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

[Naquaii]

1 hour ago, Rinz1er said:

I could imagine scenarios where you may want to carry a mixed mk47s AND mk60s. Is there anyway to weapon select between pheonix pylons? I know you can with AIM9s by hitting the weapon depress. 

No, the AIM-54 launch sequence is always the same. You could potentially keep track of in what order they will launch and mount them accordingly but the motors were kinda intended to be interchangeable so there's no way of letting the WCS know which is which.

[Flash_111]

Nice, wasn't expecting a patch so soon. Looks like exciting changes. Is the fuel jettison effect fixed as well?

[Skarp]

5 hours ago, IronMike said:

Nope. It means: due to its higher thrust, the mk60 has a slight advantage while the motor is burning, while the mk47 has an advantage in the motor burning longer. Hope that clarifies it.

Will the bandit get a launch warning with a PD-STT launched aim54? Or has Ed not provided api for this yet? I don’t think they would get a warning IRL.

[Naquaii]

2 minutes ago, Skarp said:

Will the bandit get a launch warning with a PD-STT launched aim54? Or has Ed not provided api for this yet? I don’t think they would get a warning IRL.

Saying what an RWR will get IRL would just be a massive guess. As for DCS the target will get a launch warning from the radar in the F-14 for both the -A and -C as that's how SARH missiles work in DCS.

[ThorBrasil]

@Naquaii Is this AIM-54 Phoenix update available now or will it be released in the next openBeta update? Thanks!

Edited September 2, 2022 by ThorBrasil

[Callsign JoNay]

6 hours ago, Cobra847 said:

• Increased AIM-54C chaff resistance.
• Reduced AIM-54A chaff resistance.

Can we get some more detail on this? I have so many questions.

#1- Can you give us a ballpark estimate of what kind of increased and reduced chaff resistance you are intending, so that we can practice and compare our results to your goals? Is the A supposed to be twice as susceptible to chaff now? Three times? Just a little bit more susceptible?

 

#1A- How about the C? Twice as resistant? Just a little bit? Etc...

 

#2- Why were these changes made? What information did you come across to initiate these changes?

 

#3- Something I've always been unclear about... Is the HB AIM-54 radar a PD radar or a pulse radar? In this post you appear to confirm my understanding (as of 2021), that the real life Phoenix housed a PD radar and should be almost totally immune to chaff, but you also said that you allow it to be decoyed by chaff to follow suit with ED's game-isms:

But in this clip "Puck" talks about how the 54 had a Pulse radar and that it was quite susceptible to chaff:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxiOYoC0yTMGaxCZMG6B-fOcNqrePhJGt6

So I guess I'm wondering why was the chaff resistance of the A-models lowered for this upcoming patch? Is it because the HB team was also under the false impression that it housed a PD radar, and are now adjusting it to perform like a pulse radar? Is it a game balance thing to follow suit with ED practices? Is there some other reason? And follow up question, why was the C-model chaff resistance increased? Does it house a PD radar?

 

#4- Since the A-model will be more susceptible to chaff does that mean it's more immune to notching? If it's a pulse radar as "Puck" says it is in the 10% True video, then it should be immune to notching, correct?

 

EDIT: Also in the "Puck" 10% True video he mentions a 29s burn time. Maybe he's misremembering, I dunno, but I thought I'd add that here as well:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxW9dHXMc9uOAhRSfL7LWkL95y5bhaO0k4

Edited September 1, 2022 by Callsign JoNay

[Naquaii]

19 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Can we get some more detail on this? I have so many questions.

#1- Can you give us a ballpark estimate of what kind of increased and reduced chaff resistance you are intending, so that we can practice and compare our results to your goals? Is the A supposed to be twice as susceptible to chaff now? Three times? Just a little bit more susceptible?

 

#1A- How about the C? Twice as resistant? Just a little bit? Etc...

 

#2- Why were these changes made? What information did you come across to initiate these changes?

 

#3- Something I've always been unclear about... Is the HB AIM-54 radar a PD radar or a pulse radar? In this post you appear to confirm my understanding (as of 2021), that the real life Phoenix housed a PD radar and should be almost totally immune to chaff, but you also said that you allow it to be decoyed by chaff to follow suit with ED's game-isms:

But in this clip "Puck" talks about how the 54 had a Pulse radar and that it was quite susceptible to chaff:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxiOYoC0yTMGaxCZMG6B-fOcNqrePhJGt6

So I guess I'm wondering why was the chaff resistance of the A-models lowered for this upcoming patch? Is it because the HB team was also under the false impression that it housed a PD radar, and are now adjusting it to perform like a pulse radar? Is it a game balance thing to follow suit with ED practices? Is there some other reason? And follow up question, why was the C-model chaff resistance increased? Does it house a PD radar?

 

#4- Since the A-model will be more susceptible to chaff does that mean it's more immune to notching? If it's a pulse radar as "Puck" says it is in the 10% True video, then it should be immune to notching, correct?

 

EDIT: Also in the "Puck" 10% True video he mentions a 29s burn time. Maybe he's misremembering, I dunno, but I thought I'd add that here as well:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxW9dHXMc9uOAhRSfL7LWkL95y5bhaO0k4

 

I can't really answer your other questions as that's not my department but I can tell you that all our sources directly counter his claim that the seeker is a pulse radar. All information we have say that it's a pulse doppler seeker in the AIM-54A and the AIM-54C for sure wouldn't be either. Having a non pulse-doppler seeker guide onto signals from a pulse doppler radar illuminator would be an engineering challenge indeed.

 

 

[Xl-45]

Thanks for all the hard work, looking forward to all the changes !

[Callsign JoNay]

24 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

I can't really answer your other questions as that's not my department but I can tell you that all our sources directly counter his claim that the seeker is a pulse radar. All information we have say that it's a pulse doppler seeker in the AIM-54A and the AIM-54C for sure wouldn't be either. Having a non pulse-doppler seeker guide onto signals from a pulse doppler radar illuminator would be an engineering challenge indeed.

 

 

Very mysterious! Puck sounds pretty sure about what he's saying, but on the other hand I'm sure the HB team has great sources.

 

So if HB is modelling a PD radar in the AIM-54, why would the CM resistance be reduced in the A-variants? What did you guys find? Because as per Iron Mike's post from 2021:

Quote

From a book on Electronic Warfare Fundamentals:

"When chaff is dispensed in the airstream, the drag on an individual dipole is so great compared to its mass that it slows to the velocity of the surrounding air mass almost instantly. Since the relative velocity of the chaff, in relation to the radar, is zero, radar systems employing Doppler processing and tracking will not display the chaff."

This is why our PD radar modes ignore chaff, as they should. 

[IronMike]

6 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Very mysterious! Puck sounds pretty sure about what he's saying, but on the other hand I'm sure the HB team has great sources.

 

So if HB is modelling a PD radar in the AIM-54, why would the CM resistance be reduced in the A-variants? What did you guys find? Because as per Iron Mike's post from 2021:

I was talking about the main radar on the aircraft, not the missile's radar. Also do not over interpret too much into the reduction of CM resistance, before trying it, it is by all means not a drastic change.

[Callsign JoNay]

3 minutes ago, IronMike said:

I was talking about the main radar on the aircraft, not the missile's radar. Also do not over interpret too much into the reduction of CM resistance, before trying it, it is by all means not a drastic change.

But you said "DCS does not apply this logic to their missiles, and hence we follow suit".

So are you confirming that HB is modelling a pulse radar in the Phoenix? Sorry if I'm being difficult, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of a question that has been bugging me for years.

[Naquaii]

3 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

But you said "DCS does not apply this logic to their missiles, and hence we follow suit".

So are you confirming that HB is modelling a pulse radar in the Phoenix? Sorry if I'm being difficult, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of a question that has been bugging me for years.

No, the phoenix' seeker is pulse-doppler. But this is also not a distinction that is made in DCS for missiles.

The chaff resistance has to be tweaked around this so will in many ways always be an abstraction unless things change in regards to how that's modelled.

You can't equate those values directly to stuff like pulse/pulse-doppler etc.

And we also have to take into account how other missiles in DCS behave and how resistant they are. Having an AIM-54 that is a wild missmatch in capability compared to something like an AIM-120 or AIM-7 wouldn't be that realistic either.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Naquaii

[Callsign JoNay]

2 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

But this is also not a distinction that is made in DCS for missiles.

I see. That makes sense.

 

3 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

And we also have to take into account how other missiles in DCS behave and how resistant they are. Having an AIM-54 that is a wild missmatch in capability compared to something like an AIM-120 or AIM-7 wouldn't be that realistic either.

That's really unfortunate that you have to do that.

[Naquaii]

3 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

I see. That makes sense.

 

That's really unfortunate that you have to do that.

Well, it's all a balance. We try to balance the values to fit how it in our mind should be but we also have to acknowledge the setting it's put into.

[captain_dalan]

4 hours ago, Naquaii said:

The newly added periodic update of the -A will hamper it's long range performance as it only correct it's course every two seconds and the guidance in the -A isn't smart enough to smooth that out. It's nowhere near a bang-bang guidance of early LGBs, you have to look quite closely at the missile to see it but you can see it. This ofc makes the -A slightly worse in most long range shots but it's hard to say exactly how much.

As for the different motors the biggest difference is really down low as the mk47 burns longer it'll start loosing speed later than a mk60. If in really close the mk60 will have a slight edge as it will accelerate faster.

 

Useful info! Many thanks! 

[The_Tau]

3 hours ago, Naquaii said:

Saying what an RWR will get IRL would just be a massive guess. As for DCS the target will get a launch warning from the radar in the F-14 for both the -A and -C as that's how SARH missiles work in DCS.

Do you know maybe if ED plans to change that behaviour? It really hampers STT mode in F14 as bandits have all the time in the world to defend. It also applies to Patriot or S300 SAMs they shouldnt give warning to RWR for launch 

[Hobel]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb The_Tau:

Do you know maybe if ED plans to change that behaviour? It really hampers STT mode in F14 as bandits have all the time in the world to defend. It also applies to Patriot or S300 SAMs they shouldnt give warning to RWR for launch 

that would be wonderful for both!

[pricklyHH72]

Massive effort, team.

[DSplayer]

6 hours ago, DSplayer said:

Will a new whitepaper be made in order to update the information we have? I would love to read the sources that were able to make these changes possible along with stare at the graphs.

Also did the nozzle_exit_area stuff ever get added?

6 hours ago, H7142 said:

So has this finalized the move to the new missile aero FM? I saw mentions of things like motor on drag reductions in the previous thread and was wondering if those have been modeled now are will take more time.

I would absolutely love to hear some answers regarding these questions along with if this is still utilizing the older API that doesn’t have a dedicated FM and motor sections (boost and march) like what the AIM-120s, S530D, and SD-10 currently have.

 

Overall sounds like next patch is going to be great and I can’t wait to drop some graphs into this chat later on tomorrow.

[Zergburger]

thanks @Naquaii , @IronMike and the rest of heatblur for your diligence and commitment to realism bordering on obsession, this is the <profanity> that gets sim nerds like me excited.

[Biggus]

Good work guys, looking forward to playing with the kitty after having had a break for awhile!

[spazz212]

13 hours ago, Cobra847 said:

 

• • Adjusted AIM-54 missile empty mass.
  • Adjusted MK-60 motor propellant mass.

 

Is this an Increase or decrease in Mass, also will this have a carry on effect on Induced drag or is the change not modelled at this stage?

[Uxi]

Was there going to be any sort of Home On Jam functionality in the Phoenix?  

Speaking of mass, did we ever figure out if the pylon weight is included or not?  

[sLYFa]

Since it wasn't previously and the changelog doesn't mention anything I would assume that the pylons still have no weight FM-wise. 

[draconus]

"NEW: Added pilot body in the cockpit view" line missing from the changelog.

Edited September 2, 2022 by draconus