AIM54 is nerfed to the ground. Talked to HB and ED. They are basicly pointing at each other!

[Naquaii]

9 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Who is "we"? Heatblur alone? Or Heatblur and ED? I'm trying to decipher exactly what you are saying. 

You're just reading way to much into a simple comment, that's all. We code and control the AWG-9. We can only set specific parameters for the missiles. The missile code is out of our hands but we trust ED to get it right.

[Dscross]

19 hours ago, The_Tau said:

You need to know Jester limitations and that are he can only input ONE waypoint at the time, if you try to order him to add another waypoint WHILE he is still inputing previous waypoint then HE will overwrite current A/C Lat Long. So wait until he finish typing 1 Lat long AND alt before next Lat/long request. This is clearly Jester worst habits, and I suspect issue is that as soon you ask him to enter waypoint he immediately presses half trigger button on HCU for some reason(@Naquaiiplease? :))

When you are aligning on carrier make sure that carrier itself is not changing course when Jester switches INS system from aligning (alignment completion bar on TID) to "INS" (tactical display on TID). If ship is turning, its best to disable Jester, while INS is aligning, wait until carrier settles on course and then reactivate him. You can release breaks and taxi when alignment caret changes into diamond  Check manual for more details. (@Naquaii New Jester alignment option? - "Wait on pilot command to switch to INS"?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know all this. I'm not new to the tomcat. 

And Tacview is garbage and crashes on every computer I've ever bothered to loaded it on, and it's pay ware. I'm not paying for something that crashes whenever opened on any computer I've used. Sure, looks great from what I've seen on various YouTube videos, but I'm not paying for it. If it worked, that might be different, but it doesn't. And As I'm sure you know, track files with the tomcat are broken. I've never gotten a single F14 track file to work. 

 

 

 

[NineLine]

3 minutes ago, Dscross said:

And Tacview is garbage and crashes on every computer I've ever bothered to loaded it on

That's super weird, I cant ever remember Tacview ever crashing for me. 

[Dscross]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

That's super weird, I cant ever remember Tacview ever crashing for me. 

I believe you. I've tried to put it on three computers, never works. I've gone through their FAQ, help, all that. Nothing. goes unresponsive every time I open it. It sucks, because it looks really cool, it would be super helpful, but no dice. 

[Harlikwin]

7 minutes ago, Dscross said:

I believe you. I've tried to put it on three computers, never works. I've gone through their FAQ, help, all that. Nothing. goes unresponsive every time I open it. It sucks, because it looks really cool, it would be super helpful, but no dice. 

That sounds strange. While tacview has its issues (i.e. affecting performance) I've never had it crash in years of using it that I recall.

 

[Panny]

16 hours ago, Dscross said:

 

I know all this. I'm not new to the tomcat. 

And Tacview is garbage and crashes on every computer I've ever bothered to loaded it on, and it's pay ware. I'm not paying for something that crashes whenever opened on any computer I've used. Sure, looks great from what I've seen on various YouTube videos, but I'm not paying for it. If it worked, that might be different, but it doesn't. And As I'm sure you know, track files with the tomcat are broken. I've never gotten a single F14 track file to work. 

 

 

 

Are you trying to open .trk DCS files with Tacview, rather than the Tacview produced .acmi files?

[Rinz1er]

On 12/13/2022 at 4:14 PM, Kondor77 said:

This is really the biggest current detriment to the missile's PK. While I welcome, and believe the overall AI BVR behavior to be better than before, it's clear that it still needs some tweaking. As it currently stands, AI is able to perfectly defend from a 54 shot, even before the missile goes active, regardless of what setting you have (Target size large/medium/small). 

Here's to hoping that this keeps being tweaked. 

This. The no target size functionality with the AIM54C, the omniscient AI, and the strange AIM54 guidance when notched (the pitch up and seemingly inability to reacquire even when out of notch) has all really put this missile in a bad place. I hope that both HB and ED will get this stuff fixed so that it can renew my interest in flying the F14...

[BubiHUN]

On 12/14/2022 at 12:52 PM, Naquaii said:

You're just reading way to much into a simple comment, that's all. We code and control the AWG-9. We can only set specific parameters for the missiles. The missile code is out of our hands but we trust ED to get it right.

@NineLine

[Endline]

I have been flying almost exclusively the Tomcat in singleplayer since I got it some months ago, but it does seem like the end of the road for now. The Phoenix just isn't usable with a success hit rate of less than 10% no matter the launch conditions.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Endline

[BubiHUN]

2 hours ago, Endline said:

I have been flying almost exclusively the Tomcat in singleplayer since I got it some months ago, but it does seem like the end of the road for now. The Phoenix just isn't usable with a success hit of less than 10% no matter the launch conditions.

 

True. F-14 was fun till its main weapon was useful. It looks like a no go from now on.

On 12/12/2022 at 10:21 PM, Callsign JoNay said:

I reported a bug here on Nov 1:

It has not been replied to by any ED representatives, or marked as "investigating".

And the behavior of the team about "pRoPeR bUg RePoRt". We are not experts, so they simply ignore us. Just like your report. 
F-14 is dead. 

[Coxy_99]

Thats what happens when the missile was super amazing on release, (W.I.P) & Beta together while the missile was put right, All it is more crying like all missile threads my hollywood missile dont hit im not using f14 no more because its been brought down to reality, Only time i have found an aim54 to be useless is when A.I do some down right dodgy tricks 

[Naquaii]

34 minutes ago, BubiHUN said:

True. F-14 was fun till its main weapon was useful. It looks like a no go from now on.

And the behavior of the team about "pRoPeR bUg RePoRt". We are not experts, so they simply ignore us. Just like your report. 
F-14 is dead. 

Disagreeing with you is not ignoring you. Using hyperbole like that will also not get you anywhere.

[Callsign JoNay]

44 minutes ago, Coxy_99 said:

Only time i have found an aim54 to be useless is when A.I do some down right dodgy tricks 

The most recent sets of BVR testing I did within my virtual wing indicated that human opponents can notch the overhauled Phoenix quite easily too, and the missile is dead after the first instance of a notch, probably due to the evasive pull-up it performs. Sadly, the 54 is just not a threat that needs to be taken seriously in it's current state.

[Callsign JoNay]

It also hasn't been mentioned enough that the DCS Phoenix is also still quite susceptible to chaff, even the C-model. 7 to 10 chaff gives the opponent a pretty descent chance to spoof the missile. I still don't understand how a radar can be susceptible to both notching and chaffing. It seems we have the worst of both worlds.

[BubiHUN]

28 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

It also hasn't been mentioned enough that the DCS Phoenix is also still quite susceptible to chaff, even the C-model. 7 to 10 chaff gives the opponent a pretty descent chance to spoof the missile. I still don't understand how a radar can be susceptible to both notching and chaffing. It seems we have the worst of both worlds.

This will make ED fans to say you just want a hollywood missile, a super-weapon for easy kills just as somebody else and one of the HB guy said. 

1 hour ago, Naquaii said:

Disagreeing with you is not ignoring you. Using hyperbole like that will also not get you anywhere.

I am not the one whos gonna do free work for a product wich I already bought.

[Karon]

2 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

The most recent sets of BVR testing I did within my virtual wing indicated that human opponents can notch the overhauled Phoenix quite easily too, and the missile is dead after the first instance of a notch, probably due to the evasive pull-up it performs. Sadly, the 54 is just not a threat that needs to be taken seriously in it's current state.

2 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Yup, the biggest issues with it aren't even the now realistic aerodynamics and ballistics, it's the guidence. Both the loft logic on the old API as well as the erratic behaviour when notched. By that logic every missile in DCS should just randomly pull up or do a 180 when notched. So for a year or so you're just sitting there twindling thumbs with the vague promise that "they are working on it with ED".

1 hour ago, Callsign JoNay said:

It also hasn't been mentioned enough that the DCS Phoenix is also still quite susceptible to chaff, even the C-model. 7 to 10 chaff gives the opponent a pretty descent chance to spoof the missile. I still don't understand how a radar can be susceptible to both notching and chaffing. It seems we have the worst of both worlds.

This should still be valid. HB has no control over the missile post A-pole. In STT, they simply tell the game that the radar has a lock. LPRF, HPRF.. DCS doesn't care. It's all in ED's hands, and we've known this for years now.
Chaffs in DCS have absolutely zero realism, but this has been known for more than a decade. They work exactly as flares (roll of a die), whereas this should not be the case, at all. Again, it's in ED's hands.
The Phoenix works really well if you put into the correct scenario and context (in case you didn't know, the AWG-9 is operative since 1962). There is a stark divide between Cold War modules and modern ones in DCS. For example, and touching the notching discussion, you should know that each third-party dev and ED propose different levels of realism. Thus, don't test notching vs F-16, F/A-18 et cetera, it's wasted time.

So, we are at a point where you can do everything correctly, but it is not enough to achieve an acceptable P_K (~45%/50%). The reason is, the combat part of DCS is leaking everywhere. You don't believe me? Well, when you see a MiG-21 perfectly notching a Phoenix, you ask yourself a few questions.

(and the answer is that the SPO-3 is OP, of course!)

[Coxy_99]

3 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

The most recent sets of BVR testing I did within my virtual wing indicated that human opponents can notch the overhauled Phoenix quite easily too, and the missile is dead after the first instance of a notch, probably due to the evasive pull-up it performs. Sadly, the 54 is just not a threat that needs to be taken seriously in it's current state.

STT lock aim-7 bobs your uncle. Its also why i dont fire aim54s at close range because they loft to space which deems them complete useless.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Coxy_99

[Callsign JoNay]

21 minutes ago, Coxy_99 said:

STT lock aim-7 bobs your uncle.

So your solution to using AIM-54s that are easily chaffed, easily notched, and perform evasive pull-up maneuvers is to use AIM-7s instead. Great advice, thanks. 

[IronMike]

On 12/17/2022 at 8:20 PM, BubiHUN said:

I am not the one whos gonna do free work for a product wich I already bought.

No one asks you to. Not a single customer owes us a single bug report. But it should be known at the same time, that simply saying "it doesn't work", does not allow us to follow up much. In this case it is a bit different, the (factual) issues are known to us (as are the more non-factual complaints and opinions), but the fact remains.

That said, this thread is full of hyperbole, which does not help make a case, if I may add ever so kindly. This is where factual bug reports that leave out emotions, help your cause simply better, because they add data that helps speed up the process of fixing. The more data we have, the easier we (and ED) can pinpoint the issue and adjust what needs adjusting. Reading hyperbole or absolute statements such as "is utterly useless" does not allow for much more than acknowledging your opinion, which by all means you are entitled to have and which is by all means appreciated a priori. Of course it also invites diverse or controverse opinion as well, which everyone else is allowed to have as much as yourself, including us, btw.

Hence, if you put it like that, I disagree. The phoenix is anything but useless. How would I know? Because I use it myself. And if you look closely, the experience with the phoenix is as diverse as are the users on this forum, and the difference between those who make it work and those who do not, is that the former do not open threads about it being so brilliant for them. They make a post or two, about how more or less successful they were with it (online or against XY), or post a tacview here and there, but then don't linger much, because they do not face a constantly re-occurring problem for themselves, like not getting the missile to work. This is not a remark on skill btw, just on the matter of the fact that some make it work more, and some struggle with it more. And the latter do have our full understanding.

It is an older missile to employ while still "amraam enough" to trick folks into thinking it should offer the same reliability and ease of use (by truly forgetting about it once fired), both from the side of the employing platform (AWG-9) as well as on its own. But this is not true. The AWG-9's TWS was the first ever, and came with its own set of issues. For example target weighting. We use the algorithm used by the AWG-9. And it has its limits. It comes to no surprise that PDSTT was a preferred employment method IRL, but in DCS players of course do not want to drop the comfort or advantage or if you will, "leveling ability" of TWS when flying against opponents like F-15s, F-16s and F-18s which come equipped with a much more modern and reliable TWS, more modern amraams, etc. Understandable to then think: But what good is the phoenix and TWS to me, if I have to fire it like a sparrow against a slammer weilding Viper??? And this is where making the phoenix work is more complicated than making an aim120 work, it involves more pre-launch decision making and more post-launch caretaking. (But if one person can make it work against Vipers (forgot who recently posted about that), so can we all, at least theoretically. And reports like that do not stand alone, just that they are more quiet, as mentioned.)

This is one side that feeds into folks having issues, and many explanations in this thread and the main thread point exactly to that. The other side are of course its remaining issues as well: they add to that complexity and make it even harder and sometimes you can do everything right and it still won't work. That is true for all missiles in DCS to some degree btw. Missiles in a sim will never be perfect, heck, they are not even perfect IRL. Just recently a new post came up about the phoenix turning 180 with an overpitched shot. Guess what, if you overpitch or "manually loft" a missile that much IRL, it could potentially encounter something eerily similar. That said, in DCS this is still a bug, because it was not coded with intention to go 180 when you crassly overloft. But you know the saying, when life sometimes simulates fiction... And it does not change the fact, that even without a single bug being present anymore, you still should not overloft it. Which just goes to show: dealing with missile issues in principle is a thing of flying fighter jets. That certain bugs are more frustrating than others is also understandable: the automatic pitch up after being notched is a thorn in our eyes just as it is in yours. The general lofting logic otoh is far less off than most make it out to be. It is supposed to go high steep fast. And we tested it: a more shallow loft results in less terminal velocity. Which goes to show: not everything being "felt" or tossed around, is always substantiated. Hence: factual bug reports help more than opinions and feelings, as much as we appreciate any kind of feedback. Just that some is actionable and some isn't really, as much as we'd want it to be.

Lastly, about issues not in our hands: I am not sure who you talked to at Heatblur (it wasn't me, I've seen you sent me a PM but I hadn't had the time to reply to it yet, and hopefully my reply will answer most of it here), and who you talked to at ED. But both ED and us have a firm and commonly shared understanding that we want to improve what we can, each from their side, which @NineLine pointed out aptly above. We work together and neither of us is interested in shifting blame. But we share different responsibilities, and some things fall upon us to work on, and some fall onto ED to work on, simple as that. AI, guidance, etc - that is in ED's hands. Which does not mean that we simply go "here, fix it please." We make our case concerning these issues, trying to produce actionable data that shows where one fix would help another, where things work not as they should, or need fixing etc. Likewise ED engages with us in this dialogue and common effort the same way. We help each other, out of a common interest to improve what must and can be improved. And some things are quick and easier to fix, and ED has always been very forthcoming in helping us with numerous issues that let us improve guidance, loft, fixing various bugs with the missile, from patch to patch, ever since we adjusted the overperformance of the phoenix. But other things cannot be changed over night, like having a new AI, or some parts of guidance logic, which result in some weird outcomes like the pitch up after the notch. We first need to understand what it is wrong or causing it, to be able to fix it. When we say we are working on it, we also mean that. And as soon as we understand the cause of an issue, either on our or ED's side, it will get fixed, as always. But we keep turning in circles here on our forums about issues that are known and, in the end, are still not in our hands and affect not only the phoenix in DCS, which also means: ED is not only responsible to help us, but to help numerous 3rd parties, keep a base game progressing, keeping modules maintained, etc. The phoenix is one issue out of many. 

Let me conclude with: we do hear you. We heard you the first time in the guided phoenix discussions and every subsequent time, too. We agree with some, but not with everything, and in both cases thank you for your feedback. You really don't need to open extra threads about these issues (especially since that is what the guided discussion thread is for), because we are fully aware of all the remaining issues and we have been committed to them from the moment we encountered them. But at the same time a lot of the complaining stems from wrongly set expectations as well, and as someone who flies the Tomcat daily, I know that it is far from unplayable, or to circle back to the phoenix: far from useless. The issues that remain anger me as much as they do you. But they pester me far less, because within the entire complexity of employing the phoenix with maximum aid by pilot and RIO to make a successful kill shot, or defensive shot, these issues are not the primary concern. And once you develop a certain discipline for the phoenix, you may find, like me, and many other, less loud voices, that these issues factor into the balance between success and failure far less, than one would think if taking the hyperbole, the boiling emotions and the frustration shared among some too literally - if you'll pardon me for saying it a bit more directly.

Either way, I can assure you: we are as interested in fixing the remaining issues as you are. Even so I would caution everyone to not think that these fixes will turn the phoenix into the magical trick for all treats that some apparently would like it to be. But most importantly: hyperbole and exaggerations will not get us there. And I cannot stress this enough: the phoenix did not get nerfed. We don't nerf stuff. It is a notion as misguided as the accusations we received before that we intentionally overpowered the missile "to sell more modules." We adjusted its overperformance to be much more realistic following newly gained insights. That is something everyone should finally get to terms with. We do not care how good or bad a missile is, or what it means for PvP etc. And while we hope that you are successful with it and have fun with it, above all we care about it being accurate.

 

PS: I am closing the thread, because we already have a guided discussion thread for the phoenix. Please keep discussing there. Opening more threads about your gripes with the phoenix will not help speed up the process at all. Factual reports will. Thank you!

 

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/308085-dcs-f-14-development-update-aim-54-phoenix-improvements-overhaul-guided-discussion/

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by IronMike