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

[IronMike]

At what range is the real missile supposed to go pitbull?

 

 

The range is currently set to 15km (or 7nm)

Edited August 19, 2019 by IronMike

[Yaga]

The effect of the current implementation is that by notching pre-pitbull, or otherwise breaking the Tomcat's track and attempting to trash the missile early, you're actually making it track better by inducing the INS bug. So either he's able to keep tracking you, or he's not, but you're going to have to notch eventually or die. The only real solution is denying him detection of you in the first place and preventing any shots at all.

 

The missile is far from where it should be, and the effect on MP combat is miserable.

 

At this point it should just be set as a Fox 1 until HB can model it correctly.

[Shadow KT]

I agree with a Fox 1 compromise.

 

Besides you can also add, its superior, realistic guidance logic compared to all the other missiles. We have to push ED to update their guidance logic (The AIM-7 is good step forward).

 

And don't mistake guidance logic with a guidance method. Guided by magic as YAGA said, with a supreme guidance logic (which is realistic for the most part form what I've seen)

[Hummingbird]

The effect of the current implementation is that by notching pre-pitbull, or otherwise breaking the Tomcat's track and attempting to trash the missile early, you're actually making it track better by inducing the INS bug. So either he's able to keep tracking you, or he's not, but you're going to have to notch eventually or die. The only real solution is denying him detection of you in the first place and preventing any shots at all.

 

The missile is far from where it should be, and the effect on MP combat is miserable.

 

At this point it should just be set as a Fox 1 until HB can model it correctly.

 

It's nowhere near that bad, infact you can defeat the Pheonix quite easily by notching the AWG-9 pre pitbull, and as a result once the missile goes active it either a) picks up nothing and just goes stupid or b) it finds you at quite a high aspect and makes crazy turn bleeding all its energy making it easy to avoid.

 

Infact I see my AIM54's defeated so often ingame that I know it's simply a matter of skill, and it's not high skill, just a simple matter of knowing when to notch/beam and not running head first into an F-14. Make proper use of that magic DL you have in the F/A-18 atm and shooting down F-14's really isn't that big a deal.

 

As for your last suggestion, that's just way more silly than the way it currently functions considering how easy it ise to break jesters lock, and as a result the missile would become practically useless if what you suggest was to be done.

Edited August 11, 2019 by Hummingbird

[IronMike]

I will have to disagree here with you, Yaga, I see tons of them defeated online and the effect on multiplayer is far from miserable, the INS guidance btw being the same for all actives. Making it a fox 1 would probably only boost its kill ratio, as pilots would move in for kill shots rather that would still be out of reach of its opponents, and it would elminate the long range bvr, that as mentioned can be easily defeated, and imo very well adds to the multiplayer environment. care to defend from all stand out range jsows? you need phoenixes, and so on. there are many different perspectives that one can take from its current implementation, but that it makes mutliplayer miserable, sorry, is in my opinion a crass exaggeration.

 

I really don't mean this in a belitteling way, but maybe you focus too much on the noch. I flew a lot of multiplayer lately to refresh my picture and I flew against it and with it, and taking an F14 head on high up with cranks into split S, followed by quick notch, followed by a recommit is mostly easy works. And then I see guys like Maximus who stay in the notch so perfectly that any phoenix launched outside of 5nm misses him, then he turns into you and 77/73/ET gets you. He will notch that last one of your rail, too. So in that sense maybe you notch at the wrong time or not good enough. (I am very well aware what an outstanding pilot you are, I am not questioning that.)

 

I really don't like to argue with you guys, but I would also like us to stay within a realistic tone, and not jump to exaggerations or "solutions" that are not really better - or may be born solely out of the wish to not find yourself as often on the phoenix's receiving end (without thinking of anyone particular now).

 

In fact I would like to ask you all for your kind patience, as in time it will become as it is supposed to be. For the time being this is the best compromise in our opinion. As soon as we will be able to improve it, we will.

Edited August 12, 2019 by IronMike

[Max1mus]

Most pilots just die to super long range shots because mistake margins against the current AIM-54s are extremely low.

 

Yes, in a one versus one you can just sit in the notch, turn in and use the superior accelleration of the other BVR missiles, INS bug or not. But as soon as you add multiple aircraft on both sides it becomes a massive issue, if you stay in the notch forever like this in that fight you loose all your options. And if you dont, you likely die. You cant notch 2 aircraft at different angles.

 

Cant there at least be a self destruct mechanic that destroys the missile when shooter lock is broken before pitbull? That would make it more fightable in a multi ship environment.

 

PS: I remember that engagement. You were not using 54C which are significantly harder to notch up close and are smokeless. Thats a huge factor too.

Edited August 12, 2019 by Max1mus

[Noctrach]

Flying DCS in a highly competitive setting as well, I totally share where people's frustrations come from... HOWEVER

 

Bugs pertaining to desync and INS are provably as frequent in other missiles in DCS, among other issues pertaining to radar tracking and radar memory in a multiplayer environment.

 

There's not a single training or scrim where TacView overlays will not show significant amounts of desynchronization for every single missile fired.

 

The only reason people focus on the AIM-54 is because it's just a really, exceptionally long range missile... meaning:

a) It's incredibly lethal within "regular" DCS ranges

b) Any multiplayer-induced issues get amplified significantly due to time of flight and speed.

 

All of the issues I've seen described also happen with the AIM-7, but nobody complains about that one because it only has an effective range of about 10 miles and is purely SARH (you know... barring the Hornet glitch where radar memory can keep guiding upwards of 20+ seconds while flying cold away from your target...)

 

Rather than trying to get the Phoenix (and thereby most of the A2A capability of this module) neutered, just hope ED quickly starts applying fixes on their end.

[IronMike]

Most pilots just die to super long range shots because mistake margins against the current AIM-54s are extremely low.

 

Yes, in a one versus one you can just sit in the notch, turn in and use the superior accelleration of the other BVR missiles, INS bug or not. But as soon as you add multiple aircraft on both sides it becomes a massive issue, if you stay in the notch forever like this in that fight you loose all your options. And if you dont, you likely die. You cant notch 2 aircraft at different angles.

 

Cant there at least be a self destruct mechanic that destroys the missile when shooter lock is broken before pitbull? That would make it more fightable in a multi ship environment.

 

PS: I remember that engagement. You were not using 54C which are significantly harder to notch up close and are smokeless. Thats a huge factor too.

 

 

yep, those were 60As.

[Arekushi]

I understand frustration but I believe it is hypocritical to ask unrealistic things from a developer trying their best to be as realistic as possible. Whatever the implications in the MP environment may be.

 

Wouldn't it be better to ask ED missiles to match closer to the performances of real missiles ?

[Yaga]

Mike, I think there are many implications you're not considering. While all Fox 3s suffer this problem, the Phoenix is especially problematic on the shape of the fight at medium range.

 

If you have time, I'd be more than happy to go up on BFPG in Hornets and compare/contrast in real time the calculated aggression we should be able to safely wield against the Tomcats vs the amount of aggression we can safely wield. You will hopefully see that there is a huge difference and that it is entirely due to the INS bug and pre-pitbull launches when applied to the insane energy and range potential of the Phoenix.

[Dudikoff]

The range is currently set to 15nm

 

Is there any info on if this range varies on the real thing? I mean, on the MiG-29/Su-27, you have to select the target size (small, medium, large) and this influences when the R-27 SARH seeker would go active IIRC.

 

I'd expect something similar happens here, but it's automated presumably.

 

It was probably discussed already, but I keep forgetting things, sorry.

[Bearfoot]

I wonder if we could have a sticky that currently captures (a) what works; (b) how to use what works; and © what does not work or work correctly; with possibly (d) workarounds. We have to go through several threads like this one, often deep, to pull out information, and it is not clear what information is current or correct (i.e., because we often have player speculation mixed up with rigorous data-based experimentation mixed up with official developer info).

 

From what I can make out, it seems that what is supposed to happen (eventually) in TWS mode launch is:

 

(1) AIM-54 (NOT AIM-154 as I wrote in previous edit!) is launched and is supported by TWS to activation point about half-way to target where it goes pit bull on command from firing computer

(2) On going active, TID "time-to-target" countdown starts blinking

(3) If TWS support is lost before activation, missile aborts

 

According to some posts, what happens now is that the missile:

 

• works more like an AIM-120, with its radar going active automatically at a fixed range (15nm from target I believe?) instead of waiting for a command from the firing platform
  
• however, the above applies just to radar. In terms of dynamics (flight/guidance) the missile behaves like it is actually active off the rails, i.e., flying pure pursuit toward the target whether or not it is supported by TWS (though target RWR does not pick up being locked by the missile radar until the missile's goes "active"). Note: it is not clear to me whether it is heading toward the last known target datum or it is actually heading toward the target as target manouevers; I've read accounts of either; I think it is the latter?
  
• when the missile's radar actually goes active (fixed at 15nm from target), target gets the RWR lock warning and the missile changes from pure pursuit to lead collision pursuit, with consequent loss of energy with the hard turn?
  
• if firing platform support is lost, it still guides to previous activation point where it then goes pitbull (instead of aborting)?
  

 

Is this correct?

 

 

Either way, I see questions (and answers!) about the AIM-54 lots of places when searching, and perhaps a sticky that collates all the information in one place will make life easier for developers as well by both lowering the amount of redundant questions as well making it easier to provide information without repeating? Either way, I appreciate all the work going into this wonderful sim, and also really really really appreciate the engagement of the developers with sharing the current information. Just suggesting that we collate it all into one place!

Edited August 13, 2019 by Bearfoot

[WindyTX]

Fwiw if you fire a Phoenix on a 40 Aspect or greater you can see that the missile flys pure pursuit from launch to the target not the targets launch position this can be seen in tacview.

 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

[IronMike]

I wonder if we could have a sticky that currently captures (a) what works; (b) how to use what works; and © what does not work or work correctly; with possibly (d) workarounds. We have to go through several threads like this one, often deep, to pull out information, and it is not clear what information is current or correct (i.e., because we often have player speculation mixed up with rigorous data-based experimentation mixed up with official developer info).

 

From what I can make out, it seems that what is supposed to happen (eventually) in TWS mode launch is:

 

(1) AIM-54 (NOT AIM-154 as I wrote in previous edit!) is launched and is supported by TWS to activation point about half-way to target where it goes pit bull on command from firing computer

(2) On going active, TID "time-to-target" countdown starts blinking

(3) If TWS support is lost before activation, missile aborts

 

According to some posts, what happens now is that the missile:

 

• works more like an AIM-120, with its radar going active automatically at a fixed range (15nm from target I believe?) instead of waiting for a command from the firing platform
  
• however, the above applies just to radar. In terms of dynamics (flight/guidance) the missile behaves like it is actually active off the rails, i.e., flying pure pursuit toward the target whether or not it is supported by TWS (though target RWR does not pick up being locked by the missile radar until the missile's goes "active"). Note: it is not clear to me whether it is heading toward the last known target datum or it is actually heading toward the target as target manouevers; I've read accounts of either; I think it is the latter?
  
• when the missile's radar actually goes active (fixed at 15nm from target), target gets the RWR lock warning and the missile changes from pure pursuit to lead collision pursuit, with consequent loss of energy with the hard turn?
  
• if firing platform support is lost, it still guides to previous activation point where it then goes pitbull (instead of aborting)?
  

 

Is this correct?

 

 

Either way, I see questions (and answers!) about the AIM-54 lots of places when searching, and perhaps a sticky that collates all the information in one place will make life easier for developers as well by both lowering the amount of redundant questions as well making it easier to provide information without repeating? Either way, I appreciate all the work going into this wonderful sim, and also really really really appreciate the engagement of the developers with sharing the current information. Just suggesting that we collate it all into one place!

 

 

This is pretty much correct. I am not sure if the missile loses lock if lock is broken when launched STT before its active point though, this remains to be tested.

[IronMike]

Mike, I think there are many implications you're not considering. While all Fox 3s suffer this problem, the Phoenix is especially problematic on the shape of the fight at medium range.

 

If you have time, I'd be more than happy to go up on BFPG in Hornets and compare/contrast in real time the calculated aggression we should be able to safely wield against the Tomcats vs the amount of aggression we can safely wield. You will hopefully see that there is a huge difference and that it is entirely due to the INS bug and pre-pitbull launches when applied to the insane energy and range potential of the Phoenix.

 

 

 

I totally hear you mate and issues are noted, not denying them one bit. It's a good idea to test it out more, we can make one of the next test fly ins focused on the aim54, if you like, and note down some more solid data, of which some has also been contributed in the thread. Thanks for all that.

 

Mind you though that us being able to improve it (finding a new compromise equals the ability to make it right anyway) depends on patience though atm. But the more we know up until then, the better ofc.

[Yaga]

I totally hear you mate and issues are noted, not denying them one bit. It's a good idea to test it out more, we can make one of the next test fly ins focused on the aim54, if you like, and note down some more solid data, of which some has also been contributed in the thread. Thanks for all that.

 

Mind you though that us being able to improve it (finding a new compromise equals the ability to make it right anyway) depends on patience though atm. But the more we know up until then, the better ofc.

 

I know you guys are working hard.

 

If a test on the 54 is done, it needs to be done in an advanced environment with quite a few players where air supremacy is the objective and not necessarily getting down low, involved and merged.

 

It's the 25nm-60nm ranges where you should be able to keep your speed and alt against a Tomcat and "fly around the fight" by breaking lock, disappearing by lowering closure, while flying a new heading. Effectively "sidestepping" the missile.

 

As it currently stands, you cannot do this, as once the Tomcat loses lock or TWS tracking, the missile still flies out to you via pure pursuit, meaning its energy is good against your alt and potentially dangerous regardless of heading changes. There's no getting around it even if you haven't seen 14 on the RWR for quite some time (often up to a minute later) and have taken a drastically new heading. In practice, this means once you're launched on, you will at some point have to defend hard or go completely cold.

 

Suddenly pitbull'd Phoenixes without prior recent nails are also hard to assign a shooter. It could, logically, be any Tomcat within Phoenix range that's looked at you in the last minute. Not being able to determine the shooter aircraft means you can't determine the energy the missile is reaching you with. For safety, you must assume it is the closest Tomcat and defend accordingly.

 

To act as though every Tomcat that has looked at you, however briefly, has shot means surrendering your posture and initiative needlessly a lot of the time. In contrast, if no nails, no pitbull, meant no missile support, this wouldn't be an issue. In this case, it would only be Tomcats who are still looking at you that have shot a missile. A much lower number.

 

Inside 15nm, a Phoenix launch behaves the way I'd expect. I understand why 15nm was chosen for the active range and I largely agree with this. Fox 3 INS bugs don't exist once the missile is active.

[GGTharos]

Sounds like you only need two players for this test ... No need for any huge environment as the problem appears to be quite clear from your description:

 

The 54 continues receiving position updates instead of flying INS to some location (with radar active, as a loss of lock would cause the radar to send the appropriate signal to the missile IIRC).

 

Unfortunately we don't know enough about the mechanization of the 54 to determine what really should be happening in the event that the radar signal IS present but clearly it shouldn't be if you cannot see the nail on RWR.

[nighthawk2174]

Honestly there's not much you can do till ED actually opens up the code right @ironmike? So until then I guess we just have to bear with how they perform right now.

[Yaga]

Honestly there's not much you can do till ED actually opens up the code right @ironmike? So until then I guess we just have to bear with how they perform right now.

 

Given the current bugs, the Phoenix would behave much closer to reality as a Fox 1.

 

Other Fox 3s share the problem, but only the Phoenix has the energy to make it truly problematic.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Yaga

[*Rage*]

We just tried 40 Aspect shots locked, TWS and shoot and run. Missile was pure pursuit with loft in all cases up until 15 nm where it goes pitbull and tries to kill the target with some collision geometry. It appears to truly be Active off the rail in as much as it does pure pursuit until active and the AWG9 makes no difference as far as I can see at all.

 

Even slacker it still pure pursuits the target goes active and tries to kill it. PK appeared to be more to do with target manouvering abd chaff than anything the AWG 9 was doing.

 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

 

If I've understood you correctly you're saying the AWG9 serves no purpose in guiding a 54 beyond assigning it a target?

 

If that's the case why do any F14 pilots bother maintaining a TWS/STT lock after pickle?

[Bearfoot]

If that's the case why do any F14 pilots bother maintaining a TWS/STT lock after pickle?

 

Because we fly the plane we want (the correct one we will eventually get), and not the one we have (which will go away when fixed)!

[Karon]

If I've understood you correctly you're saying the AWG9 serves no purpose in guiding a 54 beyond assigning it a target?

 

If that's the case why do any F14 pilots bother maintaining a TWS/STT lock after pickle?

No you haven't. If you lose the lock the WCS stops guiding the '54. It simply flies straight and then turns active. If it was lofting, it stops, hence it won't have enough energy to hit the target.

 

 

At shorter ranges (<25nm) you can drop the lock if the target is not manoeuvring but why get bad habits? :)

[*Rage*]

That's not what's reported above. It doesn't fly straight if you drop the lock. It flies PP till 15nm.

[IronMike]

I know you guys are working hard.

 

If a test on the 54 is done, it needs to be done in an advanced environment with quite a few players where air supremacy is the objective and not necessarily getting down low, involved and merged.

 

It's the 25nm-60nm ranges where you should be able to keep your speed and alt against a Tomcat and "fly around the fight" by breaking lock, disappearing by lowering closure, while flying a new heading. Effectively "sidestepping" the missile.

 

As it currently stands, you cannot do this, as once the Tomcat loses lock or TWS tracking, the missile still flies out to you via pure pursuit, meaning its energy is good against your alt and potentially dangerous regardless of heading changes. There's no getting around it even if you haven't seen 14 on the RWR for quite some time (often up to a minute later) and have taken a drastically new heading. In practice, this means once you're launched on, you will at some point have to defend hard or go completely cold.

 

Suddenly pitbull'd Phoenixes without prior recent nails are also hard to assign a shooter. It could, logically, be any Tomcat within Phoenix range that's looked at you in the last minute. Not being able to determine the shooter aircraft means you can't determine the energy the missile is reaching you with. For safety, you must assume it is the closest Tomcat and defend accordingly.

 

To act as though every Tomcat that has looked at you, however briefly, has shot means surrendering your posture and initiative needlessly a lot of the time. In contrast, if no nails, no pitbull, meant no missile support, this wouldn't be an issue. In this case, it would only be Tomcats who are still looking at you that have shot a missile. A much lower number.

 

Inside 15nm, a Phoenix launch behaves the way I'd expect. I understand why 15nm was chosen for the active range and I largely agree with this. Fox 3 INS bugs don't exist once the missile is active.

 

 

At some point reading through this, I was thinking to myself, this must be exactly how the Lybians felt in the 80s :D (sorry I had to make that joke).

 

I know exactly what you mean, it takes away your SA and corners you in sometimes unnecessary defensive positions. It is duely noted.

 

This is why I don't present myself as a far target to them. I pretty much fly high and straight on them, fast and determined. This usually tricks em into thinking they can shoot later, makes em climb and often earn a long range high alt slammer. I also have to defeat their phoenix only once. Now that I said it, it prolly won't work anymore :music_whistling:

 

But in any case, until we get access, we all need to be patient. All ideas of how to workaround atm are not viable solutions, so finding ways how to fight with it for the time being is unfortunately something we all have to accept. I know it makes it harder for now, but it is still doable to have an enjoyable MP environment, imo, also on the opposing side of the Tomcat.

[Dino Might]

Here's to hoping that eventually it gets sorted one way or another. MP with 54s is still fun on both sides. Truth be told, I'd take AMRAAMs over the Phoenix, but I appreciate the strengths of both missiles, fought against both in DCS, and enjoyed the challenges.