F-14 v2.8 - Jamming, JESTER, and Headless Bodies!

[Naquaii]

46 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

Oh btw, will there be altitude difference ranging when in angle-tracked with radar and when with the TCS or is this coming in the future?

Atm we've decided not to prioritise modelling ADR as it's one of those systems that would be a lot of work to implement while not really adding much as it was quite limited and hard to use.

[hannibal]

If F14 has been this amazing.. I can't even imagine what A6E will be like..

[DarkJedi_7]

Any chance of removing the J79 that you've labled TF-30 and replacing it with an actual TF-30 sound ?

[captain_dalan]

4 hours ago, Naquaii said:

But could you prove why the AWG-9 should be better or worse than any other aircraft with actual evidence?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that.... unfortunately...

4 hours ago, Naquaii said:

Just to elaborate on the ECM. The ECM in DCS is not currently really realistic, you could easily argue that it's better to just not use it when you design missions.

...

What the simulator has (for air to air) is just a simple flag that tells another radar if it has a jammer or not.

...

Is this realistic? Not really, but it's also not realistic to have a radar that completely ignores jamming when it exists in the game.

What we've tried to do is to somewhat represent how jamming should look in the AWG-9 and still have it fair to the other modules in the sim.

Is this us choosing balance over realism? Not really. The simple fact is that you'll never find enough open data to prove which system would best which and what aircraft would have an advantage over another....

 

Oh, i'm not blaming this on you, we all play with the tools that are given to us. 

4 hours ago, gnomechild said:

This is a very level headed and, in my opinion the correct, take. As much as the core logic is / isn't realistic, DCS modules don't exist in a vacuum.....

 

And yet, just a casual browse through many a threads will have you believe how things in DCS aren't modelled with balance in mind... Not meant as a jab, but just look at the above quote just for a bit of reference on contradiction. 

I get the impression that ED wanted its tiny deathmatch WVR arena, and they found a way to bring it back, despite what looked like actual progress in the last few years. We are back in the dark ages of 10 mile shots and split-s for home of the yesteryears. 

5 hours ago, Naquaii said:

Home on jam is your friend if your running a mission where the bombers are allowed to jam. Not as long a distance as without jamming but you could also disable ECM in the mission to make it more realistic.

 

 

I don't think this will work well with the way ED models omniscience in the AI. 

[IronMike]

16 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that.... unfortunately...

Oh, i'm not blaming this on you, we all play with the tools that are given to us. 

And yet, just a casual browse through many a threads will have you believe how things in DCS aren't modelled with balance in mind... Not meant as a jab, but just look at the above quote just for a bit of reference on contradiction. 

I get the impression that ED wanted its tiny deathmatch WVR arena, and they found a way to bring it back, despite what looked like actual progress in the last few years. We are back in the dark ages of 10 mile shots and split-s for home of the yesteryears. 

Absence of evidence is just absence of evidence. Else that is like saying "there is no proof that it does not exist" - something which you can hear quite often in history channel mockumentaries, which is also where this kind of stuff belongs - into the realm of amusing thoughts. We also deal less in "evidence" or "concepts of ideas" but facts and data we can act upon. So far, simply nothing suggests that the AWG-9 would provide a greater burn through range to our best knowledge, and from my best knowledge from speaking to folks who know a hell lot more on that than me, is that more powerful radar =/ bigger burnthrough range per se.

The decision to implement jamming along the path ED has laid out by the general representation of jamming in DCS is also not a question of balance. It is a matter of fairness. It would be simply unfair, if the Tomcat remained unjammable. And the fairest way to implement it, is to implement it by incorporating the current model of EW within the possibilities and capabilities of the AWG-9, as realistically as possible. The AWG-9 in return provides a toolset to deal with jammers, which do not force you into some kind of WVR Arena at all. You can take as long a HOJ shot as you like, and even within burnthrough, you remain well outside 10nm. Never has ED approached us and said "hey guys, but remember to force everyone into WVR", nor did we ever consider "balance" when implementing jamming as we did. If at some point ED decides to expand the current EW model in DCS, we will move along the goalposts ED sets out for it. Simple as that. But until then, you neither suffer a particular disadvantage or advantage in regards to jamming compared to any other module in DCS. In fact I would suggest that in the Tomcat you enjoy the slight advantage even of being able to use triangulation, which no other module in DCS currently can.

Edited October 27, 2022 by IronMike

[FWind]

[captain_dalan]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

Absence of evidence is just absence of evidence. Else that is like saying "there is no proof that it does not exist" - something which you can hear quite often in history channel mockumentaries.... <snip>

 

That is a far cry from justifying an implementation because you can't prove it wrong. At least not in science. Otherwise you could just present a random mathematical model as a solution for any singularity a current theory may present and go "voila", you can't prove i'm wrong, this what's going on in the middle of that black hole yonder.  

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

The decision to implement jamming along the path ED has laid out by the general representation of jamming in DCS is also not a question of balance. It is a matter of fairness. It would be simply unfair, if the Tomcat remained unjammable. And the fairest way to implement it, is to implement it by incorporating the current model of EW within the possibilities and capabilities of the AWG-9, as realistically as possible. The AWG-9 in return provides a toolset to deal with jammers, which do not force you into some kind of WVR Arena at all. You can take as long a HOJ shot as you like, and even within burnthrough, you remain well outside 10nm. Never has ED approached us and said "hey guys, but remember to force everyone into WVR", nor did we ever consider "balance" when implementing jamming as we did. If at some point ED decides to expand the current EW model in DCS, we will move along the goalposts ED sets out for it. Simple as that. But until then, you neither suffer a particular disadvantage or advantage in regards to jamming compared to any other module in DCS. In fact I would suggest that in the Tomcat you enjoy the slight advantage even of being able to use triangulation, which no other module in DCS currently can.

 

You may have gotten the intent of my post as advocating for reverting of the previous state. It's not. I'm completely aware this is fait accompli and there is no rolling back. What took me by surprise is that i had no idea this was the way ED modelled jamming. Despite me owning all those planes, i mostly used them for BFM and joyriding. I don't have enough time to be operationally fluent (something that i think is mandatory for flying actual missions) in all of them, and even those i didn't fly, i bought to support ED and its 3rd party developers. I considered myself only truly proficient in the F-14, minus ground attack of course. If i had any idea that this was the way ECM was modelled, i would have ditched long time ago. It's just a cup too much, on top of counter measure implementation, AI SA, Cloud and vapor effects on sensors and AI, certain aircraft integration with the Super Carrier, missile API.... But now that i  do know, it makes so much sense. I mean, the behavior and the reports i've heard and seen from other people that flew other jets.  So do i expect this to change? No. Do i advocate for a change? Heck, no. If ED wants jamming to work this way, so be it. It's their product and they can aim at a customer base they see fit.

As to the last point on things being fair and perceived advantages and disadvantages, competitive MP isn't my thing, so i really don't care. Sports and war don't mix. And there are 90's packages/titles that do most of the above much better anyways. Cheers!  

EDIT: (and a DISCLAIMER) in the 5+ years since buying my first module, i've spent more then enough hours of enjoyment (especially the 500+ hours across both F-14 variants) to consider my money well spent. So let there be no ill will here. Few games could ever hope to match these stats, except for MOO1, CIV2 and BG1. In my book, that's saying something! 

Edited October 27, 2022 by captain_dalan

[lunaticfringe]

3 hours ago, FWind said:

And the current model actually does this.

[IronMike]

3 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

That is a far cry from justifying an implementation because you can't prove it wrong. At least not in science. Otherwise you could just present a random mathematical model as a solution for any singularity a current theory may present and go "voila", you can't prove i'm wrong, this what's going on in the middle of that black hole yonder. 

Again, it is the wrong way around of going about it. If someone claims it should be different, they need to justify their claim by backing it up with data that can be acted upon. We have enough insight that justifies the AWG-9 not having a longer burnthrough range. And it is not just some random model. If ppl think this should be different, it's not about proving us wrong, but presenting knowledge that supports their wish. The kind of knowledge that allows us to say a) it is factual and b) it is data that we can actually act upon and implement. Chances are, that with years of work and research gone into this, under the meticulous eyes of folks who work with such radars in real life on a day to day basis, and us not finding anything that suggests differently, it is because there likely is nothing that would suggest differently. If anyone chooses not to trust us on that, so be it, but unless someone presents anything better than the mere thought of "because the radar is stronger the burnthrough range should be further", we won't change it. That different jammers should have different burnthrough ranges is a whole other issue, but again, that is not on us to model, and as said, should the goalposts be moved on that, we will follow along. Until then, it will stay as is. 

The rest, what can I say? If you use it only for BFM and joyriding, then jamming certainly does not affect you. So stepping away from DCS because of this discovery, makes no sense to me. I can only tell you from flying with the exact same jamming model for the past nigh 20 years - that it is ok enough to provide a tactical element that is both fun to use to your advantage when jamming yourself and being jammed, both singleplayer and online.

At the same time, most folks will never know how realistic jamming really is, as it is one of the most classified and closely guarded secrets in the military world, and while we all can know enough to wish for a bit more playful, or slightly more evolved, I should say, implementation of it, acting as if the discrepancy between an expectation based on no true knowledge about it and any kind of implementation of it, is the real let down in flight simming, to me, I am sorry, sounds a bit far fetched. Jamming will likely never be fully realistic in any consumer sim, for good reasons. Could or should it be better? Sure. But no matter how it is, it is far from being the one thing that makes or breaks this video game, even if its denominating genre is being a combat flight simulator.

I would also like to kindly suggest that any further discussion about the principal implementation of EW stuff in DCS is better directed to ED, and does not really fit in either this topic or our subforum. Thank you.

Edited October 27, 2022 by IronMike

[Naquaii]

5 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that.... unfortunately...

Oh, i'm not blaming this on you, we all play with the tools that are given to us. 

And yet, just a casual browse through many a threads will have you believe how things in DCS aren't modelled with balance in mind... Not meant as a jab, but just look at the above quote just for a bit of reference on contradiction. 

I get the impression that ED wanted its tiny deathmatch WVR arena, and they found a way to bring it back, despite what looked like actual progress in the last few years. We are back in the dark ages of 10 mile shots and split-s for home of the yesteryears. 

I don't think this will work well with the way ED models omniscience in the AI. 

I challenge you to prove the AWG-9 would be any better or worse than any other radar against jamming. That’s what this is really about, not game balance even if it levels the playing field in regards to ECM.

[DSplayer]

The only shot I think that the DCS 2.8 F-14 cannot accomplish anymore is this and its due to the fidelity of DCS jamming unfortunately.

Spoiler

 

[FWind]

[IronMike]

4 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:

And the current model actually does this.

Actually it doesn't. Neither the example posted by @FWind nor the one by @DSplayer applies to the kind of jamming modelled in DCS. As is, it will fire HOJ and not loft. However with a blinking jammer, the AWG-9 will have momentarily range information at time of launch, and thus the missile would loft normally (irl). 

That is the problem with just dropping some schematic or picture out of context, without leaving a line with it, or understanding its context. It can be highly misleading, if not providing more circumstantial knowledge.

@DSplayer you can replicate the shot. Simply have the jammer off at time of launch and then with a weapon in zone trigger turn it on immediately when the AIM54 is in flight (but it is possible that when going HOJ it will go to straight guidance in DCS, would need to be tested. In this case it shouldn't, but that is not in our hands). The best replication of the shot is thus to do it with the jammer off.

Either way, both examples are irrelevant and kinda useless for DCS.

Edited October 27, 2022 by IronMike

[Cocker]

Ok, so, on a lighter note...

Will we be able to reskin the in cockpit pilot bodies to match the outside model skins?

[Noctrach]

8 hours ago, DSplayer said:

10 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:

And the current model actually does this.

Just for clarity but from these responses I seem to infer that JAT shots still perform a loft/MBAM on the flyout? Because if that is the case people are really worrying about nothing at all.

I think a scary prospect of the 29 nmi hardcoded burn-through is the fact that 20-29 miles in practical terms means "20 miles or less", AIM-54 characteristics being what they are. Traditionally DCS missiles have used pure pursuit guidance on HOJ shots, which would very decisively run a phoenix out of juice in about 15 miles at the altitudes given in the image.

If the missile still performs something of a loft outside of burn-through range then there is no reason for anyone to panic and assume we're back to WVR-style engagements. (We'll find out in a couple of hours anyway)

 

[IronMike]

23 minutes ago, Noctrach said:

Just for clarity but from these responses I seem to infer that JAT shots still perform a loft/MBAM on the flyout? Because if that is the case people are really worrying about nothing at all.

I think a scary prospect of the 29 nmi hardcoded burn-through is the fact that 20-29 miles in practical terms means "20 miles or less", AIM-54 characteristics being what they are. Traditionally DCS missiles have used pure pursuit guidance on HOJ shots, which would very decisively run a phoenix out of juice in about 15 miles at the altitudes given in the image.

If the missile still performs something of a loft outside of burn-through range then there is no reason for anyone to panic and assume we're back to WVR-style engagements. (We'll find out in a couple of hours anyway)

 

See my post above. Loft is provided in these examples because it is a blinking jammer, so the awg9 has momentarily range info, and performs a normal shot. The track is then extrapolated, while the missile guides HOJ on target but still lofts. This happens also if you say fire in TWS, and then the target turns on the jammer in DCS. But because there are no blinking jammers in DCS, a shot on an already jamming target will be HOJ from the get go, and not loft. Which is why both above examples don't really apply to DCS.

[Noctrach]

31 minutes ago, IronMike said:

See my post above. Loft is provided in these examples because it is a blinking jammer, so the awg9 has momentarily range info, and performs a normal shot. The track is then extrapolated, while the missile guides HOJ on target but still lofts. This happens also if you say fire in TWS, and then the target turns on the jammer in DCS. But because there are no blinking jammers in DCS, a shot on an already jamming target will be HOJ from the get go, and not loft. Which is why both above examples don't really apply to DCS.

Apologies, I missed your response. But that does mean the 29 nmi cut-off excessively impacts the F-14 in comparison to other jets, since it simply does not have an effective mid-range missile shot. So with that in mind I do understand people are panicking for PvP-type scenarios where jammers are commonplace, as it pretty much removes the F-14 from the BVR roster.

Very unfortunate

Edited October 27, 2022 by Noctrach

[IronMike]

6 minutes ago, Noctrach said:

Apologies, I missed your response. But that does mean the 29 nmi cut-off excessively impacts the F-14 in comparison to other jets, since it simply does not have an effective mid-range missile shot. So with that in mind I do understand people are panicking for PvP-type scenarios where jammers are commonplace, as it pretty much removes the F-14 from the BVR roster.

Very unfortunate

 

I don't see why it would, the aim54 works fine below 30nm as well, when employed correctly. The rest simply means dealing with the same issue as the other guys. It is simply a tactical obstacle to work around, that is all. I am personally not a big fan of these kind of absolute (somewhat panicking) statements, there is always a way to make it work. Also not all targets are jamming, and HOJ shots will still be a threat. On top of that this is a very much lonewolf based thinking. With 2 or more guys in the fold, a lot more is possible. Triangulating jammers, boxing, etc etc...

Edited October 27, 2022 by IronMike

[Spurts]

I still see the F-14 as being the best module against jamming targets even if it does have the largest reduction in detection ranges.  With two F-14s you can actually get the range so you know when to fire.  You have the only missile with a 30s motor burn time.  You have your own jammer so you can make them play by the same rules.  I see it more like the F-16/F-18 are barely impacted by the fixed 29nm burn through range because they could only detect most fighters at 40nm anyway, less if using their own jammer.

Also, wouldn't TAJ-STT give you rather good azimuth and elevation data?  And TCS can still be slaved to it?  This would mean the F-14 is AFAIK the only module that can tell you if a jammer is above or below you.

[captain_dalan]

11 hours ago, IronMike said:

The rest, what can I say? If you use it only for BFM and joyriding, then jamming certainly does not affect you. So stepping away from DCS because of this discovery, makes no sense to me. I can only tell you from flying with the exact same jamming model for the past nigh 20 years - that it is ok enough to provide a tactical element that is both fun to use to your advantage when jamming yourself and being jammed, both singleplayer and online.

Oh, i must have expressed my thoughts inadequately. Joyriding and BFM was all i ever used every other module for. The F-14 was the only one i really took seriously, as in flew actual missions with it, both SP and MP, and bought and flew campaigns for it. Even managed to finish one . Which is why i didn't notice the jamming mechanics i guess. Though, my Viper wingman did complain the last time we flew together (a bit more then a month ago) that his radar was essentially blind. We now know why. Both if us. 

11 hours ago, IronMike said:

I would also like to kindly suggest that any further discussion about the principal implementation of EW stuff in DCS is better directed to ED, and does not really fit in either this topic or our subforum. Thank you.

 

Absolutely. As i said before, i consider the matter settled.  

10 hours ago, Naquaii said:

I challenge you to prove the AWG-9 would be any better or worse than any other radar against jamming. That’s what this is really about, not game balance even if it levels the playing field in regards to ECM.

I would challenge you to prove that all the radars in the world perform absolutely the same against all the jammers in the world (as that seems to be the implementation of EW in DCS right now, and burden of proof should fall on the one making the claim (on that we agree), but that would be outside the scope of this thread. Anyways, with the risk of repeating myself, i consider the issue final and immutable. Vis major. 

46 minutes ago, Spurts said:

With two F-14s you can actually get the range so you know when to fire. 

You ain't gonna get 2 F-14's most of the time, and never in SP.

46 minutes ago, Spurts said:

  You have the only missile with a 30s motor burn time. 

You couldn't hit a thing if it was flown by an AI before when the loft was gimped from 30 miles. With a non existent loft, and the AI omniscience, you'll hit even less (if that's somehow possible). 

[Naquaii]

1 hour ago, captain_dalan said:

I would challenge you to prove that all the radars in the world perform absolutely the same against all the jammers in the world (as that seems to be the implementation of EW in DCS right now, and burden of proof should fall on the one making the claim (on that we agree), but that would be outside the scope of this thread. Anyways, with the risk of repeating myself, i consider the issue final and immutable. Vis major. 

That's exactly my point. We can't prove it either way. If we were to implement another arbitrary solution for this contrary to what's established as the norm in DCS we'd have to have a good reason for it. The current implementation is also quite arbitrary and only realistic in the broadest sense of the word, but it is what has been decided on in DCS.

It would be hard to justify changing that just because we feel the AWG-9 should be different. Is that us "balancing gameplay"? I don't think so. Asking for the AWG-9 to be better in this regard is asking for a new unrealistic solution over another and one that diverts from the established norm in DCS.

[FWind]

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by FWind

[LanceCriminal86]

3 hours ago, Naquaii said:

That's exactly my point. We can't prove it either way. If we were to implement another arbitrary solution for this contrary to what's established as the norm in DCS we'd have to have a good reason for it. The current implementation is also quite arbitrary and only realistic in the broadest sense of the word, but it is what has been decided on in DCS.

It would be hard to justify changing that just because we feel the AWG-9 should be different. Is that us "balancing gameplay"? I don't think so. Asking for the AWG-9 to be better in this regard is asking for a new unrealistic solution over another and one that diverts from the established norm in DCS.

I can see a lot of unknown data points that would have to be known or somehow deduced to really figure out jamming and burn through and all that noise, no pun intended. Not just the actual transmission strengths of the radars and jammers but frequencies and all kinds of jazz, how the radar processes the results or discards erroneous returns, etc.

I'm not sure how they'd even go about adding something like a Prowler to do protective jamming of a formation or flight, or area denial or any of that for the AI side. I understand there are some nice scripts that were done for the IADS framework/script to "disable" SAMs that were in a radius of a jet with that jammer script but trying to have more stuff like that to impact player aircraft is a huge challenge with lots of unknowns, all wrapped up in red tape.

[Ala12Rv-Tundra]

Top stuff as usual. 

Thanks for bringing so much joy to this hobby

[captain_dalan]

4 hours ago, Naquaii said:

That's exactly my point. We can't prove it either way. If we were to implement another arbitrary solution for this contrary to what's established as the norm in DCS we'd have to have a good reason for it. The current implementation is also quite arbitrary and only realistic in the broadest sense of the word, but it is what has been decided on in DCS.

It would be hard to justify changing that just because we feel the AWG-9 should be different. Is that us "balancing gameplay"? I don't think so. Asking for the AWG-9 to be better in this regard is asking for a new unrealistic solution over another and one that diverts from the established norm in DCS.

Fully agreed. I can even imagine the absurdity of it all when birds like the Mud Hen and the Typhoon hit the shelves and get shoehorned into the couple of dozen miles nearsighted club.