Jump to content

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


Cobra847

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Raviar said:

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! 

Since no one has access to real data, they are doing this to balance the multiplayer side of the game, even though it isn't an FPS game. This is especially true with the FC3 modules' IFF , radar power and damage modeling and etc 
or maybe the jester iff speed is real or missile call outs from 60 miles ? 


Edited by shayan

 AMD R9 5950X | 32GB DDR4-4000 | Radeon 6900XT | Thrustmaster warthog + VKB T-Rudder Mk4 | HP Reverb G2

FC3 |МиГ-21 | F/A-18C |  F-14 | F-16 | AH-64 | JF-17| AJS-37

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, shayan said:

Since no one has access to real data, they are doing this to balance the multiplayer side of the game, even though it isn't an FPS game. This is especially true with the FC3 modules' IFF , radar power and damage modeling and etc 
or maybe the jester iff speed is real or missile call outs from 60 miles ? 

 

We do have access to real data, and we are not doing this to balance Multiplayer. If I may refer again to @JNelson's post above, you can take a look for yourself just how close the phoenix is to real data. I really cannot stress this enough, how utterly unimportant Mulitplayer balance is to us. It has zero bearing on any of our decisions. Please be so kind and stop insisting on this, it only spreads an entirely wrong rumor. Thank you! 

Jester's behavior in both cases is a limitation of Jester and a consequence of how he works. If he calls missiles from 60 miles that have no RWR warning or show on the radar, that is a bug though, and I would kindly like to ask you to make a report about it, especially if you have a track that would help. We reworked his missile calling behavior a while ago, but it is very possible that bugs remain, which we have overlooked so far. Any input to help us improve this is much appreciated, thank you! 


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 7

Heatblur Simulations

 

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

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2022 at 9:55 PM, Cobra847 said:

Re guidance- we hope to make further improvements in this area, however it requires the help of our partners and moving the missile to the new schema. We'll be driving this topic forwards as quickly as possible. Guidance can have significant effects on kinematics, and over the years both guidance and our subsequent kinematics have changed. Right now, we've chosen to make a missile that is as close as possible aerodynamically - even if guidance isn't perfect yet. This to leave ourselves with the correct foundation for any improvements that should come from guidance, not aerodynamics, possibly at the cost of lessened performance for a time.

Perhaps this could explain why the current Phoenix seems "too slow" while being extremely accurate at the same time.
Given what you said, I decided to make some remarks based on the 1980 DoD document and introduce some thoughts:


1: The AIM-54A was able to hit Mach 4.3 when launched at no higher than 48 800 ft (this is listed as the highest demonstrated launch altitude). Launch speed is not mentioned, but I haven't found any test launch done at more than M1.5...
2: The upgraded AIM-54C was at least expected to be faster. (Perhaps the M5 number was total BS, but the max distance was expected to increase as well, suggesting that at least some improvement into speed overall could be possible. Of course the additional range might be due to better guidance or a higher max launch altitude [although how is an F-14 supposed to fly much higher, let alone at 60 000 feet??] )
3: Assuming the C has the same rocket motor impulse as the A, the only conclusion is that the C is able to utilize a more optimized loft trajectory / flight profile that allows the missile to make better use of same amount of propellant energy. Meaning better guidance can make a big difference. The document does acknowledge that the C was going to be slightly heavier.


Hypothesis: The A was kinematically able to exceed Mach 4.3, but limited guidance tech kept its speed range relatively low. In the longest range real world test (110Nmi launch range, missile covered a horizontal distance of 72,5Nmi in 157,2s) for example, I think its plausible that the missile exceeded Mach 4, but drift due to older INU forced it to make course corrections that dragged its speed down faster, resulting in the observed mean speed of around Mach 3. If I remember correctly, the loft is done under an autopilot and the missile will begin receiving guidance from the AWG-9 during the "mid-phase" of flight -even with PDSTT mode. (correct me if I'm wrong!) 


Conclusion: There is nothing wrong with the current DCS AIM-54A model since it gives results that match the real world tests, but the C could/should be able to achieve a higher mean speed overall if/when guidance gets updated. I don't know what the difference is between A and C now, I don't play DCS myself. The reason I'm here is to learn more about the Phoenix, and the awesome ground work by the Heatblur developer team makes this forum a goldmine for detailed information. My sincerest Thanks!!
So, does any of this sound reasonable?


Btw, some sources state that the maximum launch speed for the Phoenix was Mach 1.6. Is this perhaps a recommendation or the highest launch speed recorded rather than an actual limit..? In DCS it is clearly possible to launch a Phoenix at a higher speed.

And while I'm at it...
... a question closely related to the topic:  A book by John Lake states: "deck launched intercept radius (for F-14A) with four Phoenix, two Sparrows, two Sidewinders and external fuel : 134 nm at Mach 1.5". I have assumed that this means the available range when the F-14 gets off the deck and accelerates to Mach 1.5, meaning a Tomcat could hit at least M1.5 with such loadout. Is this correct?
I ask because some have stated that getting the F-14 to that speed with a heavy loadout is extremely difficult or borderline impossible.

Thanks.
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Timo Niemelä said:

 

And while I'm at it...
... a question closely related to the topic:  A book by John Lake states: "deck launched intercept radius (for F-14A) with four Phoenix, two Sparrows, two Sidewinders and external fuel : 134 nm at Mach 1.5". I have assumed that this means the available range when the F-14 gets off the deck and accelerates to Mach 1.5, meaning a Tomcat could hit at least M1.5 with such loadout. Is this correct?
I ask because some have stated that getting the F-14 to that speed with a heavy loadout is extremely difficult or borderline impossible.

Thanks.
 

I've gotten that payload to nearly 1.6M over 40,000ft from a deck launch

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, IronMike said:

We do have access to real data, and we are not doing this to balance Multiplayer. If I may refer again to @JNelson's post above, you can take a look for yourself just how close the phoenix is to real data. I really cannot stress this enough, how utterly unimportant Mulitplayer balance is to us. It has zero bearing on any of our decisions. Please be so kind and stop insisting on this, it only spreads an entirely wrong rumor. Thank you! 

Jester's behavior in both cases is a limitation of Jester and a consequence of how he works. If he calls missiles from 60 miles that have no RWR warning or show on the radar, that is a bug though, and I would kindly like to ask you to make a report about it, especially if you have a track that would help. We reworked his missile calling behavior a while ago, but it is very possible that bugs remain, which we have overlooked so far. Any input to help us improve this is much appreciated, thank you! 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Raviar said:

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! 

 

I'm not complaining about anything; I'm only saying thank you . As Raviar remarked, "We don't care if you die on MP a million times in a row." I was previously killing with unrealistic missiles as you guys saying the old one was unreal ; now, I'm only occasionally dying from 10 nm with AIM-54s.

  • Like 1

 AMD R9 5950X | 32GB DDR4-4000 | Radeon 6900XT | Thrustmaster warthog + VKB T-Rudder Mk4 | HP Reverb G2

FC3 |МиГ-21 | F/A-18C |  F-14 | F-16 | AH-64 | JF-17| AJS-37

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Timo Niemelä said:

Perhaps this could explain why the current Phoenix seems "too slow" while being extremely accurate at the same time.
Given what you said, I decided to make some remarks based on the 1980 DoD document and introduce some thoughts:


1: The AIM-54A was able to hit Mach 4.3 when launched at no higher than 48 800 ft (this is listed as the highest demonstrated launch altitude). Launch speed is not mentioned, but I haven't found any test launch done at more than M1.5...
2: The upgraded AIM-54C was at least expected to be faster. (Perhaps the M5 number was total BS, but the max distance was expected to increase as well, suggesting that at least some improvement into speed overall could be possible. Of course the additional range might be due to better guidance or a higher max launch altitude [although how is an F-14 supposed to fly much higher, let alone at 60 000 feet??] )
3: Assuming the C has the same rocket motor impulse as the A, the only conclusion is that the C is able to utilize a more optimized loft trajectory / flight profile that allows the missile to make better use of same amount of propellant energy. Meaning better guidance can make a big difference. The document does acknowledge that the C was going to be slightly heavier.


Hypothesis: The A was kinematically able to exceed Mach 4.3, but limited guidance tech kept its speed range relatively low. In the longest range real world test (110Nmi launch range, missile covered a horizontal distance of 72,5Nmi in 157,2s) for example, I think its plausible that the missile exceeded Mach 4, but drift due to older INU forced it to make course corrections that dragged its speed down faster, resulting in the observed mean speed of around Mach 3. If I remember correctly, the loft is done under an autopilot and the missile will begin receiving guidance from the AWG-9 during the "mid-phase" of flight -even with PDSTT mode. (correct me if I'm wrong!) 


Conclusion: There is nothing wrong with the current DCS AIM-54A model since it gives results that match the real world tests, but the C could/should be able to achieve a higher mean speed overall if/when guidance gets updated. I don't know what the difference is between A and C now, I don't play DCS myself. The reason I'm here is to learn more about the Phoenix, and the awesome ground work by the Heatblur developer team makes this forum a goldmine for detailed information. My sincerest Thanks!!
So, does any of this sound reasonable?


Btw, some sources state that the maximum launch speed for the Phoenix was Mach 1.6. Is this perhaps a recommendation or the highest launch speed recorded rather than an actual limit..? In DCS it is clearly possible to launch a Phoenix at a higher speed.

And while I'm at it...
... a question closely related to the topic:  A book by John Lake states: "deck launched intercept radius (for F-14A) with four Phoenix, two Sparrows, two Sidewinders and external fuel : 134 nm at Mach 1.5". I have assumed that this means the available range when the F-14 gets off the deck and accelerates to Mach 1.5, meaning a Tomcat could hit at least M1.5 with such loadout. Is this correct?
I ask because some have stated that getting the F-14 to that speed with a heavy loadout is extremely difficult or borderline impossible.

Thanks.
 

Welcome to the forums @Timo Niemelä - it is great to see that our work sparks interest even outside of DCS. I hope you find what you came looking for. 🙂

The mach 4.3 is often taken, I would kindly suggest, wrongly, as a normal employment max speed, while it was only demonstrated as capable, not guiding, etc etc. You can see this is demonstrated for the DCS phoenix as well here:

 


The NASA tests show much more close to normal employment conditions, and indicate a top speed of around m3.4-3.5ish.

However, without speculating too much on details, indeed an improved guidance will help both the A and the C with terminal energy, etc. But not by that much that it would turn out as a silver bullet. The C being expected to be faster and then turning out to be what it really was, is another story, as with the same impulse and a slightly heavier weight, the logical expectation is to be slightly slower. However this is completely negligable in regards to its true benefit, which is a much improved guidance.

I hope that makes sense. 🙂


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 3

Heatblur Simulations

 

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

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, shayan said:

 

 

 

I'm not complaining about anything; I'm only saying thank you . As Raviar remarked, "We don't care if you die on MP a million times in a row." I was previously killing with unrealistic missiles as you guys saying the old one was unreal ; now, I'm only occasionally dying from 10 nm with AIM-54s.

We do care if you live or die online, because we want you to have fun. But that still must not influence the realism of the simulation, and making or keeping the missiles unrealistic despite knowing better, is not the way to go about it. The way to go about it, imho, is that we all together learn the strengths and weaknesses of what we get, and figure out how to make it work. The phoenix is inferior to the amraam in many situations, but in some, it is much more powerful and has a much further reach. Figuring that out and flying towards an according setup, is part of the nature of a simulation. I hope that makes sense. 🙂


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 2

Heatblur Simulations

 

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

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, IronMike said:

it is great to see that our work sparks interest even outside of DCS. I hope you find what you came looking for.

I've got 7 books about fighter planes in my bookshelf (6 of which are about the F-14), but I didn't even begin to comprehend the basics of the fine art of modern air combat until I began watching DCS videos on youtube. So yes, this game has fascinating, educational value, even for those who do not play it! Yes, it's only a simulator, but clearly the best representation of the actual capabilities of fighter jets we can have in a public space.
Since I've allowed myself to become a "Tomcat fanboy", it was disappointing to learn that you can't call the Phoenix a hypersonic missile (especially since it's such a trendy word at the moment, ha ha)....but now I have an even deeper appreciation for the fine nuances that actually matter in the right context. That is thanks to you. And I guess this has been a lesson that all missile max speed figures should be taken with a grain of salt...
Since I am what you might call "an information hoarder", I'd be overjoyed if you could make a thread / share the sources on publicly available info on the AIM-54C/C+ (AIM-54A is much easier to find, but I've been chasing any document that says the C could go active on its own). Doens't matter that much if you can't though, I know everything you apply to the game is based on solid source material.


Thumbs up for you guys!

 

P.S. So disappointed that the US Navy never went through with the AIM-152. The big Cat could have had so much sharper claws...
 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Timo Niemelä said:

I've got 7 books about fighter planes in my bookshelf (6 of which are about the F-14), but I didn't even begin to comprehend the basics of the fine art of modern air combat until I began watching DCS videos on youtube. So yes, this game has fascinating, educational value, even for those who do not play it! Yes, it's only a simulator, but clearly the best representation of the actual capabilities of fighter jets we can have in a public space.
Since I've allowed myself to become a "Tomcat fanboy", it was disappointing to learn that you can't call the Phoenix a hypersonic missile (especially since it's such a trendy word at the moment, ha ha)....but now I have an even deeper appreciation for the fine nuances that actually matter in the right context. That is thanks to you. And I guess this has been a lesson that all missile max speed figures should be taken with a grain of salt...
Since I am what you might call "an information hoarder", I'd be overjoyed if you could make a thread / share the sources on publicly available info on the AIM-54C/C+ (AIM-54A is much easier to find, but I've been chasing any document that says the C could go active on its own). Doens't matter that much if you can't though, I know everything you apply to the game is based on solid source material.


Thumbs up for you guys!

 

P.S. So disappointed that the US Navy never went through with the AIM-152. The big Cat could have had so much sharper claws...
 

Thank you for your very kind words! This is why accuracy is so important to us, no matter if we have to backpaddle, bite our tongue or eat our own heads: these modules do contribute to the history of these aircraft told, even outside of DCS, and thus one has to be responsible in doing everything we can to get it as close as possible. Myths are myths, and I would carefully suggest: no matter these changes, the Tomcat remains a mythical beast, especially when you start creating rather realistic scenarios.

Btw, ever thought about trying DCS yourself? Not trying to sell you anything, but it is a) an even deeper look and experience and b) a lot of fun as well. It is quite intimidating at the start, but for someone like yourself, who is into these things already, the learning process should actually be a lot of fun in itself. Just something to consider, it is one of the few things I never regretted to have sunk time into myself, hehe.

  • Like 1

Heatblur Simulations

 

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

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Timo Niemelä said:

That's gotta be the best sales pitch ever! 😄


If I manage to save enough money for a new PC, I might give it a go... 😉
 

Start modest, build as time goes, most of us came into it like that as well. No need for the bestest and greatest right away. Should be decent, should have it work nice on medium to high. Can be a very much cheap entry stick at first. Then you see how you like it, and expand. Thus, building a medium to average gaming PC, that can be expanded upon in the future, is the best way to go for starters. Self-built and thus modular. You may very well not like it, or need to time to grow to like it, etc. and then you can still buy an aficionado joystick and the latest of latest of gaming hardware.. 🙂 Generally, it uh, ends like that I shall warn you though. 😄

  • Like 2

Heatblur Simulations

 

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

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IronMike and Timo:

40 minutes ago, IronMike said:

Start modest, build as time goes, most of us came into it like that as well. No need for the bestest and greatest right away. Should be decent, should have it work nice on medium to high. Can be a very much cheap entry stick at first. Then you see how you like it, and expand. Thus, building a medium to average gaming PC, that can be expanded upon in the future, is the best way to go for starters. Self-built and thus modular. You may very well not like it, or need to time to grow to like it, etc. and then you can still buy an aficionado joystick and the latest of latest of gaming hardware.. 🙂 Generally, it uh, ends like that I shall warn you though. 😄

 

2 hours ago, IronMike said:

Thank you for your very kind words! This is why accuracy is so important to us, no matter if we have to backpaddle, bite our tongue or eat our own heads: these modules do contribute to the history of these aircraft told, even outside of DCS, and thus one has to be responsible in doing everything we can to get it as close as possible. Myths are myths, and I would carefully suggest: no matter these changes, the Tomcat remains a mythical beast, especially when you start creating rather realistic scenarios.

Btw, ever thought about trying DCS yourself? Not trying to sell you anything, but it is a) an even deeper look and experience and b) a lot of fun as well. It is quite intimidating at the start, but for someone like yourself, who is into these things already, the learning process should actually be a lot of fun in itself. Just something to consider, it is one of the few things I never regretted to have sunk time into myself, hehe.

Per IronMike, it was true regarding trying DCS. I share the sentiment regarding learning process, and also the resulting enjoyment knowing how to employ (or at least make sense of) the knowledge and data so research and presented.

It was March of 2019.  I was walking out of Target.  I googled F-14 from Youtube just for fun then found the "ANYTIME, BABY!!" release trailer/video.  I was blown away not only that I haven't seen an F-14 sim anywhere since the days of Microprose's F-14 Fleet Defender, but the graphics, the music, and then the cinematics all were too captivating for me to ignore.  I began looking around to learn more.  If my memory serves me right, I eventually came across the post "Scan, Lock, Fire" from Heatblur.  Turned out they also modelled the radar and weapon system.  Oh My GAWD!!  That green colored CRT "fishbowl" looking TID, the AWG-9, and the mighty AIM-54s.  I knew I had to get back into flight simming just for the TOMCAT.  I liked the Falcon, the Hornet, but the Tomcat...

Next thing I know, I googled the required specs to experience it.  Then I realized it is part of the DCS module collection; within two months, I built a DCS gaming rig (I haven't had a gaming anything since 2003. Lots to learn but worth all of it) for what but oh yes that ol 'Grumman Cat.

Now, here we are.  I am able to enjoy the Grumman F-14 Tomcat faithfully recreated by Heatblur, learn its AWG-9 kirks and strengths, and even dab into intercept geometry (thanks to extensive writeup and analysis from Xarov of Fly-and-Wire, meanwhile also thanks to Chuck's Guide).  I love it.  Last but not least, the group of enthusiasts that contribute to this F-14 experience is immense, at times, quite intense (😬).

To end, a modest system with medium in-game settings, a simple flight stick, a copy of Heatblur's F-14, afterward, your desire and time available are the only limits, friend.  Flying and admiring is fun, and the awe that comes from learning how to employ them are even better!

Thanks, IronMike and Heatblur.  You guys have brought me an immense opportunity to rekindle with my youth... and with that, pure joy.  Oh hell, it is more then joy now--it's a freaking journey!!

p.s: If Timo Niemelä is reading this, have a peek at FlyandWire.com, grab and skim the Chuck's Guide for the F-14 Tomcat.  I don't mind getting blame for getting you closer the Grumman Tomcat.  Lastly, I left you a picture here.  It as made by someone at Hoggit subreddit, Ellyrion, more then three years ago.  Cheers! 😀 

F14 Days by Reddit_Ellyrion.png

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw everyone, I kept saying "NASA tests" in my previous posts, and @Machalot was kind enough to remind me of not being precise, I of course meant the NASA simulations. Apologies!

  • Like 2

Heatblur Simulations

 

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

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pally said:

  I liked the Falcon, the Hornet, but the Tomcat...

Tomcat is 100% Cold Steel and Sex Appeal

 

This Mod was always going to be a no brainer for me.  My Pre-School in the early eighties was in sight of the traffic pattern for Miramar, the Big Fighter was a part of my recess.  Then my mom had to go and buy a VHS player and Top Gun (back when that stuff was pricey).


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

On 9/18/2022 at 5:47 PM, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Then what do they fly like? :huh:

Whatever the current "meta" is..... but suffice to say, it get's them blown out of the sky by a 10 miles Sidewinder launch, and then they come here looking for changes in the "gameplay"....

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, IronMike said:

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.
 

Straying a bit from the topic at hand, but I was wondering what speed you be flying at after you launch and crank to gimbal limits to reduce closure rate?  I've heard some say to keep the speed up, but the above implies that should not?  I'm not sure how the geometry works out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, WarthogOsl said:

Straying a bit from the topic at hand, but I was wondering what speed you be flying at after you launch and crank to gimbal limits to reduce closure rate?  I've heard some say to keep the speed up, but the above implies that should not?  I'm not sure how the geometry works out.

As always, it depend on the situation and your game plan, but dropping to high subsonic isn't out of the question.

  • Like 1

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pally said:

p.s: If Timo Niemelä is reading this, have a peek at FlyandWire.com

I'll check that out. 🙂

I first fell in love with the mightiest of Grumman's Cats when I got a model F-14A for my 6th birthday back in -94. Nothing cooler than that could not exist. I had forgotten all that enthusiasm for fighter jets for decades until the Finnish HX -Challenge was brought up frequently in the news and a "big" Air Show in 2017 (big as in Finnish standards = anything with a jet engine and an afterburner flies around)  sparked a friend of mine to ask me if I ever had a favorite fighter aircraft. My answer: "Well there was this thing called the Tomcat that got retired because apparently it was too bad-ass for the post -Cold War world...let me look into it."
Man if I could travel back in time...the only thing I wanna see is a Tomcat doing a knife edge wing sweep pass!
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WarthogOsl said:

Straying a bit from the topic at hand, but I was wondering what speed you be flying at after you launch and crank to gimbal limits to reduce closure rate?  I've heard some say to keep the speed up, but the above implies that should not?  I'm not sure how the geometry works out.

It depends, I will keep it somewhere around 350 IAS to 450 IAS, so I can transform it quickly into a split-S, etc if necessary. Around 350, increasing through 450 in the reverse is usually quite ok.

  • Like 1

Heatblur Simulations

 

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

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, IronMike said:

Btw everyone, I kept saying "NASA tests" in my previous posts, and @Machalot was kind enough to remind me of not being precise, I of course meant the NASA simulations. Apologies!

I know for sure that you guys base the performance of the AIM54C-MK47 on NASA testing.
But what about MK60? I think the current MK60 is a meaningless variation, but can AIM54C-MK60 also present the same data as NASA simulation results?
I wonder what kind of data the performance of the existing MK60 is based on, and what kind of data is based on the performance of the MK60 (tactically meaningless) based on the new data.
Because HB doesn't seem to make anything without data.
Therefore, I wonder why I judged that the new data among the existing and new data is much more reliable.
I think I want to see it Like a NASA simulation.
I don't think it means much, but it's obviously impossible for AIM54 to reach Mach 5, so I wonder why the maximum speed is known as Mach 5
I think the conventional wisdom that AIM54C has an improved motor and range in the scent is also wrong🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Spurts said:

Tomcat is 100% Cold Steel and Sex Appeal

 

This Mod was always going to be a no brainer for me.  My Pre-School in the early eighties was in sight of the traffic pattern for Miramar, the Big Fighter was a part of my recess.  Then my mom had to go and buy a VHS player and Top Gun (back when that stuff was pricey).

 

Spurts, cool bro, you got to see all that during your childhood?  Miramar? Tomcat landing? Dang. The original Fightertown USA.  That's history we savor.  I am forever jealous.  Sex appeal and brute, hell yeah, Grumman Ironworks.

Sad for me to have not visited the Grumman facility, the F-14's birthplace, at Bethpage, Long Island, New York. I lived in NY for the longest, and one day I will go there specially to pay my respect to both the big Cat and also to Grumman proper.

Meanwhile, it is flying off Nellis AFB RNWY 03L with the Heatblur's Grumman F-14B and so some drone practice.  Cheers! 


Edited by Pally
Names and additional info.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Meteorlover said:

I know for sure that you guys base the performance of the AIM54C-MK47 on NASA testing.
But what about MK60? I think the current MK60 is a meaningless variation, but can AIM54C-MK60 also present the same data as NASA simulation results?
I wonder what kind of data the performance of the existing MK60 is based on, and what kind of data is based on the performance of the MK60 (tactically meaningless) based on the new data.
Because HB doesn't seem to make anything without data.
Therefore, I wonder why I judged that the new data among the existing and new data is much more reliable.
I think I want to see it Like a NASA simulation.
I don't think it means much, but it's obviously impossible for AIM54 to reach Mach 5, so I wonder why the maximum speed is known as Mach 5
I think the conventional wisdom that AIM54C has an improved motor and range in the scent is also wrong🤔

The MK60 was simply an alternate supplier motor early in the procurement of the AIM-54, subcontracted by Hughes. 

  • Like 1

Heatblur Rivet Counting Squad™

 

VF-11 and VF-31 1988 [WIP]

VF-201 & VF-202 [WIP]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

The MK60 was simply an alternate supplier motor early in the procurement of the AIM-54, subcontracted by Hughes. 

This.  Same net impulse within a few kilos, simply a different burn profile.

Impulse is impulse.  Same net energy into a body gets the basically the same distance, give or take.  Primary difference is rate of initial acceleration versus rate of decoration against the longer burn time motor.  Plus smokeless versus slightly smoky. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19.09.2022 в 19:18, IronMike сказал:

We do care if you live or die online, because we want you to have fun. But that still must not influence the realism of the simulation, and making or keeping the missiles unrealistic despite knowing better, is not the way to go about it. The way to go about it, imho, is that we all together learn the strengths and weaknesses of what we get, and figure out how to make it work. The phoenix is inferior to the amraam in many situations, but in some, it is much more powerful and has a much further reach. Figuring that out and flying towards an according setup, is part of the nature of a simulation. I hope that makes sense. 🙂

 

I totally agree. Now the F-14 is realistic and lives up to its mission of the 70s: to shoot down bombers from a distance. The problem is that these bombers are not in the game. What you have done is this: a good product for itself, but for what? Like an iPhone without electricity. A beautifully made thing, but useless without an outlet. F-14 with realistic missiles - beautiful and useless. For fans collection.

P.S. The reasonableness of adopting an aircraft with such a powerful radar and such energetically weak missiles raises doubts. But NASA knows better.


Edited by Sindar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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