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

[BubiHUN]

HB said only ED has the authority to make changes for all the weapons. I just talked to two other guys from ED, and they said "It's still their responsibility to chase it down as far as I'm aware"

Whats the truth here? 
 

[Despayre]

Pretty sure I read somewhere that all the missiles are moving to a new API that's controlled by ED. So while HB can input all the parameters it wants to get all that nice tweaky-goodness, those missiles are still gonna get rinsed through ED's missile API, ergo, ED has the final say. At least, that's my understanding of the current situation.

[draconus]

9 hours ago, BubiHUN said:

Whats the truth here?

When it's connected to the aircraft it's HB's.

When it leaves the rail it's ED's but AIM-7 and 54 can still rely on your aircraft's radar depending on firing mode and guidance stage (ie. is it active yet).

HB and ED work together to make it right. Since you said "nerfed" and did not make proper report no one will take you seriously anyway.

[Lurker]

I suspect the OP is talking about the Phoenix seeker being extremely susceptible to the notch, once the missile goes active, since the missile frequently guides very well when fired in PTSDD. Only a hunch though. 

[NineLine]

Just to be clear, no missile gets nerfed. Missiles may go through changes, updates and improvements to make them as realistic is possible. 

The AIM-54 does have some minor tweaking still to be done, but in no means has it been "nerfed" or is it "trash".

Heatblur and Eagle Dynamics work together on these issues, its not about pointing the finger at one or the other. We are both focused on making the AIM-54 as real is possible. 

If you have a bug or an issue, please reported as required. Thanks all. 

[Callsign JoNay]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

If you have a bug or an issue, please reported as required. Thanks all. 

I reported a bug here on Nov 1:

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

[RaisedByWolves]

11 hours ago, NineLine said:

Just to be clear, no missile gets nerfed. Missiles may go through changes, updates and improvements to make them as realistic is possible. 

The AIM-54 does have some minor tweaking still to be done, but in no means has it been "nerfed" or is it "trash".

Heatblur and Eagle Dynamics work together on these issues, its not about pointing the finger at one or the other. We are both focused on making the AIM-54 as real is possible. 

If you have a bug or an issue, please reported as required. Thanks all. 

Mic drop

[Dscross]

I had a double shot a Mig-23's today. I got them on TWS at 110 miles. I was 40,000 and Mach 1.1 They were around 450 knots @ 31,000. I fired at when lead was at 42 miles, trail was at 45 miles. Both missiles...missed. 

But that being said. After fighting all sorts of stupid things on the tomcat today, and yesterday, and yeah... I think it's Jester not the missiles. He clicked something in the back, and I think he screwed up the track. He's been not imputing waypoints from map marks correctly, and yes, I've checked the alignment. He is losing tracks, can't hold a lock or get a lock. I end up doing it all myself because Jester is so badly screwing things up. 

So. I don't think it's just the AIM-54 (part of it certainly is) But I think jester is the problem. Something is VERY broken with him.  He is messing up alignments, messing up waypoints, can't run the radar. 

I had resigned myself to only using jester for TWS shots at medium range, running the targeting pod, and inputting waypoints. But now Jester can' t do any of those things except see through clouds with the targeting pod. 

[Prez]

While the AIM-54 is not the OP insta-kill missile it was a year or so ago, keep in mind that using shots against AI is not a very good metric overall because they are omniscient. They know exactly when and where those incoming missiles are, and they will defend them automatically at whatever ED has decided as the magical cut-off point for defense. I definitely believe things can be improved overall with the missile and its performance, but I mainly believe there is a very, very poor understanding of things such "pK" and how to think about missile shots. Everyone wants to have their first pass get a kill, and when the missile misses they get upset when it really shouldn't even be an expectation to get a kill with a missile outside of whatever that missiles No-Escape-Zone is. People's standards for missile capability have been thrown for a loop because they hear about 100NM phoenix test shots, and watch GS throw AIM-120s at 60NM on his videos. And to beat a dead horse, the AIM-54 is a 1960s missile. It's not a sleek AIM-120. Just because Wikipedia or aircrews say it "can" hit mach 5 does not mean it "does" hit mach 5 routinely. These are just basic numbers to give people an understanding of its capability. 

This all being said though: DCS missiles suck.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Prez

[DD_Fenrir]

There's a lot of hyperbole, histrionics, melodrama & supposition being thrown around in this thread. As such, the legitimacy of any critique that is being levelled at ED or Heatblur is being compromised.

Whilst I too am finding the AIM-54C PK is down around the 25-50% mark, there are known issues for this, and each on it's own is a problem but when you experience them in combination  it makes the missile appear next to useless

1. Notch susceptibilty - currently the AIM-54 in both variants is easily notched. Now, good luck finding hard data on this to compare, you are just going to have to trust that ED have their guesstimate in the right ball-park.

2. When notched the missile automatically starts a pitch up, placing it's intended target outside of its radar detection cone, and obliterating any oppotunity for the missile to reaquire a target that might only be in the notch fleetingly. This is a guidance issue, therefore it is 100% an ED issue.

3. The AI are too omnipotent with regard to the position of an attacking active radar missile and are able to time a defensive split S or notch too precisely. This is an AI programming issue, therefore it is 100% an ED issue.

When all the above are taken into account we see that it's relatively easy for the AIM-54 to get trashed, especilally by fighter sized targets.

Heatblur claim that the missile kinematics are as accurate as they have ever been and meet test criteria; their graphs reflect this. And good luck finding data to disprove them. You are obliged to trust their claims.

As for Jester issues; I doubt it. In TWS Jester is not manipulating the system - once a Phoenix leaves the rail, the WCS is automatically shaping the scan zone to attempt to maintain lock. Spurious loss of tracks can and will happen - it's an AWG-9 - and these can account for some Phoenixes being trashed.

If you are having Jester issues, attempt a repair and see if that helps.

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by DD_Fenrir

[Karon]

As @DD_Fenrir said, it is not a Phoenix problem, rather DCS that shows all of its flaws the moment your aircraft interacts with… anything really: ATC, JTAC, AWACS, ground units behaviour, radars, RWRs, jamming, datalink, countermeasures, missiles, and the list is still very long: these are all very poor mechanics realism-wise, and Air-to-air combat is simply the worst offender.
One day, when these mechanics are overhauled (and I'm sure ED is already moving in this direction), we will see that building SA will come much more difficult and, consequently, missiles will become more lethal.

In the meantime, the only way to get a *slightly* more realistic experience is flying Cold War scenarios (but there are no realistic servers around). Then, tweaking the AI to randomly change how it behaves, from an omniseeing entity to something that can get killed without even defending (more realistic than you would expect), or defending without nailing the overexaggerated notch every time.

Lastly, Jester is just an interface to the AWG-9. It is not any better than the pilot controlling it (potential bugs aside, of course).

[Callsign JoNay]

5 hours ago, Karon said:

As @DD_Fenrir said, it is not a Phoenix problem, rather DCS that shows all of its flaws the moment your aircraft interacts with… anything really

DD_Fenir's first two points are Phoenix problems. The same two that I reported in the Weapons Bugs forum.

In this post here here I asked the question why a PDSTT lock from the AWG-9 is unnotchable in the perpendicular aspect, but the PDSTT lock from the AIM-54 is so easily trashed by a perpendicular aspect. Naquaii responded "Beacause one of those things we have control over and the other not", which to me indicates the Phoenix is not working as intended and/or that HB and ED are not in agreement about how it should work.

[Naquaii]

2 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

DD_Fenir's first two points are Phoenix problems. The same two that I reported in the Weapons Bugs forum.

In this post here here I asked the question why a PDSTT lock from the AWG-9 is unnotchable in the perpendicular aspect, but the PDSTT lock from the AIM-54 is so easily trashed by a perpendicular aspect. Naquaii responded "Beacause one of those things we have control over and the other not", which to me indicates the Phoenix is not working as intended and/or that HB and ED are not in agreement about how it should work.

Or it just means that we can adjust one and not the other.

[Guest]

Yes they are useless, after firing the aim 54 i can see them flying above me for a long time before they starts to go forward. If i fire at hot targets at 60 miles flying between angels 35-40 the bandit will shoot me down with their medium range missiles before the 54 is even close to them. Stop nerfing everything.

[near_blind]

7 minutes ago, Razor68 said:

 If i fire at hot targets at 60 miles flying between angels 35-40 the bandit will shoot me down with their medium range missiles before the 54 is even close to them.

Are you cranking?

[Kondor77]

12 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

3. The AI are too omnipotent with regard to the position of an attacking active radar missile and are able to time a defensive split S or notch too precisely. This is an AI programming issue, therefore it is 100% an ED issue.

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. 

[Harlikwin]

12 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

There's a lot of hyperbole, histrionics, melodrama & supposition being thrown around in this thread. As such, the legitimacy of any critique that is being levelled at ED or Heatblur is being compromised.

Whilst I too am finding the AIM-54C PK is down around the 25-50% mark, there are known issues for this, and each on it's own is a problem but when you experience them in combination  it makes the missile appear next to useless

1. Notch susceptibilty - currently the AIM-54 in both variants is easily notched. Now, good luck finding hard data on this to compare, you are just going to have to trust that ED have their guesstimate in the right ball-park.

2. When notched the missile automatically starts a pitch up, placing it's intended target outside of its radar detection cone, and obliterating any oppotunity for the missile to reaquire a target that might only be in the notch fleetingly. This is a guidance issue, therefore it is 100% an ED issue.

3. The AI are too omnipotent with regard to the position of an attacking active radar missile and are able to time a defensive split S or notch too precisely. This is an AI programming issue, therefore it is 100% an ED issue.

When all the above are taken into account we see that it's relatively easy for the AIM-54 to get trashed, especilally by fighter sized targets.

Heatblur claim that the missile kinematics are as accurate as they have ever been and meet test criteria; their graphs reflect this. And good luck finding data to disprove them. You are obliged to trust their claims.

As for Jester issues; I doubt it. In TWS Jester is not manipulating the system - once a Phoenix leaves the rail, the WCS is automatically shaping the scan zone to attempt to maintain lock. Spurious loss of tracks can and will happen - it's an AWG-9 - and these can account for some Phoenixes being trashed.

If you are having Jester issues, attempt a repair and see if that helps.

 

Well written and on point. That being said I think people got waay too used to the phoenix being the "i win" button over the years and the current state is alot closer to reality IMO. A great many kills from the Iran Iraq war were against totally unsuspecting targets that did not defend. And if you set up a flight of mig23's to not react, well, they die just like that. So I think the main point is gonna be point #3 which I Don't think is going to be an easy fix for ED. Since first the AI has to know whether or not it knows the missile is coming, which is a radar/RWR interaction, and will need some sort of database. I.e. SPO-10 can't detect AWG-9 in certain modes etc. Which is gonna be hard to find info on. 

 

[Exorcet]

40 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

So I think the main point is gonna be point #3 which I Don't think is going to be an easy fix for ED. Since first the AI has to know whether or not it knows the missile is coming, which is a radar/RWR interaction, and will need some sort of database. I.e. SPO-10 can't detect AWG-9 in certain modes etc. Which is gonna be hard to find info on. 

 

I think point 1 is just as big an issue, at least when combined with chaff. Missile are of course not infallible, but chaff doesn't have any of its real life drawbacks in DCS. These drawbacks should also inform 3, because employing chaff correctly requires flying a certain way.

As for 3, it's not just about knowing that the missile is incoming or not, but what information the AI uses to react. Right now it seems like the AI uses the exact position and speed of a missile to react to it. That's not right. There is no way for the pilot to have this information.

One way to create a sense of incomplete information is to change AI reaction to being based on launch condition instead of missile information. The AI would have scripted responses for long range missile shots, medium range shots, and close in shots. Maybe for close in shots they could even just use exact missile data if they can acquire the missile visually (smoke trail).

Another method for making the AI more human like in awareness is to give it exact data, then add some error to it. Also limit the sampling rate. For example, right now the AI probably reads the position of a missile every simulation timestep, ie continuously. This could be changed to have the AI only take this information every 10 seconds and then on top of this add a random error to the true values. With this change the AI will inherently become imperfect. Higher AI skills might have higher polling rates and smaller errors, but they would always be there. ED might even be able to replace or supplement the current difficulty levels with direct tuning of the errors and polling rate. This would allow mass testing by players to determine what values provide a good experience.

[Harlikwin]

Just now, Exorcet said:

I think point 1 is just as big an issue, at least when combined with chaff. Missile are of course not infallible, but chaff doesn't have any of its real life drawbacks in DCS. These drawbacks should also inform 3, because employing chaff correctly requires flying a certain way.

As for 3, it's not just about knowing that the missile is incoming or not, but what information the AI uses to react. Right now it seems like the AI uses the exact position and speed of a missile to react to it. That's not right. There is no way for the pilot to have this information.

One way to create a sense of incomplete information is to change AI reaction to being based on launch condition instead of missile information. The AI would have scripted responses for long range missile shots, medium range shots, and close in shots. Maybe for close in shots they could even just use exact missile data if they can acquire the missile visually (smoke trail).

Another method for making the AI more human like in awareness is to give it exact data, then add some error to it. Also limit the sampling rate. For example, right now the AI probably reads the position of a missile every simulation timestep, ie continuously. This could be changed to have the AI only take this information every 10 seconds and then on top of this add a random error to the true values. With this change the AI will inherently become imperfect. Higher AI skills might have higher polling rates and smaller errors, but they would always be there. ED might even be able to replace or supplement the current difficulty levels with direct tuning of the errors and polling rate. This would allow mass testing by players to determine what values provide a good experience.

Yeah I agree that point 1 is a big issue, I'm just not really sure how well notch susceptibility is modeled in DCS beyond some radial velocity number, and given the phoenix is a HPRF seeker, it should be notchable in some conditions, and on the A you basically don't have a whole lot of "tech" to mitigate notch problems. On the C, there are known techniques from that era to help deal with it, whether or not those were built in is another debate, but they existed at least. 

On the other points I totally agree, and those are some interesting suggestions to make it better. Then again it might break the AI entirely, hard to say. 

 

[Exorcet]

2 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah I agree that point 1 is a big issue, I'm just not really sure how well notch susceptibility is modeled in DCS beyond some radial velocity number, and given the phoenix is a HPRF seeker, it should be notchable in some conditions, and on the A you basically don't have a whole lot of "tech" to mitigate notch problems. On the C, there are known techniques from that era to help deal with it, whether or not those were built in is another debate, but they existed at least. 

On the other points I totally agree, and those are some interesting suggestions to make it better. Then again it might break the AI entirely, hard to say. 

 

Yeah, hopefully all of these are parts of the code to revisit eventually. For the AI hopefully sooner than later since ED has recently made some changes to it. I can't be sure if my ideas are fully compatible with the AI as it is now, as you stated depending on how it's coded we might run into problems by trying to change how they can access sim information. I just took my best guess based on experience with DCS.

[Harlikwin]

6 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Yeah, hopefully all of these are parts of the code to revisit eventually. For the AI hopefully sooner than later since ED has recently made some changes to it. I can't be sure if my ideas are fully compatible with the AI as it is now, as you stated depending on how it's coded we might run into problems by trying to change how they can access sim information. I just took my best guess based on experience with DCS.

Yeah, lets hope they figure out and that its not in glacial 2weeks TM time.

[Dscross]

14 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

As for Jester issues; I doubt it. In TWS Jester is not manipulating the system - once a Phoenix leaves the rail, the WCS is automatically shaping the scan zone to attempt to maintain lock. Spurious loss of tracks can and will happen - it's an AWG-9 - and these can account for some Phoenixes being trashed.

If you are having Jester issues, attempt a repair and see if that helps.

 

I have repaired, twice. It isn't my PC problem, there is something wrong with Jester.

[NineLine]

32 minutes ago, Dscross said:

 

I have repaired, twice. It isn't my PC problem, there is something wrong with Jester.

You should make a proper bug report with needed tracks and any other information. Thanks.

[The_Tau]

11 hours ago, Dscross said:

 

I have repaired, twice. It isn't my PC problem, there is something wrong with Jester.

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"?)

 

For STT losing lock - make sure your SPECIAL JESTER option "PDSTT to PSTT in WVR is OFF". I think Jester logic here is, that he just presses PSTT button while in PDSTT, which I suspect it just makes AWG9 try to relock target in Pulse in last saved azimuth/elevation, which would be outdated very fast if you are in crank. I only change in PSTT manually with PAL or ordering Jester specifically when I have diamond lock on the nose in HUD to make job for AWG9 easier.

Everything else is AWG9 limitations. If you use AIM54s in TWS mode thats 100% AWG9, as when launched system switches to TWS Auto and AWG9 do ALL the work. RIO can literally sit back and open beer. So to mitigate loosing tracks you have to learn AWG9 limitations, I recommend checking Flyandwire for detailed info https://flyandwire.com

make sure you are not pressing VSL, PLM or PAL buttons as those would overwrite AWG9 modes and make you lose TWS tracks

If bandits are high you can try disabling MLC which normally looses tracks if bandits hit the notch. You do that by jumping into back seat or by diving below target so radar looks up +3 degrees

Here is my vid with employing 54s vs F16s in PvP, with correct 54 employment and preplanning 54 is still a dangerous missile especially for high alt targets. (Note that target switch doesnt work at all vs AI, its not worth trying...)

If you still have troubles could you attach the tacview, maybe we can help you with employment? 

Edited December 14, 2022 by The_Tau

[Callsign JoNay]

6 hours ago, Naquaii said:

Or it just means that we can adjust one and not the other.

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