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

[Coxy_99]

2 hours ago, ShinyMikey said:

      Hey Coxy, I don't remember taking that Aim-7 in the face... Nice shot!

Yea HOJ however just putting the point in that aim-7 is not useless (Off topic) But back to AIM-54 before i get told off and points on my name.

[lunaticfringe]

43 minutes ago, AirMeister said:

Maybe my definition of manouvering is wrong. When i say manouvering i mean actually defending.

Turning into the notch is actually defending, whereas making a random 9G turn like an airborne Sit 'n Spin doesn't necessarily do anything useful against a radar. 

In the 7MH video, the turn into the notch is at 1:42, and the eventually 90-degree beam angle is easily seen by zooming out on the missile from directly overhead.  The defender doesn't need to make a massive turn, because being AI- it knows the angle required against the intercepting missile radar.  This is a byproduct of two issues: one, it's defending against the wrong radar, and two, the notch and chaff (which is also shown as being used) are too reliable against said wrong antenna.  The MiG should be maneuvering against the F-14's radar, and it isn't- because the AWG-9 never dropped the lock.  You don't beat an SARH missile by spoofing the little antenna in the round; you've got to get the big one doing all the emitting- otherwise that missile is going to keep coming. 

The same is exhibited in the 7M video at 1:56.  Turn into the notch, one chaff bundle drop, wrong antenna goes dead. 

[CarbonFox]

Kind of makes me hope ED can develop the AIM-7P further with the capabilities of the Blk II variant which had the WGU-23D guidance section and new rear receiver supposedly for better low altitude guidance.

[supatantei]

I apologize if this issue has already been addressed and I missed it reading through all the posts. 

I had a question about adding the new AIM-54C M60 to an airfield in Mission Editor. Currently when going through the weapons inventory of the mission editor it still only has the original 3 AIM-54s (A Mk47, A Mk60, and C Mk47). Is there a way to add the new variant to the mission editor. 

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter!

[lunaticfringe]

1 hour ago, supatantei said:

I apologize if this issue has already been addressed and I missed it reading through all the posts. 

I had a question about adding the new AIM-54C M60 to an airfield in Mission Editor. Currently when going through the weapons inventory of the mission editor it still only has the original 3 AIM-54s (A Mk47, A Mk60, and C Mk47). Is there a way to add the new variant to the mission editor. 

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter!

You've got to run the latest Open Beta version for it.  Is your DCS version Stable or Open Beta?

[supatantei]

43 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

You've got to run the latest Open Beta version for it.  Is your DCS version Stable or Open Beta?

Thank you for the quick reply! I am running the Steam Edition open beta. I can definitely select the AIM-54C mk60 in the game (the mission), but cannot stock the carrier (USS Forrestal) with inventory. This causes the missile not to be loaded by crew when requesting the AIM-54C mk60.

Update [Resolved]: It seems like since the mission file was made before the update the AIM-54C mk60 doesn't show up in the list even though it the game is updated. When I tried creating a new mission I found the C mk60 there. Is there anyway to retroactively add the mk60 to an existing mission file?

Edited September 14, 2022 by supatantei
Added screenshot; updated after making new mission

[NeedzWD40]

2 hours ago, supatantei said:

It seems like since the mission file was made before the update the AIM-54C mk60 doesn't show up in the list even though it the game is updated. When I tried creating a new mission I found the C mk60 there. Is there anyway to retroactively add the mk60 to an existing mission file?

This is an inherent problem with the warehousing system. Aircraft and munitions are not updated in the mission properly after an update; the only way to fix it is to set unlimited resources for munitions and aircraft for the warehouse, save the mission, then go back and rebuild the list(s).

[feeleyat]

On 9/11/2022 at 12:25 PM, Coxy_99 said:

Im a cat and i dis approve of 10nm sparrow shots..................

nullnull
nullnull

Pardon my french, but what the <profanity> is even that?  Did that Sparrow go active? .lol

[Comstedt86]

1 hour ago, feeleyat said:

Pardon my french, but what the <profanity> is even that?  Did that Sparrow go active? .lol

HoJ possibly? 

[Spurts]

On 9/11/2022 at 4:46 PM, Coxy_99 said:

Yea HOJ however just putting the point in that aim-7 is not useless (Off topic) But back to AIM-54 before i get told off and points on my name.

confirmed HOJ earlier

[libertyandjustice.all]

I don't think they have the missiles and the plane performing quite as good as they did in real life imo. maybe for balancing or whatever but I have read several credible internet articles from former RIO's and Pilots and their claims seem to indicate a superior performing combat platform and aircraft than what we currently have here. 

[JNelson]

17 hours ago, libertyandjustice.all said:

I don't think they have the missiles and the plane performing quite as good as they did in real life imo. maybe for balancing or whatever but I have read several credible internet articles from former RIO's and Pilots and their claims seem to indicate a superior performing combat platform and aircraft than what we currently have here. 

Hi, we don't make changes for balancing reasons. Changes are only made to make the missile closer to reality.

The current phoenix motor performance updated based on new sources, the motor performance and aero notably was not adjusted to match real world shots however despite this the speeds for the phoenix match within a few percent of a NASA simulation which has been posted in this thread a few times. 

See here: 

 

Furthermore there is one known test shot which also gives impact distances and time of flight this allows the error for such a shot to be calculated. This ends up being within 3% for distance and time and 4% for impact velocity. You can see the comparisons to the old patch values here:

Hopefully you can see the performance of the AIM-54 is looking pretty close to reality. The remaining item for us are the few guidance issues that remain, we are going to be liaising with ED to get these fixed asap. 

Hope that clears stuff up. Thanks!

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

23 hours ago, libertyandjustice.all said:

I don't think they have the missiles and the plane performing quite as good as they did in real life imo. maybe for balancing or whatever but I have read several credible internet articles from former RIO's and Pilots and their claims seem to indicate a superior performing combat platform and aircraft than what we currently have here. 

Unless they can fit reliable data to their claims, it's not of much use.

[Fulcrumkiller31]

I think the missile is performing really well, besides the random pull-ups that happen. AI is just too all knowing and too perfect.

[Kondor77]

6 hours ago, Fulcrumkiller31 said:

I think the missile is performing really well, besides the random pull-ups that happen. AI is just too all knowing and too perfect.

Ding ding ding, especially the last bit. If the AI could actually react when the missile goes active as opposed to 10nm away...maybe this will come with the further improvements to the AI. 

[captain_dalan]

9 minutes ago, Kondor77 said:

Ding ding ding, especially the last bit. If the AI could actually react when the missile goes active as opposed to 10nm away...maybe this will come with the further improvements to the AI. 

Boy oh boy, are some people gonna be negatively surprised by a more realistic AI, regarding their kill ratios....

[KlarSnow]

1 minute ago, captain_dalan said:

Boy oh boy, are some people gonna be negatively surprised by a more realistic AI, regarding their kill ratios....

More realistic doesn't necessarily mean flies like players. There are plenty of examples IRL of real pilots reacting late, or not reacting at all when shot at, and just flying into an incoming weapon.

[captain_dalan]

1 hour ago, KlarSnow said:

More realistic doesn't necessarily mean flies like players. There are plenty of examples IRL of real pilots reacting late, or not reacting at all when shot at, and just flying into an incoming weapon.

Most players don't fly like humans should either. I'm not talking GS server, Warthunder ground scraping furballs here. Just simple scripted intercept geometry and barebones time lines. 

[lunaticfringe]

2 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Then what do they fly like? 

Others. 

[shayan]

Thank you for nerfing Phoenixes, which we really wanted after the most recent update.

[Comstedt86]

23 minutes ago, shayan said:

Thank you for nerfing Phoenixes, which we really wanted after the most recent update.

Have you read through this thread? Or at least check JNelsons answer, 9 posts up. 

[draconus]

16 hours ago, KlarSnow said:

More realistic doesn't necessarily mean flies like players. There are plenty of examples IRL of real pilots reacting late, or not reacting at all when shot at, and just flying into an incoming weapon.

Some of it were hardware inefficiencies IRL (like RWRs not working as expected or simply not present). Pilot reaction is kind of simulated by selecting different AI skill level.

[Sindar]

Great job! You made a new energy for the AIM-54, but left the old ballistics. LOFT at 70-80 degrees at the start is cool! The F-14 now reaches the enemy faster from 20 miles than the AIM-54 in TWS mode. Forget 50-40 mile interceptions. This "fast and long-range" missile can only shoot down a KS-130 flying directly at you.
Maximum speed - 3.15 M (hooray! for a whole second), point of rise - 110,000 feet, carrier height - 35,000 feet. Calculate your odds against an AIM-120C at any altitude below 30,000 feet.
Goodbye F-14 online. You were a rare visitor, but now you are history.
And people will look at old guides and buy.

Thanks for your work.

[Raviar]

8 hours ago, shayan said:

Thank you for nerfing Phoenixes, which we really wanted after the most recent update.

Nerfing! This is not FPS Game! this suppose to be SIMULATOR ! we dont care if you get killed on MP million times in a row! 

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, Sindar said:

Great job! You made a new energy for the AIM-54, but left the old ballistics. LOFT at 70-80 degrees at the start is cool! The F-14 now reaches the enemy faster from 20 miles than the AIM-54 in TWS mode. Forget 50-40 mile interceptions. This "fast and long-range" missile can only shoot down a KS-130 flying directly at you.
Maximum speed - 3.15 M (hooray! for a whole second), point of rise - 110,000 feet, carrier height - 35,000 feet. Calculate your odds against an AIM-120C at any altitude below 30,000 feet.
Goodbye F-14 online. You were a rare visitor, but now you are history.
And people will look at old guides and buy.

Thanks for your work.

I understand your frustration and I don't mind the sarcasm. But maybe I can put it a bit into perspective, if you allow:

The aerodynamics were correct, the motors were wrong. Now both are correct, and by correct I mean as close as we can get it to reality. That is simply something we all have to deal with. Please understand that we're not making modules to be "competitive online", but to portray them accurately. Just how close it is to reality, you can see a couple posts above, when comparing to irl record of flight and impact times of known tests and the data provided by the NASA tests. Peak mach is around 3.45, but you can get it to around 3.8 under optimum conditions. If you do what NASA did during their tests you can also get the mach 4.3 they showed it is capable of, as a proof of concept, however mind you, not under normal employment conditions. Overall it is within a margin of around 3-4%, which I think many are not aware how insanely close that is in missile simulation.

As for online, by that logic no other aircraft than the F16, F15 and F18 would have a place online. Why fly an F1? Or a mirage 2000 even or let alone a MiG21 online then? The expectation that sets up for disappointment by some seems to be that the Tomcat should a priori come out on top over everything else. While in any other older jet the challenge it poses is accepted from the get go. But the issue remains, you are flying an older jet that was not really developed to counter an F-15/6/8 amraam slinging threat (by that I do not mean the still wrongfully spread rumor of it and the phoenix only being meant to shoot down bombers, far from that). And there is a challenge involved, naturally. Whether players consider that kind of challenge fun or off-putting is up to each player themselves, and unfortunately not something we can take into account when trying to improve the simulation.

The lofting in most long range shots is as it should be. The issues are in shorter to medium range shots, where it can at times overloft. But we compared lower loft, straight and higher loft shots with the missiles as is, and the higher loft will have it arrive with more energy, and also hitting the marks it should - specifically on long range, but also medium range shots. With the wider arc that it travels, ofc you will overtake your own missile eventually. But you would not do that in BVR, you fire and crank and slow down, burning the cans towards your target - and his missiles - is not really an advisable tactic.

There are regimes where the Tomcat holds its place even against more modern bluefor jets, but you need to fly it accordingly and make use of its strengths, just like with other older jets. If you see the challenge in that, it - in my humble opinion - adds fun.

Edited September 19, 2022 by IronMike