Any updates on Eagle Dynamics giving Heatblur access to Aim-54 guidance changes?

You are throwing around some pretty heavy accusations here, and I urge you to stop suggesting that we make the phoenix tougher to defeat on purpose, especially since everyone, including you, knows that these bugs do not exist on our side. So please stop saying "what Heatblur wants or does not want"

 

[...]

 

Introducing workarounds on our part to mitigate for flaws that are not on our part is about the worst idea you can have in development.

You are contradicting yourself. There is the option to have the AIM-54 better than it should be by leaving it in its super-AMRAAM state or you can make it a fox1, or at least add (optional) fox1 versions of the current missile that mission designers can allow, or something similar to that. You clearly pick option 1, which is your right to decide. But that means you dont "WANT" to introduce workarounds that "nerf" the module. I believe you have used those exact words in a previous post, too.

About the 15nm, you said it twice so i took it for granted. Please dont take this personal, but it seems to me that the testing of the modules interaction with the sim environment needs to be improved. You claimed that ECM breaks the lock, which was false (at least for RIO) and you were unaware of how little damage AIM-9 and AIM-120 deal to the aircraft (which makes me believe that it was not tested properly).

You are contradicting yourself. There is the option to have the AIM-54 better than it should be by leaving it in its "super-AMRAAM" state or you can make it a fox1, or at least add (optional) fox1 versions of the current missile that mission designers can allow, or something similar to that. You clearly pick option 1, which is your right to decide. But that means you dont "WANT" to introduce workarounds that "nerf" the module. I believe you have used those words in a previous post, too.

 

About the 15nm, you said it twice so i took it for granted. Please dont take this personal, but it seems to me that the testing of the modules interaction with the sim environment needs to be improved. You claimed that ECM breaks the lock, which was false (at least for RIO) and you were unaware of how little damage AIM-9 and AIM-120 deal to the aircraft (which makes me believe that it was not tested properly).

My apologies if I said it twice, we are not unfailable. But trust me that it has been tested properly, and my point was that there are just as many situations where 1 aim9 or 1 aim120 would take you out, and no I do not take it personally, but you really do not need to tell us how to do our job, nor do we need your approval. Yet following your input I said that we will take a second look at the airframe damage (again the systems damage we believe is very accurate), so what more do you want? The ECM is WIP and not fully implemented yet (it will be at one point), but it does break lock, however as it seems not always and not for all airframes. This is what exchange means, we keep learning and improving things by adding each other's experience. We took yours on board, you however refuse to see things from our side, or any other side than yours, because all you want is to have it your way. Every time you come back making stronger accusations. And for the 6th or 7th time now: it is not about if we want to introduce a workaround, but a) about what makes sense and making it fox 1 or similar only makes sense to you and those who have the same complaint but no one else, and b) that we cannot introduce such a workaround because we are still waiting to get access so that we can adjust its guidance. And once we do, we won't introduce a workaround, but the guidance-mode as it should be. You will forgive me, that if you have nothing new or constructive to add, I will have to ignore your comments from now on. Please don't take it personally either, but we are getting nowhere. Sorry that we cannot help you better.

Well you guys seem to think I'm talking about noise jamming. Or at least thats what discussions "Burn through" relate to for the most part. Angle deception techniques and side lobe techniques are relatively low power techniques to "fool" the radar into thinking that the dot(s) you see on the screen is somewhere else in reality. HOJ techniques don't really work as well against angle deception methods since they aren't really high power modes, so there isn't much for the seeker to home in on.

I'm not clear on what is and isn't really modled in DCS in this regard, but the old FC3 F15 manual at least discusses the basic differences so I was under the impression these effects might be modled in the game.

Well you guys seem to think I'm talking about noise jamming. Or at least thats what discussions "Burn through" relate to for the most part. Angle deception techniques and side lobe techniques are relatively low power techniques to "fool" the radar into thinking that the dot(s) you see on the screen is somewhere else in reality. HOJ techniques don't really work as well against angle deception methods since they aren't really high power modes, so there isn't much for the seeker to home in on.

 

I'm not clear on what is and isn't really modled in DCS in this regard, but the old FC3 F15 manual at least discusses the basic differences so I was under the impression these effects might be modled in the game.

Oh my apologies, I forgot to mention that. To my knowledge this is not possible/present in DCS atm, from our side basically what we can do is turn noise jamming (the current ecm) on and off. The AWG-9 representing it visually from received other jammers will still be implemented, but I do not know if any side lobe jamming effects either from other aircraft or ground units that could do that would work or are foreseen in DCS in the future at all.

Oh my apologies, I forgot to mention that. To my knowledge this is not possible/present in DCS atm, from our side basically what we can do is turn noise jamming (the current ecm) on and off. The AWG-9 representing it visually from received other jammers will still be implemented, but I do not know if any side lobe jamming effects either from other aircraft or ground units that could do that would work or are foreseen in DCS in the future at all.

Well thanks for that bit of depressing insight.

Its not like angle jamming is even all that new, screamin fresh 60s/70's tech with the early implementations of it. I assumed it would be reasonably effective against the AWG since it likely didn't have suppressed side lobes being the type of radar that it is.

EDIT: I also took the liberty and edited the title of this thread, it was highly misleading in that it was suggesting we would get full access to the guidance or missile code.

Oh...I was, in fact, thinking that ED was going to give you full access to the 54 missile code. Thanks for clearing that up!

Another note: Wow, this thread blew up. I wasn't expecting to get this many responses lol.

Oh...I was, in fact, thinking that ED was going to give you full access to the 54 missile code as I was unaware that all missiles are based on the exact same guidance (just with with tweaks like lofting, etc.?). Thanks for clearing that up!

 

Another note: Wow, this thread blew up. I wasn't expecting to get this many responses lol.

No worries, not your fault at all, and sometimes a lively discussion does not hurt either, I think we all can take that as a side of the passion we share. No biggy at all.

No worries, not your fault at all, and sometimes a lively discussion does not hurt either, I think we all can take that as a side of the passion we share. No biggy at all.

I thought that each missile was a separate file/folder with guidance that was just copy pasted from a general fox 3 template, just with with tweaks like lofting, etc. How does that work? Do all fox 3s reference a single guidance file, or is each missile a separate "folder" with a separate guidance that's just based off the same template? (I have no clue about coding, etc. as you can see lol)

The active range is 15km, which is 7nm. (iirc I said 15nm somewhere, but that was a mistake, I think I edited it afterwards.) Yet without checking it, for you it makes it 4x worse. Removing the phoenix or crippling it, would not make it more realistic for everyone else. It would only make the game more like you want it to be. And that it is active atm before being pitbull is a bug, and not something that we actively wanted, I mean, do you even listen to yourself? You are throwing around some pretty heavy accusations here, and I urge you to stop suggesting that we make the phoenix tougher to defeat on purpose, especially since everyone, including you, knows that these bugs do not exist on our side. So please stop saying "what Heatblur wants or does not want", because you obviously don't know what we want. And we most certainly do not want to make the Tomcat more powerful than it should be, or Multiplayer more miserable for you. It could not be further from the truth.

 

That said, please stop hijacking this thread for your personal "crusade against the phoenix". Sorry, but this is what it is. We accepted all your factual points, yet the missile can still be defeated easily enough in the opinion of most (doesn't matter if you disagree), and the rest will be addressed in due time. I am saying this to you now for at least the 5th time. But you continue to be very loud and vocal, while you do not even fly the Tomcat, so you have no real insight into the other side, and yet you demand from us we should take your input as objective and as the ultimate guideline for our next steps. You keep making the same point and it is getting really old.

 

Introducing workarounds on our part to mitigate for flaws that are not on our part is about the worst idea you can have in development. In 99% of the cases it introduces more problems than it fixes, if not now, then further down the line. Besides you still do not get it: we cannot do anything like that, because if we could, we could introduce the guidance as it should be anyway. Then the bugs on ED side would still need to get fixed. Our job we set out to do was to make the most realistic recreation of the Tomcat possible within the limits of DCS. Fixing the flaws that are not native to our module, or not coded on our side, is simply not our job.

 

The missile as is, is the best compromise for the time being, so please get over it, because this is not like certain servers, where your constant complaining will get you your way. I hope you will forgive us, if we are guided by the decision what makes it closest to reality and the best compromise for everyone, and not cripple it for all of our customers and everyone else who doesn't mind it, because literally not much more than a handful of people have issues with how you can or cannot notch it at the moment - due to a bug that is not even on our side. I don't think you really see how selfish and one sided that is from you to expect. Which is why I will say this very clearly now: this is a dead end for you. Your opinion is one opinion out of thousands in DCS, whom we all have to take into account (just like we did yours). Don't get me wrong: this is not your opinion against mine. This is your opinion against what is sensible in terms of development and what is feasible. And you will forgive us, if in that matter we reserve the final word for ourselves.

 

If you cannot enjoy Multiplayer, we feel sorry about it, but please do not come here trying to put the blame on us or on a missile, because you cannot deal with a temporary problem like everyone else. We acknowledged its issues, we are aware of them, now please be so kind and show the same patience as everyone else.

+100

I thought that each missile was a separate file/folder with guidance that was just copy pasted from a general fox 3 template, just with with tweaks like lofting, etc. How does that work? Do all fox 3s reference a single guidance file, or is each missile a separate "folder" with a separate guidance that's just based off the same template? (I have no clue about coding, etc. as you can see lol)

I am not a coder either, and we also cannot disclose everything, but in the case of the phoenix, we get access to certain parts of the missile that we can define. All other missiles, bombs, etc we take from DCS as they are. What has been done on the phoenix from our side, is explained in the white paper, if you like to know more. Everything else is managed by DCS, which is why I can answer even less to it, you would have to ask ED directly, please.

AIM-54 Whitepaper: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191034

The active range is 15km, which is 7nm. (iirc I said 15nm somewhere, but that was a mistake, I think I edited it afterwards.) Yet without checking it, for you it makes it 4x worse. Removing the phoenix or crippling it, would not make it more realistic for everyone else. It would only make the game more like you want it to be. And that it is active atm before being pitbull is a bug, and not something that we actively wanted, I mean, do you even listen to yourself? You are throwing around some pretty heavy accusations here, and I urge you to stop suggesting that we make the phoenix tougher to defeat on purpose, especially since everyone, including you, knows that these bugs do not exist on our side. So please stop saying "what Heatblur wants or does not want", because you obviously don't know what we want. And we most certainly do not want to make the Tomcat more powerful than it should be, or Multiplayer more miserable for you. It could not be further from the truth.

 

That said, please stop hijacking this thread for your personal "crusade against the phoenix". Sorry, but this is what it is. We accepted all your factual points, yet the missile can still be defeated easily enough in the opinion of most (doesn't matter if you disagree), and the rest will be addressed in due time. I am saying this to you now for at least the 5th time. But you continue to be very loud and vocal, while you do not even fly the Tomcat, so you have no real insight into the other side, and yet you demand from us we should take your input as objective and as the ultimate guideline for our next steps. You keep making the same point and it is getting really old.

 

Introducing workarounds on our part to mitigate for flaws that are not on our part is about the worst idea you can have in development. In 99% of the cases it introduces more problems than it fixes, if not now, then further down the line. Besides you still do not get it: we cannot do anything like that, because if we could, we could introduce the guidance as it should be anyway. Then the bugs on ED side would still need to get fixed. Our job we set out to do was to make the most realistic recreation of the Tomcat possible within the limits of DCS. Fixing the flaws that are not native to our module, or not coded on our side, is simply not our job.

 

The missile as is, is the best compromise for the time being, so please get over it, because this is not like certain servers, where your constant complaining will get you your way. I hope you will forgive us, if we are guided by the decision what makes it closest to reality and the best compromise for everyone, and not cripple it for all of our customers and everyone else who doesn't mind it, because literally not much more than a handful of people have issues with how you can or cannot notch it at the moment - due to a bug that is not even on our side. I don't think you really see how selfish and one sided that is from you to expect. Which is why I will say this very clearly now: this is a dead end for you. Your opinion is one opinion out of thousands in DCS, whom we all have to take into account (just like we did yours). Don't get me wrong: this is not your opinion against mine. This is your opinion against what is sensible in terms of development and what is feasible. And you will forgive us, if in that matter we reserve the final word for ourselves.

 

If you cannot enjoy Multiplayer, we feel sorry about it, but please do not come here trying to put the blame on us or on a missile, because you cannot deal with a temporary problem like everyone else. We acknowledged its issues, we are aware of them, now please be so kind and show the same patience as everyone else.

Nailed it.....:thumbup:

ED plans to build AIM-54 on their own.

Source: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4039647&postcount=1549

ED plans to build AIM-54 on their own.

Source: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4039647&postcount=1549

Oh wow, that comes unexpected :huh:

Does this mean that all the effort that Heatblur put into its development of the Phoenix was for nothing? Or will ED make use of the work HB has done?

I'm not sure if this is a good or bad news.. My nightmare is ED & Heatblur falling out and the Tomcat development being put on hold or stopped completely over a dispute that could be triggered from something like this...

I really wish we knew more about the circumstances of this decision and relative opinions on the matter from both sides.

IMHO, there are clear advantages if ED would gradually take over all the modules' missiles, adapt them to a common standard and integrate them in the base game (plus maintain them afterwards if necessary).

On the other hand, given that the progress with upgrading current in-game missiles seems to move at glacial pace, it could be some years till this happens..

We're not sure what Chizh meant with that comment, but for now it does not affect our phoenix. It could very well be meant in long term, and when the time comes, I am sure they will approach us about it, and we will talk about it without having a falling out, of course. Nothing to worry about for now.

Yes, unification is fundamental and all missiles of the same type should have the same potential on all aircraft. Letting the main developer to control that is good. I just hope that all changes are done with mutual respect and understanding.

We're not sure what Chizh meant with that comment, but for now it does not affect our phoenix. It could very well be meant in long term, and when the time comes, I am sure they will approach us about it, and we will talk about it without having a falling out, of course. Nothing to worry about for now.

Thank you for your comment. It means a lot.

My pleasure. But whether it is done by ED or a 3rd party is not as important, as that it is done accurately. As for mutual respect and understanding: that is kind of self understanding. You don't have business partners without that.

Just to clarify your comment as I have seen various people saying STT improves PK and others say that you can just turn away etc.

In DCS that helps insofar that STT can be more stable than TWS.

At 15 nm it goes active and then does a hard turn if required due to no mid course guidance and then tries to "hit" the target. Does the seeker head FOV have an effect on this at the time it goes active?

The 'hard turn' is due to one of two things: The PN constants are being increased (they are decreased for long range shots in order to maintain missile speed), or the missile suddenly found a target.

The seeker FoV affects where the missile can 'look' given its orientation. The missile datalink tells it where the target is, so it knows both where to fly and where to look.

Our weapons team quite busy with F16/18 weapons now. Therefore we have not time for fulscale AIM-54 development, despite that fact that we already have some aerodinamic parameters.

We have plan to upgrade of the active seeker code that would be adjustable for various type of missiles and can be able to share it to 3rd parties.

I hope we can do it in October.

finally :) I just hope that the guidance code fixes being made available to 3rd parties actually happens in Oct. and does not get pushed back

TBH I was just watching Tacview. The missile was pure pursuit in the horizontal, it did loft, then at 15nm it took lead so it looked like it suddenly started aiming for a collision. Nothing more technical than that the change happened at 15nm. Taking some laggy 40 Aspect shots it became more obvious what the missile was doing. I repeated the shots STT TWS and just turning away it didn't make any difference to the missile.

It's a simulation and I was curious what was going on. I don't personally mind that it's not a true representation we Iive with what we get given, I just wanted to know what it was we were given.

I have seen a buddy avoid 4 Phoenix to get to the merge and kill me so I don't really see it as any more borked than the other missile in game and I love the CAT. I am more bothered by the recovery weight issue which still feels off but that's another thread.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

Our weapons team quite busy with F16/18 weapons now. Therefore we have not time for fulscale AIM-54 development, despite that fact that we already have some aerodinamic parameters.

We have plan to upgrade of the active seeker code that would be adjustable for various type of missiles and can be able to share it to 3rd parties.

I hope we can do it in October.

Awesome! Greatly appreciated. Fair approach!

Our weapons team quite busy with F16/18 weapons now. Therefore we have not time for fulscale AIM-54 development, despite that fact that we already have some aerodinamic parameters.

We have plan to upgrade of the active seeker code that would be adjustable for various type of missiles and can be able to share it to 3rd parties.

I hope we can do it in October.

Thank you for clarifying it, Chizh. :thumbup: