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

title. As far as I know, ED still has not given access to model the 54 completely accurately.

Admin edit: I took the liberty to edit the title, as I feel it misleads into thinking that we actually get access to the full code for guidance, which is very unlikely and which we never expected in the first place. My apologies that I did not notice earlier, or if we ever were unclear on that. What we can and will adress, when we get the necessary access to set it correctly is: when the missile should go active and that it behaves like a SARH missile during STT. Thank you for understanding. ~IronMike

Nothing yet.

Why do you think the heatblur can better code the AIM54?

Because the missile guidance system in general is very simplified. ED have not shown interest in getting into the details of each missiles, HB has said they would like to do a very detailed model for the Phoenix.

Do we actually know the definitive state of the Phoenix guidance at this time ?

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

Why do you think the heatblur can better code the AIM54?

Right now there is no AIM-54 guidance code. The AIM-54 in game is currently using the AIM-120 guidance logic which is rather different and has different limitations and tradeoffs. In particular, as I understand it, the AIM-120 goes pitbull when the host stops talking to it, while the AIM-54 is supposed to abort.

From my observations the AIM-54 does not use AIM-120 guidance logic. The AIM-120 currently is absolute garbage. I have fired it on targets within 5nm, seen the missile track the first couple miles, then suddenly veer off 20 degrees in a nonsensical direction for no bloody reason. I'm lucky to get AMRAAM kills between 10-15nm, and anything beyond that they lose energy so quickly they are easily dodged. The AIM-54, in comparison, frequently finds its mark at 20-30nm.

From my observations the AIM-54 does not use AIM-120 guidance logic. The AIM-120 currently is absolute garbage. I have fired it on targets within 5nm, seen the missile track the first couple miles, then suddenly veer off 20 degrees in a nonsensical direction for no bloody reason. I'm lucky to get AMRAAM kills between 10-15nm, and anything beyond that they lose energy so quickly they are easily dodged. The AIM-54, in comparison, frequently finds its mark at 20-30nm.

Every missile can be defeated. Talking about missile ranges without shooting parameters is futile. Please, don't use Phoenix thread to express your sorrow from not hitting a target with AMRAAM. If you have any recordings or can easily reproduce then make a bug report.

My Pet peeve with the Aim54 is more a case of Jester losing lock, for no apparent reason at all.

Yeah, im sure ive seen occasions when ive lost lock with a few seconds to go and it finds the target. Which is wrong. Although in compensation for when I lose lock with it halfway there, it seems like a fair compensation. :D Not reality though.

But how good was the Phoenix in reality? The sole occasion when the USN used it, it failed. Even many of the vaunted kills by the Iranians seem to have been at close range, because they didnt have enough Sidewinders or Sparrows.

What we see as failure might just be accurate modelling.

Every missile can be defeated. Talking about missile ranges without shooting parameters is futile. Please, don't use Phoenix thread to express your sorrow from not hitting a target with AMRAAM. If you have any rocordings or can easily reproduce then make a bug report.

In your zeal to insult me over a baseless assumption, you completely missed my point. I'll simplify it for you: I do not think the AIM-54 uses AMRAAM guidance logic as the two missiles behave differently in my experience.

But how good was the Phoenix in reality? The sole occasion when the USN used it, it failed.

I honestly don't think we will ever know how good it was in reality. The USN usage of the missile is too small of a sample size. Everything from Sparrows to Sidewinders to Zunis have a failure rate, even now in the late 2010s. Remember those missiles that went stupid during the Sukhoi shootdown a year or two ago? On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have accounts from the Iran-Iraq War. The two problems there are the possibility of propaganda numbers, and the fact that Iraqi pilots were horribly undertrained, inexperienced, and mostly controlled by GCI, making them sitting ducks for pitot probe lancing much less long range missiles.

I do not think the AIM-54 uses AMRAAM guidance logic as the two missiles behave differently in my experience.

Now you sound reasonably.

I was reasonable the first time......you made the unreasonable and unrelated assumption, dude.

Imagine the shitstorm when the Phoenix will be modeled correct and does not hit anything anymore when loosing the target after firing and the WCS never sends the signal for going active *ggg*.

(Don't ask me how often I have seen that "fire and forget" behavor online)

If you have any rocordings or can easily reproduce then make a bug report.

Lol, as if no one had ever reported a bug with missile performance... :megalol:

As absurd as it sounds, there are arcade games out there that offer a more realistic representation of BVR engagements than DCS.

IIRC the AIM-7MH has been revised in terms of performance, but the guidance logic is still a circus. A-A missiles performance/guidance in DCS is honestly the n.1 issue that keeps DCS in the arcade game realm with anything concerning BVR engagements. Fix this, and no more air-quake.

Lol, as if no one had ever reported a bug with missile performance... :megalol:

As absurd as it sounds, there are arcade games out there that offer a more realistic representation of BVR engagements than DCS.

IIRC the AIM-7MH has been revised in terms of performance, but the guidance logic is still a circus. A-A missiles performance/guidance in DCS is honestly the n.1 issue that keeps DCS in the arcade game realm with anything concerning BVR engagements. Fix this, and no more air-quake.

I never said the missiles are bug free. You can continue making fun and throwing funny names or make something constructive instead but I still see thousands of people releasing them daily in DCS A2A combat both SP and MP, in SATAL, Real War and every other tournament. Something definitely is working.

Missile Guidance and kinematics as a whole needs a rework. Drag is way to high, lift is too low (reduced by anywhere from 50-200% universally due to the previous issue), the Vgates are to big, and missiles like the 120 don't have optimal control or a proper lofting logic. For the 120 as well as far as I can tell there is no high PRF search and medium PRF track and no ability to relock a target if its lost. Adiditonally if you notch an amraam even for a second it completely defeats the missile and it can't reacquire lock as far as I can tell. For the 54 its lacking a lot of the limitations the rlf missile has.

Imagine the shitstorm when the Phoenix will be modeled correct and does not hit anything anymore when loosing the target after firing and the WCS never sends the signal for going active *ggg*.

 

(Don't ask me how often I have seen that "fire and forget" behavor online)

C model will probably be the go to variant when the 54 gets modeled correctly as it's supposed to behave like a semi-120 if I recall correctly.

Odd, 120's seem unnotchable online in my experience, the most effective strategy being simply staying outside 20 nm. AIM54's on the other hand are very often successfully notched.

SgtPappy and I did a lot of testing with the AIM54's and beaming/notching them isn't really that difficult. Going perpendicular to the missile and it more often than not loses lock. Infact in the end Pappy successfully notched ALL six AIM54's up until the merge, and he did this repeatedly - his only problem being that this allowed me to end up on his six and use AIM9's, but in theory he could've just turned into me and fired off 120's and gone for an even exchange.

Also the ingame AIM54 is BY FAR most effective if you maintain radar lock until it goes pitbull, if you turn away immediately after firing at a target more than 15nm away (outside pitbull range) and lose lock, then the missile will go stupid until it nears what seems to be a preset pitbull range based on previous target distance, after which point the it will only engage anything inside the missiles own scan zone - which in turn often results in an abrupt change of direction costing tons of energy. Hence in my experience online I will miss 90% of shots where lock isn't maintained up until the missile is within pitbull range (15-20 nm), if I however maintain lock until the missile is within those ~15 nm of the target then my hit rate is very good.

I have two theories on this situation.

One, HB can't comment, because saying "No, we're still waiting on ED and getting very frustrated." will only poison their relationship with ED.

Two, ED intends to rework the missile guidance code, but it's all wrapped up with the implementation of TWS for the Hornet, or at very least will be implemented by the same dev when he's done with TWS. ED has been improving a bunch of long broken/simplified DCS systems as they implement stuff for the hornet, so maybe missile datalink and control logic is part of what is making Hornet TWS take so damn long.

My followup question (that HB also probably can't answer) is "Will we see changes in stores drag anytime soon?". My understanding is that the Tomcat doesn't sees a decreased drag penalty from the AIM54's it carries in the tunnel, but that DCS models stores drag as a fixed value, be it on the pylon, semi-recessed in the plane, or in the air.

Let's not lose heart, perhaps they will solve this small (huge for a sim) "bug:megalol:" in DCS 3.0 between 3/4, maybe even 5 years:doh:

We are still waiting on it, however we are not frustrated. :)

But FYI we are not nor were we ever waiting on full guidance code that was and always will be ED side. We are waiting to adjust the Phoenix in its guidance to as it should be.

We are still waiting on it, however we are not frustrated. :)

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

I think we explained that already couple times, but I will try to do it very briefly again:

basically it works like an aim120. it goes active at a certain range, this range atm is set to 15nm (we cannot change that atm for various reasons, let us say it is the best compromise atm). this is what causes the abrupt high G energy bleeding turn into the bandit at the last moment. IRL it would go active about half the way to its target. In STT it also works the same atm, while irl it would actually be guided like a SARH missile in STT or iirc as long as it is not active, too. Another thing that is happening atm that is out of our hands is that if lock is broken before going pitbull, it still guides without setting it to active in the RIO pit. which gives you somewhat of an advantage in MP. Why this is happening I could not say. the guiding through mountains btw is the case with all active or semi active missiles in dcs and has to do something with the INS guidance they all share at the moment. Hope that helps.

Pretty grim for a "combat sim" set (mostly) in modern times...

Hope you guys get access to the needed features to at least make the Phoenix guide in a realistic way...

On other news it seems ED will improve sam sites to act more realistically, so maybe they are extremely slowly starting to bite the things that really keep DCS back. I remain hopeful, but it'll be a loooooong way.

Lol, as if no one had ever reported a bug with missile performance... :megalol:

As absurd as it sounds, there are arcade games out there that offer a more realistic representation of BVR engagements than DCS.

IIRC the AIM-7MH has been revised in terms of performance, but the guidance logic is still a circus. A-A missiles performance/guidance in DCS is honestly the n.1 issue that keeps DCS in the arcade game realm with anything concerning BVR engagements. Fix this, and no more air-quake.

Fix missiles and you will end up to "phonebooth" almost everytime.

It is like someone says "AIM-120" and magical unicorn is born...

To fix the air quake, you need to have ground troops modeled and fixed. You don't fly low, as you are dead unless you have aircraft specifically designed for that task like F-111, Tornado or Viggen.