Missing F-14 changelog from today's hotfix

[IronMike]

Hi all, my apologies, for some reason I exptected this hotfix on friday and forgot to add our changelog in time. Here it is for those who missed it, ED was so kind and added it in the meantime to both homepage and forums.

 

 

DCS F-14 Tomcat by Heatblur Simulations

 

• Fixed broken normals on NACA vents on engine nacelles.
  
• Fixed the boxy halo around the afterburners visible at night.
  
• Increased strength of landing (taxi) light.
  
• Corrected countermeasure resistance for AIM-54 missiles.
  

[QuiGon]

• Corrected countermeasure resistance for AIM-54 missiles.
  

"Corrected" meaning incresead or decreased?

[IronMike]

"Corrected" meaning incresead or decreased?

 

 

 

 

The chaff resistance for the missiles has been increased and is now similar to what the aim120s are set to. We might fine tune this value a bit more in the future. Until now they have been way too little chaff resistant, which should be fixed now.

 

 

EDIT: resistance of the As will be adjusted, they should be less resistant than the C. The current value is an interim solution until we finished testing how far they should be apart - the new values for chaff resistance are very different from what they used to be before ED changed them.

Edited July 22, 2020 by IronMike

[dundun92]

Question: why are the C and A the same in terms of CCM now? Im no expert on this but wasnt the C supposed to have increased CCM resistance over the A? (btw im not referring to the fact that the A's was improved, it needed to be, but why its at the same level as the C)

Edited July 22, 2020 by dundun92

[IronMike]

Question: why are the C and A the same in terms of CCM now? Im no expert on this but wasnt the C supposed to have increased CCM resistance over the A? (btw im not referring to the fact that the A's was improved, it needed to be, but why its at the same level as the C)

 

 

This is an interim measure to fix their general resistance, we will adjust these values till the next update. We're still currently testing how far they should be set apart, but in general you are right, the As should be less resistant to chaff than the C. Thank you for your kind patience in the meantime.

[TLTeo]

I can already hear the "Omg HB made Tomcat OP pls nerf is interceptor not fighter" crowd starting to screech :D

 

 

 

On a serious note, as someone who only flies SP, thanks for the change. It's really annoying when the AI chaffs your Phoenixes half the time because they always know the instant you launch on them, even if you're in TWS.

[key_stroked]

Is the MLC issue described by Naquaii (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4429082&postcount=7) fixed from today's hotfix? Or by patch did he mean the regular monthly patch?

[goAdA]

Despite the change, excellent AI SU25T will still completely trash every aim54 launched at it almost every time (tested three runs so far), while 120 is guaranteed hit. I do feel like the notch resistance is what makes current AIM54 almost useless against AI target.

[dundun92]

Despite the change, excellent AI SU25T will still completely trash every aim54 launched at it almost every time (tested three runs so far), while 120 is guaranteed hit. I do feel like the notch resistance is what makes current AIM54 almost useless against AI target.

Singleplayer chaff resistance is massively less than in MP, just a FYI. For example, even the new AMRAAMs are fairly easy to notch in SP, but in MP its much harder.

 

 

This is an interim measure to fix their general resistance, we will adjust these values till the next update. We're still currently testing how far they should be set apart, but in general you are right, the As should be less resistant to chaff than the C. Thank you for your kind patience in the meantime.

[IronMike]

Is the MLC issue described by Naquaii (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4429082&postcount=7) fixed from today's hotfix? Or by patch did he mean the regular monthly patch?

 

 

regular patch. :)

[Krippz]

regular patch. :)

 

Thanks for keeping us in the loop Mike. :thumbup:

[*Rage*]

Ive just tested pre and post patch and all missiles are very easily notched. Post patch they track for a touch longer while you're in the notch but still miss.

 

I at least expected the 54C to be more effective.

 

Edit: infact I repeated the test vs 120Bs and theyre far more effective (notch resistant) than the 54Cs

Edited July 22, 2020 by ///Rage

[IronMike]

Ive just tested pre and post patch and all missiles are very easily notched. Post patch they track for a touch longer while you're in the notch but still miss.

 

I at least expected the 54C to be more effective.

 

Edit: infact I repeated the test vs 120Bs and theyre far more effective (notch resistant) than the 54Cs

 

 

 

 

Mind you the chaff resistance has nothing to do with notch resistance. (while it ofc helps). But how notcheable or not a missile is, is not depending on its chaff resistance. Nothing changed on that side.

[QuiGon]

The chaff resistance for the missiles has been increased and is now similar to what the aim120s are set to. We might fine tune this value a bit more in the future. Until now they have been way too little chaff resistant, which should be fixed now.

 

EDIT: resistance of the As will be adjusted, they should be less resistant than the C. The current value is an interim solution until we finished testing how far they should be apart - the new values for chaff resistance are very different from what they used to be before ED changed them.

Cool, thanks! :thumbup:

[Airhunter]

Ive just tested pre and post patch and all missiles are very easily notched. Post patch they track for a touch longer while you're in the notch but still miss.

 

I at least expected the 54C to be more effective.

 

Edit: infact I repeated the test vs 120Bs and theyre far more effective (notch resistant) than the 54Cs

 

Like Mike said, the notch gate has nothing to do with countermeasure resistence. I guess when the new guidence using the new API comes along we'll see similar performance to the amraam in terms of guidence and acquisition.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

I can already hear the "Omg HB made Tomcat OP pls nerf is interceptor not fighter" crowd starting to screech :D

 

 

 

On a serious note, as someone who only flies SP, thanks for the change. It's really annoying when the AI chaffs your Phoenixes half the time because they always know the instant you launch on them, even if you're in TWS.

 

That would be me :thumbup:

 

So the phoenix is now basically an amraam but with twice the speed and twice the range, oh but still with magic tracking.

 

I love all these happy accidents, like the damage model on top of what i just mentioned. (usually takes TWO amraam hits to go down)

 

So i had no idea the F14 was the best @ everythingin real life. It's fastest, longest legs, can take double the damage , and has AIM120-Z's (undercover secret project missile prototype)

 

Great

[Sam]

Mind you the chaff resistance has nothing to do with notch resistance. (while it ofc helps). But how notcheable or not a missile is, is not depending on its chaff resistance. Nothing changed on that side.

 

Can you already tell if notch resistance is going to improve with the new API ?

[key_stroked]

regular patch. :)

 

Thanks!

[Airhunter]

Can you already tell if notch resistance is going to improve with the new API ?

 

Take a look at the current amraam. That's all I'll say.

[dundun92]

That would be me :thumbup:

 

So the phoenix is now basically an amraam but with twice the speed and twice the range, oh but still with magic tracking.

 

I love all these happy accidents, like the damage model on top of what i just mentioned. (usually takes TWO amraam hits to go down)

 

So i had no idea the F14 was the best @ everythingin real life. It's fastest, longest legs, can take double the damage , and has AIM120-Z's (undercover secret project missile prototype)

 

Great

Have you even tried evading the new AIM-54's or do you just have a pro-AMRAAM/F-16 agenda to push? (in case you havent, I havent found it much harder to notch. At all.)

[SAABoy]

Noob here. When Iron Mike says "The chaff resistance for the missiles has been increased" does that mean that the bandit's chaff is more effective against the missile and therefore missile is less effective, or does it mean that the missile is less fooled by chaff and therefore missile is more effective? Also why is C "better" in game than A? Thanks a lot!

Edited July 24, 2020 by SAABoy

[dundun92]

Noob here. When Iron Mike says "The chaff resistance for the missiles has been increased" does that mean that the bandit's chaff is more effective against the missile and therefore missile is less effective, or does it mean that the missile is less fooled by chaff and therefore missile is more effective? Also why is C "better" in game than A? Thanks a lot!

For the first question, its means chaff is less effective. For the second, the C model has a newer digital seeker vs the A model AIM-54s

[Airhunter]

For the first question, its means chaff is less effective. For the second, the C model has a newer digital seeker vs the A model AIM-54s

 

It's not just the seeker per se, it's a lot of the internal electronics and processors being replaced by more powerful ones.

[IronMike]

That would be me :thumbup:

 

So the phoenix is now basically an amraam but with twice the speed and twice the range, oh but still with magic tracking.

 

I love all these happy accidents, like the damage model on top of what i just mentioned. (usually takes TWO amraam hits to go down)

 

So i had no idea the F14 was the best @ everythingin real life. It's fastest, longest legs, can take double the damage , and has AIM120-Z's (undercover secret project missile prototype)

 

Great

 

 

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.

Edited July 24, 2020 by IronMike

[QuiGon]

until we can implement the new guidance with ED

Any update on when this will happen? It's now more than half a year since you guys were damn close to release the new guidance. I know it depends on ED, but it's really frustrating to have to wait for such an important feature without any insight on the progress :(