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

[Chaogen]

I'm sorry. I play multiplayer exclusively and there is nothing OP about it. If you are getting shot down you lack skill. I've had AI and Players defeat the AIM-54 regularly even if I kept an SST lock on them, but you have to at least try. Your tactics do not adequately account for the F-14 and its missile. Just as I have to account for sneaky SU-27s and their Datalink system coupled with IR missiles. Me and my pilot fired a 60 mile Phoenix shot the other day, because we knew it was a player with his down low approach and figured, since we had just gotten to the AO, what the hell. Why not. Well the player died. Something that AI planes would have defeated in a heart beat with the slightest of maneuvering. No this player, even though he most certainly knew we were in the area, didn't maneuver. Didn't stray from his course. Just kept flying towards us and got a Phoenix in the face. We laughed then continued our CAP.

 

 

 

Personally the hysteresis control of the missile is unrealistic but you don't see me complaining about it. I just wait till they get closer.

[IronMike]

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".

 

 

 

 

I fly on both sides and I listen closely. I know folks from both sides for almost two decades. Hearing constant complaints about facing the Tomcat is not what I hear a lot. They tell me: "hey, that active missile off the rails sucks". Once, and then they play on. For you apart from stating it (you have now stated it several times), it seems to be a much bigger issue, as you keep coming back at it. I mean, don't get me wrong, I get your points I really do. I just do not agree with them entirely.

We know about the flaws, we know about the bugs, but we will not stand here and say: "it breaks multiplayer, it breaks the game, it is totally "op" and it makes multiplayer miserable". It is not true, even if some may perceive it like that (and I am honestly sorry for that). Those exaggerations are simply blown out of proportion. That the leading team in SATAL has not scored a single hit with it in 6 matches speaks more for itself than all these exaggerations combined imo. It has it flaws, and when it comes to missiles in DCS, it sure is not alone in that.

 

Let's please stop turning in circles. I told you what we can and what we will do. The rest is out of our hands. Thanks.

Edited August 19, 2019 by IronMike

[BlackPixxel]

I'm sorry. I play multiplayer exclusively and there is nothing OP about it. If you are getting shot down you lack skill. I've had AI and Players defeat the AIM-54 regularly even if I kept an SST lock on them, but you have to at least try. Your tactics do not adequately account for the F-14 and its missile.

 

We are not talking about avoiding the Aim-54 in general, which is easy when the desync is low.

 

We are talking about how the massive desync of the Aim-54 that sometimes occurs makes it impossible to avoid in some cases. Plus that the missile tracks you before it goes active even if the F-14 is no longer supporting it. The missile knows wherever you are at any range until it goes active.

 

How will you avoid a phoenix that does not give you any launch warning, because on your PC it has already passed you or did even reached you yet? This is not lack of skill, this is a bug!

 

From the perspective of the F-14 pilot everything is fine of course, he does not see the desync.

[Max1mus]

I fly on both sides and I listen closely. I know folks from both sides for almost two decades.

 

It is very sad to hear that Heatblur bases this decision entirely on your personal flying experience on your server (You have not fought F-14s in a competitive environment yet) and the opinion of your squad mates (Which too have not fought F-14s in a competitive environment yet). I really hope that Eagle Dynamics does... something which greatly exceeds the amount of steps they have taken so far to deal with these issues.

[Chaogen]

We are not talking about avoiding the Aim-54 in general, which is easy when the desync is low.

 

We are talking about how the massive desync of the Aim-54 that sometimes occurs makes it impossible to avoid in some cases. Plus that the missile tracks you before it goes active even if the F-14 is no longer supporting it. The missile knows wherever you are at any range until it goes active.

 

How will you avoid a phoenix that does not give you any launch warning, because on your PC it has already passed you or did even reached you yet? This is not lack of skill, this is a bug!

 

From the perspective of the F-14 pilot everything is fine of course, he does not see the desync.

 

 

Wait. Are you talking about Server QOS being the fault of either party here? Further more I launch all my missiles within 20 nm in Active Mode in case I have to defend since I am now in range of the majority of A/A missiles? Beyond that, if I lose track of my bandit in TWS, the missile always stops tracking and proceeds in a straight line. What am I missing here? If you are within 60nm (definitely within 30) of a F-14 and not flanking or at least maneuvering you are asking to be shot down.

[nighthawk2174]

Same here, besides I don't think the full model will change much. Yes it'll be easier to loose the missile, but it'll go active sooner and still have the same kinematics as before. And with any luck when HB gets access to the missile code they can fix the guidance code and finally give the missile the appropriate amount of lift and g limit. + the missile won't loose 100's of knots of airspeed when coming out of the loft. + the loft will probably be more efficient as well and will update dynamically based off of the bandits movements if it is based off of an equation than just pitch up this much.

[Harlikwin]

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

 

 

 

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".

 

I know its not new, but its still relevant I guess.

 

I mostly play on public servers, because as you said not much time.

 

As for taking away toys, yes and no. Offline, whatever, no one cares, PVE same thing. PVP, thats where the main gripes are because no newb likes taking half a dozen phoenixes in the face in a row. Or AAMRAMS or whatever. And I do think there are ways to have "realism" in the sense you allow the missiles. But you also have some level of "balance" by also restricting things in certain ways. And the amount of people playing on various servers with the aforementioned restrictions suggests that hey, its not necessarily "game breaking" to have them.

 

From what I see online, good ways to do "balance" are to limit logistics of missiles (and really all wunderwaffels), and I'd honestly like to see more of that. And also to limit certain "unrealistic" or overpowered loadouts, which I like less, but also get. The logistics angle also in many ways enables gamplay, by making people (or the AI) do supply runs and things like that which adds a layer of depth to many games.

 

If you want to limit munitions, I dunno if its possible to enable in the server code, but you could do something like having factory complexes churn out various munitions/unit time. 1 phoenix/5min and 1 aim9L/min or 4 mk82/min per factory or something. Which would show up at some "primary" airbase(s). And could be carried by planes/helos to other bases (by the AI or players). This would incentivize things like deep strike missions, SEAD missions for those missions, barrier CAP, and transport missions being flown for example. And its "sort of realistic".

[IronMike]

Same here, besides I don't think the full model will change much. Yes it'll be easier to loose the missile, but it'll go active sooner and still have the same kinematics as before. And with any luck when HB gets access to the missile code they can fix the guidance code and finally give the missile the appropriate amount of lift and g limit. + the missile won't loose 100's of knots of airspeed when coming out of the loft. + the loft will probably be more efficient as well and will update dynamically based off of the bandits movements if it is based off of an equation than just pitch up this much.

 

 

 

 

Hey, just to make this clear again: it is very unlikely that we will get access, nor did we ever expect to get access to the full "missile code" and "guidance code" in DCS. I think this is widely misunderstood. We will be able to define when it goes pitbull and that it guides SARH when STT (apart from what we were able to define already, which we are not planing to change), but that is it. Missile code and guidance code are ED side and will in most certainty stay like that. My apologies if I ever was unclear on that.

 

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.

Edited August 19, 2019 by IronMike

[lunaticfringe]

In a more delicate fashion:

 

It is very sad to hear that Heatblur bases this decision entirely on your personal flying experience on your server (You have not fought F-14s in a competitive environment yet) and the opinion of your squad mates (Which too have not fought F-14s in a competitive environment yet)...

 

Don't anybody tell him!

[IronMike]

It is very sad to hear that Heatblur bases this decision entirely on your personal flying experience on your server (You have not fought F-14s in a competitive environment yet) and the opinion of your squad mates (Which too have not fought F-14s in a competitive environment yet). I really hope that Eagle Dynamics does... something which greatly exceeds the amount of steps they have taken so far to deal with these issues.

 

 

Maximus, it is one thing if we exchange opinions here, it was an open invitation, but I hope that after 10+ years of continued server and event hosting and helping to create a DCS multiplayer environment it includes my opinion as well, and I do think that my exchange with the community on a daily basis from all sorts of backgrounds makes it a somewhat qualified opinion, too. But in case you did not notice, it is a while now that we actually discuss how we feel about MP, everything regarding the phoenix has been said already. And while I admit that my personal opinion is of very little importance, you seem to think that yours matters above everyone else's.

 

So please do not start mixing things and propose stuff like we make the Phoenix based on my opinion. That is an entirely ridiculous and proposterous suggestion, and you know it. And it is also the main point you do not seem to understand: we do not base the Phoenix on any opinion, not mine, not yours, not anyone's. We base it on factual data that is available to us, which has all been discussed and made publicly available in the white paper about it, you can look it up anytime. The bugs are pending to be fixed and we all have to be patient. I hope in the meantime you will find a way to enjoy Multiplayer nonetheless.

 

You can find the whitepaper here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191034

Edited August 19, 2019 by IronMike

[Harlikwin]

One Question on this Mike,

 

One of the issues online, is the rather basic/poor implementation of EW modeling (non-existent on the F18 at the moment). In genral how much would that change the equation. I realize the AWG-9 puts out alot of watts, but at the same time its not particularly sophisticated in terms of signal processing. For example how effective would sidelobe/angle deception jamming be?

Edited August 20, 2019 by Harlikwin

[QuiGon]

Great to see the HB guys testing stuff in a real multiplayer environment! :thumbup:

Or maybe they're just having some fun with their own product, which is great too

[IronMike]

One Question on this Mike,

 

One of the issues online, is the rather basic/poor implementation of EW modeling (non-existent on the F18 at the moment). In genral how much would that change the equation. I realize the AWG-9 puts out alot of watts, but at the same time its not particularly sophisticated in terms of signal processing. For example how effective would sidelobe/angle deception jamming be?

 

 

 

 

Being jammed hasn't been fully developed yet, but imo it is so basic in the sim, that it would boil down to the limited use that it has atm with other modules, too (actively and passively). When missiles were still longer, HOJ shots were a common thing and deadly if you did not turn off ecm at a certain range, etc.. but imo all it would do is help the awg-9 find its target (as it does for any radar in dcs). I personally only use jammers if I know a friendly is infront of me, so he can get locked up harder. Else I see jammers like a beacon of your position in dcs. The missile range eventually pulls you into burnthrough range anyway, and that is probably a handicap you could force the Tomcat to take, if you dare to risk the long range HOJ shot coming at you. So in my personal opinion, I don't think it would make much of a difference.

[Max1mus]

It would make a difference because the AIM-54 range greatly exceeds burnthrough range.

 

Please model jamming. Let people find out themselves how to effectively utulize it to counter the F-14 supressive potential.

[WindyTX]

You are missing a little of what Mike said, it's not just the jamming that's missing but also the Aircraft counter to the jamming. If it was fully implemented on both while it would make a difference it would not be as much as you think. The current strobe with burn through at 23 miles or so is almost as unrealistic as non at all.

 

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

Edited August 20, 2019 by WindyTX

[Jester2138]

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).

 

Whoa, hold up there. The Phoenix suffers from the exact same problems as the AMRAAM and other active missiles. It is not Heatblur's code that is the problem. F-14 players could easily turn your statement around and go complain to ED about how they need to nerf the AMRAAM because it's unrealistic and therefore makes their F-14 unrealistic, too, when it gets shot down via AMRAAM. And it would be equally as ridiculous an argument to make.

 

FWIW, the Phoenix is as much nerfed by it's lack of realism as it is boosted... If you got a more realistic missile, I bet you'd be back here in a week complaining again about being shot down by missiles made "OP" in range and speed by the latest updates... :lol:

Edited August 21, 2019 by Jester2138

[QuiGon]

Being jammed hasn't been fully developed yet, but imo it is so basic in the sim, that it would boil down to the limited use that it has atm with other modules, too (actively and passively). When missiles were still longer, HOJ shots were a common thing and deadly if you did not turn off ecm at a certain range, etc.. but imo all it would do is help the awg-9 find its target (as it does for any radar in dcs). I personally only use jammers if I know a friendly is infront of me, so he can get locked up harder. Else I see jammers like a beacon of your position in dcs. The missile range eventually pulls you into burnthrough range anyway, and that is probably a handicap you could force the Tomcat to take, if you dare to risk the long range HOJ shot coming at you. So in my personal opinion, I don't think it would make much of a difference.

I would still prefer to have a proper implementation of jamming effects in the Tomcat, that denies range information outside of burnthrough range, like in all the other aircraft. I do like to use the jammer to prevent the enemy from being able to see how far away I am and I hate it if the enemy does that to me.

[MoGas]

It is very sad to hear that Heatblur bases this decision entirely on your personal flying experience on your server (You have not fought F-14s in a competitive environment yet) and the opinion of your squad mates (Which too have not fought F-14s in a competitive environment yet). I really hope that Eagle Dynamics does... something which greatly exceeds the amount of steps they have taken so far to deal with these issues.

 

lol Ironmike, who is that guy? :doh:

 

104th_MoGas

[Noctrach]

Not sure what would upset people more, getting shot down by a 25 mile Phoenix because the silly jammed-until-23-mile-auto-burnthrough wasn't implemented... or getting hit by a 25 mile Phoenix they did not hear because it was guided in through HOJ.

[QuiGon]

Not sure what would upset people more, getting shot down by a 25 mile Phoenix because the silly jammed-until-23-mile-auto-burnthrough wasn't implemented... or getting hit by a 25 mile Phoenix they did not hear because it was guided in through HOJ.

How about not getting shot down, because the Phoenix shooter doesn't know if he is at 25nm or not?

Besides that, you shouldn't hear the Phoenix anyways when fired in STT and only a few seconds before impact when fired in TWS.

 

Not implementing jamming as in other aircraft, based on the argument that it wouldn't help you much is a pretty odd argument anyways.

Edited August 21, 2019 by QuiGon

[draconus]

Relax, it's WIP

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4015037&postcount=138

 

Being jammed hasn't been fully developed yet...

[QuiGon]

Relax, it's WIP

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4015037&postcount=138

Alright :thumbup:

It's just something that really bothers me: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=247462

[Max1mus]

Whoa, hold up there. The Phoenix suffers from the exact same problems as the AMRAAM and other active missiles. It is not Heatblur's code that is the problem. F-14 players could easily turn your statement around and go complain to ED about how they need to nerf the AMRAAM because it's unrealistic and therefore makes their F-14 unrealistic, too, when it gets shot down via AMRAAM. And it would be equally as ridiculous an argument to make.

 

FWIW, the Phoenix is as much nerfed by it's lack of realism as it is boosted... If you got a more realistic missile, I bet you'd be back here in a week complaining again about being shot down by missiles made "OP" in range and speed by the latest updates... :lol:

 

I know that heatblur cannot fix the bug on their own.

 

The main Weakness of the AIM-54 is that you can notch it off the rail, bypassing the shot. This is not simulated. What makes this 4x worse is that while the missile goes active at 15nm, you only get the RWR warning at 7nm or so for whatever reason.

 

There are workarounds heatblur could have done to simulate the possibility of defeating the missile before it is active, they could even be optional just for server owners, but heatblur does not want this, even though it would indeed make the environment way more realistic for everyone else in this sim. Thats what i mean.

 

The AIM-120 argument is invalid because in 95% of the cases they wont even have the range to be bypassed during the INS phase. Plus, it takes 2, or even 3 hits with desync to reliably shoot down a tomcat.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Max1mus

[IronMike]

 

What makes this 4x worse is that while the missile goes active at 15nm, you only get the RWR warning at 7nm or so for whatever reason.

 

There are workarounds heatblur could have done to simulate the possibility of defeating the missile before it is active, they could even be optional just for server owners, but heatblur does not want this, even though it would indeed make the environment way more realistic for everyone else in this sim. Thats what i mean.

 

 

 

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.

[Jarlerus]

@Ironmike

10/10