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

[Cobra847]

Dear all, 

As part of this patch, we are very happy to conclude a major overhaul of the AIM-54 Phoenix! This effort is intended to bring you significant improvements in realism based on new analysis and insights into the AIM-54, further enhancing realism and more accurately depicting air-to-air combat of this era.

Regrettably, our journey with the Phoenix is somewhat long, owing to the difficulty of simulating even older ordnance. In the end, our goal has, and always will continue to be, to achieve a greater level of realism across all facets of our simulation, even at the cost of some inconsistency over time, investment and time. We are not afraid to take a step back, further analyze and improve upon our work to bring all of us, and you, one step closer to the ultimate simulation of the F-14 and its trademark Phoenix. 

Over the course of this overhaul we gained many new insights and new knowledge, through new documentation and SMEs, that has increased our understanding of the AIM-54 missile, ultimately helping us to improve the simulation of this iconic weapon. It is a continued journey of discovery and learning, and we appreciate you all being a huge part of it and helping us to expand our knowledge and insights through your outstanding and unwavering feedback. Thank you! 

With this update, we believe that we’ve reached a point, where both -A and -C variants are depicted as close to real life as is possible with the current API/schema. Any further updates to guidance and features will have to come as part of a renewed effort to fill any remaining gaps that may remain.

On a general performance note, we’ve very thoroughly tested these changes, and have recreated all known test shots from 1972 and 1973 (with the -A) as part of our verification process. Every missile has strengths and weaknesses, and particularly with older missiles, one has to play to its strengths to not only make it work, but make it work consistently. In that sense- we will be very much looking forward to your feedback and results. 

We truly hope you enjoy the changes, both as F-14 drivers and otherwise, further detailed below:

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. 

Thusly, we’ve adjusted motor performance to levels which now more closely reflect real life performance as follows:

• MK-47 Mod 0: Reduced Impulse: burn time is the same but thrust is reduced.
• MK-60: Reduced impulse significantly: thrust is the same, but burn time is reduced to 20.6 seconds.
• MK-47 Mod 1 (originally the C motor): Impulse has been reduced to be the same as the MK-47 Mod 0, however this motor produces a reduced level of smoke.
• The MK-60 motor has been made available for the AIM-54C.

Guidance
As many of you have noticed, we’ve been working on guidance for the AIM-54 for the past several months- continuously improving tracking and terminal performance. 

In this update, we’ve continued this general guidance work, and all missiles have seen their proportional gain increased, yielding better terminal performance. 

Primarily as part of this overhaul however, we’ve made significant changes to both the -A and -C specific guidance models, which now gives a greater depth of simulation of both missiles, as well as differentiating appropriately. Specifically:

AIM-54A
The -A model of the AIM-54 is rather old, and unfortunately not very smart. This will now be more accurately reflected in the missile’s behaviour and how it guides on targets.

Reflecting the lack of internal guidance, the AIM-54A will now only track when the target is actively illuminated by the radar. This means the missile will only guide periodically in Track While Scan (TWS) mode. The guidance updates can be observed when viewing the missile in external view. Single Target Track (STT) will still illuminate the target constantly and as such the missile will guide the entire time. 

We’ve also reduced the chaff resistance of the -A to a level that we believe is more appropriate. Overall, the AIM-54A guidance will more accurately reflect being a product of its time and being limited in processing power.

Note the periodic guidance updates of the AIM-54A

AIM-54C
In stark contrast, the -C is a smart cookie and we’ve now been able to implement some additional features to reflect this. 

Importantly, the missile will now go active on its own. This is important as previously the -C had to receive a command from the aircraft, limiting its capability somewhat in situations where the shooting aircraft had to turn away. We’ve also reduced the chaff susceptibility of the AIM-54C, and added a MK-60 equipped -C variant due to motor interchangeability. 

One remaining small limitation is that in STT, the missile will erroneously go active on your target (it should remain semi-active all the way to target). This is unfortunately a limitation of the API at this time. We endeavour to model this behaviour properly in the future. 

Overall, we hope that you will enjoy this update and are greatly looking forward to your input and feedback. We believe we’re now one step closer to the ultimate F-14 simulation, and we’ll be continuing our efforts to get ever closer as we continue our journey out of EA.

The full changelog of the update is as follows:

DCS: F-14 Tomcat by Heatblur Simulations

• AIM-54 Overhaul, Part 2:
  • Increased PN gain for all variants.
  • AIM-54A will now only update guidance when the target is illuminated (you will see the missle periodically update).
  • Corrected motor impulse (reduced MK47 a bit and the MK60 significantly).
  • Reduced MK-60 burn time from 30 to 20 seconds.
  • Both motors have the same total impulse now. The MK60 has a slight advantage during motor burn time, while the MK47 has an advantage in burn time. With increasing altitude the difference becomes smaller. 
  • MK47 Mod 1 has now the same thrust/impulse and burn time as the Mod 0, but with reduced smoke (was previously weaker than the Mod 0).
  • AIM-54C should go active by default (even when losing lock from STT).
  • Increased AIM-54C chaff resistance.
  • Reduced AIM-54A chaff resistance.
  • Added option for AIM-54C with MK-60 motor.
  • Adjusted AIM-54 missile empty mass.
  • Adjusted MK-60 motor propellant mass.
     
• Set the JESTER option for automatic PDSTT -> PSTT to disabled by default.
• Fixed several issues with damaged avionics and flight systems (including jammed flaps for example) not allowing a repair to be triggered.
• Potential fix for CTD with F-14 AI (was not applied correctly in the last patch).
• Fixed emergency sweep logic:
• Fixed commanded wing sweep position being saved over to a new aircraft spawn.
• Fixed emergency wing sweep handle moving to spider detent on new aircraft spawn.
• Fixed wing sweep indicator commanded position bit mismatching with the actual indicated position.
• Fixed emergency sweep handle able to be moved between 68° and 75°, after being stowed at 75°. Now it has to be lifted to move it again after it has been stowed.
• Fixed wing sweep indicator raising EMER / OVER flags when wings get swept past 67 degrees.
• Fixed turn indicator needle deflection rate.
• Fixed mach buffet not dying off beyond M 1.3. 
• Fixed an issue with the AWG-9 track logic to avoid tracks being thrown by aircraft launching air to air missiles.
• Fixed LANDING CHK light remaining illuminated after touchdown. 
• Fixed Manual Throttle not unlocking after disengaging the Autothrottle.
• Fixed all mission versions of “Watching the Devil Dog” not being able to be completed successfully.
• Fixed VF-31 AE-200 and AE-205 1991 by Mach3DS - thank you. 
• Fixed VF-14 AB-100 and AB-103 1796 by VFlip - thank you. 
• Added Top Gun 114 by LanceCriminal86 - replaces previous Top Gun livery. Thank you.
• Updated Rogue Nation by YaeSakura - thank you.
   

Thank you!

Sincerely,
HB
 

Edited December 18, 2022 by IronMike

[IronMike]

Please continue discussing the AIM-54 in this thread, as we have closed the old thread. For reference you can still find it here:
 

Thank you all for your very kind and numerous contributions thus far!

Edited September 1, 2022 by IronMike

[opps]

Good update!!

 

• Both motors have the same total impulse now. The MK60 has a slight advantage during motor burn time, while the MK47 has an advantage in burn time. With increasing altitude the difference becomes smaller. 

typo?

[IronMike]

2 minutes ago, opps said:

Good update!!

 

• Both motors have the same total impulse now. The MK60 has a slight advantage during motor burn time, while the MK47 has an advantage in burn time. With increasing altitude the difference becomes smaller. 

typo?

Nope. It means: due to its higher thrust, the mk60 has a slight advantage while the motor is burning, while the mk47 has an advantage in the motor burning longer. Hope that clarifies it.

[opps]

5 minutes ago, IronMike said:

Nope. It means: due to its higher thrust, the mk60 has a slight advantage while the motor is burning, while the mk47 has an advantage in the motor burning longer. Hope that clarifies it.

Now it's very clear. Thanks!

[lunaticfringe]

8 minutes ago, opps said:

Good update!!

 

• Both motors have the same total impulse now. The MK60 has a slight advantage during motor burn time, while the MK47 has an advantage in burn time. With increasing altitude the difference becomes smaller. 

typo?

 

"The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long."

Recommendation after a month of shooting this in test is to experiment with launch altitude and speeds. They're both capable of similar reach and endgame Mach (ie, they're both very good at reaching the a target with roughly Mach 2 or thereabouts on them to maneuver) on long range (50-60+ mile targets), but the speed at which they'll reach out, and the altitudes they'll attain while doing so, are slightly different.   This can slightly alter your approach to using them on a situational basis. 

[scommander2]

It is great for tones of improvments!!

[Sideburns]

Looks to be a great update. "Fixed an issue with the AWG-9 track logic to avoid tracks being thrown by aircraft launching air to air missiles." - This would explain a lot of lost tracks in TWS if the AWG-9 is getting confused by tracking munitions

Edited September 1, 2022 by Sideburns

[Bremspropeller]

47 minutes ago, Cobra847 said:

Thank you!

37 minutes ago, IronMike said:

Thank you all for your very kind and numerous contributions thus far!

No, thank YOU for your passion in working on and improving the module continuously for years. Seriously! Thank you guys!

Can't wait to strap on the Rhino and take it for a ride. And the Tadpole.

 

 

 

[SgtPappy]

Thank you again for these improvements! I'm very excited to try using the AIM-54C again.

[Comstedt86]

Quick question on this. 

"One remaining small limitation is that in STT, the missile will erroneously go active on your target (it should remain semi-active all the way to target). This is unfortunately a limitation of the API at this time. We endeavour to model this behaviour properly in the future. 

Yet further down it says

AIM-54C should go active by default (even when losing lock from STT).

 

Does that mean when launched in PDSTT it should only go active if track is lost but does either way at the moment? 

[Fawx]

Looking forward to these! Your attention to detail is commendable. Makes me eagerly anticipate your future modules.

When is this patch live?

[StandingCow]

What's the effective range of the A and B missiles now?  I know it depends a lot on altitude, speed, etc but vs an aim120c how much extra range do you think we will get out of each missile now?

[IronMike]

4 minutes ago, Comstedt86 said:

Does that mean when launched in PDSTT it should only go active if track is lost but does either way at the moment? 

Correct. This is unfortunately a limitation currently in DCS.

4 minutes ago, StandingCow said:

What's the effective range of the A and B missiles now?  I know it depends a lot on altitude, speed, etc but vs an aim120c how much extra range do you think we will get out of each missile now?

It is not far at all from what it used to be. You can still make a 120nm shot on a bomber easily. You can still bag fighters from 40-60, or further depending on their SA. The MK60 ofc will now be more or less in line with the mk47. Or rather: at long range a bit less effective, although the overall difference is minute, while a bit more effective, depending on the situation, during motor burn time. This applies mostly for close range higher up. Down low, once the motor is out, is over pretty fast for either of them.

Edited September 1, 2022 by IronMike

[IronMike]

7 minutes ago, Fawx said:

Looking forward to these! Your attention to detail is commendable. Makes me eagerly anticipate your future modules.

When is this patch live?

Thank you!

The patch is slated for today, or latest tomorrow.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

12 minutes ago, Comstedt86 said:

Does that mean when launched in PDSTT it should only go active if track is lost but does either way at the moment?

I think it does, yes. They way I read it: the missile should remain semi-active if the launch aircraft can keep the radar on the target, but if you have to turn away/defensive for whatever reason, it will trigger a "go active"-command (similar to how the AIM-120 works now).

[Soulres]

So...what about the Phoenixes doing loopy-loops while tracking targets,Loft completely vertical ('90) killing all of its speed and even Tracking targets through terrain even so much so as to curve around mountains? Its basically become a Meme at this point. and Most of these are even in the Discord 'gif' section. 

Watching them in Tac-view is even more depressing cause they're so inconsistent do wonky things Such as them going to the moon or watch them cycle targets that are over 80km away as they are floating in the air "Dead" 

 

So thats a big ol' "Dont Care" lol

Edited September 1, 2022 by Soulres
No questions allowed

[gnomechild]

1 hour ago, Cobra847 said:

One remaining small limitation is that in STT, the missile will erroneously go active on your target (it should remain semi-active all the way to target). This is unfortunately a limitation of the API at this time. We endeavour to model this behaviour properly in the future.

Is the limitation only present for the C model? Just curious about the particulars of that 

[Heinlein]

Thanks alot guys. Looking forward to try it!

[lunaticfringe]

Only Cs can go active on a lost STT lock to begin with.  But because the way the sim works currently, the C has to go active at some point to have that capability. 

Edited September 1, 2022 by lunaticfringe

[Mig Fulcrum]

Very nice thank you very much!

I just have some question that I probably miss through time.

When you say the A has no internal guide it means it have no radar? it never goes active? it is basically a Fox-1 that can be used in TWS.

And about the error of the C, it means that once I shoot in STT it is pointless to maintain lock because it is active? Even if it is beyond its internal radar range? Or it become pointless to shoot C in STT?  Or is it just a minor effect? Just curious to understand what the target RWR will display.

[lunaticfringe]

The 54A lacks a good INS, so if the track gets trashed and not recovered, the missile is lost as it doesn't get the "active" call from the radar, whereas the C can do so independently.  TWS or STT lock lost, it'll make an intercept against last known target postion and relative movement.

Missiles should always be supported as long as you can support them, with the intent being they go active themselves based on target range/AWG-9 activation signal.  Dropping it and failing to recover early loses an A outright, whereas the lost update information has the potential to increase miss distance as the C flies out. If the target of your C doesn't continue into the relative area of airspace it *thinks* its headed when the track or lock is dropped, it doesn't matter if the missile went active or not if it was too far away to see the target to begin with.  

Edited September 1, 2022 by lunaticfringe

[gnomechild]

21 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

Only Cs can go active on a lost STT lock to begin with.  But because the way the sim works currently, the C has to go active at some point to have that capability. 

 

Ah I see. I misunderstood what it was about. That makes sense thanks! 

[Deadpoetic6]

Is having a different cockpit for different squadrons still planned?

[lunaticfringe]

28 minutes ago, Mig Fulcrum said:

And about the error of the C, it means that once I shoot in STT it is pointless to maintain lock because it is active? Even if it is beyond its internal radar range? Or it become pointless to shoot C in STT?  Or is it just a minor effect? Just curious to understand what the target RWR will display.

For sake of clarity (and Бойовий Сокіл has the gist of it): 

54C in RL, in the event of a lost STT lock, would independently go active, and remain SARH all the way to the target if the lock was held. 

In DCS, to have the ability for the missile to go active in the event of a lost lock, the missile has to go active at some point in its flyout.  So the C does this at the appropriate time.  

The flipside of this, and why you want to take your STT shots when appropriate, is the fact that STT isn't susceptible to all of the issues TWS has for maintaining a track.  So you get all of the reliability of a STT shot, with the added bonus of the active fallback. 

Edited September 1, 2022 by lunaticfringe