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

[stormrider2]

TBH, competitive is not the word I would expect in DCS. Make it realistic please.

[Noctrach]

1 hour ago, KlarSnow said:

And what missile would hit any maneuvering target at 2,000 feet AGL from 50 miles? Cause last I checked the AMRAAM cant do that, and the phoenix can.

The point was not that it was the deadliest missile in existence, the point was that it had capability which is still unique to the Phoenix. Of course the bandits all could have immediately turned around and run away and the missiles wouldnt have hit.... but neither would an AMRAAM, or an R27ER, or an SD-10, or an R-77. None of those would have come remotely close to what the AIM-54 did in that shot.

One of them did drag out and that missile did not connect. Again, Could any other missile in DCS fired under the parameters IronMike Presented do any better?

 

The parameters are every so slightly worse because I didn't realise my throttle wasn't in gate, but a quick test shows that the AIM-120C arrives on target just as well as the Phoenix. The fact the missiles hit in those shots is, as @Callsign JoNay said, mostly because of the AI's poor manoeuvring.

This is absolutely near the limit of the AIM-120s battery life but still equally achievable (TOF is 1:30, identical to the Phoenix). Had I fired at slightly higher mach, it would've fared slightly better.

There's probably tactics to devise to make the Phoenix effective, but I will say I'm desperately waiting for the FM patch that allows us to cross transonic speed in timely manner, because as it is firing from these high altitudes and speeds is challenging at the best of times.

AIM-120-C5-High-Low-DCS.zip.acmi

Edited September 3, 2022 by Noctrach

[DSplayer]

5 minutes ago, Noctrach said:

The parameters are every so slightly worse because I didn't realise my throttle wasn't in gate, but a quick test shows that the AIM-120C arrives on target just as well as the Phoenix. The fact the missiles hit in those shots is, as @Callsign JoNay said, mostly because of the AI's poor manoeuvring.

This is absolutely near the limit of the AIM-120s battery life but still equally achievable (TOF is 1:30, identical to the Phoenix). Had I fired at slightly higher mach, it would've fared slightly better.

AIM-120-C5-High-Low-DCS.zip.acmi 155.18 kB · 2 downloads

 

It also good to note that the AIM-120C-5s do have a different guidance API/scheme and because of that, the missile does lose speed a lot quicker once it is active due to some particularities in its guidance that aren't there with the older guidance API that the AIM-54 is using. But looking at the pure kinetics of it, like what Noctrach said, the AIM-120C-5s go active against the enemy MiGs at the approx the same speed of Mach 2 and they hit the MiGs at a higher speed too (approx +0.1 Mach).

[KlarSnow]

3 minutes ago, Noctrach said:

The parameters are every so slightly worse because I didn't realise my throttle wasn't in gate, but a quick test shows that the AIM-120C arrives on target just as well as the Phoenix. The fact the missiles hit in those shots is, as @Callsign JoNay said, mostly because of the AI's poor manoeuvring.

AIM-120-C5-High-Low-DCS.zip.acmi 155.18 kB · 1 download

And all of those missiles are just below mach 1 when they impact as well. So again, what exactly is the point. The claim was can't hit a maneuvering target, that is obviously false. So now the parameters have changed to cant hit a smartly maneuvering target and its too slow when it does, and of course the AI is dumb so its not valid. So what would constitute a valid test. 

All that has been said here is the shots aren't valid for some reason because 1) the AI is dumb and 2) the missile terminates subsonic. If you get hit by a subsonic missile are you not just as dead as if it is supersonic?

Basically this is a very silly deflection, either give an actual parameter for the missile to be tested against and why it is/isn't valid, or stop making nebulous claims like "can't hit a low altitude target". That is demonstrably not factual.

In either case why is this a defining issue for the missile. I don't have any reason to believe the real thing should be particularly good or bad in this scenario, none of these results seem to be surprising at all.

Just now, DSplayer said:

It also good to note that the AIM-120C-5s do have a different guidance API/scheme and because of that, the missile does lose speed a lot quicker once it is active due to some particularities in its guidance that aren't there with the older guidance API that the AIM-54 is using. But looking at the pure kinetics of it, like what Noctrach said, the AIM-120C-5s go active against the enemy MiGs at the approx the same speed of Mach 2 and they hit the MiGs at a higher speed too (approx +0.1 Mach).

And how does this apply to whether or not the results Ironmike posted or the tactical utility of the Phoenix are reasonable or not.

[DSplayer]

1 minute ago, KlarSnow said:

And how does this apply to whether or not the results Ironmike posted or the tactical utility of the Phoenix are reasonable or not.

I'm stating that the AIM-120C-5s, with absolutely perfect guidance with no twitching and abnormal seeker performance, would have performed better. And that coupled with the already higher entry speed of the AIM-120C-5 during that scenario, the AMRAAM would've done better than the AIM-54. Especially since you posed the question "could any other missile in DCS fired under the parameters IronMike Presented do any better?" and the AIM-120C-5 did better in a similar scenario/parameters.

[DSplayer]

2 hours ago, Machalot said:

My opinion -- not representing HB or anybody but myself -- I think it's likely the Army document you're referring to is incorrect.  I put together a comparison using the HB Aim-54 white paper.  Numbers highlighted in red are what I consider suspicious and not likely realistic.  The data in the AIM-54A-Mk60 column derives from the document in question.  Note that the Mk60 somehow fits 45 kg (27.6%) more propellant into the same volume as the Mk47.  In fact it appears to claim the Mk60 propellant mass is greater than the entire Mk47 rocket motor (including propellant, insulation, case, supporting structure, and nozzle).  It's not really plausible.  I think it's likely the 208 kg of propellant listed in that document erroneously included the entire Mk60 rocket motor, not just the propellant mass, and that the actual masses and performance of the two rocket motors is very close.

This seems to be true if I cross reference my copy of "An Outsider’s View Of The Phoenix/AWG-9 Weapon System, Stephen Thornton Long, Naval Postgraduate School, March 1977" (also used in the old whitepaper) which says that the characteristics of the Aerojet Mk 60 Mod 0 motor had a total weight of 199 kg (439 lbs). However in the same document, it says that "the solid propellant rocket motor has a total impulse of approximately 97,000 lb-sec [~431477.5 N-sec] and an average thrust of approximately 4,000 lbs [~17792.886 Newtons] with a burn time of more than 25 seconds, depending on the temperature" when referring to what seems like both the Mk47 Mod 0 and Mk60 Mod 0 motors.

 

If you were to compare that with our current Mk47 and Mk60 motor performance, the motors are lacking in approximately 15000 lb-sec [~66723.3 N-sec] of total impulse.

[Noctrach]

16 minutes ago, KlarSnow said:

And all of those missiles are just below mach 1 when they impact as well. So again, what exactly is the point. The claim was can't hit a maneuvering target, that is obviously false. So now the parameters have changed to cant hit a smartly maneuvering target and its too slow when it does, and of course the AI is dumb so its not valid. So what would constitute a valid test. 

All that has been said here is the shots aren't valid for some reason because 1) the AI is dumb and 2) the missile terminates subsonic. If you get hit by a subsonic missile are you not just as dead as if it is supersonic?

Basically this is a very silly deflection, either give an actual parameter for the missile to be tested against and why it is/isn't valid, or stop making nebulous claims like "can't hit a low altitude target". That is demonstrably not factual.

In either case why is this a defining issue for the missile. I don't have any reason to believe the real thing should be particularly good or bad in this scenario, none of these results seem to be surprising at all.

And how does this apply to whether or not the results Ironmike posted or the tactical utility of the Phoenix are reasonable or not.

The claim was the AMRAAM could not match these shots, I simply demonstrated it can. Nearly 1:1, in fact.

I don't see anyone claiming it can't hit low targets. Only that the AI is dumb enough to continue cranking into an active missile.

I have no other stake in this argument.

[Noctrach]

(Also, fix for STT ghost tracks when? With the new A this would really be useful...)

[Machalot]

35 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

This seems to be true if I cross reference my copy of "An Outsider’s View Of The Phoenix/AWG-9 Weapon System, Stephen Thornton Long, Naval Postgraduate School, March 1977" (also used in the old whitepaper) which says that the characteristics of the Aerojet Mk 60 Mod 0 motor had a total weight of 199 kg (439 lbs). However in the same document, it says that "the solid propellant rocket motor has a total impulse of approximately 97,000 lb-sec [~431477.5 N-sec] and an average thrust of approximately 4,000 lbs [~17792.886 Newtons] with a burn time of more than 25 seconds, depending on the temperature" when referring to what seems like both the Mk47 Mod 0 and Mk60 Mod 0 motors.

 

If you were to compare that with our current Mk47 and Mk60 motor performance, the motors are lacking in approximately 15000 lb-sec [~66723.3 N-sec] of total impulse.

I could believe that.  It appears the new Isp of both motors is only 230 s, which seems low based nothing but my own experience.  If it were 250 s like it was before, that would make up half the difference. 

Your excerpt doesn't quote the altitude or ambient pressure for that impulse figure.  Do you have an idea what it might be?  I don't know the nozzle exit area, but suppose the nozzle exit diameter is half of the outer diameter of the missile, or 14 cm.  That is an exit area of 0.015 m^2.  If DCS inputs provide impulse at sea level, and your figures are at 40,000 ft or a vacuum, there would be an additional 1200 - 1500 N of thrust, which just about makes up the remainder. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Machalot

[DSplayer]

32 minutes ago, Machalot said:

I could believe that.  It appears the new Isp of both motors is only 230 s, which seems low based nothing but my own experience.  If it were 250 s like it was before, that would make up half the difference. 

Your excerpt doesn't quote the altitude or ambient pressure for that impulse figure.  Do you have an idea what it might be?  I don't know the nozzle exit area, but suppose the nozzle exit diameter is half of the outer diameter of the missile, or 14 cm.  That is an exit area of 0.015 m^2.  If DCS inputs provide impulse at sea level, and your figures are at 40,000 ft or a vacuum, there would be an additional 1200 - 1500 N of thrust, which just about makes up the remainder. 

Unfortunately the document doesn't appear to mention any parameters regarding those specific numbers (altitude, temperature, etc.) but I'd assume that these values come from a Standard Aircraft Characteristics or Standard Missile Characteristics document that NAVAIR created (similar documents exist for the AIM-7F and some AIM-9s) which are typically measured at sea level at around ~60°F to ~70°F.

 

In terms of nozzle_exit_area, I know that the value we have for the R-33E in-game is 0.025 m^2 (which is a pretty close analogue to the AIM-54 but the nozzle is noticeably smaller than the AIM-54's) and utilizing a cutaway diagram of the AIM-54 and measuring known points with SketchUp, I can determine that the nozzle is roughly 9.45 inches in diameter or 0.04525 m^2 for a nozzle_exit_area. When I did testing back in August in relation to nozzle_exit_areas, I had noticed that an increase in Mach of approx 0.5 if I had used the R-33E's value when launched at 12km in a straight line. Rather interesting stuff.

Edited September 3, 2022 by DSplayer

[FWind]

4 hours ago, Machalot said:

My opinion -- not representing HB or anybody but myself -- I think it's likely the Army document you're referring to is incorrect.  I put together a comparison using the HB Aim-54 white paper.  Numbers highlighted in red are what I consider suspicious and not likely realistic.  The data in the AIM-54A-Mk60 column derives from the document in question.  Note that the Mk60 somehow fits 45 kg (27.6%) more propellant into the same volume as the Mk47.  In fact it appears to claim the Mk60 propellant mass is greater than the entire Mk47 rocket motor (including propellant, insulation, case, supporting structure, and nozzle).  It's not really plausible.  I think it's likely the 208 kg of propellant listed in that document erroneously included the entire Mk60 rocket motor, not just the propellant mass, and that the actual masses and performance of the two rocket motors is very close.

Edited September 3, 2022 by FWind

[Machalot]

7 minutes ago, FWind said:

That's not detailed enough to determine the SRM component masses. 

[DSplayer]

5 minutes ago, FWind said:

It's possible that the NASA Hypersonic Test Bed document/slideshow details the weight for the later model AIM-54C+ which perhaps has an even more improved motor over the Mk47 Mod 1? (Btw this document was also used in the old Whitepaper as a source)

[Xl-45]

The main issue against AI seems to be their ability to see every missile at 10 nm, even if fired in TWS with TGT Size Switch in "Small".
It results in good level AI (Veteran/Ace) being able to beat any incoming long range phoenix as long as they turn around and drag the missile, even when flying at 40k FT.

As for example, 1 Phoenix fired at 42.5k FT Mach 0.90, TgT Size Switch Small, against a Veteran F16 flying at 40k FT Mach 1, 50 nm away.
The Phoenix goes active at around 5.2 nm from the F16, but the latter begins to defend at 10 nm ! This results in the missile missing by 0.65 nm, thus making long range shots, even against "perfect" targets, low PK.
It also happened with the older AIM-54, but the missile was able to reach its target anyway (if the latter was flying +30k FT) since the terminal velocity was higher.

Do we know if ED works on that issue ?

AI Drag.acmi

[FWind]

29 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

It's possible that the NASA Hypersonic Test Bed document/slideshow details the weight for the later model AIM-54C+ which perhaps has an even more improved motor over the Mk47 Mod 1? (Btw this document was also used in the old Whitepaper as a source)

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/ntsp/aim54.htm

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, Xl-45 said:

The main issue against AI seems to be their ability to see every missile at 10 nm, even if fired in TWS with TGT Size Switch in "Small".
It results in good level AI (Veteran/Ace) being able to beat any incoming long range phoenix as long as they turn around and drag the missile, even when flying at 40k FT.

As for example, 1 Phoenix fired at 42.5k FT Mach 0.90, TgT Size Switch Small, against a Veteran F16 flying at 40k FT Mach 1, 50 nm away.
The Phoenix goes active at around 5.2 nm from the F16, but the latter begins to defend at 10 nm ! This results in the missile missing by 0.65 nm, thus making long range shots, even against "perfect" targets, low PK.
It also happened with the older AIM-54, but the missile was able to reach its target anyway (if the latter was flying +30k FT) since the terminal velocity was higher.

Do we know if ED works on that issue ?

AI Drag.acmi 86.74 kB · 0 downloads

You can't just post 1 result of a test, without showing what happens at the end, too (did the AI crash? -> that is a kill fwiw), and say it is the "main" issue. You need to keep at it a bit more.

Check out the tacviews below, it does intercept AI in a split S, at ACE, set to engage at max range, set to engage unit (me). Not all missiles connect, but the vast majority, and the AI always buys it, no matter which aircraft how high, or low.

Also, to answer your question: tgt size switch will not matter in the C now anymore, due to how actives are in DCS. This is also why the AI registers the missile going active at 10nm. Whether or not this will be different in the future I do not know. We hope that we will be able to model the guidance - also in relation to PDSTT - more accurately in the future. The A will still offer the benefit of the tgt size switch against players however (but not against AI).

In general, not in reply to the above:

The post I made earlier btw is not a comparison to what an aim120 does. This is secondary (though natural that it is interesting ofc). There are certainly things the aim120 can do which the aim54 cannot, and vice versa. There are ranges at which the aim120 will not keep up anymore.

Yes, these tacviews are AI, which is a fair estimate of how your average to below average player would do online with a poor SA. Bringing into the discussion the highly skilled above average player is a bit besides the point: a skilled player will dodge your aim120 from 5nm. That does not mean the aim120 is ineffective beyond 5nm. Nor does it mean that because a skilled player can dodge an aim54 at this or that range, it is ineffective outside of that. There are so many factors that play into it, but no matter how you twist it: the aim54 remains the longest and also one of the deadliest sticks in game, when used appropriately, to its advantage, etc. That is the whole point.

Imagine we had never miscalculated the mk60 motor - and our apology that we did - and would have released the aim54 as it is now. It would not bother your expectation grown out of experience of how the missile used to be. You would simply learn it, use it, experience it, test it, make it work under these or those situations, etc...

If you think chipping off performance of our missiles is fun for us, it isn't. But if the numbers we have dictate a correction, we must follow suit. We cannot share the data you are asking, besides presenting it in the form of the missile you now have. I know, anyone could claim such and such. But please keep in mind, and allow me to invoke what else I would absolutely hate to invoke: we're not anyone, we cannot share everything for various reasons, and we've always vowed to abide by a higher standard of quality and realism. Else, we would have left the missile as was, and not reduced its motors to more realistic numbers.

Give it some time, re-learn it. It does have a correct place on the history scale now, and that makes it a) something new that we all learned to re-experience the history of the Tomcat more accurately and b) also a fun, yet still capable challenge in the playing field of more modern adversaries.

By all this I also do not mean we're unfailable or that everything with the missile is now super duper bug-free, that everything is perfect. It is not, and we will continue to push to improve what we can. But please do not expect any more drastic changes in performance in the future. With what we know now, it is very unlikely. I guess I am saying this, because the sooner we all accept where the missile settles in now, the sooner we can all get good with it again.





 

vs4xMig29low_medium range.zip.acmi vs1xF16_3.zip.acmi vs1xF16_2.zip.acmi vs1xF16_1.zip.acmi vs1xMig31_maneuverkill.zip.acmi vs1xMig31.zip.acmi vs2xMig31.zip.acmi

Edited September 3, 2022 by IronMike

[Zaphael]

9 hours ago, IronMike said:

There's nothing to fix. It climbs as fast as high as it can, which does make sense. It helps it maintain a higher terminal speed by making the most out of the motor burn time in the climb, thus gaining the highest altitude at the highest possible energy. You can also see that irl videos, iirc someone shared that recently on these forums even. If it would not do that, it would lose significantly more energy during the gliding phase through denser air.  

Thanks IronMike and the entire Heatblur team for trying to make the Phoenix as real as it can get. The guidance and intercept trajectories seem a lot more sensible now and do not shed of as much speed. From my limited observations, they also do not shed as energy reacting to targets rolling.

Just a few observations (happy as it is, so I hope this is not seen as nitpicking):

Comparing against the live-fire missile shots, the initial launch to loft of the DCS Phoenixes do seem a little too steep prematurely. From the footages, it looks like the Phoenix uses its initial boost to push away from the Tomcat first (gaining speed), before initiating a steep climb.  From the pilots viewing perspective, the missile trail in the climb will be high above the canopy bow, but not that high. 

 

Second observation which is probably hard to verify, is when the missile *begins* to apex the boost climb. It does not seem sensible that the missile designers did not reserve some seconds of the rocket burn for the missile to gain speed at thin air. I would think that the missile definitely should not use its entire burn time for a climb, but have some remaining for near level flight in order to achieve higher velocities. This is purely a speculative point on my part. I think few would know the actual missile profile at that stage.

Cheers!

 

[IronMike]

7 minutes ago, Zaphael said:

Thanks IronMike and the entire Heatblur team for trying to make the Phoenix as real as it can get. The guidance and intercept trajectories seem a lot more sensible now and do not shed of as much speed. From my limited observations, they also do not shed as energy reacting to targets rolling.

Just a few observations (happy as it is, so I hope this is not seen as nitpicking):

Comparing against the live-fire missile shots, the initial launch to loft of the DCS Phoenixes do seem a little too steep prematurely. From the footages, it looks like the Phoenix uses its initial boost to push away from the Tomcat first (gaining speed), before initiating a steep climb.  From the pilots viewing perspective, the missile trail in the climb will be high above the canopy bow, but not that high. 

 

Second observation which is probably hard to verify, is when the missile *begins* to apex the boost climb. It does not seem sensible that the missile designers did not reserve some seconds of the rocket burn for the missile to gain speed at thin air. I would think that the missile definitely should not use its entire burn time for a climb, but have some remaining for near level flight in order to achieve higher velocities. This is purely a speculative point on my part. I think few would know the actual missile profile at that stage.

Cheers!

 

Indeed, and unfortunately both are limitations of DCS currently. As for the first, there is also rl footage of aim54s going sky high (cant find it now, but it is on these forums), but in DCS the loft is a compromise of sorts, which we have very limited access to, we can turn it on or off and tweak it a little bit here and there, of which the best result is as currently is. I also don't think we can split motor burn stages atm. Maybe this will be possible in the future (that said I do not know if it did at all and never heard of it, though it would make sense to some extent.)

Edited September 3, 2022 by IronMike

[Xl-45]

2 hours ago, IronMike said:

You can't just post 1 result of a test, without showing what happens at the end, too (did the AI crash? -> that is a kill fwiw), and say it is the "main" issue. You need to keep at it a bit more.

Check out the tacviews below, it does intercept AI in a split S, at ACE, set to engage at max range, set to engage unit (me). Not all missiles connect, but the vast majority, and the AI always buys it, no matter which aircraft how high, or low.

Also, to answer your question: tgt size switch will not matter in the C now anymore, due to how actives are in DCS. This is also why the AI registers the missile going active at 10nm. Whether or not this will be different in the future I do not know. We hope that we will be able to model the guidance - also in relation to PDSTT - more accurately in the future. The A will still offer the benefit of the tgt size switch against players however (but not against AI).

I said "it seems", i didn't shout it as if it was a fact, no need to be aggressive there, and like i've said, it is only an issue if the AI goes into a split s then turns cold, it does not happen everytime, sometime the AI prefers to just flank/beam/Split S ... and in those cases, the 54C works great, like what's shown in your tacviews. And my apologies if i was misunderstood and for not giving a full tacview (the AI did not crash).

Your tacviews are nice, but with all due respect, i think that those speed and altitudes are too optimistic for most flights (mach 1.2 at 46k ft is not easy to obtain).
I did a few tries flying at Mach 1.05 40k FT against an ACE MiG-29S at 40k FT Mach 1.0, 70 nm:
The Phoenix succeeds most of the time, the only time it didn't, was because the AI dragged it all the way down without trying to turn hot into me (as you can see in the tacview attached to this post). 

Having the possibility to use Target Size Switch (btw, thanks for the information, i didn't know that it wasn't functional anymore with the C) again with the 54C and a proper AI reaction to it would even more improve the effectiveness of the AIM-54, because as for instance that's the main issue i could find with the AIM-54 against AIs, that's what i meant since the beginning.

That's just a pitty since the guidance is amazing now, as you can see in the tacview below, where the 54C is able to follow a downhill cranking F16 easily and even score an impact 
at 900 FT AGL.

Anyway i know that it isn't only about HB, specially when talking about missiles and AIs, i hope that'll be done sometime and congrats for all the research you have done.

drag2.acmi High-low.acmi

[IronMike]

43 minutes ago, Xl-45 said:

I said "it seems", i didn't shout it as if it was a fact, no need to be aggressive there, and like i've said, it is only an issue if the AI goes into a split s then turns cold, it does not happen everytime, sometime the AI prefers to just flank/beam/Split S ... and in those cases, the 54C works great, like what's shown in your tacviews. And my apologies if i was misunderstood and for not giving a full tacview (the AI did not crash).

Your tacviews are nice, but with all due respect, i think that those speed and altitudes are too optimistic for most flights (mach 1.2 at 46k ft is not easy to obtain).
I did a few tries flying at Mach 1.05 40k FT against an ACE MiG-29S at 40k FT Mach 1.0, 70 nm:
The Phoenix succeeds most of the time, the only time it didn't, was because the AI dragged it all the way down without trying to turn hot into me (as you can see in the tacview attached to this post). 

Having the possibility to use Target Size Switch (btw, thanks for the information, i didn't know that it wasn't functional anymore with the C) again with the 54C and a proper AI reaction to it would even more improve the effectiveness of the AIM-54, because as for instance that's the main issue i could find with the AIM-54 against AIs, that's what i meant since the beginning.

That's just a pitty since the guidance is amazing now, as you can see in the tacview below, where the 54C is able to follow a downhill cranking F16 easily and even score an impact 
at 900 FT AGL.

Anyway i know that it isn't only about HB, specially when talking about missiles and AIs, i hope that'll be done sometime and congrats for all the research you have done.

drag2.acmi 84.54 kB · 0 downloads High-low.acmi 159.34 kB · 0 downloads

My apologies if that came across as aggressive, it was not meant to. We just need to be careful to not elevate quick tests and first views and glances to a level of new facts, before having spent enough time with it. I've been using it for about 3 weeks now iirc and it takes a while to get back into the system as second nature is primarily what I meant.

I agree on the tgt size switch. It's a nice thing to have. We will see what the future holds in this regard.

Nice tacviews yourself btw. The MiG 29 I think will be one of the tougher ones in this regard, because it gets so fast so quick. It was tight, but at the tipping point the missile got below M1.2 and the 29 just above 1.2 ... Very unfortunate.

Edited September 3, 2022 by IronMike

[Redounet]

13 hours ago, IronMike said:

Did you try it extensively yet? Did you take the time to adjust to it? To take shots from favorable parameters?

Like, don't get me wrong guys, we're here to help you adjust, etc. - but being disappointed or mad from just reading a post or maybe trying it for a couple of hours, or less even, and going "it is all meh now", while others already score successfully online, really leads to nowhere.

Take yourselves the time to get used to it please. You can dislike it, and ofc feel free to express it, but it is not leading to something very constructive I may carefully suggest.
 

Tested in dcs Realistic nozzle exit area would give about 10% more at 30k and even more at higher altitude as pressure diff is bigger

It is clearly not the longuest stick anymore even with the sd10 fix this patch

Why even talk about "scoring online" im not here to play counter dcs arena not everybody wants to play deathmatchs

I get that mach 4.5 phoenix is probably an urban legend but mach 3 i dont get it either

I ll let you define your "realism" with the documentation you have

I ll go back to my mach 4.8 aim54 with 260ich isp you can encrypt luas ill find a way around it

Good luck with the future api transition

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Redounet

[lunaticfringe]

You got a 100 mile SD-10 kill tacview since the patch? 

[Rinz1er]

Personally from my own testing. With the suggested nozzle_exit_area change in this thread, the missile performs as expected. Without it, it does seem a bit slow...

[RustBelt]

16 hours ago, plasma1945 said:

So some tests I cranked out -- using standard 60 and  47  -- More testing is required. this is perlim. 

Improvements - significant seeker improvements. Ability to grab on to targets, and seemingly smack enemies trying to do a speed notch even .. in the replay track I re-ran an F15 which got away from my Phoenix was smacked by the updated version.

Changes - and its a CHANGE not a detriment - but I am sure I will get feedaback on my faulty testing etc. So, the shorter burn, cuts the speed for a Phoenix by .5 - 1.5 mach depending on the shot.

Bombers and dumb targets are just as easily smacked.

A player in competition now has more time 10-20 seconds more as the Phoenix now has not been gaining speed for as long and therefore if a pilot begins maneuvers it will drain the lower available energy in the missile.

So in a competition match <10-15 mile shots are possible, but likely to be easier to avoid: in my test in an active 15 mile shot old 54 arrived to target at m 3.8 vs new updated missile at which got there at 2.33.. if the pilot did a couple of turns it would have reduced speed to such that the missile could be out energied. Whereas the old missile not so much perhaps. 

I still stick to my idea that the TOMCAT was designed for Carrier group defense against large targets via the AIm54s (tu-9x 14x 2x etc) ... Whereas just as we saw in TopGUN close up sparrows were the stick to use. We are getting into realism, it would be SWEET if we can get a AIM54a-mk69 a missile for PVP and Competition, something with performance of the old phoenix, as it made the tomcat fun and viable and dangerous enemy in comps.

My 2.5 cents and some videos side by side of the Mk60 behavior. 

PS Cover to support the panic that the update will generate   PANIC PANIC PANIC LOL

 

If the AIM-54 was “competitive” than it wouldn’t have been replaced by the AMRAAM. Compete in a 1983 or earlier locked competition and see how un-competitive it is against Sparrows and old Russian medium rangers from 29As.

Not all competition is SATAL crappy min/max eSport garbage.

[Goodwin]

the rocket has become so slooooooooow that it is almost always just useless. and in any situation, 120 has become better. which of course is very strange.
I can't believe that the very famous phoenix reaches the target at the same time as the f14 launched by this phoenix.
now only 120c