-1]

I really don’t want to be „that“ guy but how come that for example wiki says it can have up to Mach 5 Topspeed but the NASA graph shows Mach 3ish?

 

yes Wiki is not the best source but it managed Mach 5 before, so HB believed it was correct.

 

also anyone else got the bug that the missle jitters extremely while close to the target and then losing it.

 

fired against 3xMig21 from around 40k, M1.2 around 45nm and max 1 hit.

 

missle starts flapping around like crazy(super fast) and lost all energy.

 

I’ll see if I have a track once I’m on the Pc 

Edited September 9, 2022 by Badger1-1

[dedlike.]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Badger1-1:

also anyone else got the bug that the missle jitters extremely while close to the target and then losing it.

yeh, i just had my first go with the f14 yesterday since the update, tested with my friend, missile came down right above him and just as the missile hit the 90° nosedive it started spazzing around like a gmod ragdoll pushed into the ground and lost lock, aside from that, even if it isnt jittering and spazzing, i feel like the biggest problem atm is that TWS doesnt account for lead, nearly all my shots overshoot and have the missile basicly trying to come back again to hit the enemy, out of 15 or so shots the only one that hit was within 8nm

[Fulcrumkiller31]

2 hours ago, dedlike. said:

yeh, i just had my first go with the f14 yesterday since the update, tested with my friend, missile came down right above him and just as the missile hit the 90° nosedive it started spazzing around like a gmod ragdoll pushed into the ground and lost lock, aside from that, even if it isnt jittering and spazzing, i feel like the biggest problem atm is that TWS doesnt account for lead, nearly all my shots overshoot and have the missile basicly trying to come back again to hit the enemy, out of 15 or so shots the only one that hit was within 8nm

I haven’t had any issues like that, I’ll typically launch high 30s or low 40s close to m1 . TWS launch on fighter around 55-60nm . Pretty much guaranteed hit as long as they don’t split S . STT will launch 65-70 and same results. 

[draconus]

I get the impression we went from being advised to launch high (over 30k) and fast (over M1), to the same with a little help with manual loft, then another iteration with manual lofting forbidden and 30-40k high, now it has to be well over 40k for a long reach. New data, realism, that's ok, no problem and I like that but I have a question: does it go well with history? Meaning usual CAP was around 30k, right? Were the pilots taught to engage with Phoenix only after reaching as high as possible around 46-48k and over M1 on full burners? What were the prameters of the actual 3 shots done by USN?

[near_blind]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

I get the impression we went from being advised to launch high (over 30k) and fast (over M1), to the same with a little help with manual loft, then another iteration with manual lofting forbidden and 30-40k high, now it has to be well over 40k for a long reach. New data, realism, that's ok, no problem and I like that but I have a question: does it go well with history? Meaning usual CAP was around 30k, right? Were the pilots taught to engage with Phoenix only after reaching as high as possible around 46-48k and over M1 on full burners? What were the prameters of the actual 3 shots done by USN?

Any missile will benefit from being launched in a high/fast configuration, being higher and faster can only help. If you look at the extremely long ranged tests of the actual missile, the aircraft were supersonic and in the 40s. You will not always be able to maximize the kinematics of your missile in a tactical situation, that's just life. Aircraft might CAP in the 30s, but fighters can and do get into the 40s or even 50s on their commits if they have enough time to do so. 

As for what actual pilots were taught, you'd have to talk to actual pilots, but my understanding of the community at least ~1999, ~30K was considered the minimum altitude to use the AIM-54 effectively in a BVR context.

 

[Noctrach]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

I get the impression we went from being advised to launch high (over 30k) and fast (over M1), to the same with a little help with manual loft, then another iteration with manual lofting forbidden and 30-40k high, now it has to be well over 40k for a long reach. New data, realism, that's ok, no problem and I like that but I have a question: does it go well with history? Meaning usual CAP was around 30k, right? Were the pilots taught to engage with Phoenix only after reaching as high as possible around 46-48k and over M1 on full burners? What were the prameters of the actual 3 shots done by USN?

Do bear in mind that for the longest time of Tomcat employment, the threats were relatively short range (R-24R, R-27R, R-40R) where even a sub-25 mile shot with an active missile would gain you a massive advantage. By the end of its lifetime the decision was made to shift the F-14 out of the air to air role and into ground attack/FAC(A) by making the decision to go LANTIRN rather than AMRAAM.

I think historically speaking, the kind of shot min-maxing we do in the sim would be a lot less applicable.

[Lurker]

7 minutes ago, Noctrach said:

 

I think historically speaking, the kind of shot min-maxing we do in the sim would be a lot less applicable.

Well considering the fact that for most if not all of its life as a CAP aircraft the ROE actually mandated visual target identification before weapons employment, we won't really know will we. (Unless we can get some reliable Iranian information)

[Jayhawk1971]

We could ask Iran about the 54A's performance in combat....they do have an official Twitter account.  

 

 

 

[skywalker22]

8 hours ago, Fulcrumkiller31 said:

I haven’t had any issues like that, I’ll typically launch high 30s or low 40s close to m1 . TWS launch on fighter around 55-60nm . Pretty much guaranteed hit as long as they don’t split S . STT will launch 65-70 and same results. 

what about notching it?

[Fulcrumkiller31]

It’s pretty hard to notch a Phoenix in DCS at least the C. It’s coming down at such a steep angle.  I also get low and look up at the target in the last 30 miles. Also,  In the words of my father, a former tomcat pilot “it’s impossible to notch a Phoenix” may or may not be true but isn’t it a MPRF missile ? 
 

If they do split S, I chase them down and follow up with sparrow or Phoenix shot to the face (motor burns the whole way if they turn back into me.

Edited September 9, 2022 by Fulcrumkiller31

[WarthogOsl]

8 hours ago, draconus said:

I get the impression we went from being advised to launch high (over 30k) and fast (over M1), to the same with a little help with manual loft, then another iteration with manual lofting forbidden and 30-40k high, now it has to be well over 40k for a long reach. New data, realism, that's ok, no problem and I like that but I have a question: does it go well with history? Meaning usual CAP was around 30k, right? Were the pilots taught to engage with Phoenix only after reaching as high as possible around 46-48k and over M1 on full burners? What were the prameters of the actual 3 shots done by USN?

I think it was "Puck" that recently said something along the lines of "the Phoenix loved altitude, the Sparrow loved speed."