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

[Naquaii]

57 minutes ago, tae. said:

One thing that was talked about earlier in the thread but I still didn't understand / got confused about - the STT breaking lock into an active 54C thing. You stated that was a limitation of the current API / way that missiles work in DCS.

But then there were some comments in this thread about whether a real 54C would do this and the answer also seems to be..yes? Would a real Phoenix go active on a broken STT lock, do we know? Furthermore would it be just PSTT or PDSTT or both?

And finally, if it really would go accurate on a broken lock, is the API limitation relevant for a more accurate simulation? Are there cases where it should not go active?

For me personally this is quite an important point as essentially right now the 54C cannot be carried as a FOX 1 missile, and I would like to know if things will stay that way or if there is a chance they may change in the future as the missile API is improved and we might go back to how it was last update where we had a sort of "hybrid" FOX1/3 Phoenix.

The issue is that if guided by PD-STT the AIM-54C should stay SARH all the way. But it switches to ARH if that guidance stops. We can't model that so currently in DCS you can still see an indication of it going active when shot using PD-STT.

So yeah, the real AIM-54C could do that. No AIM-54 are SARH missiles but they can behave as such when fired in PD-STT.

[jbloomingdale]

1 hour ago, tae. said:

One thing that was talked about earlier in the thread but I still didn't understand / got confused about - the STT breaking lock into an active 54C thing. You stated that was a limitation of the current API / way that missiles work in DCS.

But then there were some comments in this thread about whether a real 54C would do this and the answer also seems to be..yes? Would a real Phoenix go active on a broken STT lock, do we know? Furthermore would it be just PSTT or PDSTT or both?

And finally, if it really would go accurate on a broken lock, is the API limitation relevant for a more accurate simulation? Are there cases where it should not go active?

For me personally this is quite an important point as essentially right now the 54C cannot be carried as a FOX 1 missile, and I would like to know if things will stay that way or if there is a chance they may change in the future as the missile API is improved and we might go back to how it was last update where we had a sort of "hybrid" FOX1/3 Phoenix.

Yes, the real AIM-54C would go active on a dropped track.

P-STT cannot support a Phoenix, if launched with a P-STT it is active off the rail anyway, so that question is moot.

There are cases where it should not go active, namely if launched in PD-STT if the lock is never lost, however, it is not possible to have that behavior in DCS and still allow the capability to go active on dropped tracks.

Functionally, in DCS, this implementation won’t “feel” any different other than an “M” on the target’s RWR. Which is a fine compromise IMO. Your point about Fox 1 / Fox 3 is kind of moot, you’re not going to call “Fox 1” for any Phoenix launch. It is an ARH missile and should always be treated as such.

Edited September 4, 2022 by jbloomingdale

[lunaticfringe]

8 hours ago, roobarbjapan said:

Steady on chap, I was just asking a genuine question. 

Not trying to be aggressive with that remark, just that things are lost to time- whereas the difference is essentially built in to the model here based on the full amount of power delivered.  At two seconds, the difference of total impulse spread across 27 versus 29 seconds isn't going to definitively show at that duration by copious differences in performance; as we already see, the difference for 20 versus 27 seconds is already marginal, so 27 versus 29 is going to legit come out in the wash.  

Conversely, when the Phoenix is the second choice tactically in their guidance for the 20-30 mile region- and that's literally showing in the sim, things are validating like they should.  It doesn't make it a focal point because, "oh, it matches HBs 54 being weak in the short to mid game" , but because of the data and test that went into said tactical development. 

[Soulres]

On 9/2/2022 at 9:45 AM, 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.

The thread was locked shortly after my post and routed others to a dead thread for "Discussion" which is why I assumed so, I guess its just been reopened.

Its doing Loopty loops while tracking and while NOT tracking. See it every session on Tac-View. and while I agree its not exclusive, However it is MUCH more prevalent considering many more 120s(and others) are being shot compared to Phoenixes, Ide bet almost 15-120s for every Phoenix.

"Should improve" but according to the patch notes it doesn't, (much like these updates) they're inconsistent with Whats being Said vs Whats Being Written VS Whats being Done and Whats Actually Happening. While I understand re-explaining how to launch a phoenix might seem like you're proving a point or trying to help, its doing more harm than good cause it comes across as you're trying to discredit people, something the "Testers" are notorious for. But every hour, phoenixes go to the moon, or Dump 50% of the energy going straight up, '90 for no reason but Some belive its like a rare golden egg when it isnt. and I included a video of a buddy who had a Phoenix track around a mountain since somehow you've never seen it. The guy was dead btw .  https://clips.twitch.tv/FineLightAlpacaJonCarnage-KW7_BzY-Rv4Jp2e5

That all said the "remaining issues" (more like same issues)  is after a Major overhaul..again... and while progress towards an actual constant representation is something we all enjoy, every time there is a Phoenix update it really seems like all thats happening is this, Everyone gets used to a sketchy Phoenix, Update breaks it, Testers Deny it(almost like fanboys) and and shoutdown anyone who says otherwise, Patch comes out admitting the problems the community complained about, Testers go quiet(cause they were wrong) wait 8 months and Repeat.

I think ya'll need to start rotating "Testers" with actual members of the community with a sigh-up page for people to come test stuff cause its frustrating this happening yet again. "Regrettably, our journey with the Phoenix is somewhat long" For a single,Missile.

[lunaticfringe]

41 minutes ago, Soulres said:

"Should improve" but according to the patch notes it doesn't, (much like these updates) they're inconsistent with Whats being Said vs Whats Being Written VS Whats being Done and Whats Actually Happening. While I understand re-explaining how to launch a phoenix might seem like you're proving a point or trying to help, its doing more harm than good cause it comes across as you're trying to discredit people, something the "Testers" are notorious for.

Let's put you in the role of tester: provide a Tacview of a level shot Phoenix, ie, non-manually lofted,  of any type, that performs a loop or over the shoulder response. 

Herein, again, lies the problem- its not the testers saying "git gud"; there is nobody on this side of the table who doesn't want people to have their Phoenix launches connect.  The SMEs confirm the profile.  The materials confirm the profile.  The devs express this, and the testers reinforce with hundreds of shots during the lead in to release.  

Update drops.  Community outliers choose to not accept the guidance provided, perform their own routines, and come back and claim everything is broken.  We literally witness Tacviews where the claim is made there's no attempted loft, have the images shown here, and oh, look- there's a manual loft you can literally see in the missile smoke trail. 

Actions that need to be discredited are going to be discredited in practice. That's not being a fanboy, and not defending a developer blindly. That's expecting people to actually use the weapon as intended, rather than making it up as they go along then coming back complaining that it's broken. 

41 minutes ago, Soulres said:

But every hour, phoenixes go to the moon, or Dump 50% of the energy going straight up, '90 for no reason but Some belive its like a rare golden egg when it isnt.

Sorry, but no.  When some of us have manually shot 100, 200 or more Phoenix rounds against varying target types in all ranges and looks, plus group MP test sessions, and none of them become moonshots based on simply honoring the shot profile, they're rare.  HB works through the flight dynamics and increases the guidance capability while expressing the limitations under which the weapon must be fired, the player base needs to then own their part of the equation and use it like it's being explained, and own up when they aren't.  

Everybody loves Victory's comments.  He says center it up.  Everybody jumped for joy over Puck's 75 minute 10 Percent True interview.  He discussed the limited azimuth shot envelope and 20-30 mile hold.  But nobody wants to honor those limitations, wants their big angles and manual loft and shoot a missile thats two and a half times as large as an AMRAAM and get 120 mid range performance out of it, then come back and complain when it doesn't work.  

Sorry- you can't have it both ways.  You can't call for realism, then complain it doesn't work when shot in an unrealistic fashion.  

Edited September 4, 2022 by lunaticfringe

[IronMike]

49 minutes ago, Soulres said:

The thread was locked shortly after my post and routed others to a dead thread for "Discussion" which is why I assumed so, I guess its just been reopened.

Its doing Loopty loops while tracking and while NOT tracking. See it every session on Tac-View. and while I agree its not exclusive, However it is MUCH more prevalent considering many more 120s(and others) are being shot compared to Phoenixes, Ide bet almost 15-120s for every Phoenix.

"Should improve" but according to the patch notes it doesn't, (much like these updates) they're inconsistent with Whats being Said vs Whats Being Written VS Whats being Done and Whats Actually Happening. While I understand re-explaining how to launch a phoenix might seem like you're proving a point or trying to help, its doing more harm than good cause it comes across as you're trying to discredit people, something the "Testers" are notorious for. But every hour, phoenixes go to the moon, or Dump 50% of the energy going straight up, '90 for no reason but Some belive its like a rare golden egg when it isnt. and I included a video of a buddy who had a Phoenix track around a mountain since somehow you've never seen it. The guy was dead btw .  https://clips.twitch.tv/FineLightAlpacaJonCarnage-KW7_BzY-Rv4Jp2e5

That all said the "remaining issues" (more like same issues)  is after a Major overhaul..again... and while progress towards an actual constant representation is something we all enjoy, every time there is a Phoenix update it really seems like all thats happening is this, Everyone gets used to a sketchy Phoenix, Update breaks it, Testers Deny it(almost like fanboys) and and shoutdown anyone who says otherwise, Patch comes out admitting the problems the community complained about, Testers go quiet(cause they were wrong) wait 8 months and Repeat.

I think ya'll need to start rotating "Testers" with actual members of the community with a sigh-up page for people to come test stuff cause its frustrating this happening yet again. "Regrettably, our journey with the Phoenix is somewhat long" For a single,Missile.

No one has ever discredited what you said, to the contrary I both acknowledged it and tried to explain it, as well as re-assuring you that we are very much interested in fixing remaining issues. But you'll still have to allow me to disagree, where I disagree, please.

Loft being improved is a consequence of guidance improvements, but we have no control over lofting of missiles in DCS, so it is not a changelog item for us. Not sure where you see this inconsistency between what is written, done and happening. We are completely open about everything we do, and everything that has changed.

And one also needs to be precise: the over-lofting is a bug happening from mostly over-pitching, which is a bug that is not aim-54 native. The missile going very high as quick as possible, is benefitial to its terminal velocity. Just because it looks like going straight up from the pilot's POV, it doesn't mean it is always wrong. Do we think the lofting is perfect? No. Personally some very pointy lofts at closer ranges seem suspicious to me. But medium to long range the loft does not appear wrong to me at all, neither to our SMEs. But it is also not something we can fix. It is not an aim-54 issue. The aim-54 only illustrates it better, due to its longer range. Same as stuff like flying around the mountain (thank you for the video, btw).

We can only make an overhaul of the things we have access to. We cannot overhaul ED's missile guidance. This is not meant to shift blame, but please understand that it is equally not constructive for us to say "yeah it is on us", if in fact it isn't. And as I mentioned, we are working with ED to resolve these issues.

If you feel like me trying to be helpful, is descrediting folks, my apologies, but I hope it is clear this is not the intent. However, you will also have to forgive us, that we kind of have to refute misconceptions, wrong impressions or false statements. There is no harm in doing them, but it's not very wise to just let them stand, so naturally there needs to be some back and forth.

Also, please forgive me, but I really do not understand where we a) broke the missile (it changed, it didnt break), where testers are denying the change (who also try to be helpful in understanding the new missile better), and why a patch should not reflect community feedback, which is the entire point about it, as long as the feedback ofc is based on facts, and not on opinions or feelings. 

As for our testers, who spend an enormous amount of their free time trying to improve DCS, and who are actual members of the community and in large parts members who have been active for nigh two decades, with a lot of community work and experience under their belt, including SMEs: it would be nice if what they do would get appreciated. We most certainly have no intention to rotate any of them. And trust me, our testers are far from being blind followers. They give us the same scrutiny as you do. We would not want it any other way.

Edited September 4, 2022 by IronMike

[Soulres]

21 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

 

Herein, again, lies the problem- its not the testers saying "git gud";

Everybody loves Victory's comments. 

, then come back and complain when it doesn't work.  

Sorry- you can't have it both ways.  You can't call for realism, then complain it doesn't work when shot in an unrealistic fashion.  

 

 

Thank you for proving my *Various points about "Testers" attitudes.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Soulres
*Various points

[lunaticfringe]

19 minutes ago, Soulres said:

Thank you for proving my *Various points about "Testers" attitudes.

That you note my stating what a former F-14 pilot says about shooting the Phoenix as telling you to "git gud" says a lot more about where you're coming from than it does me.  

[Soulres]

9 minutes ago, IronMike said:

No one has ever discredited what you said, to the contrary I both acknowledged it and tried to explain it, as well as re-assuring you that we are very much interested in fixing remaining issues. But you'll still have to allow me to disagree, where I disagree, please.

-Loft being improved is a consequence of guidance improvements, but we have no control over lofting of missiles in DCS, so it is not a changelog item for us. Not sure where you see this inconsistency between what is written, done and happening. We are completely open about everything we do, and everything that has changed.

-And one also needs to be precise: the over-lofting is a bug happening from mostly over-pitching, which is a bug that is not aim-54 native. The missile going very high as quick as possible, is benefitial to its terminal velocity. Just because it looks like going straight up from the pilot's POV, it doesn't mean it is always wrong. Do we think the lofting is perfect? No. Personally some very pointy lofts at closer ranges seem suspicious to me. But medium to long range the loft does not appear wrong to me at all, neither to our SMEs. But it is also not something we can fix. It is not an aim-54 issue. The aim-54 only illustrates it better, due to its longer range. Same as stuff like flying around the mountain (thank you for the video, btw).

-We can only make an overhaul of the things we have access to. We cannot overhaul ED's missile guidance. This is not meant to shift blame, but please understand that it is equally not constructive for us to say "yeah it is on us", if in fact it isn't. And as I mentioned, we are working with ED to resolve these issues.

-If you feel like me trying to be helpful, is descrediting folks, my apologies, but I hope it is clear this is not the intent. However, you will also have to forgive us, that we kind of have to refute misconceptions, wrong impressions or false statements. There is no harm in doing them, but it's not very wise to just let them stand, so naturally there needs to be some back and forth.

-Also, please forgive me, but I really do not understand where we a) broke the missile (it changed, it didnt break), where testers are denying the change (who also try to be helpful in understanding the new missile better), and why a patch should not reflect community feedback, which is the entire point about it, as long as the feedback ofc is based on facts, and not on opinions or feelings. 

-As for our testers, who spend an enormous amount of their free time trying to improve DCS, and who are actual members of the community and in large parts members who have been active for nigh two decades, with a lot of community work and experience under their belt, including SMEs: it would be nice if what they do would get appreciated. We most certainly have no intention to rotate any of them. And trust me, our testers are far from being blind followers. They give us the same scrutiny as you do. We would not want it any other way.

 

(I bullet pointed everything so its easier to read in relation to what you said)

-Considering this is your first point, Pretty sure whats going on here, Like I said "While I(aka me) understand re-explaining how to launch a phoenix might seem like you're proving a point or trying to help" "it comes across as you're trying to discredit people(the community)". Everyone here is Also very interested in getting these issues fixed As the F14 Isn't free. 

-The inconsistency is almost every patch, You guys even word things vaguely like "this should" even though the 'testers' should be making that a big "It does" because they're getting it before us (or atleast should)

-Regarding the Phoenix, I'm not talking '90 from pilot POV. Im talking Tac-View, Straight up, pull a protractor  '90 Degrees relative to the f14 on 10-15 mile shots and you can watch (via Tac-View) its speed TANK (meaning drop) for shot for target 1,000 feet on the deck, I think most of the community understands lofting to an extent but even watching videos where people (in the f14) launch and go "Annnnd wheres my missile going?.."  Ive even someone rapid all 4 missiles, they pitch up '90 and go to space and fall down at 300kt and yo ucan see them tracking targets on their own that are 50nm+ away but can never get there.

-Everyone understands the problems that ED has, Theirs meme's everywhere of it for the past 11 years and beyond if you dig hardenough. And as much as I agree that ED has problems, The F14 is your module, everyone (myself included) credits you not them with it, so saying "We're working with ED" litterally means, "Its broken for a long time until Randomly ED will fix it while also breaking other things in the process" because that is Their track record.

-While im sure situationally it doesn't come across as that, (and it isn't just you) Its that anytime anyone complains, you'll see a firestorm of people telling that person that they are Wrong,Dont Know what they are doing,And that However is telling them this, Knows more than them there for They are automatically right.  Example being the "Tester" that replied to my post replying to you, THAT is how the community is talked to by non-players. (meaning Not a Dev,Not a "Tester") While you personally might not mean it, It comes across as that and makes Reporting Problems,Bugs wierd situations or glitches...Similar to doing so on Roblox,Fortnite,CoD,Apex,Battlefield and other forums where its Toxic and no one talks about it, instead you'll see Separate communities turning those into memes and giggles,instead of sharing them with people who can fix it.

-The missile is broke(because you dont have all the information and thats ok), Its incomplete and is put together with Facts but the holes are filled with Opinions and Feelings Cause you guys dont have that information yet, But anytime that would get called out, The entire thing is Considered as "Fact" and "Realistic" Leading Testers and Others to adamantly deny people to what they are seeing/experincing (Are you seeing the Trend yet?) Until either A, A big name gets dropped or B, A FLOOD of complaints come in. And then things are looked at/taken seriously.  

My Suggestion, Everything ive mentioned is public, you just have to look. Every other day me and afew friends watch some Tac-views and laugh at all the broken stuff going on that your Testers will fight tooth and nail over saying Doesn't exist. 

 

40 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

That you note my stating what a former F-14 pilot says about shooting the Phoenix as telling you to "git gud" says a lot more about where you're coming from than it does me.  

Is that why you edited your post after I bullet pointed what you said? Didn't look good did it?. 

[lunaticfringe]

16 minutes ago, Soulres said:

Is that why you edited your post after I bullet pointed what you said? Didn't look good did it?. 

I deleted nothing.  In fact, I added:

"... and shoot a missile thats two and a half times as large as an AMRAAM and get 120 mid range performance out of it..."

as to further reinforce how silly all of the kvetching over this is. 

So yeah- it looked just swell, because what you bullet pointed is still in the post. 

[stonewolf393]

So something that i've been looking at (yes it is because my booty is hurt after not being able to get kills at 70nm anymore on fighters, yes i know its not close to accurate but i miss my old laser beam mk60A)

The speeds I have been able to get in GS server on the 54C(both motor types) has been at best 1700-1800 Kn

Launch parameter is m1-m1.1 at 36000-40000 feet target is 40nm head on at about the same speed at 5000-15000ft alt

 

Both missiles zoom to 60,000feet and dont breach 1800kn

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=bM6eTY5nE1AC&pg=PA1003&printsec=frontcover&dq=aim-54+"mach"&output=embed&source=entity_page&newbks=0&hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwjmkojC3fv5AhX1F1kFHZ6BDqoQ4KgFKAB6BAgjEAE#v=onepage&q=aim-54 "mach"&f=false

 

See link above for testimony during a DOD hearing. The "fact sheet" given to congress was one stating the 54A demonstrated mach 4.3, I am launching at mach 1 and barely breaching mach 3.1 at 60,000ft. If this is a case of not launching fast enough then that brings up the question of how do we get our tomcat faster than m1.4 with a phoenix on it? If it isn't a question of launch speed than the missile is falling short of speed by about 700mph-800 mph. And that is with the 54C with both engine types. Even not making the argument of M5 and just trying to hit m4.3 we are looking at a drastic change of speed on a missile that in dcs is at least known to <profanity> itself once its booster gives thanks to drag.

 

Another problem I have been seeing is guidance is wonky. In the 10% of launches I make I find the C guidance is not chasing or intercepting a plane, but instead is tracking an invisible target 100feet above its head like its trying to attack the hand thats holding a training aid. perfectly tracking the movement of the target but off vertically by 100 feet. Is that jamming confusing the target or should I not be seeing that?

[IronMike]

49 minutes ago, Soulres said:

My Suggestion, Everything ive mentioned is public, you just have to look. Every other day me and afew friends watch some Tac-views and laugh at all the broken stuff going on that your Testers will fight tooth and nail over saying Doesn't exist.

Please show me once where we said something someone reported does not exist, when it really existed? We may say we do not see it or cannot reproduce it, but never did we not believe a factual report. But, if for example someone says "can't lower the flaps above 250 kts, they are bugged" and we say "that is not a bug, you broke them by overspeeding", and it then gets called toxic, it is creating toxicity in itself, if you'll pardon me pointing that out.

No one is trying to shut you down, but you want us to change things we just have no access to. The F-14 is us, the missile guidance not. That's a nuance which is not outrageous to ask to understand. And it is not toxic if we do so. Which is what Fringe was trying to point out, again, trying to help you gain perspective. And while ED may be a meme to you, they are not to us, and to the contrary very forthcoming and helpful, but you will have to forgive us that certain things take a certain time.

You say you want these things talked about, but when we talk about it, you say it comes from a - fair enough, as you say, seemingly - toxic attitude. If a discussion means only agreeing with what you say, then it is quite frankly not an invitation to a discussion. Not sure if I come across wrongly here? But I hope you do notice that I am trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.

There is a whole lot of claims and accusations, which I am sorry, I do not see all just as substantiated as you put it, and that is something you will have to accept just as much as I have to accept your being displeased with us. We can talk more about loft, if you want, which btw I already acknowledged twice now, and many times before in general. We are aware that it is irrational in certain regimes. But we also mentioned and explained several times in the previous thread that it is the best compromise given with how loft is currently handled in DCS, and why in most circumstances it is not only not wrong, but correct as is. I also acknowledged it is being worked on. In essence thus it is not being worked on fast enough in your opinion, which is fair, but reality dictates the speed, not willingness. We want loft to improve, but we, ourselves, cannot do that. We have no control over that part. And again, imo to ask to kindly understand that is neither outlandish, nor toxic.

"Should" is a word used often in air to air, because it depends on so many factors. Anyone who says always "is" instead, I would take with a grain of salt. And again, when the testers do tell you "does", because they did so many tests, which Fringe told you literally in his reply, you fail to see that, you instead choose to see it as a "firestorm of ppl trying to tell you that you are wrong" and to reply "thank you for proving my various points about *testers*" ... 

I am not even going into the "what information we are missing" thing, because I fail to see how you could possibly know that.

We're open for criticism, we are exchanging with the community likely more than many devs out there, and we always meet you guys on eye level. Calling us toxic, or our testers toxic, for trying to provide clarity, is not fair, especially if you just literally asked for that, then don't like the answer and come in barging with accusations in such a manner.

I get it, you find it frustrating, and fixes for some issues are not delivered fast enough for you. That is fair. We will try to do better, I mean that. But please try to refrain from accusing our testers to have a toxic attitude towards you, they are not. You are instead being toxic towards them, you really are, so please understand if that is where I draw a line. You can express your being displeased with us, no biggy, but please do not involve those who are willing to give their free time to improve the game I would guess you care about, and on top of that are willing to help ppl on the forums to understand and learn the Tomcat better. Thank you for respecting that.

[Coxy_99]

12 hours ago, AirMeister said:

Reading through this thread i can't helpt but feel like many of you may have become a little too used to a missile that was overperforming by a large margin for a very long time. 
 

 

 

 

Its the expectation thats the issue. Adapt and overcome what is changed and dealt to you. (Not you in particular) But in general to all.

[Schmidtfire]

Not being an expert but I expected the MK60 to be closer to the MK47. All sources I have seen point to them being rated at the same speed range and altitude.  In DCS they have been very different. I have yet to come across a Pilot or RIO interview where they bring up motor differences. Only differences between A and C model.

Also found some other interesting info:
 

The AIM-54 can have varying active distances depending on the target size switch in the RIO's pit as this switch changes when the AWG-9's WCS sends the active command to the missile.

• Target size small sends the active signal at 6 nms
• Target size normal sends the active signal at 10 nms
• Target size large sends the active signal at 13 nms

   Much like the target size settings on the JF-17/SD-10, but I have not verified the source. 

 

AIM-54C

• Speed: Mach 5+

• Propulsion:

  • Rocketdyne (later Hercules) Mk47 Mod 1

    • Propellant type: HTPB
    • Thrust: 13,595N for 27 seconds

  • Aerojet Mk60 (some squadrons equipped their AIM-54Cs with their remaining Mk60 motors)

    • Propellant type: CTPB
    • Thrust: 17,793N for 20.6 seconds

[DSplayer]

11 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

AIM-54C

• Speed: Mach 5+

• Propulsion:

  • Rocketdyne (later Hercules) Mk47 Mod 1

    • Propellant type: HTPB
    • Thrust: 13,595N for 27 seconds

  • Aerojet Mk60 (some squadrons equipped their AIM-54Cs with their remaining Mk60 motors)

    • Propellant type: CTPB
    • Thrust: 17,793N for 20.6 seconds

Hey that’s from my WT Forum post. I had updated it with the values that DCS (which is listed in what you posted) currently use but I still have sources that support what the old motor performance was (and those statistics there refer to the AIM-54A and don’t break down by the motor variant). Specifically regarding a 4000 lbs (~17793 N) thrust for 30 seconds.

[captain_dalan]

14 hours ago, DoorMouse said:

It's so slow to accelerate, barely accelerates when being shot downhill, and reaches a significantly reduced top speed, it's total distance it travels while under motor is much less - and that's the only time it's really lethal vs a maneuvering target sub 20 miles.

These are generally observations as well. I'm not complaining on the end results mind you, as i don't have enough data to complain or praise about. But the flight profiles do seem a bit odd. Or at the very least different then what we are used to. 

13 hours ago, AirMeister said:

....All this nagging while you've been 'enjoying' a super OP missile for what, 4 years ? ...

This makes me wonder.... what about those times when the missile performance was tweaked to match the test shots, but its actual flight profile was nowhere near what it should have been? Or what about that time when the missile was flying exactly by the numbers, but only in completely flat trajectories? Or what about that other time, when the lofting logic resulted in the missile defeating itself even against non-maneuvering targets? Or of we don't restrict ourselves on the missile alone, what about all those times when we flew without TWS AUTO and had to manually babysit Jester to handle elevations and azimuths? Or those times when tracks would semi-randomly drop for no good reason? 4 years of OP for sure! Some here it would appear have very selective memories....

4 hours ago, Soulres said:

Its doing Loopty loops while tracking and while NOT tracking. See it every session on Tac-View. and while I agree its not exclusive, However it is MUCH more prevalent considering many more 120s(and others) are being shot compared to Phoenixes, Ide bet almost 15-120s for every Phoenix.

This is an honest question ,without an ounce of sarcasm: in the last 3 days, i must have fired over 150 missiles, 20-50 miles away, transonic and subsonic, angels 15 to angels 35, maneuvering targets or dumb drones. I have always fired within indicated FCR parameters (centering the T) and never experienced a single strato-launch. Nor have i experienced it in the previous patches. Can you perhaps share more tacvies that reproduce this behavior in all their variations so it can be researched and tested better? 

[Dr.Ali]

Hi everyone.
Did I understand correctly that the slowest rocket was made even slower in the new patch? She can't even outrun a plane. lol

 

[jbloomingdale]

12 minutes ago, Dr.Ali said:

Hi everyone.
Did I understand correctly that the slowest rocket was made even slower in the new patch? She can't even outrun a plane. lol

 

Not surprising given the parameters. You appear to be at about 7500 feet MSL when you launch in this video, and your missile is trying to loft to hit a target that’s about 70nm away. 

[Badger1-1]

18 minutes ago, Dr.Ali said:

Hi everyone.
Did I understand correctly that the slowest rocket was made even slower in the new patch? She can't even outrun a plane. lol

 

yeah this adds nothing to the discussion. Shoot it in its parameters and then we can discuss...

[Golo]

On the contrary, it adds a lot to the discussion. That lofting profile is terrible. Never mind that he is at 7k, either that shot should never be allowed by WCS, or that lofting trajectory should be lot flatter. This way you have a chance to shoot yourself in the back.

I wonder if HB changed DLZ for all their changes of missile performance. 

[lunaticfringe]

10 minutes ago, Golo said:

On the contrary, it adds a lot to the discussion. That lofting profile is terrible. Never mind that he is at 7k, either that shot should never be allowed by WCS, or that lofting trajectory should be lot flatter. This way you have a chance to shoot yourself in the back.

I wonder if HB changed DLZ for all their changes of missile performance. 

DLZ doesn't go into MAR/TID blinking for TWS until 40 miles at that altitude and speed.  He's got a hot trigger all the way and can shoot, but the DLZ isn't at fault. 

As to the loft profile, the weapon is literally attempting the only thing it can to achieve that range, and it made sixty miles before battery timeout.  

Edited September 4, 2022 by lunaticfringe

[H7142]

11 minutes ago, Golo said:

On the contrary, it adds a lot to the discussion. That lofting profile is terrible. Never mind that he is at 7k, either that shot should never be allowed by WCS, or that lofting trajectory should be lot flatter. This way you have a chance to shoot yourself in the back.

I wonder if HB changed DLZ for all their changes of missile performance. 

Agreed it really seems like its one set loft angle for all circumstances?  Sure this angle could be a possible loft angle but for this situation its highly unlikely.  

[lunaticfringe]

"Missile?"

"Yeah, RIO?"

"I want you to hit that target 30 miles outside Rmax."

"It'll be hard, but I'll give you my maximum effort!  Wait... you said thirty- three zero?"

"And if you can't get to it, I want you to not even try."

"But... look at the range- why are you shooting me?  FCS, back me up, son!"

*pushes button*

"WAIT, BRO?!"

*WHOOSH*

Edited September 4, 2022 by lunaticfringe

[DSplayer]

16 hours ago, Uxi said:

Good catch.  Either he's remembering wrong... or...

Globalsecurity lists a C+ variant.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-54-variants.htm
 

AIM-54A First production model for F-14A. Analog electronics, klystron tube transmitter/receiver. Liquid-cooled hydraulic and thermal-conditioning systems. Design range of 60 nm (69 mi; 111 km) was easily surpassed in testing.

AIM-54B Interim model. Simpler construction, non-liquid cooling. Not produced.

AIM-54C Last production model. Analog electronics replaced by Reprogrammable Memory (RPM) digital processor, yielding faster target discrimination, longer range, increased altitude, improved beam attack capability, better ECM resistance, and greater reliability. Continuous-rod warhead replaced by controlled fragmentation warhead.

AIM-54C+ High Power Phoenix Improved variant developed by Hughes for F-14D. Contains internal heaters, which eliminates need for temperature conditioning liquid, high-power Traveling Wave Tube (TWT) transmitter adapted from the AIM-120 AMRAAM, and low-sidelobe antenna. Latest version of RPM substitutes 6 ultra-high-speed computer chips for 45 of earlier, less-capable chips. Full-scale development began in August 1987. First test flight of fully upgraded missile on 14 August 1990 scored a direct hit on a QF-4 drone.

Puck did seem to more time in the D and would have been in them by 97 anyway, probably and isn't talking about which version he was in at that point.  

That actually reminds me that this could be the reason why the AIM-54C+ was heavier than the AIM-54C and AIM-54A prior to it and could account for the ~24 lbs of extra weight it has due to the internal heaters which removed the need for coolant. It could explain at least part of the 40-50+ lbs difference seen between stated figures regarding AIM-54A and AIM-54C weights since maybe people when aggregating statistics had erroneously used 54C+ weight statistics for the normal AIM-54C. Other increases could also come from the improved Target Detection Device and the two different warheads that were used in AIM-54C production.

 

The increases in weight for the AIM-54A in between the initial weight statistics seen in "An Outsider’s View Of The Phoenix/AWG-9 Weapon System" (978 lbs total) and the USAF's 1984 Weapon File (987 lbs) could be from the Reject Image Device, Extended Active Gate, High Altitude Performance, and warhead modifications that were added to both the AIM-54As during production.

 

Just some food for thought.

[SuperEtendard]

17 hours ago, roobarbjapan said:

He also mentioned a 29 second burn time. Which has left me a little confused. Is he referring to another variant not present in DCS? 

Burn rate and thrust varies depending on the temperature of the propellant, and this will be affected depending on the altitude of launch (external ambient temperature) and speed of the launching plane (heat caused by air drag). Air densitiy also seems to cause slight differences.

Here is an example for the rocket motor in the Soviet R-3S missile:

Thrust in Kgf in the y axis, seconds of burn time in the x axis.



While -54ºC to +60ºC is a big temperature range, you can see that say +15ºC at sea level in a standard day and -40ºC at 30K feet (standard day as well) would mean a rather different thrust profile for the same missile, you would also have to add the drag heating on top of it, which would also be different based on altitude.

Currently in DCS we have fixed thrust and burn time values, so this imposes a limitation on rocket motor modelling.