Jump to content

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


Cobra847

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, spazz212 said:

Is this an Increase or decrease in Mass, also will this have a carry on effect on Induced drag or is the change not modelled at this stage?

Yes induced drag is modelled in the ED missile model.

 

To clarify: the empty mass of the missile for the A is the same, the C was reduced by a tiny bit putting it 10 kg heavier than the A while empty. The motor mass is the same for both motors. So an A-47 and A-60 will have the same mass now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The_Tau said:

Do you know maybe if ED plans to change that behaviour? It really hampers STT mode in F14 as bandits have all the time in the world to defend. It also applies to Patriot or S300 SAMs they shouldnt give warning to RWR for launch 

Not really, that's entirely an ED decision. RWR and ECM is also one of those areas where you'll have a hard time proving either or and IRL it wouldn't be a simple as every RWR seeing everything either. Being what it is it's not that bad of a decision to just have all SARH give warning at launch and ARH at activation.


Edited by Naquaii
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Soulres said:

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

 

Why would you assume we did not care? I overlooked your post, my apologies, that doesn't mean we won't see it eventually or that we would not care.

The loopy loops while tracking targets is not an aim54 exclusive thing, in short almost everything you mention is not aim54 exclusive. This is simply the part of the guidance we have only limited or no access to, and thus cannot address these issues on our own. I don't say this to shift blame around, it is simply a fact. It is simply a team effort between ED and us, and ED is very helpful and we are making progress.

Lofting should improve in this patch, but missiles will want to get as high as quick as possible, so if you overpitch, you may be sending them up high. Put the T on the target, then shoot, this should prevent that. The loft is now also smoother overall, but how precisely it lofts we have only very limited access to. This is a continued issue we keep working on with ED. A self-tracking AIM-54 flying around a mountain I would have yet to see tbh. If the illuminating radar is above clearance and sees the target, it could very well appear like that. If it does it while active - and please provide some proof here - then this is again part of the guidance we have no access to and should be something most if not all missiles share, while the range of the aim54 will be somewhat more exposing to these issues than shorter ranged missiles. The very same goes for the floating up high dead. Missile self-destruct iirc is by ground speed, so up high, to reach a speed low enough to go "pop", will take naturally longer. Maybe it also needs a minimum altitude to hit the paramaters for self destruct, I honestly would not know.

That all said, we are very much aware of remaining issues and also very much interested in fixing them with our partners at ED as soon as we can. 🙂

  • Like 2

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, IronMike said:

Why would you assume we did not care? I overlooked your post, my apologies, that doesn't mean we won't see it eventually or that we would not care.

The loopy loops while tracking targets is not an aim54 exclusive thing, in short almost everything you mention is not aim54 exclusive. This is simply the part of the guidance we have only limited or no access to, and thus cannot address these issues on our own. I don't say this to shift blame around, it is simply a fact. It is simply a team effort between ED and us, and ED is very helpful and we are making progress.

Lofting should improve in this patch, but missiles will want to get as high as quick as possible, so if you overpitch, you may be sending them up high. Put the T on the target, then shoot, this should prevent that. The loft is now also smoother overall, but how precisely it lofts we have only very limited access to. This is a continued issue we keep working on with ED. A self-tracking AIM-54 flying around a mountain I would have yet to see tbh. If the illuminating radar is above clearance and sees the target, it could very well appear like that. If it does it while active - and please provide some proof here - then this is again part of the guidance we have no access to and should be something most if not all missiles share, while the range of the aim54 will be somewhat more exposing to these issues than shorter ranged missiles. The very same goes for the floating up high dead. Missile self-destruct iirc is by ground speed, so up high, to reach a speed low enough to go "pop", will take naturally longer. Maybe it also needs a minimum altitude to hit the paramaters for self destruct, I honestly would not know.

That all said, we are very much aware of remaining issues and also very much interested in fixing them with our partners at ED as soon as we can. 🙂


You only have to watch many people pitch up 10 15 degrees with all actives trying to create that loft, Thats an user error although i personally have never pre lofted aim54s and still found them shooting to the moon. Glad its fixed this patch tho.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Coxy_99 said:


You only have to watch many people pitch up 10 15 degrees with all actives trying to create that loft, Thats an user error although i personally have never pre lofted aim54s and still found them shooting to the moon. Glad its fixed this patch tho.

A phoenix trying to go straight up is not really unrealistic. Ofc, it should at some point level and descend towards the target again...

  • Like 1

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chart time!

Click Here for Google Sheets to Graphs

500m

Spoiler

AIM-54_Whitepaper_Tests_500m.png

AIM-54_Whitepaper_Tests_500m_Air_Distanc

 

6km

Spoiler

AIM-54_Whitepaper_Tests_6km.png

AIM-54_Whitepaper_Tests_6km_Air_Distance

 

12km

Spoiler

AIM-54_Whitepaper_Tests_12km.png

 

AIM-54_Whitepaper_Tests_12km_Air_Distanc

 

In conclusion: Bring an Mk47 motor variant.

Also nozzle_exit_area still equals 1e-6.


Edited by DSplayer
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

-Tinkerer, Certified F-14 and AIM-54 Nut | Discord: @dsplayer

Setup: i7-8700k, GTX 1080 Ti, 32GB 3066Mhz, Lots of Storage, Saitek/Logitech X56 HOTAS, TrackIR + TrackClipPro
Modules: F-14, F/A-18, JF-17, F-16C, Mirage 2000C, FC3, F-5E, Mi-24P, AJS-37, AV-8B, A-10C II, AH-64D, MiG-21bis, F-86F, MiG-19P, P-51D, Mirage F1, L-39, C-101, SA342M, Ka-50 III, Supercarrier, F-15E
Maps: Caucasus, Marianas, South Atlantic, Persian Gulf, Syria, Nevada

Mods I've Made: F-14 Factory Clean Cockpit Mod | Modern F-14 Weapons Mod | Iranian F-14 Weapons Pack | F-14B Nozzle Percentage Mod + Label Fix | AIM-23 Hawk Mod for F-14 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Coxy_99 said:


You only have to watch many people pitch up 10 15 degrees with all actives trying to create that loft, Thats an user error although i personally have never pre lofted aim54s and still found them shooting to the moon. Glad its fixed this patch tho.

Pre-lofting and AIM-54 is just not a thing. Doing that and expecting better performance is not realistic as much as having them go straight up isn't either.

 

10 minutes ago, cheezit said:

Are the MBAM and the loft one continuous maneuver in the model for DCS?

Yes, we can't control the missile enough to do the MBAM seperately.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, draconus said:

"NEW: Added pilot body in the cockpit view" line missing from the changelog.

 

If only...

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2+3 base / CM2 x2 grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2/3 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals

OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS "HIGH" preset

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

welcome back to the garbage 30nm barely mach 3 aim54 

max speed achieved for the aim 54c 1900 knots at launch parameters of 35000fts 700knots and 0° pitch angle

even the amraam is faster now

so long old mk60 u ll be missed dearly


Edited by Redounet
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

RipMk60Motor.jpg

😅

  • Like 15

-Tinkerer, Certified F-14 and AIM-54 Nut | Discord: @dsplayer

Setup: i7-8700k, GTX 1080 Ti, 32GB 3066Mhz, Lots of Storage, Saitek/Logitech X56 HOTAS, TrackIR + TrackClipPro
Modules: F-14, F/A-18, JF-17, F-16C, Mirage 2000C, FC3, F-5E, Mi-24P, AJS-37, AV-8B, A-10C II, AH-64D, MiG-21bis, F-86F, MiG-19P, P-51D, Mirage F1, L-39, C-101, SA342M, Ka-50 III, Supercarrier, F-15E
Maps: Caucasus, Marianas, South Atlantic, Persian Gulf, Syria, Nevada

Mods I've Made: F-14 Factory Clean Cockpit Mod | Modern F-14 Weapons Mod | Iranian F-14 Weapons Pack | F-14B Nozzle Percentage Mod + Label Fix | AIM-23 Hawk Mod for F-14 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DSplayer said:

Chart time!

Click Here for Google Sheets to Graphs

500m

  Reveal hidden contents

AIM-54_Whitepaper_Tests_500m.png

AIM-54_Whitepaper_Tests_500m_Air_Distanc

 

6km

  Reveal hidden contents

AIM-54_Whitepaper_Tests_6km.png

AIM-54_Whitepaper_Tests_6km_Air_Distance

 

12km

  Reveal hidden contents

AIM-54_Whitepaper_Tests_12km.png

 

AIM-54_Whitepaper_Tests_12km_Air_Distanc

 

In conclusion: Bring an Mk47 motor variant.

Also nozzle_exit_area still equals 1e-6.

 

So now performance is considerably lower than the CFD simulations even for mk47 motor.

The question is which one is correct? the CFD simulation or the performance we have now in game.


 

whitepaper.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Katsu said:

So now performance is considerably lower than the CFD simulations even for mk47 motor.

The question is which one is correct? the CFD simulation or the performance we have now in game.


 

whitepaper.jpg

The whitepaper is obsolete now, because the values calculated back then, to the best knowledge available, gave wrong results. These do not hold up anymore, with what we found. But nothing changed on the aerodynamics. The whitepaper only shows now what changed between implementing the phoenix back in 2019 and now.

  • Like 2

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IronMike said:

The whitepaper is obsolete now, because the values calculated back then, to the best knowledge available, gave wrong results. These do not hold up anymore, with what we found. But nothing changed on the aerodynamics. The whitepaper only shows now what changed between implementing the phoenix back in 2019 and now.

Ty for the answer!

Now it's very clear,

You guys really did a amazing research job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DSplayer said:

 

RipMk60Motor.jpg

😅

 

The INS performance and active mode recovery capability in the C are far more than worth the impulse loss.  


Addendum:

Who was the one complaining about low level CFM performance that started the whole process of correction?  Ya'll wanted more realism; don't be mad that ya'll got more realism.  😉


Edited by lunaticfringe
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe to visualize it all a bit, here are 4 tacviews, of each variant, approximating a test from 1973. I am not abiding by the parameters, except co alt, around m1, 25k feet, around 60nm.

 

65nm_Tu160x6_6xAmk47_25k.zip.acmi 65nm_Tu160x6_6xAmk60_25k.zip.acmi 65nm_Tu160x6_6xCmk47_25k.zip.acmi 65nm_Tu160x6_6xCmk60_25k.zip.acmi

  • Like 2

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

38 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

 

The INS performance and active mode recovery capability in the C are far more than worth the impulse loss.  


Addendum:

Who was the one complaining about low level CFM performance that started the whole process of correction?  Ya'll wanted more realism; don't be mad that ya'll got more realism.  😉

 

 

yeah i guess having rocket nozzles physic resumed to "nozzle_exit_area" and having it set up to 1e-6/0.000001 wich is a 1000 times smaller than the aim 120 is "realism"

didnt know the ISP of those rockets was so low also

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Redounet said:

yeah i guess having rocket nozzles physic resumed to "nozzle_exit_area" and having it set up to 1e-6/0.000001 wich is a 1000 times smaller than the aim 120 is "realism"

didnt know the ISP of those rockets was so low also

 

It's one thing at a time.  You're welcome to get mad and stompy about it; not going to change the fact it's an iterative process.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe one more thing to visualize: AIM-54C, turned off the WCS entirely half way of the missile's flight. Launched from the RIO seat, waited for them to reach around peak of their loft, turned WCS off. (So pretty much half way of their flight.)

 

AIM54C_WCS OFF Half Way.zip.acmi

  • Like 1

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im not mad just disapointed

personally i dont care can edit lua all the way

youre selling something as a huge step forward when all that has been done is put active by default to 1 and adjusting values to balance this game instead of looking for realism

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still testing. however, the seeker on the AIM-54 Mk60 -A is certainly different. 

From my testing so far here are some guidelines. Hot target, 30,000+ feet Mach 1+, max range where I'm getting hits is 60 NM.  (TU-22)

The mad dog launch is... strange. I had a missile completely ignore a TU22 directly in front of me, 6 NM, PAL with ACM cover open. Missile flew directly past with the aircraft well within the seeker field of view. 

when I shot at targets I was chasing, and having jester STT them, all shots over 8 NM missed. 

Beaming shots, 16 NM seems to be max range with the AIM-54 MK60-A.

Again, targets were TU22's at 30,000. 

Nose on. 60 NM

Beaming. 16 NM

Tail chase STT NM

PAL and ACM mad dog didn't score any hits so far. 

I'm still testing. 

EDIT: Use one of the C versions. Yeah, they are impressive, at least so far. You can clearly see the improvements to the seeker head. 


Edited by Dscross
Adding C data.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Redounet said:

welcome back to the garbage 30nm barely mach 3 aim54 

max speed achieved for the aim 54c 1900 knots at launch parameters of 35000fts 700knots and 0° pitch angle

even the amraam is faster now

so long old mk60 u ll be missed dearly

 

 

43,000' launch at 660 knots at 70 miles range attains 2,870 knots at 76,000'; that's Mach 5, or, as we like to call it- "faster than an AMRAAM".



mach 5.png

UPDATE:

Taking a mea culpa on this.  Spent an hour trying to figure out why others can't reproduce, and why I couldn't reproduce, and it came down to an update error on my part; the test build files were where they should be, the timestamps are all right, and the Tacview recordings from prior to the last OB and after this show additional tests with the updated guidance logic; just looks like I didn't delete the necessary files before this particular test series.   So yes- the engines on this Tacview were firing 30 seconds rather than the reduced value they should.  

 

Tacview-20220824-235655-DCS-MiG-31_Test_Intercept.zip.acmi


Edited by lunaticfringe
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dscross said:

I'm still testing. however, the seeker on the AIM-54 Mk60 -A is certainly different. 

From my testing so far here are some guidelines. Hot target, 30,000+ feet Mach 1+, max range where I'm getting hits is 60 NM.  (TU-22)

The mad dog launch is... strange. I had a missile completely ignore a TU22 directly in front of me, 6 NM, PAL with ACM cover open. Missile flew directly past with the aircraft well within the seeker field of view. 

when I shot at targets I was chasing, and having jester STT them, all shots over 8 NM missed. 

Beaming shots, 16 NM seems to be max range with the AIM-54 MK60-A.

Again, targets were TU22's at 30,000. 

Nose on. 60 NM

Beaming. 16 NM

Tail chase STT NM

PAL and ACM mad dog didn't score any hits so far. 

I'm still testing. 

EDIT: Use one of the C versions. Yeah, they are impressive, at least so far. You can clearly see the improvements to the seeker head. 

 

110nm is no problemo with both A or C on high non maneuvering.

ACM cover up also works with the mk60, see attached tacview. ACM trumps PAL, but you need to aim the cross at the target, the cone is very small.

8nm on a chase, depending on altitude, will not work. That is way longer than the motor burns, add the missile's drag, and somewhere below 4nm is the range you are looking at.

You are not supposed to do full gimbal shots, unless you meant on a beaming target, rather than beaming (or cranking) yourself. But depending on setup, you can fire full gimbal shots from further out than that. However, put the T on the target, preferably. You are else bleeding away energy for no good reason. It's not an eagle with an amraam.

Also tested PAL and worked fine with all 4 missiles.

Mk60_ACM cover up.zip.acmi

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...