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

Well, to further derail the thread...

It sort of depends on how you do weapon restrictions. Different servers do it different ways.

Buddyspike limits how many AimXX's you can carry based on airbase... Ok... Prevents 12 spamram or 6 phoenix load outs. But weapon quantity is unlimited.

GAW, unlimited ammo on certain bases far from the action, but can be ferried to other bases, and bases have some sort of supply system. This was hillarious on PGAW for a while where you didn't have F18 tanks available off the carrier.

There are good and bad points to both systems. I think a combination of them could be interesting on buddyspike as an example. Limit loadouts, but allow people to run supply runs of advanced weapons to other bases, or if you despawn at a non advanced base, your ammrams go into the pool.

Otherwise, I do think a good "balancing" technique on PVP servers could be to limit "advanced" aircraft and have more primitive aircraft available. Or make sure the advanced airframes have longer flight times.

I also enjoyed when the cold war server limited missiles to rear aspect ones. Though that changed back recently.

And plenty of people play on those servers.

Balance be d*mned, we should strive to simulate technical and operational authenticity as much as possible. My 5 cents anyway.

Sure. And that would involve the AIM-54 in combination with the F-14s radar not being modeled the way it is now. Hence the entire thread.

Are you so sure about this?

Balance be d*mned, we should strive to simulate technical and operational authenticity as much as possible. My 5 cents anyway.

Sure, "operational authenticity" means half your phoenixes fail to guide (oh shit, that's not modeled either? Say it aint't so), and you run out of them all together after a few days, because that floating target called an aircraft carrier has a pretty limited amount of fuel and ordnance it can carry, and its been under constant attack since day 1 of whatever war. Or you have orders only to fire them at the attacking bombers carrying those happy anti-ship missiles designed to sink your floating airfield. Or oh wait, you want to play "Mav n Goose" and hose em off on every target that pops up on the scope, "got it"...

As long as issues like this still exist, the AIM-54 has no place in DCS:

The missile has no energy, is outmaneuvered, misses the target, and explodes an insane 18 seconds later in a distance of 8 km, killing its target.

The desync is so exaggerated that you can do everything correct on your side and still get splashed. You can notch the missile, defeat it kinematically and see it flying past you in safe distance. And then you still die.

To fight the phoenix, you cannot apply your DCS knowledge of fighting an active missile. In singleplayer it is so easy to notch. But in multiplayer you have to get an understanding of the desync. You have to get a feeling for how big the difference in angle between the missile that you see and the missile that the F-14 sees is to notch it properly. You cannot trust your sensors or what you see. This is not how it should be and completely unrealistic. It turns the phoenix into a much more dangerous missile than the big anti-bomber weapon should actually be.

To bring DCS BVR back to fighting against missiles and not against desync, the phoenix should either be removed until the issue is fixed or switched to Fox1 as Yaga said, because there the desync will be minimal.

It does not matter if it is ED's fault, putting a missile into the game knowing that it does not properly work with the current mechanics is just wrong. The under certain conditions the phoenix just has a game braking behaviour and should as such only be implemented when the underlying missile coding in DCS itself is fixed.

Worst thing is when such 'phoenix magic' happens in a competitive match, such as a SATAL match we lost yesterday due to this.

Looking at the tacview instead of a video angle that obfuscates what really happens...

That jet was nowhere near the notch at any time during missile flight, missile had enough speed available to pull with it all the way. Jet was pulling above the horizon into the missile's flight path for crying out loud, just made it easier to connect.

Slammer or R-27 would've hit there all the same, it's just poor flying. You didn't lose that match because of the AIM-54, you lost that match because your guys flew worse than their guys. This kind of lag happens literally all the time in TacView, with every missile, we've accepted that.

Yes missile guidance has serious issues, yes this is very pronounced with the AIM-54, yes it's frustrating as **** to deal with, but this is just pure pilot error.

People should stop blaming their own mistakes onto the AIM-54 desync and I guarantee they're going to be better pilots for it

Sure. And that would involve the AIM-54 in combination with the F-14s radar not being modeled the way it is now. Hence the entire thread.

Indeed. Getting the system right, not shutting it down.

Sure, "operational authenticity" means half your phoenixes fail to guide (oh shit, that's not modeled either? Say it aint't so), and you run out of them all together after a few days, because that floating target called an aircraft carrier has a pretty limited amount of fuel and ordnance it can carry, and its been under constant attack since day 1 of whatever war. Or you have orders only to fire them at the attacking bombers carrying those happy anti-ship missiles designed to sink your floating airfield. ...

By all means. :thumbup:

Just like using 3/4 of your MiG's fleet for spare parts ;)

But in all seriousness, yes. Nothing you said here is new. Some of us here are old enough to remember the days when campaigns involved limited number of planes, limited ordnance and (imagine the shock) limited number of man hours to keep your squadron air worthy. Do i want all that in DCS. By all that is "good and green" yes. Do i think MP will be the place to be implemented and above all accepted? Aside from Squadron level and major organized operations/events.....hardly. It will have the same effect as taking the toys away from the people. You'll just depopulate the servers. Most people don't get to fly more then a few hours a week (if that) and suddenly telling them they can't fly their jet, because they are out of fuel for the rest of the day.....well, you can imagine the rest.

IMO, they should first make a dedicated period bound campaign for SP. One that involves all the things mentioned above. Then make it a dynamic one of possible. And if that works and is at least somewhat ironed out, then it should be made into a full MP variant. And attached to dedicated servers.

Competitive E-Sports like events? They can take care of themselves. Private/closed servers? Likewise. Steer clear of public servers. I know i've talked down air-quaking before, but for most of the community this is the only thing they can get. Is it realistic? Hell no. Does it make sense? Nah. But it does give a quick fix to an aviation nerd when he (or in very rare occasions she) gets that 1/2 hour to blow some steam. It's either that, or just proclaim DCS a shelter for the elite and kick out the "noobs".

...This kind of lag happens literally all the time in TacView, with every missile, we've accepted that.

 

....desync ...

Man, desync is an issue between a driver and RIO, heck, even between a pilot and a plane, let alone missiles :(

Man, desync is an issue between a driver and RIO, heck, even between a pilot and a plane, let alone missiles :(

Exactly my point, but most of what I see in here is just people flying with poor tactics and complaining about different outcomes than they expected. Against an F-14 you have to start the fight lower and with less teeth than you could against an F-15, such is the nature of the jets. Against a Mirage 2000 you have to constantly be aware of the skies above because they're flying too high and fast for your missiles to track. Even if that might not be realistic, that's the DCS you're flying.

Different jets force you to play the game in a different way. Don't complain about and learn how to fly against it.

I feel people have a legitimate complaint when it comes to the INS memory situation allowing the missile to pull AIM-9X type stunts and get into a good position even after lock is broken. (Might I remind folks that all the semi-actives currently do the same)

So just keep the pressure on ED to get this fixed instead.

I think your making the mistake here of expecting balance when it never existed in the first place. Balance ≠ realism. Western aircraft have just about always outstripped and outperformed their soviet counterparts. Often in radar, jamming, performance, and missiles. The F4 was vastly superior to soviet aircraft of the 60's / early 70's. Then by the time the 23/25 came out. The competent versions that is (looking at you 23M), we had the 14A+/15C/16C. And by the time the 27/29A came out and attempted to close the gap (not surpass though) we had more modern version of the previous with even better missiles. US jets have been a decade ahead or so for quite some time.

 

Now do certain DCS'ism impact this yes, the 14 not seeing jamming is annoying same with the 18. But I wonder how much impact it'd have since both of these jets have advanced datalinks. Personally if you want a more level field the JF17 is going to be your aircraft, it is basically a Chinese F16/18 hybrid with the PL12, an aim-120B clone. That unlike other missiles has proper drag values as far as I can tell thanks to deka. Additionally consider this, the 15C in game is missing a lot of features that'd make it even more potent than it is right now and its a mid 90's varient at that. Imagine a mid 2000's varient with JHCMS and 9x and aesa. In the end this is more a symptom of FC3 modeling than anything else. All the FC3 jets are lacking in performance they should have. When the thrid party stuff really isn't.

 

Also concerning the R77-1, R27M, and modern archers lets compare them to their western counterparts, the C7, D, Meteor, and soon the aim-214 (probs got the numbers wrong). Additionally the Russians have yet to make a missile that can actually match the 9X blk I let alone the Blk II. Or even the ASRAAM, IRST, or python 5.

Its not about realism all aim-54s go pitbull off the bat, Leave server you will still get your kill, This is a bug that ED needs to fix, Its also not just aim-54s flying behind 5km then killing you aim-120 do it to, I thought and think aim-54 you need to wait for pitbull expect you dont need to.

People should stop blaming their own mistakes onto the AIM-54 desync and I guarantee they're going to be better pilots for it

The thing is that it does not matter what that Su-33 was doing there. Because for the shooter the missile was somewhere completely else.

Maybe it did a loft or it flew a different turn, but for the shooter the missile must have hit that Su-33 head on when for the Su-33 pilot the missile was already far behind him.

Remember that only the shooters trajectory of the missile matters, and the position of other players is synced while only the launch of the missile itself is synced. So the moment the Su-33 explodes is the moment the missile hit him on the shooters view, where the Su-33 is in the position that is in the tacview for each client, but the missile is only at the position of the Su-33 on the shooters PC.

Let's say the Su-33 did a perfect notch on his side. It would not matter at all in this situation, because the missile is somewhere completely else. The Su-33 does not die because of a mistake he made, but because he gets hit by a missile that is actually somewhere else. In DCS the target does NOT send to the shooter "I notched the missile, make it lose track". So whatever he does to his version of the missile does not matter unless the shooters and the targets version of the missile are at a very similar position and energy. Which is the case many times, but then there are also these cases where there are huge differences.

We are talking here about a difference in position of 8 km between shooter and target. For the target the missile was long dead and he did not have any warning when the missile hit him.

Such a big discrepancy in missile position is just too much in a flight sim.

Blaming this on pilot error shows me that you do not fully understand the problem.

So instead of showing a hugely biased video with a rather suspicious angle, why not show us the tacview overlays between the server and pilot tacview if you want to prove something. Show us where the missile was for the pilot and where it was according to the server.

Why point at the tacview explosion lag, something that's widely known to be a tacview specific issue, to try to prove a point. Why point to bits of circumstantial evidence to try and make a case.

I'm very well aware of what the problem is and how much more excessive it is with the Phoenix compared to the AIM-120. However, regardless of where the missile was, this was a poor defensive manoeuvre and not particular to the AIM-54. For every shot that hits me due to desync, there's at least 5 more that hit because I just flew poorly. It's just not as big a deal as people pretend and a really easy thing to blame.

The missile is getting very close to the plane, but this is not about this at all. I also have no need to do a 'biased' tacview video. All I want to show is that the target dies to a missile that was far far away from him on his side.

This is not some tacview issue, because in the fight he saw that the missile has flown past him: On the SPO-15 it was on the opposite side and the signal strength was droping (Another DCS issue, you are no longer in the radar beam of the missile when it flies away from you). This is a 100% indicator that the missile is gone, and he turns hot again, only to die more than 15 seconds later to this missile.

I do not have the shooters tacview, but there is no need for that as the issue is presented here very well:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3860594&postcount=1

Problem is that the desync is exagerated by the long flight time, by the loft and maybe even by the different radar modes that the phoenix gets launched.

An AIM-120C without loft does not differ that much for shooter and client, but with the phoenix it causes big issues under certain launch conditions.

Hence why the missile or the systems of the F-14 should be adjusted so that the desync is minimized until the issue is fixed by ED. (Maybe Fox1, maybe no loft, etc.)

Let's just stick to real solution which is to sync all missiles at specific intervals based on TTG.

If you believe that no lofting will fix this issue, I suggest testing - shouldn't be too hard to test. It will hamstring the missile a bit but I'm sure all the servers will allow f14s to lead as many 54C as they want in this case, right? SATAL too.

Yes, that would be the perfect solution.

a desync issue is an issue of course, but has to do with server, netcode, client, internet and many things, but not really with the missile. again, it is very noticeable in the phoenix, due to its range, but other missiles and guns etc show it, too. not trying to point the blame away, but this issue needs to be worked from a different angle imo. as for removing the missile, again, all those calls for extreme measures are not really an option or a solution. it is used, useful and fine in many other instances. you can always restrict it on server side if you have to.

Blaming a SATAL loss on one single missle also does not really reflect for everything else gone wrong beforehand or afterwards to depend on that. I don't mean this in a belitteling way, I did not see the match, but from flying and winning many events like that, I can tell you that it never really is a single missile, a single disconnect etc.. usually it comes in a series of events already going wrong and of course, then it become additionally frustrating. I totally understand that. But one thing still remains: it is for everyone the same, no one has it especially harder.

But one thing still remains: it is for everyone the same, no one has it especially harder.

Except the team that does not field the tomcat when it fights a team that does. The team that does does not have to deal with the game breaking desync issues.

Except the team that does not field the tomcat when it fights a team that does. The team that does does not have to deal with the game breaking desync issues.

It does, just it ain't as obvious with other missiles or guns, and as discussed earlier, defeating the phoenix, while acknowledging all its flaws and bugs, is not as impossible as everyone makes out to. We'll just agree to disagree there I guess, no worries about that.

Were the 104th Phoenix bud, We have not had an Aim-54 kill in like six SATAL matches now? High level squads have obviously figured out how to defend against the aim-54 with a high level of effectiveness.

The aim-54 was OP on release due to the desync that made notching it near impossible with out pure luck. and lots of it. This seems to be less of an issue now, and notching the phoenix, and spoofing with CM's has become much easier.

Yes, you can defend it. But if it was modeled properly, you would be able to yield a significant amount of extra aggression against it, way more comparable to the other missiles. For example: F-14 turns hot, gives you nails. Then turns cold. Launch spotting aside, you will likely have to sit in the notch now to defend the magic INS missile and make sure its passed you. If it did not have the INS issues, you could just push without any defense. Relying on RWR and just notching it is a very bad idea because especially if you are in a turn you are likely going to get the warning too late if youre still high. Especially since you only get it at 7nm or so (despite missile going active at 15, another issue btw). Also, smokeless missiles like 54C should have contrails which are lower than where aircraft get them. Another issue that makes the missile "OP" compared to what it should be. But this also applies to AIM-120 in a similar fashion.

Your F-14 in the latest match against TAW launched nearly all if not all outside its kinematic NEZ. And yet in all the ones you have used lt in, it had made a massive difference because just its presence alone is forcing the enemy team low and has a massive effect on their shape.

Maximus, we get it. You will still have to live with it, until we can adjust it on our side, and ED fixes guidance etc on their side. We're starting to turn a bit in circles here... Which you know, is fine, but it does not lead us anywhere anymore. Your points were all heard and taken aboard.

Facts remain: it is bugged, it is active off the rail, you can still defend it though, it is not ideal, but it is also not a total game breaker as some make it out to be. For the rest, again, I ask you for your kind patience.

I may also mention that us getting access, means defining when it goes active and if it is SARH during STT, but guidance and missiles in general is always ED side (some make it sound as if we will get access to that, we won't, and I hope I did not make it sound wrong either). Just to underline that again. We hope the active bug gets fixed and guidance in general gets addressed, but from our point what will change is when it goes active and that it stays SARH during STT. Nothing else, also no performance.

makes the missile "OP" compared

Eagle Dynamics and Heatblur should waste exactly zero time worrying about "OP" and "balance" and other e-sports issues and instead focus on making a flight simulator. The issue you're complaining about is not unique to the Phoenix and I don't know why you're complaining here.

Eagle Dynamics and Heatblur should waste exactly zero time worrying about "OP" and "balance" and other e-sports issues and instead focus on making a flight simulator. The issue you're complaining about is not unique to the Phoenix and I don't know why you're complaining here.

Well said :thumbup:

Eagle Dynamics and Heatblur should waste exactly zero time worrying about "OP" and "balance" and other e-sports issues and instead focus on making a flight simulator. The issue you're complaining about is not unique to the Phoenix and I don't know why you're complaining here.

I agree. We need a simulation, which is as authentic for all modules as possible. These issues do not negatively influence the average F-14 owners experience, the majority of which likely involves flying singleplayer or COOP missions against AI aircraft. Perhabs, if heatblurs priority is to create an authentic experience for the F-14 users themselves, ED should do more on their side. Because with the current issues, the F-14 creates a significantly less realistic environment for the other modules in the sim (which people pay real money for, too).

So if ED can not fix the active missile coding and the other issues that heatblur blames them for in the near future, the solution could be for them to introduce optional workarounds for mission hosts. Maybe there should just be server settings to make a compromise between F-14 realism vs the realism of the other modules. For example, the damage model could be downgraded to FC3 standard until the missile damage is reworked so that the F-14 damage model properly works with it. And the AIM-54 could be turned into a semi active missile via script / server setting if the mission host wishes to do so, until the midcourse INS and F-14 ECM immunity issues are resolved. I would not see how heatblur would have a massive issue with this, since this only influences a minority of their customers AND also allows them to enjoy a bigger part of the tomcats weaponry in scenarios that would otherwise partially or fully restrict the phoenix, despite it fitting the time frame. Many other modules offer such settings.

I agree. We need a simulation, which is as authentic for all modules as possible. These issues do not negatively influence the average F-14 owners experience, the majority of which likely involves flying singleplayer or COOP missions against AI aircraft. Perhabs, if heatblurs priority is to create an authentic experience for the F-14 users themselves, ED should do more on their side. Because with the current issues, the F-14 creates a significantly less realistic environment for the other modules in the sim (which people pay real money for, too).

 

So if ED can not fix the active missile coding and the other issues that heatblur blames them for in the near future, the solution could be for them to introduce optional workarounds for mission hosts. Maybe there should just be server settings to make a compromise between F-14 realism vs the realism of the other modules. For example, the damage model could be downgraded to FC3 standard until it is reworked. And the AIM-54 could be turned into a semi active missile via script / server setting if the mission host wishes to do so, until the midcourse INS and F-14 ECM immunity issues are resolved. I would not see how heatblur would have a massive issue with this, since this only influences a minority of their customers AND also allows them to enjoy a bigger part of the experience in scenarios that would otherwise partially or fully restrict the phoenix, despite it fitting the time frame. Many other modules offer such settings.

None of this will happen, Maximus. We will always strive to achieve greater accuracy and improve our modules, but we will not cater to workarounds or nerfing in favor of flaws that do not exist on our side. Our job is to create the most realistic Tomcat experience, not to balance it against other aircraft. We do not think in OP, nerfing or anything.

It is a bit strange to ask us that anyway, and I think you are also posting in the wrong place, if I may suggest kindly. Don't you think it would be better to ask for improvements elsewhere, than ask us here to make something worse than it is? That is a bit funny, you know. But in any case, I will repeat it again: it won't happen. Sorry if I say it so directly.

All that we will do, again, is define the time when it goes active and make it guide SARH in STT, once we get access to do that (again, we are not getting access to guidance, missiles or anything like that.)

You can always create a game environment that excludes the F-14 if you think it is that unfair, but don't expect us to change it, because you are not happy with it. The majority is, on both sides.

If ED decides to do it, it will happen. You make the module, they make the sim. You said yourselves that you rely on ED to fix these issues anyway.

[...] don't expect us to change it, because you are not happy with it. The majority is, on both sides.

If by "both sides" you mean module owners and non-tomcat pilots who have to deal with fighting it, i hugely doubt that you have the full picture. I wonder what sources you have to to be so certain about this not being considered detrimental by the "majority".