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

[JCTherik]

2 hours ago, Snappy said:

I haven’t touched the phoenixes in quite a while. Did the pre-patch version of it have less susceptibility to notching targets? Or are you disappointed that it has stayed as bad as before?

There's plenty of problems with the phoenix, but arguably the most annoying for the last year was that the phoenix doesn't reacquire target after notching.

Two years ago that didn't really matter, since the kinetics of phoenix were so out of whack that it would often get to target way before the target had a chance to notch, or even saw the tomcat on the radar. Now with slower phoenix, the other aspects are showing up more.

When the phoenix loses track, it used to suddenly pitch up, lose all the speed and get trashed, so everyone just assumed that the pitch-up is the problem. Since it suddenly pitches up, it's no longer looking to where the bandit is, so it's obvious that it can't reacquire the target.

 

Seeing the comments here saying that the pitch-up, which everyone was complaining about, is finally fixed, and yet it's still not reacquiring the target, it is just so disappointing. We were under the wrong assumption that fixing the pitch-up is going to fix the reacquire, which apparently, it didn't. So, back to square one and another year of waiting I guess?

 

The phoenix has been nerfed into oblivion in a very unfortunate interaction of heatblur and ED. And yes, I mean nerfed, as in a gamified sense, because what's happening just isn't any more realistic than what the phoenix was in 2 years ago, it just went from grossly overperforming to grossly underperforming.

Heatblur insists on having phoenix having as realistic performance as possible, and they do that by providing the most accurate values for things like the missile thrust, aerodynamics, nozzle area, exhaust mass, weight, etc. Something like that, but i don't know the details about it.

But ED is the one who actually writes the code that controls all the missiles, since ED controls all DCS missiles once they leave the rail.

And ED's missile code is nowhere near as realistic as heatblur (or many players) would want it, thus no matter how accurate the performance values are being assigned to the phoenix by Heatblur, the actual DCS performance is then gamified by the crappy ED missile code.

This gets doubly important in case of the phoenix, since the phoenix should be guided by datalink from the tomcat radar for the majority of its journey. But the radar code and the RIO cockpit buttons are the domain of heatblur, yet the missile performance, aerodynamics, guidance and general behaviour are ED's code, out of heatblur's control.

There are buttons in the RIO cockpit in DCS that don't do what they should because their purpose is to affect the phoenix while in-flight, but ED's missile code just doesn't take those into account. Heatblur is here at the full mercy of ED being willing to implement any special interaction which heatblur wants to implement between the phoenix and the tomcat, and any interaction that ED is willing to implement is usually fairly simplistic, plus the inevitable bugs end up being nigh impossible to resolve, since there's a tendency from Heatblur to blame ED's crappy missile code for the bugs, and for ED to blame Heatblur's uncompromizing approach to realism, the bug reports just sit here and disgruntled players who report those bugs are sent on endless bounces between the two companies.

Finally, one more but very important reason why the Phoenix is crap is the obvious fact that the true performance of missiles in DCS doesn't actually matter. What matters more is relative performance compared to other missiles and airplanes.

And since good modules with powerful A/A combat sell more, there's inevitably going to be some incentive for performance inflation caused by this conflict of interest.

"Shall we make a realistic module that people wouldn't play, or shall we make an overpowered module that will sell more?"

Sadly, while all the devs are highly committed to realism, some are still more committed than others. And while extreme realism sells lot of modules, sneaking in a little extra unrealistic performance into your module here and there also sells a lot of modules, but for much less effort.

I don't think it's very controversial to say that many modules and missiles are overperforming compared to real life. In my personal, poorly researched and very limited opinion, the biggest offender in terms of flight model was definitely the old gazelle (fixed recently, thank you Polychop!), and one of the biggest and most important current offender is probably (don't hurt me) the hornet and amraam. Interestingly, the viper from the same company seems to be strangely underperforming, so I wouldn't assume too much malice from ED for the overpowered hornet.

Heatblur is uncompromizingly focused on realism, arguably more than most other developers, which is probably one of the reasons why loading into the tomcat always heatshrinks my PC a little. Heatblur's approach is to make the module so damn realistic that people will want to play it even if it loses in an engagement more often than not. I like that approach, and I wish all of the companies took the same approach.

I like ED as a company, they care about realism a lot, they're just getting completely outshined by heatblur, but ironically, it's the heatblur's module that suffers a lot due to it.

So, the best thing we can do that I can think of would be to convince ED to raise realism standards for themselves and all the third parties, to at least match the current standards of heatblur.

It's gonna be a long fight though, and a long list of bugs.

Edited August 1, 2023 by JCTherik

[draconus]

50 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

Heatblur is uncompromizingly focused on realism, arguably more than most other developers, which is probably one of the reasons why loading into the tomcat always heatshrinks my PC a little.

Very biased thinking and unfounded accusations. HB also bows to the gamers, more than you know apparently, but that's OT here. PM me if you want my list of unrealistic features.

F-14 has 2 highly detailed cockpits with 4k textures so yes, it does heat up your PC, but not because of realism, and not more than other new 2-seaters like AH-64D or F-15E.

What was fixed and praised as realistic since last big overhaul was the Phoenix FM with new data and C going active. What we got lately was improved lofting and fixing target losing behavior. No one reported the inability to reacquire yet with a track. Since no AI behavior was changed the problem stays as is wrt to AI BVR fights.

Oh, and you want to say Hornet can sling AMRAAM further?

Edited August 1, 2023 by draconus

[JCTherik]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

No one reported the inability to reacquire yet with a track.

The_Tau posted above about missiles just flying by the target.

[draconus]

5 minutes ago, JCTherik said:

The_Tau posted above about missiles just flying by the target.

No track or tacview was provided.

[The_Tau]

50 minutes ago, draconus said:

No track or tacview was provided.

Tacview are in the comment I was responding to

 

[WarthogOsl]

So just to be clear here, in my last screenshot, I believe the missile DID reacquire the bandit.  It was just a bit too late.

[WarthogOsl]

Okay, can't really complain about this...4 54C's vs 4 Foxbats....4 kills (though one was a maneuver kill).  Looking closely, it does look like one missile might have been very briefly notched, but then reacquired. 

Tacview-4-foxbats.zip.acmi

[IronMike]

There will be some notched missiles ofc. But during our tests plenty of missiles connected, and reached really out to touch. Much more than before with the pitch up bug. I recommend observing over a longer period of time, and a greater span of shots. One could fire 50x a shot where the AI notch will favor the AI getting away with it and get the impression the missile is broken, too. So take plenty of different shots across the board over a longer span, and you should see a much higher increase in shots that truly connect. If not, we need to continue improving. But from our testing the results looked very promising. Plenty of x4 and even x6 kills, and long shots, too.

[ValhallaAB]

Tacview-20230731-213101-DCS-Client-PersianConquest_V3.4.zip.acmi

I've done my fair share of testing against AI with the AIM-54, this tacview is just one example of shots that would not have connected if the pitch up bug etc would still be here. It's a 45nm shot against a low MiG-21 while I fly 34k around mach 1. Despite all the near notching behaviour of the AI and the small chaff it released my missile still hit with .8 mach speed. Not great, not terrible. I'm suprised it hit but I've done other missions and gotten great results such as having atleast 5 AI targets do a manouver kill for me... 

[Heliflyr]

Referring to WarthogOs tacview: I thought it was odd that the second AIM54 fired was the lowest, almost 10,000ft lower than the highest missile, and had the lowest Mechanical Energy and was hitting the same speed as the other three. Maybe at that altitude there is no friction. 

Edited August 5, 2023 by Heliflyr

[Kageseigi]

I know there's a lot of talk about AI, but has anyone seen any general improvement in kill percentage against human targets?

Edited August 5, 2023 by Kageseigi

[Despayre]

7 hours ago, Kageseigi said:

I know there's a lot of talk about AI, but has anyone seen any general improvement in kill percentage against human targets?

 

I think that would be very hard to determine. Soo many variables that change... AI will do the same thing every time... 2 humans, not so much, even if both were equally skilled.

As a baseline, if the hits against the AI go up, it's reasonable to assume there would be some corresponding (although not exact) increase against humans too, who, sometimes, are less than perfect, unlike our future overlords.

[GGTharos]

37 minutes ago, Katsu said:

I believe there has been something wrong with the missile since then because on a launch at mach 1.8 practically at 47,000 feet, the missile hits a mach 4 barrier and decelerate:
I'm not an expert in aerodynamics but I believe that with a higher speed and altitude I should have numbers close or even better than you posted since your shot was at mach 1.2 and 45k ft.
 

Best regards.

The real answer here is that you have to do the math.   Air resistance increases exponentially with speed and the missile's thrust is limited.

[GGTharos]

Again the math has to be done to demonstrate that something is wrong.   Once you reach a certain speed, the drag force is a wall that you cannot break through without enough thrust.

Edited August 6, 2023 by GGTharos

[Aekay]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

Again the math has to be done to demonstrate that something is wrong.   Once you reach a certain speed, the drag force is a wall that you cannot break through without enough thrust.

 

So, We have to assume, JNelson and HB team Cheated DCS "Atmosphere" code, to make a 1.5Mach Initial Mother Aircraft left a 4.4Mach Phoenix Son alive? What sense in this?

[draconus]

13 hours ago, Katsu said:

I should have numbers close or even better than you posted since your shot was at mach 1.2 and 45k ft.

No, read again carefully, check the charts thoroughly.

"both missions start at mach 1.2 and 45kft accelerating up to the launch speed" - it means the mission was air-started in these conditions only to accelerate the aircraft to a launch speed and alt, and only then the shot was made.

The MK60 Motor -> Mach 4.3 shot starts at M1.5 57k.

The MK-47 Motor -> Mach 4.4 shot starts at M1.8 52k.

You have choosen the TAS in kts so I don't feel like calculating now, but let's look how your missile barely reached 75k altitude while the M4.3-4.4 shots went 88-93k.

[draconus]

8 hours ago, Aekay said:

So, We have to assume, JNelson and HB team Cheated DCS "Atmosphere" code...

So you've decided unfounded accusations against the professional dev team will be a good first post on the DCS forum?

Edited August 7, 2023 by draconus

[JupiterJoe]

Could the Aim-54C reaquire in real life and can it in the current build?

Edited August 7, 2023 by JupiterJoe

[Schmidtfire]

On 8/5/2023 at 11:10 PM, Kageseigi said:

I know there's a lot of talk about AI, but has anyone seen any general improvement in kill percentage against human targets?

 

I have tried the new changes over several sessions this week. It is still more or less a useless missile against human targets.

The new improvements does not offset the initial issues. 

Most of the time AWG9 track will be lost post launch. I don't know if it's due to server desync/lag or if it really was that primitive in real life.
In a very busy environment, against different targets at different altitudes, I would say 80% of my shots never held the track all the way to active.

If the AIM54 actually goes active properly with track intact, anything at 15k feet or below will have a easy time defeating it due to missile low velocity and long RWR warning time.
Despite it's flight profile, seems like the missile does not enter RWR blind spots during the dive. There should be a switch to change target
size to small for later active/warning, but it seems that it does not work properly at the moment.

My advice is to mainly stick to AIM7 with STT in multiplayer. It is a better missile and more reliable against humans. Not saying HB did a bad job on
the AWG9/AIM54 simulation, but there are reasons why few players fly F14 online. BVR you deal with lost tracks or trashed missiles (at best). At closer ranges
heading towards the merge, you are trying to get Jester say anything but "unable" or "no can do that, boss" 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Schmidtfire

[Aekay]

8 hours ago, draconus said:

So you've decided unfounded accusations against the professional dev team will be a good first post on the DCS forum?

 

I could answer several points to your quote, but I realized that you can't interpret a text, so we wouldn't get anywhere.

 

By the way, this is the second post(?).

[captain_dalan]

Sorry i have been away, but i needed a couple of months of DCS leave. I just got to try the new lofting profile for the first time on the 6 on 6 scenario and a few tactical missions. While the data from the 6 on 6 is conclusive, the tactical scenarios aren't. Will need a much greater sample size before i can make my mind about it. Anyway the takeaway from this hack in the above mentioned scenario are:
1. The missile lofts less, from 68430ft or about, down to 64500ft.
2. The above results in roughly similar time for intercept on hot targets of about 1 minute 58 seconds for the mk47C;
3. The cost payed for this is that 10 miles from the target, the missile arrives with much inferior energy state, mach 1.89, instead of mach 1.98, or about 0.1 mach difference. 
4. The mk60 version of the missile arrives faster at the impact point, at about 1 minute 54 seconds, but pays for this with even lower energy state of mach 1.86.

All missiles fired at mach 0.8, 27800ft altitude, ranges from 50 to 35 miles, in roughly 5 - 10 seconds intervals. How will all this impact tactical employment? No idea. Tackviews enclosed bellow, both the old lofting profile and the new ones.
 

Tacview-20220904-001932-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20220904-003855-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20230807-153502-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk47 C.zip.acmi Tacview-20230807-154120-DCS-September update 1 on 6 test mk60 C.zip.acmi

[Katsu]

On 8/7/2023 at 3:06 AM, draconus said:

No, read again carefully, check the charts thoroughly.

"both missions start at mach 1.2 and 45kft accelerating up to the launch speed" - it means the mission was air-started in these conditions only to accelerate the aircraft to a launch speed and alt, and only then the shot was made.

The MK60 Motor -> Mach 4.3 shot starts at M1.5 57k.

The MK-47 Motor -> Mach 4.4 shot starts at M1.8 52k.

You have choosen the TAS in kts so I don't feel like calculating now, but let's look how your missile barely reached 75k altitude while the M4.3-4.4 shots went 88-93k.

My conclusions really were wrong, I deleted my post as it added nothing to the discussion.

Thanks!

 

[Karon]

On 8/6/2023 at 11:00 PM, Aekay said:

So, We have to assume, JNelson and HB team Cheated DCS "Atmosphere" code, to make a 1.5Mach Initial Mother Aircraft left a 4.4Mach Phoenix Son alive? What sense in this?

Apologies, my Englisch sucks. Can you rephrase and explain what you mean? I am not following you.

[WarthogOsl]

12 hours ago, Karon said:

Apologies, my Englisch sucks. Can you rephrase and explain what you mean? I am not following you.

My English is good.  I think he is a fan of the Phoenix Suns NBA team.  Or maybe the Seattle Supersonics.

[Karon]

I'm gonna leave this here and run away before IM comes with the banhammer

I thought I had seen everything. I was wrong.
Well, at least you know what can happen when you don't drop those pesky extrapolated tracks…

null

Edited August 12, 2023 by Karon