Missing F-14 changelog from today's hotfix

Still no replay fix?

"Fixed the boxy halo around the afterburners visible at night."

Still there for me for some reason. And very visible.

1. The phoenix has been guided like an amraam since release, because that is the only possible compromise until we can implement the new guidance with ED. However their seeker heads are of very similar power irl, too, so chaff resistance between the C and the aim120 is more or less the same. The in game ccm values come from ED, not us. All missiles suffer from "magic tracking", that is a general guidance issue - except for the aim120 atm, which is actively being worked on by ED. The always active bug seems gone now, and 7/10 missiles will lose lock in the notch and just continue straight. Yes, it has twice the speed and twice the range, because, you know: that's how it was irl. Online the amraam is much more reliable than the phoenix atm, so not sure what you are afraid of.

 

2. The F-14 is not the only aircraft that takes sometimes 2 amraams to bring it down, and often enough 1 aim9 or r73 can be a kill, too, depending where it hits. Up to two missiles is nothing unusual online. Since the very dawn of lockon, which is why ppl "double tap". We always said that the external damage model is still WIP, and that netcode issues in MC between RIO and pilot can lead to extraordinary situations, for example if a missile hit is registered for one, but not for the other, it might happen that a "dead" aircraft flies on. What you fail to realize is that the internal damage model is very complete, and usually after the first hit your aircraft is rendered useless, even if it flies on. Lastly, it was the largest fighter the Navy ever employed, it also was the sturdiest.

 

3. During its time, the F-14 was among "the best" at many things. This naturally transcends in game in many situations, too. We didn't write history, nor did we concuct some hocus pocus data, to make it "op" or your life more miserable. It also isn't the best at everything in game. I've had head on 10nm shots defended by skilled players online and missiles miss from closer ranges, too. (This is what the majority of Tomcat drivers experiences.) If you bring 6 phoenixes, usually only 2 will connect, because four of them go bonkers for "reasons". How is that a super sikrit uber missile in your mind? I am getting the impression that the loud minority, of which you are a part of, will only be satisfied once the phoenix falls off the rail and goes straight into the ground.

 

You think that we make it better than it should be, which could not be further from the truth, especially given the missile's current performance online. I said this before and I will say this again: we won't stand for accusations like that. If you have legitimate complaints, we will always listen to them and work on them. But don't think that unloading your frustrations on us, will in any way get you what you want. That's not even a complaint, it is just a rant. And if that is what you needed, then I hope you got what you came for. I'm fine if ppl rant, but rants are just not constructive at all.

 

We want the Tomcat to be good for both sides, those who fly it and those who fight it. But whether either side feels affected by historically accurate implementation of its attributes, or limitations due to DCS, is none of our concern. We're concerned about the inaccuracies as mentioned above, and we stated numerous times that these are being worked on. :)

 

 

Please understand that we are not open for further discussion on this matter, until we fixed the guidance, as it has been discussed many times over, all issues have been acknowledged and it is simply costing us valuable time for no new insights. Any new constructive feedback or bug reports will be welcomed with appreciation of course. Thank you.

So i guess now with the chaff change of the aim 120, the phoenix will follow ? Have Heatblur forgot to add this change in their new update perhaps ?

So i guess now with the chaff change of the aim 120, the phoenix will follow ? Have Heatblur forgot to add this change in their new update perhaps ?

Who knows, but the values are still ccm_k0=0.05 for the AIM-54C, I think, which is twice as low as the AIM-120C-5, at the moment. And I think that the AIM-54A variants still have values below 0.1.

The phoenix has been guided like an amraam since release, because that is the only possible compromise until we can implement the new guidance with ED. However their seeker heads are of very similar power irl, too, so chaff resistance between the C and the aim120 is more or less the same.

IM, could you please clarify that statement? The seeker power might be similar, but the seeker power is only one part of the equation and usually not the part that deals with ECCM/CCM.

Seeker power output has little to do with CCM/ECCM beyond noise jamming. CCM and ECCM it's more about the related target selection algorithms and signal analysis etc, which would be much better on a newer seeker.

The AIM-54A was introduced in 1974 and the AIM-54C (with an improved seeker), in 1986. The AIM-120C(-1) was introduced in 1994 and the C-5 variant (which we have in DCS) in 2003. There is no way that seekers in missiles that were introduced that many years apart have the same capabilities with respect to target selection, chaff rejection etc.

Unless the only improvements were on the on the side of ECCM and not CCM, which would make the seeker performance comparable in DCS, because we don't have any serious ECM to speak of.

Could you please provide some data that actually supports this claim? Or at least point me in the right direction?

Thank you.

The AIM-54A was introduced in 1974 and the AIM-54C (with an improved seeker), in 1986. The AIM-120C(-1) was introduced in 1994 and the C-5 variant (which we have in DCS) in 2003. There is no way that seekers in missiles that were introduced that many years apart have the same capabilities with respect to target selection, chaff rejection etc.

 

Unless the only improvements were on the on the side of ECCM and not CCM, which would make the seeker performance comparable in DCS, because we don't have any serious ECM to speak of.

 

Could you please provide some data that actually supports this claim? Or at least point me in the right direction?

 

Thank you.

It would depend on which version of the C HB have chosen to model: an AIM-54C from 1999 is not going to have the same software as an AIM-54C from 1986.

It would depend on which version of the C HB have chosen to model: an AIM-54C from 1999 is not going to have the same software as an AIM-54C from 1986.

Fair enough. But is the F-14B, as simulated in DCS right now, supposed to be at a 1999 standard?

It's broadly representative of a pre Upgrade example: LAU-138s are from 1997, LANTIRN is from 1996, Fishbowl TID can be representative of a number of scenarios. Even then, do you have anything to say a 1991 AWG-9 can't guide a 1999 AIM-54?

It's broadly representative of a pre Upgrade example: LAU-138s are from 1997, LANTIRN is from 1996, Fishbowl TID can be representative of a number of scenarios. Even then, do you have anything to say a 1991 AWG-9 can't guide a 1999 AIM-54?

My entire point is centered around relative seeker performance between the AIM-54C and the AIM-120C-5, regarding CCM/ECCM.

Fair enough, that's my bad.

I don't know what the capes of the C-5 are beyond "very good", but I would say that ECM was a large and evolving consideration for any target the -54 would be expected to counter, It's dubious the capability would be allowed to stagnate for 16 years.

We're not simulating a certain year, but an entire period. Chaff is super rudimentary in DCS - it's a value, and not in depth seeker head performance, etc and the differences are small enough that you likely wouldnt even notice. (Notwithsstanding the fact that atm our phoenix is out of date and needs to be adjusted to ED's recent changes.) The Aim-54, just as the aim120s, do not change depending on the year you select in the editor. Their chaff resistance, etc all reflects a cross section of its capabilities, as ED models it within DCS. In that, the most sensible is to compare the Aim-54 C (that you can theoretically use in the year 2007 in the editor) with the Aim-120C and the older two phoenixes with the B. You're way overthinking it if you compare seeker head versions, as this kind of depth isn't reflected in DCS, and likely won't be any time soon.

We already adjusted the values internally for the next patch. :)

I always appreciate your candor, IM.

We're not simulating a certain year, but an entire period. Chaff is super rudimentary in DCS - it's a value, and not in depth seeker head performance, etc and the differences are small enough that you likely wouldnt even notice. (Notwithsstanding the fact that atm our phoenix is out of date and needs to be adjusted to ED's recent changes.) The Aim-54, just as the aim120s, do not change depending on the year you select in the editor. Their chaff resistance, etc all reflects a cross section of its capabilities, as ED models it within DCS. In that, the most sensible is to compare the Aim-54 C (that you can theoretically use in the year 2007 in the editor) with the Aim-120C and the older two phoenixes with the B. You're way overthinking it if you compare seeker head versions, as this kind of depth isn't reflected in DCS, and likely won't be any time soon.

 

 

 

We already adjusted the values internally for the next patch. :)

Do you guys know if there are any plans to introduce missile failure percentages? I know tracking of missiles that fire 100% of the time is already frustrating enough but there seem to be all kinds of anecdotes about rocket motors failing to fire, missiles not linking at all and just going straight off the rails, or in some cases bombs/missiles not dropping due to pylon issues.

I'm guessing some of that would be on ED side to create an argument for missile reliability or failure option to tie into.

Do you guys know if there are any plans to introduce missile failure percentages? I know tracking of missiles that fire 100% of the time is already frustrating enough but there seem to be all kinds of anecdotes about rocket motors failing to fire, missiles not linking at all and just going straight off the rails, or in some cases bombs/missiles not dropping due to pylon issues.

 

I'm guessing some of that would be on ED side to create an argument for missile reliability or failure option to tie into.

No, not really. And, since this is a sim environment, I doubt it would add much beyond just more frustration. I mean, I kinda agree, I love these kind of details, too. But you are all cheerful when you experience it once or the first time. The 5th, 10th, 50th time in - not so much. It's one of those things that imo just goes one step too far. What I think would be nicer, is to maybe have ordnance that is prone to turn into a hung station if you abuse your aircraft, etc... basically failure that depend on the player and are avoidable by proper flying. But even that, atm just goes beyond the scope. Maybe later down the route, but no promise. :)

We're not simulating a certain year, but an entire period. Chaff is super rudimentary in DCS - it's a value, and not in depth seeker head performance, etc and the differences are small enough that you likely wouldnt even notice. (Notwithsstanding the fact that atm our phoenix is out of date and needs to be adjusted to ED's recent changes.) The Aim-54, just as the aim120s, do not change depending on the year you select in the editor. Their chaff resistance, etc all reflects a cross section of its capabilities, as ED models it within DCS. In that, the most sensible is to compare the Aim-54 C (that you can theoretically use in the year 2007 in the editor) with the Aim-120C and the older two phoenixes with the B. You're way overthinking it if you compare seeker head versions, as this kind of depth isn't reflected in DCS, and likely won't be any time soon.

 

 

 

We already adjusted the values internally for the next patch. :)

Gotcha, thanks for the answer. I do agree with you, different seeker versions are not simulated in DCS at all, it's just a ccm value for now (maybe something more, I don't know). The way I see it, it's about relative missile CCM/ECCM performance, in DCS.

At the end of the day, even the earliest AIM-120C version should have better CCM/ECCM than the latest AIM-54C version, so a direct comparison (what if we had a 2007-era AIM-54 type of thing) is not possible. It's an older missile, with a worse performing seeker (for CCM/ECCM) and always will (should) be. It might be difficult to portray this in DCS, but perhaps in can be accounted for in different ways.

And please don't think I'm an angry guy who's ranting because I've been on the receiving end of a Phoenix one too many times. Our squadron flies both the F-14 and the F-18, as do I. I'm just trying to keep things as realistic as possible.

Anyway, thanks again for the answer and I'm happy to hear that you fixed the values for the next patch.

Gotcha, thanks for the answer. I do agree with you, different seeker versions are not simulated in DCS at all, it's just a ccm value for now (maybe something more, I don't know). The way I see it, it's about relative missile CCM/ECCM performance, in DCS.

 

At the end of the day, even the earliest AIM-120C version should have better CCM/ECCM than the latest AIM-54C version, so a direct comparison (what if we had a 2007-era AIM-54 type of thing) is not possible. It's an older missile, with a worse performing seeker (for CCM/ECCM) and always will (should) be. It might be difficult to portray this in DCS, but perhaps in can be accounted for in different ways.

 

And please don't think I'm an angry guy who's ranting because I've been on the receiving end of a Phoenix one too many times. Our squadron flies both the F-14 and the F-18, as do I. I'm just trying to keep things as realistic as possible.

 

Anyway, thanks again for the answer and I'm happy to hear that you fixed the values for the next patch.

No worries, such input is always welcome. We still believe that more or less matching the 120s - in regards to chaff resistance - is warranted and the best approach. If you deviate any further from them, how far? You quickly get into the area where you have to ask yourself what that value even represents, except a certain percentage that leads to a certain behavioral outcome that cannot really be quantified anyway because it is not at all consistent or tied to any other parameters we'd know of. ED alone knows the entire structure for it, and we know the outcome is very simplistic. Chaff doesn't even remotely do in game, what it does irl. And from that perspective we believe that the chaff resistance of both missiles should be almost identical, most certainly for the era they represent in majority mid-80s till late 90s (and if their service would have continue, likely the aim54 would have been kept up to date in that regard as well). Thus, until ED implements something where seeker heads get more in depth simulation, or chaff is being represented more realistically, we don't have any intentions on changing that. My apologies if that disappoints.

hmm personally i'm not a fan of this bit :

"and if their service would have continue, likely the aim54 would have been kept up to date in that regard as well".

From all that i've read the phoenix missile in reality was horrible to begin with for air to air combat vs manouvrable aircraft.

With that in mind it seems that the phoenix missile is already a sort of theoretical "what if" missile in DCS .

Not sure if even going a step further, and basing it on "what if they had developed it further" is good for realism.

hmm personally i'm not a fan of this bit :

 

"and if their service would have continue, likely the aim54 would have been kept up to date in that regard as well".

 

From all that i've read the phoenix missile in reality was horrible to begin with for air to air combat vs manouvrable aircraft.

With that in mind it seems that the phoenix missile is already a sort of theoretical "what if" missile in DCS .

 

Not sure if even going a step further, and basing it on "what if they had developed it further" is good for realism.

Its hearsay anyway , same as your statement, but I heard the opposite re its (C Variant)usefulness against fighter targets.

Regards,

Snappy

Edit: Here is Dave Baraneks take on it and he certainly would know , scroll down to the AWG9&Aim-54 combo question and its second to last paragraph.

https://hushkit.net/2020/08/08/we-ask-a-real-topgun-instructor-to-rate-the-movies-realism-and-talk-f-14-tomcats/

But the phoenix missile is now being based on a completely imaginary missile .

It's being based on: "if it had been further developed".

That's , well that's not even trying to emulate realism, because the missile was NOT further developed.

"if this had happened", "if that had happened" . You get my point ?

You made that point yes, but whether you like it or not , plenty of things in DCS are based on „what if“ or similar assumptions. See the latest stance of ED on now putting 4 HARMS on the F-16.

Its nothing but „what if two additional stations were wired for the necessary feed“ , which they were not in reality on that aircraft. Technically possible/ thinkable yes maybe, but purely hypothetic too. So even ED is inconsistent with its realism.

So the whole „realism“ tag of DCS should not be taken too seriously. Especially when it comes to BVR where many factors are either missing or extremely simplified.

Play with what you got. It can be fun and semi-realistic. If it bothers you, resort to servers/Vgroups that implement relevant restrictions if it makes you feel better.

Regards,

Snappy

But the phoenix missile is now being based on a completely imaginary missile .

 

It's being based on: "if it had been further developed".

 

That's , well that's not even trying to emulate realism, because the missile was NOT further developed.

 

"if this had happened", "if that had happened" . You get my point ?

AIM-120C was introduced into service in 1996. Phoenix left service with the Tomcat in 2006. That's a 10 year crossover in service. Plus Hughes (then Ratheon) was responsible for the development of both missiles - there's a better than even chance that the two missiles share a large amount of similarities.

With the ability to reject countermeasures being essentially a filtering operation, which is primarily defined by software programming, it is ergo likely that the two share some fundamentally similar software and hence CCM characteristics.

Can this be proven unequivocally - no, but it is logical deduction based on limited information available and a sound enginnering guesstimate for HB to work from.

Yours is based on the following:

it's older missile + a healthy dose of "I hates Phoenix"+ conjecture = must be worse than AMRAAM.

Your hanging on to the idea that they've enabled a speculated CCM performance upgrade to the missiles only exposes your own bias; what Ironmike is referring to is the ability of the software in missile to be upgraded; that this was a possibility before the Phoenix left service and thus would have benefited from updates to the AIM-120 during it's life and that this process would have continued had the Phoenix gone beyond 2006.

My god you are so desperate to find some sort of conspiracy here. What the hell is your problem?

The phoenix is not being based on a completely imaginary missile, CSGO, don't twist my words. It is realistic to base the Aim-54s chaff resistance off of the aim120s. DD_Fenrir just gave you a great explanation as to why. It has nothing to do whether it would have been developed further or not (it would have), that was just an example for a part of the reasoning behind it. Even under the assumption that it wouldnt have been developed further, it would be reasonable to base it off the aim-120 in game. I can't help you if you twist my words, so that they fit your never ending gripe with the phoenix (which atm barely hits a target with the old guidance API and it's terminal phase behavior anyway). Besides, no other missile in DCS has been released with as much documentation to back it up and as much CFD data, than the phoenix. Read the Whitepaper on it. And please, CSGO, stop wasting our time with this, we won't change it, no matter how loud or how often you complain.

Whether or not you are personally a fan of something, and what you have read or not, is not even remotely a factor, I am sorry to say it that harshly. Because: what did you read? Got a source? (Please do share it with us - because we always react on reputable sources that prove us wrong.) Or is it just assumptions? Or did you "read it on the internet" by someone who posted it somewhere? Did you talk to any real SMEs? Do you have more access to Tomcat data than we do? Did you read all the Iranian combat reports which prove just how effective it was? Do you know that in fact it was used more often by the Navy than you think, and that very effectively? (If you think the US fired it only 3 times, you think wrong.) You also don't accept any arguements that don't fit your narrative, and you know how they say: you can't fill a cup that is already full. And all that you've read is, in respect to your arguements, likely quite wrong. The phoenix was extremely effective against "maneuverable fighter targets", which you would know, if you would really know anything about missiles in the first place, or if you would have ever talked to an SME or read any book or reports of relevance (which you could share with us here as reputable sources). Or you know, if you would have just read the whitepaper and see that we are not reading wild assumptions off the internet and are genuinely interested to bring you (as close as possible in DCS) true to life experiences with more research gone into them and more - and still ongoing - SME input than any other module at hand, in any sim to date. That chaff is such a simplistic element in DCS, quite frankly, is not our fault. And until that changes, we won't change our reasoning behind the phoenix' chaff resistance. Please accept that.

No one would love to model realistic seeker heads more than us. But while it is ok to have higher expectations from us than other devs, expecting it in this case is just not reasonable, because it wouldnt even be doable atm as such - and it doesnt look like it will for quite a while. Once DCS makes a step into that direction in general and facilitates what would be needed for it in the first place, we'd be the first to jump on board. :)

I am really amazed by how many people actually believe that one of the most expensive Air-to-Air missiles ever made was a complete dud in real-life. Oh and it was never maintained because it was never, ever, used (Even though it was).

Chaff resistance is based on the imagination that the phoenix missile did NOT go out of service, but was continued in development.

I understand you work with what you got but that's one step too far if you constantly say "reality is all that matters" .

And combined with the already insanely low chaff values for the old 1970's analog missiles ... 1970's missiles are supposed to have a chaff resistance value of 1, or 2 ? Not 0.06

As for effectiveness, Iranian reports well ... let's not touch that one at this moment.

Anyway, i'm looking forward to the correction of the chaff values, in line with the aim 120 . Altough it should be even worse than the aim 120 , ESPECIALLY these old 1970's missiles.

Chaff resistance is based on the imagination that the phoenix missile did NOT go out of service, but was continued in development.

I understand you work with what you got but that's one step too far if you constantly say "reality is all that matters" .

 

As for effectiveness, Iranian reports well ... let's not touch that one at this moment.

Again, you did not understand my post. This is one of the arguements going into the reasoning and not the decisive one. The decisive one is that both missiles have been maintained and developed for the same purpose (more or less) by the same company, thus sharing the technology of said company, thus warranting the conclusion that their behavior towards chaff as simplistic as in DCS would be quite identical as both have been contemporaries and were being deployed, developed and maintained by the same company during the same time period. And because DCS exceeds the time period for both in which they are being used, and with that ofc virtually extends their service lives, it is equally fair to assume that they would have been kept on par in such a scenario as well. Which actually does not matter, as I said initially, because the missile's seekers do not change with the year you set in the editor. They are always the same.

You cannot complain about realism, while at the same time suggesting your "feelings" and what "strikes you as odd" about us should be taken as face value, while not even backing it up with one substantial claim, or reputable source or even a reputable opinion or other empirical data. If you do not even remotely consider the chance, that yes, all we do care about is realism (within reason), you also won't get past this point. In fact it is this realism or its depiction, you have a problem with. And I have a hunch, that no matter what we would change about the phoenix, you'd still not like it. That's your problem, not ours.

Please leave it be now, unless you can deliver some reputable data, we won't change it and it is not up for debate either.

EDIT: In reply to your edit: they are not any more 1970s missiles than the aim120s are. They are missiles that have been used until the mid 2000s, and have been updated accordingly of course. Or do you really think that an A in 2004 flew around with missiles from 1978 (without the missiles receiving any updates in the meantime)? ... Again, DCS does not make differences in the timechanges for the missiles. They get settled into a time period, rather than a year, and the kind of depth that would go through seeker head evolution does not exist for any missile in DCS. Not sure why you would expect it to exist only for ours then.